₦airaland Forum

I appreciate the clarification, but you've actually reinforced the main point. Your position rests on philosophical assumptions, not scientific findings alone. Science can test observable claims, but it cannot prove that only the observable is real or that everything beyond it is merely imagination. Those are philosophical conclusions, not scientific ones. So your position isn't neutral; it's a fallibilist philosophical worldview with its own assumptions to justify.

There's also something else. You said you prefer philosophy because some schools allow for the possibility of a non existent God. But choosing a framework because it accommodates the conclusion you're more comfortable with isn't neutrality. It's simply preferring one set of philosophical assumptions over another, just as religious people do with theirs.

kayjordan:
Absolutely, claims I have made on here are assumptions. However, if my assumption are backed with concrete facts, it becomes an accepted one.

Science assumed many things and overtime, those assumptions were verified by the evidence of universal elements. The cause-and-effect relationship of unexplained and explained.

Philosophy on the other hand, is largely assumptive. In order to make objective claims, one may be required, to consolidate both knowledge (philosophy and science) to explain the universal order, which is what I have done.

As science explains the universe, philosophy attempts to explain the universe and beyond. Whilst the universal bodies are realistic in sight, the beyond remains largely imaginative, which is why philosophers often disagree.

Why I tilt towards philosophy than religion despite similarity is simply, a division of philosophy still entertains the idea of a non-existent God, while religion maintains God exist absolutely.

Philosophy always inquire to know more; religion never inquire beyond what is known "God". One is more academic in nature and the other is cultural. For this reason, I indispensably, apply philosophy in scientific experimentation, to generate a robust understanding of truth without formulating one.

In some aspects of inquiry, when philosophy hallucinates, science comes in. This is how I generate concrete facts.

The brunt of it, there exist no absolute truth of abstract matters, both philosophically and scientifically, and you are permitted to call it an assumptive claim.

That is the best neutral stance I can attain amid facts and imagination.

kayjordan:
Can you honestly avoid or limit yourselves in sports, entertainment and business?

YES!
As long as it has nothing to do with the political elements of this world!

It does appear my view is not neutral in your opinion. The view expressed, is selectively neutral and the reason is, the two schools of thought (science and philosophy), are being utilized at the same time to arrive at a conclusion. Both schools represent different ideas such as the "physical" and the "abstract". Selectively, my neutrality is enhanced with scientific and philosophical views. I try to harmonize both knowledge by accepting their respective assumptions and weighing them. That is more validating than accepting science and religion for the sake of neutrality.

Religion is the practise of worship; philosophy is the study of that phenomenon, and science is the study of the physical. If religion is "imagining", philosophy will "study" the imagination, while science will "study" the humans of imagination, and stay out of the abstractions. Somewhat, philosophy is in-between physical and supernatural. The core fact is: the philosophical study of phenomenon, and a strong conviction in science, is sufficient knowledge for me to objectively, develop personal assumptions without having to force-believe spirituality/religion when the inclination is low.

If philosophy, could find God (something science couldn't do), it would be concluded; a supernatural being exist - and religion/spirituality will become an accepted metaphysical fact with less uncertainty. Philosophy itself, is not categorically a belief, rather a process to understand beliefs. If I have a philosophical stance, it's not a belief but an applicable theory of observation.

The question of my neutrality lie between physical and supernatural. Science and philosophy are the processes to discover the truth between both realms.

honesttalk21:
I appreciate the clarification, but you've actually reinforced the main point. Your position rests on philosophical assumptions, not scientific findings alone. Science can test observable claims, but it cannot prove that only the observable is real or that everything beyond it is merely imagination. Those are philosophical conclusions, not scientific ones. So your position isn't neutral; it's a fallibilist philosophical worldview with its own assumptions to justify.

There's also something else. You said you prefer philosophy because some schools allow for the possibility of a non existent God. But choosing a framework because it accommodates the conclusion you're more comfortable with isn't neutrality. It's simply preferring one set of philosophical assumptions over another, just as religious people do with theirs.

Then you've been corrupted indirectly.

Anything of flesh and of the earth, is not free of iniquity.

I once heard a popular American mega pastor during an interview being asked, why he flies a private jet and he replies, "because commercial flights are full of evil people..."

What he never knew was, he was likely entertaining an evil interviewer; he probably indirectly preaches to an evil congregation every Sunday; he probably shops and buys gas where evil people are present.

Who really is deceiving who?

MaxInDHouse:
YES!
As long as it has nothing to do with the political elements of this world!

kayjordan:
Then you've been corrupted indirectly.
Anything of flesh and of the earth, is not free of iniquity. I once heard a popular American mega pastor during an interview being asked, why he flies a private jet and he replies, "because commercial flights are full of evil people..."
What he never knew was, he was likely entertaining an evil interviewer; he probably indirectly preaches to an evil congregation every Sunday; he probably shops and buys gas where evil people are present.
Who really is deceiving who?

True Christians don't bear religious titles so you missed it once again?🙂

You've described a method that's not neutrality. Choosing science and philosophy as your lenses while setting revelation aside because you find it less convincing is still a position, not a neutral one. A genuinely neutral approach would examine every truth claim, including revelation, by the same standard before accepting or rejecting it. That's all Islam asks. Not blind faith, but honest examination. Give the Qur'an the same fair scrutiny you give every other claim, then follow the evidence wherever it leads.

kayjordan:
It does appear my view is not neutral in your opinion. The view expressed, is selectively neutral and the reason is, the two schools of thought (science and philosophy), are being utilized at the same time to arrive at a conclusion. Both schools represent different ideas such as the "physical" and the "abstract". Selectively, my neutrality is enhanced with scientific and philosophical views. I try to harmonize both knowledge by accepting their respective assumptions and weighing them. That is more validating than accepting science and religion for the sake of neutrality.

Religion is the practise of worship; philosophy is the study of that phenomenon, and science is the study of the physical. If religion is "imagining", philosophy will "study" the imagination, while science will "study" the humans of imagination, and stay out of the abstractions. Somewhat, philosophy is in-between physical and supernatural. The core fact is: the philosophical study of phenomenon, and a strong conviction in science, is sufficient knowledge for me to objectively, develop personal assumptions without having to force-believe spirituality/religion when the inclination is low.

If philosophy, could find God (something science couldn't do), it would be concluded; a supernatural being exist - and religion/spirituality will become an accepted metaphysical fact with less uncertainty. Philosophy itself, is not categorically a belief, rather a process to understand beliefs. If I have a philosophical stance, it's not a belief but an applicable theory of observation.

The question of my neutrality lie between physical and supernatural. Science and philosophy are the processes to discover the truth between both realms.

Let's dissolve neutrality and make the argument more practical.

A court room hears a case between spirituality and science. The court, would be the philosopher to judge both knowledge. The court would weigh which knowledge has more facts and make a final judgment.

In this case, I haven't decisively concluded God exist or not. I'm still within the probing face. I may sound conclusive in some remarks like a private detective, to make you concede, but it doesn't totally mean I have made a final judgment.

The role of philosophy is to argue the existence of the supernatural. If you cannot give a convincing explanation, it will be considered insufficient or unproven and not necessarily wrong.

Just like in the court rooms, if you give a supernatural statement in court, it would be dismissed, even if weighed under the law.

Coming from an Agnostic perspective, I need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the supernatural exist - if not, the idea of the supernatural will only be treated with a pinch of salt; not totally regarded and not totally discarded.

This is why disagreements about the supernatural exist in philosophy, because the supernatural is a challenging subject matter that remains unproven.

The universe exist, we cannot argue with that fact, but agree. What is argued, is how it came about. That cannot be agreed on philosophically.

When you present a clause to explain a clause, it complicates matters - and the question of the supernatural will remain an inconclusive argument.

If I give the Qur'an or Bible the same fair scrutiny, I give every other claim, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, it will still lead to inconclusive.

honesttalk21:
You've described a method that's not neutrality. Choosing science and philosophy as your lenses while setting revelation aside because you find it less convincing is still a position, not a neutral one. A genuinely neutral approach would examine every truth claim, including revelation, by the same standard before accepting or rejecting it. That's all Islam asks. Not blind faith, but honest examination. Give the Qur'an the same fair scrutiny you give every other claim, then follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The title of a Pastor is an irrelevant part.

What's relevant, is the fact JW Organization dines with the devils here on earth.

That's what you should address.

MaxInDHouse:
True Christians don't bear religious titles so you missed it once again?🙂

kayjordan:
JW Organization dines with the devils here on earth.

Jesus didn't pray for us to be removed from planet earth:


I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." John 17:114-17

If we are taken out of planet earth how are we going to serve as evidence against faithless people that God is with us?
So we live among people who don't want to have anything to do with God so that our fine works could serve as evidence against you people by the time God destroys all evildoers it will be evident that He has a good reason to do so:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

So we are serving as a WITNESS in your midst to justify the coming destruction of evildoers!🙂

That's a fair standard, but I'm not convinced isn't the same as it's inconclusive. It may simply mean you haven't found the evidence sufficient. An open verdict shouldn't become a settled conclusion in disguise.

kayjordan:
Let's dissolve neutrality and make the argument more practical.

A court room hears a case between spirituality and science. The court, would be the philosopher to judge both knowledge. The court would weigh which knowledge has more facts and make a final judgment.

In this case, I haven't decisively concluded God exist or not. I'm still within the probing face. I may sound conclusive in some remarks like a private detective, to make you concede, but it doesn't totally mean I have made a final judgment.

The role of philosophy is to argue the existence of the supernatural. If you cannot give a convincing explanation, it will be considered insufficient or unproven and not necessarily wrong.

Just like in the court rooms, if you give a supernatural statement in court, it would be dismissed, even if weighed under the law.

Coming from an Agnostic perspective, I need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the supernatural exist - if not, the idea of the supernatural will only be treated with a pinch of salt; not totally regarded and not totally discarded.

This is why disagreements about the supernatural exist in philosophy, because the supernatural is a challenging subject matter that remains unproven.

The universe exist, we cannot argue with that fact, but agree. What is argued, is how it came about. That cannot be agreed on philosophically.

When you present a clause to explain a clause, it complicates matters - and the question of the supernatural will remain an inconclusive argument.

If I give the Qur'an or Bible the same fair scrutiny, I give every other claim, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, it will still lead to inconclusive.

I understand your position. Everyone believes their standard cannot be wrong. This makes supernatural arguments rich and interesting.

Evidence is the language of humans. The physical environment and space we see and touch is evidence. A lie told by someone is unbelievable until proven through paper or witnesses.

For example: There's an existing House...No one saw the construction...No one saw the builders. It's safer to conclude no one knows the builders, whether they are Greek engineers or Italians. The fact is, the house exist right there, but we don't know it's maker.

Rather than assume a maker, investigate and do not arrive at definite conclusions. The most responsible conclusion at the given time would be, "no evidence" until proven otherwise.

Humans are not spirits. We do not have spiritual capacity but physical. For humans to think like supernatural beings, it would require a conversion which isn't possible. Anything of revelation or miracles, would be interpreted as a psychological reaction to a spiritual realm, rather than a measurable one, because humans are psychological beings and not necessarily spiritual beings. Humans unconsciously mix physical matters with spiritual matters especially when phenomenon appears unusual or too strange to be considered a pure natural occurrence.

A conclusion can always be appealed, for no conclusion is truly or ever settled.

honesttalk21:
That's a fair standard, but I'm not convinced isn't the same as it's inconclusive. It may simply mean you haven't found the evidence sufficient. An open verdict shouldn't become a settled conclusion in disguise.

You're bearing witness in advance to the destruction of evildoers on earth - and whilst doing that, you are eating the rice and beans they make, buying their manufactured gadgets and devices, using the same transit with them and going to their houses to distribute JW booklets and pamphlets...

Your God is watching you.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus didn't pray for us to be removed from planet earth:


I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." John 17:114-17

If we are taken out of planet earth how are we going to serve as evidence against faithless people that God is with us?
So we live among people who don't want to have anything to do with God so that our fine works could serve as evidence against you people by the time God destroys all evildoers it will be evident that He has a good reason to do so:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

So we are serving as a WITNESS in your midst to justify the coming destruction of evildoers!🙂

kayjordan:
You're bearing witness in advance to the destruction of evildoers on earth - and whilst doing that, you are eating the rice and beans they make, buying their manufactured gadgets and devices, using the same transit with them and going to their houses to distribute JW booklets and pamphlets...
Your God is watching you.

Exactly!
By so doing honest hearted and sincere ones among them will give all these a second thought and ask:

If we are all living on this same planet, facing the hardship and other distressing situations then why are this people calm and well behaved without joining POLITICAL struggles that's leading to the death of millions around us?

Jesus said to Jehovah's Witnesses:

“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house. Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" Matthew 5:14-16

And that is what these people below are saying:

freethinker01:
Tho I don't like their disturbance, I'd have to say they're far better than all their Christian tithe whoring counterparts.

BafanaBafana:
Quite true. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are actually one of the few denominations who are still following Christ. Most churches now are headed by motivational speakers who only use the name of Jesus to preach other things. The goal is to attract members to their church and the members will bring the money.
Shikena!

APOPTOSIS:
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS is operating at a different level.
They have been steadfast, resolute and committed.
I hold no grudge against them. They downplay commercialization of churches.
They entertain persecutions a lot, in fact more than several Christian bodies.
Seems in their church everyone is at same level irrespective of your degree, financial acquaintance and contacts.
And it seems they obey the Bible the most:
-They hardly disturb neighbors during prayers.
-They frown at intimidation and flamboyant lifestyles.
-They ensure financial gifts are covered and never displeased at whatever they recieve.
-Their members would make good politicians but they frown at politics
I respect them. I judge based on actions and not what I'm told.

Oye0404:
well said, once had a witness DAT comes around for years, truth is,dis guys are so caring and accommodating. lots if misconceptions about dem..

XXLDICK:
They remain the most peaceful Christian denomination.
They do not pay tithes. They are the only Christian denomination yet to be commercialized. They are my favourite.
Cons:
They do not recite the national anthem.
They do not participate in elections.
They do not accept blood transfusion.

boss1310:
The way they are hated makes me to think sometimes they might be the true Christians but I might be wrong.

Love800:
I would love to be a JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, because of their gentle life. Relaxed service and programs(not those stressful and loud types), and serenity of their church yard. Infact, its this serenity of their abode that blows my mind!

But the thing that worries me, is their misled teachings. How can you say that we are not going to die, but remain on earth and unite with our love ones and live happily together forever!

Deway52:
I am convinced that JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are the real religion, they do everything in line with the bible.
Na small time remain for me now, I don enter. If everybody in the world is a jw the world would be a better place.

DeepSight:
I am not sure the respect JWs have is on account of what you say. It is more on account of their general simplicity, general adherence to bible truth, and the fact that no one can accuse them of being commercialised or money or power focused like most other denominations are. Alot of people see a purity in them which is lacking in many other places. I should know, for as I told you, in my youth, I used to be one.

HardMirror:
unfortunately, JW are the best Christians if we will be honest.

So if anyone says:
"they are just deluded like other religious people"

His conscience will judge him before our God comes! 🙂

I would call that winning souls.

The nairalanders you posted, are expressing their opinion on JW. Many of them will still continue attending their other churches.

Why use sinners to promote your church...

The same way you buy goods and services of sinners.

Why don't you all build farms, industries to provide for yourselves - why patronize sinners.

Using words of sinners to elevate your church doesn't show integrity.

MaxInDHouse:
Exactly!
By so doing honest hearted and sincere ones among them will give all these a second thought and ask:

If we are all living on this same planet, facing the hardship and other distressing situations then why are this people calm and well behaved without joining POLITICAL struggles that's leading to the death of millions around us?

Jesus said to Jehovah's Witnesses:

“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house. Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" Matthew 5:14-16

And that is what these people below are saying:























So if anyone says:
"they are just deluded like other religious people"

His conscience will judge him before our God comes! 🙂

kayjordan:
Using words of sinners to elevate your church doesn't show integrity.

Jesus prayed to God that we shouldn't be taken out but watched over us in the world! John 17:15-17

Knowing and praising a religious group for their performance globally but chose not to be part of it.

Ọmọ what are you?🙂

It's like praising a political candidate of one party and the way they are well organized but refuses to participate in the movement.

Ọmọ think about it nah!🙂

A house naturally points to a builder. Not knowing who built it doesn't mean there was no builder. That's the key distinction. Calling it no evidence assumes only directly observable evidence counts, and that's a philosophical choice, not a neutral fact.

kayjordan:
I understand your position. Everyone believes their standard cannot be wrong. This makes supernatural arguments rich and interesting.

Evidence is the language of humans. The physical environment and space we see and touch is evidence. A lie told by someone is unbelievable until proven through paper or witnesses.

For example: There's an existing House...No one saw the construction...No one saw the builders. It's safer to conclude no one knows the builders, whether they are Greek engineers or Italians. The fact is, the house exist right there, but we don't know it's maker.

Rather than assume a maker, investigate and do not arrive at definite conclusions. The most responsible conclusion at the given time would be, "no evidence" until proven otherwise.

Humans are not spirits. We do not have spiritual capacity but physical. For humans to think like supernatural beings, it would require a conversion which isn't possible. Anything of revelation or miracles, would be interpreted as a psychological reaction to a spiritual realm, rather than a measurable one, because humans are psychological beings and not necessarily spiritual beings. Humans unconsciously mix physical matters with spiritual matters especially when phenomenon appears unusual or too strange to be considered a pure natural occurrence.

A conclusion can always be appealed, for no conclusion is truly or ever settled.

A neutral stance lie between two or several objections. For example: an electric switch over box lever can be moved to the center and be called neutral. The lever is neither in electric power nor generating power position.

Taking this to the house illustration: there's a "possibility" of a builder and a "true fact" of a builder. The fact the builder wasn't seen only creates a "possibility" rather than a "fact". The house could have emerged beautiful on it own or could have been built. Even if built by a builder, was the builder white or black? People would have differing opinions.

The definition of an evidence should be within universal reality. If one is informed of alien habitation somewhere in space, it would not take a piece of evidence to know it's true, but rather "faith," that they truly exist.

Even though faith is real in the emotional sense, it's a tool that can only be personally felt and not practically applied in the physical space.

That's why it's difficult to believe a person. You would have to trust you intuition to believe. However, if concrete evidence is brought before you, that would be easier to believe and admit with less uncertainty. And the case is closed.

From a realistic point of view, observable evidence is both a philosophical choice and a neutral fact.

honesttalk21:
A house naturally points to a builder. Not knowing who built it doesn't mean there was no builder. That's the key distinction. Calling it no evidence assumes only directly observable evidence counts, and that's a philosophical choice, not a neutral fact.

I understand.

Even non-participants can praise a religious group and begin in-fighting amongst themselves just as it's done in politics. And you're supporting it.

But you're condemning those who do similar in politics.

If you re-visit the page of the testimonials, you will discover that you omitted the other forum members that traded insults over the same matter (JW).

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus prayed to God that we shouldn't be taken out but watched over us in the world! John 17:15-17

Knowing and praising a religious group for their performance globally but chose not to be part of it.

Ọmọ what are you?🙂

It's like praising a political candidate of one party and the way they are well organized but refuses to participate in the movement.

Ọmọ think about it nah!🙂

kayjordan:
I understand.
Even non-participants can praise a religious group and begin in-fighting amongst themselves just as it's done in politics. And you're supporting it. But you're condemning those who do similar in politics. If you re-visit the page of the testimonials, you will discover that you omitted the other forum members that traded insults over the same matter (JW).

How can you participate in what a group does by doing the exact opposite of what they are doing?
Jehovah's Witnesses frown at fighting to resolve issues nah!😂

Then you talked about those speaking abusively of the organization but you failed to note that while those praising the group said there is no other group performing well like this group critics only stands to criticize without presenting a better performing group!😂

A house doesn't become a "possibility" just because you haven't met the builder. Its existence is evidence that someone built it; the unknown is who, not whether. It feels like every explanation simply becomes another reason to postpone any conclusion. At some point, constantly raising the standard of evidence stops being neutrality and becomes a way of avoiding a conclusion. It's a pattern the Qur'an itself highlights in 17:90–94. Each sign is met with another demand. Eventually, the real objection becomes clear as not the lack of evidence, but an unwillingness to accept the kind of evidence being given.

Qur'an 6:111: even if extraordinary signs were given, some still would not believe because the issue is not merely evidence but disposition.

kayjordan:
A neutral stance lie between two or several objections. For example: an electric switch over box lever can be moved to the center and be called neutral. The lever is neither in electric power nor generating power position.

Taking this to the house illustration: there's a "possibility" of a builder and a "true fact" of a builder. The fact the builder wasn't seen only creates a "possibility" rather than a "fact". The house could have emerged beautiful on it own or could have been built. Even if built by a builder, was the builder white or black? People would have differing opinions.

The definition of an evidence should be within universal reality. If one is informed of alien habitation somewhere in space, it would not take a piece of evidence to know it's true, but rather "faith," that they truly exist.

Even though faith is real in the emotional sense, it's a tool that can only be personally felt and not practically applied in the physical space.

That's why it's difficult to believe a person. You would have to trust you intuition to believe. However, if concrete evidence is brought before you, that would be easier to believe and admit with less uncertainty. And the case is closed.

From a realistic point of view, observable evidence is both a philosophical choice and a neutral fact.

The support from the random people praising JW on nairaland is still participation.

Also, critics have been presenting better groups than JW.

Some critics might even tell you, that your church adulterates Bible scriptures.

Some will say, they serve the Most High and no one does it better than their church.

So you and all Christian at large, are just being egoistic without substance.

MaxInDHouse:
How can you participate in what a group does by doing the exact opposite of what they are doing?
Jehovah's Witnesses frown at fighting to resolve issues nah!😂

Then you talked about those speaking abusively of the organization but you failed to note that while those praising the group said there is no other group performing well like this group critics only stands to criticize without presenting a better performing group!😂

The existence of a building is both, "who" and "whether". If I connect this to the Supreme being, would one say, "who" created Him (God) or "whether" He was created?

If no one created God, then who did? Did He (God) just spring up from no where, or did our human imagination create Him?

That's an unproven case of "who" versus "whether". No faith knows without assuming.

The point you made about explanation postponing conclusion, is a very interesting one. It's more about orientation than unwillingness. If a singular truth has different interpretations, that's not unwillingness, rather indoctrination. Some people are long-sighted, some are short-sighted, and not necessarily unwilling people.

What the Qur'an suggest in 17:90–94, is true within its framework. However, what your faith refers to as evidence, isn't rejected solely because it's not, rather because the "process" by which it's defended, may not be airtight to be accepted as a universal truth.

Same apply in other faith.

Therefore, conclusions will never be arrived at, until there is a universal binding truth that absorbs all preferential truth.

" A lost man cannot find his way, when both teachers are pointing different directions."

honesttalk21:
A house doesn't become a "possibility" just because you haven't met the builder. Its existence is evidence that someone built it; the unknown is who, not whether. It feels like every explanation simply becomes another reason to postpone any conclusion. At some point, constantly raising the standard of evidence stops being neutrality and becomes a way of avoiding a conclusion. It's a pattern the Qur'an itself highlights in 17:90–94. Each sign is met with another demand. Eventually, the real objection becomes clear as not the lack of evidence, but an unwillingness to accept the kind of evidence being given.

Qur'an 6:111: even if extraordinary signs were given, some still would not believe because the issue is not merely evidence but disposition.

Now it's clear that you are just lying without shame.

Now quote a single religionist on this forum who mentioned a religion that's better than Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's time to abandon you!🙂

kayjordan:
Critics have been presenting better groups than JW.

I meant critics generally, not specifically critics on this forum's platform.


And there probably are better faith than yours. You just haven't seen them yet.


You were probably headed to the better faith with the right bus, but unfortunately, stopped at the wrong bustop called (JW Bustop).


Now, all they feed you JW lots there with, is honey that turn black afterwards.

MaxInDHouse:
Now it's clear that you are just lying without shame.

Now quote a single religionist on this forum who mentioned a religion that's better than Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's time to abandon you!🙂

The who created God? question starts from the wrong place. Things like houses, people, and the universe need causes because they're contingent. Islam doesn't describe Allah that way. He's understood as the necessary reality on which everything else depends. So asking who created God is like asking what's north of the North Pole. It applies a rule meant for created things to the One who, by definition, isn't created.

Also saying nothing is airtight doesn't get us very far. If that were the standard, we'd have to suspend judgment on almost everything, including our ideas about evidence, causation, and reality itself. We don't live that way. We ask which explanation best accounts for what we observe with the fewest unanswered questions. That's why I find an uncreated, necessary Creator more convincing than the alternatives.

And as for waiting for a universally accepted truth, that sets a standard no view could ever meet. Truth has never depended on unanimous agreement. The fact that people disagree doesn't mean there is no right answer, it means not everyone has arrived at it yet.

kayjordan:
The existence of a building is both, "who" and "whether". If I connect this to the Supreme being, would one say, "who" created Him (God) or "whether" He was created?

If no one created God, then who did? Did He (God) just spring up from no where, or did our human imagination create Him?

That's an unproven case of "who" versus "whether". No faith knows without assuming.

The point you made about explanation postponing conclusion, is a very interesting one. It's more about orientation than unwillingness. If a singular truth has different interpretations, that's not unwillingness, rather indoctrination. Some people are long-sighted, some are short-sighted, and not necessarily unwilling people.

What the Qur'an suggest in 17:90–94, is true within its framework. However, what your faith refers to as evidence, isn't rejected solely because it's not, rather because the "process" by which it's defended, may not be airtight to be accepted as a universal truth.

Same apply in other faith.

Therefore, conclusions will never be arrived at, until there is a universal binding truth that absorbs all preferential truth.

" A lost man cannot find his way, when both teachers are pointing different directions."

You're correct to say physical matter, require causes. However, affirming Allah is the beginning of every cause, is inconclusive. Asking what's north of the north pole is valid, because the earth is infinitely round, and anything can be after the north pole. Also on what basis, is the One (God) not created? Please explain.

It is permitted, if you believe your One Creator is the absolute truth over all alternative knowledge. I would defend, truth cannot be ascertained, rather a series of consensus can be reached. Of all consensus truth including God, neither is airtight. However, individuals are asked to declare their own truth among truth - stopping further inquiry.

Whilst you say an absolute truth exist, no one has discovered yet an "Absolute Truth", and I completely agree. This is the reason, inquiry must continue until absolute truth is discovered, if ever. Until absolute truth is discovered, neutrality should always be applied in reason and realistic human judgment as an alternative pending final discovery.

honesttalk21:
The who created God? question starts from the wrong place. Things like houses, people, and the universe need causes because they're contingent. Islam doesn't describe Allah that way. He's understood as the necessary reality on which everything else depends. So asking who created God is like asking what's north of the North Pole. It applies a rule meant for created things to the One who, by definition, isn't created.

Also saying nothing is airtight doesn't get us very far. If that were the standard, we'd have to suspend judgment on almost everything, including our ideas about evidence, causation, and reality itself. We don't live that way. We ask which explanation best accounts for what we observe with the fewest unanswered questions. That's why I find an uncreated, necessary Creator more convincing than the alternatives.

And as for waiting for a universally accepted truth, that sets a standard no view could ever meet. Truth has never depended on unanimous agreement. The fact that people disagree doesn't mean there is no right answer, it means not everyone has arrived at it yet.

That analogy doesn't work the way you're using it. North isn't undefined at the North Pole because there are endless directions beyond it, but because north only has meaning relative to the pole itself. Once you're there, the question no longer applies. In a similar way, asking who created Allah assumes He belongs to the same category as created things. That's the very point under discussion.

As for why Allah is uncreated, it's not simply asserted. It's where the reasoning leads. If every cause requires another cause, then nothing is ever ultimately explained, the question is only pushed back forever. A chain of contingent causes can never explain its own existence. The regress has to end in a necessary reality that doesn't depend on anything else. That's what Islam means by Allah being uncreated.

kayjordan:
You're correct to say physical matter, require causes. However, affirming Allah is the beginning of every cause, is inconclusive. Asking what's north of the north pole is valid, because the earth is infinitely round, and anything can be after the north pole. Also on what basis, is the One (God) not created? Please explain.

It is permitted, if you believe your One Creator is the absolute truth over all alternative knowledge. I would defend, truth cannot be ascertained, rather a series of consensus can be reached. Of all consensus truth including God, neither is airtight. However, individuals are asked to declare their own truth among truth - stopping further inquiry.

Whilst you say an absolute truth exist, no one has discovered yet an "Absolute Truth", and I completely agree. This is the reason, inquiry must continue until absolute truth is discovered, if ever. Until absolute truth is discovered, neutrality should always be applied in reason and realistic human judgment as an alternative pending final discovery.

Well said. The pole itself is the meaning tentatively. Allah indeed, cannot be categorized as physical, therefore, the Creator Allah/God cannot be questioned. However, the point of discussion being raised is - whether Allah/God should be questioned? Not necessarily, rather the "idea" behind Allah/God should be questioned. The epistemological point is - the universe is not a "created idea" rather, a pure fact; whereas, Allah/God is a "feeling" than a pure fact. Just as love exist, but can't be seen, so is Allah/God. One feels God similarly to how one feels love, even when love cannot be seen. Nevertheless - to say love "exist" and "creates," is an incomplete belief, even though it truly exist in hearts. Love becomes a mere belief, if one says it "creates". It's more concrete to say, love exist - and say love creates emotional feelings, than say it actually "created" the people of love. Same way it is with Allah/God.

The case of a cause-of-a-cause, is a principle of infinity. By defining Allah as the end of an infinite chain of cause, is like stopping the chain of progression.

Practically, the universe should be the finite knowledge of it's own existence (both beginning and present), and should not be argued. If "existence" as a concept is argued only, the universe, should dismantle all doubts singlehandedly. However, applying a supernatural idea to prove "existence" itself, would lead to falsification.

honesttalk21:
That analogy doesn't work the way you're using it. North isn't undefined at the North Pole because there are endless directions beyond it, but because north only has meaning relative to the pole itself. Once you're there, the question no longer applies. In a similar way, asking who created Allah assumes He belongs to the same category as created things. That's the very point under discussion.

As for why Allah is uncreated, it's not simply asserted. It's where the reasoning leads. If every cause requires another cause, then nothing is ever ultimately explained, the question is only pushed back forever. A chain of contingent causes can never explain its own existence. The regress has to end in a necessary reality that doesn't depend on anything else. That's what Islam means by Allah being uncreated.

Allah isn't believed in simply because he is felt. Love is a human experience, but Allah is understood through reason as the necessary reality behind all contingent existence. Love is something He creates, not the basis for believing in Him. The universe is undeniably real, but its existence still calls for an explanation. An endless chain of causes never actually explains why anything exists; it only delays the question. Since the universe is changing, dependent, and contingent, it cannot be its own ultimate explanation. Islam therefore points to an uncreated, necessary Creator as the foundation that makes the existence of everything else intelligible.

kayjordan:
Well said. The pole itself is the meaning tentatively. Allah indeed, cannot be categorized as physical, therefore, the Creator Allah/God cannot be questioned. However, the point of discussion being raised is - whether Allah/God should be questioned? Not necessarily, rather the "idea" behind Allah/God should be questioned. The epistemological point is - the universe is not a "created idea" rather, a pure fact; whereas, Allah/God is a "feeling" than a pure fact. Just as love exist, but can't be seen, so is Allah/God. One feels God similarly to how one feels love, even when love cannot be seen. Nevertheless - to say love "exist" and "creates," is an incomplete belief, even though it truly exist in hearts. Love becomes a mere belief, if one says it "creates". It's more concrete to say, love exist - and say love creates emotional feelings, than say it actually "created" the people of love. Same way it is with Allah/God.

The case of a cause-of-a-cause, is a principle of infinity. By defining Allah as the end of an infinite chain of cause, is like stopping the chain of progression.

Practically, the universe should be the finite knowledge of it's own existence (both beginning and present), and should not be argued. If "existence" as a concept is argued only, the universe, should dismantle all doubts singlehandedly. However, applying a supernatural idea to prove "existence" itself, would lead to falsification.

Your reply is persuasive, but it still moves too quickly from “the universe needs an explanation” to “therefore Islam’s explanation is true.” That leap is exactly where the burden of proof still stands.

Yes, existence calls for explanation. But the real question is not whether an explanation is needed; the question is whether your explanation has actually been established. Saying the universe is contingent only tells us that the universe may not be ultimate. It does not automatically prove Islam, revelation, or the specific claims of a necessary Creator.

An endless chain of causes may not satisfy you, but that does not make every alternative false. It only means the question remains open. And once the question remains open, the rational position is not certainty in one religious conclusion, but continued examination of all competing explanations.

You also say Islam points to an uncreated necessary Creator as the foundation of reality. Fine — but that is still a philosophical proposal, not a completed proof. A claim becomes convincing when it explains reality and is supported by evidence that distinguishes it from other possibilities. Without that, it remains one interpretation among several.

So the issue is not whether “love” proves God. The issue is whether your concept of a necessary Creator is more than a philosophical label attached to the unknown. If revelation is part of that claim, then revelation itself must also be justified, not simply assumed because the universe seems contingent.

In short: I agree that the universe raises deep questions. I do not agree that your answer has settled them. It may be a meaningful belief, but it is still a belief until it is shown to be more than a reasonable philosophical inference.

honesttalk21:
Allah isn't believed in simply because he is felt. Love is a human experience, but Allah is understood through reason as the necessary reality behind all contingent existence. Love is something He creates, not the basis for believing in Him. The universe is undeniably real, but its existence still calls for an explanation. An endless chain of causes never actually explains why anything exists; it only delays the question. Since the universe is changing, dependent, and contingent, it cannot be its own ultimate explanation. Islam therefore points to an uncreated, necessary Creator as the foundation that makes the existence of everything else intelligible.

We've been over this before. When you've reached a conclusion on what ultimately ends the chain of causes, let me know. Until then, there's not much more to add.

kayjordan:
Your reply is persuasive, but it still moves too quickly from “the universe needs an explanation” to “therefore Islam’s explanation is true.” That leap is exactly where the burden of proof still stands.

Yes, existence calls for explanation. But the real question is not whether an explanation is needed; the question is whether your explanation has actually been established. Saying the universe is contingent only tells us that the universe may not be ultimate. It does not automatically prove Islam, revelation, or the specific claims of a necessary Creator.

An endless chain of causes may not satisfy you, but that does not make every alternative false. It only means the question remains open. And once the question remains open, the rational position is not certainty in one religious conclusion, but continued examination of all competing explanations.

You also say Islam points to an uncreated necessary Creator as the foundation of reality. Fine — but that is still a philosophical proposal, not a completed proof. A claim becomes convincing when it explains reality and is supported by evidence that distinguishes it from other possibilities. Without that, it remains one interpretation among several.

So the issue is not whether “love” proves God. The issue is whether your concept of a necessary Creator is more than a philosophical label attached to the unknown. If revelation is part of that claim, then revelation itself must also be justified, not simply assumed because the universe seems contingent.

In short: I agree that the universe raises deep questions. I do not agree that your answer has settled them. It may be a meaningful belief, but it is still a belief until it is shown to be more than a reasonable philosophical inference.

I think what ultimately ends the chain of causes is consensus.

This doesn't mean that's where truth absolutely stops rather, it reveals the limitation of human thinking beyond the unthinkable.

Probably another planet is closer to the absolute truth or God, but certainly not planet earth nor humans yet.

honesttalk21:
We've been over this before. When you've reached a conclusion on what ultimately ends the chain of causes, let me know. Until then, there's not much more to add.