Atheism and Islam

Jewel wrote:
hmmm, i think i have a greater advantage here. I'll leave this one for the audience to judge.

It seems you don't have any counter argument. Are you now admitting that anyone can make any claims just like I did?

Jewel wrote:
Why cant you give your final answer?

Because unlike you, I am open to all other possibilities. That is why.

unrealdummy wrote:

It seems you don't have any counter argument. Are you now admitting that anyone can make any claims just like I did?

Nope because I have a greater advantage there. If you have a claim, I have mine too - 1-1, if your proof is your printed A-4 from this forum, I also have the same, can print mine too, still 1-1 - But I have an inimitable Quran, where is yours? That is 1-0 in favor of me - that's it

Because unlike you, I am open to all other possibilities. That is why.

Gotcha! antagonist, opposing just for the sake of opposing; there is really no real / better argument to offer

Jewel wrote:
Nope because I have a greater advantage there. If you have a claim, I have mine too - 1-1, if your proof is your printed A-4 from this forum, I also have the same, can print mine too, still 1-1 - But I have an inimitable Quran, where is yours? That is 1-0 in favor of me - that's it

My claim is inimitable. 1-1. You can never find a claim like it.

Gotcha! antagonist, opposing just for the sake of opposing; there is really no real / better argument to offer

And that is your opinion. Just admit that you're biased to your own probable offer because you're dismissing all the rest of possible answers.

I am open to all other possibilities and probabilities. But you are not. I guess from this standpoint, it is very clear who is being close-minded.

@ dummy.

I feel that the dialogue between you and I is becoming a joke. Would it be fair to you if we end up here and we'll let the people choose for themselves which argument here is heavier than the other?

I would like to open/welcome element-115x the floor again for him, and vril as well.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, much appreciated. We may have different positions but we are the same human being. I love you as a friend and a fellow human being.


Thanks.

Jewel wrote:

hmmm, i think i have a greater advantage here. I'll leave this one for the audience to judge.




Why cant you give your final answer? Say for example

" I would believe that there is God if such and such is presented otherwise I wont believe that there is God due to lack of evidence"

What do you think that evidence be that could make you convince that there is God? -- I dont know what English / sentence pattern should I make for you to understand what I mean. Dont make it so difficult for me because my English is very elementary.


Thanks

I think @unrealdummy's point is clear. Just think of it this way: what we have here is you as a 'believer' pointing 'painstakingly' to us skeptics a knowledge about God in this forum, (as what Mohammed did as he pointed out God to you and to others in a previous time frame)... but where is (the)God in all of these? Why can't it be made more obvious and compelling? Why the need to point it out?

As i understand it, to become a Muslim is not to be converted to it, but to 'reconvert' to it. The Fitrah concept is fine, so is the Atman concept of the Hindus, and probably many others similar to it... i've no problem accepting the idea of a rudimentary way humans have to connect or reconnect himself to a 'God', but only on Metaphysical considerations -- in short, only as how we thinking humans envision things to be. Reality may point otherwise.

element_115x wrote:I think @unrealdummy's point is clear.

Yes and No.

Yes it is clear that dummy's point is a mere claim and let me call it "doesnt make sense" at all.

The point here is not only the claim itself, not at all, because anybody could make any claim as he wishes. What matters is that is there an evidence of the claim, and is the evidence reliable, if yes how and why? - that's the point.

See his evidence for example "I will print an A4 size paper of my claim here in this forum as a physical evidence for my claim that there is a teacup in andromeda" - does that printed A4 paper prove his claim to be true, and is it reliable? - I dont really know how and why. Finally, does his claim make sense at all? I dont think so.


No, it is not clear because, his claim doesnt affect and is not important to people's lives both physical and spiritual, and it doesnt benefit to anyone except for the lunatics. Let's say there is a teacup in andromeda, so what, what does it benefit us, please tell me



On the otherhand, the Claim for the existence of God does not only save people's souls (spiritually) but also provides guidance to people's worldly affairs both personal and social - This one makes sense my friends.


Thanks.

Jewel wrote:

Yes and No.

Yes it is clear that dummy's point is a mere claim and let me call it "doesnt make sense" at all.

The point here is not only the claim itself, not at all, because anybody could make any claim as he wishes. What matters is that is there an evidence of the claim, and is the evidence reliable, if yes how and why? - that's the point.

See his evidence for example "I will print an A4 size paper of my claim here in this forum as a physical evidence for my claim that there is a teacup in andromeda" - does that printed A4 paper prove his claim to be true, and is it reliable? - I dont really know how and why. Finally, does his claim make sense at all? I dont think so.


No, it is not clear because, his claim doesnt affect and is not important to people's lives both physical and spiritual, and it doesnt benefit to anyone except for the lunatics. Let's say there is a teacup in andromeda, so what, what does it benefit us, please tell me



On the otherhand, the Claim for the existence of God does not only save people's souls (spiritually) but also provides guidance to people's worldly affairs both personal and social - This one makes sense my friends. Thanks.

He will have the printed version in A4 size paper of the teacup claim as 'the evidence'. That's a starting point. Later on, a 'Prophet' will claim that the teacup is the source of the morality, guidelines for living, etc... for our lives (without fully knowing yet if the source of wisdom could've originated from earlier civilizations to start with, etc... but you'd only consider that as an Argument from Silence without fully considering it's Abductive Reasoning potentials, anyway!, so what's the point, eh?)

We only have trouble 'relating' to the teacup because it's not anthropomorphic. But think of the tea cup as similar to the one in the animated Disney 'Beauty & The Beast'... it will all start to make sense now. Give it enough time and it will lead there.

element_115x wrote:
He will have the printed version in A4 size paper of the teacup claim as 'the evidence'. That's a starting point. Later on, a 'Prophet' will claim that the teacup is the source of the morality, guidelines for living, etc... for our lives (without fully knowing yet if the source of wisdom could've originated from earlier civilizations to start with, etc... but you'd only consider that as an Argument from Silence without fully considering it's Abductive Reasoning potentials, anyway!, so what's the point, eh?)

We only have trouble 'relating' to the teacup because it's not anthropomorphic. But think of the tea cup as similar to the one in the animated Disney 'Beauty & The Beast'... it will all start to make sense now. Give it enough time and it will lead there.

I like this part really.

A theist has his clear physical evidence and does make sense, while the atheists' side has their imaginary/hypothetical claims - wow, I thot it should have been the opposite.

Let the people weigh which side is heavier than the other.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:


I like this part really.

A theist has his clear physical evidence and does make sense, while the atheists' side has their imaginary/hypothetical claims - wow, I thot it should have been the opposite.

Let the people weigh which side is heavier than the other.


Thanks

We're only trying to relate with theists, with how they think and process things with the 'teacup' example. It was you who keeps insisting for evidence, right? So @unrealdummy gave you one. It's now only a matter for the printer to print the evidence, and for a Prophet to make the claims convincing.

element_115x wrote:We're only trying to relate with theists, with how they think and process things with the 'teacup' example. It was you who keeps insisting for evidence, right? So @unrealdummy gave you one. It's now only a matter for the printer to print the evidence, and for a Prophet to make the claims convincing.

I see. we can believe God without presenting scriptural evidence to atheists because we do have fitrah.


The reason why this evidence stuff is presented here by me is because I am dealing with atheists who believes the physical stuff (esp.).

What amazed me much is that what is expected from the atheists' side seems unmet, and merely hypothetical/imaginary evidences; where is the atheists' scientific approach now?

Jewel wrote:

I see. we can believe God without presenting scriptural evidence to atheists because we do have fitrah.


The reason why this evidence stuff is presented here by me is because I am dealing with atheists who believes the physical stuff (esp.).

What amazed me much is that what is expected from the atheists' side seems unmet, and merely hypothetical/imaginary evidences; where is the atheists' scientific approach now?

It's difficult to oppose Metaphysical stuff with rock-hard science -- well, for me at least. They're on different playing fields. Entirely different disciplines.

element_115x wrote:It's difficult to oppose Metaphysical stuff with rock-hard science -- well, for me at least. They're on different playing fields. Entirely different disciplines.

that's why I presented a physical one not just a mere emotional/imaginary/hypothetical claim because I am dealing with "scientific" people.

What we have instead is that the so-called "scientific" people presented an imaginary/hypothetical claim with a joke evidence, while the supposed metaphysical guy has presented a clear physical evidence that makes sense to people both spiritually and worldly.


This is really a big turn

Jewel wrote:

that's why I presented a physical one not just a mere emotional/imaginary/hypothetical claim because I am dealing with "scientific" people.

What we have instead is that the so-called "scientific" people presented an imaginary/hypothetical claim with a joke evidence, while the supposed metaphysical guy has presented a clear physical evidence that makes sense to people both spiritually and worldly.


This is really a big turn

With the TeaCup example, given enough time -- say thousands of years, the same dynamics that worked with your written Qur'an will work on it too. Like i said, it's now only a matter for a Prophet to make it convincing, by 'pointing out' to the people how they can see or experience the TeaCup God.

You should know, of course, that the crucial element here is the Prophet, because if non is available to play out as prophet, the written 'evidence' will be useless! And the best that can happen to it is for it to just become a literary masterpiece for all it's worth.

The Fitrah concept however, is independent from the written evidence, since it 'transcends' it. I have no arguments with the Fitrah.

element_115x wrote:With the TeaCup example, given enough time -- say thousands of years, the same dynamics that worked with your written Qur'an will work on it too. Like i said, it's now only a matter for a Prophet to make it convincing, by 'pointing out' to the people how they can see or experience the TeaCup God.

You should know, of course, that the crucial element here is the Prophet, because if non is available to play out as prophet, the written 'evidence' will be useless! And the best that can happen to it is for it to just become a literary masterpiece for all it's worth. The Fitrah concept however, is independent from the written evidence, since it 'transcends' it. I have no arguments with the Fitrah.

And I have presented Prophet Muhammad too, havent I? - The evidence must be practical otherwise it would be imaginary despite being written. Prophet Muhammad demonstrated the evidence how it is done. And I was asking, who could match the legacy of Prophet Muhammad? buddha, Jesus, Moses, Einstein, who? Bring them here one by one. The best Guidance is the guidance of Prophet Muhammad because it is complete and practical and logical, and moral - no person can match him, yet he humbled himself and live like any other ordinary man - Why was that?

Jewel wrote:

And I have presented Prophet Muhammad too, havent I? - The evidence must be practical otherwise it would be imaginary despite being written. Prophet Muhammad demonstrated the evidence how it is done. And I was asking, who could match the legacy of Prophet Muhammad? buddha, Jesus, Moses, Einstein, who? Bring them here one by one. The best Guidance is the guidance of Prophet Muhammad because it is complete and practical and logical, and moral - no person can match him, yet he humbled himself and live like any other ordinary man - Why was that?

I could've said Confucius with his Analects from the very start of this thread, or even the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna as told in the Bhagavad-Gita... but i dared not, since i was more interested in the evidence for God's existence than on any prophets' or gurus', or teachers' moral teachings. I'd rather this discussion focus on GOD, than on the wisdom of prophets that claims to come from God.

element_115x wrote:I could've said Confucius with his Analects from the very start of this thread, or even the dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna as told in the Bhagavad-Gita... but i dared not, since i was more interested in the evidence for God's existence than on any prophets' or gurus', or teachers' moral teachings. I'd rather this discussion focus on GOD, than on the wisdom of prophets that claims to come from God.

You didnt get the point friend. My claim about God's existence relies only on the evidences which I presented (The inimitable Quran with it's complete guidance to mankind both spiritual and worldly aspects, and the legacy of the recipient of the Quran who made himself as a practical example) - if my evidence is proven to be false, then my claim dies. That's it.

Okay bring Confucius here, arjuna, khrisna on after the other, we can start the comparison - you are very much welcome!



Thanks

Jewel wrote:

You didnt get the point friend. My claim about God's existence relies only on the evidences which I presented (The inimitable Quran with it's complete guidance to mankind both spiritual and worldly aspects, and the legacy of the recipient of the Quran who made himself as a practical example) - if my evidence is proven to be false, then my claim dies. That's it.

Okay bring Confucius here, arjuna, khrisna on after the other, we can start the comparison - you are very much welcome!
Thanks

Hahaha! Excited! But no, firstly because i'm not an expert on Confucius and the others, dapat yung adherents nila ang mag discuss about them, especially now that it's become a contest between the ancient WiseMen. I might not represent them accurately at baka magalit pa sila sa akin.

Like we keep saying, we need God to reveal itself to us 'firsthand'. Not thru second hand inference.

element_115x wrote:

Hahaha! Excited! But no, firstly because i'm not an expert on Confucius and the others, dapat yung adherents nila ang mag discuss about them, especially now that it's become a contest between the ancient WiseMen. I might not represent them accurately at baka magalit pa sila sa akin.

So your idea about those men are but mere presumptions (may be) because you dont really know them right? - Again, actual evidence cant be equated with a mere presumption/possibilities/imagination ect.

Like we keep saying, we need God to reveal itself to us 'firsthand'. Not thru second hand inference.

I have answered this long time ago, did you forget it?

moreover, I asked dummy for his criteria that would make him believe that there is God, but hey, he was so shy to say anything because he knows that his criteria would surely be refuted for being irrational and illogical.

Do you have your own criteria to give?

Jewel wrote:So your idea about those men are but mere presumptions (may be) because you dont really know them right? - Again, actual evidence cant be equated with a mere presumption/possibilities/imagination ect.

No, i'm not trying to Deify or romanticize on them or whatever. They were just plain Wise Men to me... i'm merely saying they have wise things to say about life in general and how to live it. Now, knowing how 'greater than or less than' they were as compared to the other is a trivial preoccupation IMO. If you feel that Mohammed tops them all, then fine. But i wouldn't be surprised by that, knowing that he came at a much later era.

Jewel wrote:I have answered this long time ago, did you forget it?
moreover, I asked dummy for his criteria that would make him believe that there is God, but hey, he was so shy to say anything because he knows that his criteria would surely be refuted for being irrational and illogical. Do you have your own criteria to give?

Oh yeah, i forgot, sorry hehe. As for criterias, i think i've given one already before... it has something to do with one definite God belief covering the entire human race, perfect and unified. And no need for prophets and books. For the sake of this argument, that's all i have to say about God's existence for now.

element_115x wrote:No, i'm not trying to Deify or romanticize on them or whatever. They were just plain Wise Men to me... i'm merely saying they have wise things to say about life in general and how to live it. Now, knowing how 'greater than or less than' they were as compared to the other is a trivial preoccupation IMO. If you feel that Mohammed tops them all, then fine. But i wouldn't be surprised by that, knowing that he came at a much later era.

Im not deifying Prophet Muhammad either; to do that would put me outside Islam. What we gonna do is to find out which of those wise men has the COMPLETE guidance for mankind in both physical and spiritual aspects, and which of them teaches a practical example for mankind.

The rationale here is that if there is a God who created all these stuff, He must have given us a complete guidance on what to do here, otherwise He cant blame anyone for not doing what he is supposed to do because he didnt know what to do in the first place.

Think of a factory owner; he has his new factory and he hires workers to work for his factory and he is the manager. Isnt it logical for the owner to give each worker his job description? What would happen if there is no Job description to every worker, where will they go, and what will they do? hhhmm obviously they will go to the canteen and take their meals and snacks - wOuld the factory be successful? Obviously not.

So if there is a God, he must have given us guidance as to what we are supposed to do here, and it must be complete and clear and practical. If a worker is given a clear job description but chooses not to do his job then he doesnt deserve to be paid (salary).

My argument here is not a blind belief because i am putting my model (Prophet Muhammad) in to scrutiny, so it is not a mere feeling, it is something that can be/is proven to be true or false.

And I am consistent to my stand whoever wants to dialogue with me. I can play the role of an atheist against any Christian, Buddhist, Hindus, ect. What I always do is to crutinize their proof, question their scriptures whether they are free of any error, and do they contain complete guidance for both wordly and spiritual aspect because if they dont comply on those things, I would not believe that they are worshiping the true God.

Try to see whether their doctrine is practical or a mere emotional theory, you'll know that their religion is false.

Thanks

Oh yeah, i forgot, sorry hehe. As for criterias, i think i've given one already before... it has something to do with one definite God belief covering the entire human race, perfect and unified. And no need for prophets and books. For the sake of this argument, that's all i have to say about God's existence for now.

I believe you didnt explain how is that possible, would you mind....?

Jewel wrote:
Im not deifying Prophet Muhammad either; to do that would put me outside Islam. What we gonna do is to find out which of those wise men has the COMPLETE guidance for mankind in both physical and spiritual aspects, and which of them teaches a practical example for mankind.

As i've said, i don't look at this as a contest between ancient WiseMen. I have no problem if you believe Mohammed is the best of the best. I cannot vouch for the others since i haven't even comprehensibly looked at what these Wisemen has to say, save for few 'one-liners' like what we see in greeting cards. If you want to push through with this, let's find a Hindu or a Confuscius expert (someone equivalent to you in terms of Mohammed) who knows their stuff.

Jewel wrote:The rationale here is that if there is a God who created all these stuff, He must have given us a complete guidance on what to do here, otherwise He cant blame anyone for not doing what he is supposed to do because he didnt know what to do in the first place.

Think of a factory owner; he has his new factory and he hires workers to work for his factory and he is the manager. Isnt it logical for the owner to give each worker his job description? What would happen if there is no Job description to every worker, where will they go, and what will they do? hhhmm obviously they will go to the canteen and take their meals and snacks - wOuld the factory be successful? Obviously not.

So if there is a God, he must have given us guidance as to what we are supposed to do here, and it must be complete and clear and practical. If a worker is given a clear job description but chooses not to do his job then he doesnt deserve to be paid (salary).

Like i said before, the Theistic conception of a God is limiting for me. A God who is into a quasi-Monarchial or Hierarchical structure (employer-employee/master-slave relationships) and a one that punishes and rewards, i mean.

Assuming i play along with the Islamic paradigm, i would 'again' only end up asking you:

"...so why is it that after so many thousands of years with such procedures for this God, why's it that the situation in our societies is still in a quagmire?"... "If this is a perfect/logical God we're talking about here, all humans on the planet would be perfectly united by now... even the nation where Mohammed lived is not a model worthy of admiration at all! Look how wasted the Holy Land is..."

I hope you see what i mean.

Jewel wrote:My argument here is not a blind belief because i am putting my model (Prophet Muhammad) in to scrutiny, so it is not a mere feeling, it is something that can be/is proven to be true or false.

Fine, if that's how you feel about the Prophet. I've no problem respecting you on that.

It's just that I'm more intent on finding out the 'results' of all what's claimed that originated from a certain God, if indeed a logical God is behind it all. So, is there a general sense of 'peace of mind' if one lives in an Islamic country? That's not even touching yet on how some believers even end up as extremists and terrorists, if indeed a logical God guides their beliefs.

Such are the things i'm intent on figuring out -- the resulting stuff (coz that's what will determine if indeed a Great Theistic God is behind it all). I don't care whether Mohammed or some other wise man did good with their job.

Maybe some other forumers here will feel obliged to do the 'Wise Men Litmus Test' with you. Not me.

Jewel wrote:And I am consistent to my stand whoever wants to dialogue with me. I can play the role of an atheist against any Christian, Buddhist, Hindus, ect. What I always do is to scrutinize their proof, question their scriptures whether they are free of any error, and do they contain complete guidance for both wordly and spiritual aspect because if they dont comply on those things, I would not believe that they are worshiping the true God.

Try to see whether their doctrine is practical or a mere emotional theory, you'll know that their religion is false.

Thanks

You know, I don't really care if certain people drink cow's piss, go around huge square stones, or walk on their knees in temples... or whether their religion is True or False, coz any expert on their field of interest can say that.

All i care about is whether what they're doing is good for everyone, the ecosystem and the general sense of happiness such things bring about.

Namaste!

Jewel wrote:"... it has something to do with one definite God belief covering the entire human race, perfect and unified. And no need for prophets and books. For the sake of this argument, that's all i have to say about God's existence for now..."

I believe you didnt explain how is that possible, would you mind....?

Definitely not through books and the use of middlemen. If a God is truly great, i'm sure He can cook up something more efficient.

element_115x wrote:

As i've said, i don't look at this as a contest between ancient WiseMen. I have no problem if you believe Mohammed is the best of the best. I cannot vouch for the others since i haven't even comprehensibly looked at what these Wisemen has to say, save for few 'one-liners' like what we see in greeting cards. If you want to push through with this, let's find a Hindu or a Confuscius expert (someone equivalent to you in terms of Mohammed) who knows their stuff.

It's not a matter of contest; it's a matter of verifying whether or not Prophet Muhammad is the best example for mankind because he taught us the complete way of life both spiritual and worldly aspects as God instructed him to do and convey as Islam claims. If this claim is proven false then Islam dies and the claim for the existence of God is false because the evidence presented is proven to be false.

Not unless the evidence is proven false, the claim is presumed true.

Like i said before, the Theistic conception of a God is limiting for me. A God who is into a quasi-Monarchial or Hierarchical structure (employer-employee/master-slave relationships) and a one that punishes and rewards, i mean.

Then would you please tell me what a God should be and why; im interested to know.

Assuming i play along with the Islamic paradigm, i would 'again' only end up asking you "...so why is it that after so many thousands of years with such procedures for this God, why's it that the situation in our societies is still in a quagmire?" If this is a perfect/logical God we're talking about here, all humans on the planet would be perfectly united by now... even the nation where Mohammed lived is not a model worthy of admiration at all! I hope you see what i mean.

I think I have answered this question before, but let me paraphrase it here:

This is because Allah never changes a favour which He has conferred upon
a people until they change their own condition -- and because Allah is
Hearing, Knowing 8:53

So the question has been addressed by God already. We are not supposed to ask God that question but to ourselves. What did we do with the blessings of God to us and how did we response to his message? Should we blame God for the willful disobedience of the people? Do we expect God to treat us like robots, or did we forget that he gave us free will?

Fine, if that's how you feel about the Prophet. I've no problem respecting you on that.

I repeat, it is not about feelings, it is about proving thru evidence. The evidence is put into open verification/scrutiny - prove it to be false.

It's just that I'm more intent on finding out the 'results' of all what's claimed that originated from a certain God, if indeed a logical God is behind it all. So, is there a general sense of 'peace of mind' if one lives in an Islamic country? That's not even touching yet on how some believers even end up as extremists and terrorists, if indeed a logical God guides their beliefs.

It is a misconception that once you become a muslim then you will be free of mistakes. In fact prophet Muhammad has already told us that this life is a strugle primarily against one's own desire (Jihaddun nafs). Know what God has to say about this:

Do people think they will be left alone after saying ‘We believe’ without being put to the test? 29:2

So, it is the people's conduct that made them what they are, so there is no blame for God....

Such are the things i'm intent on figuring out -- the resulting stuff (coz that's what will determine if indeed a Great Theistic God is behind it all). I don't care whether Mohammed or some other wise man did good with their job.

Maybe some other forumers here will feel obliged to do the 'Wise Men Litmus Test' with you. Not me.

answered above....

You know, I don't really care if certain people drink cow's piss, go around huge square stones, or walk on their knees in temples... or whether their religion is True or False, coz any expert on their field of expertise can say that.

All i care about is whether what their doing is good for everyone, the ecosystem and the general sense of happiness such things bring about.

Namaste!

Well, you dont judge them thru what the people do, but what the people should have done. Islam is a complete and universal religion, so it cares everything even the ecosystem, how about that?


Thanks

element_115x wrote:

Definitely not through books and the use of middlemen. If a God is truly great, i'm sure He can cook up something more efficient.

So tell me what would that more efficient strategy be. Hypothetical ideas again?....

Jewel wrote:It's not a matter of contest; it's a matter of verifying whether or not Prophet Muhammad is the best example for mankind because he taught us the complete way of life both spiritual and worldly aspects as God instructed him to do and convey as Islam claims. If this claim is proven false then Islam dies and the claim for the existence of God is false because the evidence presented is proven to be false. Not unless the evidence is proven false, the claim is presumed true.

Again, only the idea of the Theistic Allah God is at stake here. It is only the Prophet's claim about God that's contested here. The noteworthy aspects of the Qur'an as a guideline for good living (spiritually and worldly) can be viewed as separate from the claim of Allah's existence, as i said before.

For us, the Prophet's claim can be viewed as anecdotal... unless of course, other more compelling evidences for the god Allah (other than the Qur'anic claim) can be presented. The Qur'an may only prove that Mohammed is a very wise man. As i keep saying here.

With that the Qur'an doesn't fail if the God claim fails. It will remain as a literary masterpiece where values can be learned. Now i don't know if Islam as a religion will disintegrate entirely -- maybe just modified if only to save the valuable contents of the Qur'an.

Jewel wrote:Then would you please tell me what a God should be and why; im interested to know.

Theistic God needs to be qualified and quantified to convince skeptics. As to what? We can't definitely say -- (that's why you call it 'Argument from Silence). If it can't, then it's place is in the Metaphysical where there's no point arguing about it anymore, just accepting it as it is, and respecting believers' view about it.

Jewel wrote:I think I have answered this question before, but let me paraphrase it here:

This is because Allah never changes a favour which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition -- and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing 8:53

So the question has been addressed by God already. We are not supposed to ask God that question but to ourselves. What did we do with the blessings of God to us and how did we response to his message? Should we blame God for the willful disobedience of the people? Do we expect God to treat us like robots, or did we forget that he gave us free will?

Equivocation noted. Freewill seems to be a God's favorite cop out excuse. No offense.

Jewel wrote:I repeat, it is not about feelings, it is about proving thru evidence. The evidence is put into open verification/scrutiny - prove it to be false.

Noted.

Jewel wrote:It is a misconception that once you become a muslim then you will be free of mistakes. In fact prophet Muhammad has already told us that this life is a strugle primarily against one's own desire (Jihaddun nafs). Know what God has to say about this:

Do people think they will be left alone after saying ‘We believe’ without being put to the test? 29:2

So, it is the people's conduct that made them what they are, so there is no blame for God....

So in that case, what's makes a Muslim any different from ordinary people in this regard, discounting the fact that Muslims have the 'guidelines'?

Jewel wrote:Well, you dont judge them thru what the people do, but what the people should have done. Islam is a complete and universal religion, so it cares everything even the ecosystem, how about that?
Thanks

True, it's a universal religion, as you say. I'm not contesting that aspect anyway.

Namaste!