₦airaland Forum

^^^
There is no dictionary on earth, that defines atheism as a religion or theory.

Self created?? Lol! No. If I was created, I would have an objectively discernible purpose and the presence of a creator.

A problem with God is, if man as ordinary as he is requires a Cause, wouldn't God??

Assuming Yahweh exists, he would have the power to throw us into Hell, however we have that right to rebell.

Harakiri and thehomer have fully expressed my mind. Also if those 16&19 dimensions are spatial, then they are physical.

I think consciousness can be roughly likened to the projection of a TV screen.

@snthesis

Atheism is not a theory, not a school of thought in science. Neither is it a religion, those who don't have a religion are atheists, no matter how evangelical they seem to be.

Why is there no God?? I think the God idea is introducing a greater complexity to explain a lesser one. Its too ineffective. I do think Nature is perfectly capable of weaving complexities including us.

A painting found on Mars, would imply its a product of man because we know the causal history of paintings. Nature too has its gallery, beautiful sceneries, even a stain on the wall could betray amazing geometry.

Deep Sight: I am pleased that you have referred to the natural world disclosing evidence of intelligence. It is indeed all about us. It is multi-layered, and staggeringly grand.

Now about the spirit realm, you know that even that which we observe in the world of matter shows transition of forms and not destruction. Things are not destroyed: they merely change form. Given that understanding, it stands to reason that the intangible consciousness of man also changes form at death: and is not destroyed. In whatever form it exists: that may not be matter, but being intangible in its essence: is what is thus called the spiritual.

I think your claim stands only as pure speculation on a mystery. I think consciousness is a form of the diversity and dynamics of matter. Like time. Intangibility is still a form of the physical.

@deepsight

Deep Sight: ^ Think about what you are saying. What type of "evidence" are you demanding? Physical evidence of spiritual realms? Do you think that is logical?

If such a "world" has had such an influence in our world, such as creation and the regular deux et machina, if its a world of order like ours, I think its reality will be impressable, imprintable in our minds and senses.

snthesis: @Kay 17
are you evil?, are you a serial Killer?, are you an armed robber?
if you arent any of these does that mean you are perfect? no the answers is probably you chose not to. You cant blame the imperfections of the world on God, the evil acts are carried out by Men who chose to do them. Every one born with the ability to do Right or Wrong, dont ever blame the wrong choices of certain individuals on God.

btw - u r derailing my thread

Yes and imperfect as the world around me. My question is since we are not self caused, we are ultimately not responsible for it but goes back to our Source. I think if God is an omnimax and good, evil will not come from him but since evil/inperfection exists now, then there can't be a perfect all good Source in other words God. It could be the Devil though.

^^^
LOL!!

C'mon, pulling verses out of context?! The Quran has in numerous verses professed its HATRED for unbelievers, for ppl that don't have faith, for people that just don't want to be Muslims and practice whatever they think of.

Isn't it ironic for a book of peace, a book from heaven to contain such violent verses in the first place?? Isn't ironic that Islam has produced more terrorists than any other who fight for the dumb God's Cause. Its obviously these verses however they are "rightly" interpreted that motivate an Islamic terrorist to kill others.

At the prophet Mohammed has killed black animists, been a highway armed robber, married infants, an army general (isn't that strange for a prophet of peace) drawing authority from the Quran.

snthesis: this is neither hia nor dia, those girls were raped my Men. the Evil of Men make the world imperfect.

Every man is a product of his environment, of his Source. Evil/imperfection is imprinted into him as a potential to be realized. Why can't a man fly, but yet perpetuate the most horrific acts??

Allah has sickened the hearts of disbelievers and increased their disease. He is a spiritual anti-doctor. 2:10

If you try to compose a surah that is better than those in the Quran, and then fail, Allah will burn you forever if you in the fire that he has prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

Allah will shed human blood while angels praise him in heaven 2:30

They who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein." 2:39

Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. 2:193a

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

"Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead." 3:169-171

Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 4:76

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

Believers who kill believers will face the awful doom of hell. 4:93

Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38

Christians will be burned in the Fire. 5:72

When you fight with disbelievers, do not retreat. Those who do will go to hell. 8:15-16

Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. 8:17

Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah. 8:59-60

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5

If you refuse to fight, Allah will afflict you with a painful doom. 9:39

Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111

Allah has destroyed many towns. 18:59

Those who oppose Islam will be slain with a fierce slaughter. 33:60-61

Add up those anti-blasphemy laws of Islamic states.

Sorry you didn't prove that, you simply quote some verses. PROVIDE evidence that there is a spiritual realm.

^^
Where is the love? Thw world is badly in need of it.

I don't like the manner Islam divides humanity into the believers and the disbelievers (infidel). It exploits differences. Why should a father be responsible for the salvation of his children, when both have different minds??

42 young girls got raped in circumstances which is not of their creation. My question is; why is the world so imperfect??

OLAADEGBU: If you don't have a clue as to how physical life originated how do you think you will get the meaning of eternal life?

What is spiritual life, can you prove that?

OLAADEGBU: We all have faith it is just that the Christian faith is not blind as your faith in evolution. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrew 11:1). You can see from this verse that biblical faith is having confidence in something that we have not perceived with our physical senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling or touching. Religion may be misunderstood to be believing in the absurd but biblical faith has good reasons for our faith because our God encourages us to have faith that is rationally defensible.

Reason is not antagonistic to faith, it is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith. The apostle Paul that you referred to reasoned with those in the synagogue and those in the marketplace (Acts 17:17). Our faith makes sense of what we experience in the world, and morally, Christians are obligated to think rationally just as God does (Ephesians 5:1).

Is it possible to make a true statement without resort to our sensory perception?

Reason will question events that suggests the supernatural. Like an entire cemetery resurrecting. Reason concludes that a man is likelier to lie than Nature to change its course.

[quote author=A.j]Atheism is the lack of belief in God or the belief that there is no God...
Atheism also believes in the non existence of absolute truth which invariably implies the the non existence of absolute right an wrong. In other words an atheist has no basis for morality any claim to the contrary would be a contradiction of the concept ATHEISM.[/quote]If so, doesnt that contradict the inherent claim in Atheism which you only see that there are no absolute truths and yet making a definite claim that there is no God??

Since your thought process has been lousy, atheism implies just one thing disbelief in god (supernatural). I do think most theists are confused to think God is perceived with the same identity universally. The word "God" is being thrown around too often. So I stick my arguments against Yahweh or Allah or Mazda.

Its daft.

^^^
Ola, religion is inseparable from Faith, thus until you can justify faith, the reasonableness in religion will be accepted.

Apostle Paul also called Christians fools in matters of reason and logic. However, if God is life why say Life has a beginning?

[quote author=Oro-Agba]Thank you Kay17 for your patience and effort to articulate yourself this time. But though vast in the bible i can claim to be able to easily reference all verses under dispute. Can you remake your post indicating the reference of these statements, "The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof...", "According to the psalmist, snails melt.." so that i can respond to them also. I have noticed that many atheists don't even know where the passages and stories they claim are contentious can be found in scriptures,[/quote]I did on purpose omit the verses, so the "absurdity" will not appear divine. And that commonsense will easily be applicable.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]they only carry those arguments as tools borrowed from their mentors to harrass the theist about their belief.Some of these statements unfortunately are maliciously taken out of context in order to disparage the theist belief eg is the passage from Daniel4:11 that i dealt with yersterday refering to the "ends of the earth"[/quote]I feel that's an insult to our intelligence. Its totally unnecessarily, just focus on the arguments. Note that in such ancient times, the earth was thought to be flat, Jewish tradition indicates that too. To claim that "ends of the earth" was figurative as known today,is false.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]Now to some of the stories that im farmiliar with and know where they are i'll try to help you undestand

1. "In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old...." Yes science tells us that the universe is btw 15- 20 billion years from the big-bang. But so interesting is my personal findings that scientists are still bothered about what triggered the big-bang. The big-bang was an explosion of an infinitely dense particle of matter leading to the creation and expansion of the planets stars etc. Scientist are yet to explain where these material that exploded during the big-bang came from or for how long it has been existing before the appropriate conditions for the big-bang to occur was achieved. Hence it seems to me that scientists agree that the universe came to be by the aid (disintegration/ expansion) of something which was not part of the universe itself. Agreed?[/quote]No the big bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. As with the foundational assumptions of science, it would require a cause which is unknown, not God; except if unknown = God. Intense heat, friction, etc are not unnatural consequences of the behaviour of matter. Also the point of singularity is technically not part of the universe, but as a cause would, shares with the universe its substance. I do see the point of singularity as the universe, but much smaller and achieves the quality of simplicity.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]Now going to the bible account, i explained in my very first post the concept of 6 days, viz - à - viz 2Pet3:3, (please refer to that argument) the writer MAY not necessarily mean 6 earth-days considering for example that 1 pluto day is about 350 earth-years, if for the meantime we assume heaven is a planet in our galaxy much further away from pluto, then it is not impossible to achieve a scenario where 1 heaven-day is equal to 1000+ earth-years. Unless you can proof to me that the writer of Genesis definitely means 6 earth-days, you would be turning logic on its head to say the bible claims the earth was made in 6 earth days. If you look at Gen 1 from the understanding of 2Pet3:3, your claim that the bible said the earth was made in 6 earth days seems faulty.[/quote]I understand. We don't need to prove otherwise, since a literal and the clearest reading of the passage is 6 days. I thought an important attribute of God was that he wasn't bound by time.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]Furthermore, Genesis is generally refered to as the book of the beginning, but then, the begining of what? It is not necessarily the begining of the universe, but perhaps the begining of a new order, perhaps a renewal or refurbishment of the face of the earth. Take note that Gen1:1 says "in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. (verse2) the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the surface of the deep...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters" Between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 is a period/space of time long/short that the bible never told us about because he would not have created the heavens and the earth and left it as formless and void. some events are likely to have happened to render the initial creation formless and void. Also take note that according to the bible, WATER was not one of the things newly created, water already existed Gen1:3"...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters. And god said let there be..." This is further prove that the original creation of the universe happened long ago before the creation account described in Gen1:3-26. The space of time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 may be what science is helping us today to know, hence Gen1 did not in any way say that it is impossible for the earth to be 20billion years old. You see my friend how proper understanding can change your perception, that is why i don't downplay the bible despite my vasteness in science because i am aware of the applications and limitations of each tool.[/quote]Of course, that's a necessary implication in LIGHT modern science findings. I haven't read such defragmented book in a while.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]2. "Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved..." see brother you have the perception of instantaneous creation of man based on your interpretation of 6 earth-day creation in which man was made on the sixth day. But if you for example give my exposition a place in your mind for a moment that perharp the writer was using 6 heaven-days (equivalent to 6000 earth years as discussed earlier), that would mean that the creation account was not instantaneous at all. Also if you study Gen1 very well, the order of creation day-after day was vegetation then, water creatures, then birds, then land creatures and lastly man. Does this sequence not fit into a creation era that spans at least 6000 years and begins with the simple to the complex?
Hence you are right, humans were not created instantaneously, the bible didn't say so, man was like the latter part of a creation era spanning at least 6000years which began with creation of simple life forms gradually into the creation of more complex life forms.
Regarding your assertion that man was not made from dust and breath... that is what you need to proof to me. Take note that evolution is a theory just like gravity. A theory is not necessarily the truth, rather it is an acceptable explanation to a phenomenon based on observation/experimentation. I am sure that you are aware that newton's theory of gravity is not as useful in space mechanics as eistein's theory of relativity, nonetheless we still use newtonian mechanics with motion on earth because its explanations work here. So then what if the theory of evolution truly explains certain transitions but not all transitions( just the same way newton gravity fails when you start to study the mechanics of planetary bodies especially the singularity/black-hole). I put it to you to give me infallible proofs beyond loud assertions that man was not made from dust and breath.[/quote]We know the workings of science, one of its goals is to achieve consistency, an attribute shared by reality.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]3. "A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha." That is supernatural and i believe in it, or were you there in the past to witness it did not happen. Your duty now is to proof to me that the account did not happen. The fact you don't believe in something doesn't make it false, you have to proof it to be false in order to have audience.

4. "God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole." Also supernatural, can you proof it never happened?[/quote]LOL!! Supernatural is an absurd concept. It implies that an entity can behave beyond its own character/self, it implies that reality lacks consistency. Science, the concept of knowledge are null as a result.
The real question is "is it within the nature of man to resurrect from the dead as he speaks and walks?"

[quote author=Oro-Agba]"Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats Reproduce while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats" This account is in Gen30:30-40, but my brother did you take the pains to read just a bit further down Gen31:6-12, you will realize his use of spotted rod was merely symbolic, what happened was that god altered the mating pattern of the animals such that it was mostly the strong spotted males that mated with the females. And then scintifically, spotted males mate with females, most likely results are spotted baby goats. You see yourself now, most times what you atheist call absurdities are realities over which you need enlightenement. So why not ask questions more rather than outrightly condemn.[/quote]NoPe! All the flock including the white ones conceived speckled one while watching the rods. If he found the cattle weak, he removed the rods. The passage is very clear and totally false.

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms
When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided?
Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats.
The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud."
God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole.
A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha.
God spread out the sky, which is a solid structure, hard and strong like a mirror.
According to the psalmist, snails melt. But they don't, of course, they simply leave a slimy trail as they move along.

SNCOQ3: Are you sure of the bolded?.



Check out the top of my first post on "Christian scientist and thinkers" on this thread. My objective is clear.



Please do; It will further buttress the point that not only Christians but Arab and Hindu theists were not against science but actually contributed to the development of science more than atheist would like to admit.



Actually, you missed the objective of my earlier post so using it as a basis for your argument renders it useless. Besides, multiple belief systems with contrary views does not in any way negate the existence of God.

It might also interest you to know that Atheism is faith based. A belief that science will one day provide the answers is an expression of faith. It is called SCIENTISM.



The truth of God's word as revealed to man is sufficient; Man's understanding of this truth is progressive. The idea of Christianity vs Science is nonsensical. Real science does not contradict the bible, "scientific conjectures" , wrong hypothesis and pseodo-scientists like Steven Dawkins who is a living contradiction does.
[b]



The bolded is so wrong. Please read my posts "Christian Scientist and thinkers" on this thread again. It tears your bolded statement to shreds. Besides, you just contradicted your earlier statement which admitted implicitly, that theism is not an hindrance to development on the contrary, theist actually laid the foundation of its advancement.

That's a huge claim! Atheists have different reasons for drawing their conclusions. Some are disappointed at the contradictions science finds in religions. Modern Science has dug out numerous errors in the Bible, and that's not surprising, considering the age it was written.

SNCOQ3: Hi Kay 17, Sorry for the delay to respond to your question. I have a very busy life outside of NL.

* Firstly, sin itself is not the imperfection in this context but that which renders a perfect being imperfect just like a perfect bowl of egusi soup could decay to an imperfect bowl of soup when exposed to germs. ( I objectified sin for the sake of clarity).

* So did God create this sin? The answer is no. Sin is not an object but the breaking of God's law. The Law is a reflection of the character of God.

* The beautiful gift of freewill from God created the possibility to sin. Or do you want to blame God for giving you the power to choose?

You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you(Lucifer). Ezekiel 28:15.

Sin originated in the heart of Lucifer, as indicated by this passage. But did God therefore "create sin" because He created Lucifer? God DID NOT create sin. But He did create his creatures with the freedom of choice. God could never be content with mere robots. Free will means the power to choose for or against something. Lucifer had the choice to remain loyal to God, or to rebel against Him. He was created with no taint of maliciousness. His rebellion was not the fault of God, but the result of his own free choice.

Thanks for your efforts. We do understand Sin as an act of disobedience to God's commands and by God's standards is bad. Consequently, Sin is a deliberate positive act which is a person who is able to and capable of. That is; its a potential of such a person. Since Sins are bad, they are imperfect in nature.

Being that God is beyond evil and sin as a result of his perfection. Since the Source of All is perfect and beyond evil, why do his creation lack that perfection??

plaetton: I agree. what may seem supernatural are just ideas and natural laws that are yet to be fully understood. The new area of hyper-dimensional physics will give purely ration scientific explanations to things and phenomena that have been hitherto rellegated to the reamls of the supernatural.

Exactly my view.

nanotee: My submission still remains that the same way I cannot prove God absolutely, It cannot be proven conclusively that God doesn't exist. About some new super-physics coming to explain witch-craft, miracles and divinations, I seriously doubt if science as we know it today would in the near future put up a set of equations to explain these phenomena. Let me just say there's a one in a billion chance of this happening. Science is yet to discover the cure for many ailments, not propounded a well-defined theory for the origins of the universe and human-kind. It's always been conjectures. I find it very absurd to belief that science can explain how a person dies a few seconds after some incantations are made on his picture. Would that be some sort of yet to be discovered force?

So you worship your god out of ignorance.

^^
The key issue with the bible is one of epistemology. Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? My answer is NO. Absolute acceptance of an idea without scrutiny isn't an effective way of separating errors from the truth. Faith isn't structured with reality.

The authors of the bible were prisoners of their time, they couldn't have known what was beyond them and their methods.

The bible is filled with tales of the impossible and supernatural.

nanotee: Seems the atheist are leading in dis debate. So does God exist? My answer is that no one knows for certain. One reason I think people associate with religion is the explanation of so many mysteries in their world. In yoruba land for instance, there are cases of witch crafts, river goddesses, re-incarnation, etc which are not explainable without reference to the super-natural. I don't think science would one day give an explanation to these super-natural mysteries. This is an aspect that so many atheists tend to over-look. Another issue raised is that the concept of God doesn't make so much sense, lacks appeal to the intellect. But because we cannot comprehend this God or understand in details why he seems powerless over many ills that plague man-kind is not enough to conclude on his non-existence. Not knowing the cure for AIDS doesn't mean it's in-existent.
Finally, if there's a God then which? I think every person should decide. While I have not seen God physically, my experiences with him, which has gone beyond mere chance or hear-say has sealed my choice of faith. I choose to belief. Hoping that one day I would get more answers to the questions I have.

taste and see that the Lord is good.

Supernatural can't exist, its impossible. Its like drawing water from an empty barrel.

^^^
Scanners, right?

Isn't the result confirmed by sensory perception?

^^^ How would you know if there is a tumor in your brain?

Pls try to understand what atheists and agnostics think, not assuming within ur mindset.

What are spirits like??

How do you know there are spirits??

Do they follow physical laws??

tbaba1234: Your questions are many: I hope i can address them..

Your first question is How do i know God is one?

I will present 5 arguments for the oneness of a creator/ God and there are as follows:

1. Occam’s Razor
2. Logical Argument
3.Conceptual Differentiation
4. Uniqueness
5. Revelation

1. Occam's razor: Occam's razor is the law of parsimony. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.(wikipedia definition). Basically what it says is that when there are competing options the one with the fewest assumptions and the simplest explanation is the best one. This is applied in the philosophy of science.

The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes in the creation of the universe creates more problems than it answers....This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is the best explanation.

In the absence of any evidence or in absence of a need for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the most comprehensive and simple explanation. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest and most comprehensive explanation is that this cause is one. Postulating a plurality of causes does not add to the comprehensiveness of the argument.

I agree multiple causes for an effect is absurd, rather a single mind should be responsible for this effect (universe). However, that doesn't exempt multiple gods, as long as there is a common and single mind to create the universe, they are one single cause. A diverse universe could reflect a diverse, multilayered mind. Sometimes polytheism is this rich. So Occam's Razor doesn't vitiate polytheism.

I notice you give god an attribute of omnipotence, which is not a necessary attribute of god.

tbaba1234: 2. Logical Argument- The kind of organization existent in the universe necessitates the existence of just one creator. The existence of more than one God could result in chaos: Why? God being the creator has an imposing will. Having more than one creator: all with imposing wills could result in a competition of wills and chaos and disorder.

3. Conceptual differentiation- What makes us appreciate difference and duality in this world? We appreciate the concept of difference of difference in this world because of space, form, physical features etc. The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them.

In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts (space, placement, siz) are required to perceive any number of entities.

Since the creator of this universe has to be outside it(If the creator of the universe is within it, it will lead to the absurdity that the universe created itself- the universe existing and not existing at the same time), these concepts can not be applied to differentiate because these concepts only make sense in this universe.

The universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

Laws of thought have settled the question of identity. I don't think the Cause can be separated from the effect, its an extension of the cause. In the Gods/God scenario, the universe will be a part of the them/it.

My opinion is that there isn't the need of a complexity (God) to create anything because Being is self existent and inseparable from reality.

tbaba1234: 4. Uniqueness- If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

If there is a cause, the effect takes its character from the cause. Energy can't be destroyed or created is doesn't mean self cause, rather its verbatim meaning. Attributing negative traits like immaterial is not helpful, because he is either matter or an abstract.

tbaba1234: 5. Revelation- A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him.

[quote author=tbaba1234]2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an – and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth – cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability
b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation
c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an – then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

Humans have been on earth for over 800000 years and the "revelation" arrives this late?

You are saying in other words that Yahweh is a racial god sees who loves blacks only and has abandoned other races??

Why is your god incompetent?