Why do you believe in God?

[miandadrules]

I don't understand your question? can you clarify it please

What stopped you indulging in those sinful acts?

It couldn't have been God because you said you were undecided.

 

[shaz619]

According to the scientific model you prove something's existence not disprove it's existence.

Here's a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

I've been told to avoid wikipedia by scientific professors themselves, not the best source; I was relying on your vast knowledge tbh

 

[shaz619]

What stopped you indulging in those sinful acts?

It couldn't have been God because you said you were undecided.

You just know it's not the right thing to do but not everything is black and white which is why I said am looking into it. And there are non-believers who once believed but they insult those who believe now and left in the first place so they could freely abuse drugs, alcohol , become adulterers etc

 

[miandadrules]

I've been told to avoid wikipedia by scientific professors themselves, not the best source; I was relying on your vast knowledge tbh

The references are at the bottom. Unless you've also been taught to avoid them too.

 

[Yossarian]

How does God making his creation suffer negate his existence? your thinking is so flawed it is based on the premise that God must do as one thinks, can god not do what he wants?, when you explore the larger picture that morals don't even apply to god because everything he does with his right of being all powerful and all knowing.

As far as I'm concerned yours is yet another variation on the cop out answer "God knows best".

If a God, who supposedly knows all, knows the past, the now, and the future, and is all powerful to the extent that nothing happens without God's will, then that statement automatically implies that not only is it the case that God can prevent the suffering of the innocent and newborn, but in fact God is willingly causing the innocent and newborn to suffer.

What kind of God is it that willingly causes the innocent and newborn to suffer extreme agony and pain?

Hence either God doesn't exist at all, because if God did exist, and nothing happens without his will, then God wouldn't allow the innocent and newborn to suffer,

or

God does exist, but is cruel and sadistic?

Now which do you prefer? A cruel and sadistic God or no God at all?

 

[shaz619]

The references are at the bottom. Unless you've also been taught to avoid them too.

Yes I have, they're not necessarily on point and often contain many errors; I've seen this for myself when I was working on me CFD module

 

[miandadrules]

You just know it's not the right thing to do but not everything is black and white which is why I said am looking into it. And there are non-believers who once believed but they insult those who believe now and left in the first place so they could freely abuse drugs, alcohol , become adulterers etc

So you do indulge in these acts?

And you're saying that the only reason people become Athiests is to drink alcohol, abuse drugs etc... There can be no intellectual justification?

 

[miandadrules]

Yes I have, they're not necessarily on point and often contain many errors; I've seen this for myself when I was working on me CFD module

Ok, please point out the error in the references provided and what exactly is the point of contention.

 

[shaz619]

So you do indulge in these acts?

And you're saying that the only reason people become Athiests is to drink alcohol, abuse drugs etc... There can be no intellectual justification?

I never have, why are you fishing for acceptance because you do? won't come from me son.

Are you telling me the ones who want to mess about don't exist? because many have left for that very reason

 

[shaz619]

Ok, please point out the error in the references provided and what exactly is the point of contention.

I've avoided potential errors by not accessing wikipedia at all, I avoid all the preconceived tools. Do you have anything of substance which proves God does not exist? also this time point out specifically how they disprove god, P.E.E (Point, Evidence, Explain) follow that please

 

[miandadrules]

I never have, why are you fishing for acceptance because you do? won't come from me son.

Are you telling me the ones who want to mess about don't exist? because many have left for that very reason

So on one hand you're stating that you are undecided and thus according your logic aren't confined by the fear of God. Yet you haven't done those acts.

So why is it that you didn't do those things and an atheist would?

Please provide some proof that would indicate people leaving religion so they can act sinfully as appossed to any other reason.

 

[miandadrules]

I've avoided potential errors by not accessing wikipedia at all, I avoid all the preconceived tools. Do you have anything of substance which proves God does not exist? also this time point out specifically how they disprove god, P.E.E (Point, Evidence, Explain) follow that please

Why don't you point out those errors so we can all learn from your experience.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Is there any believer here who believes that God does not exist in Human shape but He exists in a 3 dimensional space and is a physical entity ?


If Yes please share the Scientific Evidence to substantiate it.

 

[shaz619]

So on one hand you're stating that you are undecided and thus according your logic aren't confined by the fear of God. Yet you haven't done those acts.

So why is it that you didn't do those things and an atheist would?

Please provide some proof that would indicate people leaving religion so they can act sinfully as appossed to any other reason.

They probably got very rebellious I suppose, to stick it to the religious elders.

Where is the proof that there are no people at all who leave so they can sin?

 

[shaz619]

Why don't you point out those errors so we can all learn from your experience.

That's what I thought. Oh well, am not going to get a response from you on that but I won't get an emphatic answer from the other side either so I'll remain in limbo. You mistake me for those who want to point score, it's what you and the others have been up to thus far in this thread.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

If you say that a gram negative bacteria does not exist than an Aethiest will hold your hand, will take you to a Lab and show you a gram negative bacteria under a micoscope. You will than believe that Yes a gram negative bacteria really exists.


An Aethiest says that God doesn't exist. The Onus isn't on an Aethiest to prove that God doesn't exist because for him whatever exists is a physical entity and can be seen. So how is an Aethiest supposed to prove absense of something which for him does not exist in the first place ?


This is a very weak argument and it doesn't stand.



Prophet Mohammad Pbuh advised people not to use dry bones when their is call of nature. He Pbuh said that dry bones are food for " Jinn " and cause illness. In those days when the human worldly knowledge was almost zero as compared to today the use of word Jinn was appropriate.


1300 years later it was Science which identified that Jinn as Mico-organisms and are no more Jinn and can be seen under a Microscope.


If Believers cannot See GOD than it it due to lack of an instrument through which GOD can be seen ? It will take some more years (thousands more) to make such a device capable of seeing GOD ?


Or GOD is, was, will never be in a Physical State having no mass or weight ?

 

[baba.sain]

First of all, I only believe in Monotheism.

I would not follow a religion in which there are multiple gods.

Second of all, Christianity has been proved to be corrupted over time. At it's purest form, it is very similar to Islam; But modern Christianity and all of the different sects are different.

The only other religion is Judaism. I don't have much knowledge of this religion, but I don't think it's any good.

Lastly, Islam is a flawless religion. There are many miracles that prove this.

Yes, I was born a Muslim. I am thankful that the straight path has been clear for me from the moment I came to this Earth.

"I don't have much knowledge of this religion, but I don't think it's any good"
If you dont have knowledge, then maybe make no comment on it.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

They probably got very rebellious I suppose, to stick it to the religious elders.

Where is the proof that there are no people at all who leave so they can sin?

He will trap you again like anything


If you are not sure whether God exists or does not exist than why you believe in a religion or religious elders ? What are you compelled to obey or follow your religious elders ? The Story of Religions or Religious elder's starts after existence of GOD not before that.

If One is undecided about God than He has no ground to say that I don't do xyz acts due to my religious elders.


A person can Sin even while remaining in a faith. He can hide his sins from others. Even if he leaves his faith he can hide this aswell. To say that people leave faith so that they can indulge in sins is a statement for which the evidence has to be presented by the one who made this claim. The Onus isn't on the other person to give evidence that this isn't the case because He did not claim it.


Seems like you missed my views about miandadrules in my reply to super hitter He will make you sweat as if it's 12nd June and you are in Larkana Sindh.


You will Rue your decision of jumping in as a Referee



Best of Luck

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

He will trap you again like anything


If you are not sure whether God exists or does not exist than why you believe in a religion or religious elders ? What are you compelled to obey or follow your religious elders ? The Story of Religions or Religious elder's starts after existence of GOD not before that.

If One is undecided about God than He has no ground to say that I don't do xyz acts due to my religious elders.


A person can Sin even while remaining in a faith. He can hide his sins from others. Even if he leaves his faith he can hide this aswell. To say that people leave faith so that they can indulge in sins is a statement for which the evidence has to be presented by the one who made this claim. The Onus isn't on the other person to give evidence that this isn't the case because He did not claim it.


Seems like you missed my views about miandadrules in my reply to super hitter He will make you sweat as if it's 12nd June and you are in Larkana Sindh.


You will Rue your decision of jumping in as a Referee



Best of Luck

Not * What but WHY

 

[Yossarian]

If you say that a gram negative bacteria does not exist than an Aethiest will hold your hand, will take you to a Lab and show you a gram negative bacteria under a micoscope. You will than believe that Yes a gram negative bacteria really exists.


An Aethiest says that God doesn't exist. The Onus isn't on an Aethiest to prove that God doesn't exist because for him whatever exists is a physical entity and can be seen. So how is an Aethiest supposed to prove absense of something which for him does not exist in the first place ?


This is a very weak argument and it doesn't stand.



Prophet Mohammad Pbuh advised people not to use dry bones when their is call of nature. He Pbuh said that dry bones are food for " Jinn " and cause illness. In those days when the human worldly knowledge was almost zero as compared to today the use of word Jinn was appropriate.


1300 years later it was Science which identified that Jinn as Mico-organisms and are no more Jinn and can be seen under a Microscope.


If Believers cannot See GOD than it it due to lack of an instrument through which GOD can be seen ? It will take some more years (thousands more) to make such a device capable of seeing GOD ?


Or GOD is, was, will never be in a Physical State having no mass or weight ?

But one doesn't need to 'see' God, or try to prove (or even disprove) the existence of God. One merely needs to open one's eyes and see the contradictions and paradoxes in the assertions that are made by the 'believers' when faced with difficult questions regarding the supposed powers God possesses, chiefly amongst them being the sufference brought on the young and innocent.

It's like a house of cards. Remove one from the base and they all fall down.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

If a God, who supposedly knows all, knows the past, the now, and the future, and is all powerful to the extent that nothing happens without God's will,

Thankfully You used " IF "


IF everything happens by GOD's will than free will does not exist.


IF nothing happens without GOD's will than no Human should be punished for any sin or crime because the chief architect is GOD and He should be found and punished because HIS WILL plan & force " is " behind everything.



IF GOD already knows what is going to happen ahead than for what HE is Testing YOU/US ? If you already know the exam questions and the answers without studying the subject without going through the grind/struggle and are fed with question paper and answers than what is the need for attemptimg the exam ?


IF God knows everything about future and IF he is the Creator of the Universe and Humans than He has programmed US. It means He has programmed a Man to murder person X at a time Y ? He has programmed a person to set a Bomb at Point A at time B to explode at Time C as He knows everything about future.

 

[James]

If anyone is actually interested in a serious argument in favour of the existence of God, see St Thomas Aquinas's "Quinque Viae" (Five Ways). The Five Ways are highly persuasive, particularly the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause which are undeniably brilliant. Not an Atheist's favourite philosopher!!

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

But one doesn't need to 'see' God, or try to prove (or even disprove) the existence of God. One merely needs to open one's eyes and see the contradictions and paradoxes in the assertions that are made by the 'believers' when faced with difficult questions regarding the supposed powers God possesses, chiefly amongst them being the sufference brought on the young and innocent.

It's like a house of cards. Remove one from the base and they all fall down.

I have read your posts on Suffering atleast a dozen time in last 18 months.


I think that the suffering caused due to starvation is caused by Man for which we are responsible. The Inequalities and the unjust distribution of wealth and resources lead to these. So Man's misuse of Free will is behind it and Not GOD.


But as far as the suffering of innocent children with congenital or genetic illnesses is concerned than there exists absolutely no answer to this. I won't even try to manufacture a Answer as that would be nothing but intellectual dishonesty. I have been trying to find a answer to this question for last 5 years but I haven't found any answer. I hope there is answer somewhere. If you find the answer do share with me but for Me No answer exists.

 

[Musakhel]

As far as I'm concerned yours is yet another variation on the cop out answer "God knows best".

If a God, who supposedly knows all, knows the past, the now, and the future, and is all powerful to the extent that nothing happens without God's will, then that statement automatically implies that not only is it the case that God can prevent the suffering of the innocent and newborn, but in fact God is willingly causing the innocent and newborn to suffer.

What kind of God is it that willingly causes the innocent and newborn to suffer extreme agony and pain?

Hence either God doesn't exist at all, because if God did exist, and nothing happens without his will, then God wouldn't allow the innocent and newborn to suffer,

or

God does exist, but is cruel and sadistic?

Now which do you prefer? A cruel and sadistic God or no God at all?

All the suffering, evil that happens in the world only happens because God allows it to happen by his will, nothing happens without God will.

Even if God tortured all of his creation, it would not negate the existence of God because It is God right to do as he pleases.

 

[Yossarian]

But as far as the suffering of innocent children with congenital or genetic illnesses is concerned than there exists absolutely no answer to this. I won't even try to manufacture a Answer as that would be nothing but intellectual dishonesty. I have been trying to find a answer to this question for last 5 years but I haven't found any answer. I hope there is answer somewhere. If you find the answer do share with me but for Me No answer exists.

Well at least you are being honest and not resorting to the same cop out answer "God knows best" (or variations of it) that most others trot out when faced with this question. I commend you for your honesty in that regard.

Belief in God (or Gods) is the foundation on which all religions are built. Question a cornerstone of that foundation and the whole structure falls down. The above, and variations of it, is that question on the cornerstone.

 

[Yossarian]

All the suffering, evil that happens in the world only happens because God allows it to happen by his will, nothing happens without God will.

Even if God tortured all of his creation, it would not negate the existence of God because It is God right to do as he pleases.

Sounds like the type of argument some Isis supporter might use (not that I'm accusing you of being one, because I'm not).

 

[anikrc1]

i can't prove the non-existence of god.but i can try to disprove the characteristics of god. first of all i need to ask some questions. when you believers say that god is all-powerful do you mean that he can do anything he wants? and when you say that he is all-knowing do you mean that he knows everything about only the material -world, or does he literally everything form material woeld the, the idea of material world, the idea of the idea of material world and so on? if you can answer this questions i can try to present my arguments

 

[hadi123]

i can't prove the non-existence of god.but i can try to disprove the characteristics of god. first of all i need to ask some questions. when you believers say that god is all-powerful do you mean that he can do anything he wants? and when you say that he is all-knowing do you mean that he knows everything about only the material -world, or does he literally everything form material woeld the, the idea of material world, the idea of the idea of material world and so on? if you can answer this questions i can try to present my arguments

thank you! I find the concept of God as realistic as Santa Claus etc

 

[miandadrules]

That's what I thought. Oh well, am not going to get a response from you on that but I won't get an emphatic answer from the other side either so I'll remain in limbo. You mistake me for those who want to point score, it's what you and the others have been up to thus far in this thread.

Sure, I'm point scoring on an anonymous forum which I seldom frequent.

Let's not beat around the bush this is a juvenile attempt to derail a discussion you full well know will lead to undesirable conclusions.

Here is an explanation of the scientific method and it's rigorous nature from one of the leading Educational institutes in the world.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#Bib

Now, I readily accept that the scientific method is not perfect nor that it will ultimately lead is to the right answers but it is unquestionably the best method we have ever had.

If you have a more robust method than please share it so we can focus on dealing with the issue at hand.

 

[miandadrules]

They probably got very rebellious I suppose, to stick it to the religious elders.

Where is the proof that there are no people at all who leave so they can sin?

What do you mean "they probably" and "stick it to elders"? What have you based this on other than your own confirmational bias?

Where have I said that no people leave due to being able to sin? I maintain it's due to myriad of reasons but you gave that as a primary driver.

But there have been a few studies which looks at the morality of believers and non-believers and some that looked at their motivations.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/

Religious doctrine and children's altruism;

http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982215011677?showall=true

Now we can never draw definitive conclusions based on random studies regardless of how thorough they are but they certainly give us an indication as to areas which need greater scrutiny.

Please provide some proof that people leave religion for the reason you provided.

 

[miandadrules]

He will trap you again like anything


If you are not sure whether God exists or does not exist than why you believe in a religion or religious elders ? What are you compelled to obey or follow your religious elders ? The Story of Religions or Religious elder's starts after existence of GOD not before that.

If One is undecided about God than He has no ground to say that I don't do xyz acts due to my religious elders.


A person can Sin even while remaining in a faith. He can hide his sins from others. Even if he leaves his faith he can hide this aswell. To say that people leave faith so that they can indulge in sins is a statement for which the evidence has to be presented by the one who made this claim. The Onus isn't on the other person to give evidence that this isn't the case because He did not claim it.


Seems like you missed my views about miandadrules in my reply to super hitter He will make you sweat as if it's 12nd June and you are in Larkana Sindh.


You will Rue your decision of jumping in as a Referee



Best of Luck

It's no trap. I make no secret that I'm going to point out the fallacy of the points he is making.

On one hand he says people leave religion to sin and that he is a neutral who doesn't indulge in sin.

So what separates him from the non-believer if neither are constrained by fear God? Some would say it was a weak attempt at point scoring. Ironic.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I have read your posts on Suffering atleast a dozen time in last 18 months.


I think that the suffering caused due to starvation is caused by Man for which we are responsible. The Inequalities and the unjust distribution of wealth and resources lead to these. So Man's misuse of Free will is behind it and Not GOD.


But as far as the suffering of innocent children with congenital or genetic illnesses is concerned than there exists absolutely no answer to this. I won't even try to manufacture a Answer as that would be nothing but intellectual dishonesty. I have been trying to find a answer to this question for last 5 years but I haven't found any answer. I hope there is answer somewhere. If you find the answer do share with me but for Me No answer exists.

I'm no expert on theology but the answer I've heard is that old one about life being a test. If you consider that the religious people believe in an afterlife which is everlasting, then suffering on this earth would be balanced by the next life. I suppose reincarnation in the Hindu faith might work on similar lines.

Also why is God cruel? Who knows? Why is he kind? He can be anything he wants, or non-existent if you don't choose to believe. The world will still be as it is, a bit of horror, a bit of beauty and some grey bits in between.

 

[shaz619]

Sure, I'm point scoring on an anonymous forum which I seldom frequent.

Let's not beat around the bush this is a juvenile attempt to derail a discussion you full well know will lead to undesirable conclusions.

Here is an explanation of the scientific method and it's rigorous nature from one of the leading Educational institutes in the world.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#Bib

Now, I readily accept that the scientific method is not perfect nor that it will ultimately lead is to the right answers but it is unquestionably the best method we have ever had.

If you have a more robust method than please share it so we can focus on dealing with the issue at hand.

In other words you can't disprove that God exists that's what I thought, you're limited to fallacies, juvenile logic and ineptness sadly; reek of hypocrisy. You can't practice what you preach

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

The answer is simple. It is a matter of faith and faith alone. The existence of the Almighty can never be proven logically and scientifically because religion and logic/science can never reconcile. I really don't understand the point of people trying to prove their faith to others.

For this precise reason, I have stopped debating and arguing over religion. Something which I loved to do so with passion.

Well said.

To quote Lord:
Say... ... ...

"For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

https://quran.com/109/6

 

[shaz619]

What do you mean "they probably" and "stick it to elders"? What have you based this on other than your own confirmational bias?

Where have I said that no people leave due to being able to sin? I maintain it's due to myriad of reasons but you gave that as a primary driver.

But there have been a few studies which looks at the morality of believers and non-believers and some that looked at their motivations.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/

Religious doctrine and children's altruism;

http://www.cell.com/current-biology...m/retrieve/pii/S0960982215011677?showall=true

Now we can never draw definitive conclusions based on random studies regardless of how thorough they are but they certainly give us an indication as to areas which need greater scrutiny.

Please provide some proof that people leave religion for the reason you provided.

How so? and since there are a variety of reasons one of which includes to sin then that should not be wiped under the carpet, am not denying that there are also the more "integrated" folk who are brain washed by the texts they read which lead to preconceived ideas that result in conclusions that god don't exist based on weak arguments which involve methods that are not perfect

 

[Justcrazy]

So if it didn't expand would it have been imperfect? The universe expanding concept is barely a century old.Did your fellow religionists before that maintained that for universe to be perfect it had to expand and not shrink as was thought earlier?
If yes then can you provide an authentic source to back up your claims? If it turns out to be true I would immediately convert to whichever religion you follow.
And if you cannot then I would ask you to please stop plagiarism of scientific material presenting it as deriving its legitimacy from religion.

I'm talking from a general perspective.

So , you believe that Universe came into existence of its own , and all physical laws as well ?

I do not know from other religions perspective , I can only answer from islam perspective.

 

[TM Riddle]

So , you believe that Universe came into existence of its own , and all physical laws as well ?

I do not know from other religions perspective , I can only answer from islam perspective.

I'm not claiming anything.Just asking you.

 

[miandadrules]

In other words you can't disprove that God exists that's what I thought, you're limited to fallacies, juvenile logic and ineptness sadly; reek of hypocrisy. You can't practice what you preach

I'm all those things and more. Now, let's get back to the issue. My integerity is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I can't disprove something that hasn't even been proven?

I have stated that I have no reason to believe the God of any organised exists, so what do I need to prove?

You clearly trying to dig yourself out of this hole by trying to derail the thread which isn't going to happen.

 

[shaz619]

I'm all those things and more. Now, let's get back to the issue. My integerity is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I can't disprove something that hasn't even been proven?

I have stated that I have no reason to believe the God of any organised exists, so what do I need to prove?

You clearly trying to dig yourself out of this hole by trying to derail the thread which isn't going to happen.

Am asking a simple question yet you accuse me of derailing the thread, you derailed the thread by just saying that. And no need to cry about all those things, you spew them as well just because am asking you a question that can't be answered.

You yourself admit that this scientific method is not perfect so how can you be so sure that God does not exist?

You will resort to nonsense do divert from this question, hole blah blah etc

 

[miandadrules]

How so? and since there are a variety of reasons one of which includes to sin then that should not be wiped under the carpet, am not denying that there are also the more "integrated" folk who are brain washed by the texts they read which lead to preconceived ideas that result in conclusions that god don't exist based on weak arguments which involve methods that are not perfect

Where is your evidence or research that Sin is a primary motivating factor? Who said anything should be brushed under the carpet?

Sure, I must be brainwashed to question a belief system, whereas if you believe without question you are enlightened.

Unlike you I always acknowledge the limitations of the resources I use and profess to have all the answers.

What preconceived ideas do I have and what conclusions did I derive from them?

Yet another litany of accusations which you can't back up.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It's ridiculous to ask someone to disprove the existence of God. You need to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy as well then .

 

[shaz619]

Where is your evidence or research that Sin is a primary motivating factor? Who said anything should be brushed under the carpet?

Sure, I must be brainwashed to question a belief system, whereas if you believe without question you are enlightened.

Unlike you I always acknowledge the limitations of the resources I use and profess to have all the answers.

What preconceived ideas do I have and what conclusions did I derive from them?

Yet another litany of accusations which you can't back up.

I've not stated it is the primary motivating factor but it's not something which you've not debated strangely bbut I have touched on it.

When did I say am enlightened etc not sure where you got that from, am imperfect; you're right about everything though isn't it am willing to learn so don't take the questions I ask so personally.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

I'm no expert on theology but the answer I've heard is that old one about life being a test. If you consider that the religious people believe in an afterlife which is everlasting, then suffering on this earth would be balanced by the next life. I suppose reincarnation in the Hindu faith might work on similar lines.

Also why is God cruel? Who knows? Why is he kind? He can be anything he wants, or non-existent if you don't choose to believe. The world will still be as it is, a bit of horror, a bit of beauty and some grey bits in between.

Fine they will be rewarded.


Shouldn't the Testing field be equal for all ?


An abnormal child is born. One who even cannot conceive life. He/She won't even Sin as they cannot differenciate between a virtue and a sin from any parameter. They will suffer lifelong. Is this a level playing field ? From the point of getting born they are not given the capacity, capability to be tested while the normal beings have a path to chose.


Surely when you are blessed and than your blessing is taken away than Yes you are Tested.

 

[miandadrules]

Am asking a simple question yet you accuse me of derailing the thread, you derailed the thread by just saying that. And no need to cry about all those things, you spew them as well just because am asking you a question that can't be answered.

You yourself admit that this scientific method is not perfect so how can you be so sure that God does not exist?

You will resort to nonsense do divert from this question, hole blah blah etc

It's not perfect but it's the best method our species has ever developed. Do you know of any better? If so please enlighten us.

The fact that I acknowledge the potential weakness in the methods used is somehow a negative?

I have stated and will state again that I have no reason to believe the God stated in any organised religion exists.

Why would I prove the non-existence I have no reason to believe exists. I can't disprove any fiction.

Only you seem to think this asinine logic makes sense.

 

[shaz619]

If people disprove the existence of God there ought to be reasons behind it which lead to that belief, why should such folk be immune from sharing these views and explaining them; after all their vast knowledge would have lead them to the conclusion that God does not exist.

 

[shaz619]

It's not perfect but it's the best method our species has ever developed. Do you know of any better? If so please enlighten us.

The fact that I acknowledge the potential weakness in the methods used is somehow a negative?

I have stated and will state again that I have no reason to believe the God stated in any organised religion exists.

Why would I prove the non-existence I have no reason to believe exists. I can't disprove any fiction.

Only you seem to think this asinine logic makes sense.

Am not saying that I know better but desire something concrete with regards to disproving God's existence. I've not said that he does exist myself. Thus far I've not been given anything concrete, you have stated that method is not perfect but that is expected because there are always errors to account for when it come to science.

 

[miandadrules]

I've not stated it is the primary motivating factor but it's not something which you've not debated strangely bbut I have touched on it.

When did I say am enlightened etc not sure where you got that from, am imperfect; you're right about everything though isn't it am willing to learn so don't take the questions I ask so personally.

Why don't you show research or evidence that it is factor at all?

It's the only factor you have mentioned and done so repeatedly. Why can't you provide some insight, with evidence?

I don't take anything you say personally. Feel free to say and ask what you like.

The enlightened comment wasn't about you but the notion you put forward that one must be brainwash to question a belief system they are born with.

 

[miandadrules]

Am not saying that I know better but desire something concrete with regards to disproving God's existence. I've not said that he does exist myself. Thus far I've not been given anything concrete, you have stated that method is not perfect but that is expected because there are always errors to account for when it come to science.

So you believe everything exists unless proven otherwise?

 

[miandadrules]

If people disprove the existence of God there ought to be reasons behind it which lead to that belief, why should such folk be immune from sharing these views and explaining them; after all their vast knowledge would have lead them to the conclusion that God does not exist.

What would you like to know?

 

[shaz619]

Why don't you show research or evidence that it is factor at all?

It's the only factor you have mentioned and done so repeatedly. Why can't you provide some insight, with evidence?

I don't take anything you say personally. Feel free to say and ask what you like.

The enlightened comment wasn't about you but the notion you put forward that one must be brainwash to question a belief system they are born with.

Why don't you show research or evidence that it is not a factor?

And the only factor you have mentioned repeatedly is based on your own individual research etc I've not seen much evidence for that either tbh

I didn't say that you are brainwashed to question a belief system but by the research you've done to develop your views after all those who read scriptures are brainwashed as well, why can't we say the same for you; a book is a book, there are just different books out there.

 

[shaz619]

So you believe everything exists unless proven otherwise?

No, but I need more information before coming to ultimate conclusions.

 

[shaz619]

What would you like to know?

Well nothing you've not mentioned already, the source of your view is the imperfect scientific method right; is there anything else that contributed to your conclusion that God does not exist?

 

[miandadrules]

No, but I need more information before coming to ultimate conclusions.

How convenient.

So this criteria is applied on a whim?

Why do you believe everything exists unless proven otherwise?

 

[shaz619]

How convenient.

So this criteria is applied on a whim?

Why do you believe everything exists unless proven otherwise?

Believe what exists? what did I say that I believe?

 

[miandadrules]

Well nothing you've not mentioned already, the source of your view is the imperfect scientific method right; is there anything else that contributed to your conclusion that God does not exist?

I said that I have no reason to believe the God of any organised religion.

There is a distinction.

 

[shaz619]

I said that I have no reason to believe the God of any organised religion.

There is a distinction.

I have not come across that view of yours, so you do believe in a higher power of some form then?

 

[miandadrules]

Believe what exists? what did I say that I believe?

You said one has to disprove that God exists.

So you must believe everything unless it is disproven.

You're suddenly struggling to get grips with your own logic.

 

[shaz619]

You said one has to disprove that God exists.

So you must believe everything unless it is disproven.

You're suddenly struggling to get grips with your own logic.

Not really, you're taking my views out of context. Is that what you do when you read books as well?

Where have I said that I believe in everything? it's what you assume.

One does have to disprove that God exists and what lead them to believe that way, the onus is on you as much as the other guy; why is it a different rule for you?

 

[miandadrules]

I have not come across that view of yours, so you do believe in a higher power of some form then?

I am open to the possibility. Only an ignorant person would say they are 100% sure but I have no reason to believe in the version presented by any religions.

 

[miandadrules]

Not really, you're taking my views out of context. Is that what you do when you read books as well?

Where have I said that I believe in everything? it's what you assume.

One does have to disprove that God exists and what lead them to believe that way, the onus is on you as much as the other guy; why is it a different rule for you?

You said one must disprove God's existence yet not for other things?

Why the inconsistency?

 

[shaz619]

You said one must disprove God's existence yet not for other things?

Why the inconsistency?

Which other things?

 

[shaz619]

I am open to the possibility. Only an ignorant person would say they are 100% sure but I have no reason to believe in the version presented by any religions.

I agree with that mostly but does that "100% not sure" result from not being able to disprove the existence of God adequately? for me God and higher power are the same thing just to be clear.

 

[miandadrules]

I agree with that mostly but does that "100% not sure" result from not being able to disprove the existence of God adequately? for me God and higher power are the same thing just to be clear.

It means to the extent of our knowledge we haven't found the source.

But we found the fallacy presented by the God of organised religion.

 

[miandadrules]

Which other things?

Anything and everything.

You'll have to disprove that all Polytheist Gods and every piece of fiction.

 

[shaz619]

It means to the extent of our knowledge we haven't found the source.

But we found the fallacy presented by the God of organised religion.

What is that fallacy?

 

[shaz619]

Why can't you disprove it, if it's so easy?

Well it's just a stupid character from a work of fiction which we all know about. Yet you are still hot about the fact that you can't adequately disprove the existence of a higher power

 

[miandadrules]

What is that fallacy?

That's there is no proof to the version presented.

 

[miandadrules]

Well it's just a stupid character from a work of fiction which we all know about. Yet you are still hot about the fact that you can't adequately disprove the existence of a higher power

Would that suffice if we substituted God for Harry?

 

[shaz619]

Would that suffice if we substituted God for Harry?

But the two are not the same thing, this higher power has been attributed to creating the universe and everything in it; you yourself have not ruled out the possibility as well so I suppose there is not much else to discuss

 

[miandadrules]

But the two are not the same thing, this higher power has been attributed to creating the universe and everything in it; you yourself have not ruled out the possibility as well

It's been attributed by whom?

 

[shaz619]

It's been attributed by whom?

Well who do you think? since it's a possibility which you're open to

 

[miandadrules]

Well who do you think? since it's a possibility which you're open to

It could be Harry Potter for all I know. Can you disprove it isn't?

 

[shaz619]

It could be Harry Potter for all I know. Can you disprove it isn't?

My method is not perfect

 

[miandadrules]

My method is not perfect

So you can't disprove it?

 

[shaz619]

So you can't disprove it?

The Scientific Method is not perfect though

 

[Heisenberg]

But the two are not the same thing, this higher power has been attributed to creating the universe and everything in it; you yourself have not ruled out the possibility as well so I suppose there is not much else to discuss

There are millions of different Gods in Hinduism alone. Which one do you want to disprove?

 

[shaz619]

So these people accept that there is a higher power and that stems from the fact that they can't prove God does not exist but if there is any other reason, they still believe in the possibility of a higher power

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION]



1. Gandhi wrote in Young India: ‘The more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword.’



2. Arya Samajists Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri said:

Biased critics of Islam and especially those who want to provoke Hindu-Muslim riots in the country say that Hazrat Muhammad after acquiring power in Medina could not maintain his facade of mercy and kindness.There he used force and violence and became a murderous prophet to achieve his life-long aim of power, status and wealth. He fell short of his own ideal of patience, moderation and endurance. But this is the view of those observers who are prejudicial and partisan, who are narrow minded and whose eyes are covered by a veil of ignorance. They see fire instead of light, ugliness instead of beauty and evil instead of good. They distort and present every good quality as a great vice. It reflects their own depravityÂ…

The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only ‘sword’ Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgiveness—the sword that conquers enemies and purifies their hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel. 1



3. The editor of the Sat Updaish, wrote:

Some people say that Islam was preached by the sword, but we cannot agree with this view. What is forced on people is soon rejected. Had Islam been imposed on people through oppression, there would have been no Islam today. Why? Because the Prophet of Islam had spiritual power, he loved humanity and he was guided by the ideal of ultimate good. 2



4. The editor of the Vedic Magazine and a former professor of Gurukul, Kangri Ram Dev, said:

Sitting in Medina, Muhammad Sahib (peace be to him) held the Arabs spellbound; he filled them with spiritual strength; strength that makesdevtas [gods] out of menÂ… it is incorrect to say that Islam spread with the force of the sword. It is a fact that the sword was never wielded to propagate Islam. If religion can be spread by force then let anyone try it today. 3



5. Dr D. W. Leitz said:

' All these arguments, advanced to prove that the purpose of jihad was to spread Islam by force, are contradicted by the Quran. The Quran says that the purpose of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues and cloisters. ' 4



6. Thomas ArnoldÂ’s said:

‘Islam has gained its greatest and most lasting missionary triumphs in times and places in which its political power has been weakest.” 5



7. A Sikh journalist wrote :

" In the beginning the ProphetÂ’s enemies made life difficult for him and his followers. So the Prophet asked his followers to leave their homes and migrate to Medina. He preferred migration to fighting his own people, but when oppression went beyond the pale of tolerance he took up his sword in self-defense. Those who believe religion can be spread by force are fools who neither know the ways of religion nor the ways of the world. They are proud of this belief because they are a long, long way away from the Truth. " 6




References:


1. Translated from an Urdu speech by Pundit Shastri at a Gorakhpur (India) meeting, 1928, to commemorate the ProphetÂ’s birth, see Dunya ka Hadi Ghairon ki Nazar Main , 57, 61.


2. Sat Updaish, Lahore, 7 July 1915; see Barguzida Rasul Ghairon Main Maqbul , 12, 13.


3. Prof. Ram Dev, The Prakash , see Burguzida Rasul Ghairon Main Maqbul , 24.



4. D. W. Lenz, Asiatic Quarterly Review , October 1886. Dr Leitz



5. W. Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith , 2nd ed. (London: Constable and Co. Ltd, 1913), 279–80.



6. Literally, ‘The knower of the psyche of the Prophet’, or ‘The observer of the Prophet’s mind’.

 

[shaz619]

The onus is on you to disprove x, y or z, I don't need to since am the one who you need to convince

 

[miandadrules]

The Scientific Method is not perfect though

So according to your logic the likelihood of Harry Potter being God is the same as that as the one presented by organised religion?