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

[iloveboxcars]

Ok, you got me, there Chief. God still exists.

 

 

i dont accept this response.

[russell jones]

.ain't no future in frontin', homie.")

 

you think Breed reads the Koran?

[dowmagik]

THREAD IS LIKE CIRCLE, ROUND, NO MANY CORNERS LIKE RECTANGLE - ROUND

[Dawood]

i dont accept this response.

So, what do you want? You want me to show you God?

I can show you his effects all around you. If you choose to ignore the signs, thats on you. There are signs everywhere for people of understanding who reflect. If i told you this simple little message wrote itself with no help from a person, it just wrote itself and popped up here you wouldn't beleive me, so how can I accept that everything was created and came perfectly into shape by itself with no help from an intellegent creator?

[Dawood]

"He doesn't give birth, nor was he given birth to."

 

this could mean a birth, such as a human birth...

 

exactly, such as a human birth, but we still can't say that God has a beginning because he never told us he has a beginning.

"There is nothing before God and nothing after him. He always was and always will be.

He is not in is creation, he is seperate from the creation and when he decrees a thing he just says "be" and it is."

 

When we say "nothing", it still has shape.Even nothing is something, such as the number zero.

Therefore thats what was before god and after god.

We cannot speak of nothing and have it defined purely, for the moment we say the word it is given shape as something with physical or non-physical properties.It IS just an idea yes, but even an idea is something.

 

yeah, but nothing is NOTHING. No air, No particles, no atoms, no molecules, no micro cosms....NOTHING. I can't agree with the assertion that nothing is still something. My defenition of nothing is NOTHING. Not still something/nothing.

 

 

The main argument for god is the universe cannot come from nothing, so,

how can god come from something we can describe and/or imagine?

 

This duality is the confusing question,and the only way for humans to make defined sense of it is to give it a metaphor.Heaven and hell,good and bad, yin and yang.

 

dawood have you listened to or read about joseph campbells teachings of myth and folklore?

 

No, never read it or heard it.

[iloveboxcars]

So, what do you want? You want me to show you God?

I can show you his effects all around you. If you choose to ignore the signs, thats on you. There are signs everywhere for people of understanding who reflect. If i told you this simple little message wrote itself with no help from a person, it just wrote itself and popped up here you wouldn't beleive me, so how can I accept that everything was created and came perfectly into shape by itself with no help from an intellegent creator?

 

 

 

i just wanted a response in the same vein but one that actually makes sense. id like you to name something that we cannot see yet some how benefits us in some way. thats the argument i was interest in. mostly because this thread is, as everyone has stated before, a huge circle and i'd like to branch off for a bit.

[Dawood]

Ok, here's the deal.

 

We can't see God right? Of course not. Why? because he decreed that we don't see him, so he placed a veil between us and him. The thing is, some of us WILL see him.

 

Allah says in the quran

'On that Day faces will be radiant, gazing at their Lord (ila rabbiha nazira)' (75:22-23)

 

Allah also says in the quran...

And the face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever. (Ar-Rahman 55:27)

 

And those who have no knowledge say: "Why does not Allâh speak to us (face to face) or why does not a sign come to us?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike, We have indeed made plain the signs for people who believe with certainty. (Al-Baqarah 2:118)

 

So, I assumed you asked me to find something that benefits us that we can't see because you wanted to challenge me to find something to compare to God in the way he benefits us , but we don't see him and I previously mentioned Air and the pyramids. And you showed me oxygen molecules and mummys haha, pretty clever. I'll leave the Mummys alone, but the oxygen....When I look at air. i don't see it. it's not there. It's hidden somehow. People up until the invention of a microscope couldn't see oxygen or molecules and all that biology fun stuff, but now they do...Why? because their intellects have brought them to a level where they can now see these things.

 

Similarly with God. You don't see God, but if you make the right moves and do the right things you will see God like he promised here.....

 

"whatever of good you give benefits your own souls, and you shall only do so seeking the Face of Allah' (2:272)

[fermentor666]

I just culled this thread for my old posts so I can use them for a journal for my "Science, Myth, and Society" class that is due on Wednesday. Man, I wrote a lot. Like, fifteen pages on word, single-spaced. Not including the random jokes and put-downs.

[fermentor666]

And good lord my spelling was atrocious. Thank God for the new spell-checking feature in Mozilla.

[the.crooked]

And good lord my spelling was atrocious. Thank God for the new spell-checking feature in Mozilla.

 

I have been toying with the idea of bringing together every serious thought I have had on 12oz.

 

I would not be able to stand the editing process though. Mostly for this very reason.

[the.crooked]

And that I know it would be pages unto pages, much like yourself.

[MAR]

Language can not describe infinity.

 

Bingo. How can you describe something that trancends human understanding, like G-d?

[fermentor666]

Language describes infinity as: infinity. : p

[Dawood]

Bingo. How can you describe something that trancends human understanding, like G-d?

 

We can only describe God with what he described himself with like being the creator, being the lord or everything, being just and merciful etc. I don't think it's correct to say we can't describe God at all because we need to know who is God before we can believe in him. We don't know the intricate details, but we know what is necessary for us to know based on what he told us in the revelations.

[Daniel Dumielle]

You mean what a bunch of old men WHO WERE NOT DIVINE, WERE HUMAN, told you in the revelations.

[Fist 666]

that explanation has always pissed me off

its a copout.

"well i can't give an explanation for 'god' (because its nonsense) so i'm going to explain it away as 'its beyond the grasp of our minds.'"

 

i don't think that the human mind is the pinnacle of thought processors or that it can grasp everything, but using that imperfection as the basis of your entire lifestyle...? its not bad to be humble or to recognize that we as humans are NOT the be all/end all, but why dwell on it and not recognize what we CAN do.

 

and then... we can't explain 'god' or even really grasp anything more than an idea, but HE SAID THIS AND IT IS FACT BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A DEVOUT INDIVIDUAL (with the same brain as you) AND HE UNDERSTOOD GOD SO ITS LIKE THIS. believe or burn.

 

this thread upsets me.

[Dawood]

I think thats oversimplifying things to the 1000000000000th power.

I don't know about anyone else's religion, but in Islam, we can explain God. Of course not in every way because we don't know EVERYTHING about God, but enough to know what type of being we're worshipping, asking for forgiveness, thanking, humbling ourselves to. If I couldn't explain God, by way of his unique attributes, then i'd be a blind follower, worshipping without knowledge and in fact i'd be worshipping nothing. I'd challenge any one of you who doesn't want to believe that God sent a book of guidance and a divine way of life to mankind....just read the quran. Read the quran. Have you read the quran?

Then, after that. write your own book if what you say is so truthful. If you think that your way of life is better, then call all of your witnesses to follow what you say so devoutly.

[Fist 666]

i have not read the quran in its entirety. i plan on doing so sometime over the next year--i'd like to be able to read it in arabic.

 

no matter what i read from it there are certain explanations i cannot except, and certain truths i cannot ignore regarding the very idea of "god" so as to be inspired by your books "supposed truth."

 

of course i'm oversimplifying, but your description of god is only an idea. characteristics written down by one human. his take on it. his period-understanding of the world... you don't know what type of being you're worshipping--you know that the quran describes the spaghetti monster as having particular attributes, okay...

 

the self proclaiming truths present in the "holy books" are obscene. each one is right, or more right than the other atleast... and each was only written by humans. reverend moon has written much proclaiming his experience with god and its absolutely no different than what mohammed did. but you wouldn't accept his claims, i'm sure, why? because you're atleast partly rational--had moon been born a thousand years ago who knows where we'd be...

[Removed]

that explanation has always pissed me off

its a copout.

"well i can't give an explanation for 'god' (because its nonsense) so i'm going to explain it away as 'its beyond the grasp of our minds.'"

 

i don't think that the human mind is the pinnacle of thought processors or that it can grasp everything, but using that imperfection as the basis of your entire lifestyle...? its not bad to be humble or to recognize that we as humans are NOT the be all/end all, but why dwell on it and not recognize what we CAN do.

 

and then... we can't explain 'god' or even really grasp anything more than an idea, but HE SAID THIS AND IT IS FACT BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY A DEVOUT INDIVIDUAL (with the same brain as you) AND HE UNDERSTOOD GOD SO ITS LIKE THIS. believe or burn.

 

this thread upsets me.

 

Logic fails on the illogical bro.

Following this thread closely presents two distinct possibilitys:

Should I continue to bang my head against a brick wall , or not?

[MAR]

We can only describe God with what he described himself with like being the creator, being the lord or everything, being just and merciful etc. I don't think it's correct to say we can't describe God at all because we need to know who is God before we can believe in him. We don't know the intricate details, but we know what is necessary for us to know based on what he told us in the revelations.

 

we know some of G-d's attributes but to describe G-d is to limit G-d.

[Dawood]

i have not read the quran in its entirety. i plan on doing so sometime over the next year--i'd like to be able to read it in arabic.

 

no matter what i read from it there are certain explanations i cannot except, and certain truths i cannot ignore regarding the very idea of "god" so as to be inspired by your books "supposed truth."

 

of course i'm oversimplifying, but your description of god is only an idea. characteristics written down by one human. his take on it. his period-understanding of the world... you don't know what type of being you're worshipping--you know that the quran describes the spaghetti monster as having particular attributes, okay...

 

the self proclaiming truths present in the "holy books" are obscene. each one is right, or more right than the other atleast... and each was only written by humans. reverend moon has written much proclaiming his experience with god and its absolutely no different than what mohammed did. but you wouldn't accept his claims, i'm sure, why? because you're atleast partly rational--had moon been born a thousand years ago who knows where we'd be...

 

First . Muhammad didn't write the quran. he never wrote the quran. he memorised it word for word and recited it and his companions did the same for generations until Uthmaan Ibn Affan was the khalifah (leader of the beleivers) And he ordered the quran to be written down since so many non Arabs were accepting Islam.

Second. Muhammad was illiterate. He could neither read or write. He received revelation and recited it. it wasn't until later that the quran was all compiled into one book.

I guess we could just dead this conversation , really, because if you're not interested in God enough to try to understand him, then why come back here? There's certain threads on 12oz. I don't even go into like the toys blackbook battle thread or whatever, because I'm not interested. If it's such a dead issue to you then why come back here?

 

same goes for you frankie fiver.

[Fist 666]

i guess i come back because i want to understand why YOU can be okay with your line of reasoning. my involvement with muslims is pretty substantial, and most of them don't speak english with any great skill so i can have no discussion of any caliber about it (yet... working on the arabic constantly). i'm not necessarily interested in "converting" anyone away from whatever path they've chosen, i want people to do what works for them--but i also want to understand when/where you draw the line on coming to conclusions. in order to more wholly understand your ideas i need to have you answer my questions, make sense?

 

i know i often come of as abrasive and just out to get all your god-fearing-folk, but ultimately i just want to understand the way you think.

 

 

i didn't know thats how the quran was put down.

that reinforces my opinion of it though. in the same vein that the red letter text editions of the bible are shocking to me (exact words written 3 years after someone's death... questionable at best).

i appreciate memorization of great (length) works, however in the vein of "purple monkey dishwasher" i don't see how these things can be passed from generation to generation and maintain 100% authenticity--especially if said work is said to be divine, a couple words here and there over a couple generations... you've got questionable quality on your hands.

[Daniel Dumielle]

I definitely have to agree with Fist 666,

 

There are a few psychological emperiments that have been conducted about the fact that human beings are not all that great for evidence. Although most of the time eye witnesses are accounted as being the best form of evidence, what they see is really just their perception of an incident, which, can in fact be wrong. This coupled with the simple telephone game that most kids played in school, should be enough to make even an absolute believer reckognize that yes, the quality of the writings may not be as accuratte as they are held to believe.

[Dawood]

Let me also say that although the quran was memorised it was also written on pieces of wood or camel bone or bark by scribes, whatever could be found to write on when the prophet was receiving revelation.

 

Later, Uthmaan Ibn Affan (the calipha) had the quran compiled into a book. It was completed in the year 651, only 19 years after Muhammad’s death. during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad and the original transcripts still exist today in Usbekistan and Istanbul, Turkey.

 

You've obviously never sat in on a quran class if you think the preservation of the quran is in question. You can't even pronounce a long "A" like in the word "make" like a short "A" like in the word "mat" for example. The quranic scholars have a science called tajweed that was originally developed by the prophet Muhammad and his companions to preserve the correctness of the quran. Arabic is not a haphazard language. It's very precise and poetic.

If you don't believe in the Quran or in Islam, that's fine. There's no compulsion in religion.

Nobody can force you to become a muslim. That's one of the things Islam came to preserve is people rights. Unfortunately today we see the muslim lands as being some of the most corrupt places full of injustice where the citizens have no rights. It's a shame because If muslims were properly following the quran, I think you would see the non muslim world having respect for Islam and it's justice like earlier times when even the prophet Muhammad's enemies used to call him Al Amin (the trustworthy one)

[the.crooked]

Now you have known me as a defender of Islam, at least in as much as it is no more offensive to my sensibilities than any other religion, but I think this statement is an unfortunate one these days:

 

 

"That's one of the things Islam came to preserve is people rights."

 

or

 

"If muslims were properly following the quran, I think you would see the non muslim world having respect for Islam and it's justice like earlier times when even the prophet Muhammad's enemies used to call him Al Amin (the trustworthy one)"

 

For is not proper practice dictated by the majority?

 

I like to believe that Islam is not the right destroying ignorant machine that western society as casted it as, but the Islamic world as a whole is doing nothing these days to show that this is not correct practice.

 

Look at the situation in Sudan for example. Now that shit was fucking insane. It was not the woman teacher who took the prophet's name in vain, it was the children who she allowed to name the teddy bear in the first place. But the blind ignorance of want to punish the sinful woman who would dillute and pollute the teachings of the prophet by such blasphemy, led to an extraordinary situation. People lining up outside the school in protest of the woman being left alive? Come the fuck on. Where was the child in trial who actually suggested that they bear be named Mohammad? There is a qoute, straight up that says "I just suggested the name because I wanted to hear people call it my name." Let us not confuse the issue here. It was not one of blasphemy, it was one of mob ignorance. As if any of those people would have called for the death of that child. Yet they chose the symbol of what they felt is the antithesis of their current dogmatic stance, the western woman. In all her contradiction of contemporary Muslim conception of femininity merely by being western people put their frustrations on her rather than practice the actual teachings of their own religion. Shame on them.

 

Now I am usually one to live and let live, but all religions are on some bullshit these days.

 

I am not even on some richard dawkins fuck god kind of tip, just a shut the fuck up and have a coke and a smile tip.

 

Also, I am not expecting you to come back and defend that situation or Islam in general, because you don't need to with me. My only point is that everyone is fuckin up these days. Pretty badly too. Such that I wonder if Islam in its original form will ever come to dominance again over the current canon of ignorance and straight up oppression. Let us both hope, for the sanctity of your own faith, and for the peace it would bring the world, that it will eventually fall back in the opposite direction than it is going now.

 

Let this argument not be lost on Christians as well.

[Dawood]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said about the Sudan situation. That was stupendously ridiculous. The prophet Muhammad himself would treat people with extreme kindness even when they spoke badly to him or treated him unfairly to show people correct behavior and manners. You're right, shame on them. (the Sudanis) If they wouldv'e practiced the patience and kindness of the one they claim to follow , they would have set an example for people.

Of course, it wouldn't have made international news if they did that, but nonetheless. You're right, it was kind of a knee jerk response to some of the other western atrocities going on in the world that take a convenient backseat to other news coverage highlighting how barbaric and stupid muslims are.

 

 

as for what you said...For is not proper practice dictated by the majority?

 

I would say that is the thinking that has the morals and manners of western societies twisted.

In Islam, proper practice is dictated by the quran, the sunnah (ways of the prophet)

according to the understanding of the companions of the prophet Muhammad collectively.

If the majority ruled, then there would be no sense even having a revealed way of life and following it believing it to be the true way that God intended for human beings if we could just take from it or add to it whatever we desire.

[the.crooked]

I meant that a concept like "proper practice" is more a question of historical authority than the "right" way of practice.

 

I am essentially saying that custom is what governs proper practice, of any social practice, and that custom is a question of dominant thought in time.

 

 

Thus, what is relegated as "proper practice" is the practice adopted by the majority of those ascribing to this or that means of practice.

 

Also consider this argument, that your form of practice is not "proper practice" because an overwhelming majority of those that are Muslim say it is improper. Would this make it so to you? and What justification would you have to say otherwise?

 

Consensus seems to be the justification of custom and custom is what governs the term proper at any given time in history.

 

Thus, "proper practice" is not something left to the original edicts of Islam. Not anymore at least.

 

 

Unfortunate as that may be.

[russell jones]

by the way,

I addressed to crook a little while back, but I think you missed it.

 

 

 

It still seems like you are looking for an absolute. Do you think philosophy will explain the actual workings of the world more thoroughly? I think I asked you this question before and you said something along the lines of philosophy was the study of understanding of the world or something along those lines... I'm simplifying of course, but let me get all Spinal Tap logic and just say, why don't you just take the method by which you understand the world and call it "science?" After all the Latin origin of the word just means knowledge.

[the.crooked]

While I agree whole heartedly that the way I approach philosophy is from science, and is of the scientific method, but the connotations the terms hold is too much while I am in Philosophy.

 

I don't there there is anything such as absolute truth or the ability to know we have the correct theory of reality.

 

That is why I stopped studyin physics.

 

I think all there is to meaning and to validity is explanatory and predictive value (a la empirical adequacy of science), but that any theory one may adopt is necessary not true (qua Reality).

 

 

I think Philosophy just happens to be the most efficient way for me to learn. I took the best thing science could give me (its method) and have now been in a position to learn about all other fields through this analytic lens.

 

I don't think Philosophy is "right" it is just workin to help me satisfy what things I need right now. Academic Stimulation, Impetus to do my work, and Opportunities for the future that wouldn't be there with physics.

 

As odd as that sounds (about the jobs thing that is).

[the.crooked]

Also, you can thank the history the schism of natural philosophy from philosophy at large for the change in connotation of "science."