|
Jinns are not fiction |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 1415161718 40> |
| Author | |
The Saint 
Senior Member 
Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 02 October 2015 at 7:55am |
|
Of course we are capable of having opinions about deities. Otherwise, how could you say "Allahu Akbar"? I think it's fair to assume that an Omnipotent Being ought to be able to do better than Coca-Cola.
Have I answered this post? Anyway I shall answer it again. I think an omnipotent being ought to be able to do better than Coca Cola, actually the makers of the Coca Cola. And considering your apparent erudition you should be able to do better than a lizard? Can't you? Some did not accept it; but most never even received it. Because Allah failed to deliver it. It was their loss and it is your loss. Allah SWT did not, does not lose anything. He is free of all needs. (ignoring the attempt to change the subject) We're not talking about "thrusting religion down everyone's throat". We're talking about communicating the Quran to all humankind, and letting individuals decide for themselves whether to accept it. Most people never even get to decide. God Almighty does not engage in commercial enterprises. Therefore, neither does he use TV or newspapers. He uses chosen men, which He did. He sent down a revelation and allowed it to spread to those who were/are interested in His word. Those who are not interested or those who reject it, He allows to go wherever they want to and do whatever they want to. OTOH, Coca cola is advertised by people whose only interest is making money. I am hoping you understand now. Every day tens of thousands of people die, never having had the opportunity to hear or read the Quran. They shall be judged on the basis of the fact whether Islam was offered to them or not. |
|
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
 |
|
|
Matt
Groupie 
Male Joined: 30 July 2015 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 71 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 October 2015 at 7:53am |
Sigh! This long ago became farcical. I don't know if The Saint is deliberately trying to waste people's time or is just genuinely st**id. But whatever the case, the pattern will repeat ad infinitum. He will meet carefully reasoned arguments with utter nonsense, interspersed with random insults. This is the last time I will engage with anything he has to say... In answer to his above question - no, god is not the easiest explanation, because it is not even an explanation. It is no more an explanation than saying "it just is" or "because I say so". And now I leave the floor open to him to provide a rapier response such as "you are gay" or "here is scientific proof that you are wrong - SOME MUSLIM ON THE INTERNET SAYS SO" Edited by Matt - 02 October 2015 at 7:55am |
|
|
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 October 2015 at 6:29am |
|
Why not? Aristotle used those terms nearly a thousand years ago. It's not like the concepts were unknown. Of course, maybe ("mebbe"Wink) they were unknown to Muhammad...
Yes, you keep on saying it but have difficulty in accepting it that Muhammad PBUH was not literate. Therefore, he did not know those terms, even if they were known inside or outside Arabia. Where? Explain to me how 30:48 or any other Quranic verse even hints at evaporation, cooling or condensation. If you are looking for those exact words in a book of moral guidance you are going to be very disappointed. As regards the presence of the said ideas in the Quran you can find them as follows: � We (Allah) send down water from the sky in measure an lodged it in the ground and we certainly are able to withdraw it � (Sura 23, 18-19 Verses) the above verses are explaining the complete water cycle i.e., water fall, penetration of water in the soil and evaporation phenomenon. � Allah is the one who sends forth the winds which rised up the clouds he spreads them in the sky as he wills and breaks them into the fragments then thou seest raindrops issuing from within them (Sura 30, Verse 48) " The above verses clarify the processes of evaporation, condensation, fragmentation and rain-cycle. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/hydrology_or_water_cycle_in_qur.htm Occam's Razor. The same reason we reject Russell's Teapot. Or as Pierre-Simon Laplace (allegedly) said, "I have no need for that hypothesis." Laplace may not need that hypothesis, as he called it. But what does that mean? Should everyone start aping Laplace just because he has no need for a belief in God? Who or what is Laplace, why should he be aped or believed? And why should thousand's of Allah's Prophets PBUT all be rejected? Is it sensible? Does your plea make any kind of sense at all? It is incongruous! Sure I did. Twice, in fact. The answer is Occam's Razor. (You do know the term, right?) In other words, we reject the God Hypothesis because we have no need for it, i.e. it is unnecessary. It has no explanatory value. Occam's Razor simply suggests that to solve a problem the easiest or the simplest explanation be accepted. How can you reject God Hypothesis on the basis of that? Tell me is not God Hypothesis the easiest to explain Creation? "More things should not be used than are necessary." According to what Occam originally said, as quoted, how is the idea of God an extra? The idea of God is a natural occurrence in our minds. It is needed. It is innate for human beings to believe in something. "Basic and axiomatic beliefs are foundational: they provide a basis for a coherent world view. They answer questions and facilitate knowledge. For example, God�s existence, explains conscious emergence, the fact that we have consciousness within a material world. It answers the questions for which we have no answer, like the question of language. Currently, evolutionary paradigms can�t explain the development of language. It also explains the existence of objective moral truths and offers a foundation for explaining why things happen." "I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God�s existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island." The God Hypothesis is unnecessary. Not to mention highly improbable. Why is it unnecessary? Why is it improbable? Evolution theory is not universally accepted? In fact, per ground realities God is more widely accepted. And I say belief in God as necessary to make sense of the world. Being a natural tendency does not make it true. It is a natural tendency for children to believe that their parents are omnipotent and omniscient. When they learn that this is false, it is also a natural tendency to transfer this belief elsewhere. But it's still false. Why do children transfer that belief from parents to God? How and where was this tendency born? And how can you sway it is false? What grounds do you have? Where did I say I accept magical beings? I do not remember where you said it. But you did. When I find the post where you said it I will tell you. |
|
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
|
|
|
Tim the plumber
Senior Member
Male Joined: 30 September 2014 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 October 2015 at 9:22am |
How does his sexuality (whatever it is) hurt you? How does my attitude hurt you? How does my not believing in your chosen form of God hurt you? Why are you so lacking in confidence when your strange professed beliefs are challenged? I think we all know the answers. |
|
|
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 October 2015 at 8:50am |
|
You're shooting blanks, Mr. Saint! You're trying to be offensive (why?), but you only end up being ridiculous, because we don't care what you think about our sexuality!
That you do not care what people think about your sexuality is the most blatant and perverted lie! You know you feel conscious of your strange and unnatural preference. You feel guilty about it. I have heard all of you on the subject and it is always a defiant plaint. It is obvious, remarks such as I make, hurt you. They are meant to hurt you. Just so that you know that your attitudes and remarks may hurt others. More tomorrow, In Sha Allah. |
|
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
|
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014 Status: Offline Points: 832 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 October 2015 at 8:42am |
|
Which you follow with a bunch of Arabic quotes (presumably) and translations from answering-christianity.com. But whose quotes, and whose translations? As usual, Abdallah doesn't say. So why should we take any of it seriously? For all we know, he might have made the whole thing up. Even if he didn't, we can't verify his claims.
I can understand your difficulties. But I see that they are all related to your absolute ignorance of the arabic language and your obstinate resolve to do nothing about it. If we are discussing the meaning of an arabic word it is obvious that some arguments to establish its true meaning will be in arabic. I can suggest that you try to verify what Abdullah is saying by comparing it with what others are saying on the web. He does mention a hadith stating that "Osama had a round and big tummy", but nobody I've seen has translated it that way. Every translation I've found says that he had a "heavy belly". It looks to me like Adballah has inferred that heavy bellies are often round, and therefore he has distorted the translation to match his preconception. The same is likely true with all his other examples. But who knows? He has given us no way to confirm it. What, may I ask, did you expect him to give you so that you could understand what he is saying? LOL......in my humble opinion you are blatantly dissing his well-researched article because he has: 1. Proved that dahaha also means egg-shaped. 2. In everyday arabic language , in Libya, people still used that word to mean egg-shaped. 3. That you are clueless about arabic language by yourself. Also his name is not adballah but Abdallah. And what reason do you have to doubt his integrity? I think you misunderstood. The odd thing is that there are more than twenty copies of this web page, each one linked to a published issue of the bulletin. So either it was included every time the bulletin was published, or it never appeared in the bulletin at all. Either way, it's fishy. But then, it's fishy anyway, as we said. We don't know who conducted the interview, or when or where or why. For all we know, King Faisal (Bucaille's patron) made it up. It wouldn't surprise me at all -- frankly, the Islamic Bulletin looks a lot like his work. The video of the interview is available on the website. http://www.islamicbulletin.org/services/video.htm And cynicism is a disease which is cured only by faith and that you do not have. No, if you want it to be taken seriously as evidence of anything, I suggest you try to find out about it. Right now, it's just another random unsourced web page. There is no reason to believe it. Honestly, haven't you got the message yet? Don't believe stuff just because you found it on the Internet! People make up stuff all the time. If I want to be taken seriously? LOL............your presumptuousness shows through again! You still do not have any idea of what I think about your opinions? It seems you have none. To enlighten you let me tell you your cynicism means zilch to me. I look at it this way. If you do not accept what I convey to you in all honesty it is your loss and I could not care less. The argument ends with the acknowledgement that his being "unlettered" would not have prevented him from adding to or subtracting from it, or indeed making the whole thing up. How? But the message was for everyone. Even being generous, it reached less than half of its target. So much for omnipotence. Yes, it is meant for everyone. But it is not to be conveyed with force. You are a living example that no supernatural force was used to make it reach everyone. You refuse to accept the message yet no harm was done to you. Had He really wanted to force it on everyone on earth He could have found a way. The criteria is set by Allah Himself. He said the message was for everyone. That is not a criteria for its success. It is an assurance that it is not only meant for Muslims. It is for all mankind. How many billions have already died without receiving this critically important message? Every soul will answer the Creator on the basis of the message that reached him/her and what they said or did in response. And that includes you and your ilk. Indeed it is conjecture. It may be true, it may be false. We don't know. Indeed, you don't know. And you choose to remain in that state. You are in such a pathetic state not knowing what is going to happen to you. You do not know where you came from and where you will go from here. In this state of ignorance you cannot even prepare for the life that will surely succeed this one. |
|
|
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
|
|
|
|
Matt
Groupie
Male Joined: 30 July 2015 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 71 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 October 2015 at 8:16am |
I looked at your link. Do you know what science is? Do you know what proof is? The reason I ask is because your link has very little to do with science and absolutely nothing to do with proof. It is, however, hilarious rubbish, so it isn't completely without merit. |
|
|
|
|
airmano
Senior Member
Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 September 2015 at 12:41pm |
|
@Islam Hashtag
Thanks for posting your link. Long time that I didn't have such a good laugh ! Thanx: Airmano Edited by airmano - 30 September 2015 at 12:41pm |
|
|
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 1415161718 40> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Tell me is not God Hypothesis the easiest to explain Creation?