Islam Vs. Atheism Debate

International public speaker and writer Hamza Andreas Tzortzis debates
the leading American atheist and activist promoting secularism, Dr. Ed
Buckner, who is also the president of American Atheists. Dr. Buckner was
cited as an authority in Richard Dawkins' best-seller "The God
Delusion".

Important points that theists need to consider about the first cause argument or the uncaused cause argument:

1. No one knows what was there before the big bang

1.1. No one knows if there was nothing before the big bang

2. If you truly believe that there's no such thing as infinite then it is logical not to believe in an infinite being or entity. You have to be consistent.

2.1. If the universal energy and matter is constant, then it is finite. Maybe that's the context where "infinite doesn't exist in reality" statement applies.

2.2. But 2.1. doesn't mean that space and time cannot be infinite.

2.3. No one can prove that space and time cannot be infinite backward and forward

3. You need to prove god can do things without time dimension if you believe there was no universe before the big bang. Remember, without time, you cannot do anything because time is the measure of change. You can never have "before" and "after" notions without time. Asking the question when was the time before time was created is illogical.

No need for debate...it's already on the video...lolx

vril wrote:No need for debate...it's already on the video...lolx

Yeah you are right, the matters are discussed in the video hehehe.

But i think, it's okay to comment what they have discussed in the video.

Everytime I have a public debate, I always forget many things that I have planned/intended to bring. Rightafter the debate, I would always say to myself " oh boy, why did I forget this and that?" "I should have said such and such"

unrealdummy wrote:Important points that theists need to consider about the first cause argument or the uncaused cause argument:

1. No one knows what was there before the big bang

1.1. No one knows if there was nothing before the big bang

2. If you truly believe that there's no such thing as infinite then it is logical not to believe in an infinite being or entity. You have to be consistent.

2.1. If the universal energy and matter is constant, then it is finite. Maybe that's the context where "infinite doesn't exist in reality" statement applies.

2.2. But 2.1. doesn't mean that space and time cannot be infinite.

2.3. No one can prove that space and time cannot be infinite backward and forward

3. You need to prove god can do things without time dimension if you believe there was no universe before the big bang. Remember, without time, you cannot do anything because time is the measure of change. You can never have "before" and "after" notions without time. Asking the question when was the time before time was created is illogical.

What is your opinion about the Muslims' position that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, do you accept that to be true ?

Jewel wrote:
What is your opinion about the Muslims' position that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, do you accept that to be true ?

Yep anything must have a cause that's why I don't believe in an uncaused cause, what about you? Also the cause doesn't necessarily need to be super natural and intelligent.

Jewel wrote:

Yeah you are right, the matters are discussed in the video hehehe.

But i think, it's okay to comment what they have discussed in the video.

Everytime I have a public debate, I always forget many things that I have planned/intended to bring. Rightafter the debate, I would always say to myself " oh boy, why did I forget this and that?" "I should have said such and such"

I must say Hamza is very good. Very articulate and smart. And they've entertained smart questions too from the audience.

Nice video. Is this just recent?

unrealdummy wrote:

Yep anything must have a cause that's why I don't believe in an uncaused cause, what about you? Also the cause doesn't necessarily need to be super natural and intelligent.

So you agree with the Islamic stand. Okay, if that is the case, how did the first thing exist, what causes it to exist?

I'll answer your question to me later.

vril wrote:
I must say Hamza is very good. Very articulate and smart. And they've entertained smart questions too from the audience.

Nice video. Is this just recent?

Yeah very recent one; actually the first of the series.

Hamza is a new Muslim; Greek background.

This is why I chose Islam; it doesnt depend on circular arguments; its principles can be used even without using the Quran because it is logical simple, and practical; you dont need to be a scholar to understand it and defend it or question other religions.

Jewel wrote:
So you agree with the Islamic stand. Okay, if that is the case, how did the first thing exist, what causes it to exist?

How am I supposed to know? Nobody can know that just yet AFAIK. However it is sad that the Muslim guy in that video made so many assumptions like claiming there was nothing before the bigbang. Surprisingly enough, Ed Buckner seem to agree that before the Big Bang there was nothing. You can never find any statement about the big bang stating that before the big bang, there was nothing. That is just impossible to know. There was even no explosion during the Big Bang! It is a misnomer.

The debate was a bust.

However here are the few things I agree with Buckner:

1) (assuming that before the big bang, there was nothing) Claiming that Universe has no cause is equally nonsensical as claiming that something that has no cause exists that caused the universe. In short, having god that has no cause is nonsensical as well.
2) the absence of objective morality
3) Pascal's Wager applies to theists as well

1) (assuming that before the big bang, there was nothing) Claiming that
Universe has no cause is equally nonsensical as claiming that something
that has no cause exists that caused the universe. In short, having god
that has no cause is nonsensical as well.

That's wrong because God is by definition is the one who has no beginning, so it cant be equated with anything having a beginning.

2) the absence of objective morality

There is in fact objective morality.

3) Pascal's Wager applies to theists as well

explain how

Jewel wrote:
That's wrong because God is by definition is the one who has no beginning, so it cant be equated with anything having a beginning.

The reason you believe god exists is based on the premise that everything must have a cause and that before the big bang there was nothing. So introducing something without a cause is also nonsense and being hypocritical. You must be consistent on what you believe.

If you believe that everything should have a cause then you must hold that belief firmly and make no exceptions not even god.

If you believe that it is OK to say god don't have a cause, then it should also be OK to say universe don't have a cause.

If you can accept that god has no beginning, then why can't you accept the possibility that universe has no beginning?

The big bang theory has never made any claims about whether the universe has a beginning or not. Only extrapolation and speculation exists. In fact there has been other explanation about what could there be before the Big Bang, something like this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Physicists-Claim-Evidence-of-Universe-Before-Big-Bang-87494.shtml

If the claim is based on the premise or deduction from extrapolation or speculation that the universe had a beginning, then that claim should also be considered as speculation.

Jewel wrote:
There is in fact objective morality.

There is in fact no objective morality. Even if god exists and he created a standard morality, I'm afraid, that is still not objective. As long as it came from someone's opinion, feeling, personal judgement, it is not and will never be called as objective.

Jewel wrote:3) Pascal's Wager applies to theists as well

I thought you watched the entire video. You mustn't taken any attention to the other side at all.

Let me explain it for you then.

Theists ask often atheists what if we were wrong?

Well if we're wrong then we're doomed. But of course we can ask the same question to theists, what if you're wrong? What if god will save only those who doesn't believe in any books he put on this Earth to filter out only those people who can think critically? Well you're doomed as well. See, Pascal's Wager applies to everyone. That is putting aside the argument that there are hundreds of thousands of religions in this world.

unrealdummy wrote:The reason you believe god exists is based on the premise that everything must have a cause and that before the big bang there was nothing. So introducing something without a cause is also nonsense and being hypocritical. You must be consistent on what you believe.

If you believe that everything should have a cause then you must hold that belief firmly and make no exceptions not even god.

If you believe that it is OK to say god don't have a cause, then it should also be OK to say universe don't have a cause.

If you can accept that god has no beginning, then why can't you accept the possibility that universe has no beginning?

The big bang theory has never made any claims about whether the universe has a beginning or not. Only extrapolation and speculation exists. In fact there has been other explanation about what could there be before the Big Bang, something like this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Physicists-Claim-Evidence-of-Universe-Before-Big-Bang-87494.shtml

If the claim is based on the premise or deduction from extrapolation or speculation that the universe had a beginning, then that claim should also be considered as speculation.

Again, you are guilty of false comparison because a creator must be different from the creation. This is what I said in the beginning, many atheists deny God simply because they dont know what God really is.

Now, if we ride with your idea about the universe; if it doesnt have a beginning therefore it is infinite then we have an infinite history of the past, and if that is so, it means that it would take an infinite time for us to exist today which means nonsense because it implies that we can never exist because we cant count infinity.

On the otherhand, if it has a beginning then there must be a cause. That cause must necessarily be uncreated otherwise it it would lead to infinite history of the past, thus like the above argument, we could never have existed today because we cant traverse the infinity (of time).

That uncreated cause is what we mean by God, the all powerful, the all-wise - that is the most logical explanation in this issue.

There is in fact no objective morality. Even if god exists and he created a standard morality, I'm afraid, that is still not objective. As long as it came from someone's opinion, feeling, personal judgement, it is not and will never be called as objective.

It depends on how do you define objective morality. When it comes to definition, I think all theists agree that there is objective morality. Who would define objective morality btw, the theists or the atheists?

I thought you watched the entire video. You mustn't taken any attention to the other side at all.

In fact i did and i even downloaded it in my pc but I think you didnt understand what I meant. I just didnt understand how it is applicable to the theists just like the atheists.

Let me explain it for you then.

Theists ask often atheists what if we were wrong?

Well if we're wrong then we're doomed. But of course we can ask the same question to theists, what if you're wrong? What if god will save only those who doesn't believe in any books he put on this Earth to filter out only those people who can think critically? Well you're doomed as well. See, Pascal's Wager applies to everyone. That is putting aside the argument that there are hundreds of thousands of religions in this world.

You just proved me right because I dont really think that it applies to atheists as well. If the atheists are wrong then they are surely doomed and be punished justly by God in hell, while the true believers will be in the garden of delight and happiness.

On one hand, if the theists are wrong, it would mean that there will be no punishment in the hereafter nor pleasure; after we die we become dust of whatever both theists and atheists.

therefore, the theists' side is the safer side as compared to the atheists'.

So it is not vice versa my friend

Jewel wrote:

Now, if we ride with your idea about the universe; if it doesnt have a beginning therefore it is infinite then we have an infinite history of the past, and if that is so, it means that it would take an infinite time for us to exist today which means nonsense because it implies that we can never exist because we cant count infinity.

False. Time is infinite but it still makes sense. Universe having an infinite history is not illogical. As I said, there's no proof the there was no universe before the Big Bang. Basing your claim on something that has no evidence makes your claim questionable.

In fact I can use the same argument you presented against you. If god has infinite history, then it would take infinite time to wait for god to finally create the universe.

It depends on how do you define objective morality. When it comes to definition, I think all theists agree that there is objective morality. Who would define objective morality btw, the theists or the atheists?

Let's first find out what "objective" means.

Objective:
1) not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective]
2) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective]
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective]
4) uninfluenced by personal feelings or personal interests; considering only the facts of a situation unrelated to the observer; -- of judgments, opinions, evaluations, conclusions, reasoning processes [http://www.dictionary.net/objective]
5) "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)]

I ask you. Is god a personal being/entity? In the video, Hazma agrees. So if that entity or being creates moral standards, where was it based from? His personal opinion, judgement, or feelings of course. Therefore it is subjective morality and not objective morality.

You just proved me right because I dont really think that it applies to atheists as well. If the atheists are wrong then they are surely doomed and be punished justly by God in hell, while the true believers will be in the garden of delight and happiness.

On one hand, if the theists are wrong, it would mean that there will be no punishment in the hereafter nor pleasure; after we die we become dust of whatever both theists and atheists.

No.

I already explained it to you:

what if you're wrong? What if god will save only those who doesn't believe in any books, religions, or faiths he put on Earth to filter out only those people who can think critically and punish those who can't? Well you're doomed as well.

Jewel wrote:That's wrong because God is by definition the one who has no beginning, so it cant be equated with anything having a beginning...

May i ask how the general public came up with this conclusion/assumption? Thanks!

unrealdummy wrote:
False. Time is infinite but it still makes sense. Universe having an infinite history is not illogical. As I said, there's no proof the there was no universe before the Big Bang. Basing your claim on something that has no evidence makes your claim questionable.

If you believe that the universe has an infinite history, then how would you explain our existence today, can you traverse the infinity, yes or no?

In fact I can use the same argument you presented against you. If god has infinite history, then it would take infinite time to wait for god to finally create the universe.

Wrong. We/I didnt say that God has an infinite HISTORY - that's a clear strawman.

God is the source of all, the sole creator of all and he is not time-bound, so how could you say that God has an infinite history?

Your definition of God is something that no sane theist can agree/accept - so no strawman please.

Let's first find out what "objective" means.

Objective:
1) not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective]
2) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective]
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective]
4) uninfluenced by personal feelings or personal interests; considering only the facts of a situation unrelated to the observer; -- of judgments, opinions, evaluations, conclusions, reasoning processes [http://www.dictionary.net/objective]
5) "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)]

I ask you. Is god a personal being/entity? In the video, Hazma agrees. So if that entity or being creates moral standards, where was it based from? His personal opinion, judgement, or feelings of course. Therefore it is subjective morality and not objective morality.

I agree 100%, but that is not the word you are supposed to define. We are talking about the definition of OBJECTIVE MORALITY, not the definition of the word objective; so what is that cut and paste approach?

To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right"
and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and
"wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures. (Y.A)

Killing an innocent life is wrong whether you are an atheist or a member of any religious denomination - that is an example objective morality - unless you will tell me that killing of an innocent person is good so there is no objective morality.

No.

I already explained it to you:

what if you're wrong? What if god will save only those who doesn't believe in any books, religions, or faiths he put on Earth to filter out only those people who can think critically and punish those who can't? Well you're doomed as well.

That is absolutely wrong because you are redefining God. God is just and wise therefore he wouldnt do illogical things.

If there is God and he wants us to do something, then he must have told us what we are supposed to do here otherwise God cant blame us for not doing what we are supposed to do because he didnt inform us what we are supposed to do here - that's logical.

So God must have informed us what we are supposed to do here. In fact he did and we know it thru his revelations. He says that those who obey him will be saved and rewarded while those who disobey him will be punished - that's clear to all.

It would be illogical, and no sane person can accept that God will punish those people who did what he instructed them to do while reward those who are boastful arrogant in denying his existence and belie his revelations - Watta illogical thought

Jewel wrote:If there is God and he wants us to do something, then he must have told us what we are supposed to do here otherwise God cant blame us for not doing what we are supposed to do because he didnt inform us what we are supposed to do here - that's logical.

So God must have informed us what we are supposed to do here. In fact he did and we know it thru his revelations. He says that those who obey him will be saved and rewarded while those who disobey him will be punished - that's clear to all.

It would be illogical, and no sane person can accept that God will punish those people who did what he instructed them to do while reward those who are boastful arrogant in denying his existence and belie his revelations - Watta illogical thought

Some more questions:

Why did Allah only begin instructing people during Mohammed's time? I don't think fitrah covers this aspect since these already concerns particular revelations.

And what kept Allah from handing out His instructions in a clear-cut 'memory-to-book-method' in the eons between the Fall of Humanity up until Mohammed's peak season? Note that instructions given to Adam were different from the ones given later, since there was still no notion of reward/punishment then.

Namaste!

element_115x wrote:

Some more questions:

Why did Allah only begin instructing people during Mohammed's time? I don't think fitrah covers this aspect since these already concerns particular revelations.

Who ever told you that, or wherever you got that idea, tell them that they are extremely ignorant.

Had you read the Quran you would have found that that idea is absolutely wrong because God made it so clear that Prophet Muhammad is the last of the Prophets - which means there are many prophets of God sent before him. In fact, Islam teaches that the first prophet of God was Adam, the first man, and that there were prophets sent by God to all communities in different times.



He hath ordained for you that religion which
He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that
which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion,
and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou
callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself
him who turneth (toward Him). (42:13)









There were messengers sent in every nation 16:36, 35;24,
47:10

And what kept Allah from handing out His instructions in a clear-cut 'memory-to-book-method' in the eons between the Fall of Humanity up until Mohammed's peak season? Note that instructions given to Adam were different from the ones given later, since there was still no notion of reward/punishment then.

Namaste!

This idea is not correct at all, it is based on a wrong presumption.






The religion of the
Prophets is Islam (surrender to God) 3:84


Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but
(he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah
has full knowledge of all things.
(33:40)

element_115x wrote:May i ask how the general public came up with this conclusion/assumption? Thanks!

It is the common definition and understanding in all major religions of the world.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:
If you believe that the universe has an infinite history, then how would you explain our existence today, can you traverse the infinity, yes or no?

I don't know. But that doesn't mean god is the answer.

Jewel wrote:
Wrong. We/I didnt say that God has an infinite HISTORY - that's a clear strawman.


God is the source of all, the sole creator of all and he is not time-bound, so how could you say that God has an infinite history?

If he is not time-bound, explain how did he create things without requiring time. Remember, time is the measure of change. I ask you, when is the period or time when he hasn't created time yet? See, ridiculous. Saying time has a beginning is nonsensical, illogical and cannot be proven. Of course creating something without time or creating the time itself is illogical and nonsensical as well. You are presenting very presumptous claims without critical thinking. If you insist god is not time bound then we can conclude he doesn't exist because everything is time bound.

Without time, there would be no "before" and "after". You can't even ask "what was there before time was created"? You're not trying to answer the problem we have, you're just making it more complicated and worse

Jewel wrote:
I agree 100%, but that is not the word you are supposed to define. We are talking about the definition of OBJECTIVE MORALITY, not the definition of the word objective; so what is that cut and paste approach?

What do you want me to do? Modify the wordings of my sources?

Of course we are talking about objective morality. But in order to know what that means, we need to know the meaning of those words; the "objective" and "morality". Objective acts as adjective to the word "morality".

Jewel wrote:
To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right"
and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and
"wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures. (Y.A)

I agree, that is why I don't believe that objective morality exists, because we will never come into agreement on what is righ and what is wrong.

Jewel wrote:
Killing an innocent life is wrong whether you are an atheist or a member of any religious denomination - that is an example objective morality - unless you will tell me that killing of an innocent person is good so there is no objective morality.

Nope, that is not objective morality. That is stil subjective. It is wrong to kill innocent people in our perspective, in principle and opinion. But to lions' perspective or opinion, no, it is OK to kill innocent. They need food. Also, for us people, it is OK to kill innocent chickens, cows, and hogs. It depends on the observer. Therefore it is subjective and not objective.

Jewel wrote:
That is absolutely wrong because you are redefining God. God is just and wise therefore he wouldnt do illogical things.

And who says everyone would agree to that? Remember, Pascal's Wager is based on a hypothetical question, therefore it is OK to redefine god because no one has ever confirmed to know god. They can claim they know god but not everyone would agree to that. So no, Pascal's Wager applies to theists as well.

Jewel wrote:
If there is God and he wants us to do something, then he must have told us what we are supposed to do here otherwise God cant blame us for not doing what we are supposed to do because he didnt inform us what we are supposed to do here - that's logical.

I'll tell you what's logical. It is logical for god to come here on Earth and formally declare him as god so everyone will bow down to him for his glory. But that didn't happen.

Jewel wrote:
So God must have informed us what we are supposed to do here. In fact he did and we know it thru his revelations. He says that those who obey him will be saved and rewarded while those who disobey him will be punished - that's clear to all.


It would be illogical, and no sane person can accept that God will punish those people who did what he instructed them to do while reward those who are boastful arrogant in denying his existence and belie his revelations - Watta illogical thought [img]

Nope, not everyone would accept that. As I said, god can just do anything as he wills. If he wants to punish those who is gullible and reward those who are proven to be intelligent and who doesn't believe in any books he created on Earth, there's nothing you can do. His will will be done.

unrealdummy wrote:I don't know. But that doesn't mean god is the answer.

See, inconsistent replies; a sign of a failed argument.

You have to have a clear stand; it is either the universe has a beginning or without a beginning; you cant just simply say I dont know because you are arguing with me. If you dont have a stand then why argue in the first place?

If he is not time-bound, explain how did he create things without requiring time. Remember, time is the measure of change. I ask you, when is the period or time when he hasn't created time yet? See, ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed because your question is ridiculous and illogical and self-contradictory:

How would you ask about a time period before the existence of time?

That is tantamount of asking when is jewel's birth date before he was born ?

Saying time has a beginning is nonsensical, illogical and cannot be proven. Of course creating something without time or creating the time itself is illogical and nonsensical as well. You are presenting very presumptous claims without critical thinking.

That's a mere assertion; you need to explain why. Beware of false comparison as you always do.

If you insist god is not time bound then we can conclude he doesn't exist because everything is time bound.

Again, false assumption and misconception of God; equating God with the creation - hellooo, that is not what we mean by God. God is not time bound because he is infinite. Dont redefine God for us because you will be attacking a strawman. This is the reason which I think why atheists dont believe in God; they dont know what we mean by God.

Without time, there would be no "before" and "after". You can't even ask "what was there before time was created"? You're not trying to answer the problem we have, you're just making it more complicated and worse

That is correct, there is no "before" and "after" to God because he is infinite, that is why it is illogical to think or to ask "when" did God exist or "who" created God.

On the other hand, since we do have the "before" and "after", it means that we are finite and time bound, and NOT infinite like God. Since that is the logical and acceptable conclusion/idea, it means that we do have a finite beginning and that explains our existence here.

If you insist that we have an infinite history then how did we exist here is a big logical problem; You just said you dont know

What do you want me to do? Modify the wordings of my sources?

Of course we are talking about objective morality. But in order to know what that means, we need to know the meaning of those words; the "objective" and "morality". Objective acts as adjective to the word "morality".

Well, it not how you do it. If you define terminology, define it as it is. Didnt you find any definition of "objective morality" so that you have to separate the two words?

there is a definition of the term "objective morality" so dont separate the two because you'll end up nowhere.


"To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures." (Y.A)

I agree, that is why I don't believe that objective morality exists, because we will never come into agreement on what is righ and what is wrong.

There is a deference between absolute morality and objective morality. There are certain universal principles that is true to everyone such as my example below which you disagreed upon and you are wrong because killing an innocent life is always been wrong to any sane person in history and today. May be you need to cite to me any ref. that some sane people in history considers killing of innocent life is good.

Nope, that is not objective morality. That is stil subjective. It is wrong to kill innocent people in our perspective, in principle and opinion. But to lions' perspective or opinion, no, it is OK to kill innocent. They need food. Also, for us people, it is OK to kill innocent chickens, cows, and hogs. It depends on the observer. Therefore it is subjective and not objective.

Lolzz hahhaha, false comparison again - Human beings are equated with ordinary animals watta horrible idea indeed.

When we speak of objective morality, we are referring to human beings not animals my friend, so dont take things from their proper context so you'll not end up with irrational ideas.

And who says everyone would agree to that? Remember, Pascal's Wager is based on a hypothetical question, therefore it is OK to redefine god because no one has ever confirmed to know god. They can claim they know god but not everyone would agree to that. So no, Pascal's Wager applies to theists as well.

And who's definition should be followed, the atheists' who in the first place dont believe that there is God? - that's ludicrous. Moreover, if you want to deny the theists' God, you have to deal with what they mean by God otherwise you are attacking a strawman because the God that you think they believe in is not what you think it to be.

I'll tell you what's logical. It is logical for god to come here on Earth and formally declare him as god so everyone will bow down to him for his glory. But that didn't happen.

Red herring - not related to the argument quoted/presented. Moreover, it is an argument out of Ignorance; I have asked a question about that before.

Nope, not everyone would accept that. As I said, god can just do anything as he wills. If he wants to punish those who is gullible and reward those who are proven to be intelligent and who doesn't believe in any books he created on Earth, there's nothing you can do. His will will be done.

Provide your sources if you have any - You cant oppose a clear scriptural basis with a mere hypothetical idea.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:
If you dont have a stand then why argue in the first place?

Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

Jewel wrote:
Ridiculous indeed because your question is ridiculous and illogical and self-contradictory:

How would you ask about a time period before the existence of time?

That is tantamount of asking when is jewel's birth date before he was born ?

Can I accuse you of false comparison? LOLz We are talking about time itself here and not an event that is dependent on time itself. And to answer your false analogy, yes, we can still answer it. Jewel's birth date is in unknown specific time. It is still time-bound.

No. Things only becomes ridiculous when you assume that there was an instance that there was no time. There could never be no time. Otherwise you will not be able to identify when was that instance! Proposing that there was an instance that there was no time is totally ridiculous idea!

Jewel wrote:


That's a mere assertion; you need to explain why. Beware of false comparison as you always do.

Because there is no proof that there was a time where there is no time. Time always exists. You need to disprove that otherwise. We've always been observing time but there was no instance where we are able to observe the absence of time. You gonna need to disprove the absence of time in this case.

Jewel wrote:
As I always say, time IS the measure of change. Without time, you cannot change anything. Any change requires time. That is why creation requires time. That is a fact. Now if you're not going to agree with that, you will need to prove that time is not required to make changes.




Again, false assumption and misconception of God; equating God with the creation - hellooo, that is not what we mean by God. God is not time bound because he is infinite. Dont redefine God for us because you will be attacking a strawman. This is the reason which I think why atheists dont believe in God; they dont know what we mean by God.

Hello too. Everything is time bound. So saying god is not time bound makes him impossible to exist. It's like you're saying, the color of our white is black. If that's the case, then color white doesn't exist because there's not such thing as white that is black at the same time.

Anyone can define or describe their own fantasy. But doing so won't prove that it exists.

Jewel wrote:
That is correct, there is no "before" and "after" to God because he is infinite, that is why it is illogical to think or to ask "when" did God exist or "who" created God.

That is nonsense. That is as illogical as claiming universe doesn't have a cause if it came from nothing. If you can claim anything, then I can just claim anything. This discussion will be pointless. You will need to explain how is that possible not to have "before" and "after". Very contradicting to your claim that "before there was no universe" Which of course is not even proven.

Jewel wrote:
On the other hand, since we do have the "before" and "after", it means that we are finite and time bound, and NOT infinite like God. Since that is the logical and acceptable conclusion/idea, it means that we do have a finite beginning and that explains our existence here.

You are contradicting your belief that there's no such thing as infinite in reality.

And you are wrong. Not because something is infinite, it is safe to conclude that there is no before and after. Time is infinite, there's no end to time but you can still ask what happens after an event. It just never ends. After this, what next? You can ask that infinitely but there will be always an "after". The same is true for "before".

You are guilty of non-sequitur fallacy. Because something is infinite, therefore there's no "before" and "after" in that something's perspective.

Jewel wrote:
If you insist that we have an infinite history then how did we exist here is a big logical problem; You just said you dont know

True. But that doesn't give us an excuse to invent an answer for the sake of just having an answer even if it is unverifiable, untestable and incorrect.

Jewel wrote:
there is a definition of the term "objective morality" so dont separate the two because you'll end up nowhere.

"Object morality" are compound words, they are not one word in which taking away the other word makes the definition entirely different.

Lolzz hahhaha, false comparison again - Human beings are equated with ordinary animals watta horrible idea indeed.

When we speak of objective morality, we are referring to human beings not animals my friend, so dont take things from their proper context so you'll not end up with irrational ideas.

Wrong. You don't have the right to say what are the scope and limitations of "objective morality".

Objective morality doesn't care who or what the subject of perspective is. So no, your accusations hold no bearing. Granted you were right, that would also make god irrelevant to the defintion of "objective morality" or I will accuse you of equating humans with god.

And who's definition should be followed, the atheists' who in the first place dont believe that there is God? - that's ludicrous. Moreover, if you want to deny the theists' God, you have to deal with what they mean by God otherwise you are attacking a strawman because the God that you think they believe in is not what you think it to be.

Wrong. As I said, Pascal's Wager is based on hypothetical question. Anyone has the right to give defintion to what god would do. Don't you know the meaning of "What if"? "What if" nga eh tapos sasabihin mo mali. I hope you understand what "what if" means. No buts.

Jewel wrote:
If you dont have a stand then why argue in the first place?

Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

Jewel wrote:
Ridiculous indeed because your question is ridiculous and illogical and self-contradictory:

How would you ask about a time period before the existence of time?

That is tantamount of asking when is jewel's birth date before he was born ?

No. Things only becomes ridiculous when you assume that there was an instance that there was no time. There could never be no time. Otherwise you will not be able to identify when was that instance! Proposing that there was an instance that there was no time is totally ridiculous idea!

Jewel wrote:
Red herring - not related to the argument quoted/presented. Moreover, it is an argument out of Ignorance; I have asked a question about that before.

You claim to know what is logical, I was just sending you a message that I disagree.

Jewel wrote:
If you dont have a stand then why argue in the first place?

Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

Jewel wrote:
Ridiculous indeed because your question is ridiculous and illogical and self-contradictory:

How would you ask about a time period before the existence of time?

That is tantamount of asking when is jewel's birth date before he was born ?

No. Things only becomes ridiculous when you assume that there was an instance that there was no time. There could never be no time. Otherwise you will not be able to identify when was that instance! Proposing that there was an instance that there was no time is totally ridiculous idea!

Jewel wrote:
Provide your sources if you have any - You cant oppose a clear scriptural basis with a mere hypothetical idea.

Yes I can oppose a scriptural with a hypothetical idea because that scripture you have is not proven to be true. So scriptures are nothing but written hypotethical idea. They both hold the same weight.

unrealdummy wrote:Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

Dont shoot your own foot my friend; you are the one arguing here without evidence and proof that is why when your argument is cornered your last resort is "i dont know". As for me I have presented at least 2 evidences from the very beginning, the inimitable quran and the unmatched legacy of Prophet Muhammad, so dont accuse me of something which is clearly false.

There are two options in this issue:

1. The universe does have a beginning

2. The universe doesnt have a beginning

Which of the tow options is your atheistic stand?

Can I accuse you of false comparison? LOLz We are talking about time itself here and not an event that is dependent on time itself. And to answer your false analogy, yes, we can still answer it. Jewel's birth date is in unknown specific time. It is still time-bound.

That's ridiculous indeed and your answer as well because you can never arrive in to a correct answer if the question that you are trying to answer is in and of itself wrong.

You dont ask of my birth date BEFORE I was born because a birth date means the date you were born and NOT before it - see the absurdity?

No. Things only becomes ridiculous when you assume that there was an instance that there was no time. There could never be no time. Otherwise you will not be able to identify when was that instance! Proposing that there was an instance that there was no time is totally ridiculous idea!

It was your own words that if "Without time, there would be no "before" and "after", and since you assume that there is time therefore there is before and after right?

If that is so, it means that there is a beginning, and since there is a beginning, I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause.

Because there is no proof that there was a time where there is no time. Time always exists. You need to disprove that otherwise. We've always been observing time but there was no instance where we are able to observer the absence of time. You gonna need to disprove the absence of time in this case.

I just did. read my response "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

As I always say, time IS the measure of change. Without time, you cannot change anything. Any change requires time. That is why creation requires time. That is a fact. Now if you're not going to agree with that, you will need to prove that time is not required to make changes.

I dont have to because I agree with that. What I said which you didnt seem to get is that God is not time bound because he is infinite while the creation is finite time bound because we do have the "before" and the "after" therefore we have a beginning. So if we have a beginning then answer this old question of mine "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

Hello too. Everything is time bound. So saying god is not time bound makes him impossible to exist. It's like you're saying, the color of our white is black. If that's the case, then color white doesn't exist because there's not such thing as white that is black at the same time.

May be you would like to tell me who among the billions of theists on earth agree with you that God is time bound. If you cant give me any, then know that you are attacking a strawman.

Anyone can define or describe their own fantasy. But doing so won't prove that it exists.

Hehehe, fantasy. The bottom line is that no sane theist agree on your definition of God, so you are clearly attacking a strawman because you are refuting something that we dont believe in

That is nonsense. That is as illogical as claiming universe doesn't have a cause if it came from nothing. If you can claim anything, then I can just claim anything. This discussion will be pointless. You will need to explain how is that possible not to have "before" and "after". Very contradicting to your claim that "before there was no universe" Which of course is not even proven.

Same old question: "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

You are contradicting your belief that there's no such thing as infinite in reality.

And you are wrong. Not because something is infinite, it is safe to conclude that there is no before and after. Time is infinite, there's no end to time but you can still ask what happens after an event. It just never ends. After this, what next? You can ask that infinitely but there will be always an "after". The same is true for "before"

.

you can ask the "after", but what about the "before"?

What the word infinite means? It means endless, no beginning, so there is no "before" because "before" indicates a beginning.

You are guilty of non-sequitur fallacy. Because something is infinite, therefore there's no "before" and "after" in that something's perspective.

I dont think so. In fact the dilemma is on you if you insist that there is "before" in infinity. "before" indicates a beginning, a point in time, otherwise you cant ask about "before" if there is no beginning. Infinity means endless, wiout a beginning; consult Mr. Webster.

True. But that doesn't give us an excuse to invent an answer for the sake of just having an answer even if it is unverifiable, untestable and incorrect.

it is not an invented answer my friend, it is a scriptural answer, it's not my own personal idea. That is why the Quran told us to use our rational thinking because people with intellect and open minded may reflect about God.

Wrong. You don't have the right to say what are the scope and limitations of "objective morality"

That's why I asked you the definition of objective morality so that we can use it as a 'yard stick" for our arguments, but it seems that you syllabicated the words and came up with no definition at all.

Objective morality doesn't care who or what the subject of perspective is. So no, your accusations hold no bearing. Granted you were right, that would also make god irrelevant to the defintion of "objective morality" or I will accuse you of equating humans with god.

Nope. As I said, objective morality is for human beings; that there are universal principles which are true to all human sane beings such as killing an innocent life is wrong. So I am not equating human beings to God here, that's a far fetched theory.

On the other hand, you are the one who equated human beings to animal because you said that killing an innocent life is okay for the lions which totally ludicrous

Wrong. As I said, Pascal's Wager is based on hypothetical question. Anyone has the right to give defintion to what god would do. Don't you know the meaning of "What if"? "What if" nga eh tapos sasabihin mo mali. I hope you understand what "what if" means. No buts.

Im not objecting on the "what if" stuff, not at all. What I am objecting is the continuation of your "what if"

What makes your "what if" wrong is that you expect God to punish those who follow his will while saves those who belie him and his revelations - that what your "what if" wrong because it is illogical and irrational.

Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

I did not claim to know the truth, I presented evidences and have given logical arguments for the existence of God and Im consistent in my stand since the beginning.

Unlike you, on & off or "I dont know"

You cant be recorded to have won in a chess tournament without playing the white or black pieces my friend; you have to have a camp to defend.

Jewel wrote: you are the one arguing here without evidence and proof that is why when your argument is cornered your last resort is "i dont know". As for me I have presented at least 2 evidences from the very beginning, the inimitable quran and the unmatched legacy of Prophet Muhammad, so dont accuse me of something which is clearly false.

There are two options in this issue:

1. The universe does have a beginning

2. The universe doesnt have a beginning

Which of the tow options is your atheistic stand?

How many times I need to tell you that such thing is impossible to know. Get over it, you can never know at least yet. And you cannot force me to give answer to question I don't have an answer.

If you have answer to that question, you will defend it and accept all possible skepticism we will give into it.

This is not ME vs YOU. This is search for truth. I hope you understand. Now, if you're going to claim that there was no universe, prepare to prove and defend your arguments.

Saying "There was no universe before the Big Bang because the Qur'an says so" doesn't prove anything.

Jewel wrote:
That's ridiculous indeed and your answer as well because you can never arrive in to a correct answer if the question that you are trying to answer is in and of itself wrong.

My answer is correct. Whatever Jewel's birth date is, it is still within a specific time, and not outside time. Your analogy is in stark contrast with time not existing because there is no time that time is not existing, therefore time always exists and always means all the time. There's no such thing as before and after the time because before and after are still parts of the time because before and after still denote a part of the time! Otherwise you will need to prove how can a time be non-existent.

Time is part of the reality, you cannot remove it otherwise everything will be still and there will be no changes! You can't do anything! If you disagree to that, prove it and reason out. You say it is illogical for god to create stone that he cannot lift, but for you it is logical for god not to require time to make changes and create things! That is totally absurd, ridiculous, unrealistic and <insert synonyms here>.

Jewel wrote:I just did. read my response "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

Again, that is based on assumption that before there was no time and no universe. Before you can arrive in that conclusion, you will need to prove that there's an instance where was no time and no universe.

Jewel wrote:
I dont have to because I agree with that. What I said which you didnt seem to get is that God is not time bound because he is infinite while the creation is finite time bound because we do have the "before" and the "after" therefore we have a beginning. So if we have a beginning then answer this old question of mine "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

Again, that is based on assumption that before there was no time and no universe. Before you can arrive in that conclusion, you will need to prove that there's an instance where was no time and no universe.

Jewel wrote:
Hehehe, fantasy. The bottom line is that no sane theist agree on your definition of God, so you are clearly attacking a strawman because you are refuting something that we dont believe in

That is also strawman because you are refuting something that we also don't believe in.

Jewel wrote:
Same old question: "I was asking how did the it begin and what causes it to exist because everything that has a beginning must have a cause"

Again, that is based on assumption that before there was no time and no universe. Before you can arrive in that conclusion, you will need to prove that there's an instance where was no time and no universe.

Jewel wrote:
I dont think so. In fact the dilemma is on you if you insist that there is "before" in infinity. "before" indicates a beginning, a point in time, otherwise you cant ask about "before" if there is no beginning. Infinity means endless, wiout a beginning; consult Mr. Webster.

What I'm saying is there is no instance that there is no time, even if god exists. Otherwise he will not be able to make changes and make any creation because without time, it is impossible to move to the "after" and make history. It's like a snapshot, still, motionless, no changes. Doing anything REQUIRES time because anything you do creates history and makes changes. Once again, remember, time is the measure of change. If there's no time, then there is no change. Change is impossible without time because time is the measure of change! The idea of cause and effect is dependent on time, it doesn't apply to to time itself; time is uncaused! There couldn't be anything prior to time. It's like you want to have a "cause" and "effect" without time, which is irrational, illogical and absurd because "cause" needs to happen before the "effect". Sorry, I can't make it any simpler than that.

Jewel wrote:
it is not an invented answer my friend, it is a scriptural answer, it's not my own personal idea. That is why the Quran told us to use our rational thinking because people with intellect and open minded may reflect about God.

Don't expect me to believe in such claims. You haven't proven yet that there was an instance that there was no time and universe, let alone proving Qur'an as god's word.

Jewel wrote:
That's why I asked you the definition of objective morality so that we can use it as a 'yard stick" for our arguments, but it seems that you syllabicated the words and came up with no definition at all.

I already told you what "objective morality" is. It is a moral standards that is not based on conscious opinion or judgement. But of course that is impossible, therefore it cannot exist.

The only objective things in this world are those quantifiable. Like saying the tree is 3 meters tall, that is objective. Saying the tree is tall is subjective. In morality, you can never quantify it. You can only impose personal opinion or judgement. Regardless whose judgement that is, whether it is god's or a man's, it is still subjective! That is the bottom line.

Jewel wrote:
Nope. As I said, objective morality is for human beings; that there are universal principles which are true to all human sane beings such as killing an innocent life is wrong. So I am not equating human beings to God here, that's a far fetched theory.

On the other hand, you are the one who equated human beings to animal because you said that killing an innocent life is okay for the lions which totally ludicrous

Wrong. Objective morality is not only for human beings that is why we also have animal rights. And no, objective morality doesn't care who the subject is whose perspective are we talking about. It doesn't care! You are trying to invent your own meaning.

Jewel wrote:
Im not objecting on the "what if" stuff, not at all. What I am objecting is the continuation of your "what if"

What makes your "what if" wrong is that you expect God to punish those who follow his will while saves those who belie him and his revelations - that what your "what if" wrong because it is illogical and irrational.

Whether you like it or not, that is our version of our "what if". You cannot change it to the way you like it to be, that's our "wager" and not yours. It is our right to make our own hypothetical question. You see, we didn't object to your "what if" even if we don't agree or believe in it, but we also have our own "what if" and you don't need to agree to it. So yes, it applies to theists as well.

Islamic "what if": "What if Allah exists and he would punish those who doesn't believe?"

I don't agree to that but that is still a valid question. I can't say you cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

Christian "what if": "What if Jesus is god and he would punish those who doesn't believe?"

I don't agree to that but that is still a valid question. I can't say the Christians cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

Our "what if": "What if god only saves those who doesn't believe in books he put on earth and punish those who does?"

You dont' agree to that but that is still a valid question. You can't say you I cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

We're just even.

What if nga eh. It means something is taken or assumed to be true.

Jewel wrote:
Because you claim to know the truth without evidence and proofs. Unlike you, I am just humbling my self to say I don't know.

I did not claim to know the truth, I presented evidences and have given logical arguments for the existence of God and Im consistent in my stand since the beginning.

Unlike you, on & off or "I dont know"

You cant be recorded to have won in a chess tournament without playing the white or black pieces my friend; you have to have a camp to defend.

I told you this is not about me vs you. This is a search for truth. Search for truth is not complete without scrutiny. I am not here to propose a claim, I'm here to scrutinize your claims.

Once again, I am not here to propose a claim, I'm here to scrutinize your claims. Just in case you missed that one.

unrealdummy wrote:How many times I need to tell you that such thing is impossible to know. Get over it, you can never know at least yet. And you cannot force me to give answer to question I don't have an answer.

I am not forcing you to give an answer to it but you are obliged to give an answer because you are engaging against a stand of a theist. So if the theists say that the universe has a a cause therefore it has a beginning, dont argue with with that it is not true because you dont have a stand anyway right?

If you have answer to that question, you will defend it and accept all possible skepticism we will give into it.

Exactly, you have to defend it. Moreover, if will not answer it then that means that you dont have a clear stand, therefore you cant oppose the theists' argument simply because you dont have a team to coach so to speak.

This is not ME vs YOU. This is search for truth. I hope you understand. Now, if you're going to claim that there was no universe, prepare to prove and defend your arguments.

I never considered this confrontation/dialogue as between me and you, please take note on that. This is between theism and atheism. It just happened that I am representing theism and you for atheism - so dont take this personally.

Saying "There was no universe before the Big Bang because the Qur'an says so" doesn't prove anything.

This is only partially right because the arguments did not stop there. The main argument is that if the universe dont have a beginning then that means that we have an infinite history of the past which means that we cant exist today because no one can traverse the infinite. The fact that we exist here today indicates a finite history which means that the universe has a beginning, and if there is a beginning there must be a cause which in and of itself uncaused otherwise it would fall in to an infinite history of causes - that's the clear cut argument here.

My answer is correct. Whatever Jewel's birth date is, it is still within a specific time, and not outside time. Your analogy is in stark contrast with time not existing because there is no time that time is not existing, therefore time always exists and always means all the time. There's no such thing as before and after the time because before and after are still parts of the time because before and after still denote a part of the time! Otherwise you will need to prove how can a time be non-existent.

The point here is that you can never arrive/ give a correct answer to a given question if the question in and of itself is wrong, can you?

Time is part of the reality, you cannot remove it otherwise everything will be still and there will be no changes! You can't do anything! If you disagree to that, prove it and reason out. You say it is illogical for god to create stone that he cannot lift, but for you it is logical for god not to require time to make changes and create things! That is totally absurd, ridiculous, unrealistic and .

The first part is illogical because either answer contradicts God's attribute being the most powerful. The second part is wrong because I didnt say that it is illogical for God to require time to make changes - that's not my argument at all. In fact my argument has been that all creation of God are time-bound that is why they have the "before" and "after" and that their history of the past is finite. On the otherhand, God is not time-bound because he is infinite that is why it is illogical for anyone to ask what causes God to exist - so read and comprehend my arguments properly to avoid strawman.

Again, that is based on assumption that before there was no time and no universe. Before you can arrive in that conclusion, you will need to prove that there's an instance where was no time and no universe.

It is not an assumption, it is a logical argument being put forward, so refute it if you can.

That is also strawman because you are refuting something that we also don't believe in.

Im not the one refuting here, but you. You are the one refuting that God doesnt exist because you are not convinced of the evidences presented - so dont put your table upside down.

What I'm saying is there is no instance that there is no time, even if god exists. Otherwise he will not be able to make changes and make any creation because without time, it is impossible to move to the "after" and make history. It's like a snapshot, still, motionless, no changes. Doing anything REQUIRES time because anything you do creates history and makes changes

That is entirely wrong. And you are wrong because of your misconception about God. God is not time-bound because God is by definition infinite and absolute. It is God who created the "before" and the "after" so he is not bound by time.

On the other hand, i never said that God did not require time to make changes in his creation, in fact I am arguing that the creation is time bound therefore it requires time.

Once again, remember, time is the measure of change. If there's no time, then there is no change. Change is impossible without time because time is the measure of change! The idea of cause and effect is dependent on time, it doesn't apply to to time itself; time is uncaused! There couldn't be anything prior to time. It's like you want to have a "cause" and "effect" without time, which is irrational, illogical and absurd because "cause" needs to happen before the "effect". Sorry, I can't make it any simpler than that.

i agree, and that is my stand with regards to the creation. However that doesnt refute the argument that God is not caused by anything because he is infinite and not time bound -

so dont mix up God and his creation because you would be guilty of false comparison/equivocation because God is absolute and infinite while the creation is temporal and finite.

Don't expect me to believe in such claims. You haven't proven yet that there was an instance that there was no time and universe, let alone proving Qur'an as god's word.

Im not expecting you to believe it, im expecting you to refute it with logical answers not "I dont know" stuff. If you want to refute a claim, take your stand. You cant play a chess without using either of the pieces - it's either black or white.

I already told you what "objective morality" is. It is a moral standards that is not based on conscious opinion or judgement. But of course that is impossible, therefore it cannot exist.

And I have already told you it's meaning and explain its context which you ignored.

The only objective things in this world are those quantifiable. Like saying the tree is 3 meters tall, that is objective. Saying the tree is tall is subjective. In morality, you can never quantify it. You can only impose personal opinion or judgement. Regardless whose judgement that is, whether it is god's or a man's, it is still subjective! That is the bottom line.

..to which no sane person would ride because arguing whether a tree is tall or short doesnt involve morality at all - that illustration is far fetched.

Do you agree, as an atheist, that if someone raped your mother or sister or daughter, the rapist must be punished for the act which he did because it is wrong? For me, yes, how about you?

Wrong. Objective morality is not only for human beings that is why we also have animal rights. And no, objective morality doesn't care who the subject is whose perspective are we talking about. It doesn't care! You are trying to invent your own meaning.

Please give me a reference that objective morality applies also to animals. Someone is lying here just to deny the truth. Perhaps you would consider a son and his mother sexual relation to be right because animals are doing it

Whether you like it or not, that is our version of our "what if". You cannot change it to the way you like it to be, that's our "wager" and not yours. It is our right to make our own hypothetical question. You see, we didn't object to your "what if" even if we don't agree or believe in it, but we also have our own "what if" and you don't need to agree to it. So yes, it applies to theists as well.

The "what if" is only valid if the issue is not clear. You cant use "what if" if the issue is clear while maintaining rationality. You cant say "what if God will run away and never come back" where will he go?

Islamic "what if": "What if Allah exists and he would punish those who doesn't believe?"

Wrong, that is not the Islamic "what if" because in Islam there is no doubt in the existence of Allah - so your premise is incorrect and so your 'what if' in that issue.

I don't agree to that but that is still a valid question. I can't say you cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

Wrong, that is not the Islamic "what if" because in Islam there is no
doubt in the existence of Allah - so your premise is incorrect and so
your 'what if' in that issue.

Christian "what if": "What if Jesus is god and he would punish those who doesn't believe?"

That's a valid "what if" because Christians themselves are not unanimous about Jesus' divinity so they have the trinitarian and unitarian sects - the premise is correct so the"what if' is valid.

I don't agree to that but that is still a valid question. I can't say the Christians cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

That's a valid "what if" because Christians themselves are not unanimous
about Jesus' divinity so they have the trinitarian and unitarian sects -
the premise is correct so the"what if' is valid.

Our "what if": "What if god only saves those who doesn't believe in books he put on earth and punish those who does?"

Invalid "what if" because the premise is wrong about God because God has already said that he will punish those who disobey him and save those who obey him - so the issue is clear and therefore, there is no room for your 'what if" in this issue.

You dont' agree to that but that is still a valid question. You can't say you I cannot be right because "what if" implies the assumption to be true, regardless of its probability.

Invalid "what if" because the premise is wrong about God because God has
already said that he will punish those who disobey him and save those
who obey him - so the issue is clear and therefore, there is no room for
your 'what if" in this issue.

We're just even.

I dont think so. I dont consider a valid 'what if' the same with an invalid 'what if' - that is the same of saying that something is white and black both at the same time.

What if nga eh. It means something is taken or assumed to be true.

I dont think so. I dont consider a valid 'what if' the same with an
invalid 'what if' - that is the same of saying that something is white
and black both at the same time.

I told you this is not about me vs you. This is a search for truth. Search for truth is not complete without scrutiny. I am not here to propose a claim, I'm here to scrutinize your claims.

Once again, I am not here to propose a claim, I'm here to scrutinize your claims. Just in case you missed that one.

And by scrutinizing it you have to have a clear stand because I didnt find your stand to be clear and consistent.

I thot that i am the one here expected to say "I dont know" during scrutiny - to my surprise, the one who conducts the scrutiny is the one who said "I dont know" - very strange indeed