Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[mohammed_beiruti]

Anyone who has declared himself to be the messenger of god is delusional. And those who subsequently have followed his words have not been very skeptical to say the least.

why!, for what porpuse did he want money or fame ?

did you read his biography? or are you judgemental ?

sura 44:9 Smoke

[9] Yet they play about in doubt.

 

[little_monkey]

Seriously, if nothing you say is certain, why should we believe anything you say? If we start with the premise that he is delusional, then every conclusion we reach will most certainly stem from that "he is delusional".

Not really.

When Einstein proposed his theory of Relativity -- time slowing down, space contracting, e=mc2, most people at the time, circa 1905, thought he was delusional. Yet, his ideas were proven to be true, and now he is considered as one of the great geniuses of all time. So your premise, every conclusion we reach will most certainly stem from that "he is delusional" does not necessarily follow.

 

[little_monkey]

why!, for what porpuse did he want money or fame ?

did you read his biography? or are you judgemental ?

sura 44:9 Smoke

[9] Yet they play about in doubt.

When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

 

[Willamena]

Not really.

When Einstein proposed his theory of Relativity -- time slowing down, space contracting, e=mc2, most people at the time, circa 1905, thought he was delusional. Yet, his ideas were proven to be true, and now he is considered as one of the great geniuses of all time.

Yes, but people who came over to Einstein's way of thinking changed their premises.

 

[gnomon]

I have a great respect for people who demand evidence for belief. I think that it is an important class of people in religion, a safeguard against fraud. But I think that it is also important to consider, as a skeptic, EVERY possibility, and not just the ones that we are comfortable accepting.

For example, it is very easy for a skeptic to be skeptical of the existence of God. But a REAL skeptic should be just as unbiased towards the idea that God doesn't exist. That is not to say that it is wrong to choose one over the other to be more likely, but I don't think that it is honest to be 100% confident in one or the other (from a skeptical mindset).

Skepticism isn't about not believing ANYTHING until it is justified by evidence. It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? Why is the assumption made that OUR perspective, the skeptic, is unbiased and clear? I don't think you can really be 100% sure, one way or the other, that it is God that is unseen or that it is humans who fail to see what is visible. Every day, there are new discoveries, new aspects of science and nature that we must come to understand, things we were never aware of. Should we not hold then that there may always be more and more that becomes visible that was at one time apparently non-existent? Do new discoveries REALLY shrink God? Or does it diminish only our previous understanding of the greatness of God? I think it depends on what kind of God it was you believed in in the first place. To me, the more I learn about nature and science, the more I marvel at its complexity and intricacy, the more I begin to comprehend the unfathomable infiniteness to everything that is. To me, this INCREASES my God instead of shrinking him.

That's all well and good but misses the point of skepticism.

The OP title is prove that we are not blind to God's existence. Yet there is this,

It's about always accepting the possibility that there are things unknown, not made clear, about what is known, to challenge what is accepted, to not accept anything 100%.

Accepting that there are unknowns in the universe is not a problem for skeptics, atheists, humanists or what have you. The problem here is that those who believe by default posit God as a known. That God as a known is not merely the existence of the word or concept of God but an actual being with a concretely defined set of characteristics.

With new discoveries all falling within the realm of natural explanation or further understanding gained by studying nature what need is there for the assumption that a God must exist when assuming the latter has proven more insightful to the human race.

Of course more and more will become visible the more we learn. That is primarily the meaning of learning.

I posit that not a single Trungpa, Lama, Chopra, Ramtha or any other -a or such religious philosopher has added anything to the knowledge and understanding of the world or ourselves that reason alone has not or can not provide.

 

[little_monkey]

Yes, but people who came over to Einstein's way of thinking changed their premises.

And that's the way science works. If a premise is successful, it is kept on. But when it fails, it is replaced by a different one. So when you claimed that every conclusion we reach will most certainly stem from that "he is delusional, you were assuming that under any circumstances,I can't change my premise. If that would be the case, then I would hardly merit to be considered as a scientist.

 

[little_monkey]

"Originally Posted by little_monkey
You were either silly or you don't understand BoP. Your pick."

"Originally Posted by Storm
Oh, so you don't understand how BoP works, and remain willfully ignorant. Gotcha."

How you can come up with that conclusion must be the work of a sheer genius.

 

[Magic Man]

"Originally Posted by little_monkey
You were either silly or you don't understand BoP. Your pick."

"Originally Posted by Storm
Oh, so you don't understand how BoP works, and remain willfully ignorant. Gotcha."

How you can come up with that conclusion must be the work of a sheer genius.

How you can accuse her of being silly or not understanding BoP boggles my mind. I really just don't see where that train of thought comes from.

 

[Willamena]

And that's the way science works. If a premise is successful, it is kept on. But when it fails, it is replaced by a different one. So when you claimed that every conclusion we reach will most certainly stem from that "he is delusional, you were assuming that under any circumstances,I can't change my premise. If that would be the case, then I would hardly merit to be considered as a scientist.

You can change your premise all you like, and doing so will affect your conclusions.

Edit: In fact... please do.

 

[Storm]

"Originally Posted by little_monkey
You were either silly or you don't understand BoP. Your pick."

"Originally Posted by Storm
Oh, so you don't understand how BoP works, and remain willfully ignorant. Gotcha."

How you can come up with that conclusion must be the work of a sheer genius.

Is there a reason you keep reposting this?

How you can accuse her of being silly or not understanding BoP boggles my mind. I really just don't see where that train of thought comes from.

Simple. He doesn't understand BoP, and he's projecting.

 

[little_monkey]

You can change your premise all you like, and doing so will affect your conclusions.

Edit: In fact... please do.

Now that you've given me permission, I feel real good...

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

When you read the Sira, you find that violence fills its pages. The first form of violence is verbal. After Mohammed’s first revelation, it only takes 12 pages until there is a fight and a Muslim bloodies a kafir. From that point on, Mohammed argues, threatens, curses, preaches, and condemns. So 98% of the text of Mohammed’s prophecy contains verbal violence against the kafirs (unbelievers).

Jihad starts 281 pages into his prophet-hood and it never stops for the next 409 pages. So 72% of the Sira’s report of his prophecy involves some form of jihad. Of course, the verbal abuse runs right along with the killing, torture, rape, theft, deceit and assassinations.

So you have a missunderstanding of the Sira of the prophet and considered all the self deffince which had been done by the prophet Muhammed PBUH and his companions as a Violence,

Just remeber every Prophet were persecuted in his own country, from his people.

You said that there were verbal Violence were against unbeliever, and to correct your idea, they were beliver in Allah but they worship Idols beside him, thus you can call them unbeliver of one God, they persecuted prophet PBUH and his few companions among 23 years, many of them were killed because of his tenet.

when you live under a violent regime, you have to act according to the environment.
At least you have to hide from eyes of your enemies, defend your self, condemn the persecution also insist on your principles.

most of Sira enclude souls scrifice and donation for the sake of ritght

The prophet Muhammed ans his companions were a good example of devoted and sincere men who didcate thier life for rightness.

you belive what you want, and deny what you want selectivly .

skeptical of what you hate, and a good believr about you like.

 

[Imagist]

when you live under a violent regime, you have to act according to the environment.

I won't argue the specifics of the life of Mohammed, because I don't know as much about Mohammed as I would like.

However, I WILL point out that the above quoted statement is blatantly incorrect.

I refer you to the peaceful protest methods of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.