Empiree:
How do you think a country would properly function if there are multiple presidents in one country?. If president A decides to give Free Healthcare, president B might disagree and decides to charge a fee. President A might decide to go to war while president might prefer peace treaty. Simple proof that there is only God is, imagine there are multiple Gods, if God A decides rain and cool weather today while God B prefers hot sun and hot weather.

# It is even ridiculous for a selfdeclared atheist to be talking about many God's idea when he doesn't even believe in none. If he maintained that the idea of One God is sensible to debate with, he will have to prove how it is insensible to debate idea of many gods. At the end, he will stop hiding under the shadow of polytheism.

AlBaqir:


# Kindly worry about your atheism. Leave the polytheism idea alone. I believe they can speak for themselves as we, monotheist, are speaking for ourselves. You've never speak for yourself then why trying to represent others. You are boring, brother.

Lol, so because I'm not a polytheist I can't talk about them? I can't make examples out of their beliefs? Is that what your philosophy is?

You need to review what philosophy means.

You claim only one God exist, I've asked you why then do you think other Gods doesn't exist, do you have proof?

# You mean you just believe in a possibility that you have no idea, no logical deductions, no philosophical arguments about?

And obviously if there is no idea of a "possibility", how can there ever be attributes of that possibility

So, there is a possibility that a stone could change into lions. Am just saying. Really the case is getting worse. Believing in a possibility you have no idea about. What could be more worse in ignorance than that?!

Does the notion "possibility" means fact? There are many possibilities in scientific theories that we don't know it nature yet. In science and also in philosophy we predict and assume a subject then experiments, rationalize before coming into conclusion if it's to be accepted or discard or be on pending.

Possibility means likelihood, chance, hope of something happening or happened it doesn't mean it's established fact!

The Quran is "claim" to be fact and true from an almighty God, your aguements here is built on possibilities, assumptions, are you not contradicting your beliefs? Are you Agnostic or a deist?

# Why are you making lies? I haven't use the word perfect or imperfect for the world so far. It is only in your limited knowledge that you keep on assuming there are "all are not positive" in this natural world.

Is the world perfect, are all natural phenomena positive?

What we are telling you is the universe is an orderly system. If you think something is negative and shouldn't have been part of it while you surrender science had never been able to know fully every component of this system and why and how each work and to what purpose, then you gatta sit down for a long time on the reserve bench.

An orderly system is about the cosmos which is govern by natural law in the universe the opposite is chaos, a disorder in the universe, the universe is compound with time, space and matter(law of physics). The universe as we are is not perfect.

I pointed an example of how the galaxies, stars were formed as a result of collapsing and colliding, how does this link to your all-powerful God?

# We have introduced every "effect" as imperfect with the explanation of dependency. On the other hand we introduced Wajib al-wujud as perfect and independent.

Is the world perfect, kindly answer and stop dodging.

# You have never even attempt any of it. We've given 3 attributes:

1. Perfection, 2. Infinite and unlimited, 3. Unity (Oneness)

Bring philosophical arguments why Wajib al-wujud (which we believe to be God) does not exist, should not be perfect, should not be infinite and should not be one.

We have supported each of our own claim with philosophical arguments. Here you are with no idea of Possibility claiming "I have counter it" No be by mouth and agidi repetition abeg.

You only presented your subjective philosophical argument which is flawed, nothing can exist outside time and space to intervene, time and space compounds natural particules, if your God is outside time and space how then he was able to count 6 days of creation in the Quran, what idea of time did he use, how was he able to interact and work with time? What time was God working on in the heaven?

Assuming there's outside time and space, which means God existing outside time and space is Infinite, what state was God before thinking of creating anything?

Existence is within time and space, there's no outside as of our observation of the universe, you claim infinite regression is impossible, how come you conclude an infinite being to be possible, aren't you seeing the absurdity and sentiments? Your claims are just full of assumptions!

AlBaqir:


# Is that your philosophical argument? Am sorry to say that's foolishness. You claim you believe there is possibility of a first cause, where is your theory and argument? No idea.

If there is a possibility of a first cause, what the "possibility" of His attributes? No idea. You just believe

Possibilities are built on assumptions oga, I wonder if you even understand what you're arguing about. Your philosophical argument are flawed.

I gave example of Extraterrestrial entities as a possibility, any attributes I claim will be assumptions.

The world is not perfect to assume a perfect entity. I don't have any Idea what a first cause should possess, I'm simply agnostic about it and I don't have any factual reason to believe one exist.

# Another very silly argument. And you claim there is possibility of a first cause?!

Is there anything wrong assuming a subject? Do you understand what philosophy or science means?

# Besides, must everything be "seen" before it can be believe it exists?

No, there are some phenomena we don't understand it nature but only predict, assume.

# Anything you can see has limitations and can be rationalized. If the first cause is limited and can be rationalized, then He is part of something limited and never a first cause.

Exactly!

Gravity can't be seen but it's part of our natural world.

Allah can't be seen but we read him intervening in the Quran, if a God can be doing this then he's within time and space and bound to it. The reason deist believe God doesn't intervene.

# On this thread, no one ever started with Quranic verse. What we challenged you on are via philosophical arguments. For a fact, based on our arguments did we only introduced our God.

Lol, go and read your premises and tell me you didn't make use of the Quran.

# "Being" means" state of existing. Everything whether mumkin al-wujud or Wajib al-wujud MUST be existing.
Stone exist just like human does. It is rational that an existing entity must come out of an existing other entity. It doesn't make any sense that existing things come out of non-Existing entity.

Being means state of awareness as of existing, a dead body can't claim he's a being, a stone can't claim itself a being but we're aware of thier being.

Particles, energy can cause something into existence, anything outside time and space is non-existence to us, how then it caused our universe. Can't you see your absurdity?

The reason I said why can't the first be 'it' is because it can be any-thing, a particle, smoke, light, dust etc not the Anthropomorphic being in the Quran(which I assume to be your point of argument).

The only reason you find it uncomfortable with the pronoun "He/His" is that it denotes "God". And you think your "no idea" ideology could be more safer if you use "IT". It doesn't matter so long you could define that "IT or He or She", with philosophical arguments.

"It" can be any-thing, your God as describe in the Quran is anthropomorphic being, IT was never describe as God in the Quran.

Are you arguing as a deist or as a Muslim?

Muslims never find it comfortable using "He" for their God. "He" is an English word that denotes masculinity. Some today uses "She" for God. That also denotes femininity. "IT" simply denotes "no life". This is one of the reason I tried my best to repeatedly use Wajib al-wujud unless there is no choice.

Wrong, I can call my dog a IT, I can identify someone as a IT, anything can be IT. When you start using HE for a god, I assume you are anthropomorphizing the gender of the entity.

# Its not about Albaqir said, it's about rationality. The general arguments is every effect must have a cause. If you want cause to have another cause, then the initial cause will become effect of another cause backward and it will go on and on and on till infinity.

If something must cause something, how come you suddenly assume there's a first cause without no prime cause? Are you not contradicting the logic of something must cause something?

You are an effect while your dad is your cause. Your dad is an effect of a cause (his own dad). Your great grandfather is the cause of your grandfather (an effect) and so on. This will lead to infinity which does not make any sense provided the theory of Cause and Effect is rational.

Ofcos cause and effect is rational but the moment you sideline that a particular entity can't be caused, you're contradicting yourself.

# This is where the Philosophical argument of "First Cause" is necessary. Hence, we termed "Him" Wajib al-wujud (NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING).

If there is any other rationality, kindly submit it for the world to see.

While possibility of a first cause is necessary, we don't know what it is, hence I've no reason to believe one exist until it's proven.

# Again, everything goes back to the theory of "Cause and Effect". Tell us you did not believe in it, then I will quit and surrender.

Cause and effect is well part of physics.

# What is the cause of the First Cause? That's what you've been labour to ask and that's what brought about your belief of "no God". Kindly drop your position of "I believe in the possibility of first cause".

tintingz, inside your skull, you know the theory of Cause and Effect is 100% rational. If you do not make exception as to the Self-Existing First Cause, then there will no longer be cause and effect. NEITHER you, your dad, your mum, your generation (and mine or anybody for that matter) EXIST.

The idea of adding "first" to a "cause"(first cause) is a pleading and built on assumptions, this contradict the logic of something must cause something.

If cause and effect is 100% rational, how come you conclude your so called "first cause" is not an effect of a prime cause?

You can't eat your cake and have it too!

Kindly go and understand Einstein's law of relativity. Besides, that's even relative. The moment God is limited by time and space, then "He" is limited and will only become another limited and finite effect.

Yes, we read your God working with time and reason before doing things in the Quran.

Empiree:
You are getting ridiculous everyday. There are always illustrations for us on this planet earth. How do you think a country would properly function if there are multiple presidents in one country?. If president A decides to give Free Healthcare, president B might disagree and decides to charge a fee. President A might decide to go to war while president B might prefer peace treaty. Simple proof that there is only God is, imagine there are multiple Gods, if God A decides rain and cool weather today while God B prefers hot sun and hot weather. This is a major disagreement and their Sovereignty would have crumbled because they would definitely fight for supremacy. Hence, the Noble Quran says Q21:22:



Sahih International: Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.



Pickthall: If there were therein gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, from all that they ascribe (unto Him).



Yusuf Ali: If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!



Shakir: If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder; therefore glory be to Allah, the Lord of the dominion, above what they attribute (to Him).



Muhammad Sarwar: Had there been other deities in the heavens and the earth besides God, both the heavens and the earth would have been destroyed. God, the Lord of the Throne, is too Glorious to be as they think He is.



Mohsin Khan: Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allah, then verily both would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

Lol, Actually the world is full of many presidents and leaders to begin with.

Even in a democratic state, we have situation where senate is having conflict with the president and this can prompt an impeachment.

If God is omini-benevolent with all authority , how come evil exist? Is that not conflicting?

The world consist "yin" "yang", good and bad, by this your God is the cause of evil, disasters, sadness, terror.

This is the reason some Religion have patheon of Gods, God of love, God of hate, God of war, God of fertility, God of the sun, God of kindness, God of happiness, God of sadness, God of disasters etc because the universe is orderly and as well chaotic (positive and negative), that's what nature is, that's what reality is. An almighty most merciful, kind, loving one God doesn't make sense in polytheistic and panthiestic view.

Kindly sit back and reason before making another flawed argument.

AlBaqir:
AN ATHEIST, DAN BAKER VS A THEIST, HASSANAIN RAJABALI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rc6luQ9l6A


I hope tintingz will learn from the video.

Lol, I've watched the debate before. Very interesting one.

There is no win or loose here, they both presented thier argument brilliantly.

I can still remember the part where Mr Dan Baker prayed "Oh gravity gravity you're worthy to be praise, I've come to you gravity", ridiculing religious people delusion. That part got me cracked up.

submit:
I believe albaqir would give a more better explanation than this.
Let me say:

Both infinite regress and the impossibility of infinite regress are true and false. None can be proved and at the same time disproved. But suffice me to use this, the soul and body of a man. We agree that the soul is not a part of the body but the body is under the control, and coverage of the soul which does not inhabit any particular part of the body. Thus it is both in the body as well as out of it. And therefore self existing on itself.

We therefore say quite logically that all existent things must end at an existence that exists by itself, because everything needs it for its existence. Hence the chain of existence must end with the cause of causes, which is self-existent.

Even tho you made lots of assumptions, the bolded part is what Albaqir should take home with.

It seems you're now getting the main problems in this thread premises.

AlBaqir:


# It is even ridiculous for a selfdeclared atheist to be talking about many God's idea when he doesn't even believe in none. If he maintained that the idea of One God is sensible to debate with, he will have to prove how it is insensible to debate idea of many gods. At the end, he will stop hiding under the shadow of polytheism.

Have I not answer this or am I commenting in another thread?

Here's what I said.

How do you want me to agree there's only one God when my position is the opposite? There's NO only one God, there are many ideas of Gods out there, it's just better and make sense to debate assuming one God, debating many Gods will take forever.

Why is this hard for you guys to understand.

tintingz:
Even tho you made lots of assumptions, the bolded part is what Albaqir should take home with.

It seems you're now getting the main problems in this thread premises.

You are still missing the point brother. You are more intelligent than this. This is not a win or lose discourse. This is a let's reason together thread.

tintingz:
Have I not answer this or am I commenting in another thread?

Here's what I said.

Your "pride" is making you miss the point. Ain't saying you are proud o before you go berserk and emotionally defend yourself, but whatever reaction you give still prove the existence of a self existing entity.

tintingz:

The world is not perfect to assume a perfect entity. I don't have any Idea what a first cause should possess, I'm simply agnostic about it and I don't have any factual reason to believe one exist.

I want to ask you. Does a soul exist?

tintingz:

While possibility of a first cause is necessary, we don't know what it is, hence I've no reason to believe one exist until it's proven.


Cause and effect is well part of physics.

# The above is the only sensible comment you've made in a long time.

# So you believe it is necessary we bring first cause into the equation. Of course without it you will denying not only your existence but also the existence of this giangiantic universe, and that would be foolishness.

# Something that is necessary must have some characteristics attached to "it". It is a high level of ignorance and arrogance and denial of obvious truth, to claim "we know nothing about it."

# Science is limited because of its tools and that's the reason it can never go beyond what its tools can measure. The universe as a system is relative in reference with matter, time and space (mahdudiyah). It will be silly to subject the "NECESSARILY existing entity" to the same frame of reference as the universe. That first cause must be beyond that.

# Kindly go and sit down on the reserve bench till "we don't know" becomes "we've realized".

tintingz:


There is no win or loose here, they both presented thier argument brilliantly.

# Who asked you for winner and looser? That kind of ideology will only continue to block your reasoning. What we asked you is to learn from the debate.

You claim to be agnostic and atheistic on both end yet you surrendered there must be a NECESSARILY Existing First Cause in the theory of cause and effect. Why rejecting God?

AlBaqir:


# The above is the only sensible comment you've made in a long time.

# So you believe it is necessary we bring first cause into the equation. Of course without it you will denying not only your existence but also the existence of this giangiantic universe, and that would be foolishness.

# Something that is necessary must have some characteristics attached to "it". It is a high level of ignorance and arrogance and denial of obvious truth, to claim "we know nothing about it."

# Science is limited because of its tools and that's the reason it can never go beyond what its tools can measure. The universe as a system is relative in reference with matter, time and space (mahdudiyah). It will be silly to subject the "NECESSARILY existing entity" to the same frame of reference as the universe. That first cause must be beyond that.

# Kindly go and sit down on the reserve bench till "we don't know" becomes "we've realized".

Don't forget the premises of this thread are built on possibilities which are assumptions.

There's a "likelihood" of a first cause, not necessary an intelligent being or the anthropomorphic being as describe by theists.

The universe is not perfect to have a perfect being, any attributes linked to a first cause will be full of assumptions which can be false. There's no sufficient evidence to support existence of an intelligent design, I've no reason to believe one even exist.

tintingz:


The universe is not perfect to have a perfect being, any attributes linked to a first cause will be full of assumptions which can be false. There's no sufficient evidence to support existence of an intelligent design, I've no reason to believe one even exist.

Do you mind..

Define the words

1. "Perfect"

2. "Intelligent"

tintingz:
Don't forget the premises of this thread are built on possibilities which are assumptions.

There's a "likelihood" of a first cause, not necessary an intelligent being or the anthropomorphic being as describe by theists.

The universe is not perfect to have a perfect being, any attributes linked to a first cause will be full of assumptions which can be false. There's no sufficient evidence to support existence of an intelligent design, I've no reason to believe one even exist.

# So the "assumption" of Cause and effect could be false? The implication is your existence and the universe could be false as well. You could see how ridiculous it is.

# You agreed that every system must have a designer. The quality and magnanimity of your product (system) will determine how intelligent and able you are. Do you have any difficulty agreeing with that?

If you agree this universe is a system then there is an intelligent and able designer for it.

You keep on thinking the universe is not a perfect system therefore its designer is not perfect. How ridiculous is that when you surrendered you or greatest scientists and their sciences have no answer to lots of things? You are using your own limitations which is even full of errors (the fact that it is subjected to changes) to judge the universe not to be a perfect system. How ridiculous that is. You obviously do not know your onions.

AlBaqir:


# Who asked you for winner and looser? That kind of ideology will only continue to block your reasoning. What we asked you is to learn from the debate.

Lol, is that not the reason i said there's no win or loose?

You claim to be agnostic and atheistic on both end yet you surrendered there must be a NECESSARILY Existing First Cause in the theory of cause and effect. Why rejecting God?

Can you tell what Agnostic means?

So you're now removing "possibilities" from your premises, interesting.

Rejecting God? You mean rejecting an imaginary friend?

submit:



Do you mind..

Define the words

1. "Perfect"

2. "Intelligent"

- Perfect : make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.

- Intelligent : the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

So what's your point?

tintingz:
Lol, Actually the world is full of many presidents and leaders to begin with.

Even in a democratic state, we have situation where senate is having conflict with the president and this can prompt an impeachment.

If God is omini-benevolent with all authority , how come evil exist? Is that not conflicting?

The world consist "yin" "yang", good and bad, by this your God is the cause of evil, disasters, sadness, terror.

This is the reason some Religion have patheon of Gods, God of love, God of hate, God of war, God of fertility, God of the sun, God of kindness, God of happiness, God of sadness, God of disasters etc because the universe is orderly and as well chaotic (positive and negative), that's what nature is, that's what reality is. An almighty most merciful, kind, loving one God doesn't make sense in polytheistic and panthiestic view.

Kindly sit back and reason before making another flawed argument.

Have you ever heard of a 'rookie cop'?. If you havent, watch "Training Day". Similarly we have rookie atheists. You are one of them

AlBaqir:


# So the "assumption" of Cause and effect could be false? The implication is your existence and the universe could be false as well. You could see how ridiculous it is.

# You agreed that every system must have a designer. The quality and magnanimity of your product (system) will determine how intelligent and able you are. Do you have any difficulty agreeing with that?

If you agree this universe is a system then there is an intelligent and able designer for it.

You keep on thinking the universe is not a perfect system therefore its designer is not perfect. How ridiculous is that when you surrendered you or greatest scientists and their sciences have no answer to lots of things? You are using your own limitations which is even full of errors (the fact that it is subjected to changes) to judge the universe not to be a perfect system. How ridiculous that is. You obviously do not know your onions.

First of all we don't know if the universe has a beginning or infinite, the idea that there must be something outside time and space is base on assumptions and flawed, nothing exist outside time and space, there's no outside as we can observe.

Cause and effect is not false, what I'm saying is we can't yet apply it to what cause the universe since we don't fully understand the universe if it has a beginning or infinite, it's unknown to us.

You believe something must cause something but yet you contradict yourself by claiming God was not caused or not an effect of a prime causer, you further claim God is infinite, how you have evidence for that is something I'm looking forward to, why not just accept you don't know(agnostic), rather than making assumptions as fact!

Empiree:
Have you ever heard of a 'rookie cop'?. If you havent, watch "Training Day". Similarly we have rookie atheists. You are one of them

Lol, excuses, stop dodging.

Kindly counter my post and stop the ad hominem.

If all authority comes from God, did he cause evil, disasters, terror to exist in our world?

Just answer the question.

submit:


Your "pride" is making you miss the point. Ain't saying you are proud o before you go berserk and emotionally defend yourself, but whatever reaction you give still prove the existence of a self existing entity.

Self existing entity, is this suppose to be a fairytale or what?

I want to ask you. Does a soul exist?

No, and I have no reason to believe it exist.

How does it apply to what we are arguing here?

submit:


You are still missing the point brother. You are more intelligent than this. This is not a win or lose discourse. This is a let's reason together thread.

I agree

tintingz:
Lol, excuses, stop dodging.

Kindly counter my post and stop the ad hominem.

If all authority comes from God, did he cause evil, disasters, terror to exist in our world?

Just answer the question.

For the fact that your first paragraph is messed up was the reason i didnt bother myself. And what you asked for here was answered in the 2hrs long video that you claimed you have watched.

If you have watched it, then, i have no comment.

Empiree:
For the fact that your first paragraph is messed up was the reason i didnt bother myself. And what you asked for here was answered in the 2hrs long video that you claimed you have watched.

If you have watched it, then, i have no comment.

Is God the cause of evil?

Answer and stop dodging.

tintingz:
- Perfect : make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.

- Intelligent : the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

So what's your point?

My point...Lol. Nothing.

The moment you understand that your definition of "perfection" or "intelligence" only defines what men has ascribed to a certain observable quantity, the moment you understand the concept of a self existing entity.

For instance, a class of 20 students engaged in a school examination. The 1st position according to your definition is for the perfect and intelligent student. While the 20th position is for the "imperfect" and "not" intelligent student. Or let me use this to broaden the scope. In any examination, 80%-100% is graded A. Any student who score like 100/100 is a "perfect" and "intelligent" student. Whereas 30%-0% is graded F, likewise a student getting less than 31 is regarded a failure.

Little do you understand that the grading is flawed cos the students generally are only tested based on what the school(system) has set as an examination be it practical or theory.

Where I'm going is this, you can't describe a self existing entity with such. It makes and limit it/him/her to your own reasoning(system) which truly is flawed since you can't exist on your own. That's the proof you are looking for. Please think.

It is your type that would argue good and evil. It is your type that would argue a "perfect born child" and an "im.becile" . It is your type that would argue wealth and poverty. It is your type that would argue that God is a racist.

Tintingz, you can't use a material concept to describe/judge/proportionate the immaterial

Brother, your reasoning is myopic.

I would end by saying this:

You dare deny the existence of a soul. Seriously. Lol. But you don't deny conscience or morality or humanism. Lol.

Your next question would be how does morality/humanism/conscience relate to soul or "what we are arguing here"

As I said before, I'm saying again, any question you ask or don't ask, whatever reaction you make/take proves the existence of a self existing being.

tintingz:
First of all we don't know if the universe has a beginning or infinite, the idea that there must be something outside time and space is base on assumptions and flawed, nothing exist outside time and space, there's no outside as we can observe.

Cause and effect is not false, what I'm saying is we can't yet apply it to what cause the universe since we don't fully understand the universe if it has a beginning or infinite, it's unknown to us.

By yourself, you are already proving the existence of God.

When early men saw lightning and heard thunder, science(atheist) said they then gave it a name. god of thunder and lightning. i.e, man limited research and his inadequate tools for observation and investigation made him call the unknown a god.

What your lot didn't understand about man was this. The early men were not into the god of thunder or lightning or god of stone or god of leprosy. Man was only reaching out. Be it one god or 2 gods or 3 gods or 100 gods, man has always been reaching out. Even till today, man through science knowing or unknowingly, either by submission or compulsion has been reaching out. Through your advancements, you are only reaching out.

The in-it in you and me that makes us think about beginning or end or infinite or eternity is what makes that entity self existing

submit:


By yourself, you are already proving the existence of God.

When early men saw lightning and heard thunder, science(atheist) said they then gave it a name. god of thunder and lightning. i.e, man limited research and his inadequate tools for observation and investigation made him call the unknown a god.

What your lot didn't understand about man was this. The early men were not into the god of thunder or lightning or god of stone or god of leprosy. Man was only reaching out. Be it one god or 2 gods or 3 gods or 100 gods, man has always been reaching out. Even till today, man through science knowing or unknowingly, either by submission or compulsion has been reaching out. Through your advancements, you are only reaching out.

The in-it in you and me that makes us think about beginning or end or infinite or eternity is what makes that entity self existing

Proving the existence of God, how?

Science and atheism are different thing, there are theist scientists that believe in God, so science does not equate to atheism, atheism is lack of belief in God/s, while science has nothing to do with proving God existence, just that atheist embrace scientific researches.

I hope you have heard the word "God of the gaps" and "argument from ignorance"?

Let me explain, in early days, humans can't explain the natural phenomena of thunder and lightning, so therefore it must be god(ignorantly making the gap as god), now that science can tell how thunder works, the gap has been filled and closed, now that more gaps are being filled and closed the idea of "God did it" or "it's God" is diminishing.

And the funniest part is when science discover something, religious people will start twisting and fine-printing it to thier beliefs, it seems God depends on humans to exist.

The point here is, if something can't be explain or known, we shouldn't jump into conclusion, oh it's God or some kind of supernatural, that is argument from ignorance!. It's better to just say we don't know yet, maybe in the future we will know and move on, it doesn't hurt or does it?

submit:


My point...Lol. Nothing.

The moment you understand that your definition of "perfection" or "intelligence" only defines what men has ascribed to a certain observable quantity, the moment you understand the concept of a self existing entity.

For instance, a class of 20 students engaged in a school examination. The 1st position according to your definition is for the perfect and intelligent student. While the 20th position is for the "imperfect" and "not" intelligent student. Or let me use this to broaden the scope. In any examination, 80%-100% is graded A. Any student who score like 100/100 is a "perfect" and "intelligent" student. Whereas 30%-0% is graded F, likewise a student getting less than 31 is regarded a failure.

Little do you understand that the grading is flawed cos the students generally are only tested based on what the school(system) has set as an examination be it practical or theory.

Where I'm going is this, you can't describe a self existing entity with such. It makes and limit it/him/her to your own reasoning(system) which truly is flawed since you can't exist on your own. That's the proof you are looking for. Please think.

It is your type that would argue good and evil. It is your type that would argue a "perfect born child" and an "im.becile" . It is your type that would argue wealth and poverty. It is your type that would argue that God is a racist.

Tintingz, you can't use a material concept to describe/judge/proportionate the immaterial

Brother, your reasoning is myopic.

Yeah, we can't explain self existing God because it's imaginary and only exist in your head. That's what your argument is pointing at.

Like I said, this world is not PERFECT to have a PERFECT BEING.

I would end by saying this:

You dare deny the existence of a soul. Seriously. Lol. But you don't deny conscience or morality or humanism. Lol.

Your next question would be how does morality/humanism/conscience relate to soul or "what we are arguing here"

As I said before, I'm saying again, any question you ask or don't ask, whatever reaction you make/take proves the existence of a self existing being.

Even tho this is off topic, but let me ask two questions.

How does morality has to do with soul?

Is morality as of reality objective or subjective?

tintingz:


And the funniest part is when science discover something, religious people will start twisting and fine-printing it to thier beliefs, it seems God depends on humans to exist.

God doesn't depends on His humans to prove His existence. There had been discoveries and there will forever be discoveries. Reason for that is that, every thing that will be discovered presently and in the future already came with Adam(as). You can argue this is fairy tale. All discoveries already came with him. But God in His infinite Mercy allows these discoveries to emerge eat appropriate time. For instance, there was no cell phones or Moto cars in The 6th century because they were not appropriate for that time. Every Discovery develops with TIME. This is why TIME is not static. Whatever will be discovered 20yr from now was already with Adam for our consumption and God has full knowledge of them before they are discovered at all. Every soul, behavior, discovery, invention, or aspect of life past, present, and future is mentioned in the Qur’ān.



وَلاَ رَطْبٍ وَلاَ يَابِسٍ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

"(There is) naught of wet or dry but (it is noted) in a clear record." 6:59




Allāh is saying that everything living (wet) or non-living (dry) is mentioned in the Holy Qur’ān. That is, all scientific discoveries, regarding living or non-living things, are mentioned in the Qur’ān, but not everyone can discern them.


Quran for instance, already predicted aircraft over 1400yrs ago.




Traveling by air


"And to Solomon (We subjugated) the wind: its morning stride was a month’s journey and the evening stride was a month’s journey." (34:12)

it expresses the subjugation of the wind to Solomon as one of his miracles, says: ‘The Prophet Solomon covered the distance of two months walk in two strides by flying through the air.’ By this it suggests that the road is open for mankind to cover the same distance in the air. ‘So, O mankind! Since the road is open to you, attain this level and do so’



Therefore, at that time of revelation of the verse, muslims might not understood that was until generations later when aircrafts discoveries were made. There are many more and more.


Qur'an speaks:


"And with Him (are the) keys (of) the unseen, no (one) knows them except Him. And He knows what (is) in the land and in the sea. And not falls any leaf but He knows it. And not a grain in the darkness[es] (of) the earth and not moist and not dry but (is) in a Record Clear." 6:59

The point here is, if something can't be explain or known, we shouldn't jump into conclusion, oh it's God or some kind of supernatural, that is argument from ignorance!. It's better to just said we don't know yet, maybe in the future we will know and move on, it doesn't hurt or does it?

we are human therefore, no matter your intelligent capacity we can never possibly comprehend everything. We only know what God decides for us to know.

Empiree:
God doesn't depends on His humans to prove His existence. There had been discoveries and there will forever be discoveries. Reason for that is that, every thing that will be discovered presently and in the future already came with Adam(as). You can argue this is fairy tale. All discoveries already came with him. But God in His infinite Mercy allows these discoveries to emerge eat appropriate time. For instance, there was no cell phones or Moto cars in The 6th century because they were not appropriate for that time. Every Discovery develops with TIME. This is why TIME is not static. Whatever will be discovered 20yr from now was already with Adam for our consumption and God has full knowledge of them before they are discovered at all. Every soul, behavior, discovery, invention, or aspect of life past, present, and future is mentioned in the Qur’ān.



وَلاَ رَطْبٍ وَلاَ يَابِسٍ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

"(There is) naught of wet or dry but (it is noted) in a clear record." 6:59




Allāh is saying that everything living (wet) or non-living (dry) is mentioned in the Holy Qur’ān. That is, all scientific discoveries, regarding living or non-living things, are mentioned in the Qur’ān, but not everyone can discern them.


Quran for instance, already predicted aircraft over 1400yrs ago.




Traveling by air


"And to Solomon (We subjugated) the wind: its morning stride was a month’s journey and the evening stride was a month’s journey." (34:12)

it expresses the subjugation of the wind to Solomon as one of his miracles, says: ‘The Prophet Solomon covered the distance of two months walk in two strides by flying through the air.’ By this it suggests that the road is open for mankind to cover the same distance in the air. ‘So, O mankind! Since the road is open to you, attain this level and do so’



Therefore, at that time of revelation of the verse, muslims might not understood that was until generations later when aircrafts discoveries were made. There are many more and more.


Qur'an speaks:


"And with Him (are the) keys (of) the unseen, no (one) knows them except Him. And He knows what (is) in the land and in the sea. And not falls any leaf but He knows it. And not a grain in the darkness[es] (of) the earth and not moist and not dry but (is) in a Record Clear." 6:59

God works with TIME? and someone claim God is outside space and time and not bound to it.

Secondly, if God actually knows every discoveries beforehand, why can't he just state them out? phone is not appropriate at that time.

Did you just spit that out?

If God actually foreknows everything, why is he always angry when things went wrong?

If God doesn't depend on humans, why are you his mouth piece?

You can remember the argument about the myth that Muhammad rode on a flying donkey to the sky, people actually believe this to be true, infact so many cultures believe in some flying creatures exist e.g Pegasus in Greek mythology.

But fast forward to the future, some muslims started dropping the belief Muhammad rode on a flying donkey(because it sound ridiculous) and replace it as "speed of light", haba what a dishonest!

Assuming science didn't discover the theory of "speed of light", what would still be the excuses or beliefs?

God still depends on humans, the scriptures depends on humans to be true.

we are human therefore, no matter what your intelligent capacity we have we can never possibly comprehend everything. We only know what God decides for us to know. From that we can deduce from this Hadith.

This is kind of argument from ignorance.

tintingz:


While possibility of a first cause is necessary, we don't know what it is, hence I've no reason to believe one exist until it's proven.

tintingz:


Yeah, we can't explain self existing God because it's imaginary and only exist in your head.

Continue contradicting yourself uncle

tintingz:


Like I said, this world is not PERFECT to have a PERFECT BEING.

on humans, the scriptures depends on humans to be true.

This is kind of argument from ignorance.

I think I'm done here.

submit:






Continue contradicting yourself uncle.

Contradicting upon assumptions?

Self existing entity is flawed and has no bases of any fact, it's built on assumptions.

Hope you know energy can't be created nor destroyed, it's self existing.

The universe is not yet known to have a beginning yet, it's self existing.

There are things to be called self existing, making a self existing as God would require properties, what properties does your self existing have?

If you can't present any of your self existing properties, you're just wallowing in imagination and assumptions.

I think I'm done here.

Ok, have a good day.

Sheik Saduq (rahmatullah alayhi) documents:

Narrating from Imam al-Rida (alayhi salam) when a man believing in dualism asked him, 'I believe that the creator of the world are two, so what is the proof that He is One?'
The Imam replied, 'Your belief that there are two is proof in itself that He is One, for verily you have only claimed the second after having affirmed the existence of the One. So, the One is already agreed upon - it is more than one that is controversial [and remains to be proven].'

Source: al-Saduq, al-Tawhid p. 270, hadith no.6