• 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!

My first post

Come2thelight

Active Member
"Call" as in some external force calling

Call as in the reader can conclude that there are monotheistic elements within the text.

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

So you believe that the expansion was completely internal with no external influence?

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

These questions are just trying to understand what you believe in. And then trying to understand why you believe it.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Cosmological argument is boring. Better argument: Ontological: God is a proof of himself.
 

Come2thelight

Active Member
You have no evidence that the universe was created.

True, we don't have concrete evidence. We do have some great probabilities though. One is that the universe didn't always exist in the state we know it today.

Do you mean that monotheism is a natural inevitable progression of religious beliefs throughout cultures?

No

Do you mean that there is some little pied Piper of monotheism playing a flute and everybody's head?

Not necessarily, but somewhat yes. The belief in God is already programmed in us. In Islam, it is called the Fitrah. The natural disposition of the soul for us is to find God.

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?

No, but sometimes people come to question their own beliefs and some come to the conclusion that there are faults in that belief and thus leave it. Islam included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So if it is nothing, how can it be the source of existence?
Seems that you are not aware of any theory about creation of the universe other than what is mentioned in Quran. World has moved far ahead of 7th Century.
It means that according to Quantum theory the universe could arise from "Absolute Nothing".
"Many-Worlds Interpretation is now considered a mainstream interpretation along with the other decoherence interpretations, collapse theories (including the Copenhagen interpretation), and hidden variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics."
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, String theory - Wikipedia, etc.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
@icehorse

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have to say though that an educated Muslim will look at the message holistically and rationally. They will never come to the conclusion to hate people simply for disbelieving. I consider myself a student of Islam and everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.

We are taught to protect ourselves in certain situations and there is nothing wrong with that. Today, people can still threaten my life, my possessions, my family, and my honor. This doesn’t happen only in the past but has probably happened to countless people as I type this message.

Concerning God hating disbelievers, interestingly, you will never see the words 'God hates disbelievers' in the Quran. Nor does it say God hates anything. Rather dislikes, or does not like.

Could you please provide me with your exegesis of surah 2 ayat 6-29? If you could go ayah by ayah that would be great, please.

This is an interesting example for us to discuss! Before I tell you what I see when I read Surah 2, I need to reiterate a couple of key points:

1 - We should recognize that our conscious, linguistic MINDS operate somewhat independently from our subconscious, pattern-seeking BRAINS.
2 - Very few people keep this distinction in mind. Almost all of the religious discussions that have ever or will ever happened on this forum, or in any place where ideas like religion are discussed, are discussions between MINDS, and our BRAINS are largely ignored.

== ok, on to my responses

You explain what an "educated Muslim" will do. From my perspective you could have said "educated religious person" and my answers would be the same. So I want to reiterate that what I'm saying about Muslims is true for all people who make scripture important in their lives. We happen to be talking about Islam, but what I'm saying applies to almost all religions.

So an "educated Muslim" will use their MIND to interpret what they read. The educated MIND comes to the situation with ego, and bias, and prior knowledge, and so on. That's okay as far as it goes. And to be clear our MINDS are wonderful things, I'm a fan :) But the "educated Muslim" will almost certainly NOT be thinking about how the scripture is impacting their subconscious BRAINS. This perspective of the MIND / BRAIN conflict is fairly new.

As for the idea that the word "hate" doesn't appear. The Quran tells us that for some people, when they die, Allah will burn their skin off. And once it's burned off, he'll give them new skin so that he can burn the new skin off, and continue this torture for eternity. So if that doesn't describe "hate", then what word should we use for Allah's feelings about those he chooses to torture for eternity?

== ok, Surah 2

6 - no matter what you do, some people will be disbelievers.
7-20 - Allah has made these disbelievers there is no hope for them. Allah will punish them severely. These disbelievers are liars, they are diseased, they are fools, they conspire, they are deaf, dumb, and blind to Allah. They will live in fear.

So, as an "educated Muslim" I'm sure you can explain why I'm wrong here. And I'm almost certain that what I just said, no educated Muslim would agree with. You have all studied the Quran and you have all learned how the scholars interpret the book, and how you should interpret the book. (I will note however, that the various sects within Islam often disagree with each other.)

But that's all about how are MINDS are viewing Surah 2.

Now I want to explain to you how our BRAINS interpret Surah 2. Our brains learn through repetition and pattern matching. These are two of the BRAIN'S most powerful tools for learning. Children learn to recognize and categorize the world. They learn what a dog is, what a fork is, what a bicycle is, and so on. For each of these categories there is variation from instance to instance. This dog is a poodle, yesterday's dog was a collie, and so on. But the amazing BRAIN learns to find patterns and use them. So when the child sees a new breed of dog one day, the child can still determine that it's a dog. (BTW, this idea of learning through pattern matching was initially studied by Eleanor and James Gibson 80 years ago, and more recently, it's been used by computer scientists to create the world's best artificial intelligence.)

So what the BRAIN will conclude from this Surah is the beginning of a pattern. The brain will start to learn that there is a category of people that might go by different names: disbeliever, non-believer, those who have strayed, and so on. Allah is angry with these people. He will punish them. He criticizes them every which way. These people are "other", and they are not to be trusted or befriended.

The scholarly MIND will disagree. The MIND will say "you're forgetting the context" or "this is true only for situation X" or "you have to remember what was happening in Muhammad's life when this Surah was revealed", and so on. These explanations and defenses are all MIND based. They do not consider what's happening to the more primitive, category-making, pattern-seeking BRAIN.

== Propaganda, Brain-washing, Advertising, Marketing

For the sake of discussion, I will lump the four ideas above into a single category. Which seems the least disturbing? Advertising? They all work on very similar principles. But I think that from a cognitive science perspective, it's fair to call the Quran a brilliant bit of rudimentary propaganda. Leaders, and politicians, and generals have understood rudimentary propaganda techniques for thousands of years. The folks who wrote the Quran had this understanding, and they constructed the book to be used as a tool of propaganda. To convert people to Islam.

As I said in my earlier post, this stuff is POWERFUL. Even if you understand it, you put yourself at great risk when you expose yourself to it. At our house we avoid all social media and we do not listen to advertisements. Even though we've studied cognitive science extensively, we know that our brains can be coerced. It's outside the MIND's control to protect the brain from propaganda.

Zooming out for a minute, lest you think I'm unfairly picking on Islam. Let me critique Christianity for a minute. For centuries now, Christian evangelists have understood that they need to brainwash people to convert them. Notice that they're VERY intent on getting small children exposed to their ideas as early and frequently as possible. They know that repetition of propaganda is powerful.

== Theology

Religion is fascinating (and terrifying). It has a huge impact on society. So I understand that the vast majority of religious discussions are theological. A lot of people on RF are armchair theologists. Many are quite learned. It's a completely valid field of study.

But it is NOT cognitive science ;)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The belief in God is already programmed in us. In Islam, it is called the Fitrah. The natural disposition of the soul for us is to find God.
There is no such Fitrah, but brain-washing since childhood does result into it, although there is no evidence of soul or God.

Encouraging-children-towards-Islam.jpg
111_opt.png
24561_597.jpg
images
 
Last edited:

ppp

Well-Known Member
True, we don't have concrete evidence. We do have some great probabilities though. One is that the universe didn't always exist in the state we know it today.
I don't think you have anything in the way of probabilities, but I am open to evidence..
Not necessarily, but somewhat yes. The belief in God is already programmed in us. In Islam, it is called the Fitrah. The natural disposition of the soul for us is to find God.
I as I see no evidence that I have either a soul, nor such a disposition, I am going to have to say, No, to that one.
No, but sometimes people come to question their own beliefs and some come to the conclusion that there are faults in that belief and thus leave it. Islam included.
I am not sure how this relates. What it meant to speak to something else?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
There is no such Fitrah, but brain-washing since childhood does result into it
The "fitrah" is not Islam, in itself.
It refers to an inborn sense of awe at the world around us.
It is quite natural for a child to believe in G-d, if prompted to do so.

Of course, you have been "brainwashed" yourself, haven't you? :)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Call as in the reader can conclude that there are monotheistic elements within the text.



So you believe that the expansion was completely internal with no external influence?



These questions are just trying to understand what you believe in. And then trying to understand why you believe it.

That is NOT what "a call" means.
And there is a lot more in the bible
( didnt read koran) that is polytheistic
than mono.
That its a hierarchy of big god and lesser
ones is exactly in line with other polytheistic ones.

I dont pretend, as theists / kalamists
do, that i can answer deepest questions
on the nature of reality. I dont think it is
remotely honest of those who do so pretend.

I dont know what happened or why.

Concocting a " force" ( god ) that is
infinitely wise and powerful to " explain"
the universe does not strike me as being
logical or rational.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
@TransmutingSoul

Hey Tony, I hope you're well.

“The Word of Allah can indeed touch our heart. There a rare few that are pure enough in heart to embrace those Messages without being educated”

You seem to have missed my point. I am not referring to those that became Muslims, but those that denied it and called it magic words. They were still affected by it because they knew the Arabic language (morphology, semantics, and syntax). So my question still stands friend. Why do you think people can't know the message of the Quran under a linguistic microscope?

And concerning your new Prophet. What have you done to verify his claims? Why are you convinced that he was a Prophet of God?

I hope you are also well and happy.

From what I have read in the past, the learned in language, in the time of Muhammad, used the Revelation of Muhammad against him, as it contained incorrect grammar. The beauty and power of the Word is the Spirit it contains.

The Imam in the time of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, who rejected those Revelations from Allah, and prided themselves in the Arabic Language, also called the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah magic words, a sophistry and using incorrect grammar.

I see that the Revelations of Allah set the standard of Language and understanding, but most importantly they contain the Spirit of the age, and when that Spirit behind the Word is the focus, then and only then can we rise to the apex of understanding.

We can consider that if the entire Message of the Quran was to prepare us for the Messages of the Bab an Baha'u'llah, how well has the Quran been understood? The outward form has been practiced for centuries, but when Allah again gave a Message, it was not embraced, but used as a rejection of Allah.

To verily those claims, one must be just, fairt and for themselves independently search the truth they offered. The Bab was a Merchant and on Evening of May 23rd 1844, AH1260 proclaimed he was the Gate of Allah. The Bab undertook a pilgrimage to the Kaaba and at that most holy spot made the Declaration.

Regards Tony
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I remember that one. That was Tracie saying, iirc. :)

Tracie is a beast imo. She can really zero-in on an argument and destroy it to hell and back to the point where the caller just hangs up. lol.

I believe it was her along with Russel Glasser.

But my favorite is Jeff. Especially when callers start threatening him with hell. Always funny. LOL

Come to think of it... a while ago I read that Tracie had a beef with Matt or something and she left the show.
 

Jacob Samuelson

Active Member
There's no maybe about it.

Verse 2:221 - "Do not marry the polytheist women, unless they come to believe (in Islam); a Muslim slave-girl is better than a polytheist woman, even though she may attract you; and do not give (your women) in marriage to polytheist men, unless they come to believe; a Muslim slave is better than a polytheist, even though he may attract you".

Ah, Islam - the religion of equality. Btw, does this not show that Muslims can actually enslave other Muslims????

If you think that addressing equality in religion means that the women should have the same abilities as the man, you will have a very difficult time finding any religion that is equal. As much as we want it to be, women and men were never created equally. Women are biologically different and have different roles emotionally and socially than men. Even if you would give the opportunity for a woman to marry multiple men in reverse polygamy, I don't know if there has been any evidence to suggest they would. Women biologically believe in commitment to one Man. Since you can't change the nature of man, you should never expect equality.

Islam defines these separation of roles pretty well. They provide women with the expectations pretty early on, where there isn't a need to think anything else. I would expect many Muslim women would be happy where they are at as holders of their beliefs.

My main issue with possession in this regard is not Men toward Women, more than it is God toward Men. When your religion considers humans as objects to God, like a light bulb and not as a Father or a being that desires a relationship with you. It only makes sense that you look at the world in a view of pure equality, that every person is as invaluable as the other. Relationship with God is structured purely as obedience, sort of like a soldier to their general. They will be loyal and die for Him, but they may never have a relationship with Him, which is in major contrast to the Christian Faith.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's not an argument. That's just an assertion.

True, but if you understood how God is a proof of himself, it would be an argument and sufficient for his existence. The ontological argument does that.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Both are same, but both misconstrued by western Academia. They form both wrong.
Ontological argument are a category, not a single argument. There are several different ontological arguments. Anselm's is just the most famous. So when I asked you "Which one?", I was asking you which ontological argument, of the many that are out there, are you using?

So. Which one?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ontological argument are a category, not a single argument. There are several different ontological arguments. Anselm's is just the most famous. So when I asked you "Which one?", I was asking you which ontological argument, of the many that are out there, are you using?

So. Which one?

Well, I'm telling you whether perfection or greatness, it's the same thing. However, you can go my version, which I find more intuitive, go size of life, or life amount, from that view point, God would be so big, he would be the necessary being, and so big he exists in this world by pigeon hole principle. He is Oneness is such that nothing can exist with him because he is that big.

Now if he would be the necessary being, and we are looking at "God", can he be a concept or must it be the real thing and exist necessarily?

When something is necessary, it has to exist and hence does exist. God by definition is necessary.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Well, I'm telling you whether perfection or greatness, it's the same thing. However, you can go my version, which I find more intuitive, go size of life, or life amount, from that view point, God would be so big, he would be the necessary being, and so big he exists in this world by pigeon hole principle. He is Oneness is such that nothing can exist with him because he is that big.

Now if he would be the necessary being, and we are looking at "God", can he be a concept or must it be the real thing and exist necessarily?

When something is necessary, it has to exist and hence does exist. God by definition is necessary.
I don't see anything in there that demonstrates that God is a necessary being. You cannot just define necessity into existence. You have to demonstrate that there is a God and that it is necessary.
 
Top