Do you believe in God?

[danieldemol]

I know. But thanks.

Are you a pantheist? If not that's a refutation of your God argument right there in my view. If so it would be an internal contradiction as parts of the universe are more merciful than the whole indifferent universe making your God less merciful than things Islam generally doesn't want worshipped (such as a parent for example) in my view.

And if your God argument is refuted (which at this point I believe we can successfully say it is) then your God argument is logically unsound or put another way using shorthand, we may say your argument for God is illogical.

 

[Spice]

Can you explain how exactly that constitutes an advancement in philosophy or theology?

Philosophy and theology are ideas, thoughts, contemplations on the Mysteries of the world, history, the mind, everything. Exchanging ideas and thoughts help them expand. Sure, it's going to be difficult to go up against Socrates, Plato, Lucretius, and the like, but today's modern thinkers do attempt it, and make a little progress here and there.

I have no idea what you mean by 'advances'.

Then you need to read some history on religions-- beliefs and practices.

 

[Spice]

From the formation of the early universe according to my understanding.

And what formed the early universe?

 

[danieldemol]

I don't have links. But if you wish, you can read Ibn Rushd and his Wajibul Wujood.

Why are you quoting this again after i already in my view refuted it for you? Shouldnt you at least attempt a counter refutation in this thread?

Or Juwaini's Irshad. Or you could try the contingency argument and the Qur'anic Necessary Being description that corresponds with it. Maybe if you search for them you might find some links somewhere. If not get their books. Good reads.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://archive.org/details/al-juwayni-kitab-al-irshad-compressed-compressed_202011&ved=2ahUKEwjJ96jHlqKGAxXvU2wGHXckDxoQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3hG6amhsomALZFshAO37qt

Irshad appears to be a collection of arguments. Why not share his arguments here one at a time for potential refutation as his book contains extensive introductory material and other waffle to wade through.

 

[danieldemol]

And what formed the early universe?

You are assuming that something formed the early universe. Assuming your conclusion is illogical in my view. It may have been formed or it may have simply been there for all time.

 

[sun rise]

why are some people today trying to bring back the past?

People tend to idealize the past and fear the future. In a time of turmoil like we're living in, many look to a past that never really existed. Some tend to denigrate the past by the standards of today. Personally my view is that religions in the past made the world a better place than it would have been otherwise. Christianity inspired people to build amazing religious structures, inspired people to end slavery and gave hope in a world full of darkness. By the standards of today, the religions of the past were flawed instruments and the scriptures full of both positive and negative elements. But like anything else, individual religions are born, mature and finally the traditional religious structures die.

That death to me is evident in the media. We have people who claim to be truly religious who choose "mammon" over God, in Christian terms. They do this by putting political expediency and political power over the Sermon on the Mount's moral imperatives. We've had endless examples of people in religious authority committing horrible crimes while hypocritically pretending to be devout. Others, noting that things were apparently better in the past trying to force people into structures that have no life in them any longer.

People with religious beliefs are being challenged to find a new path which retains the positive essence of their religions in new ways.

 

[firedragon]

Why are you quoting this again after i already in my view refuted it for you?

It was for a different discussion with a different person.

Irshad appears to be a collection of arguments. Why not share his arguments here one at a time for potential refutation

Nope. Thanks for the challenge though.

 

[firedragon]

Are you a pantheist? If not that's a refutation of your God argument right there in my view.

So what? What argument are you so badly looking for?

 

[firedragon]

If you had had an argument, you would have left it, right?

Argument for what?

 

[firedragon]

I am asking how many people (this is the number

Ah. Sorry about that. And I think I have answered that. I said "many". I didn't say "there is a quantitative research on that".

 

[danieldemol]

It was for a different discussion with a different person.

So you are prepared to spread ignorance by spreading refuted arguments?

I believe honesty requires that rather than looking for people who may not be aware of the refutations to spread those arguments to one should either label them as refuted arguments when spreading them or provide counter refutation that upholds them

Nope. Thanks for the challenge though.

Why are you afraid of having Irshad's arguments refuted? Is it because your job depends on the spread of ignorance? Personally I would just find a new job.

 

[firedragon]

You didn’t give me a book.

Why not just quote the part that talks about how saying that religion is a team sport is somehow a logical fallacy?

And then I can cite sources from historians and anthropologists that suggest otherwise.

The book was for you to understand logical fallacies. You calling them "internet logic". And I did give you a book. If you think giving you a book is to buy it and mail it to you then you are sadly mistaken. Find it.

 

[firedragon]

So you are prepared to spread ignorance by spreading refuted arguments?

Nope.

Why are you afraid of having Irshad's arguments refuted?

If that is needed to boost your confidence so be it.

 

[danieldemol]

So what? What argument are you so badly looking for?

I'm inviting you to make a counter refutation that upholds your religion so we can see for ourselves that you are being truthful when you claim there are logical arguments that uphold your God.

 

[Koldo]

Ah. Sorry about that. And I think I have answered that. I said "many". I didn't say "there is a quantitative research on that".

Ah, ok, so you don't actually know anyone...
Sorry for taking too long to understand the message.

 

[firedragon]

Ah, ok, so you don't actually know anyone...

I gave three famous people who could be found on the internet.

 

[firedragon]

I'm inviting you to make a counter refutation that upholds your religio

Counter refutation for what?

 

[Koldo]

Philosophy and theology are ideas, thoughts, contemplations on the Mysteries of the world, history, the mind, everything. Exchanging ideas and thoughts help them expand. Sure, it's going to be difficult to go up against Socrates, Plato, Lucretius, and the like, but today's modern thinkers do attempt it, and make a little progress here and there.

Then you need to read some history on religions-- beliefs and practices.

Ah, so what you mean by 'advance' is 'expand'.
I agree that philosophy and theology keep expanding every day. But I don't call that advancing per se.

Emergentism, for example, is not an advancement when compared to dualism. It is just a different model.

 

[Koldo]

I gave three famous people who could be found on the internet.

I have asked about people you personally know, as in people that you have met in person, or people that at least had a conversation with you.

 

[Koldo]

It’s not your religion.

That’s all.

It’s very important for Catholics.

Not so much in your religion, I guess.

I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.