Islam Vs. Atheism Debate

Jewel wrote:
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?

I don't need to have a stance to scrutinize any claims. If there's something wrong with the claim, I'll scrutinize it. So no, taking a stance is not mandatory.

Jewel wrote:
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.

I am not presenting any claims here. You are the one who claims to know the answer, therefore you must carry the burden of defending your claim. I am only scrutinizing your claim. And once again, I don't need to take any stance, I simply scrutinize your claim. That's the bottom line.

Jewel wrote:
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.

Do you know why there could be an infinite history? Because time makes history infinitely. Time always passes by as it piles up the history endlessly. There's no time that it doesn't pile history. There's no end to it. So what about us? How did time manage to reach us if there's an infinite history? Remember that we are not located in "infinite" future, we are existing somewhere in definite specific future which is now. So it is not impossible for time to reach our existence. There's no such thing as infinite location, you may only approach infinite but you'll never arrive there because there's no end to it. If we are not in infinite future and time infinitely comes forward, therefore time will reach us eventually that's why we are here.

I hope that clears things up.

Jewel wrote:
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?

The reason your question has gone wrong is because of your false assumption that there was an instance that there is no time and no universe. Remove that claim and everything will be clearer. You're just adding complexity to the already complex problem. You're not helping at all.

Jewel wrote: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.

Not bad not bad, you're getting better at least. Ok, so god requires time to make changes after all. I'll take note of that.

Jewel wrote: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.

I ask you. Is there time before the creation?

Jewel wrote:

Code:

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.

So there's your answer, you believe that before the creation of the universe, there is no time. Nope, that doesn't sound logical. There could never be a "before the creation" if there is no time.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


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.

You said god is not time bound. I said no, that is not possible, no god can do that because if god is not time bound, his actions will have no order. He will not be able to do things in order like following a step by step instructional manual or whatever he had in mind in creating the universe perhaps. Everything he do will be chaotic, random and out of order. You just continued to insist on your definition of god and accuse me of refuting a god in which you don't believe in that cannot exist without time.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


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.

I'm not talking about your god here. What I'm talking about is time and its implication to any claims that there is a god. I'm not saying "Jewel, your god is time bound!", what I'm saying is "Jewel, your kind of god is impossible to exist because of blahblah. If you want to prove that he exists, first he must be consistent with the reality of time; he must be time bound."

Jewel wrote:
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.

Agree. Let's move on.

Jewel wrote:
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.[/b]

I disagree. Everything requires time even before the creation of the universe as I explained in my responses above.

Jewel wrote:
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 thought this is not me vs you? It seems you want it to be that way, just like in chess. You keep on accusing me of false comparison, why don't you look into yourself? This is not a chess where I take my stand and you take yours. You have claims, I'm here to see how it stand against my scrutiny and criticism. I don't need to take any stance to make any criticism and refutation.

Instead of comparing it to a chess, why don't you treat it as you are proposing a thesis and you are defending it against my scrutinity? That is more accurate comparison. I don't need to have a stance to look for any illogical fallacies or irrationalities in your claim.

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

The problem is you have your own definition of objective morality. For you objective means being biased in favor of the subject. In stark contrast of what objective means. Objective when combined with the word "morality" doesn't turn its meaning into a different meaning such as "subjective".

Jewel wrote:
..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.

We're not talking here just "morality" we're talking here "objective morality". Of course you will need to define first what "objective" means before you can even start defining what "objective morality" means.

Jewel wrote:
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?

Yes. But that is still "subjective morality". What about the early ages? Was incest wrong? No. See, morality changes over time. It is not fixed. It depends on the scenario and the subject's perspective that is why it will never be "objective".

Jewel wrote:
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

Of course, for me that is immoral. But that doesn't change the fact that my statement came from my own judgement and opinion. Therefore it is still subjective.

Jewel wrote:
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.

Of course only muslims will believe in that that is why we must "assume" it to be true by saying "what if" just to know what are the possible consequences. If nga eh. I can just say "you are wrong" too but that will defeat the purpose of granting the assumption to be true for the sake of argument. Don't you get it?

The bottom line is we could never come into an agreement that is why we are making the "what if" questions. You defeat the purpose of it you you're just going to say "you're wrong".

I don't need to explain the rest.

unrealdummy wrote:I don't need to have a stance to scrutinize any claims. If there's something wrong with the claim, I'll scrutinize it. So no, taking a stance is not mandatory.

I am not presenting any claims here. You are the one who claims to know the answer, therefore you must carry the burden of defending your claim. I am only scrutinizing your claim. And once again, I don't need to take any stance, I simply scrutinize your claim. That's the bottom line.

As usual, abandoning the post when get cornered. So what we have now is theism (Islam) against "I dont know" atheism.

Im wondering how can the "I dont know" refute something.

I cant refute on something without having a stand because how would you know whether you would agree or disagree if you dont have a stand? that's illogical.

Do you know why there could be an infinite history? Because time makes history infinitely. Time always passes by as it piles up the history endlessly. There's no time that it doesn't pile history. There's no end to it. So what about us? How did time manage to reach us if there's an infinite history? Remember that we are not located in "infinite" future, we are existing somewhere in definite specific future which is now. So it is not impossible for time to reach our existence. There's no such thing as infinite location, you may only approach infinite but you'll never arrive there because there's no end to it. If we are not in infinite future and time infinitely comes forward, therefore time will reach us eventually that's why we are here.

Evading the response: 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.

Do we really have an infinite history of the past or not? If yes, how did we traverse the infinite? If no, What cause us to exist?

That's the clear-cut point here. What do wanna say here, i dont know because you dont have a stand?

The reason your question has gone wrong is because of your false assumption that there was an instance that there is no time and no universe. Remove that claim and everything will be clearer. You're just adding complexity to the already complex problem. You're not helping at all.

The bottom line is that no one can give/arrive a correct answer to a certain question if the question in and of itself is wrong. The rest of the argument were already discussed.

Not bad not bad, you're getting better at least. Ok, so god requires time to make changes after all. I'll take note of that.

Changes, what changes? God doesnt change in anyway shape or form because that's the meaning of absolute, and God is absolute so he doesnt change. What requires time is the creation because the creation is time bound that is why there is before and after for the creation. but for God there is no such thing as before and after.

I ask you. Is there time before the creation?

Gotcha! Watta misconception hehehe. Are you assuming that in Islam time is not part of God's creation? Well you are absolutely wrong my dear hehehe

So there's your answer, you believe that before the creation of the universe, there is no time. Nope, that doesn't sound logical. There could never be a "before the creation" if there is no time.

Answered above; time is part of God's creation otherwise there will be two infinite stuff here

You said god is not time bound. I said no, that is not possible, no god can do that because if god is not time bound, his actions will have no order. He will not be able to do things in order like following a step by step instructional manual or whatever he had in mind in creating the universe perhaps. Everything he do will be chaotic, random and unordered. You just continued to insist on your definition of god and accuse me of refuting a god in which you don't believe in that cannot exist without time

.

Again, attacking strawman. Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound? - Redefining God for us will just deteriorate your points/argument.

I'm not talking about your god here. What I'm talking about is time and its implication to any claims that there is a god. I'm not saying "Jewel, your god is time bound!", what I'm saying is "Jewel, your kind of god is impossible to exist because of blahblah. If you want to prove that he exists, first he must be consistent with the reality of time; he must be time bound."

It's not my Islamic concept of God, it is the universal concept of God by all major religions of the world - "Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound?" so what God are you talking about then?

I disagree. Everything requires time even before the creation of the universe as I explained in my responses above

.

Wrong. God is not time bound so he is not covered by time ; Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound?

The problem is you have your own definition of objective morality. For you objective means being biased in favor of the subject. In stark contrast of what objective means. Objective when combined with the word "morality" doesn't turn its meaning into a different meaning such as "subjective".

Syllabicating the two words and formulate a new meaning doesnt really help you at all. define the term as it is.

We're not talking here just "morality" we're talking here "objective morality". Of course you will need to define first what "objective" means before you can even start defining what "objective morality" means.

define the term as it is. dont syllabicate so to speak.

What you are doing is separate the word objective from morality and the result is out of context definition. "objective means blablabla so you see it is subjective as to whether or not the tree is tall" --hehehhe what kind of argument is that my dear friend

Yes. But that is still "subjective morality". What about the early ages? Was incest wrong? No. See, morality changes over time. It is not fixed. It depends on the scenario and the subject's perspective that is why it will never be "objective".

Then produce a proof here that sane people of the past considered rape to be okay; im eager to know because i think it is a nonsense hypothetical assumption because even ordinary animals defend their young, let alone a sane person.

Of course, for me that is immoral. But that doesn't change the fact that my statement came from my own judgement and opinion. Therefore it is still subjective.

no it is not subjective because you and me, theist and atheist both consider it as wrong - that what makes it objective in that regard. all theists and sane atheists agree that it is wrong, then it is therefore objective.

Of course only muslims will believe in that that is why we must "assume" it to be true by saying "what if" just to know what are the possible consequences. If nga eh. I can just say "you are wrong" too but that will defeat the purpose of granting the assumption to be true for the sake of argument. Don't you get it?

So why did you cite Islam then? See the inconsistency? abandon post again.

The bottom line is we could never come into an agreement that is why we are making the "what if" questions. You defeat the purpose of it you you're just going to say "you're wrong".

As I said, the 'what if' stuff is not always applicable if the issue is already clear. You cant say "what if my mother is my sister biologically" because a mother is the one who gives birth to you while a sister does not and can not.

that's simple a very poor argument.

Jewel wrote:
Im wondering how can the "I dont know" refute something.

I cant refute on something without having a stand because how would you know whether you would agree or disagree if you dont have a stand? that's illogical.

Nope that is not illogical. Not because no one knows the answer, therefore whatever answer you make doesn't need any scrutiny. That's absurd. Anyone can scrutinize your claim without knowing the right answer. All we need is to spot irrationalities and fallacies in your claim. Spotting fallacies, flawed logic and irrationalities doesn't require any stance. That's it.

Jewel wrote:
Evading the response: 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.

Do we really have an infinite history of the past or not? If yes, how did we traverse the infinite? If no, What cause us to exist?

That's the clear-cut point here. What do wanna say here, i dont know because you dont have a stand?

Nope, are you even reading my responses? I said there's no such location as "infinite" but you can approach it endlessly. Our present time IS NOT located in "infinte". That is why eventhough time has an endless future and past, we are still reachable because we are located in a definite place of time.

You are mistaking the word infinite to some sort of a definite place of time which is a fallacy. You are trying to make infinite as something that is existing as objective reality which is not. Just like the number one, it doesn't exist as objective reality, it is a concept that counts an amount of an objective reality. There's no such thing as 1, but there could be 1 can of coke, 1 rabbit in 1 box.

Jewel wrote:Changes, what changes?

I'll ignore your remaining sentence in that paragraph. Let me clarify this. If god creates the universe, he is making a change. Don't you agree? If not, are you saying creating universe or not creating universe doesn't make any changes at all?

Jewel wrote:

Code:

I ask you. Is there time before the creation?

Gotcha! Watta misconception hehehe. Are you assuming that in Islam time is not part of God's creation? Well you are absolutely wrong my dear hehehe

I don't get you. That question is not rethorical question. I am asking you, was time already existing before the creation? It's ok if you answer yes, no, or I don't know. I am just clarifying what your claims are.

Jewel wrote:
Answered above; time is part of God's creation otherwise there will be two infinite stuff here

Jewel wrote:

Code:

You said god is not time bound. I said no, that is not possible, no god can do that because if god is not time bound, his actions will have no order. He will not be able to do things in order like following a step by step instructional manual or whatever he had in mind in creating the universe perhaps. Everything he do will be chaotic, random and unordered. You just continued to insist on your definition of god and accuse me of refuting a god in which you don't believe in that cannot exist without time

.

Again, attacking strawman. Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound? - Redefining God for us will just deteriorate your points/argument.

I am not redifining your god. I am sending you a strong message that your concept of god is IMPOSSIBLE. Go on and define what god is, but that won't prove anything if it contradicts reality. So much for avoiding my arguments.

Did time only started to exist during the creation? What about before creation? What does it look like before creation? Does "before creation" even exists? Please clarify your claim. Give more details, describe more what was there before the creation.

Jewel wrote:
It's not my Islamic concept of God, it is the universal concept of God by all major religions of the world - "Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound?" so what God are you talking about then?

As I said, I am not redifining your god. I am just saying your concept of god is impossible.

Jewel wrote:
Wrong. God is not time bound so he is not covered by time ; Can you cite for me a single reputable theologian agreeing with you that God is time bound?

Wow. Now that's where the problem is. I am not saying god is not time bound because that's my defintion of god or someone's defintion of god.

What I'm saying is, there's no such a thing that is not covered by time. No exceptions. If you want to make god an exception to the rule, then explain how is that possible. That's why I keep on asking you, if god is no covered by time, how does he do his things? Does he do it randomly without any order? Your definition of god makes him impossible!

Jewel wrote:
Syllabicating the two words and formulate a new meaning doesnt really help you at all. define the term as it is.

"Objective Morality" is a compound words. Therefore "objective morality" means a morality that is objective. Don't give it a different meaning. Syllabicating? Did I say "Objective Morality" is Ob + jec + tive + mo + ra + li + ty?

Jewel wrote:
Then produce a proof here that sane people of the past considered rape to be okay; im eager to know because i think it is a nonsense hypothetical assumption because even ordinary animals defend their young, let alone a sane person.

Now you're making insane people an exception. Well that proves not everyone will always agree. And nope. Not because everyone agrees therefore it is objective. It doesn't care if all agrees for there will always be someone out there, maybe not on earth, who will disagree. The point is, objective cannot come from a consciouse judgement or opinion. Well I disagree with your Qur'an, so that makes it not "objective". Do you agree? LOL

Jewel wrote:
As I said, the 'what if' stuff is not always applicable if the issue is already clear. You cant say "what if my mother is my sister biologically" because a mother is the one who gives birth to you while a sister does not and can not.

That's what you call false comparison. Religions cannot be confirmed and are not clear that's why we are divided and cannot come into agreement.

And yeah, that is false assumption. Already clear? What? That you're right and we are wrong?

unrealdummy wrote:

Nope that is not illogical. Not because no one knows the answer, therefore whatever answer you make doesn't need any scrutiny. That's absurd. Anyone can scrutinize your claim without knowing the right answer. All we need is to spot irrationalities and fallacies in your claim. Spotting fallacies, flawed logic and irrationalities doesn't require any stance. That's it.

That is indeed illogical because you cant judge something to be right or wrong without a criterion/criteria. "Mr. X is wrong because I dont know" hehehe

Nope, are you even reading my responses? I said there's no such location as "infinite" but you can approach it endlessly. Our present time IS NOT located in "infinte". That is why eventhough time has an endless future and past, we are still reachable because we are located in a definite place of time.

You are going back to your old problem. You keep on insisting that the hsitory of the past is infinite yet you cant explain how did we traverse the infinite which is endless - I know what you'll say " i dont know" right?

You are mistaking the word infinite to some sort of a definite place of time which is a fallacy. You are trying to make infinite as something that is existing as objective reality which is not. Just like the number one, it doesn't exist as objective reality, it is a concept that counts an amount of an objective reality. There's no such thing as 1, but there could be 1 can of coke, 1 rabbit in 1 box.

Not at all. What we mean by infinite is endless, no point of origin or no origin at all. So if you say that the history of the past is infinite that means that there is no explanation on how did we exist today because you cant traverse the infinity. We are talking of infinite time here my dear

I don't get you. That question is not rethorical question. I am asking you, was time already existing before the creation? It's ok if you answer yes, no, or I don't know. I am just clarifying what your claims are.

And my answer was clear; your question is wrong because you presumed that time is not part of the creation of God which is not my dear.

I am not redifining your god. I am sending you a strong message that your concept of god is IMPOSSIBLE. Go on and define what god is, but that won't prove anything if it contradicts reality. So much for avoiding my arguments.

So why cant you cite for me a reputable theologian who agrees with you that God is time-bound? If you cant give/cite any, then you are really redefining God for us because that is not what we mean by God. So produce your witness here,

Did time only started to exist during the creation? What about before creation? What does it look like before creation? Does "before creation" even exists? Please clarify your claim. Give more details, describe more what was there before the creation.

You did good; clarify first in order to avoid strawman and or misconception.

Before the creation was nothing but God alone, and that is the unanimous view of all major religions of the world because God is the source of all. That's why in Islam we say "inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun" (from God we came from and to God we will surely return"

When God started to make the creation, with it, time started, and that's the reason why the creation is time bound because they existed within the scope of time, and that explains why we exist here today.

Is that clear now?

As I said, I am not redifining your god. I am just saying your concept of god is impossible.

Well, it is impossible for you because you dont believe in God in the first place, but if you are going to understand what God really is according to how he is defined and not how you define him, then it is not impossible.

Wow. Now that's where the problem is. I am not saying god is not time bound because that's my defintion of god or someone's defintion of god.

What I'm saying is, there's no such a thing that is not covered by time. No exceptions. If you want to make god an exception to the rule, then explain how is that possible. That's why I keep on asking you, if god is no covered by time, how does he do his things? Does he do it randomly without any order? Your definition of god makes him impossible!

read my response above as to how God created the creation and why is it that God is not time bound.

"Objective Morality" is a compound words. Therefore "objective morality" means a morality that is objective. Don't give it a different meaning. Syllabicating? Did I say "Objective Morality" is Ob + jec + tive + mo + ra + li + ty?

Wow! watta literal interpretation hehehhe. Syllabicating in that context mean separating, putting apart the two words which has only one meaning. Hahaha, i remembered my classmates in English in high school because of you heheheh

Now you're making insane people an exception. Well that proves not everyone will always agree.

Of course I do! How about you, do you equate yourself to an insane person, please tell me so I can deal with you accordingly

And nope. Not because everyone agrees therefore it is objective. It doesn't care if all agrees for there will always be someone out there, maybe not on earth, who will disagree.

An alien may be? heheheh watta dream! Final fantasy!

Even if I agree with your fantasy about aliens, still, you argument is based on silence.

Objective morality for aliens? Oh boy...

The point is, objective cannot come from a consciouse judgement or opinion. Well I disagree with your Qur'an, so that makes it not "objective". Do you agree? LOL

Did I say that the Quran is an example of objective morality? You are making your own ghost here my friend.

What I said was that both theists and atheists agree that raping is wrong therefore it is an example of objective morality. we are not talking washy wishy stuff here, we are talking about morality (what is right and what is wrong)
So dont mix up stuff here so you'll not end up with a very illogical presumption/conclusion.

That's what you call false comparison. Religions cannot be confirmed and are not clear that's why we are divided and cannot come into agreement.

Wrong idea. I never said that all religions are confirmed to have identical teachings. What I clearly said was that there are things that are unanimously agreed to be good, and evil by both theists and atheists - this stuff is called objective morality. Example:

Rape is evil - agreed upon by theists and atheist

Helping the needy is good - agreed upon by theists and atheist

And yeah, that is false assumption. Already clear? What? That you're right and we are wrong?

If you say that rape is good instead of evil because you want to deny the existence of objective morality, then you are 100% wrong because no person would agree on you except a psycho. Is that clear?

Jewel wrote:
That is indeed illogical because you cant judge something to be right or wrong without a criterion/criteria. "Mr. X is wrong because I dont know" hehehe

False comparison. Of course I know logic, I know what a fallacy is, I know if you didn't present any evidence. I may not have the answer but I can still detect fallacies, contradictions and irrationalities to any claim. I can also spot if your evidence is not sufficient. For example, you claim that somebody stolen your wallet but you don't have an evidence for it, of course, I don't need to know what really happened to dismiss your case. All I need to know is to analyze your reasoning and evidence. Simple yet I don't know why you don't get the idea.

Jewel wrote:You are going back to your old problem. You keep on insisting that the hsitory of the past is infinite yet you cant explain how did we traverse the infinite which is endless - I know what you'll say " i dont know" right?

What I don't know is what lies beyond the big bang. If the universe and time has a beginning or not. Not because I don't know the answer doesn't mean your answer is correct. It doesn't follow, non-sequitur. In fact I disagree with yours too. You know why? Because such thing is impossible to know that is why we can never come to a correct answer at least yet. You are not solving the problem if you're going to answer it while introducing another set of more complex problem. Scientists of today are humble enough not to claim they know what lies beyond the big bang. What about you? Sometimes it is better to admit you don't know to make things simpler.

You are appealing to the god of the gaps. Nothing like because we don't know how lightning existed, therefore it must be god or Zues that created such things.

Traverse the infinite? As I said, we are not in "infinite future". We are in definite location in time. There's no such place as "infinite", you may only approach it endlessly. If time passes by infinitely, therefore it will reach us eventually. The only thing the time cannot reach is the infinity itself because it can only approach it.

Jewel wrote:
Not at all. What we mean by infinite is endless, no point of origin or no origin at all. So if you say that the history of the past is infinite that means that there is no explanation on how did we exist today because you cant traverse the infinity. We are talking of infinite time here my dear

I already told you that time passes by infinitely. Our time is in definite time and not in infinite time. If time passes by infinitely, therefore it can traverse infinitely to the future, therefore it can reach us because we are not in an infinite future. What time cannot reach is the point of infinity itself because it simply never ends. It can only approach infinity but not reach it. We are not in infinity, therefore if time passes by infinitely, it will eventually reach us.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

I don't get you. That question is not rethorical question. I am asking you, was time already existing before the creation? It's ok if you answer yes, no, or I don't know. I am just clarifying what your claims are.

And my answer was clear; your question is wrong because you presumed that time is not part of the creation of God which is not my dear.

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Is there an instance where there is no creation? At that instance, what is happening? What is the state of everything? Please describe that instance in great detail.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

I am not redifining your god. I am sending you a strong message that your concept of god is IMPOSSIBLE. Go on and define what god is, but that won't prove anything if it contradicts reality. So much for avoiding my arguments.

So why cant you cite for me a reputable theologian who agrees with you that God is time-bound? If you cant give/cite any, then you are really redefining God for us because that is not what we mean by God. So produce your witness here,

If you continue to insist that god is time bound, I will be forced to make conclusion that your god is impossible to exist. To exist means to be inside the time.

And nope. I don't need to cite any theologian because I am not saying what god is supposed to be. What I am saying is your god is impossible. It's like you're saying is your circle is a square, I am just saying your circle is impossible or doesn't exist if that is your definition of circle.

Jewel wrote:
Before the creation was nothing but God alone, and that is the unanimous view of all major religions of the world because God is the source of all. That's why in Islam we say "inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun" (from God we came from and to God we will surely return"

When God started to make the creation, with it, time started, and that's the reason why the creation is time bound because they existed within the scope of time, and that explains why we exist here today.

Is that clear now?

So basically you're saying is, before creation, there's nothing not even time. Correct? Therefore there was an instance where there is no time? Right?

Jewel wrote:Well, it is impossible for you because you dont believe in God in the first place, but if you are going to understand what God really is according to how he is defined and not how you define him, then it is not impossible.

Nope, what I don't believe in is the claim that there was an instance where there is no time. Your definition of god happens to contradict that reality. So I have no choice but to disbelieve in your claim or to disbelieve in your definition of god.

Jewel wrote:
read my response above as to how God created the creation and why is it that God is not time bound.

This is getting a bit tiring doesn't it?

Jewel wrote:
Wow! watta literal interpretation hehehhe. Syllabicating in that context mean separating, putting apart the two words which has only one meaning. Hahaha, i remembered my classmates in English in high school because of you heheheh

lol haha really? He must be handsome too hahaha.

First of all, I don't think you can find the word "objective morality" as one word in any reputable dictionary such as Meriam Webster. It is really a compound word and not treated as one word. We would never be in agreement on this anyways, so lets drop this part.

Jewel wrote:
Of course I do! How about you, do you equate yourself to an insane person, please tell me so I can deal with you accordingly

Of course not. But of course if anything immoral today becomes morally acceptable tomorrow, then that is not anymore objective. Saying something is objective morality is like saying it could never change. Nobody knows the future. Anything could happen just like incest were OK yesterday but not today.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

And nope. Not because everyone agrees therefore it is objective. It doesn't care if all agrees for there will always be someone out there, maybe not on earth, who will disagree.

An alien may be? heheheh watta dream! Final fantasy!

Nevertheless, you can't remove that possibility

Jewel wrote:
Objective morality for aliens? Oh boy...

Nope of course not. As I said, I don't believe in existence of objective morality because everyone has different opinion and different judgement. Whether it came from us or aliens, that becomes irrelevant. As long as it came from somebody's judgement/opinion, it will remain subjective.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

The point is, objective cannot come from a consciouse judgement or opinion. Well I disagree with your Qur'an, so that makes it not "objective". Do you agree? LOL

Did I say that the Quran is an example of objective morality? You are making your own ghost here my friend.

Really? So you believe Qur'an is not the source of objective morality? Thanks for clarifying.

Jewel wrote:
What I said was that both theists and atheists agree that raping is wrong therefore it is an example of objective morality. we are not talking washy wishy stuff here, we are talking about morality (what is right and what is wrong)
So dont mix up stuff here so you'll not end up with a very illogical presumption/conclusion.

As I said it may be wrong for us, but it might be right during the old ages of maybe in the future. Who knows. Then again, it doesn't care whose perspective that is or whether all the subjects agree. All it cares is whether the source is using personal judgment/opinion or not. If it uses personal judgement/opinion, then it is not objective.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

And yeah, that is false assumption. Already clear? What? That you're right and we are wrong?

If you say that rape is good instead of evil because you want to deny the existence of objective morality, then you are 100% wrong because no person would agree on you except a psycho. Is that clear?

Wrong send ka ata. I think what we were talking in this part was about the "what if" scenarios.

If I am not able to respond anymore, it means my hands are full again you really made me busy these days LOL

What a stressful day today

unrealdummy wrote: False comparison. Of course I know logic, I know what a fallacy is, I know if you didn't present any evidence. I may not have the answer but I can still detect fallacies, contradictions and irrationalities to any claim. I can also spot if your evidence is not sufficient. For example, you claim that somebody stolen your wallet but you don't have an evidence for it, of course, I don't need to know what really happened to dismiss your case. All I need to know is to analyze your reasoning and evidence. Simple yet I don't know why you don't get the idea.

False comparison? where is the comparison which i made? hehehe. May be what you mean is false or wrong analysis instead of wrong comparison by i did no comparison in my last response to this particular point.

Anyway, I still dont understand how a matter is decided to be right or wrong with out an agreed criterion/criteria, otherwise what you are calling as your logic is a mere subjective stuff. Your example is correct in that specific point but it doesnt apply to the claim presented here, so how does that work? That's the false comparison there.

What I don't know is what lies beyond the big bang. If the universe and time has a beginning or not. Not because I don't know the answer doesn't mean your answer is correct. It doesn't follow, non-sequitur. In fact I disagree with yours too. You know why? Because such thing is impossible to know that is why we can never come to a correct answer at least yet. You are not solving the problem if you're going to answer it while introducing another set of more complex problem. Scientists of today are humble enough not to claim they know what lies beyond the big bang. What about you? Sometimes it is better to admit you don't know to make things simpler.

Even if you do know, still the question remains the same, was there a cause of that stuff, because if there is then the cause of that stuff, and so on ad infinitum -which means endless, thus no beginning, therefore no explanation on how did we exist today - still no escape for your argument my dear.

You are appealing to the god of the gaps. Nothing like because we don't know how lightning existed, therefore it must be god or Zues that created such things.

No not the God of the gaps but the God of all that exist; the cause of our finite existence today. You dont know how lightning existed, then that's your problem because for us we know how lightning existed - so that is an argument from ignorance. That is why the Quran says that ask those who know for the things which you dont know.

Traverse the infinite? As I said, we are not in "infinite future". We are in definite location in time. There's no such place as "infinite", you may only approach it endlessly. If time passes by infinitely, therefore it will reach us eventually. The only thing the time cannot reach is the infinity itself because it can only approach it.

tsek, tsek, tsek! I was clearly talking about an infinite history of the past, how did you get confused with it?

I'll repeat it to you once more: If the history of the past is infinite, then we cant exist today because you cant traverse the infinity simply because infinity means endless. So if you go back to the past how are you gonna reach today if the time that you need to pass through is infinite? - is that clear?

So my logical argument in this regard is that the history of the past is NOT infinite, it is in fact finite, and that explains our existence today because if the time is finite it means it is limited and therefore can be passed through.

Do you still need further elaboration on that?

I already told you that time passes by infinitely. Our time is in definite time and not in infinite time. If time passes by infinitely, therefore it can traverse infinitely to the future, therefore it can reach us because we are not in an infinite future. What time cannot reach is the point of infinity itself because it simply never ends. It can only approach infinity but not reach it. We are not in infinity, therefore if time passes by infinitely, it will eventually reach us.

Watta mess! Read my response above regarding infinite history of the past. From past---to---present. If you are in the past, how are you gonna reach the present if the time that you are going to pass through is endless? That is what you need to understand and answer.

Moreover, you cant have infinite time and finite time both at the same time because infinite means endless or unlimited while finite means having an end or limited - you cant have unlimited yet limited both at the same time - It's simply illogical.

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Is there an instance where there is no creation? At that instance, what is happening? What is the state of everything? Please describe that instance in great detail

.

I dont know!!! ..just joking. Yes of course! since the creation is finite then it is logical to assume that the "before" of it is okay. What was happening before the creation? It was nothing but God alone. is that clear now?

If you continue to insist that god is time bound, I will be forced to make conclusion that your god is impossible to exist. To exist means to be inside the time.

Where did I say that God is time bound? That's totally a false allegation! What have been saying many many times is that God is NOT time bound.

And nope. I don't need to cite any theologian because I am not saying what god is supposed to be. What I am saying is your god is impossible. It's like you're saying is your circle is a square, I am just saying your circle is impossible or doesn't exist if that is your definition of circle.

gotcha! so you are now admitting that you are redefinig God for us which you consistently denied before. See, no theologian would agree on your concept of God because that is not what we mean by God. So dont make another concept about God and attack it because you are attacking a strawman my friend.

So basically you're saying is, before creation, there's nothing not even time. Correct? Therefore there was an instance where there is no time? Right?

If there was no time, then how could a question of "instance" arise? - that's illogical because it is self contradictory because an instance indicates time.

So, before the creation, there was no measure of time because there was nothing except God alone.

Nope, what I don't believe in is the claim that there was an instance where there is no time. Your definition of god happens to contradict that reality. So I have no choice but to disbelieve in your claim or to disbelieve in your definition of god.

That's because you want to equate God with the creation; that make's your concept totally false. God is infinite while the creation is finite, so how are they be equated? illogical indeed!

This is getting a bit tiring doesn't it?

I think so because you are making your own definition of God which you seem to admit that no theologian agrees on you. I believe that my concept of God is the correct one because all theists, let alone theologians, agree on me that God is not time bound. If you insist that God is time bound, then that is your god, but that is not our God, so you'll be attacking a strawman.

lol haha really? He must be handsome too hahaha.

First of all, I don't think you can find the word "objective morality" as one word in any reputable dictionary such as Meriam Webster. It is really a compound word and not treated as one word. We would never be in agreement on this anyways, so lets drop this part.

Who told you that you should consult the dictionary for that term? I think you consulted a pediatrician for the illness of your grand mother - pediatricians are for children my friend.

here is the one which I gave you before:

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.

and you did agree with me that raping is evil though you are an atheist.

Of course not. But of course if anything immoral today becomes morally acceptable tomorrow, then that is not anymore objective. Saying something is objective morality is like saying it could never change. Nobody knows the future. Anything could happen just like incest were OK yesterday but not today.

See, you are agreeing with me that it is illogical for you to equate an insane person to a sane person - so where is your consistency? isnt that inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument?

Moreover, you are seem to be be confused with objective morality with absolute morality - I think you need some kinda research on the difference between the two because they are not the same banana my dear.

Nevertheless, you can't remove that possibility

hehehe, alien objective morality? are you fond of watching sci-fi movies?? Well, it's entertaining but you dont bring them up in this kinda discussion my dear, people will laugh at you.

Nope of course not. As I said, I don't believe in existence of objective morality because everyone has different opinion and different judgement. Whether it came from us or aliens, that becomes irrelevant. As long as it came from somebody's judgement/opinion, it will remain subjective.

It is not about anyone's opinion my dear. It is something to do with an idea or principle about what is right and what is wrong which is agreed universally.

Whose idea is it that raping or killing an innocent life is wrong or evil, and helping the needy is good? We say, we dont really know, unless you know, but we agree to that idea or principle to be correct, and I think you too agree on it before to be correct - so that is what we mean by objective morality.

gets?

Really? So you believe Qur'an is not the source of objective morality? Thanks for clarifying.

Ignorance makes people commit errors hehhee.

I did not say that I believe that the Quran is not the source of of objective morality, did I, I wanna see where?

What I said was that I did not use the Quran as an example of objective morality because in it are legal system, theology, etc, and moral values. It's moral values can be cited as objective morality; as a matter of fact, the idea that raping and killing is evil while helping the needy is good is one of the central teaching of the Quran. So what do you do with the legal system, its theology, is that part of morality?

As I said it may be wrong for us, but it might be right during the old ages of maybe in the future. Who knows. Then again, it doesn't care whose perspective that is or whether all the subjects agree. All it cares is whether the source is using personal judgment/opinion or not. If it uses personal judgement/opinion, then it is not objective.

Judge only what has been presented. Dont rely on may "be my" friend because "may be" approach will lead you to nowhere because you can say may be until you die so what judgment would you be able to make?

You can say to yourself "may be I am a girl". What you gonna do is look at the evidences; example, penis. If you see it, DONT say "may be this penis of mine will become a vulva in the future" because you'll get crazy on your endless "may be".

Wrong send ka ata. I think what we were talking in this part was about the "what if" scenarios.

Im fully aware about this point and my response was very related about the "what if" issue; I elaborated it to you by clear example which you didnt seem to get hehehe.

If I am not able to respond anymore, it means my hands are full again you really made me busy these days LOL

What a stressful day today

Dont worry, you can come back anytime my dear, take your time, prioritize the most important stuff (oh is that an objective ethics? hehhe

Take your time brother. I'll pray that God will guide you.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:
False comparison? where is the comparison which i made? hehehe. May be what you mean is false or wrong analysis instead of wrong comparison by i did no comparison in my last response to this particular point.

Didn't you say on your previous post that I sound like "Mr. X is wrong because I dont know". That's clearly a false comparison. I am not arguing that your case is dismissed because I don't know the answer. I am merely saying you don't have sufficient evidence and your logic has flaws that is why I am dismissing your case you're trying to prove.

Jewel wrote:
Even if you do know, still the question remains the same, was there a cause of that stuff, because if there is then the cause of that stuff, and so on ad infinitum -which means endless, thus no beginning, therefore no explanation on how did we exist today - still no escape for your argument my dear.

That is clearly an appeal to god of the gaps. Because nobody could explain things then therefore the most convenient answer is god did it. Great.

I'm going to ask you this then. What caused your god to create the universe? See, you're still in ad infinitum. Don't tell me your god created the universe out of no reason without cause without thinking without any sense. You still have a problem to solve.

Jewel wrote:

I'll repeat it to you once more: If the history of the past is infinite, then we cant exist today because you cant traverse the infinity simply because infinity means endless. So if you go back to the past how are you gonna reach today if the time that you need to pass through is infinite? - is that clear?

Simple answer. Because time progresses infinitely. There's nothing time cannot reach because it infinitely progresses. If time progresses infinitely there's nothing time cannot reach even if time has infinite history.

Jewel wrote:

Watta mess! Read my response above regarding infinite history of the past. From past---to---present. If you are in the past, how are you gonna reach the present if the time that you are going to pass through is endless? That is what you need to understand and answer.

Again, because time progresses infinitely, there's nothing time cannot reach even if time has infinite history.

Jewel wrote:


Where did I say that God is time bound? That's totally a false allegation! What have been saying many many times is that God is NOT time bound.

Of course that is typographical error. What I meant is if you continue to insist that "god is not time bound", then I will be forced to make conclusion that it is impossible for your god to exist. Because clearly I don't believe that someone can exist outside the time. Because without time, that someone cannot do things in an orderly and chronological fashion. You can't do any task that needs to be done in order. You can't even think in an orderly fashion without time. It will be chaos without time.

Jewel wrote:
gotcha! so you are now admitting that you are redefinig God for us which you consistently denied before. See, no theologian would agree on your concept of God because that is not what we mean by God. So dont make another concept about God and attack it because you are attacking a strawman my friend.

To make things short and clear you're saying that god is not time bound. What I'm saying is that, that is impossible. Prove that it is possible.

Jewel wrote:
So, before the creation, there was no measure of time because there was nothing except God alone.

Prove it. And also explain what caused your god to ceate time. Explain step by step how god created the time and the universe. Explain step by step how did god come up with an idea to create the universe. Explain what caused god to come up with an idea to create the universe and what caused the cause of it. I bet you cannot explain it in orderly fashion because you can't even use any indicators of time to indicate what happened first before the other what is the cause of the other, etc. That is a big mess you've got there. It's like trying to explain how to make a pizza without order of time. That's a major major problem I think.

Let's cut it this short for the mean time.

Didn't you say on your previous post that I sound like "Mr. X is wrong
because I dont know". That's clearly a false comparison. I am not
arguing that your case is dismissed because I don't know the answer. I
am merely saying you don't have sufficient evidence and your logic has
flaws that is why I am dismissing your case you're trying to prove.

So it is not a comparison, it's an analogy.

That's why Im asking you what would make you believe that there is God, what evidence do you need to know? I gave you the Quran which strongly emphasizes the existence of God because it cant be made by anyone other than God, plus the legacy of prophet Muhammad which no human being could match - What else do you need to know/see?

You may keep on saying "Im not convinced" but how does that refute my argument, especially billions of people do believe in God? - See the point now?

That is clearly an appeal to god of the gaps. Because nobody could
explain things then therefore the most convenient answer is god did it.
Great.

Not an appeal really, but it is the most logical answer in this point, plus the Quran, Plus the Prophets of old, esp. Prophet Muhammad.

So it doesnt simply end up with "may be there's God" in order to fill the "gap" but more importantly, it has irrefutable and unmatched evidences.

I'm going to ask you this then. What caused your god to create the
universe? See, you're still in ad infinitum. Don't tell me your god
created the universe out of no reason without cause without thinking
without any sense. You still have a problem to solve.

That's simple question. God created the universe, with of course purpose, and that is to worship/glorify him, for example surah 23:115, and many others. So it is not a problem for us my dear - what made you think that it is a problem for us?

Simple answer. Because time progresses infinitely. There's nothing time
cannot reach because it infinitely progresses. If time progresses
infinitely there's nothing time cannot reach even if time has infinite
history.

It's not a simple answer, it's an answer out of the blue so to speak. I was asking the past history to present - how would it be possible to reach to the present if the time to pass through from the past is infinite/endless? - That is what you need to answer my dear.

Of course that is typographical error. What I meant is if you
continue to insist that "god is not time bound", then I will be forced
to make conclusion that it is impossible for your god to exist. Because
clearly I don't believe that someone can exist outside the time. Because
without time, that someone cannot do things in an orderly and
chronological fashion. You can't do any task that needs to be done in
order. You can't even think in an orderly fashion without time. It will
be chaos without time.

Typo error? okay fine.

The creation is time bound simply because their existence have a beginning. BuT God is not created, so he is not time bound therefore time is not needed for his existence, as simple as that my dear.

To make things short and clear you're saying that god is not time bound.
What I'm saying is that, that is impossible. Prove that it is possible.

That is possible because that is what God is - God is not created and doesnt have a beginning - that the meaning of God, isnt it?

Prove it. And also explain what caused your god to ceate time. Explain
step by step how god created the time and the universe. Explain step by
step how did god come up with an idea to create the universe. Explain
what caused god to come up with an idea to create the universe and what
caused the cause of it. I bet you cannot explain it in orderly fashion
because you can't even use any indicators of time to indicate what
happened first before the other what is the cause of the other, etc.
That is a big mess you've got there. It's like trying to explain how to
make a pizza without order of time. That's a major major problem I
think.

Let's cut it this short for the mean time.

Step by step?? Wow! step by step huh?? :p


it would be to lengthy my dear, if you want to know the details, read the Quran and the sunnah, you'll know the step by step that you are talking about.

Jewel wrote:
So it is not a comparison, it's an analogy.

That's not even an analogy. As I said, I am not
arguing that your case is dismissed because I don't know the answer. I
am merely saying you don't have sufficient evidence and your logic has
flaws that is why I am dismissing your case you're trying to prove.

Jewel wrote:
That's why Im asking you what would make you believe that there is God, what evidence do you need to know? I gave you the Quran which strongly emphasizes the existence of God because it cant be made by anyone other than God, plus the legacy of prophet Muhammad which no human being could match - What else do you need to know/see?

The Quran is not sufficient as Bible is not sufficient.

Jewel wrote:
You may keep on saying "Im not convinced" but how does that refute my argument, especially billions of people do believe in God? - See the point now?

There are billions of Christians. Does that make Muslims wrong? There are billions of Buddhists (who don't believe in gods) as well.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

Don't turn this into a game of numbers. Non sequitur.

Jewel wrote:Not an appeal really, but it is the most logical answer in this point, plus the Quran, Plus the Prophets of old, esp. Prophet Muhammad. So it doesnt simply end up with "may be there's God" in order to fill the "gap" but more importantly, it has irrefutable and unmatched evidences.

I beg to differ. I don't think that is a logical answer. I don't even find that god being not time bound is logical. You can't do anything without time. If someone can do anything without time, that is illogical as someone can create something he cannot lift. Someone can create something out of nothing. Prove that those are possible. Nope, you cannot prove those by merely saying god is uncreated and not time bound. Those are just claims and not proofs.

Jewel wrote:
That's simple question. God created the universe, with of course purpose, and that is to worship/glorify him, for example surah 23:115, and many others.

What caused god to need someone to worship and glorify him? Why did he suddenly need to create the universe?

Jewel wrote:
So it is not a problem for us my dear - what made you think that it is a problem for us?

Why do you care if I ask those questions? Of course we're trying to track back what happened and what caused everything that is why we need to ask those questions.

Jewel wrote:

It's not a simple answer, it's an answer out of the blue so to speak. I was asking the past history to present - how would it be possible to reach to the present if the time to pass through from the past is infinite/endless? - That is what you need to answer my dear.

I'll just repeat my answer. It is because time progresses infinitely therefore there's nothing time cannot reach.

Jewel wrote:
Typo error? okay fine.

The creation is time bound simply because their existence have a beginning. BuT God is not created, so he is not time bound therefore time is not needed for his existence, as simple as that my dear.

That is a circular argument. Prove the Bible true. Bible is true because Bible cannot tell lie. If Bible cannot tell lie, therefore bible is true. You're using the same argument. Prove god is uncreated. God is uncreated because he is not time bound. Therefore there's no need for time for his existence. Prove god is not time bound. God is not time bound because he is uncreated and therefore he doesn't need time to exist because he is uncreated.

You failed to prove how god can exist outside the time and how is that possible. You also failed to prove how can a god plan and think in an orderly fashion if there's no time order. You failed to explain how can a god perform a task in an orderly fashion if there is no time in the first place. You failed how things came to be in a chronoligical order if there's no time order. You failed to explain how god came up in an idea, in an orderly fashion, to realized that he needed to create the universe so that someone can glorify him. You will not succeed in explaining those without the need of time indicator. You cannot even use the word "because" or "cause" because those are also time indicators indicating a "cause" and "effect" of a series of events in time. You cannot even use the tenses of the verbs. Everything that changes and happens require time. Even thinking requires time. There's nothing that doesn't need time.

You're not proving, you are simply making claims.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Prove it. And also explain what caused your god to ceate time. Explain
step by step how god created the time and the universe. Explain step by
step how did god come up with an idea to create the universe. Explain
what caused god to come up with an idea to create the universe and what
caused the cause of it. I bet you cannot explain it in orderly fashion
because you can't even use any indicators of time to indicate what
happened first before the other what is the cause of the other, etc.
That is a big mess you've got there. It's like trying to explain how to
make a pizza without order of time. That's a major major problem I
think.

Step by step?? Wow! step by step huh?? :p


it would be to lengthy my dear, if you want to know the details, read the Quran and the sunnah, you'll know the step by step that you are talking about.

Maybe if you find more spare time. Time is quite hard to find these days.

And as always, peace bro.

unrealdummy wrote:


That's not even an analogy. As I said, I am not
arguing that your case is dismissed because I don't know the answer. I
am merely saying you don't have sufficient evidence and your logic has
flaws that is why I am dismissing your case you're trying to prove.

As I repeatedly said, you are not the judge on this matter. For you to dismiss any claim, you have to have a criteria to base upon. Until now, I dont see any criterion from you except personal opinion - how does that prove anything?

The Quran is not sufficient as Bible is not sufficient.

The people of old dismissed the physical miracles shown by the prophets before there very eyes, yet they chose to deny and disbelieve; so it is not surprising for us not to have some people reject physical evidences for God's existence.

What is important now is not whether you accept the evidence or not, but does the falsification test for the evidence proves it to be true, and I think, the answer is YES! The Quran is an inimitable word of God and a complete set of instructions (manual) for mankind to live in a moral worldly life and spiritual nourishment. The Prophet Muhammad's practical example is unmatched, and you are a witness to that.

There are billions of Christians. Does that make Muslims wrong? There are billions of Buddhists (who don't believe in gods) as well.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

Don't turn this into a game of numbers. Non sequitur.

Im not turning this into a game of numbers; What i am saying is that your personal opinions doesnt really matter because billions of people who believe in God has their personal opinions to. What is important in a discussion like this is to see who from both sides has the clear evidence. I have at least two evidences, while you have none but personal opinion that you are not convinced - who cares if you are not convinced, that is not the issue here - the issue here is that who have the evidence/s.

I beg to differ. I don't think that is a logical answer. I don't even find that god being not time bound is logical. You can't do anything without time. If someone can do anything without time, that is illogical as someone can create something he cannot lift. Someone can create something out of nothing. Prove that those are possible. Nope, you cannot prove those by merely saying god is uncreated and not time bound. Those are just claims and not proofs.

See, this is what I've been telling you; you are redefining God for us - you are equating God to his creation; you are basically saying that God is time bound - that's very ridiculous my dear because no sane theist would agree on you in that point. It is as if we are having a party in hill A, while you are attacking hill B. We are shouting " hellowwww, we are here, dont go there!!!"

What caused god to need someone to worship and glorify him? Why did he suddenly need to create the universe?

Nothing caused God because God is not affected by anything and God is perfect in its absolute sense. God is, by definition, something/someone that is to be worshiped, so if God did not bring the creation in to existence who would worship him? See the point there?




Why do you care if I ask those questions? Of course we're trying to track back what happened and what caused everything that is why we need to ask those questions.

Im not really questioning your question my dear, what I was saying that it seems that you think that it is a logical problem for us to have that question - Well, it is not.

I'll just repeat my answer. It is because time progresses infinitely therefore there's nothing time cannot reach.

I think you need to understand the word "progress" because it seems that you are not aware of its context in this issue. If you say "progress" it means "moving on, on going, ect" which implies time period, so there must have been past period of time, and if there is a past period, then there must be a present period and a future period - I was asking, how would you arrive to the present period from the past period if the time that you need to pass through is infinite/endless?

So dont keep repeating your wrong answer; you are just going circular in this point.

That is a circular argument. Prove the Bible true. Bible is true because Bible cannot tell lie. If Bible cannot tell lie, therefore bible is true. You're using the same argument. Prove god is uncreated. God is uncreated because he is not time bound. Therefore there's no need for time for his existence. Prove god is not time bound. God is not time bound because he is uncreated and therefore he doesn't need time to exist because he is uncreated.

Wow! watta mess of you. heheh

Did i use any scripture in that point and stick to it? I dont think so, therefore, your accusation that I am giving a circular argument is clearly false.

What do you mean by "Prove that God is uncreated"? - do you really understand what you are asking about? I dont think you do.

I simply said that God is uncreated because that what God means, is that difficult for you to understand? I am giving you the definition of God that God is uncreated. If you think that God is created then you are very wrong my dear because you got a very wrong concept of God, thus barking on a wrong tree.

You failed to prove how god can exist outside the time and how is that possible. You also failed to prove how can a god plan and think in an orderly fashion if there's no time order. You failed to explain how can a god perform a task in an orderly fashion if there is no time in the first place. You failed how things came to be in a chronoligical order if there's no time order. You failed to explain how god came up in an idea, in an orderly fashion, to realized that he needed to create the universe so that someone can glorify him. You will not succeed in explaining those without the need of time indicator. You cannot even use the word "because" or "cause" because those are also time indicators indicating a "cause" and "effect" of a series of events in time. You cannot even use the tenses of the verbs. Everything that changes and happens require time. Even thinking requires time. There's nothing that doesn't need time.

You're not proving, you are simply making claims.

Again, define your term "prove that God such and such" in this context - if you want physical proof then you are just making fun of yourself because that is not what we are thinking about - this is a theo-philosophical discussion here, not a scientific one.

What do your really need to do is UNDERSTAND first what we mean by God, and from that correct understanding, you may agree or disagree. Dont impose your own definition of God to us because that will not gonna work my dear. It is like you keep on insisting that Tom is the father or Jerry while we keep on saying "NO, NO, NO" because Tom is a cat while Jerry is a mouse.

Code:


Prove it. And also explain what caused your god to ceate time. Explain
step by step how god created the time and the universe. Explain step by
step how did god come up with an idea to create the universe. Explain
what caused god to come up with an idea to create the universe and what
caused the cause of it. I bet you cannot explain it in orderly fashion
because you can't even use any indicators of time to indicate what
happened first before the other what is the cause of the other, etc.
That is a big mess you've got there. It's like trying to explain how to
make a pizza without order of time. That's a major major problem I
think.

Again, false comparison! - Dont compare God with the creation - You cant impose human limitations to God because that would show that you still dont understand our concept of God and that what made your arguments a big mess.

Maybe if you find more spare time. Time is quite hard to find these days.

And as always, peace bro.

I think that it is you who need a spare time for it because the details that you are asking for is really lengthy. If you have such free time, you may spend some of it reading our Islamic sources.

What I can do here is answer/response to specific question/s to clarify things about Islam.

Peace be with you too

Nothing caused God because God is not affected by anything and God is perfect in its absolute sense. God is, by definition, something/someone that is to be worshiped, so if God did not bring the creation in to existence who would worship him? See the point there?

god is not exempt from infinite regress. sorry. You have to try and explain to us what caused god. By your definition, it is something or someone. You need to prove to us what caused this something or someone. otherwise your argument doesn't hold anything.

vril wrote:
god is not exempt from infinite regress. sorry.

Im so sorry my friend vril, but your opinion is ridiculous; no sane theist would agree with you on that point.

You have to try and explain to us what caused god. By your definition, it is something or someone. You need to prove to us what caused this something or someone. otherwise your argument doesn't hold anything

.

I used "someone" in referring to the true God, and I used "something" to anything or anyone worshiped other than the true God - just an info BTW.

As I said nothing caused God because God is uncaused because that is what God is, otherwise he is not the true God. If you think that God is caused by anything, then Im sorry to tell you that you have got a very wrong concept about God in Abrahamic faiths.

Bring me a theist here who says that God is a caused being if you know any

Jewel wrote:

Code:


That's not even an analogy. As I said, I am not
arguing that your case is dismissed because I don't know the answer. I
am merely saying you don't have sufficient evidence and your logic has
flaws that is why I am dismissing your case you're trying to prove.

As I repeatedly said, you are not the judge on this matter. For you to dismiss any claim, you have to have a criteria to base upon. Until now, I dont see any criterion from you except personal opinion - how does that prove anything?

If you are very keen in my responses you should have realized that I have my criteria which as follows:

- Posseses very strong evidence (can be scientifically proven)
- It should be logical and no fallacies.
- No irrationalities and absurdities (e.g. that there was a time when there was no time)
- Doesn't violate any existing laws of science (e.g. Law of Conservation of Energy which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

I'll judge your claim based on those criteria. Failing any one of those is unacceptable.

Jewel wrote:
The people of old dismissed the physical miracles shown by the prophets before there very eyes, yet they chose to deny and disbelieve; so it is not surprising for us not to have some people reject physical evidences for God's existence.

Just like what the Bible says.

First of all there's no proofs of physical miracles so you can't use that argument. I could just say the ancient people have been allowed to observe physical miracles of Zeus yet they chose to deny and disbelieve. If you want to use that argument, show proofs that physical miracles were really shown during those time.

Second, that is not a valid excuse. It will be unfair for the new generations if they will not have the same opportunities as the old generations which is to see physical miracles of the prophets. Not all people are the same. Tell your god that. Tell your god that if he's going to the same thing, a lot of people might be saved from what he's about to do to them. I repeat, this is to save them from what god is about to do with them, save them from the danger that god himself has created. Really absurd.

Jewel wrote:
What is important now is not whether you accept the evidence or not, but does the falsification test for the evidence proves it to be true, and I think, the answer is YES! The Quran is an inimitable word of God and a complete set of instructions (manual) for mankind to live in a moral worldly life and spiritual nourishment. The Prophet Muhammad's practical example is unmatched, and you are a witness to that.

Hare are the list of inimitable books:

The Analects
Bhagavad Gita
Five Classics
Bible
Talmud
Tao-te-ching
Upanishads
Veda
Hundreds more...

And yeah, Bible and the Qur'an have a lot of similarities.

And by the way, there's no objective measurement of inimitability of a book.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


There are billions of Christians. Does that make Muslims wrong? There are billions of Buddhists (who don't believe in gods) as well.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

Don't turn this into a game of numbers. Non sequitur.

Im not turning this into a game of numbers; What i am saying is that your personal opinions doesnt really matter because billions of people who believe in God has their personal opinions to. What is important in a discussion like this is to see who from both sides has the clear evidence. I have at least two evidences, while you have none but personal opinion that you are not convinced - who cares if you are not convinced, that is not the issue here - the issue here is that who have the evidence/s.

Exactly. Billions of people who believe in god has their personal opinions too. Opinions too. Opinions. Well I guess what you have is just an opinion and nothing more. The evidences you presented is nothing but a book just like the Bible. Weak evidences doesn't count especialy for such big claims.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

I beg to differ. I don't think that is a logical answer. I don't even find that god being not time bound is logical. You can't do anything without time. If someone can do anything without time, that is illogical as someone can create something he cannot lift. Someone can create something out of nothing. Prove that those are possible. Nope, you cannot prove those by merely saying god is uncreated and not time bound. Those are just claims and not proofs.

See, this is what I've been telling you; you are redefining God for us - you are equating God to his creation; you are basically saying that God is time bound - that's very ridiculous my dear because no sane theist would agree on you in that point. It is as if we are having a party in hill A, while you are attacking hill B. We are shouting " hellowwww, we are here, dont go there!!!"

Nope, I am not redefining your god. Go ahead define your own god. But defining your god DOESN"T prove that he exists. If you define god that he is not time bound, that doesn't prove he exists. If you want to define god as not time bound and at the same time prove his existence, then you must first prove that something or someone can exist outside time. Of course you can't. You can only define. That was what you've been doing all until this time, define and make claims. You just define and make claims. You just do the talking without the proving. I hate to say this but there's no substance in just making definitions. I can define what a unicorn is but I could never prove that it exists.

In short, what I"m saying is that defining IS NOT THE SAME as proving.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

What caused god to need someone to worship and glorify him? Why did he suddenly need to create the universe?

Nothing caused God because God is not affected by anything and God is perfect in its absolute sense. God is, by definition, something/someone that is to be worshiped, so if God did not bring the creation in to existence who would worship him? See the point there?

I ask you, why do you study? Because you want to learn and land a job in the future. You study because there's a "cause". The cause is your urge to "learn" and to "land a job".

Now, what caused your god to create the universe? No cause? No reason? No sense? Without thinking?

Jewel wrote:
God did not bring the creation in to existence who would worship him?

You said before he created the universe there was nothing but god alone. Therefore being a god doesn't require to have a creation. The fact that he was still a god when he was alone is the fact that creation is not required to be called "god". Thus the point you were trying to point out is pointless. Now, I'm going to ask you the same question. What caused the god to create the universe? No cause? No sense? Without thinking? Was he not a god when he hasn't created the universe yet?

Jewel wrote:
Im not really questioning your question my dear, what I was saying that it seems that you think that it is a logical problem for us to have that question - Well, it is not.

And that is your opinion of course.

Jewel wrote:
I was asking, how would you arrive to the present period from the past period if the time that you need to pass through is infinite/endless?

Time can pass through infinitely. Time progresses infinitely without limits. There's nothing time cannot reach.

Jewel wrote:

Wow! watta mess of you. heheh

@_@

Jewel wrote:
What do you mean by "Prove that God is uncreated"? - do you really understand what you are asking about? I dont think you do.

I simply said that God is uncreated because that what God means, is that difficult for you to understand? I am giving you the definition of God that God is uncreated. If you think that God is created then you are very wrong my dear because you got a very wrong concept of God, thus barking on a wrong tree.

So that means all you have been doing all this time is making definitions and claims? I can't believe you really don't intend to prove anything. I think you're not going to make any progress with just that.

peace

Im so sorry my friend vril, but your opinion is ridiculous; no sane theist would agree with you on that point.

I'm not expecting any theist to agree..^_~ . It's not a ridiculous opinion. It's common sense.

As I said nothing caused God because God is uncaused because that is what God is, otherwise he is not the true God. If you think that God is caused by anything, then Im sorry to tell you that you have got a very wrong concept about God in Abrahamic faiths.

Uncaused god falls outside of time. Unsupported and assumption. In short, imagination.

Anything goes with metaphysical discussions...

vril wrote:I'm not expecting any theist to agree..^_~ . It's not a ridiculous opinion. It's common sense.

You are not expecting any theist to agree with you but you are redefining God for them yet you yourself dont believe in God, how would that work my friend? hehhehehe - That's the reason why i said it is ridiculous. it is in fact a strawman.

Uncaused god falls outside of time. Unsupported and assumption. In short, imagination.

It's just an imagination if there are no supporting proofs, but until now the proof for the existence of God are still standing very firmly, actually still untouched, how about that?

BTW, all that i hear hear from the atheists' side so far is "I dont know" - how about that my friend?

unrealdummy wrote:

If you are very keen in my responses you should have realized that I have my criteria which as follows:

- Posseses very strong evidence (can be scientifically proven)
- It should be logical and no fallacies.
- No irrationalities and absurdities (e.g. that there was a time when there was no time)
- Doesn't violate any existing laws of science (e.g. Law of Conservation of Energy which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

I'll judge your claim based on those criteria. Failing any one of those is unacceptable.

See? In the very beginning of your response, it really made me smile a lot heheheh

spiritual stuff (God's existence) needs scientific proof?? hehehe - What do you think of God, a physical object? duh???

Just like what the Bible says.

First of all there's no proofs of physical miracles so you can't use that argument. I could just say the ancient people have been allowed to observe physical miracles of Zeus yet they chose to deny and disbelieve. If you want to use that argument, show proofs that physical miracles were really shown during those time.

The fact is that Zeus is part of mythology while the Abrahamic scriptures are supported by history - unless history means nothing to you, then I would deal with you in a different manner. therefore you just made a false comparison hehehe

Second, that is not a valid excuse. It will be unfair for the new generations if they will not have the same opportunities as the old generations which is to see physical miracles of the prophets. Not all people are the same. Tell your god that. Tell your god that if he's going to the same thing, a lot of people might be saved from what he's about to do to them. I repeat, this is to save them from what god is about to do with them, save them from the danger that god himself has created. Really absurd.

This is actually the reason why I dont appeal to the miracles of the prophets tho supported by history because i understand that for an atheist like you that stuff is not very interesting. What I said that for those people of old who witnessed many physical miracles right in front of them chose to disbelieve, then it would not be surprising for us (theists) today that many people would choose to deny God - that's my point there.

Dont worry, God did not deprive you to see a miracle today because tho the prophets arent here anymore, the last one of them left a miracle for all time - that is the quran - it's complete message, its linguistic excellence, its inimitability, its authenticity, its origin, its progress, its fulfilled prophecies and no unfulfilled prophecies, and its challenge --- how would an illiterate man in the middle of a forgotten desert 1433 years ago able to have that stuff.

Hare are the list of inimitable books:

The Analects
Bhagavad Gita
Five Classics
Bible
Talmud
Tao-te-ching
Upanishads
Veda
Hundreds more...

Bring them here and let's start comparing - we'll start listening with their respective recitations and we'll see which among them is inimitable - im waiting....

BTW, some, if not all, of those books says that there is God

And yeah, Bible and the Qur'an have a lot of similarities.

Yeah but they are not the same. The Quran is inimitable and no errors while the bible is not - so dont do hasty generalization there.

We will see when you present those books later.

And by the way, there's no objective measurement of inimitability of a book.

Actually there is/are but you just dont understand/know what we mean by the Quran is inimitable - you just keep on denying without actually knowing/understanding first what we are talking about - that's the problem there.

Exactly. Billions of people who believe in god has their personal opinions too. Opinions too. Opinions. Well I guess what you have is just an opinion and nothing more. The evidences you presented is nothing but a book just like the Bible. Weak evidences doesn't count especialy for such big claims.

As I said it is not just a book and it is not like the bible - you are always guilty of false comparison, why is that?

Nope, I am not redefining your god. Go ahead define your own god. But defining your god DOESN"T prove that he exists. If you define god that he is not time bound, that doesn't prove he exists. If you want to define god as not time bound and at the same time prove his existence, then you must first prove that something or someone can exist outside time. Of course you can't. You can only define. That was what you've been doing all until this time, define and make claims. You just define and make claims. You just do the talking without the proving. I hate to say this but there's no substance in just making definitions. I can define what a unicorn is but I could never prove that it exists.

Again, false comparison; God vs mythical character - how is that reasonable and logical heheheh

The problem of your redefining God is it create a lot of mess. moreover, no sane theist would agree - so how does that sensible?

Understand what we mean by God and then if you want to attack it, attack it as it is, dont attack a strawman because that will never work.

In short, what I"m saying is that defining IS NOT THE SAME as proving.

By giving wrong definition of God, that would surely not prove anything because you will not be able to destroy the real thing if you are only attacking a strawman.

I ask you, why do you study? Because you want to learn and land a job in the future. You study because there's a "cause". The cause is your urge to "learn" and to "land a job".

Now, what caused your god to create the universe? No cause? No reason? No sense? Without thinking?

Very funny heheheheh

Why do you compare God with me? is that a correct and reasonable comparison? (comparing the creator to the creation0 what a huge fallacy hehehehe

You said before he created the universe there was nothing but god alone. Therefore being a god doesn't require to have a creation. The fact that he was still a god when he was alone is the fact that creation is not required to be called "god". Thus the point you were trying to point out is pointless. Now, I'm going to ask you the same question. What caused the god to create the universe? No cause? No sense? Without thinking? Was he not a god when he hasn't created the universe yet?

Yes he was God before he created everything that is why I said that nothing caused him because he is free of any need.

It is a big misconception if you think that God needed the creation that is why he created it - that's very wrong my dear.

God created the creation out of his discretion and plans

Time can pass through infinitely. Time progresses infinitely without limits. There's nothing time cannot reach

Not answering the question...

So that means all you have been doing all this time is making definitions and claims? I can't believe you really don't intend to prove anything. I think you're not going to make any progress with just that.

No im not making definitions here, I am sticking to the correct definition of God because that is how God is defined and understood in theism. I wonder if you, in atheism, have a different definition of God also heheheh

peace

Peace too

Jewel wrote:

Code:



If you are very keen in my responses you should have realized that I have my criteria which as follows:

- Posseses very strong evidence (can be scientifically proven)
- It should be logical and no fallacies.
- No irrationalities and absurdities (e.g. that there was a time when there was no time)
- Doesn't violate any existing laws of science (e.g. Law of Conservation of Energy which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

I'll judge your claim based on those criteria. Failing any one of those is unacceptable.

See? In the very beginning of your response, it really made me smile a lot heheheh

spiritual stuff (God's existence) needs scientific proof?? hehehe - What do you think of God, a physical object? duh???

Sorry but that's the only way to prove things. You don't have it, sorry, you're not going to make any progress about proving.

Jewel wrote:
This is actually the reason why I dont appeal to the miracles of the prophets tho supported by history because i understand that for an atheist like you that stuff is not very interesting. What I said that for those people of old who witnessed many physical miracles right in front of them chose to disbelieve, then it would not be surprising for us (theists) today that many people would choose to deny God - that's my point there.

Dont worry, God did not deprive you to see a miracle today because tho the prophets arent here anymore, the last one of them left a miracle for all time - that is the quran - it's complete message, its linguistic excellence, its inimitability, its authenticity, its origin, its progress, its fulfilled prophecies and no unfulfilled prophecies, and its challenge --- how would an illiterate man in the middle of a forgotten desert 1433 years ago able to have that stuff.

Year 1433 is already late. There has been already a lot of discoveries by then.

Do you know Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC – ca. 230 BC) ? He presented the first known heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Yeah right, after a quick scan on this link:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6713

It looks like Muslims have been forcing the Quran to fit into scientific discoveries. They twist the meaning of their book so it would fit perfectly to science. Just like the Bible. So much for inimitability.

Jewel wrote:
Bring them here and let's start comparing - we'll start listening with their respective recitations and we'll see which among them is inimitable - im waiting....

You cannot bring anything like those, that's the point.

Jewel wrote:
BTW, some, if not all, of those books says that there is God

So? I'm not saying they are correct. The point is, anything can be inimitable. Inimitability is a subjective discussion. You can say they are not unique but that is just your opinion or your Quran's opinion. I could also just say your Quran is not unique. We will not make any progress with just opinions.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


And yeah, Bible and the Qur'an have a lot of similarities.

Yeah but they are not the same. The Quran is inimitable and no errors while the bible is not - so dont do hasty generalization there.

I thought you said Quran is inimitable, how come you are now admitting that there are similarities between the two?

Anyways, anyone can just say this is inimitable that is not. So there's no point discussing which are inimitable which are not.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

And by the way, there's no objective measurement of inimitability of a book.

Actually there is/are but you just dont understand/know what we mean by the Quran is inimitable - you just keep on denying without actually knowing/understanding first what we are talking about - that's the problem there.

The real problem here is that you or your Quan have your own definition of "inimitability" which of course not everyone will agree. That is the point. That is subjective. Discussing such things is pointless.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

Exactly. Billions of people who believe in god has their personal opinions too. Opinions too. Opinions. Well I guess what you have is just an opinion and nothing more. The evidences you presented is nothing but a book just like the Bible. Weak evidences doesn't count especialy for such big claims.

As I said it is not just a book and it is not like the bible - you are always guilty of false comparison, why is that?

Why are you expecting me to believe in your claims without presenting your proofs. All you do is talk. Until now you haven't presented any proofs of your claims or your Quran's claims.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Nope, I am not redefining your god. Go ahead define your own god. But defining your god DOESN"T prove that he exists. If you define god that he is not time bound, that doesn't prove he exists. If you want to define god as not time bound and at the same time prove his existence, then you must first prove that something or someone can exist outside time. Of course you can't. You can only define. That was what you've been doing all until this time, define and make claims. You just define and make claims. You just do the talking without the proving. I hate to say this but there's no substance in just making definitions. I can define what a unicorn is but I could never prove that it exists.

Again, false comparison; God vs mythical character - how is that reasonable and logical heheheh

The problem of your redefining God is it create a lot of mess. moreover, no sane theist would agree - so how does that sensible?

Understand what we mean by God and then if you want to attack it, attack it as it is, dont attack a strawman because that will never work.

Where did I define your god? I only said all you have been doing to making defintions and claims. You are not proving anything. You just spell out definitions and claims, nothing more.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


In short, what I"m saying is that defining IS NOT THE SAME as proving.

By giving wrong definition of God, that would surely not prove anything because you will not be able to destroy the real thing if you are only attacking a strawman.

That is a strawman. I am not defining your god. I am telling you that you are not presenting any proofs. I am telling you that all you have been doing is make definitions and claims. That is not called "proving". I hope you get the point.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


I ask you, why do you study? Because you want to learn and land a job in the future. You study because there's a "cause". The cause is your urge to "learn" and to "land a job".

Now, what caused your god to create the universe? No cause? No reason? No sense? Without thinking?

Very funny heheheheh

Why do you compare God with me? is that a correct and reasonable comparison? (comparing the creator to the creation0 what a huge fallacy hehehehe

So you don't know the answer? Fine.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

You said before he created the universe there was nothing but god alone. Therefore being a god doesn't require to have a creation. The fact that he was still a god when he was alone is the fact that creation is not required to be called "god". Thus the point you were trying to point out is pointless. Now, I'm going to ask you the same question. What caused the god to create the universe? No cause? No sense? Without thinking? Was he not a god when he hasn't created the universe yet?

Yes he was God before he created everything that is why I said that nothing caused him because he is free of any need.

It is a big misconception if you think that God needed the creation that is why he created it - that's very wrong my dear.

God created the creation out of his discretion and plans

Oh really. So your god knows how to plan and make discretions before finally creating the universe eh? So tell me, how did he do that without time?

Jewel wrote:

Code:

Time can pass through infinitely. Time progresses infinitely without limits. There's nothing time cannot reach

Not answering the question...

I told you the valid answer. Progressing infinitely is infinite. No limits. There's nothing time cannot reach.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

So that means all you have been doing all this time is making definitions and claims? I can't believe you really don't intend to prove anything. I think you're not going to make any progress with just that.


No im not making definitions here, I am sticking to the correct definition of God because that is how God is defined and understood in theism. I wonder if you, in atheism, have a different definition of God also heheheh

Ok, let's rephrase it. All you have been doing was citing Quran's definition of god and nothing more. You are not proving anything. You just cited a definition and that's it. You're not going to make any progress with just that. Citing a definition is _not_ the same as proving.

Peace

You are not expecting any theist to agree with you but you are redefining God for them yet you yourself dont believe in God, how would that work my friend? hehhehehe - That's the reason why i said it is ridiculous. it is in fact a strawman.

i cannot redefine what don't exists..^_~. It is you who believe it exists. Support your uncaused god. We have not still solve the problem where did your god come from.

Uncaused god falls outside of time. Unsupported and assumption. In short, imagination.

It's just an imagination if there are no supporting proofs, but until now the proof for the existence of God are still standing very firmly, actually still untouched, how about that?

BTW, all that i hear hear from the atheists' side so far is "I dont know" - how about that my friend?[/quote]

No. You have not supported what caused god. And since you claim it is outside of time, I don't think you can support it.

vril wrote:


i cannot redefine what don't exists..^_~. It is you who believe it exists. Support your uncaused god. We have not still solve the problem where did your god come from.

So you are really shouting on a wrong tree because you keep on arguing that God is such and such and that you are denying our definition/understanding of God - watta inconsistency hehehhe

No. You have not supported what caused god. And since you claim it is outside of time, I don't think you can support it.

This is what i've been saying all along - the very reason why your question is illogical and absurd is because you think of God different from what we believe.

Our definition of God is that He is uncaused because he is the cause of everything, yet you keep on asking what caused God - ewwww! What caused the uncaused? are you okay there halowwww?

unrealdummy wrote:
Sorry but that's the only way to prove things. You don't have it, sorry, you're not going to make any progress about proving.

No, you are the one not improving my friend; until now you havent yet understood that spiritual stuff are beyond the scope of science - It is as if you are telling me that there is no God because you cant see it -- hehhehe

Year 1433 is already late. There has been already a lot of discoveries by then.

That's not the point there. the point is that the book could not have been written by such a man.

Do you know Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC – ca. 230 BC) ? He presented the first known heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe.

And how does that prove anything against the Quran - Is the quran about science only, lolzz - Its a complete book of guidance as I always said - worldly, marital, social, political, economisc, ec, ect, and spiritual, all in one book with super linguistic excellence attested by billions of people even until today --- so how does aristarchus comparable there?? hehhehe

It looks like Muslims have been forcing the Quran to fit into scientific discoveries. They twist the meaning of their book so it would fit perfectly to science. Just like the Bible. So much for inimitability.

Not forcing really, it's just there in the quran. I can give you the debate about the bible and the quran and science, and the bible defender was so desperately defeated; so dont make false comparison here because it wont work really.

You cannot bring anything like those, that's the point.

see, as expected, you cant bring your evidence here. all you can do is cite books but you cant bring even one here. bring them here and let us start comparing them against the quran. c'mon im waiting...

So? I'm not saying they are correct. The point is, anything can be inimitable. Inimitability is a subjective discussion. You can say they are not unique but that is just your opinion or your Quran's opinion. I could also just say your Quran is not unique. We will not make any progress with just opinions.

bring them here, i've been waiting for them for a long time, c'mon bring your books here.

I thought you said Quran is inimitable, how come you are now admitting that there are similarities between the two?

Similarities in some historical facts, but not in the lingistic excellence and inerrancy - that's the point there.

Anyways, anyone can just say this is inimitable that is not. So there's no point discussing which are inimitable which are not.

That is really your problem because you keep on citing books to match the quran yet you dont understnd what we mean by the quran as an inimitable book - understand what we mean first and then bring your book to match it, hellowww.

The real problem here is that you or your Quan have your own definition of "inimitability" which of course not everyone will agree. That is the point. That is subjective. Discussing such things is pointless.

The challenge is not from me, it's from the Quran itself, hellowww!

Why are you expecting me to believe in your claims without presenting your proofs. All you do is talk. Until now you haven't presented any proofs of your claims or your Quran's claims.

See, we are just roaming around the small bush, wekap my friend. I've been presenting my evidences from the very beginning of this discussion.

Where did I define your god? I only said all you have been doing to making defintions and claims. You are not proving anything. You just spell out definitions and claims, nothing more.

As I said, it's not my personal definition, its the universal definition and understanding in theism. God is uncaused, not time bound, and he is different from his creation - deal with that, dont make your own new concept because no theist would accept it.

That is a strawman. I am not defining your god. I am telling you that you are not presenting any proofs. I am telling you that all you have been doing is make definitions and claims. That is not called "proving". I hope you get the point.

same as the above strawman

So you don't know the answer? Fine.

Absurdity doesnt require an answer - hehehhe

Oh really. So your god knows how to plan and make discretions before finally creating the universe eh? So tell me, how did he do that without time?

How? simple! God's plan doesnt need a time because his knowledge is infinite and he is time bound because that is what God is, is that clear??

I told you the valid answer. Progressing infinitely is infinite. No limits. There's nothing time cannot reach.

Im asking how, not what hehehe. How could you possibly traverse the time from the past to present if there is infinite time to pass through between them?? How, how, how? explain!

Ok, let's rephrase it. All you have been doing was citing Quran's definition of god and nothing more. You are not proving anything. You just cited a definition and that's it. You're not going to make any progress with just that. Citing a definition is _not_ the same as proving.

you are lying my friend, it's not good. I did not only stick to the universal definition/understanding of God in theism, but I also brought at least two physical proof along with it, and that is the inerrant and inimitable word of God and the legacy of Prophet Muhammad - no lying please..

Peace

peace too

Jewel wrote:

So you are really shouting on a wrong tree because you keep on arguing that God is such and such and that you are denying our definition/understanding of God - watta inconsistency hehehhe




This is what i've been saying all along - the very reason why your question is illogical and absurd is because you think of God different from what we believe.

Our definition of God is that He is uncaused because he is the cause of everything, yet you keep on asking what caused God - ewwww! What caused the uncaused? are you okay there halowwww?

you are stuck with your argument...lolx. your uncaused god is incoherent and assumptive...^_~ Your argument failed the cause and effect bounded in time. sorry. It's simply saying he popped out of nowhere. That my friend is magic..^_~

vril wrote:

you are stuck with your argument...lolx. your uncaused god is incoherent and assumptive...^_~ Your argument failed the cause and effect bounded in time. sorry. It's simply saying he popped out of nowhere. That my friend is magic..^_~

I think you are the one stuck in your very limited realm. Your scope is limited on physical matters yet you are trying to put theological and Philosophical issues - that's very sad my friend

Jewel wrote:

No, you are the one not improving my friend; until now you havent yet understood that spiritual stuff are beyond the scope of science - It is as if you are telling me that there is no God because you cant see it -- hehhehe

False analogy and comparison. In science we don't need to see things to prove it scientifically just like atoms and sub atomic particles.

And no, you're the one who is not improving. Until now all you do is make claims and cite from the Quran but you didn't prove any of its claims and definitions.

In short, you didn't prove anything. What you did is cite from the Quran and make definitions and claim.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Year 1433 is already late. There has been already a lot of discoveries by then.

That's not the point there. the point is that the book could not have been written by such a man.

That's not the point. The point is that he could have just copy or enhance from the previous discoveries. And it doesn't follow that if he have written such book, then therefore it is from god. And seeing from the link that I've shown you, I'm not impressed by the Quran's ambiguity and lack of detail.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Do you know Aristarchus of Samos (310 BC – ca. 230 BC) ? He presented the first known heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of the known universe.

And how does that prove anything against the Quran - Is the quran about science only, lolzz - Its a complete book of guidance as I always said - worldly, marital, social, political, economisc, ec, ect, and spiritual, all in one book with super linguistic excellence attested by billions of people even until today --- so how does aristarchus comparable there?? hehhehe

You tried to appeal that because the Quran was written during 14th century, you implied that it is impossible for humans to make such discoveries. I only proved your point wrong. Don't bark on the wrong tree. You are trying to divert the point of discussion.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

It looks like Muslims have been forcing the Quran to fit into scientific discoveries. They twist the meaning of their book so it would fit perfectly to science. Just like the Bible. So much for inimitability.


Not forcing really, it's just there in the quran. I can give you the debate about the bible and the quran and science, and the bible defender was so desperately defeated; so dont make false comparison here because it wont work really.

The point here is that your Quran is ambigious as the bible. It is vague as the bible. It is so vague that anyone could just interpret it differently so it would fit science as if it is "scientific".

Jewel wrote:
see, as expected, you cant bring your evidence here. all you can do is cite books but you cant bring even one here. bring them here and let us start comparing them against the quran. c'mon im waiting...

bring them here, i've been waiting for them for a long time, c'mon bring your books here.

I aleady lined them up to you. I gave you the list.

And as I have kept on saying, discussing inimitability is pointless. We will never be in agreement on what is inimitable and what is not. Such is _subjective_ discussion. There's no _objective_ measure of inimitability of a book.

Jewel wrote:

Code:

I thought you said Quran is inimitable, how come you are now admitting that there are similarities between the two?

Similarities in some historical facts, but not in the lingistic excellence and inerrancy - that's the point there.

See, you are now setting the measure of inimitability. Linguistic excellence? Very subjective. Pointless discussion.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Anyways, anyone can just say this is inimitable that is not. So there's no point discussing which  are inimitable which are not.

That is really your problem because you keep on citing books to match the quran yet you dont understnd what we mean by the quran as an inimitable book - understand what we mean first and then bring your book to match it, hellowww.

That's not the point. As I said, discussing the inimitability of a book is a subjective discussion.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


The real problem here is that you or your Quan have your own definition of "inimitability" which of course not everyone will agree. That is the point. That is subjective. Discussing such things is pointless.

The challenge is not from me, it's from the Quran itself, hellowww!

Saying "hellow" repeatedly doesn't prove that inimitability can be discussed objectively. As I said, discussing the inimitability of a book is a subjective discussion. Regardless if the definition came from Quran or the Bible.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Why are you expecting me to believe in your claims without presenting your proofs. All you do is talk. Until now you haven't presented any proofs of your claims or your Quran's claims.

See, we are just roaming around the small bush, wekap my friend. I've been presenting my evidences from the very beginning of this discussion.

You said it already, you don't have scientific evidence. Your book only makes claim and definition. It doesn't prove anything.


Where did I define your god? I only said all you have been doing to making defintions and claims. You are not proving anything. You just spell out definitions and claims, nothing more.[/quote]

As I said, it's not my personal definition, its the universal definition and understanding in theism. God is uncaused, not time bound, and he is different from his creation - deal with that, dont make your own new concept because no theist would accept it.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


That is a strawman. I am not defining your god. I am telling you that you are not presenting any proofs. I am telling you that all you have been doing is make definitions and claims. That is not called "proving". I hope you get the point.

same as the above strawman

Strawman because you say so? That's strawman.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


So you don't know the answer? Fine.

Absurdity doesnt require an answer - hehehhe

Something existing without time is called absurd.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Oh really. So your god knows how to plan and make discretions before finally creating the universe eh? So tell me, how did he do that without time?

How? simple! God's plan doesnt need a time because his knowledge is infinite and he is time bound because that is what God is, is that clear??

As absurd as that one.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


I told you the valid answer. Progressing infinitely is infinite. No limits. There's nothing time cannot reach.

Im asking how, not what hehehe. How could you possibly traverse the time from the past to present if there is infinite time to pass through between them?? How, how, how? explain!

I don't need to explain something that we have already been observing. Right now time is traversing. It is self evident and observable. It doesn't stop. It progresses infinitely. Therefore there is _nothing_ time _cannot_ reach. And because it progresses infinitely, it is not surprising it is making infinite history.

Now, tell me, how can your god do anything without time. That's more important.

Jewel wrote:

Code:


Ok, let's rephrase it. All you have been doing was citing Quran's definition of god and nothing more. You are not proving anything. You just cited a definition and that's it. You're not going to make any progress with just that. Citing a definition is _not_ the same as proving.

you are lying my friend, it's not good. I did not only stick to the universal definition/understanding of God in theism, but I also brought at least two physical proof along with it, and that is the inerrant and inimitable word of God and the legacy of Prophet Muhammad - no lying please..

There's nothing in your Quran that explains how can something exist outside the time. If your Quran only makes claims and definition, then therefore, presenting Quran doesn't prove anything. Presenting Quran is simply equivalent to making claims and definitions.


peace too

Jewel wrote:

I think you are the one stuck in your very limited realm. Your scope is limited on physical matters yet you are trying to put theological and Philosophical issues - that's very sad my friend

LOL. Jewel was right, you should not rely only on physical matters. But you should also use your wild imagination and fantasies.