Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Sounds like a rewording of parts of Aquinas' Proofs of God, particularly the parts that emphasize what we can imagine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious
- Thread starter Echogem222
- Start date
You know the problem is scripture is infinite in knowledge and limited in words. So a meeting point between atheists and Muslims should be study of ethics.
Quran agrees with study of ethics as legitimate means to prove a moral injunction or validity of a ritual.
Muslims don't search neither Quran nor hadiths for moral ethics to the laws they follow and atheists dismiss them even if a lot of it they should agree upon.
Most atheists don't know human rights structure (how to prove a positive human right) for example. Nor how study of ethics takes place.
It's rather very chaotic how they approach morality.
I'm not saying atheists and Muslims have to agree on all laws, I'm saying we can agree on a lot if we start discussing ethics in logical manner.
For example, atheists can prove to Muslims by knowledge (which Quran says it's a legitimate way to inform of commands by God) that killing apostates is wrong, that killing people for insulting the Prophet is wrong and they can prove it.
And Muslims can prove to atheists that two legitimate ways of sex are allowed and not more. Marriage and Muta, with the latter being really an exception to the rule scenario where marriage is very difficult for the person due to many circumstances.
However other types lead to problems in society especially the past when fathers were not known, but still today, not everyone will do a test and not everyone acknowledges that they will be there for the child.
Condoms work until someone lies about not being able to make kids to enjoy without a condom and the female is left with unwanted kid.
Muta is not marriage though people call it that, but it's a form of a relationship sexual contract - that if a child (which obviously you should try to make sure it doesn't happen and pull out) occurs, that the father is still responsible over it and he is to be financially supported.
Now there maybe disagreements about a detail of Muta, which is the father is responsible, and you might argue, the mother is should be the one responsible. But we can discuss these details. Rules are not arbitrary.
Do you know the two places Hijaab is mentioned (not the word, the concept), there's a contrast to sexual slavery or forced pimping. Do you know now today, the most money making crime is not drugs, but human trafficking? And children get a big portion of that crime.
People want to ignore reality and say, why hijaab. Hijaab is talked in two chapters in the Quran and both times the contrast to society forcing sexual work is discussed.
And Muta can be abused like we see today, into a different type of pimping which we see today. That is why the Quran after talking about it in Surah Noor, mentions not to force towards corrupt sex. A lot of women are on muta relationships because they feel they have no choice, and this is occurring in Lebanon for example.
The Quran foresaw it can be abused and said not to use it for bad purposes were women feel no choice but to enter such a contract for financial stability and no love is really part of it.
The Quran foresaw it can be abused and said not to use it for bad purposes were women feel no choice but to enter such a contract for financial stability and no love is really part of it.
Men who are financially stable should marry and are not counted really as those who should fear God's curse and not able to find suitable marriage spouses.
So Quran laid conditions so Muta is not abused, but these conditions were lost in the hadiths over time. And people do abuse it not paying attention to the circumstances that God makes it allowable in Quran.
So Quran laid conditions so Muta is not abused, but these conditions were lost in the hadiths over time. And people do abuse it not paying attention to the circumstances that God makes it allowable in Quran.
I think people don't try all that much.. Neither religious nor non-religious There is systematic way of studying ethics. Just choosing morals through caprice - a person can convince themselves they are free and not constrained.
I suggest there can a meeting point between all religions in the study of human rights and ethics. People always imagine there can't be proof for a moral injunction or wisdom proving a ritual is from God.
They don't reflect nor strive for it.
A religious Muslim also often throw their brains out to follow their scholars and just enjoy the life of this world pretending they are living for God by that convenience leadership they cling to.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - so let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are correct in stating that logic requires faith and that this "justifies having faith" (in a general sense).
First of all, none of that tells us what it would be appropriate to have faith in, does it? Why not, for example, go the whole nine yards and put faith in God or Allah? Why not put faith in scripture or prophecy? Why not place our trust in the sayings of Nostradamus or the predictions of the ancient Maya?
Secondly, whilst it may be true that "logic requires faith", that faith is based on the unavoidable assumption that the "world" is comprehensible - absent logic, the world is entirely unexplainable and there is no point whatsoever in attempting to make any sense of it, let alone inventing religions or philosophical schemes to help people to make sense of it.
What this condenses to is that it is necessary to assume logic (to assume that the world operates according to logic). If the world were not logical, I could work all day under the hot sun planting cabbages and not even be sure that I have planted any more cabbages than I did in the first ten minutes - or even that I have planted any cabbages at all - or even that more than ten minutes has elapsed since I started at first light even though I can now see the sun setting at the other side of the sky? It is necessary to assume logic.
It is not necessary to assume the existence of a "flawless good". We can function perfectly well without it. I do not need to know that a "flawless good" (or "God", or Allah...etc.) exists or is in any way a reliable guide in order to get through the day. I can live entirely without it.
I can't live without logic - although I'm not sure many of my fellow RFers sense that limitation!
Echogem222
Active Member
Why believe in logic at all though? Sure, it allows you to understand the world which seems to exist as it does, but what is the point in doing any of that? It's believed benefit, enjoyment of life, that sort of thing. You might be able to live without adhering faith to something more than just logic, but there have been many times in my life when I was so miserable that I sought more positive meaning than just that, and even though I'm now at a stable point, because I understood what it was like when I was at my lowest, I understand that there is wisdom in having faith in Flawlessism because I could get badly injured in the future, or suffer trauma, etc. However, if I adhere faith to something which lacks synergy with logic and science, well, that would obviously cause problems in my life, which is why I have faith in Flawlessism over other religions. Not only that, but it only has 1 core faith, which holds everything else together, the Flawless Good, which increases its reasonability.OK - so let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are correct in stating that logic requires faith and that this "justifies having faith" (in a general sense).
First of all, none of that tells us what it would be appropriate to have faith in, does it? Why not, for example, go the whole nine yards and put faith in God or Allah? Why not put faith in scripture or prophecy? Why not place our trust in the sayings of Nostradamus or the predictions of the ancient Maya?
Secondly, whilst it may be true that "logic requires faith", that faith is based on the unavoidable assumption that the "world" is comprehensible - absent logic, the world is entirely unexplainable and there is no point whatsoever in attempting to make any sense of it, let alone inventing religions or philosophical schemes to help people to make sense of it.
What this condenses to is that it is necessary to assume logic (to assume that the world operates according to logic). If the world were not logical, I could work all day under the hot sun planting cabbages and not even be sure that I have planted any more cabbages than I did in the first ten minutes - or even that I have planted any cabbages at all - or even that more than ten minutes has elapsed since I started at first light even though I can now see the sun setting at the other side of the sky? It is necessary to assume logic.
It is not necessary to assume the existence of a "flawless good". We can function perfectly well without it. I do not need to know that a "flawless good" (or "God", or Allah...etc.) exists or is in any way a reliable guide in order to get through the day. I can live entirely without it.
I can't live without logic - although I'm not sure many of my fellow RFers sense that limitation!
A person could argue that a car doesn't need airbags if a driver is just extra careful, but I would argue that it does need airbags since life can be very unexpected at times.
Last edited:
In my practice the Tao is a natural force of balance, rather than a supernatural one. To me it's about as much god-like as gravity. But that it's worth to try and achieve being on the Tao, in a similar way as physical, emotional, mental wellness are worth trying to achieve.
It's also a very personal religion, imo, because it isn't a revealed one, in a way. Nobody can know the best way to approach the Tao, only what seems to be working for them. So works like the Tao te Ching or talks by Alan Watts are merely advise and tips for searching, rather than commands and rules to follow.
siti
Well-Known Member
That explains why you want to have faith in something more...and I totally get that...but why do you feel the need to persuade others? I'm reluctant to go too much further with this discussion as I'm sensing a bit of fragility...but I honestly think it would be best if you don't want robust objections to be raised that you refrain from posting in debate forums.
Echogem222
Active Member
Really? You really think that others are somehow immune to suffering? That seems pretty ignorant of the problems in this world. Look, if you don't want to believe in Flawlessism, I'm not going to force you, I just think it's something people should give more serious thought about, or at least be more understanding of in why other people do it. I am not fragile at the moment, but I am aware of times when I was fragile, and I'm aware of how it is for other people. It's like you're using the straw person argument, because you're just ignoring most of what I said. Because you are basically saying that people shouldn't be fragile, or shouldn't understanding fragileness as a reasonable point to make when it comes to having faith in a religion or in anything, that people should just be emotionless machines, that I'm just this weird exception to your understanding of others.
Yes, you said, "and I totally get that" but everything else you said implies that you don't.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - wish you all the best.
Echogem222
Active Member
I made edits, because I realized you could make the argument that I'm using the straw person argument without those edits. In summary of those edits though, my issue is that you think fragility shouldn't be any part of "robust" debates, that it's not a matter which should be addressed, which is just you making a claim without any evidence to back it up.
siti
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not. People (including me) ARE fragile (at least some of the time)...I absolutely do get that. But arguments in a debate forum based on fragility and emotion are not useful by and large in my experience. I do not think you are either "weird" or "an exception" - to be honest I have no idea what you are like except what I have seen in the few posts I have read. From that point of view, I am indeed "ignorant". But I still think its best if I refrain from commenting further on the topic and I genuinely do wish you all the best.
Echogem222
Active Member
Fine, I'll leave it at this then since I cannot force you to continue to debate.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I don't really understand the "Flawlessness" example. I assume you are bringing it in as an example of atheist religiosity. But you ain't really gotta do that.
Theravada Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Sure, some of the adherents believe in bodhisattvas and other kinds of spirits. But, officially, none of these are recognized by Theravada Buddhism. Taoism is another example of a religion that doesn't have a God or gods. (Even though, of course, different Taoists have different beliefs about all manner of things.)
But maybeing I'm missing something about how "Flawlessness" enters into your argument. Sorry. I was a philosophy major. Sometimes I need to have things explained to me in neanderthal terms.
Theravada Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Sure, some of the adherents believe in bodhisattvas and other kinds of spirits. But, officially, none of these are recognized by Theravada Buddhism. Taoism is another example of a religion that doesn't have a God or gods. (Even though, of course, different Taoists have different beliefs about all manner of things.)
But maybeing I'm missing something about how "Flawlessness" enters into your argument. Sorry. I was a philosophy major. Sometimes I need to have things explained to me in neanderthal terms.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Can you give me a nutshell explanation of Flawlessism? I know you explained it before, but would you (as a favor to me) sum it up in one or two sentences one more time. Or link me to the post where you think you cave your clearest and most concise definition.
And... I WAS a philosophy major in college.
I was taking a playful jab at my own favorite academic discipline. But there is truth to the assertion that it is a "neanderthal" discipline. Some of the questions it asks are very basic. For all it's reputation as being some high-flown approach to academics, I think (in the grand scheme) it handles a lot of questions that can just as easily be formulated by your average three year old.
But (imo) that's a GOOD thing. Three year olds can ask some good questions!
This is, of course, an attempt at a collective yet somewhat coherent reply to various posts of this thread.
Some context might be helpful.
* About definitions of religion: they are all over the place and it shows.
There are those who believe it must revolve around some form of god-belief, others that it must provide answers, particularly about origins, endings and returns.
I am just not interested in any of that.
Some of my fellow atheists have decided that religion requires theism and therefore are not interested at all.
As it happens, I disagree. Religion may well be inherently controversial to delimit and define, but it is a real human activity with real political, social and emotional consequences. There is no obvious upside to simply treating it as a derogatory, when plenty of people adhere to them and deserve whatever combination of recognition and warning might be called for.
I have a few definitions of religion of my own, which I understand to be about equally valid and somewhat complementary to each other. None of them has any use for god-concepts, nor to questions (let alone answers) about origins of universe, existence, Earth, life, or humanity. And they definitely do not have any interest in afterlives.
* About gods: they are a freestyle concept far as I am concerned. It is the believer's duty (if he believes in any god instead of relating to those in other ways) to justify that belief and to accept the dangers of believing wrongly.
If you are proposing that there is such a thing as a "non-secular religion", you should expect to be called to explain why that is not just a contradiction of terms. Better yet, offer that explanation up front.
You seem to believe that you did, but your insistenc on the existence of some sort of "Flawless Infinity" that is somehow significant for your religion just tells me that you are a theist - in fact, a remarkably Aquinas-like theist - that for some reason wants to think of himself as an atheist and has odd conceptions of what religion and secularism are.
Okay, several problems here.
1. What does it even mean, saying that "all of reality is everything we can comprehend even just a little"? This is just a statement that is at once dogmatic and rather unclear.
2. You seem to be claiming that reality is defined and delimited by our ability to hold some form of idea of its components, even if it is a very vague idea.
That is just weird. Why would reality conform so submissively to our ability to conceive ideas?
3. "The cause of reality is not within reality" and "therefore can't be defined" or, apparently, labeled either.
How would you even know that? Even taking that for granted, why would it be relevant or useful for religious purposes in any way?
I'm not convinced that this even says anything, other than hinting of a poor understanding of what the concept of infinity means and what it does not.
There is some hint that we... should believe that infinity exist, I think? And that we ought not to call it god for some vague magical reason, yet at the same time treat it as a certainty associatee it with... transcendence, perhaps?
I honestly don't understand why you don't just accept that you are a theist - a monotheist, apparently - and be satisfied with that.
Atheism is just atheism. It is well defined - actually, it is considerably better defined than the theism that it opposes - but it just does not amount to much.
While many of us atheists do in fact believe that all religions require some form of god-belief, that is just not true, and probably never was. Religion is not a consequence of theism, does not have theism as a prerequisite, and IMO do not even benefit from theism.
LaVeyan Satanism, from what I hear, is not so much secular as it is indeed atheistic. It actually has an interesting approach to the matter of religiosity, in that it supposedly encourages brutal self-honesty and a clear understanding of what we value and of our personal responsibilities.
Luciferianism seems to be something else entirely, despite some cosmetic similarities.
In any case, I can't in good faith advise anyone to just adhere to either - or really, to any other religious or pseudo-religious doctrine. Personal responsibility in matters of religion and belief is essential at every step. We must always allow for the possibility of being simply mistaken, if not misguided.
This is just a mess of confused concepts and attempts at rejecting and mixing them.
It may well be that you made it work for you, but you are not even trying to make that understandable for others.
The hypothetical existence of some sort of god is at most a marginal subject matter far as proper religion is concerned.
Many people think otherwise, but that is just because the Abrahamics are so darned influential.
I have no idea of what it is that you call religion. I am not trying very hard to find out.
Why do you think that a generic person who considers itself to be an atheist somehow isn't?
What would considering themselves religious or non-religious have to do with that?
This is both needlessly confused and needlessly complicated. I sincerely wonder if you can even follow your own claim above.
This is very, very hard to parse. Atheism is so simple; I have a hard time even imagining it "hijacking" something. And of course, any form of theism without the belief in (supernatural) gods is indeed atheism.
But from later posts I have come to tentatively undestand that you take it as a given that people somehow will have some form of god and of worship of that god not out of beliefs, but out of human nature alone.
That... is just needlessly confusing the concepts from my perspective, but I promised you a good faith effort. I have learned some time ago that Islam does not use conceptions of religion and of atheism that I would recognize.
So... what can I make of what you say above? Not a whole lot with much certainty, but tentatively:
1. You take it for granted that everyone has some form of god and of worship, including atheists.
2. Atheism is by your perspective overcomplicating something. I honestly don't know what that would be.
3. Polytheism is somehow similar to atheism to you (presumably due to both challenging the Abrahamic expectation of a sole Creator God), the difference being mostly in acceptance of the supernatural.
I guess I agree with the third point. The Abrahamic gods are indeed rather unusual.
As for hijacking, I think I am more inclined to say that it were the Abrahamics that hickjacked the idea of religion and made it... let's just call that "weird" for the moment. It is clear that you and I are holding very contrasting expectations of what the basic and starting elements are - as I would expect of anyone who was taught Islam from an early age.
Some context might be helpful.
* About definitions of religion: they are all over the place and it shows.
There are those who believe it must revolve around some form of god-belief, others that it must provide answers, particularly about origins, endings and returns.
I am just not interested in any of that.
Some of my fellow atheists have decided that religion requires theism and therefore are not interested at all.
As it happens, I disagree. Religion may well be inherently controversial to delimit and define, but it is a real human activity with real political, social and emotional consequences. There is no obvious upside to simply treating it as a derogatory, when plenty of people adhere to them and deserve whatever combination of recognition and warning might be called for.
I have a few definitions of religion of my own, which I understand to be about equally valid and somewhat complementary to each other. None of them has any use for god-concepts, nor to questions (let alone answers) about origins of universe, existence, Earth, life, or humanity. And they definitely do not have any interest in afterlives.
* About gods: they are a freestyle concept far as I am concerned. It is the believer's duty (if he believes in any god instead of relating to those in other ways) to justify that belief and to accept the dangers of believing wrongly.
If you are proposing that there is such a thing as a "non-secular religion", you should expect to be called to explain why that is not just a contradiction of terms. Better yet, offer that explanation up front.
You seem to believe that you did, but your insistenc on the existence of some sort of "Flawless Infinity" that is somehow significant for your religion just tells me that you are a theist - in fact, a remarkably Aquinas-like theist - that for some reason wants to think of himself as an atheist and has odd conceptions of what religion and secularism are.
Okay, several problems here.
1. What does it even mean, saying that "all of reality is everything we can comprehend even just a little"? This is just a statement that is at once dogmatic and rather unclear.
2. You seem to be claiming that reality is defined and delimited by our ability to hold some form of idea of its components, even if it is a very vague idea.
That is just weird. Why would reality conform so submissively to our ability to conceive ideas?
3. "The cause of reality is not within reality" and "therefore can't be defined" or, apparently, labeled either.
How would you even know that? Even taking that for granted, why would it be relevant or useful for religious purposes in any way?
I'm not convinced that this even says anything, other than hinting of a poor understanding of what the concept of infinity means and what it does not.
There is some hint that we... should believe that infinity exist, I think? And that we ought not to call it god for some vague magical reason, yet at the same time treat it as a certainty associatee it with... transcendence, perhaps?
I honestly don't understand why you don't just accept that you are a theist - a monotheist, apparently - and be satisfied with that.
Atheism is just atheism. It is well defined - actually, it is considerably better defined than the theism that it opposes - but it just does not amount to much.
While many of us atheists do in fact believe that all religions require some form of god-belief, that is just not true, and probably never was. Religion is not a consequence of theism, does not have theism as a prerequisite, and IMO do not even benefit from theism.
LaVeyan Satanism, from what I hear, is not so much secular as it is indeed atheistic. It actually has an interesting approach to the matter of religiosity, in that it supposedly encourages brutal self-honesty and a clear understanding of what we value and of our personal responsibilities.
Luciferianism seems to be something else entirely, despite some cosmetic similarities.
In any case, I can't in good faith advise anyone to just adhere to either - or really, to any other religious or pseudo-religious doctrine. Personal responsibility in matters of religion and belief is essential at every step. We must always allow for the possibility of being simply mistaken, if not misguided.
This is just a mess of confused concepts and attempts at rejecting and mixing them.
It may well be that you made it work for you, but you are not even trying to make that understandable for others.
The hypothetical existence of some sort of god is at most a marginal subject matter far as proper religion is concerned.
Many people think otherwise, but that is just because the Abrahamics are so darned influential.
I have no idea of what it is that you call religion. I am not trying very hard to find out.
Why do you think that a generic person who considers itself to be an atheist somehow isn't?
What would considering themselves religious or non-religious have to do with that?
This is both needlessly confused and needlessly complicated. I sincerely wonder if you can even follow your own claim above.
This is very, very hard to parse. Atheism is so simple; I have a hard time even imagining it "hijacking" something. And of course, any form of theism without the belief in (supernatural) gods is indeed atheism.
But from later posts I have come to tentatively undestand that you take it as a given that people somehow will have some form of god and of worship of that god not out of beliefs, but out of human nature alone.
That... is just needlessly confusing the concepts from my perspective, but I promised you a good faith effort. I have learned some time ago that Islam does not use conceptions of religion and of atheism that I would recognize.
So... what can I make of what you say above? Not a whole lot with much certainty, but tentatively:
1. You take it for granted that everyone has some form of god and of worship, including atheists.
2. Atheism is by your perspective overcomplicating something. I honestly don't know what that would be.
3. Polytheism is somehow similar to atheism to you (presumably due to both challenging the Abrahamic expectation of a sole Creator God), the difference being mostly in acceptance of the supernatural.
I guess I agree with the third point. The Abrahamic gods are indeed rather unusual.
As for hijacking, I think I am more inclined to say that it were the Abrahamics that hickjacked the idea of religion and made it... let's just call that "weird" for the moment. It is clear that you and I are holding very contrasting expectations of what the basic and starting elements are - as I would expect of anyone who was taught Islam from an early age.
Apparently you are just in love with the idea of using the word "religion" as a boilerplate, a convenient placeholder for much or most of what is wrong or undesirable to be tossed at.
I can't be 100% sure that is just laziness, but I can tell you that it is not a very useful, constructive or clarifying approach. It also does not extend a lot of courtesy to people who might be sincere and well-meaning adherents of religions and pseudo-religions, of which there are literal billions.
Not how I use the word "god", nor a concept of same that I would favor. But a bit revealing nonetheless.
I suppose it is one further reason to point out that Islam's Allah is indeed unusual even when compared to other Abrahamic conceptions of god - even if it is a reason that I do not subscribe to.
Not agreeing 100%, but reasonable so far.
The Prophets, I assume?
That is such a deeply Islamic idea. I don't think I relate to it at all.
A very Abrahamic belief. Also entirely foreign to me. None of that applies to me. Never did. Probably never will.
Do we? If we do, would you know whether that is somehow a meaningful fact? Is that highest value stable? Does it matter whether it is? Are there any exceptions, and is there anything of note to say about them?
Unless we don't.
I am sincerely uncertain about this that you seem to call "worship". You seem to think that it is an unavoidable and perhaps necessary part of human existence.
Myself, I just don't know what worship means, and I am very suspicious that it is both avoidable and undesirable. What little I understand of the idea suggests that it amounts to mainly holding high expectations that are far more likely than not unwarranted and unreasonable out of something or someone.
You may call that unavoidable. I just call that a bad habit that we can and should overcome. I don't think that it is even necessarily very hard to do.
This too is hard to parse. There seem to be some missing pieces, probably some of the premises even.
What I can say is that I find it odd that reverence to Allah is apparently a very necessary thing by your view, yet at the same time you seem to believe that pretty much everyone (includig atheists) will end up having some god even if it is not Allah and even if we do not want to.
I find myself wondering whether this is a matter of calling very different things by the same names. It does not make sense to me that someone would have a god without meaning to. I have certaily be called to believe in gods often enough and it just doesn't work. I am halfway convinced that Islam is less about believing in the Qur'an and in Allah than it is about presumably having the good fortune to find out about the Qur'an and Allah before people come to value (and presumably deify?) something else instead.
That is not what I would call religion, nor is it what I would call theism either. It seems to be instead a value system that treats motivation as a scarce resource and believes that there is a need to choose or be taught about the One True Ultimate value.
Not what I would call religion, but it does fit somewhat with much of what I have seen of Islam, so maybe there is something to that.
The Nabi being the Prophets of Islam, correct?
If you say so.
This, too, does not strike me as being religious practice. I freely admit that I have seen that preached. A variation of that has become popular in Christianity as well.
Myself, I don't use any concepts of this other world. It is not a concern to me and will not become one either. I have neither hope for Heaven nor fear or worry about either Purgatory or Hell. Those ideas mean nothing to me.
Honestly, I have no idea if that is even meant to apply for anyone at all. It seems to be a warning for us "kuffar" (both atheists, Polytheists and presumably Pagans and Animists as well) to believe before it is too late, but... it is just not something that can be taken seriously, sorry.
I don't know whether there is even a proposed formal or academic definition of worship, but I for one find the idea inherently vague and arbitrary, to the point of uselessness.
I don't think that it is rare at all. On the contrary, it is so unremarkable that people rarely notice it despite being an everyday occurrence for presumably hundreds of millions of people or even more.
Was it ever meant to be a religion that others could understand and relate to? Honest question. Religion is often highly personal and that is arguably necessary.
Because learning from others can be a very good and constructive thing.
And which for some reason you won't call a god.
Not following, but that is probably not my business in the first place. You do you.
Okay. I'm out of that boat. Best of luck.
Far as I can figure out, you are coming from a perspective and a set of premises that just aren't natural or perhaps even understandable to me (and if I dare say so, for many others who do not come from an Islamic background).