The Prayer Issue Revived
-
check out this link http//www.mostmerciful.com/realities-of-our-daily-prayers.htm
there are also other very interesting topics on www.mostmerciful.com -
Peace again "c0de",
You claimJK- The limit of rationality is the limit to our knowing things with significant accuracy. Rationality and the usage of our five senses is all we have to get closer to the truth(again i urge you to refer to 1736 in the Quran). Apart from that it is all wishful thinking and blind faith, that be the worst and most unjustifiable with drastical consequences at times not only for oneself but for others as well. GOD Bless!
JK- Has ayman mentioned specifically anywhere that he didnt acceopt Muhammad as receiving inspration/wahy from GOD? If not then what sense would it make for him to accept the Quran as GOD's Word or a Divinely inspired Book?
JK- "masjid-al-haram" cannot be outside of the "kaaba" because GOD says that the "kaaba" is for everyone whilst the disbelievers are not to enter "masjidal haram". Here are the verses
928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach "al-masjid-al-haram"...
Now look at this verse
597 God made the "Ka'ba", "al-BAIT-al-haram", an asylum of security for men(NOT MUSLIMS ONLY), as also the Sacred Months, the animals for offerings, and the garlands that mark them...So unless you wanna have a contradiction in the Quran "al-bait-al-haram"/"kaabah" cannot be inside "al-masjid-al-haram". If the kaaba is contained inside "al-masjid-al-haram" then how can the people in general reach it as theyr not allowed to enter al-masjid-al-haram which one would then need to go through to reach "kaaba"? GOD Bless!
I think it says men and not believers becaue all kinds of people go there, believers and non believers. The same thing the Koran says about surat al fath, when it says if you see the poeple enter the religion of God and not believers. Many of the pagans, hypocrites and others entered Islam after their military defeat.
Anyways why all this heated debate about something thats not important. there are many shrines of God, the Ka'aba is one of them. So whats the big deal? Its a place for people to worship, its all symbolism. I don't see why all this heated debate is necessary. It only will make you fight and seperate from each other which the Koran forbids.
There is still a Sunni mindset thats not going away. Once again this verse is useful
Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)
-
Peace JK,
Ive answered almost every single point of yours EXCEPT the history points which is what bro ayman repleid to you and im sure he'll reply to your above comments as well.
Irrational pagans will always find an excuse to idolize things and delude themselves. Sectarians do it all the time and they use the great reading to justify their idolatry. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that fondling, kissing and spinning around a stone cube is an irrational pagan fetish that has nothing to do with the god. People without sickness in their hearts would naturally feel that something is not quite right about those filthy pagan symbols and rituals and would denounce such things when reminded of not setting partners with the god. As for people with blind hearts, no reply or any amount of debate can help them anyway and they will follow whatever lies and delusions are in line with their preconceptions.
Peace,
Ayman
-
My my my..... all these words, and not a single thought worth the bandwidth.... its sad really.
I thought I would check up on this ancient thread (I was bored P) to see what you people came up with in my absence, and I had to try really hard to contain my amusement. I mean just the sheer USELESSNESS of your posts is astounding! All of these little points *(most of which are almost pointless repetitions of refuted ideas, over and over and over again).... Tell me something Mr. "jonny" you're not an Internet Zombie are you??? Or maybe like an experimental bot device... (lol)
Anyways, enough fun... let me just quickly address some of your.... misunderstandings.
#1 Atheists REJECT the argument from Causality ( I apologize for not making this clear before, but whatever) which you are using to prove God. Don't believe me, go and ask your friend Mr. James Randi. Ask him why he doesnt believe in God. But I will save you some time and answer for him, because I already know exactly what he and all atheists like him say "Hey Jonny, I'll tell you why I dont believe in God, because there was no divine "cause" which was observable which proves that the "effect" of the universe being of a divine origin. As my idol David Hume proved philosophically centuries ago, Causality IS ONLY VALID when observed and measured DIRECTLY to be considered scientific. So your assertion that because the universe exists, and this implies a Creator, this is an IRRATIONAL claim because it is an unfounded assertion. This is why the argument from causality which you are using is INVALID, and this is why it can not be used to "prove" God scientifically. Furthermore my good rationalistic friend, I will say that I dont believe in God, because, as a rational scientist, I also must say that causality must also apply to God, and therefore when God says that He Himself was not created by anything (i.e. is without a cause) I will say that such an explanation is outside of rationality, and this is why I do not believe in God" Once again, if you dont want to believe me, go and ask him yourself. Go on his website and find his email and send him an email. (I dare ya)
#2 I see your friend Mr. "Archeology" didn't have any answers for any of my objections, (as expected). But I am sure you still have faith in him and his crackpot claims.
#3 I am flattered that you were reading my argument with Mr. Tao the Atheist on the other forum. But my views on that argument are not the same and have changed considerably in the last half a year since I posted that argument. I know that my own argument is now invalid, because the infinite time argument contradicts God's own description of Himself in the Quran. Time could not be responsible for creating God, because Time did not exist before God, also, if Time was responsible for creating God, then Time itself would be greater then God, which would invalidate God's uncreated supremacy. Therefore, I am sorry if you liked that point, but I myself reject it now. The only reason I linked that post was to show you the behavior of that atheist and how he behaved. If you think you can talk to an atheist and convert one via rationality, please go ahead and try.
#4 Btw, while we are on the subject, let me address another point you tried to make about the definition of the word "iman" as a belief in things through reason. Tell me something, before you checked the dictionary, did you even bother checking the Quranic definition of Iman? Iman is stated as a belief in God, Angels, Hereafter (among other things). Which makes the concept of Iman totally CIRCULAR in logic. Because what it basically means is that God is saying in that verse that He guides those who believe by their iman by their belief in God!. That is TOTALLY CIRCULAR LOGIC. But This is what makes God above Philosophy! God can use circular logic and still get away with it. How can you rationally guide someone in something that can't be seen or proven, by their belief in that same unseen and unproven thing?? Is that "rational"??? (err.. no, it isnt).
#5 I noticed you said somewhere here that "God is not supernatural".... Dude... you know what... I wish I could watch you go to up to a philosopher or a scientist and say that to him!!! You know what I would LOVE! Is if you went up to your hero Richard Dawkins, or whatever, and said this exact statement like that to their face!!! LOL! Man... they would tear you APART! dude, they would HUMILIATE you, with the very same RATIONALITY which you hold to be supreme! You know why? Because you HAVE NO IDEA (and I say this again) how to use or apply rationality in an actual philosophic argument! "God is not supernatural" LOL!!.... aw man... that cute really... so adorable!
.... I would refute more of your "reasoning" here ... but i am bored again... think i'll watch a movie.... at this point, I am sure any activity will be more productive then this hopeless discussion.
PeAcE
im out
-
Peace Vivek,
Salat does not involve bowing and prostration. Salat is the act of incense burning. Please read my article titled "Salat is none other than Incense Burning".
Can you do everyone a favor and post your comment just once and do not spam the forum with the same post over and over again on every thread!
Moderators Please delete all of Vivek's repeated posts except one.
Thanks in advance and peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
For all the idiots out there who base their faith in Mecca and its pagan symbols and rituals on a mention by Ptolemy of a town named Macoraba and are too lazy to verify what Ptolemy said for themselves, here is a copy of the translation of the relevant entry in Ptolemy where he mentions Macoraba
http//i44.tinypic.com/2unwljd.gif
Please note that Ptolemy describes Macoraba as the fifth city south of Yathrib and the fourth south of Carna. So while present day Mecca is to the north of Carna, Macoraba is to the south of Carna. Ironically, this is the best evidence that sectarian have to justify their paganism! They have built their house of cards on the edge of a cliff.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "c0de",
I totally overlooked this post.#1 Atheists REJECT the argument from Causality ( I apologize for not making this clear before, but whatever) which you are using to prove God. Don't believe me, go and ask your friend Mr. James Randi. Ask him why he doesnt believe in God. But I will save you some time and answer for him, because I already know exactly what he and all atheists like him say "Hey Jonny, I'll tell you why I dont believe in God, because there was no divine "cause" which was observable which proves that the "effect" of the universe being of a divine origin. As my idol David Hume proved philosophically centuries ago, Causality IS ONLY VALID when observed and measured DIRECTLY to be considered scientific. So your assertion that because the universe exists, and this implies a Creator, this is an IRRATIONAL claim because it is an unfounded assertion. This is why the argument from causality which you are using is INVALID, and this is why it can not be used to "prove" God scientifically. Furthermore my good rationalistic friend, I will say that I dont believe in God, because, as a rational scientist, I also must say that causality must also apply to God, and therefore when God says that He Himself was not created by anything (i.e. is without a cause) I will say that such an explanation is outside of rationality, and this is why I do not believe in God" Once again, if you dont want to believe me, go and ask him yourself. Go on his website and find his email and send him an email. (I dare ya)
JK- Just because a cause cannot be detected does NOT MEAN there is none. Infact there MUST be a cause for every effect otherwise you stumble upon magic at one point or another? HOW then would you solve that puzzle? YOU CANT. You MUST accept an infinite chain of cause and effect. ONLY tht provides a satisfactory answer.
#2 I see your friend Mr. "Archeology" didn't have any answers for any of my objections, (as expected). But I am sure you still have faith in him and his crackpot claims.
JK- See his latest post.
#3 I am flattered that you were reading my argument with Mr. Tao the Atheist on the other forum. But my views on that argument are not the same and have changed considerably in the last half a year since I posted that argument. I know that my own argument is now invalid, because the infinite time argument contradicts God's own description of Himself in the Quran. Time could not be responsible for creating God, because Time did not exist before God, also, if Time was responsible for creating God, then Time itself would be greater then God, which would invalidate God's uncreated supremacy. Therefore, I am sorry if you liked that point, but I myself reject it now. The only reason I linked that post was to show you the behavior of that atheist and how he behaved. If you think you can talk to an atheist and convert one via rationality, please go ahead and try.
JK- Time itself is not something to be created but ordered time is. Otherwise whenever theres cause and effect i.e. whenever there is something theres time. NOWHERE in the Quran does it say there was no time before the creation of the universe. Your getting this from the usual religious folk. GOD came about an infinite time ago in the quantum realm through random fluctuations at infinity. BUT since tht happened an infinite time ago we can logically say tht GOD always existed. Tht is the only reasonable explanation.
#4 Btw, while we are on the subject, let me address another point you tried to make about the definition of the word "iman" as a belief in things through reason. Tell me something, before you checked the dictionary, did you even bother checking the Quranic definition of Iman? Iman is stated as a belief in God, Angels, Hereafter (among other things). Which makes the concept of Iman totally CIRCULAR in logic. Because what it basically means is that God is saying in that verse that He guides those who believe by their iman by their belief in God!. That is TOTALLY CIRCULAR LOGIC. But This is what makes God above Philosophy! God can use circular logic and still get away with it. How can you rationally guide someone in something that can't be seen or proven, by their belief in that same unseen and unproven thing?? Is that "rational"??? (err.. no, it isnt).
JK- NONSENSE. All these terms your interpreting using sunni/shia bias. Malaaikah are not some supernatural angels but 1) universal force or 2) specific type of aliens made from plasma but tht is still just a hypothesis. The Quran repeatedly stressed to use ones senses 1736 an ponder upon GOD's signs. Also what do you think "bayinnah" is which is mentioned in the QUran as a whole sura name? It means PROOF. So wht is this your saying?
#5 I noticed you said somewhere here that "God is not supernatural".... Dude... you know what... I wish I could watch you go to up to a philosopher or a scientist and say that to him!!! You know what I would LOVE! Is if you went up to your hero Richard Dawkins, or whatever, and said this exact statement like that to their face!!! LOL! Man... they would tear you APART! dude, they would HUMILIATE you, with the very same RATIONALITY which you hold to be supreme! You know why? Because you HAVE NO IDEA (and I say this again) how to use or apply rationality in an actual philosophic argument! "God is not supernatural" LOL!!.... aw man... that cute really... so adorable!
JK- You can say all you want and they can too. Fact is you havnt answered my assertions and your hypothesizing wht others would say.
.... I would refute more of your "reasoning" here ... but i am bored again... think i'll watch a movie.... at this point, I am sure any activity will be more productive then this hopeless discussion.
PeAcE
im out
JK- DO IT. Well all be waiting. GOD Bless!
-
Peace C0de
Per 3-7, believers should follow well-established meaning verses in order to know their obligated duties. Now, I know that Sunset, night, and Dawn prayers are commended in a very well-established verses. But on the other hand, Zuher and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.
11-114 is a well established verse
And you shall hold the communion at the two edges of the day, during the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
11114THEREFORE, 1778 Calls for prayer AT Sunset, Night, and Dawn (after all Quranic verses will have to match with each others !)
Therefore, the Middle prayer that God ordered the believer to guard is the Night Prayer (2-23;
Here is a well established verses that prove That731 O you who are covered with your garments.
732 Stand the night except for a little.
733 Half of it, or a little less than that.
734 Or a little more, and arrange the Quran in its arrangement.
735 We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.
736 The time of the night is more effective and stronger in reciting ( ا.From the above well established verses, The night prayer is the Westa Prayer. Now can you bring me a well established verse that says Aser prayer is the prayer that is more stronger and effective than the other prayers including the night prayer?
Moreover, please note the following verse
Quraan 2458
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty. This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.Now, please note the red colored words and the blue ones. If there is a prayer during noon, why God did not mention (in blue word section) as He did when speaking about the Dawn and night (red colored section)?
May God lead us to the truth.
PeaceGood point belH,
I've been thinking about that and 1778. Notice that "liduluki ash-shamsi" is meantioned first, then the darkness of the night, thenn dawn. Maybe your arguement is right, since the timings are listed in this order
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
i am still thinking about 1778 if it really means sunset or not.
peace
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
-
Good point belH,
I've been thinking about that and 1778. Notice that "liduluki ash-shamsi" is meantioned first, then the darkness of the night, thenn dawn. Maybe your arguement is right, since the timings are listed in this order
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
i am still thinking about 1778 if it really means sunset or not.
peace
It says "liduluki ash-shamsi TO ghasaq Al-Layl and not And. Meaning its between those two time periods and not those two time periods.
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
-
Jonny + Ayman
@ Jonny K
You think you know what you are talking about, but you dont. If you did, then you could prove the existence of God to someone like Richard Dawkins, or better yet, David Hume, but you cant. Do yourself a favor and enroll yourself in a philosophy class.
You also don't understand that if God came about as a result of infinite time, then He can not be said to be absolutely transcendent because the same mathematical laws which apply to us, would then apply to God. Your "reasonable" explanation of God therefore contradicts His transcendence and limits His power. Anything created through a proccess is by definition dependent on a system of laws. God is transcendent, and therefore above any laws of mathematics. Time is dependent on God's perspective, not God on time. You probably still do not understand any of this, and this is why I advised you to go and talk to a professor of philosophy or logic so that he can teach you why you can not "rationalize" an Omnipotent God from a logical point of view. And as for your "plasma alien" hypothesis... all i can say is LOL. The definition of the word "iman" is clearly defined in the Quran, and it is circular i.e. irrational, despite what you want to believe to justify your own view.
@ Ayman
I asked you to provide secondary sources which back up your crackpot views that the traditional Islamic focus on Mecca was an act of conspiracy. And while your at it, try answering the all the other objections to your pointless argument. Your "inscription" argument has been destroyed, and so have all of your alternative locations argument. You have absolutley nothing left... but then again, you didn't have much to begin with. If you really are such an accomplished archeologist, why don't you publish your views in a peer-reviewed journal?
Later
-
Peace "c0de",
Jonny + Ayman
@ Jonny K
You think you know what you are talking about, but you dont. If you did, then you could prove the existence of God to someone like Richard Dawkins, or better yet, David Hume, but you cant. Do yourself a favor and enroll yourself in a philosophy class.
JK- Whether someone accepts the proof or not is still upto them. Dawkins might eventually agree with me about an ever increased Intelligence "evolved" in the quantu realm but then hed deny that That Intelligence wants anything to do with us or communicate with us which is included in the definition of GOD according to him. Then wed be getting to the Quran and the staistical signicance of its numerical structure, scientific oreknowledge etc and lastly it will boil down to what we both consider more significant or less. BUT that is fine with me. At least everyone wouldve given his rational views out. With you the case is different. You insist on supernaturalism and rituals for which theres no reason at all.
You also don't understand that if God came about as a result of infinite time, then He can not be said to be absolutely transcendent because the same mathematical laws which apply to us, would then apply to God. Your "reasonable" explanation of God therefore contradicts His transcendence and limits His power. Anything created through a proccess is by definition dependent on a system of laws. God is transcendent, and therefore above any laws of mathematics. Time is dependent on God's perspective, not God on time. You probably still do not understand any of this, and this is why I advised you to go and talk to a professor of philosophy or logic so that he can teach you why you can not "rationalize" an Omnipotent God from a logical point of view. And as for your "plasma alien" hypothesis... all i can say is LOL. The definition of the word "iman" is clearly defined in the Quran, and it is circular i.e. irrational, despite what you want to believe to justify your own view.
JK- You assertions are similar as to claim GOD can create a rock which He Himself cannot lift? Ofcourse that is not possible because the very statement is illogical. You have already setuip a false god and claimed attributes for Him which are not mentioned in the Quran and they defy logic and reason. The laws of mathematics are there by definition. Theyr not created only utuilized or discovered. GOD knows them all yes but saying that He has created those makes as much sense as saying that GOD could create a rock that He Himself cannot lift.
As for the Malak alien it is just a hypothesis. Malaaikah can also mean universal forces and used as a symbolic reference to them. It need not be literal at all. Take a look at Dr. Shabbirs Quran translation for example. ALSO the definition of Imaan in the Quran is NOT CIRCULAR. Show me the verses here. If that were so then why should i beleive the Quran and not some other book? Dont you see that your spewing nonsense here? GOD Bless! -
Intelligence will atleast tell us that, if randomness created everything, from nothing, as atheisths claim. And that it is a big finite state machine. Well, randomness is white noise. And white noise, into a finite state machine, created by randomness, doing random processes, will also output white noise.
First of all where does the randomness come from?
Second of all, does everything look like TV-snow to you? (white noise)
Are you random?
And also ofcourse, the theory of evolution, and survival of the species relies on similar arguments, such as randomness.
But there was no preferance to begin with, rather the command of God.
Also mutation, in such a theory, would happen "randomly", and the result would be random. And the mutates species would not be compatible. So offspring cannot come. And something unlikely as another random mutation, that produces the same result, in a partner, for offspring, is absurd. And if mutation did happen, randomly, resulting in mostly damaged offspring, mutation would happen on a very high rate. Today, no such mutation is present. The maths would deem it absurd, and reality is different.
These are good aruments for an atheist. )Regarding prayers..
..an established practice.
Read 1777, the practises came before Muhammad...throughout its history..
Throughout history, we see the 3 prayers, performed by Abraham, The Jews, The Christians...Everyone has
been praying 5 prayers since the time of the prophet.
At some point Islam was distorted by hadith, to support 5 prayers. Shia still pray 3 times.If you are
claiming that this is not true, then your the one who have to provide
evidence for your claim.
Read 1777 again. Gods ways(sunna) does not change. And 3 prayers are the earlier prayers given by the messengers, and they can be found in the Quran aswell. Please do read my post "Salat - FINALIZED" http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598161.0 -
Mutazilas (perhaps not all), Karajites and Nizari Ismailis (which make up 90% of Ismailis) have been praying 3 times ever since.
-
the sunni physical prayer feels like i pray to an idol or something
all the "whorship" concept also makes me feel like it's idol whorshiping or something similarit feels like the personify God or something like that
like God needs "whorship"i submit with no problem, but the suni way (well the "traditional" way, can be any sect) feels wrong
i don't know why
-
Peace "c0de",
JK- Whether someone accepts the proof or not is still upto them. Dawkins might eventually agree with me about an ever increased Intelligence "evolved" in the quantu realm but then hed deny that That Intelligence wants anything to do with us or communicate with us which is included in the definition of GOD according to him. Then wed be getting to the Quran and the staistical signicance of its numerical structure, scientific oreknowledge etc and lastly it will boil down to what we both consider more significant or less. BUT that is fine with me. At least everyone wouldve given his rational views out. With you the case is different. You insist on supernaturalism and rituals for which theres no reason at all.
LOL! WRONG! That is what you hope would happen, but since I have much more experience dealing with atheists like Dawkins, I KNOW that this is just your fantasy. As soon as you try to convince him of the "rationality" of the "numerical structures" of the Quran he will utterly HUMILIATE YOU.
I have seen the way you argue, and I have seen your level of intellect. I figured you out the first day we chatted on MSN... the way you kept bringing up point after point, which kept getting shot down, and then you would just ignore it and bring another. In front of someone like Dawkins, your "rationality" would utterly fall apart because unlike me, he will have no mercy on you.
I told you that you have no idea of how to use concepts like "reason" and "rationality" in a philosophical setting. You ignored my advise to go and talk to a professor about these things and take a course in Philosophy and logic. My only suggestion now to you is to go and have a debate with someone as cunning as Dawkins or better yet, an atheist philosopher. Maybe then you will understand the reason why Philo successfully humiliated Cleanthes, but could no damage to the faith and argument of Demea.
JK- You assertions are similar as to claim GOD can create a rock which He Himself cannot lift? Ofcourse that is not possible because the very statement is illogical. You have already setuip a false god and claimed attributes for Him which are not mentioned in the Quran and they defy logic and reason. The laws of mathematics are there by definition. Theyr not created only utuilized or discovered. GOD knows them all yes but saying that He has created those makes as much sense as saying that GOD could create a rock that He Himself cannot lift.
Your argument is fallacious on the face of it. Because it is begging the question if these laws of mathematics existed before God and are responsible for creating God, then the laws of mathematics are (by definition) the designer of God, and so God is then subjected to their limitations. In such a case how could God be all-powerful? (answer is HE can not, so your whole argument is invalid!) You have sacrificed the Omnipotence of God, to rationalize His existence! Just to support your argument!!! (shame on you, dude). So therefore, YOU are then the one setting up false attributes, not I. As I am taking God's word on faith, that He is "uncreated" (i.e. was not born out of a natural proccess). Where as you are the one who is saying that God came about through a natural proccess which is understandable through reason.
As for the Malak alien it is just a hypothesis. Malaaikah can also mean universal forces and used as a symbolic reference to them. It need not be literal at all. Take a look at Dr. Shabbirs Quran translation for example.
LOL yea, exactly. So you can not use this to counter that argument then, can you? Your hypothesis, is just a hypothesis!
ALSO the definition of Imaan in the Quran is NOT CIRCULAR. Show me the verses here. If that were so then why should i beleive the Quran and not some other book? Dont you see that your spewing nonsense here? GOD Bless!
You're accusing me of "spawning nonsense" ?? !! (LOL!) That is adorable! You and your "Ayman"... are just... precious.
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoy dropping by once a month to check in on this thread... you are quite the comical relief.
Have fun with you your "alien hypothesis argument"... (have your tin hat and laser guns ready ok?)
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Sorry for the late reply. Im currently not posting regularly.LOL! WRONG! That is what you hope would happen, but since I have much more experience dealing with atheists like Dawkins, I KNOW that this is just your fantasy. As soon as you try to convince him of the "rationality" of the "numerical structures" of the Quran he will utterly HUMILIATE YOU.
JK- It depends on how they humilate me. If anyone humilaiates me personally Ill strike back hard too. If they dumilaiate me intellectually then i know of no such humiliation. I will continue to give my arguments and then every individual has to decide for him/herself what is more reasonable.
I have seen the way you argue, and I have seen your level of intellect. I figured you out the first day we chatted on MSN... the way you kept bringing up point after point, which kept getting shot down, and then you would just ignore it and bring another. In front of someone like Dawkins, your "rationality" would utterly fall apart because unlike me, he will have no mercy on you.
JK- You shldnt have "mercy" on me either. Ill tackle each point as much as i can and like i said many times before the audience will decide who has the better arguments in the end anyways.
I told you that you have no idea of how to use concepts like "reason" and "rationality" in a philosophical setting. You ignored my advise to go and talk to a professor about these things and take a course in Philosophy and logic. My only suggestion now to you is to go and have a debate with someone as cunning as Dawkins or better yet, an atheist philosopher. Maybe then you will understand the reason why Philo successfully humiliated Cleanthes, but could no damage to the faith and argument of Demea.
JK- What your doing is again "appeal to aiuthority". Why dont you bring up the relvant points here and we will discuss them? I told you before im convinced of my points like im convinced that i exist. Now you or anyone else could change that. Im open to everything. Also let other people on the forum witness those points of discussion.
Your argument is fallacious on the face of it. Because it is begging the question if these laws of mathematics existed before God and are responsible for creating God, then the laws of mathematics are (by definition) the designer of God, and so God is then subjected to their limitations. In such a case how could God be all-powerful? (answer is HE can not, so your whole argument is invalid!)
JK- Your point makes as much sense as claiming GOD can create a rock which he Himself cannot lift. Can He do that in your understanding? If not then Hes not all powerful by your definition. If you want to get that fine on definitions then may i ask you WHERE IN THE QURAN does GOD say that He is all powerful? The attribute coming close to this is "'ala kulli shyin qadeer" which means "He has authority over all things". Now unless you wanna with a great twist define maths as being a thing your argument makes no sense. Mathematics is a concept of understanding how things logically operate. Sure we can say as long as theres no observer theres no sense of mathematics so asa GOD came into being infinite "time" ago so did maths with Him being the first observer.
You have sacrificed the Omnipotence of God, to rationalize His existence! Just to support your argument!!! (shame on you, dude). So therefore, YOU are then the one setting up false attributes, not I. As I am taking God's word on faith, that He is "uncreated" (i.e. was not born out of a natural proccess). Where as you are the one who is saying that God came about through a natural proccess which is understandable through reason.
JK- GOD is indeed uncreated because there was no intelligence "before" to create. The very term "create" applies only to an "intelliegnce" or a central processing unit from which things issue forth. Random fluctuations dont count as such.
LOL yea, exactly. So you can not use this to counter that argument then, can you? Your hypothesis, is just a hypothesis!
JK- It's a hypotheis yes but it is a hypothesis based on NATURAL phenomena. Thats the point. Doing supernaturealism is what causes problems.
You're accusing me of "spawning nonsense" ?? !! (LOL!) That is adorable! You and your "Ayman"... are just... precious.
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoy dropping by once a month to check in on this thread... you are quite the comical relief.
Have fun with you your "alien hypothesis argument"... (have your tin hat and laser guns ready ok?)
PeAcE
JK- Now your comitting the fallacy of resorting to ridicule. You just keep on comitting fallacy after fallacy without actually brining up the points for discussion. Once again ive given my arguments. GOD Bless!
-
Peace C0de
Per 3-7, believers should follow well-established meaning verses in order to know their obligated duties. Now, I know that Sunset, night, and Dawn prayers are commended in a very well-established verses. But on the other hand, Zuher and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.
11-114 is a well established verse
And you shall hold the communion at the two edges of the day, during the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
11114THEREFORE, 1778 Calls for prayer AT Sunset, Night, and Dawn (after all Quranic verses will have to match with each others !)
Therefore, the Middle prayer that God ordered the believer to guard is the Night Prayer (2-23;
Here is a well established verses that prove That731 O you who are covered with your garments.
732 Stand the night except for a little.
733 Half of it, or a little less than that.
734 Or a little more, and arrange the Qur?an in its arrangement.
735 We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.
736 The time of the night is more effective and stronger in reciting ( ا.From the above well established verses, The night prayer is the Westa Prayer. Now can you bring me a well established verse that says Aser prayer is the prayer that is more stronger and effective than the other prayers including the night prayer?
Moreover, please note the following verse
Qur?aan 2458
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty. This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.Now, please note the red colored words and the blue ones. If there is a prayer during noon, why God did not mention (in blue word section) as He did when speaking about the Dawn and night (red colored section)?
May God lead us to the truth.
PeaceWrong. "Salat al-Fajr" and "Salat al-Isha" are both mentioned by name. Therefore the middle prayer cannot be the night prayer, as "Salat al-Isha" is already mentioned.
-
--deleted--
-
JK- It depends on how they humilate me. If anyone humilaiates me personally Ill strike back hard too. If they dumilaiate me intellectually then i know of no such humiliation. I will continue to give my arguments and then every individual has to decide for him/herself what is more reasonable.
JK- You shldnt have "mercy" on me either. Ill tackle each point as much as i can and like i said many times before the audience will decide who has the better arguments in the end anyways.
Unlike you, I could care less about the "audience"
JK- What your doing is again "appeal to aiuthority". Why dont you bring up the relvant points here and we will discuss them? I told you before im convinced of my points like im convinced that i exist. Now you or anyone else could change that. Im open to everything. Also let other people on the forum witness those points of discussion.
)
rriite... I've seen how "open" you are. Most of the stuff I have said you haven't even understood. Instead you just keep repeating things over and over again like a machine and think the "audience" is will think you actually have a point.
JK- Your point makes as much sense as claiming GOD can create a rock which he Himself cannot lift. Can He do that in your understanding?
No actually, that is your point not mine. Clearly you didnt understand my previous response to you.
If not then Hes not all powerful by your definition.
God can do anything, even create another God if He so chooses.
Verses 617-18 Declare God's Omnipotence and Omniscience
If you want to get that fine on definitions then may i ask you WHERE IN THE QURAN does GOD say that He is all powerful?
In many places, actually. And now we are really getting to see your real views on God, and your limited theology. For you, God is not trancendent. For you, God is not all-powerful. Like I said before, you are the one who is limiting God's attributes, not I.
Every time God states that He is capable of all things, it is a declaration of His omnipotence.
Now unless you wanna with a great twist define maths as being a thing your argument makes no sense.
LOL you just don't get it do you? Maths IS a created THING! Every Law of this CREATED universe is CREATED along with it.
Even modern Science itself has discovered that the laws of mathematics do NOT always apply uniformly throughout existence. Try and explain the paradox of Shroedinger's Cat with 1+1=2 ... are there two different cats in the chamber? Is there one cat? Is that one cat both alive and dead at the same time?
You base your whole argument on rationality, without even knowing how limited rationality is.
Mathematics is a concept of understanding how things logically operate. Sure we can say as long as theres no observer theres no sense of mathematics so asa GOD came into being infinite "time" ago so did maths with Him being the first observer.
You don't even understand your own argument! God didn't come into being "an infinite time ago." Your argument is supposed to be that God came into being through infinite time! That is what I used to believe (and you borrowed that argument from my debate with that atheist, without even fully understanding it!). According to this argument, it was infinite TIME which allowed for God to come about. But that argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that "time" existed before God. And the laws of mathematics are independent and objectively defined with an independent existence.
It's a hypotheis yes but it is a hypothesis based on NATURAL phenomena. Thats the point. Doing supernaturealism is what causes problems.
No, rationalizing supernaturalism is what causes problems. That is what you are doing, without even realizing it. You have ZERO evidence that can be scientifically demonstrated for the existence of GOD. Yet you think you can rationalize the supernatural. And the more you try, the more you sacrifice the attributes of God all to support your weak arguments.
Now your comitting the fallacy of resorting to ridicule. You just keep on comitting fallacy after fallacy without actually brining up the points for discussion. Once again ive given my arguments. GOD Bless!
)
Buddy, I could start an entire thread based on all the fallacies in your so called "arguments". And as for your unfounded accusation that I have presented you fallacious arguments... all I can say is whatever
PeAcE