Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[joelr]

One may spend a whole life time studying what might have happened 1000's of years ago.That does not mean they are qualified in saying that God does not exist,.

Another strawman. I don't know if you do this on purpose or your cognitive bias doesn't let you understand these things?
1)I just said historians don't make belief statements, they look at evidence
2) historical evidence is not the reason to not believe in a God
3) As I have been saying over and over - there isn't evidence for any God, no evidence for theism, no evidence fro revelations
4) However looking at mans stories of Gods can reveal things. Made up stories use religious syncretism, there are thousands of examples. The Cargo Cults and many many others.
So we also see huge amounts of syncretism in Judaism and Christianity. We also see examples that put characters in settings that are not possible for many reasons. This gives evidence that these Gods are just combinations and re-workings of previous Gods. Especially when the majority of the material copied from is neighbors or nations who invade the religion being looked at.

So not only is the evidence for God, theism and the supernatural at zero, the stories are clearly re-workings of older myths.

Yet, you continue to claim that historicity is the source of qualification in saying a God does not exist.
Gods do not exist, there is that? Summon one, tell me when he will be appearing.

Oh let me guess......Gods don't do that because blah blah bleh blah..........

That does not mean they are qualified in saying that God does not exist, and that Islam evolved from apparently random source.

Well Islamic nations cannot yet study the Quran in a historical sense. You have to go along with the group and hail it as divine. 1st red flag.
"In the Muslim world, scholarly criticism of the Quran can be considered an apostasy. Scholarly criticism of the Quran, is thus, a nascent field of study in the Islamic world.["

Although some of the studies done have already indicated some early versions, practice runs, of the text. Showing that it was composed not by revelation but created from sources, same as all religious mythology. It's known the Bible, Arab myths and Greek texts were used.


"In the 1970s, 14,000 fragments of Quran were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana'a, the Sana'a manuscripts. About 12,000 fragments belonged to 926 copies of the Quran, the other 2,000 were loose fragments. The oldest known copy of the Quran so far belongs to this collection:According to Sadeghi and Bergmann, the results indicated that the parchment had a 68% (1σ) probability of belonging to the period between 614 CE to 656 CE. It had a 95% (2σ) probability of belonging to the period between 578 CE and 669 CE. The carbon dating was applicable to the lower text.But paleography suggest a date from mid to latter half of the 7th century CE.Upper text dated between end of 7CE and beginning of the 8CE.

The German scholar Gerd R. Puin has been investigating these Quran fragments for years. His research team made 35,000 microfilm photographs of the manuscripts, which he dated to early part of the 8th century. Puin has not published the entirety of his work, but noted unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography. He also suggested that some of the parchments were palimpsests which had been reused. Puin believed that this implied an evolving text as opposed to a fixed one.[7]

In 2015, some of the earliest known Quranic fragments, dating from between approximately AD 568 and 645, were identified at the University of Birmingham."

First appeared? .. you mean as in "beamed down" by Captain Kirk?

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.

Archaeologist William Dever

..so what?
That tells us nothing about God .. it only tells us that people worshiped more than one god.

It's a hint or clue. This religion started out with a God and Goddess. It wasn't the "God of reality" speaking to people. It was a new natiuon, they started their own myths, created a God and a Goddess like everyone else had and that's it. Later when occupied by Persia and seeing they had just one God they said "hmmm, maybe we should have just the one and he won't let people invade us?" Didn't work.
Clues that this is just more of the same, made up stories.

Wow! You just ignore me, and assume that people's ignorance in the past shows evidence that Abrahamic belief is FOUNDED on ignorance.
Your conclusions are based on disbelief. This evidence is not evidence of anythng but people of old were inclined to polytheism.

This is evidence that the beginning of the religion had a God and Goddess. Supposedly Abraham was told what was what about God. That is clearly not true. That was a assumption added later.

Now here you say that the Abrahamic belief was founded on evidence if they had a God and Goddess. What you are not realizing is it doesn't matter.

EVERY MYTH IS FOUNDED ON A FICTIVE DEITY. It doesn't matter if the religion was founded on just Yahweh (it wasn't), it's still MADE-UP. Yes it's ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that the religious leaders who tell the people "our God will be YAhweh" that it's not real. Every nation had a made-up God. They are not real. A few survived to today. Still not real.

In fact if a new nation started tomorrow and said "we have a NEW God, his name is Rupert!" the entire world would know it was made up. Back then they did not. So it worked.
Now we know.

Ha ha ha
Ignorance!

Yahweh had a wife. So how is that ignorance? Early Israelites in fact worshipped Yahweh and Ashera? So? Ashera isn't real. Yahweh isn't real? Are you laughing at Ashera and worshipping Yahweh? Then you are a hypocrite.

I don't WANT it to be true .. I just see that it is.

Then you have some serious issues with "seeing" because it's fiction. You have a story and other people who believe. Great, so does Mormonism and every other faith.
No evidence. Theism is the oldest and most dead concept ever as well as the idea of a soul and an afterlife.

By the way, you already alluded to the afterlife several times which is probably the reason for belief.
If you actually didn't want it to be true you wouldn't hang on fallacy after fallacy and rely on awful apologetics. You would use rational thinking and test youtr beliefs. You would not hand wave scholarship as "just non-believers" and many other things.
You definitely want it ti be true.
Also you would never believe something you cannot demonstrate good evidence for. The reason you ignore all logical lines of thinking is because you want it to be true.

You might assume that that is the case, but I can assure you that it isn't..
I might be in hell for billions of years, or die in disbelief.
..then what?

Then nothing happens because in real life hell, devils and the underworld is 100% fiction.
And you can trace the theology of hell and the devil from Persian beliefs, not a single mention in Judaism for many centuries. Obvious syncretism.

I was discussing the philosophy of science.
You can accuse me of being ignorant, if it pleases you..

No you said time is a universal construct and may exist in all places. There is direct science to deal with that. Modern physics shows that isn't the case.
You also posted quotes from Wiki that were not just philosophy of science. So, dishonest once again.

I find history very interesting .. but historical facts are notoriously difficult to prove.

An apologetic you don't actually mean unless it supports what you want it to support only.

The Quran is ancient history. If you stand by your claim than proving the history of the Quran should be equally as difficult. The printing press did not exist in Biblical or Quran times so there is no difference. So you will squirm and use special pleading like you did the last time you tried this line of reasoning.
But as you see, I posted some information showing that indeed the origin of the Quran is in question and like you said, cannot be proven to be written in one take.
History is either difficult or not?

But finding Ashera figurines that say Yahweh and his Ashera in the ancient Israelite towns is a fairly easy to interpret find. Or finding her name in a temple.

Furthermore, if one wants to draw conclusions about the existence of God from historical events, it depends on underlying assumption.
i.e. did prophets exist or didn't they

That isn't in question. Humans often claimed to be getting revelations. In every religion a priest or leader is getting God messages, That is how religion works, always.
The revelations always reflect older theology and never information a human could not have found in the times from a human source.
The Quran is the Bible, Arab myths, Greek science and Jewish legends. Not one shred of new information. Lot's of incorrect information and contradictions. Even in the Quran. Prophets are not real.

But the God they are getting messages from is even more unreal.
contradictions

Contradictions in the Quran

bad science
Science in the Quran

 

[joelr]

It is you who is kicking and screaming, joelr.

Well after the 400th fallacy I may get jumpy but you will have to point out where exactly. Please show your source.


We already did this. You jumped into another debate and accused me of something and then completely failed to produce evidence for your beliefs and stopped answering.


There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

post #4444

shall we try again, have you found evidence for a syncretic blend of Persian/Greek mythology to be true or evidence of a missing theism and a supposed deity? I have lot's of new scholarship to draw from.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1)I just said historians don't make belief statements, they look at evidence..

You seem to have a mental block..
They examine historical evidence, and MAKE CONCLUSIONS.
i.e. they give their 'informed opinions' about the source of OT, for example

3) As I have been saying over and over - there isn't evidence for any God, no evidence for theism, no evidence fro revelations

There is evidence .. but you dismiss it.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.
We do not have to rely on empirical evidence alone..
[ eg. photographs of God or Muhammad bla bla ]
..we can also examine the various different scriptures,
and evaluate their contents etc.

4) However looking at mans stories of Gods can reveal things. Made up stories use religious syncretism..

You are just reinforcing your own beliefs with this nonsense.
It cannot be categorically proved one way or the other.

..you continue to claim that historicity is the source of qualification in saying a God does not exist.
Gods do not exist, there is that? Summon one, tell me when he will be appearing.

Dear oh dear..
I do not speak for God .. there is no need.
Almighty God is beyond need.
It is mankind that have need.

In 2015, some of the earliest known Quranic fragments, dating from between approximately AD 568 and 645, were identified at the University of Birmingham."

I know .. I live near Birmingham .. they came from the Cadbury [chocolate] Library. They are Quakers, and collected early documents.

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt..

Fantastic..

It's a hint or clue. This religion started out with a God and Goddess..

What people of old believed, is nether here nor there. We know that the Israelites were polytheistic. Moses and his brother had their work cut out .. and they died, like we all do.

Later when occupied by Persia and seeing they had just one God they said "hmmm, maybe we should have just the one and he won't let people invade us?"

Is that right?
Your "Bible" must be different from mine..

EVERY MYTH IS FOUNDED ON A FICTIVE DEITY..

You have been listening to satan, haven't you .. you merely follow disbelieving men .. nothing more, and nothing less.

Yahweh had a wife. So how is that ignorance?

God does not have a wife .. He is One.
God is nether male or female.
What ignorant people of old might have believed is irrelevant.

You definitely want it ti be true..

You keep going on about this..
..yet you ignore my reply.
I DO NOT KNOW THAT I WILL NOT END UP IN HELL

Why would I want to believe that I might go to hell?
Isn't it easier to believe that when I die, I will no longer exist?

No you said time is a universal construct and may exist in all places. There is direct science to deal with that. Modern physics shows that isn't the case..

What??
Physics deals with observations in our universe .. it cannot demonstrate whatever exists outside of it.

The Quran is ancient history..

Not that ancient .. ~1500 years ago.

But as you see, I posted some information showing that indeed the origin of the Quran is in question..

You haven't shown us anything concrete..
What meaning in the Qur'an can be shown to have altered,
from different styles of script/typeface?
You have nothing !

 

[joelr]

You seem to have a mental block..
They examine historical evidence, and MAKE CONCLUSIONS.
i.e. they give their 'informed opinions' about the source of OT, for example

Which MATTER!?!?!? Before we discovered Mesopotamian tablets it was thought those stories may have come from the Israelites. After seeing the same myths in Mesopotamia, far earlier, same wording and verbatim line use at times, across many myths - flood, Eden, Job, creation story (both), and we know the Israelites had contact with Mesopotamian culture that is EVIDENCE to consider.
Since you are an apologist and are not interested in truth, you are only interested in facts that confirm your beliefs ( an easy way to know when you hold false beliefs) you think of ways to discredit historical knowledge.
Once the evidence becomes strong enough we can say the stories came from here. The fact that you are so afraid of information and so resistant to it shows you have an agenda.
We also see that "God" did not come to Abraham and explain he was what we now think of as "God". Instead like other religions they worshipped multiple Gods and Yahweh wasn't even the head God. EL gave Yahweh Israel as his portion to rule. Clear mythology.

Outside of the Hebrew Bible, one of the best examples of ancient Israelite and Judean religion comes from an archaeological site called Kuntillet 'Ajrud, possibly dating as early as the 10th century BCE. One inscription from this site reads, "to YHWH of Samaria and to Asherata." Another inscription reads, "To YHWH of Teman and to Asherata" (Na'aman, 305). Both of these inscriptions demonstrate that some ancient Israelites and Judeans were not monotheistic in how they practiced religion; rather, they were henotheistic. YHWH, which may be read as Yahweh, was the primary tribal deity. He is best known from the Hebrew Bible. Asherata, also known as Asherah, was a deity within the Ugaritic pantheon. She is also a common figure in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, we can confidently say that among the spectrums of how people in ancient Israel and Judah practiced religion, Asherah and Yahweh were both honored in cults. Priority, though, tended to be given to Yahweh.

Additionally, one of the earliest translations of the Hebrew Bible into another language in the 3rd century BCE attests to the henotheism of ancient Israel. In the Septuigant (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy 32:8 reads: "When the Most High was apportioning nations, as he scattered Adam's sons, he fixed boundaries of nations according to the number of divine sons" (Pietersma and Wright, 2007). Most High is a reference to El. In this verse, El is said to assign nations and people groups to his divine sons, namely deities. In this verse, Yahweh is assigned to Israel, and other deities to other peoples. Thus, the Hebrew Bible itself reflects the henotheism of ancient Israel and the region more broadly.

There is evidence .. but you dismiss it.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.

No there is no evidence. Except crappy evidence, which YOU DISMISS! You don't accept the Bahai prophet who updated Islam and Christianity. He said God spoke to him and it was time for progressive revelation. He wrote more than the Quran in volume. Mormonism, new revelations, also from an angel. Yet you dismiss it. So don't tell me there is "evidence" because you know there is not. Unless you employ massive special pleading fallacy which makes it bad evidence.

We do not have to rely on empirical evidence alone..
[ eg. photographs of God or Muhammad bla bla ]
..we can also examine the various different scriptures,
and evaluate their contents etc.

Yes scriptures, literary style, writing style, literary devices, and more are all studied. It's one way to detect which are forgeries.
We can also evaluate the information in the scripture. In all scripture is NOTHING new, it's re-used theology, the same moral systems, contradictions and miraculous happenings that no one ever sees in real life.

Every time I mention scholars studying the scriptures you have some issue. NOw you mention it?
We can see Moses is made up of Egyptian myths and full of mistakes - camels were not around in that era, etc...

Nothing in the content demonstrates anything divine. Why would Islamic apologetics have to lie so much and say the science proves it's divine because no one could have known those things?
The sun is the center of the universe, no one else knew? Right, except Aristarchus a Greek philosopher who said the sun was center of universe

You are just reinforcing your own beliefs with this nonsense.
It cannot be categorically proved one way or the other.

Talk about a mental block? If someone had a script about a computer coder who was stuck in a computer generated reality by A.I. and someone was trying to give him a red pill to wake his body up to the real world to fight the machines, and said they wrote it, you might say "Dude that is the Matrix, you copied it". They also could say "but you cannot categorically prove it!?"

Point is, WHO CARES if you can demonstrate it to 100%? It's evidence. And there is massive amounts of theology that shows up JUST WHEN THOSE CULTURES ENTER ISRAEL???
Genesis is written after direct contact with Mesopotamia as well. Those are good clues and reasonable evidence.
In many spots, lines are used verbatim.
A non-bias person sees this as evidence for syncretism. A fundamentalist hides from truth and makes excuses - "well....you cannot show for SURE...."

Meanwhile Mormons also say "yes we know Joe Smith was a con-man and the golden plates were never found but still, you can't PROVE it didn't happen and the angel didn't visit him.."

whatever. Evidence and truth.

 

[joelr]

Dear oh dear..
I do not speak for God .. there is no need.
Almighty God is beyond need.
It is mankind that have need.

I know there is always some excuse when this is asked. God is beyond need because he is a fictional character in a book. Whenever you are ready, I have a 14 digit number from pi. Ask God to guide your hand and write it down.

Fantastic..

Which shows the Quran, like all scripture, had early practice runs before the final version was complete.

What people of old believed, is nether here nor there. We know that the Israelites were polytheistic. Moses and his brother had their work cut out .. and they died, like we all do.

Moses is a literary creation in an ancient book. It's claimed Abraham spoke with God and was told what was up. Actually the early Isralites worshipped many deities which demonstrates Abraham had no such meeting and this religion is just like all the others of the time period.

Is that right?
Your "Bible" must be different from mine..

No, you probably need to actually read your Bible.
Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou at 8:14 explains that during the Persian period the religion is being re-branded and repackaged (and canonized) as solely worshipping Yahweh.

8:14


and here - JEWS DURING THE PERSIAN PERIOD | Facts and Details
under
Isaiah on the Persian Period
it goes over many passages about the Israelites being abandoned -

"The arguments of those who said that Yahweh had forgotten his people (49:14 ff.) or had, as Hosea had phrased it, divorced Israel (50:1 ff.) are denied. II Isaiah's appeal is to tradition, and the promise of redemption is renewed (51:1 ff.). The prophet now calls upon Yahweh to redeem as in the past, beginning his hymn with "Awake, awake" (51:9-11). Yahweh's response is a promise of release, and similar cries "rouse yourself, rouse yourself" (51:17) and "awake, awake" (52:1) are directed toward Jerusalem to encourage the people to rise to the challenge of the new tomorrow."

and their promise to focus on just Yahweh and enter a new era.

The quote above shows there were people (Hosea for one) saying Yahweh had abandoned them and was sleeping. The passages above show someone telling them to direct it toward Israel.

So yes, it is right. Guess you should read your bible.

You have been listening to satan, haven't you .. you merely follow disbelieving men .. nothing more, and nothing less.

Yes when you show evidence against any religion it's always the devil who did it. At least for those who wish to avoid reality and live in a fantasy fiction world. When you don't believe the JW revelations it's because Satan got to you. Muslim? Satan got you. Yet another cheap apologetic without evidence that is used by all religions.

Satan is an agent of Yahweh, performing deeds and peacefully roaming earth. Until the Persian period.

"3) Probable influence of Persian religious ideas and institutions: A) Angels, Satan; B) Afterlife (Resurrection); C) Need to consciously differentiate between Jewish monotheism and Zoroastrian dualism; 5) Theology:Free will, Angels, Afterlife; "

Zoroastrian ideas about good and evil, Heaven and Hell and God and Satan had a lasting impact of Judaism and Christianity.

God does not have a wife .. He is One.
God is nether male or female.
What ignorant people of old might have believed is irrelevant.

Right. Except Abraham had revelations, Moses had revelations, prophets were all over the OT. Yet no one could tell them some simple facts? Wow, it's like it's all made up?

You keep going on about this..
..yet you ignore my reply.
I DO NOT KNOW THAT I WILL NOT END UP IN HELL

Yes because it also offers heaven and eternal life. But you won't end up in hell because it's a Persian myth. It was fiction when they came up with it and it was still fiction when the Jewish religion borrowed it and used it for themselves.

Zoroastrian Religion
Zoroastrianism was the dominant religion of the Persians. It developed around the time of the Jewish Exile or before that. Zoroastrian ideas about good and evil, Heaven and Hell and God and Satan had a lasting impact of Judaism and Christianity.
“His teachings centered in a cosmic dualism in which Ahura Mazda, the all-knowing creator and sustainer of the world of good, was pitted against the powers of evil symbolized by Angra Mainyu, the epitome of evil. Here truth struggled with the lie and light battled darkness. Ethical values were attributed to the opposing forces by the prophet, so that right and wrong tended to have black and white characteristics. Man, endowed with free choice, is involved in the cosmic struggle and must choose between the sides. Within this cosmic bipolarity, Zoroaster envisioned history moving toward an ultimate goal. In the final epoch of time, truth and goodness would triumph. Then, in the eschaton, a savior would come to renew all existence and resurrect the dead, uniting the body and soul.

“At death, man's soul approached the "Bridge of Separation" over which the righteous were able to pass to paradise but where the evil were turned back for punishment. At the end of time, after the resurrection, every man would be tested in a flood of molten metal. For the righteous the final test would be as entering a warm bath, but for the evil the fiery test would mean complete extinction. As one possessing free will, the individual could not be judged as a member of a group; nor could he be burdened with the sins of his ancestors. Each man, by personal choice and action, determined his own ultimate fate. The eschatological hopes promised rewards beyond man's wildest dreams or punishment that signified complete extermination.

JEWS DURING THE PERSIAN PERIOD | Facts and Details

myth then, myth now.

What??
Physics deals with observations in our universe .. it cannot demonstrate whatever exists outside of it.

I didn't say it was definite???????????? Talk about mental block??????????
This is evidence that time is a construct. It's a complicated system of spacetime, light and so on. Without this it probably doesn't exist. At the beginning of all things, when only God existed we now have 2 ridiculous concepts. That consciousness existed just by magic, that space and time exist just by magic. Probably all just a story and isn't how reality is at all.

Not that ancient .. ~1500 years ago.

And the NT is not that ancient but you claim it's wrong. You claim the OT is also wrong. 1500/200/2500, no difference because no printing press had been invented at any of these ties. If you calim the OT/NT is inaccurate, so can the Quran be inaccurate.

You haven't shown us anything concrete..
What meaning in the Qur'an can be shown to have altered,
from different styles of script/typeface?
You have nothing !

Only a few studies have been done. Copies have been found that may be early copies, practice runs existing way before the actual Quran was written.
No, this is not conclusive. It is however some evidence that this work was done in stages. Which is very likely.

Of course you will always say "you cannot prove............" blah balh...
Yes and JW can say the same. And Mormons and Bahai can say the same. But we can look at what evidence says. Coupled with the fact that no supernatural things has ever been shown to exist. Thousands of false religious documents have been made. Tens of thousands, of false documents have been made. And no evidence of any real actual divine messages.
Just beliefs and claims.

But we do have science in the Quran that is in fact wrong
Science in the Quran

and contradictions in this "perfect book" that apologists say has no contradictions.
Contradictions in the Quran[/QUOTE]

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is evidence that time is a construct. It's a complicated system of spacetime, light and so on. Without this it probably doesn't exist..

If "time" does not exist outside of the universe, then why can we understand the concept of eternity, which does not depend on physical matter?
Clearly, our minds consider time to be something that cannot be bounded.

At the beginning of all things, when only God existed we now have 2 ridiculous concepts. That consciousness existed just by magic, that space and time exist just by magic. Probably all just a story and isn't how reality is at all..

Call it "magic" if you like, but I find the word "magic" is loaded..
..as in somebody is purposely creating an illusion.

I suppose that we could say that God is purposely creating an illusion
i.e. the universe, but we call it reality .. because until we die, it actually is, for all intents and purposes.

But we do have science in the Quran that is in fact wrong
Science in the Quran

and contradictions in this "perfect book" that apologists say has no contradictions.
Contradictions in the Quran

I'm not trawling through those .. if you want me to explain any particular point, please state them one at a time.

 

[joelr]

If "time" does not exist outside of the universe, then why can we understand the concept of eternity, which does not depend on physical matter?
Clearly, our minds consider time to be something that cannot be bounded.

That doesn't make sense. We can understand infinity but that doesn't mean there are spacial infinities? We can understand all sorts of fiction but that doesn't mean it's real anywhere?
Space also does not exist. It's spacetime and it's a combination of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. Light moves at the fastest possible speed in space and zero in tine. Mass is always moving at some slower speed than light and has a velocity in time. But everything is equal when you add time and space velocity. For objects like us we experience much of our velocity in the time dimension. Without this complicated setup there is no time, space, causality.... So while we don't know, outside of the universe may exist no space or time. That gives rise to that possibility.

Eternity means infinite. In philosophy it means timeless. In an area of no time there may be no space either. You need quantum fields for particles to exist at all and spacetime to have experience in time. Without them it's a lot of nothing. But that IS the definition of eternity in classical philosophy - no time. So in eternity there is no time.

I
Call it "magic" if you like, but I find the word "magic" is loaded..
..as in somebody is purposely creating an illusion.

Yes the illusion that the first thing in reality was a fully formed perfect mind and a reality where it experiences time, causality for thoughts and experience and probably a spacial existence, is an illusion. That makes no sense. But even with time, space, causality, it doesn't work. The Islamic theology that the most simple thing is "God" is an illusion. A super being with super consciousness and so on. Not simple.
And it just opens the question of where that came from.
Was it infinite? Why? We also cannot get to this point from an infinite past. That is an argument against an infinite past universe. Works for a deity as well.

I
I suppose that we could say that God is purposely creating an illusion
i.e. the universe, but we call it reality .. because until we die, it actually is, for all intents and purposes.

Yes when you hold a faulty premise you can make all sorts of suppositions off it and they will always be wrong. Which is why I care about what is true. So I don't sit around wondering about things that are not even real in the first place.

I
I'm not trawling through those .. if you want me to explain any particular point, please state them one at a time.

I am already aware the Quran is just a work of people. If you have no interest in exploring that or testing your beliefs to see if they hold then I don't care about that. I see the evidence.
Also this article which debunks the claims of the science in the Quran as being divine. So the question isn't really about the science. We all know all of those claims are either lies or it was science taken from Greek discoveries (who used no God). So the question is why do apologists have to lie and say that is the proof that the Quran is divine? The claim can be debunked if one investigates the evidence. But why would they make that claim when it isn't true?

I know this because I once watched several videos about the scientific claims and how they must be divine. Interesting at first. But I had to fact check and allow for evidence to prove this wrong.

Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed

Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed » Internet Infidels

If I held a belief in something supernatural I would want to be able to debunk all claims against it and I would also want to know if there were views against it I had not considered or actually made more sense.
Which is why I no longer hold such beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Eternity means infinite. In philosophy it means timeless. In an area of no time there may be no space either..

Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as an area of no time .. you are confusing the physical definition of time, with the philosophical one.

You need quantum fields for particles to exist at all and spacetime to have experience in time. Without them it's a lot of nothing..

"physical" nothing, maybe..

But that IS the definition of eternity in classical philosophy - no time. So in eternity there is no time..

There is "no time" like the present.

I am already aware the Quran is just a work of people..

Well, I believe differently.

 

[joelr]

Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as an area of no time .. you are confusing the physical definition of time, with the philosophical one.

I already posted a clear quote on this very subject. Old school philosophers (who didn't have the advantage of modern physics) thought time was universal. Now, with general relativity and our understanding of spacetime it's known that time requires a specific structure to be in place. We even know that massless particles which travel at light speed experience no time. Modern philosophy that understands this now knows there can be areas of no time simply by having no time dimension. Or being massless and always traveling at light speed. Which if the Higgs field never emerged in the early universe all particles would be stuck moving at light speed. Nothing would experience causality, time or even space because no matter would move through the time dimension.
Although in philosophy all things are explored at some point. So I'm sure timeless points of view have been explored.

"physical" nothing, maybe..

No, no physical, no means of energy transfer (which isn't always physical), light, quantum fields (which have no mass and are not physical), or non-physical things that are known like quantum wave-functions and so on.
There is nothing else except speculation. Even speculating about "ghost" matter still likely needs some type of medium or ghost science to exist, experience causality etc....

Well, I believe differently.

Beliefs are not important and almost always wrong. The human mind is not designed to have cosmic truths and isn't even good at basic truth. That is why evidence is so important. The human mind will hold all sorts of false beliefs. The fix to that bug is the scientific method.
The entire point of epistemology is to have beliefs BASED on sound and demonstratible evidence.

Otherwise I would just say over and over, cool story but I believe in Thor.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I already posted a clear quote on this very subject. Old school philosophers (who didn't have the advantage of modern physics) thought time was universal..

..perhaps an unfortunate use of the word "universal" .. as in throughout the universe

Now, with general relativity and our understanding of spacetime it's known that time requires a specific structure to be in place..

Ridiculous. You are merely defining "time" in terms of the universe, and then suggesting that some mathematical manipulation of it shows that time is PART of the universe.
That is circular reasoning.

Beliefs are not important and almost always wrong..

What you mean is, that you think that MY beliefs are wrong.

 

[samtonga43]

Well after the 400th fallacy I may get jumpy but you will have to point out where exactly. Please show your source.

joelr, there are many places in this conversation where you appear to be angry, strident and intolerant. I couldn't possibly cite every single one. I just read these words of yours: "Beliefs are not important and almost always wrong". This is a perfect example of a childish and intolerant attitude to what others believe.

You could learn a lot from muhammad_isa, joelr. I don't mean that you could learn about his faith or why he believes what he does (although this would be possible for someone with a more open mind), but about the nature of evidence.

As I think I told you, I was an atheist who was as intolerant of religious belief as you seem to be. When you say that I and every other theist have no evidence for belief, you are actually wrong. You don't recognize our evidence as 'real' evidence, but this is just your opinion.

We already did this. You jumped into another debate and accused me of something and then completely failed to produce evidence for your beliefs and stopped answering.

I stopped answering because your anger made me worry about you.
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...for-god-so-why-do-you-believe.258458/page-223

shall we try again, have you found evidence for a syncretic blend of Persian/Greek mythology to be true or evidence of a missing theism and a supposed deity? I have lot's of new scholarship to draw from.

Myth is not necessarily without truth.

 

[joelr]

.

Ridiculous. You are merely defining "time" in terms of the universe, and then suggesting that some mathematical manipulation of it shows that time is PART of the universe.
That is circular reasoning.

Strawman. It isn't a "manipulation". Special relativity shows time is a dimension, it can be warped just like the space dimensions. Time is part of a structure that has 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
There is also a universal speed limit, light speed. Everything in spacetime has the same velocity, called 4-vector. If an object is still in space it's moving at the maximum velocity through the time dimension. As you increase velocity in space your time velocity slows down. We can measure this between atomic clocks on earth vs clocks moving in airplanes. At light speed, the max speed in space your time velocity becomes zero.
This setup allows for spacial movement, causality (because light is very fast and how we see things), and without this there is no other known way to experience time or even space. Objects need to be made of something, spacetime also includes all the quantum fields which contain potential particles of the field. When energy is added you get a localized exitation of the field - particles.
It is 100% part of the universe. If you don't understand this you will have to study general relativity and Minkowski spacetime and 4-vector.
Space and time are dimensions and are actual things, they warp, bend, distort. Energy distorts time and space.
Outside of spacetime and the basic laws of physics it contains you cannot have any form of spacial or temporal reality that we understand. If you could have space and time without all this why would all this be here? You also have to have a finite speed of light but not too slow. To have causality as we are used to light must be able to move far faster than things made of mass.

Not only does time as we know it not exist outside of spacetime but even light experiences no time or space moving at the max speed. The instant it's born in a star, then several hundred thousand years later once it makes its way out of the star and travels through space and eventually is absorbed on earth possibly, the frame of reference from the light particle is nothing happened. It was created and absorbed in the same Planck length of time. 10 - 43 seconds. So you need a time dimension and you have to have a way to have velocity in that dimension.

You are calling basic modern physics ridiculous?

.
What you mean is, that you think that MY beliefs are wrong.

If your beliefs are not based on sound empirical evidence than they are almost 100% wrong. And we have established they are not. You would not accept that evidence for anything else. You don't accept the same evidence in other cases like the Bahai prophet, the Mormon prophet or the JW prophet. So you are giving those beliefs a free pass for some other reason. Something not based on because it's true.

 

[joelr]

joelr, there are many places in this conversation where you appear to be angry, strident and intolerant.

So we start out with ad-hom with an air of superiority (maybe so we don't notice it's you who is angry and intolerant?) and poisoning the well.

I couldn't possibly cite every single one. I just read these words of yours: "Beliefs are not important and almost always wrong". This is a perfect example of a childish and intolerant attitude to what others believe.

Ah, perfect, more ad-hom and then a complete mis-representation of what's happening. You come in the MIDDLE of a LONG debate where BOTH SIDES may be a bit snarky and of course you focus on me. Just like last time. Same tactic. Didn't work, you haven't responded to my last post. I guess you thought you would try that again?

I noticed you actually admitted you "just read these words", super, so this is completely out-of-context.

Had you actually read everything you would see I have been pushing for actual evidence over and over and the beliefs we are talking about are beliefs that have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
This was made very clear in the conversation which you have no business jumping in without context, name calling based on mis-leading facts in an immoral attack on me.
This isn't even the first time you have done this? It's unethical and creepy.

You could learn a lot from muhammad_isa, joelr. I don't mean that you could learn about his faith or why he believes what he does (although this would be possible for someone with a more open mind), but about the nature of evidence.

1) learn his beliefs if only I had an open mind.
An even worse misrepresentation to a mind boggling degree. Anyone is free to read the entire exchange where evidence is discussed in detail. It's me who continually presents evidence supporting my position and ASKING FOR HIS EVIDENCE. Over and over.
He rejects my evidence and scholarship for mundane hand-waving reasons so nothing I can do there but I continue to ask for actual evidence of anything in his belief system.
I'm presenting evidence and asking for evidence. Yet it's ME who is closed minded. This reply is an absolute joke and a disgrace. Your ridiculous bias has really failed you here.

Also he doesn't need you to stick up for him. So you can add bullying to your list of brilliant accomplishments here.


2)the nature of evidence -
Cool, which time of the 50 times I asked for any evidence, I actually begged for evidence. And then had to explain in detail about anecdotal evidence and how it isn't reliable. He even REJECTED the same evidence he was presenting when it was in behalf of a Bahai prophet. A clear demonstration of a faulty belief system.
Then accused scholars of listening to Satan.
Then insisted opinion is as important as empirical evidence
Then said he has empirical evidence in the writing style of the Quran
I said a U.S. scholar found early copies of the Quran material and possible sources showing it was composed over a longer time and had early copies.
To which he claimed "you have nothing"

Wow, so open. You might have at least read the thread? How embarrassing. I am embarrassed for you.

As I think I told you, I was an atheist who was as intolerant of religious belief as you seem to be. When you say that I and every other theist have no evidence for belief, you are actually wrong.

You may well have been an atheist and also been intolerant. Let's acknowledge the ad-hom once again you cannot seem to speak without (we'll get to that).
Now as far as evidence, I am actually correct. If I am not, please demonstrate some empirical evidence of good standards. Instead of all the name calling you might have just said "I can present evidence".

You don't recognize our evidence as 'real' evidence, but this is just your opinion.

I recognize all evidence as evidence. Of course I do. Now if you present evidence of one belief but then turn around and reject the exact same type and level of evidence for a different belief, that isn't good evidence. You need to show why your evidence is special. Here is a tip, your book and claims of revelations isn't special. It's a claim. Claims in myths are not evidence.
Or is Mormonism, Christianity, JW, BAhai, Islam, Cargo Cults, Jesus in AU right now, Jesus on the Personal Development for Smart People forum and some others, also part of your beliefs and theology? Because they are all claims.
And we have evidence they are syncretic myths. Not 100% proof, but it's a line of evidence.

so please, try to act like a grown up, less like a 7th grade Redditt user and present your evidence WITHOUT name calling or other things, that I will get to....

I stopped answering because your anger made me worry about you.

Now,
As I stated in the replies you failed to respond to, I'm not angry.
But I do recognize gaslighting and narcissist behavior.


-Since they lack empathy, the narcissist often couches the comments as well-meaning. “I’m just concerned for your health,” a narcissist might say after humiliating someone about his or her weight at a public lunch.

“They do this to cause others to doubt themselves as a way to gain superiority. Narcissists thrive off of being worshipped, so they use manipulation tactics to get you to do just that,”
"Such methods include provoking, bullying, and intimidating, where the narcissist picks on you, calls you names, yells, acts ..."

Three for three, looks like we have us something.

Myth is not necessarily without truth.

Myth teaches true ethics, wisdom, philosophy...no myth has ever featured true supernatural beings or deities. None that evidence existed for or demonstrated any good reason to hold beliefs in if one cares about what is true.
That is claim #2 posing as "evidence". But I'm sure you can do much better.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is 100% part of the universe..

As is defined, of course it is.

Not only does time as we know it not exist outside of spacetime..

..meaningless assumption, based on a physical definition of time.
Its circular reasoning.

If your beliefs are not based on sound empirical evidence than they are almost 100% wrong..

That is your way of thinking .. to assume that it is impossible to know anything, unless it has been discovered by scientists.

 

[joelr]

..meaningless assumption, based on a physical definition of time.
Its circular reasoning.

It's a physical definition of time because it TURNS OUT THAT IS WHAT TIME IS. There is an actual time dimension. The vector it uses (unlike the 3 space vectors) is an imaginary number (these do sometimes represent real things) in the Lorenz transformations.
Just like space we do not know that space and time can exist without these structures in place.
What you are saying is truly meaningless. You just need a deity to be true who is "beyond space and time" so you are attempting to argue nonsense concepts.
It's like someone explaining air as a collection of molecules held down by gravitation and you say "oh that is the physical definition of air, that is circular reasoning, the air God breathes isn't physical, it's magic air"

Ok, great, magic air is Gods air, ok. And magic time is the time God moves in. Cool, glad we got that cleared up.

That is your way of thinking .. to assume that it is impossible to know anything, unless it has been discovered by scientists.

How did you ever get from empirical evidence to "has been discovered by scientists"??????
Not what I said.
If you are crossing the street and someone says "hey a straw man is running down the street with a sword pointing in front of him", do you say "has the straw man been discovered by scientists?"

No, you look and if you see a straw man running with a sword you have some evidence and you can then wait until he runs by. (or knock him down)

If you hold beliefs in something never shown to have any evidence you are probably wrong. Islam is 1/3 of religious believers. So even by your logic the other 2/3 are wrong. Now if you add in all the other beliefs in all supernatural things, ghosts, haunted houses and so on, Law of Attraction, magic, crystals, faith healers, whatever. Your beliefs will probably be wrong. Regarding your beliefs specifically there is no evidence, angels are extremely likely mythic creatures, same with revelations and a theistic God.

We also have evidence that people en mass do make up similar stories, even with good intention. We have evidence the OT is syncretic as well as the Quran. Not 100% proof but some evidence. Coupled with the zero evidence for any of it being real, yes, probably not true.
This is why the Christians used the "faith" thing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's a physical definition of time because it TURNS OUT THAT IS WHAT TIME IS.

Who says .. you?
You claim to know that something cannot exist outside of the universe, by making such a claim. I don't know any other academic who can categorically prove that.

There is an actual time dimension. The vector it uses (unlike the 3 space vectors) is an imaginary number (these do sometimes represent real things) in the Lorenz transformations..

Yes, we know that .. we make observations how time and space relate to each other in this universe.
If we did not define time and space, we would have difficulty in doing so.
It doesn't mean that our definitions are absolute .. it is a convenience.

 

[samtonga43]

That is your way of thinking .. to assume that it is impossible to know anything, unless it has been discovered by scientists.

Yes, this train of thought says a lot about the person doing the assuming.

It may not be true in this case, but I have found that many people who come across science after being brought up in a fundamentalist church / family situation, cannot reconcile Science and Theism. It's a shame, because there are so many eminent scientists and mathematicians who reconcile the two admirably.

 

[rational experiences]

As space is seen through clear gas it is dark.

The law in space first is dark as space.

Clear the spirit a gas. You see via the spirit being clear.

So in space that's dark you see mass. You also see alight mass. So you see light.

Proving the status that space is nothing.

As space a womb is mother of God. O you hence see God as mass.

Humans aren't mass so we aren't God in space.

Pretty basic I believe the terms God but I don't believe in a man's theist terms the God I see. As the God he sees he attacks and converts and DESTROYS.

Why I don't believe in the man of sciences God. I've never believed spiritually in destroying.

I'm born by human sex. So is a scientist.

I don't own build nor control machines.

He however does making him a God in his own abuse of everything.

 

[joelr]

Who says .. you?
You claim to know that something cannot exist outside of the universe, by making such a claim. I don't know any other academic who can categorically prove that.

I don't know why this is so hard for you? I am explaining what we know time IS. There is no other version that we know of. But it needs spacetime, a finite light speed and so on.
Like a planet, which requires a host of things to exist before a planet can be created.
So when you speculate a God was the first thing in reality to exist another issue is we don't know if time and even space would exist in such a condition. Just like if one speculated God existed first and he lived on a planet. Doesn't make sense. Maybe he lived on a magic planet, or he lived in magic time. Maybe Tolkien would know.

I am saying the time we understand cannot exist without the proper conditions. If the proper conditions are not there then our time, as we understand it cannot exist. Consciousness requires space, time and very complex biological systems.
So the idea of a God just existing, with thoughts, requires causality and so on. Maybe there are other conditions that allow these things, yes, but we do not know that. It makes it even more unlikely that our ideas about a theistic God are actually real.

It adds layers onto what is already massive speculation.
God existed first.
In space and time?
Yes - then he didn't exist first
No - then he didn't need them because......more magic

Yes, we know that .. we make observations how time and space relate to each other in this universe.
If we did not define time and space, we would have difficulty in doing so.
It doesn't mean that our definitions are absolute .. it is a convenience.

Yes and it creates a possibility that outside our or other universes time and space do not exist. Or that if there was a beginning of reality that neither yet existed. If there is a base substance, undivideable, as Islamic theologians say there is (and that is God), it is very likely that this substance is not a developed mind, with thoughts in a time sequence but rather some base of reality that can evolve.
A base substance isn't a base substance if it's inside time, experiences causality, has thoughts?

Just thoughts alone are not "base". There are multiple thoughts and different sequences which are not at all "base". That is a changing, complex thing, a mind. Just by having more than one thought it's divided itself in some way. For it to be non-divisible yet changing, thinking, this is almost a paradox.

It makes the God concept one step further into nonsense.

They also say it's the most fundamental idea in every persons mind. I don't think it is. The people who say that grew up hearing about God since they were small babies.
Also as babies our parents are like Gods. The basic concept is in our minds from that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am saying the time we understand cannot exist without the proper conditions..

Again, who are YOU to say whether something can exist outside of this universe?
All you have is observation of THIS one.

If the proper conditions are not there then our time, as we understand it cannot exist..

No such thing as "proper conditions"..

Consciousness requires space, time and very complex biological systems..

That is your belief .. you are giving us an "informed opinion" based on observations in this universe.

It says nothing about what other phenomena might exist in an alternative universe.

Yes and it creates a possibility that outside our or other universes time and space do not exist. Or that if there was a beginning of reality that neither yet existed..

That makes no sense..
Time is not an absolute phenomena .. we know that, but you discuss it, as if it is.
This is only because you see our definition of time as somehow absolute .. when it is only a measurement that is defined for convenience ... in order to explain how it interacts with space.

A base substance isn't a base substance if it's inside time..

Inside time??
Do you mean inside the universe?