I agree 100%.
The problem is that you are still in denial.
Now is when you ask "still trolling?"
And I reply "Nope. Just stating the facts."
Response: Still trolling?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I agree 100%.
The problem is that you are still in denial.
Now is when you ask "still trolling?"
And I reply "Nope. Just stating the facts."
Nope.Response: Still trolling?
ALLAH!!
Unless...Allah has a creator.
So Allah doesn't exsist?Response: Allah is uncreated.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute. I thought you said EVERYthing had to be created.Response: Allah is uncreated.
So Allah doesn't exsist?
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute. I thought you said EVERYthing had to be created.
What does that even mean?
Source?Response: That Allah was not created.
Response: Not at all. That is however what few here have decided to interpolate. What I said is that every creation has a creator, not that everything that exists was created. There's a difference.
The question makes no sense. Think about it --existence that is noncreated does not "come to be".So Allah has a noncreated exsistance?? So, how did he come to be?
Well, now you're making sense. Some things are obviously created. My Seagul guitar is one. The computer I'm typing on is another. Some things are obviously NOT created and simply occur in nature. Rocks and water for instance. I agree with you here.Response: Not at all. That is however what few here have decided to interpolate. What I said is that every creation has a creator, not that everything that exists was created. There's a difference.
I'm curious: in what way are rocks and water not created?Rocks and water for instance. I agree with you here.
It is a part of the human condition that we can't be certain of anything we think we know to be true. We are not omniscient, and so we can never be sure how what we don't know would change what we think we know if we could know it all. This why we can't have proof of God's existence, or non-existence. Proof of this kind of an idea would require omniscience.Ok. I read the entire thread. It was interesting, and I decided I'd like to give my own two cents as to the original evidence presented in the OP, even though it might have been done to death by this point.
Hm. Note how you worded that: "tend to be taken as accurate". So, ideas that work for us are taken as accurate, but this does not say anything about whether they actually are accurate or not.
Again, we have to go with what we get, as we will never get absolute proof. When we test an idea out by applying it to our world, and find that it works as it claims it will work, we tend to take that idea as valid, or accurate (and rightly so) until circumstances show it not to work, anymore.Also, of course people believe that the things they believe in are true. Otherwise, why believe them? Again, this says nothing as to the validity of the belief.
The example I gave earlier in the thread, using a religious prescription for spiritual healing, was not any form of "prophesy" or mental trickery. It was a well used and well reasoned path of human behavior modification that has been offered by many religions throughout the centuries, is still being widely practiced today, and is still working for the vast majority of people who practice it.Also, there is a thing to be said about self-fullfilling prophecies. This happens with psychics all the time: a "prophecy" made by the psychic ends up being shoe-horned into whatever happens in that person's life, thereby coming "true."
I agree. But once again you are looking for proof, and I am only offering evidence. If God does not exist, then why does this prescription work at all?You used the example of a person becoming a better person through his belief in God, ie, he believes God exists, and that God believes certain things are sinful, therefore man prays to God and works on removing those sinful things from his life, thereby becoming a better person.
The problem with this example is that God does not have to exist for the same result to occur. Merely believing that God exists is sufficient.
I can agree with this change.I would rephrase the opening sentence as "it forces us to consider the possibility of God", although force might also be too strong.
Yes, but with this order comes the inevitable questions: Is there a purpose in that order? If so, what? Where did it come from?The order of the universe isn't surprising to me. It makes sense that if there are basic laws underpinning the movement and joining of atoms and molecules, that order would inevitably result.
For some folks, who are truly frightened by that mystery, "God" becomes an "answer", or at least something to which they can run when afraid. To others, like myself, "God" becomes a symbol and label we put on that mystery, to make it more palatable. To anthropomorphize the mystery so that we can live with it easier.As for your last sentence, I thought "God" was supposed to do away with the mystery: God answers all those existential "whys". That is why belief in God is so appealing-- nothing need be a mystery when you believe that God just did it all.
It's part and parcel of the "it works" argument. Also, it's a reminder that the mystery IS REAL. That thing that people are so frightened of, and that the human species in general wants to eliminate, the big mystery of life (and death), is real. It deserves to be called "God". And it hasn't gone away.This one doesn't seem to be evidence insomuch as a hypothesis.
I'm curious: in what way are rocks and water not created?
So forces of nature don't count when they "create". Got it.They are not created in the same way a guitar is, i.e., by a conscious agency engaging in the act of creation.