My first post

[Audie]

@Audie

Never made the claim that it was something from nothing and yes, I agree that it is a change of state.

Since it went from one state to another, then it is clear that the second state (ie expanding universe) wasn't the same when it was a singularity. Would you agree?

Would you care to say if you are clinging to
metaphysics and / or think that " kalam"
shows anything about the existence of a "god".

Expanding is not the same as not expanding.
So?

 

[ppp]

Since you didn’t accept my definition, then I’ll go with yours. What do you mean by having a duration and occupying a location?

I do not know how to more fundamentally describe that. You're gonna have to help me out on what you don't understand.

I agree, and I never made such a claim either. There are a lot of people that don’t believe in God and they are morally better people than those that do believe in God.

Okay.

Yet, that has nothing to do with religion not being needed. Islam for example is a guide for anyone that wants it. It’s not forced upon anyone nor can a person force another person to change what's in their heart.

I have several problems with that paragraph. I disagree with the first sentence, but can see how that might be arguable, depending on what tack one takes. The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is not an example of need, but merely of want.

The third sentence is false. Despite the injunction against forced conversions to Islam, there are numerous incidents throughout history and up to the present day. But even setting those incidents aside, apostasy in Islam calls for the death penalty for men, and depending on the region, women. In the more liberal Islamic nations, one can still lose property, inheritance rights, or even one's children, fer gossakes! Not to mention the terror inculcated into those same children of being shunned by their communities, and suffering for all eternity. That is force enough.

 

[ppp]

Reminds me of this clip from the Atheist Experience.
A caller was saying that a "miracle occurred" in some shooting in the US, because someone was hit with a bullet in the head and actually lived to tell the story.

So this person surviving being shot in the head, in the mind of that caller, was "evidence of god".

The reply was kind of funny: "So what do you call it when a healthy person just drops dead?"

Unexpected survival = evidence of god
Unexpected death = bad luck



The double standard of this sort of "logic" is just embarassing.

I remember that one. That was Tracie saying, iirc.

 

[Come2thelight]

Ok you have one pointer in one religion to monotheism so what?,because it is written doesnt make it true and its just one.

This acts as support that other people also received a monotheistic message that's not in the middle east. And hindusim is one of the oldest religions in the world.

 

[Audie]

This acts as support that other people also received a monotheistic message that's not in the middle east. And hindusim is one of the oldest religions in the world.

That they " received a message" is an assertion
that fails among other things to distinguish
opinion about someones claim, from fact

Claims about "messages" are thick as hair
on a dogs back.

 

[Come2thelight]

@Audie
I am not saying that it is a way to show that a god exists. All I was asking is if you find it reasonable that there is an external force that started the expansion or not.

 

[Audie]

@Audie
I am not saying that it is a way to show that a god exists. All I was asking is if you find it reasonable that there is an external force that started the expansion or not.

Finally you get halfway to your point.
External force being of course, a god.
You could just say so.

And no, I find "god" to be the most thoroughly
Un-reasonable notion ever.

Ive no idea how or why any of it happened.

Do you think you do?

ETA- Others click "reply". It would be good to follow local
habits in that regard.

 

[Come2thelight]

I do not know how to more fundamentally describe that. You're gonna have to help me out on what you don't understand.

I gave an analogy to another member on this thread. I stated;

The Maker of the computer doesn't become the computer, nor is the Maker subjected by the laws the computer runs by, nor is the Maker made up of the same material as the computer.

In the above analogy, God is the Maker and existence is the computer. Existence can be everything we know and everything we don't know. (ie the laws, objects, creatures, emotions, death, concepts, and so forth)

Under this premise, we don't say God is occupying a location within this universe rather beyond it and is not subjected by time. Rather time is just another computer.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is not an example of need, but merely of want.

Yes, anyone that wants to be guided can find it through the Quran. What people need can vary from one person to the other, and then there are universal needs like food, oxygen, etc.

apostasy in Islam calls for the death penalty for men, and depending on the region, women.

There is no such ruling in the Quran that calls for the killing of apostates. Nor does it make sense that we can kill a person simply for disbelieving. The confusion comes when people look at the Hadiths and confuse the crime of treason to simply apostasy. Back then, during the time of war, any revert took their testimony of faith alongside their pledge of allegiance, and anyone that left would be breaking that pledge. Thus committing treason. To think that God calls for this is absolutely absurd.

Even if we think about it, it logically doesn't make sense. No one knows what tomorrow holds, and there's no reason to think that if a person leaves Islam today, they can't come back in a year, 2, 10, and so forth. But the moment they get killed, then it is guaranteed that they will die a disbeliever and that's a bigger crime. The person could have been a better Muslim than the one executing them, but it'll never be known because they unjustly ended the person's life.

 

[Come2thelight]

That they " received a message" is an assertion
that fails among other things to distinguish
opinion about someones claim, from fact

Their claim is true or not is beside the point I was highlighting. The point is that it is evident that even in a polytheistic religion, there is a monotheistic call.

External force being of course, a god.

I said force. That doesn't have to mean a god.

 

[ppp]

I gave an analogy to another member on this thread. I stated;

The Maker of the computer doesn't become the computer, nor is the Maker subjected by the laws the computer runs by, nor is the Maker made up of the same material as the computer.

In the above analogy, God is the Maker and existence is the computer. Existence can be everything we know and everything we don't know. (ie the laws, objects, creatures, emotions, death, concepts, and so forth)

Under this premise, we don't say God is occupying a location within this universe rather beyond it and is not subjected by time. Rather time is just another computer.

I am reading through this, and it seems to me that when you say that your god created existence, what you really mean is that your god created the universe, No?

There is no such ruling in the Quran that calls for the killing of apostates. Nor does it make sense that we can kill a person simply for disbelieving. The confusion comes when people look at the Hadiths and confuse the crime of treason to simply apostasy. Back then, during the time of war, any revert took their testimony of faith alongside their pledge of allegiance, and anyone that left would be breaking that pledge. Thus committing treason. To think that God calls for this is absolutely absurd.

You can argue that with your fellow believers. I don't really care what the ideals are of any given religion, including Islam; I only care what sort of actions and values that the religion produces in its adherents.

 

[ppp]

Their claim is true or not is beside the point I was highlighting. The point is that it is evident that even in a polytheistic religion, there is a monotheistic call.

'There is a monotheistic call' is pretty poetic and metaphorical. Any chance you can break that down into something a little more pragmatic?

 

[Come2thelight]

I am reading through this, and it seems to me that when you say that your god created existence, what you really mean is that your god created the universe, No?

Yes, the universe would just be another computer within that analogy

You can argue that with your fellow believers. I don't really care what the ideals are of any given religion, including Islam; I only care what sort of actions and values that the religion produces in its adherents.

You made a claim that this is what Islam teaches, while I was contending that claim. It should also be noted that what people do is their own problem. We don't judge a Ferrari based on a few loud reckless drivers. That wouldn't be a fair assessment.

'There is a monotheistic call' is pretty poetic and metaphorical. Any chance you can break that down into something a little more pragmatic?

What do you mean?

 

[Audie]

'There is a monotheistic call' is pretty poetic and metaphorical. Any chance you can break that down into something a little more pragmatic?

A " Call" clearly implies something external
to ones self.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not you in specific but for Hinduism.
So if it is nothing, how can it be the source of existence?

Worshipers of Shiva and Durga do not give it that importance. Gita i basically a vaishnava scipture (those who worship Vishnu/Krishna). Of course, no one will disrespect it.
Source of existence is Quantum Mechanics. That could also begin with 'Absolute Nothing) - Multi-verse hypothesis, String Theory, etc.

 

[Audie]

Their claim is true or not is beside the point I was highlighting. The point is that it is evident that even in a polytheistic religion, there is a monotheistic call.



I said force. That doesn't have to mean a god.

"Call" as in some external force calling

As for a " force" external to the universe,
forget it. No sensible discussion of such fantasy to be found.

If you ever get around to an idea you want to express instead of trying to lead me somewhere with obscure metaphysical questions, maybe something rational can be discussed

 

[England my lionheart]

"Call within a religion" sounds fine,
but has no detectable meaning or existence.

Exactly,none,zilch.

 

[England my lionheart]

This acts as support that other people also received a monotheistic message that's not in the middle east. And hindusim is one of the oldest religions in the world.

Does it,what happened to the messengers to europe for example?,unless you want to include David Eicke but he was more into reptillians and freaky stuff.

 

[ppp]

Yes, the universe would just be another computer within that analogy

Okay. Then please stop using the word existence. When you mean universe. They are not synonymous.

As for your analogy, It is a false one. By using a computer as analogous to the universe, you are smuggling in a creator. We know the computers are created because we have evidence of people making computers. You have no evidence that the universe was created.

What do you mean?

Monotheistic call is a pretty vague phrase. Do you mean that monotheism is a natural inevitable progression of religious beliefs throughout cultures? Do you mean that there is some little pied Piper of monotheism playing a flute and everybody's head? Do you mean that religious beliefs play into people's desire for one upsmanship where they keep fantasizing bigger and stronger gods until they imagine one that knows everything and can do everything and can't be beat up by anybody?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Like the Prophet, all his wives were elderly with the exception of Aisha.

That is not correct. I wonder, how being a Muslim you can say that. Khadija and Sawda were certainly old when they married Mohammad, but others were not. Hafsa bint Umar was 19, Zaynab bint Khuzayma was 29, Zaynab bint Jahsh was 37, Juweriya bint al-Harith was 19, Safiyyah bint Huyayy was 17, Ramlah bint Abi Sufyan was around 35, Maymunah bint al-Harith was 35. If Mohammad married her, Maria al-Qibtiyya must not have been old as she was sent as a gift by Governor of Alexandria, and Mohammad had given her to Hafsa. A woman at the age of 35 is not old in just the way as a girl of 9 is grown up.

 

[Come2thelight]

Source of existence is Quantum Mechanics.

What does that even mean?