Quest for Truth

[aitm]

As Hijiri has so aptly pointed out. If a god does not have the ability to convince all.....it is not a god.

[Baruch]

Allah doesn't fit in that box either.  In fact, doesn't your tradition state somewhere that the moment you can conceive of what G-d is, that is inherently an idol?  This is consistent with the Islamic understanding.  I would agree with you that Allah has no gender, and most Muslims, if they logically examined their tradition, would also agree that the masculine pronoun is used for convenience only, since we have no personal pronoun in our language that is not gender-specific.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Yes, but what is Islam now, isn't what it was 1300 years ago ... in that you can't cross-examine that without a time machine.  Not trying to be argumentative, but I had to cast a little dust in your eyes, since it is so plentiful in Arabia.  Have you examined Bahais ... they are even more universal than Islam?  Just asking.

Yes, in current interpretation, by Muslim scholars, I think Allah is quite transcendent.  Judaism agrees.  Both Judaism (as per rabbis) and Islam are gnostic, in the sense that they can't have G-d touching matter, or an incarnate god scratching his ass.  Pagan religion, Hinduism etc don't have this puritanical POV.  There were metaphysical reasons, idealisms, that force Allah/G-d conveniently into the nether-realms.  Can't have the true celestial Quran interfering with the very non-celestial Caliph.

[Baruch]

As Hijiri has so aptly pointed out. If a god does not have the ability to convince all.....it is not a god.

Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.

[Baruch]

Monotheism may be derivative of polytheism in terms of the evolution of human understanding about God, I will give you that; however the most correct statement of Allah is that He is fundamentally characterized by singularity, one-ness & unity, or what we call "tawheed". 

Surah Al-Ikhlas, Verse 1:
Ù,ُÙ,,Ù' هُوَ اÙ,,Ù,,ÙŽÙ'هُ أَحَدٌ

"Say: Allah, the One!"

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

That is an idealism.  I disagree, a real idealism is that ... G-d is all and none of the above.  That is what creation means.  Otherwise G-d can only create a very ideal realm.  This is a gnostic metaphysical problem, I speak of elsewhere in this chain (this page).

[Baruch]

Only because the Virgin Mary was practically forced on the RCC due to the popularity of the godess meme that they couldn't seem to get rid of. The hierarchy of the RCC had no desire at all for a goddess figure, but had to accept one, on their own terms.

Do you hate women too?  G-d is rather feminine in my experience.  Bitchy in fact.

RCC etc had to accept a goddess figure, otherwise the burlesque foisted on the pagans by Constantine wouldn't have taken hold.  It surprises me that our polytheistic ancestors ever accepted such a ridiculous idea as monotheism.  I will take Thoth for instance, the Ibis headed Egyptian god of writing, any day ;-)

The Muslims are quite correct that the religion of the rabbis, and that of Constantine (the bloodthirsty) didn't come from G-d.  Impolite to mention where Islam came from  ;-)

[Baruch]

Indeed, a person's "belief" in any God is based solely on the trust they have in those who told them that the God exists, and that they should believe in it.

For most people.  But most people are at most, only "woke" to their own level of ignorance.  I was truly characterized earlier in this string (Blackleaf on page one).  There are mystics out there.  We recognize each other.  But no need to evangelize.  What if everyone in town became a milkman, and they all knocked twice ... what would the naughty housewives do?

[Baruch]

Welcome.
Hate to break this to you, but there is no Truth.  Allah and your scriptures are fictions.  But in this democratic system you are free to believe any and all fantasies you wish.  You see, Bugs Bunny and Paul Bunyan are as real as your god.

Where was the Tasmanian Devil (cartoon) when we needed strong leadership in the 2016 election?

[Baruch]

I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Critical thinking is rude, we will have none of that here ;-))

[Baruch]

You believe my disdain for you is born of a lack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

But do you know that you know?  Didn't think so.  That would be philosophy, and we have none of those posting here.

Argument is so dry, like a hot summers day in the Hejaz (ow, hot, hot).  Share your hearts, not your minds.

[aitm]

Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.

and yet your god wrote a book for monkey eh?

[Baruch]

I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

My favorite take on scripture.  It's a grocery list (not a recipe book).

[Baruch]

The Bible cannot be read in the original original language either.  I experienced the Qur'an in English translation providing much stronger evidence than the Bible, and since you've already read the Bible, you might as well try reading the Qur'an. If you wish you can do so here:

http://www.allahsquran.com/free/

Or here:

https://quran.com/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Typo ... "can't be read properly except in the original languages also" ... fixed it for you.  Knew a fundie Christian once, who insisted that the English of the King James Bible is the original language, not Hebrew etc.  He was arguing this with an Israeli!!  Gentile minds ...

[Baruch]

OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.

But all things are revelation, not just scripture.  My hard turd this morning is revelatory that I don't get enough roughage.  I thank G-d for that direct communication, and I don't have to wait for a Pope to tell me what to do.

[Baruch]

and yet your god wrote a book for monkey eh?

Don't insult Hanuman (Hindu god/king of the monkeys) or he might put his "banana" where the sun doesn't shine ;-))

Now I have to do and do puja, before the Burmese stone rubbings illustrating the Ramayana (story that includes Hanuman as best 2nd to King Rama ... rama ding dong).

Thanks to all for the great posts here.  This spice has flowed.  The Spacing Guild won't have to put you in a pain cell.  I am Muad Dib.

[Absolute_Agent]

OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.

A revelation to one is a revelation to all.  Would you insist that the Wright brothers personally informed you of their invention before you believed that man could fly?  No, you'd have to read about it in the "paper".  Likewise, you read about divine revelations in the scriptures.  To get to talk to the Wright brothers you'd have to be another inventor or a government official.  But everyday Joes?  Read about it.  Maybe if you're extra devout you'll have a visit from a prophet in your dreams.  Otherwise, I can't help you there, sorry.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk