I would have to agree, however, I would also point out that Islam is where Christianity was 500 or so years ago. It's a learning and growing process for some faiths. Particularly those more organized, like christianty, Islam and Judaism. The latter, of course, is the most evolved but still has several sub fractions that can be more rigid In their thinking.
-
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!
Why they are fake?
- Thread starter AhmedE
- Start date
What of all the other myriad faiths in the world? There are many. Do they all fall under this umbrella you imply?
Simplicity isn't always accurate.
Computers are designed with specific purposes in mind, and are efficiently designed to do so. Ideally, redundancies and useless stuff is ironed out in order to create as efficient an experience as possible. The best ones, which includes the ones made by Samsung and Apple among others, also have as few points of failure as possible, with fixes being relatively easy.
However, things that develop via natural selection, such as living things, are often filled with hundreds of fail-points and redundant elements. That is, stuff in our bodies that literally don't do anything, but are hold-overs from deeply distant early human and non-human ancestors. From a design perspective, the human body is actually quite poor; we're incredibly weak physically and continue to get physically weaker through the millennia as physical strength is not necessary to pass on our genes. There are hundreds of ways the human body can fail, i.e., either die or just stop working in such a way as to become crippled.
Speaking as someone who's an amateur programmer and game designer, if there's some sort of intelligent designer of the universe, he or she's a pretty bad designer.
Then please explain to me, nature is the process of what exactly?
Obviously not
ًWow. What are the chances. I'm a software developer myself, and quite disagree. The systems created around us - by God - such as electricity, are so infallible and concrete that they allow us to design with complete abstractions such complex machines as Laser printers and computers. Your argument cannot get anymore invalid than this.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
I do not understand your question.
What we see is the result of the properties of the universe: the charge on the electron etc. It has never been found necessary to posit anything supernatural in coming to understand things about the universe. Unless specific evidence is provided, I see no reason to suppose that anything supernatural will be needed to figure out things we do not yet understand. You do not get to shove your god into holes in our knowledge unless you can give actual evidence he/she/it belongs there.
Your metric for calling my argument invalid is, itself, incredibly invalid and thus my argument remains valid.
How do the words "infallible" or "concrete" in any way apply to something like electricity? Calling electricity "infallible" is like trying to describe an apple's words per minute. "Concrete" I assume is here being used metaphorically as something hard and reliable. Thing is, electricity can be controlled, but like fire, can also be very treacherous and unpredictable. It's far too dynamic for the word "concrete" to apply in any way.
I don't see any artificial systems in the natural world. I see nothing that was clearly designed for a specific purpose, while being incredibly efficient at that purpose with few, if any, fail-points. Rather, I see things that just are what they are, and they got like that naturally.
Last edited:
So it's the same rethoric again and again, it's my faith or you are damned. Really, that gets so old.
Indeed God may choose whatever he wishes. However, God + Bleed = no God. God + Eat = No God. God + Die = No God
Well frankly your response astounds me. I asked where does these laws of the "universe" or laws of "nature" come from? Need more elaboration?
Wow the word naturally comes so easy. Again, square one, where did this "natural property" come from. Moreover, my electron example, highlights the fact that the laws which electrons follow are so accurate and predictable that we can actually employ these laws to make amazing things. The completeness of the design was my hint, the one which you did not take.
raph
Member
Why is God+Talk = God And God+Eat = No God
?
Both things are created. Talking would also be humbling himself, exactly like eating
Looncall
Well-Known Member
I did not realize that was what you were asking.
So far, no-one knows why the laws are as they are (people are working on it).However, to stick god(s) in as an answer requires evidence. Do you have any?
The default position is "no-one knows", not "goddidit".
Science inspects "things" and "occurrences". Science investigates matter and ends up with concepts like mass, volume, gravity.... etc. What science has discovered and will ever discover will always lie in the realm of matter, and matter is a result "a product". I can say for myself with the utmost confidence, that what created all these things, is not one of them, and hence I am compelled to believe in a Creator.
God is supposed to be needed by everything but needs nothings. Therefore, a God who eats is needy, and therefore not a God. God who talks? Communicating with us in any form he chooses to do so, be it through words or direct inception illustrates our need for him and not the other way around. So talking does not undermine His divinity, however, a God with needs, form, size, shape, is limited and therefore is not a God. I simplify this logic by the concept of infinity. God can give without limits, and that will not reduce his "Kingdom" one bit, just like you can divide or subtract from infinity any number you wish, without it reducing one bit. Think about that for a second.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Nature a very crude very disgusting process usually involves the exploitation of one species over another some victims of nature can be eaten alive for the victim nature usually ends it with what could be considered a bad day, afraid once you go past the eye candy of nature the vast majority of it is gruesome.
raph
Member
Eating in any form he chooses, would illustrate his almightyness and not his need for food.
In my opinion He can't be infinity, if theres something, He is not. If He is not this computer screen, then there exists something, his infinity doesn't reach. Therefore it is not infinity. If he was only the hidden, but not the manifest, he wouldn't be infinite.
Exactly like when you define the number infinity. If 1499 is not part of that, you have not defined infinity.
He said, "O my people, is my clan mightier against you than Allah? And you have taken Him (to yourselves) beyond you, backing away. Surely my Lord is Supremely Encompassing whatever you do.
Last edited:
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Ah, I see. A mere argument from ignorance, then. You do not provide any actual evidence, just a supernatural default.
Shad
Veteran Member
By pointing out the circular logic and educating people in basic logic by moving logic 101 into high-school as a mandatory course rather than a university course a minority enroll in.
Shad
Veteran Member
To invoke an authority which no average person can question nor confirm. Rejection of the claim uses fear to invoke punishment for disobeying a deity or pantheon of deities. Sumeria had a King-Priest system as the head of state. So the ruler could not only invoke their earthly authority but that of the divine. Think about how many religions you do not believe in that have used the same claims of the Quran as speaking for or as direct instructions from their deities. You just do not apply the same standard to your own religion either since you have never been taught to critically evaluate claims such as this or are unwilling to do so.