discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[the district]

so , what you are saying is our minds create everything?

 

i suspose.

[the district]

but, im not sure...

[Fist 666]

hey dawood--sort of/not really related

 

 

that "KHeLeQ," is that word exclusively "created as by god"? or can a human KheLeqa something as well?

[the district]

There is others on here who probably know more about quantumm theory than me,but take an atom for example.If you zoom in as far as math can go you find that the atoms physical properties are not there, just a mathematical language that agrees that X space is filled with Y because Z space can only exist if X space is filled with Y. Z space has to force X space to exist because W was created and W was created because U and V were added together and U and V were added together because T existed and so one.It is one complete connection to the prior creator and one can never find the source of what caused the chain of events.

[Dawood]

hey dawood--sort of/not really related

 

 

that "KHeLeQ," is that word exclusively "created as by god"? or can a human KheLeqa something as well?

 

No Allah is Al Khaliq. "the creator". Humans can take things that already exist and reshape/form them into something else, but as for creation, that is Allah's domain alone.

 

Allah says in the quran....All praises and thanks be to Allâh, Who (Alone) createdthe heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. (Al-An'am 6:1)

 

and

 

Verily! Those who you worship besides Allâh, cannot create (even) a fly, even if they came together for that purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought. (Al-Hajj 22:73)

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Look, I can't speak specifically on this case, because I'm not a judge who has all of the facts in front of me and neither are you. The problem with Americans is that Americans think the rest of the world should adopt it's values by default , but the american value system is only a few hundred years old at best and is constantly evloving into something it totally wasnt even 30 years ago. If Americans understood that there IS a world outside of itself that exists INDEPENDENT of it and it's corruption, the world would be better off. Granted other nations are as corrupt, if not more so in some cases, I'm just saying, the whole attitude that something you don't understand is just by default wrong regardless of the goal behind a particular punishment...is shortsighted....My question is, why didn't anyone bring up the punishments the men got as well? It's always this witch hunt to paint Islam as this barbaric religion that mistreats women while I'll be the first to say mistreating women is wrong (and I learned that from the prophet Muhammad) Why does everyone conveniently leave the punishments on the men out of their argument as if they went home after court?

 

 

Are you kidding me.

 

The group of men were found guilty of raping this girl 14 times. Let me say that again, the group of men were found guilty of raping this girl 14 times. After that verdict the speculation of what the girl's intentions were or weren't go out the window. It's irrelevant. Unless new evidence is produced. However this girl was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison, just for associating with these men, that's right. If she was just found talking to these people her punishment would have been half what that was.

 

Listen, I don't attack any religion for any other reason then the fact that they are all created to manipulate people into submission. This has nothing to even do with forcing "American values" on the middle-east or anywhere else. Hell I don't even agree with most "American values". So maybe that could apply to some people here, but not me.

 

How do you think this girl is going to handle something like this if it happens again? Cry in her shower? Fucking pathetic.

[Dawood]

if that's the case, then the dudes should have been put to death. Animals like that shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. I didn't see that they raped her 14 times. I don't really know what the justification for punishing her is, unless she was there willingly , then I can understand how a punishment would be in place for her too under saudi law.

 

I remember this video where a rapist is shot to death by the victims father and brothers under islamic law..I'm going to search for it. It was justice.

[Cracked Ass]

I hope you meant "rapist" and not "rape victim" (again).

[El Mamerro]

 

 

[the district]

Allâh, Who (Alone) createdthe heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. (Al-An'am 6:1)

 

 

Lets say that Allah created the heavens and the earth.

 

What created Allah? Why am i not allowed to ask that question in religon?

[the district]

I'd like to thank dawood for answering to my quickly generated questions.

Thank you as well dowmagik and the.crooked...

[Dawood]

I hope you meant "rapist" and not "rape victim" (again).

 

 

damn why do I keep doing that?

[dowmagik]

the district, the usualy answer is that god is omnipotent and doesnt have to have a creator. he is the creator. yes, kinda silly, i know. infinite regression is a mother fucker.

[Dawood]

infinite regression....ok? How about the fact that everything in existence has an origin. What makes you think that if everything individually has an origin (which I think we can agree on) That everything collectively came from nothing?

There had to have been something that always has existed before everything else came into existence. I refuse to believe that EVERYTHING came from nothingness at all.

I choose to believe THAT something, that everything originated from is an intelligent creator that fashioned the universe in due proportions and continues to maintain it's creation without even a split second of neglect.

What's so silly about that?

[dowmagik]

i also refuse to believe that everything came from nothing, so at least we agree on something :) if everything that comes into existence has an origin, what is god's origin? thats what we're getting at. thats what the infinite regression is.

[russell jones]

I've already banged my head against that wall dowmagik, but good luck trying!

[Cracked Ass]

I doubt everything came from nothing. I'm also not willing to invent an originator just to be able to have an answer for where everything came from. What's wrong with not knowing the answer for a couple million years? In the meantime we can humbly work at accumulating knowledge, in the hopes of getting an answer eventually. That's what science is.

[the.crooked]

Science is a never ending process. It must accept the presupposition of an ending point if its epistemology is to have any sort of validity, but all our pursuits into looking at when we might find that answer only leads to a notion of it as an infinite regress.

 

Here is a simple argument for the necessary failure (and from another perspective, saving grace of) science:

 

 

Numbers are infinite, no?

 

Yes

 

What is the empirical unit of observation?

 

Misleading question, this is a question of instrumentation and its observational capacity. Precision, if you will. Science relies on empirical evidence to make theories based on it. It seeks to create normality and abhors the novel. When all evidence has been accounted for and be further predicted, a theory works, based on continual observation. We may see observation as the perpetual testing of scientific theory.

 

Re-frame the initial question then as this "What is our method of representation for observation?"

 

Numbers. We express data as observed by some measurable quality. This measure of difference is augmented/restricted by the level of observational precision we are capable of. How many points past the decimal place are we when we speak on the Macro, Micro, and beyond level? We are speaking of observation through an infinite medium.

 

We seek an end in something that by its very structure can not have one.

 

The point is this, observational data can always be reduced to a new level of observational precision via the possibility of another decimal place. Thus theoretical testing can always go on. Theories are developed at a certain level of observation and can only accurately speak to that level. But we just noticed that observational level can always be focused further, and that possibility alone necessitates the rejection of an end point to Science. For when we suppose to say something about how the world in fact is, we are only speaking of it at a level that is always irrelevant in the future.

 

 

 

If anyone is interested in the relationship of time, progression and Science I suggest you read these people:

 

 

Thomas Kuhn: "Structures of Scientific Revolution"

W.V. Quine: "Ontological Relativity" "Two Dogmas of Empricism"

Richard Rorty

Bas van Frassen

Ian Hacking

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Science is a never ending process. It must accept the presupposition of an ending point if its epistemology is to have any sort of validity, but all our pursuits into looking at when we might find that answer only leads to a notion of it as an infinite regress.

 

Here is a simple argument for the necessary failure (and from another perspective, saving grace of) science:

 

 

Numbers are infinite, no?

 

Yes

 

What is the empirical unit of observation?

 

Misleading question, this is a question of instrumentation and its observational capacity. Precision, if you will. Science relies on empirical evidence to make theories based on it. It seeks to create normality and abhors the novel. When all evidence has been accounted for and be further predicted, a theory works, based on continual observation. We may see observation as the perpetual testing of scientific theory.

 

Re-frame the initial question then as this "What is our method of representation for observation?"

 

Numbers. We express data as observed by some measurable quality. This measure of difference is augmented/restricted by the level of observational precision we are capable of. How many points past the decimal place are we when we speak on the Macro, Micro, and beyond level? We are speaking of observation through an infinite medium.

 

We seek an end in something that by its very structure can not have one.

 

The point is this, observational data can always be reduced to a new level of observational precision via the possibility of another decimal place. Thus theoretical testing can always go on. Theories are developed at a certain level of observation and can only accurately speak to that level. But we just noticed that observational level can always be focused further, and that possibility alone necessitates the rejection of an end point to Science. For when we suppose to say something about how the world in fact is, we are only speaking of it at a level that is always irrelevant in the future.

 

 

 

If anyone is interested in the relationship of time, progression and Science I suggest you read these people:

 

 

Thomas Kuhn: "Structures of Scientific Revolution"

W.V. Quine: "Ontological Relativity" "Two Dogmas of Empricism"

Richard Rorty

Bas van Frassen

Ian Hacking

 

Since this is above me. How I interpreted what you said was. Since what we know at this point is what we know, and we don't know anymore then that. It is impossible to look and see something you are not aware exists. Or even happens. Due to the fact that at least at this point. Human understand has been unable to make the connection or whatever it is that leads us to discover things.

 

Until we learn about those things, or at least know they occur(ie: gaining more knowledge in the future), only then we will see something for what it actually is, or does. Kind of like looking at it from another decimal point, or angle. Which was how I interpreted what that ment.

 

God that seems fucking confusing. I just hate numbers and don't like looking at things from that point of view. Due to the fact that I was never really that good at math.

 

I've seen this example used on here before, forgot who said it. Kind of like how scientist's said, due to the conditions of the deep sea, they were certain almost nothing could live down in those conditions. However once we were actually able to get down there, we discovered a whole ecosystem of life. Who've adapted to those conditions to survive.

 

I don't know maybe I'm reaching, or not making any sense. What you said was pretty interesting though.

 

Sorry for being so vague, I know that probably makes it more retarded.

[Dawood]

i also refuse to believe that everything came from nothing, so at least we agree on something :) if everything that comes into existence has an origin, what is god's origin? thats what we're getting at. thats what the infinite regression is.

 

God isn't restricted to physics, time, distance etc. He created all of that. He is not in need of an origin. He IS the origin. People become religious I guess for different reasons depending on what religion we're talking about. As for me, I've done research and based on my ability to rationalize and reason, I've come to the conclusion that it is way more probable that everything was thoughtfully designed and brought into existence by an intelligent being as opposed to random smashing together of particles to form living, breathing , complex organisms etc. That's just my take, You're free to believe whatever you like as long as your conscience settles on it. There's no compulsion in religion.

[Dawood]

I doubt everything came from nothing. I'm also not willing to invent an originator just to be able to have an answer for where everything came from. What's wrong with not knowing the answer for a couple million years? In the meantime we can humbly work at accumulating knowledge, in the hopes of getting an answer eventually. That's what science is.

So, if you're doubting that everything came from nothing, then you should as least move to the next step and say, ok, then everything must have come from something! So, what is that something? That , my friend is the journey toward the truth. If you wait around for a couple million years for an answer, you'll have been dead for 1,999,950 years or so and your answer won't help you then. Besides, they'd change their answer later anyway.

[russell jones]

Science is a never ending process. It must accept the presupposition of an ending point if its epistemology is to have any sort of validity, but all our pursuits into looking at when we might find that answer only leads to a notion of it as an infinite regress.

 

Here is a simple argument for the necessary failure (and from another perspective, saving grace of) science:

 

 

Numbers are infinite, no?

 

Yes

 

What is the empirical unit of observation?

 

Misleading question, this is a question of instrumentation and its observational capacity. Precision, if you will. Science relies on empirical evidence to make theories based on it. It seeks to create normality and abhors the novel. When all evidence has been accounted for and be further predicted, a theory works, based on continual observation. We may see observation as the perpetual testing of scientific theory.

 

Re-frame the initial question then as this "What is our method of representation for observation?"

 

Numbers. We express data as observed by some measurable quality. This measure of difference is augmented/restricted by the level of observational precision we are capable of. How many points past the decimal place are we when we speak on the Macro, Micro, and beyond level? We are speaking of observation through an infinite medium.

 

We seek an end in something that by its very structure can not have one.

 

The point is this, observational data can always be reduced to a new level of observational precision via the possibility of another decimal place. Thus theoretical testing can always go on. Theories are developed at a certain level of observation and can only accurately speak to that level. But we just noticed that observational level can always be focused further, and that possibility alone necessitates the rejection of an end point to Science. For when we suppose to say something about how the world in fact is, we are only speaking of it at a level that is always irrelevant in the future.

 

 

 

If anyone is interested in the relationship of time, progression and Science I suggest you read these people:

 

 

Thomas Kuhn: "Structures of Scientific Revolution"

W.V. Quine: "Ontological Relativity" "Two Dogmas of Empricism"

Richard Rorty

Bas van Frassen

Ian Hacking

 

So you are saying that you are bothered by science's shortcomings? I have to tell you that these things do not bother me. What is the alternative? Are you saying there are other possibilities that could illuminate the absolute?

 

I think that your critique of endless levels of precision are well taken, but at what point does our existence as "macro" beings prevent us from focusing any further? Perhaps those levels of precision will produce diminishing returns. I'm not saying that observational limitations will necessarily limit materialistic theories, but we may have to look in other directions rather than more or less precision. Perhaps there are macro physical observations to be made that we simply cannot see as of yet. Maybe these observations could allow materialism to become more dynamic. I don't know if the last sentence is worded correctly, sorry it's late!

[Stereotype V.0002]

damn why do I keep doing that?

 

I think they call it a “freudian slip”

[MAR]

What created Allah? Why am i not allowed to ask that question in religon?

 

In Judaism, we believe that G-d was, is, and always will be. He was not created and man cannot truly understand this concept. I think that Islam's the same.

 

Basically your mistake in logic is assuming that G-d has to follow the same laws as man, theres no reason for it, so why should he?

 

The other major complex topic in Judaism is that even though G-d knows everything and knows what you will do, you still have free will. I've struggled with this concept for 6 years and have heard a lot of answers but haven't found one that satisfies me yet. In a way I've almost become a stoic or fatalist.

[Fist 666]

that question is one that started my ascent from christianity. i refuse to believe that if 'god' had a plan and absolute knowledge that our actions could be free, it doesn't add up.

 

another one that got me was the simple romance of the story--satan will be destroyed by god, but not until god reaches his quota? why, if 'his' desire is for all to love him, then why would he allow satan to exist at all? he wouldn't. its for the story's sake. not a 'well you can't understand god's reasoning."

 

the more i read and learn about ALL religions the more i am convinced that chaos comes from chaos, over a long enough time chaos itself has patterns, even order.

i'm not trying to hop into this conversation, just throwing my two bits in.

[MAR]

Idk about Christianity but in Judaism the Satan is a prosecuting angel who was created by G-d to point out the problems with the Jewish people or individuals.

 

Its interesting, G-d set laws out into motion and seems to have stepped back and lets them play out. I think thats actually the answer to the free will question...

 

I guess its like this: Assuming G-d is how i view him, omnipresent and omnipotent, and he set rules into motion with the birth of the world, he could persay allow you to make choices while still knowing the outcome.

 

I would try to give an example but i dont have a good one...

[the.crooked]

So you are saying that you are bothered by science's shortcomings? I have to tell you that these things do not bother me. What is the alternative? Are you saying there are other possibilities that could illuminate the absolute?

 

I think that your critique of endless levels of precision are well taken, but at what point does our existence as "macro" beings prevent us from focusing any further? Perhaps those levels of precision will produce diminishing returns. I'm not saying that observational limitations will necessarily limit materialistic theories, but we may have to look in other directions rather than more or less precision. Perhaps there are macro physical observations to be made that we simply cannot see as of yet. Maybe these observations could allow materialism to become more dynamic. I don't know if the last sentence is worded correctly, sorry it's late!

 

 

 

No, I do not have problems with the points I made about the limitations of science.

 

 

 

I think it is at least an argument against realist perspectives on science and that is what I have a problem with. When I initially wanted to study physics, it is because it took the place of the metaphysical arguments of religion to me. But when I realized that physics was just as necessarily wrong/right as any given religion I had to stop studying it.

 

My point is that science is more a matter of creating a consistent system of control rather than explaining the actual workings of the world.

 

We just choose one consistent form of representation and went to town.

 

That is all I am asserting.

[Dawood]

that question is one that started my ascent from christianity. i refuse to believe that if 'god' had a plan and absolute knowledge that our actions could be free, it doesn't add up.

well, your ascent from christianity may not have been such a bad thing, but as for God's plan. It's more like God's knowledge. He gives us free will to choose, but ultimately knows what we'll choose anyway.

 

another one that got me was the simple romance of the story--satan will be destroyed by god, but not until god reaches his quota? why, if 'his' desire is for all to love him, then why would he allow satan to exist at all? he wouldn't. its for the story's sake. not a 'well you can't understand god's reasoning."

 

The reason is to test you, in order to reward the ones who believe and do good and punish the ones who disbelieve and die while still on that. The one who is devoted to God is not the same as the one who isn't. Both can do good deeds, but only the one who beleives in God and does good, does it seeking God's mercy and forgiveness for his bad.

 

the more i read and learn about ALL religions the more i am convinced that chaos comes from chaos, over a long enough time chaos itself has patterns, even order.

i'm not trying to hop into this conversation, just throwing my two bits in.

.....

[Dawood]

Idk about Christianity but in Judaism the Satan is a prosecuting angel who was created by G-d to point out the problems with the Jewish people or individuals.

 

So, satan doesn't affect the rest of us?

 

Its interesting, G-d set laws out into motion and seems to have stepped back and lets them play out. I think thats actually the answer to the free will question...

 

I guess its like this: Assuming G-d is how i view him, omnipresent and omnipotent, and he set rules into motion with the birth of the world, he could persay allow you to make choices while still knowing the outcome.

 

exactly

 

I would try to give an example but i dont have a good one...

I'll take a stab at it.

 

it's almost like the teacher who's been teaching his students all year and knows who studied, who slacked off and knows who will do well and who won't but he tests them anyway just to be fair instead of just grading them based on what he knows of them.

[Fist 666]

i wrote something out but i don't want to continue my time in this thread

 

ultimately it comes down to this: the idea of god was created as means of explanation. the idea that we cannot grasp god was created to control. and here we are umpteen thousand years later with people who fear the thunder and praise the skies.

 

atheism FTW. (haha)