Religiouscels tell me why your religion is the right one

[Jagged0]

Religiouscels tell me why your religion is the one we should follow

 

[Schnitzel]

Gandy is hot.

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

You will get the same reply for every religion.

 

[Baldingman1998]

@streege your essay skills are needed

Spoiler

will not read a word

 

[Deleted member 4696]

@streege your essay skills are needed

Spoiler

will not read a word

caged at the spoiler

 

[Baldingman1998]

Gandy is hot.

Not as hot as that ass

 

[Schnitzel]

Not as hot as that ass

Look at me i'm a big boy i like ass, shut up cunt.

 

[Schnitzel]

Not as hot as that ass

Very true bro.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

@streege your essay skills are needed

Spoiler

will not read a word

i know you don't because it's too much to handle for you. It's easier to make threads and to disappear as your hairline, no offense cutecel.

To answer op :
Rationnally :
Theism>Atheism
Monotheism>Polytheism and every non pure monotheism
Among monotheism only one is :
- totally preserved
- without any contradiction or error
- a "miracle" in the sense of its writing, it's challenge, and the claim it makes in different regards mostly prophecy wise.

If you use reason, as you should because nothing is created in vain especially not reason, and when you know that by essence nothing in this world is certain not even science since it relies on belief for its premisses and methology, all you can do is having a probabilistic approach, from which you choose the most rational/probabilistic claim, and for it you need reason to discriminate between what is definitively false and what is closer to the truth.

But since, reason has limits and can only help you to get that, to be able to follow a position, you need heart's assentment, and for this you need to find the position to be the best for your heart, and you'll have to read about the life of the individual who preached such thoughts, and overall how much it reasonates with modernity and its issues.
I can go longer on that, but each claim made here, can be given with good sources and arguments, that's just a very short summary.

A rational belief>>>everything, since everything is a belief.
And atheist are irrationnal believer, because they believe that they don't believe while they do, and thus are ignorant of their paradoxes.

 

[Schnitzel]

It's easier to make threads and to disappear as your hairline,

I wish one day to be this dark triad bad boy. I have what it takes.

 

[Gonthar]

Because it's called orthodoxy - it comes from Greek: orthos means right, and doxa faith, therefore orthodoxy is the right faith.

 

[Deleted member 1862]

Religion boils down to belief systems with similar ideas/ archetypes/ teachings arising across the board.

You should find the one that resonates with you the most.

 

[Attorney]

i know you don't because it's too much to handle for you. It's easier to make threads and to disappear as your hairline, no offense cutecel.

To answer op :
Rationnally :
Theism>Atheism
Monotheism>Polytheism and every non pure monotheism
Among monotheism only one is :
- totally preserved
- without any contradiction or error
- a "miracle" in the sense of its writing, it's challenge, and the claim it makes in different regards mostly prophecy wise.

If you use reason, as you should because nothing is created in vain especially not reason, and when you know that by essence nothing in this world is certain not even science since it relies on belief for its premisses and methology, all you can do is having a probabilistic approach, from which you choose the most rational/probabilistic claim, and for it you need reason to discriminate between what is definitively false and what is closer to the truth.

But since, reason has limits and can only help you to get that, to be able to follow a position, you need heart's assentment, and for this you need to find the position to be the best for your heart, and you'll have to read about the life of the individual who preached such thoughts, and overall how much it reasonates with modernity and its issues.
I can go longer on that, but each claim made here, can be given with good sources and arguments, that's just a very short summary.

A rational belief>>>everything, since everything is a belief.
And atheist are irrationnal believer, because they believe that they don't believe while they do, and thus are ignorant of their paradoxes.

 

[Deleted member 4209]

i know you don't because it's too much to handle for you. It's easier to make threads and to disappear as your hairline, no offense cutecel.

To answer op :
Rationnally :
Theism>Atheism
Monotheism>Polytheism and every non pure monotheism
Among monotheism only one is :
- totally preserved
- without any contradiction or error
- a "miracle" in the sense of its writing, it's challenge, and the claim it makes in different regards mostly prophecy wise.

If you use reason, as you should because nothing is created in vain especially not reason, and when you know that by essence nothing in this world is certain not even science since it relies on belief for its premisses and methology, all you can do is having a probabilistic approach, from which you choose the most rational/probabilistic claim, and for it you need reason to discriminate between what is definitively false and what is closer to the truth.

But since, reason has limits and can only help you to get that, to be able to follow a position, you need heart's assentment, and for this you need to find the position to be the best for your heart, and you'll have to read about the life of the individual who preached such thoughts, and overall how much it reasonates with modernity and its issues.
I can go longer on that, but each claim made here, can be given with good sources and arguments, that's just a very short summary.

A rational belief>>>everything, since everything is a belief.
And atheist are irrationnal believer, because they believe that they don't believe while they do, and thus are ignorant of their paradoxes.

have u read st augustine br0

 

[Deleted member 3043]

have u read st augustine br0

about what exactly? I've read what i considered beeing interesting and what wasn't i didn't. I disagree much with his conception of destiny and free will that is nonsensical tho.

 

[Deleted member 4209]

about what exactly? I've read what i considered beeing interesting and what wasn't i didn't. I disagree much with his conception of destiny and free will that is nonsensical tho.

was just curious

city of god is a slog to read tbh like 1200 pages i just dipped in and out of it occasionally

 

[Deleted member 1862]

Monotheism>Polytheism and every non pure monotheism

elab on your viewpoint here bro, interested to see why you think this is the case

The oldest religions were not monotheistic & neither is the oldest surviving, largest religion (don't invade this thread and get too excited dinducels pls). It seems easier & more articulate to split archetypes/ characteristics into multiple personalities rather than 1 entity.

I'm not religious btw & idk much about the area, just think it's pretty cool & there's a lot that can be learnt.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

was just curious

city of god is a slog to read tbh like 1200 pages i just dipped in and out of it occasionally

Too much to read unless you like it, i usually just focus on the main keys of a philosophical systems and go to the sources afterward for every philosopher that has views that i consider beeing fruitful.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

i know you don't because it's too much to handle for you. It's easier to make threads and to disappear as your hairline, no offense cutecel.

To answer op :
Rationnally :
Theism>Atheism
Monotheism>Polytheism and every non pure monotheism
Among monotheism only one is :
- totally preserved
- without any contradiction or error
- a "miracle" in the sense of its writing, it's challenge, and the claim it makes in different regards mostly prophecy wise.

If you use reason, as you should because nothing is created in vain especially not reason, and when you know that by essence nothing in this world is certain not even science since it relies on belief for its premisses and methology, all you can do is having a probabilistic approach, from which you choose the most rational/probabilistic claim, and for it you need reason to discriminate between what is definitively false and what is closer to the truth.

But since, reason has limits and can only help you to get that, to be able to follow a position, you need heart's assentment, and for this you need to find the position to be the best for your heart, and you'll have to read about the life of the individual who preached such thoughts, and overall how much it reasonates with modernity and its issues.
I can go longer on that, but each claim made here, can be given with good sources and arguments, that's just a very short summary.

A rational belief>>>everything, since everything is a belief.
And atheist are irrationnal believer, because they believe that they don't believe while they do, and thus are ignorant of their paradoxes.

theism isn't a religion though

 

[Acnno]

 

[Deleted member 4612]

it do


he didn't say that

yeah but OP was asking for someone to prove why their religion is right

 

[lutte]

yeah but OP was asking for someone to prove why their religion is right

you will have material to read for weeks

 

[Deleted member 4612]

View attachment 963408
you will have material to read for weeks

or

 

[Deleted member 3043]

elab on your viewpoint here bro, interested to see why you think this is the case

The oldest religions were not monotheistic & neither is the oldest surviving, largest religion (don't invade this thread and get too excited dinducels pls). It seems easier & more articulate to split archetypes/ characteristics into multiple personalities rather than 1 entity.

I'm not religious btw & idk much about the area, just think it's pretty cool & there's a lot that can be learnt.

I'll try to be as clear as possible and ask me if you don't understand something but it's easy to understand imo.

A brief summary of the possible interactions if there are more than 1 "god" :
Should the world have more than one creator their subsequent relation with it is bound to assume one of the following forms:

1. Each of them would have sovereign authority in one part of the world, for example in that part which he himself created. In this case the various parts of the world would have different systems totally independent of each other. But we see that the whole world has one compact and interelated system. In this regard i suggest you to read the little text from Descartes : https://www.fabula.org/colloques/document528.php it's in french, very short and interesting text i can find a translation, related to how 1 architect to create a city> multiples for harmony and unity in all regards.


2. One of the creators and the regional gods would hold a position superior to that of all others, and in this way maintain some sort of coordinaton and general harmony. In this case the one who exercises supreme authority will be the real sovereign of the whole world and all others will be his functionaries only.

3. Each of these gods would have authority over the world and be free to act independently and to issue commands as he pleases. In this case there will be complete chaos and confusion, and no law and order will be left.

Thus the uniformity of the system which prevails over the entire world contradicts the theory of the plurality of gods with separate dominions, and its compactness denies the theory of several gods with one dominion.

The presumption that two or more gods may exercise authority over the whole world, but they always and everywhere cooperate with each other and issue uniform commands, is a fantastic idea. Their plurality entails automatically that they must differ at least on one occasion.

Overall, everything can be summarized in few words :
contingency argument : If there are multiple gods, who has total power? Who is above others and thus is the sole necessary beeing? we have to find who it is because otherwise it will be an eternal loop, because there will be a god of a god a god and none will have absolute power, and it's not rational, this is not even how our world is made or works. If we say that they are all equals, it means in the sense of leibniz, in his idea of the "identity of the indistinguishable", that it's the same beeing because what defines an entity is mainly his own will. If they also act the same, it means there is only one beeing. If they act the same but some have to conform to others, it means they are not god because not all powerful, but submitted to the other, and this one is the real god. If there is contradiction in any of their will it means there are chaos and it would have been shown in our world which it doesn't, and eventually we'll have to see who wins during a confrontation.

​

 

[Deleted member 3043]

@aut0phobic read the reply above if you'r interested bro, it's again a brief summary i did related to the question he exhibit.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

theism isn't a religion though

Never said it was necessarily one, but it implicates it depending on the subcategories.
That's why i did in this order :
Existence of God>Non existence of God, ie Theism>Atheism
Then existence of One God> Existence of multiples gods, humans gods, avatars etc.

 

[Deleted member 4430]

Atheism metaphysically says that God doesn't exist; It's an affirmative claim, it has to be proven, yet not any single argument affected the existence of a necessary beeing.
On the contrary, the probability of the coming of the universe, of life, and it's maintaining by the constants and variables, makes it to be the least probabilistic thing to happen, and yet it's there and every second it's maintained. If we believe in the first laws of thermodynamics we can do an analogy - eventho thermodynamics are concommitant to the apparition of the universe but that's the point of a comparizon by definition -, the less control there are over a situation, the more unorganized it will be. Yet nothing was less controled than the creation of the universe, out of nothing or a "big bang", and it's still the most organized and coherent system. This is only rational to believe there is a necessary beeing to maintain it.
We can also argue about the principle of contingency since even the universe is contingent, could have been or not have been, even the big bang and before is, but we can't go ad inifinitum like that or else it would have lead to chaos and this is just not the case. The necessary beeing is the condition of possibility of the contingency that me and you are, and the universe is.

And atheist usually rely on science, because every beeing tend to need a transcendance and a set of belief - actually impossible to do otherwise since everything is a belief because there is not an absolute "proof" for anything.
But science, itself is a belief, in its premisses and his methodology :
- in its premisses because it admits that there is only the materiality that exist, not because it's actually the case but because science can't work with immaterialism. So about something you don't know, you just say it doesn't exist, it's a circular reasoning, and thus a belief because not proven. Doesn't mean it's false, just mean it's a belief.
- In his methodology, it rely on induction and deduction and hypothetico-deductive metholodogy that is a mix of both. The first implies to make predictions - for the future - out of real life experiment. But why? For you to make a serious prediction, you need to know every single sample, everywhere in the world/universe, everytime especially since the beginning of the universe. Because else it's a belief to consider induction beeing true while not proving it. The experiment of the white crow in epistemology is a prime example of this incoherence. ; Second is deduction, it rely on axiom that by definition are not and can't be proven, it's a belief. Don't mean it's false don't mean it's true. just that it's a belief.

I'm not against science at all it's the best tool we have now, but we have to know its limits and anyway the difference in teleology - not theology - between faith and science make it complementary : One is about salvation, the other about explaining, with more or less success the functionning of the world.
Overall, everything is a belief, due to the essence of humans and of the universe, but while believers are humble and admit to belief, atheism believe that they don't believe while they do.

we know you have a degree in theology

 

[Deleted member 3043]

we know you have a degree in theology

i don't, i'm far from it, and i don't even study that, but i just have an existentialist interest in the understanding of life, its meaning, because IF there is one and only one, relying on a necessary beeing, everything in one life does change and if there isn't everything does change too, passing from a genuine sense of life and contenment to the idea that everything is absurd and without a reason, and that life is probably not even worth living because of it. So this is something that is esssential for everyone to understand, this is not a game, this is in fact the most important part of life.

 

[Deleted member 4310]

Crazy how their one true religion just happened to be the mainstream religion in the culture they were born into.

 

[Deleted member 1862]

I'll try to be as clear as possible and ask me if you don't understand something but it's easy to understand imo.

A brief summary of the possible interactions if there are more than 1 "god" :
Should the world have more than one creator their subsequent relation with it is bound to assume one of the following forms:

1. Each of them would have sovereign authority in one part of the world, for example in that part which he himself created. In this case the various parts of the world would have different systems totally independent of each other. But we see that the whole world has one compact and interelated system. In this regard i suggest you to read the little text from Descartes : https://www.fabula.org/colloques/document528.php it's in french, very short and interesting text i can find a translation, related to how 1 architect to create a city> multiples for harmony and unity in all regards.


2. One of the creators and the regional gods would hold a position superior to that of all others, and in this way maintain some sort of coordinaton and general harmony. In this case the one who exercises supreme authority will be the real sovereign of the whole world and all others will be his functionaries only.

3. Each of these gods would have authority over the world and be free to act independently and to issue commands as he pleases. In this case there will be complete chaos and confusion, and no law and order will be left.

Thus the uniformity of the system which prevails over the entire world contradicts the theory of the plurality of gods with separate dominions, and its compactness denies the theory of several gods with one dominion.

The presumption that two or more gods may exercise authority over the whole world, but they always and everywhere cooperate with each other and issue uniform commands, is a fantastic idea. Their plurality entails automatically that they must differ at least on one occasion.

Overall, everything can be summarized in few words :
contingency argument : If there are multiple gods, who has total power? Who is above others and thus is the sole necessary beeing? we have to find who it is because otherwise it will be an eternal loop, because there will be a god of a god a god and none will have absolute power, and it's not rational, this is not even how our world is made or works. If we say that they are all equals, it means in the sense of leibniz, in his idea of the "identity of the indistinguishable", that it's the same beeing because what defines an entity is mainly his own will. If they also act the same, it means there is only one beeing. If they act the same but some have to conform to others, it means they are not god because not all powerful, but submitted to the other, and this one is the real god. If there is contradiction in any of their will it means there are chaos and it would have been shown in our world which it doesn't, and eventually we'll have to see who wins during a confrontation.

​

great response

all polytheistic religions seem to be consistent with the points you make though, no?

I will elab later

 

[Deleted member 3043]

all polytheistic religions seem to be consistent with the points you make though, no?

what do you mean? that this applies to every polytheism?
Rationnally yes, there are not infinite combiniaisons of different will, and subordination.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

I will elab later

Take your time it's fine, even i did summarized it very simply.

 

[Deleted member 4430]

i don't, i'm far from it, and i don't even study that, but i just have an existentialist interest in the understanding of life, its meaning, because IF there is one and only one, relying on a necessary beeing, everything in one life does change and if there isn't everything does change too, passing from a genuine sense of life and contenment to the idea that everything is absurd and without a reason, and that life is probably not even worth living because of it. So this is something that is esssential for everyone to understand, this is not a game, this is in fact the most important part of life.

looks is all, got it

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Crazy how their one true religion just happened to be the mainstream religion in the culture they were born into.

genealogical fallacy bro. If we go by that, it's crazy that you were born in an atheistic era, and you happen to be one as the majority. If anything beeing a rational believer - not a blind one obviously - requires to be very aware of the issue of modernity, and the philosophical and logical understanding of the limits in that regard. Because you'r literally struggling against the mainstream so you have to read and understanding the limits of every position and their value. An active situation, contrary to what "normies" do on average, beeing passive.
But either way does it mean anything about which position is the truth or the most rational? No so it's a pointless argument.

 

[studiocel]

Im agnostic rn cause idk what the fucks going on

 

[Deleted member 3043]

looks is all, got it

Looks are good, are becoming more and more a necessity but it's not all. With looks money, statut, and every materialistic achievement you'll never be happy by itself because it doesn't last, because you'll always want others things, because once you have something you'r tired of it, because if you go full hedonism you'll get your dopamine receptors fried and end up depressed, because people need a sense in life, a transcendance, a set of strong beliefs, to be able to reach somehow a contentment situation.

 

[Deleted member 4310]

genealogical fallacy bro. If we go by that, it's crazy that you were born in an atheistic era, and you happen to be one as the majority. If anything beeing a rational believer - not a blind one obviously - requires to be very aware of the issue of modernity, and the philosophical and logical understanding of the limits in that regard.
But either way does it mean anything about which position is the truth or the most rational? No so it's a pointless argument.

Atheism (evolution) was true even before humans had the means to know about it, it doesn't matter if I was born 500 years ago and was a catholic or whatever, evolution would still be true, we just didn't know any better. the same cannot be said about religion.

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

Atheism metaphysically says that God doesn't exist; It's an affirmative claim, it has to be proven, yet not any single argument affected the existence of a necessary beeing.
On the contrary, the probability of the coming of the universe, of life, and it's maintaining by the constants and variables, makes it to be the least probabilistic thing to happen, and yet it's there and every second it's maintained. If we believe in the first laws of thermodynamics we can do an analogy - eventho thermodynamics are concommitant to the apparition of the universe but that's the point of a comparizon by definition -, the less control there are over a situation, the more unorganized it will be. Yet nothing was less controled than the creation of the universe, out of nothing or a "big bang", and it's still the most organized and coherent system. This is only rational to believe there is a necessary beeing to maintain it.
We can also argue about the principle of contingency since even the universe is contingent, could have been or not have been, even the big bang and before is, but we can't go ad inifinitum like that or else it would have lead to chaos and this is just not the case. The necessary beeing is the condition of possibility of the contingency that me and you are, and the universe is.

And atheists usually rely on science, because every beeing tend to need a transcendance and a set of belief - actually impossible to do otherwise since everything is a belief because there is not an absolute "proof" for anything.
But science, itself is a belief, in its premisses and his methodology :
- in its premisses because it admits that there is only the materiality that exist, not because it's actually the case but because science can't work with immaterialism. So about something you don't know, you just say it doesn't exist, it's a circular reasoning, and thus a belief because not proven. Doesn't mean it's false, just mean it's a belief.
- In his methodology, it rely on induction and deduction and hypothetico-deductive metholodogy that is a mix of both. The first implies to make predictions - for the future - out of real life experiment. But why? For you to make a serious prediction, you need to know every single sample, everywhere in the world/universe, everytime especially since the beginning of the universe. Because else it's a belief to consider induction beeing true while not proving it. The experiment of the white crow in epistemology is a prime example of this incoherence. ; Second is deduction, it rely on axiom that by definition are not and can't be proven, it's a belief. Don't mean it's false don't mean it's true. just that it's a belief.

I'm not against science at all it's the best tool we have now, but we have to know its limits and anyway the difference in teleology - not theology - between faith and science make it complementary : One is about salvation, the other about explaining, with more or less success the functionning of the world.
Overall, everything is a belief, due to the essence of humans and of the universe, but while believers are humble and admit to belief, atheism believe that they don't believe while they do.

deism seems like a more logical position than theism.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

Atheism (evolution) was true even before humans had the means to know about it, it doesn't matter if I was born 500 years ago and was a catholic or whatever, evolution would still be true, we just didn't know any better. the same cannot be said about religion.

Atheism = evolution?
You confuse a metaphysical position with a scientifical theory.
Evolution of darwin != the current one, and there is no conciliation possible as atheist usually believe because theories in science do only evolve by total opposition, as said Thomas Khun - see the concept of masses in newton theory and in einstein theory for example.
And it's deemed to evolve and keep on contradicting the past.
But then again, no matter what we get to know more, science will never be able to decipher it fully because the metholodogy of science are limitated and rely on beliefs, read my reply above please to Loox and tell me if you don't understand.
And even then, there is no opposition between faith and science teologically. one is about salvation the other is about explaining the materiality. If anything it's complementary, and i do believe to a decent extent in evolution, it doesn't contradict my faith due to that, but that's a belief if it happens to contradict it i'll prefer another belief.

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

Atheism = evolution?
You confuse a metaphysical position with a scientifical theory.
Evolution of darwin != the current one, and there is no conciliation possible as atheist usually believe because theories in science do only evolve by total opposition, as said Thomas Khun - see the concept of masses in newton theory and in einstein theory for example.
And it's deemed to evolve and keep on contradicting the past.
But then again, no matter what we get to know more, science will never be able to decipher it fully because the metholodogy of science are limitated and rely on beliefs, read my reply above please to Loox and tell me if you don't understand.
And even then, there is no opposition between faith and science teologically. one is about salvation the other is about explaining the materiality. If anything it's complementary, and i do believe to a decent extent in evolution, it doesn't contradict my faith due to that, but that's a belief if it happens to contradict it i'll prefer another belief.

do you believe in noah's ark though? that story is giga autistic.

 

[Deleted member 4310]

Atheism = evolution?
You confuse a metaphysical position with a scientifical theory.
Evolution of darwin != the current one, and there is no conciliation possible as atheist usually believe because theories in science do only evolve by total opposition, as said Thomas Khun - see the concept of masses in newton theory and in einstein theory for example.
And it's deemed to evolve and keep on contradicting the past.
But then again, no matter what we get to know more, science will never be able to decipher it fully because the metholodogy of science are limitated and rely on beliefs, read my reply above please to Loox and tell me if you don't understand.
And even then, there is no opposition between faith and science teologically. one is about salvation the other is about explaining the materiality. If anything it's complementary, and i do believe to a decent extent in evolution, it doesn't contradict my faith due to that, but that's a belief if it happens to contradict it i'll prefer another belief.

dn rd

even if there is a good he is evil for giving me a long midface and acne

 

[Deleted member 3043]

deism seems like a more logical position than theism. you believe in a creator that doesnt interfere with the universe.

Nothing is in vain or without a purpose or a cause. This is the primary claim that has no counter example. If we go by that, why then the world was created ?

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

Nothing is in vain or without a purpose or a cause. This is the primary claim that has no counter example. If we go by that, why then the world was created ?

does it have to have a purpose though? so you are saying that everything has a cause?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

do you believe in noah's ark though? that story is giga autistic.

We can mostly understand them metaphysically, i'm not the first nor the last in that regard, lots of scholars had such positions, but i'm not well versed to tell if it's rational or not since i didn't studied it. I just now that there some signs that a regional deluge appearead and anyway that's the muslim position. I don't believe in a global deluge.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

does it have to have a purpose though? so you are saying that everything has a cause?

As long as something exist it does has a purpose yes, or else you have to find a counter example.
Nothing was created in vain so everything has a purpose. It doesn't necessarily means everything has a cause,but it implies it most of the time.

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

We can mostly understand them metaphysically, i'm not the first nor the last in that regard, lots of scholars had such positions, but i'm not well versed to tell if it's rational or not since i didn't studied it. I just now that there some signs that a regional deluge appearead and anyway that's the muslim position. I don't believe in a global deluge.

christians take it literally i think, with all their hoax articles about evidence for noah's ark. what does the quran and hadith say regarding this?

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

As long as something exist it does has a purpose yes, or else you have to find a counter example.
Nothing was created in vain so everything has a purpose. It doesn't necessarily means everything has a cause,but it implies it most of the time.

dont we have too little knowledge regarding that? i read somewhere that cause and effect doesnt really work for sub atomic particles

 

[Deleted member 3043]

christians take it literally i think, with all their hoax articles about evidence for noah's ark. what does the quran and hadith say regarding this?

Most scholars believe it's a regional one, given the arabic in the specific verse.[ISPOILER]We interpret the first of these verses by saying that, here, "on earth" does not designate the entire surface of the globe but only the land of the region, exactly as in this other Koranic verse: "They almost tore you from the earth, in order to exile you "(Koran 17/76): here also the word" earth "(" ardh ") is used with the definite article al-, and yet it goes without saying that the exile can only take place from part of the earth - the city in which the Prophet lived, Mecca, or, according to another commentary, the region in which he lived, the Hejaz - and not from the entire surface of the globe, otherwise it is no longer an exile but an assassination. As for the other verse raised, it would speak the same of "those who survived" in the region.[/ISPOILER]

But, eventually some scholars - minority - consider most of those stories as a warning for mankind, and a way to reform themselves. So metaphysically. Until proven otherwise tho i believe in a regional deluge, since i've read back then - don't have the sources i need to find again - some datas related to the empirical proofs and consequences of a regional deluge.
But universal deluge don't seem rational.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

dont we have too little knowledge regarding that? i read somewhere that cause and effect doesnt really work for sub atomic particles

As for everything it's about the most probabilistic claim, that's all reason can get you, to discriminate between what is definitively false and what is closer to the truth. The rest is a question of assentment.
Nothing is certain by essence not even science.
And for that question, we don't have a single example that denies that nothing was created in vain. So until proven otherwise it's the most rational position.

 

[Pubertymaxxer3]

Most scholars believe it's a regional one, given the arabic in the specific verse.[ISPOILER]We interpret the first of these verses by saying that, here, "on earth" does not designate the entire surface of the globe but only the land of the region, exactly as in this other Koranic verse: "They almost tore you from the earth, in order to exile you "(Koran 17/76): here also the word" earth "(" ardh ") is used with the definite article al-, and yet it goes without saying that the exile can only take place from part of the earth - the city in which the Prophet lived, Mecca, or, according to another commentary, the region in which he lived, the Hejaz - and not from the entire surface of the globe, otherwise it is no longer an exile but an assassination. As for the other verse raised, it would speak the same of "those who survived" in the region.[/ISPOILER]

But, eventually some scholars - minority - consider most of those stories as a warning for mankind, and a way to reform themselves. So metaphysically. Until proven otherwise tho i believe in a regional deluge, since i've read back then - don't have the sources i need to find again - some datas related to the empirical proofs and consequences of a regional deluge.
But universal deluge don't seem rational.

that could be true, they probably thought that the middle east was the entire world back then