Why believe in God?

neb87

Peace, neb87.

Some of your points are grossly inaccurate. For example, the Nation of Islam (NOI) experienced a rapid increase in membership during the 'reign' of Louis Farrakhan, particularly after the widely-publicized "Million Man March" conducted during the 1990s. The Saviours' Day events are becoming more prominent, particularly among celebrities. Additionally, they experienced an increase in membership (and member-involvement) during the era of one of their prime former ministers, Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who later left the Nation and went on to lead the New Black Panther Party. The books written by Nation of Islam members Wesley Muhammad and Wakeel Allah have also sparked widespread interest in the organization and Islam as a whole. And, contrary to your statement, the Nation of Islam DOES release the information concerning its membership - perhaps not to outsiders, but it is released among the membership.

Some of your "facts" are grossly inaccurate.

-The Million Man March was NOT a NOI event. It was partially sponsored by them and ATTENDED by civil rights activists of ALL faith backgrounds.

-Your claim that there has been a rise in interest has already been proven incorrect. If you wish to cling to it, anyway, despite expert observations to the contrary, fine, keep living in your dream world.

-What the members of NOI are up to has no bearing on your false claim that there's widespread interest in them among the African-American population. Don't change the subject.

-Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad was associated with a FEW of the most politically charged musical acts of the early 90's and not at all in his capacity as a member of the NOI but in his role as an artist, himself. Public Enemy and Rage Against the Machine are hardly mainstream acts, their messages were already controversial, and 2 acts that disbanded in the 90's have no bearing on current culture.

-Name ONE current celebrity publicly tied to the NOI. People who got involved with them in the early 90's do NOT count, since, as I've already stated, that was at a time when they were actively trying to clean up their public image by toning down the hate speech. (And this, itself, was a response to their dwindling numbers.)

Also, the Nation of Islam can't reasonably be compared to the Westboro Baptist Church; the ideals maintained within the organizations are vastly different. The Nation of Islam, for instance, teaches "black separatism", not racial hatred or discrimination. The Westboro Baptist Church teaches hatred and discrimination towards non-Christians, particularly aimed at those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.

We're not talking about what they claim to teach in their pamphlets. We're talking about how they're perceived by the general public and rather or not their philosophy holds any widespread appeal. You can try to separate the two all you want, but the fact remains that to the general public they're seen as an extremist group that preaches hate.

Also, you can't separate the populace that is recognized as "native-born" Muslims from the converts, at least not in the sense of alienating them from the Nation of Islam. The rise of Islam during the 1950s and 1960s, during the era of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (e.g. Malcolm X), many people became Muslims and began rearing their children under the same religious beliefs and tenets. In 1975, the Nation experienced the death (or, some say "departure&quot of Elijah Muhammad, and his son Wallace Delaney Muhammad changed the NOI's program to an Orthodox Islamic perspective, changing its name to "The American Muslim Mission", along with his name to Warith Deen Muhammad. Many Black American Muslims in urban communities are products of the organization he established in the 1970s.

This was just a long-winded way of acknowledging the FACTS I already presented to you. Long story short; in the 70's, the membership of the NOI dropped DRAMATICALLY when the vast majority of their members left to join mainstream Islam. If you think their children and grandchildren should not be included in the wider Islamic community because their parents/grandparents used to belong to the NOI, then I don't know what else to say to you.

How do you know what these people "believe" after they've left their established religious groups? The rise in membership among groups like American Atheists, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Council for Secular Humanism is reasonable proof to show the increase in atheism and agnosticism in America... How do you classify people who've chosen not to become part of any organized religion, and what leads you to believe that they still have 'faith' in the same concepts and ideals?

I know what these people "believe" because of what they SAID. Did you read the link I gave you? I didn't make that up, it's right there in the information. They were ASKED if they retained their faith after leaving the church and they said "Yes." Also, if you actually READ up on things before speaking about them, you would see that the increase in the popularity of atheist and agnostic groups is NOT because of an increase in atheists. It shows a growing trend of atheists reaching out to each other and forming "churches" of their own, instead of practicing "no-religion" on their own. It's actually a pretty interesting subject, but reading up on it would take away your ability to insert your own uninformed opinion on them and their motives.

We classify people who choose not to participate in organized religion as "people who choose not to participate in organized religion". As for what leads me to believe that they still have faith, I usually just go by what they TELL me.

So, would you say that organized religion has helped more people than it's hurt? Or, would you say the opposite is true?

I would say that when people learn about the faiths of others and then DO NOT dismiss what they say as invalid or some kind of conspiratorial lie, religion can help a lot of people.

neb87

Peace, neb87.

Your claim is absurd. There are plenty of Islamic hip-hop artists, and the concepts inherent in Islam (or, what is identified as Islam) have been promoted in hip-hop since its conception. Since the widespread appeal of hip-hop music, represented by Islamic (and pseudo-Islamic) artists in the industry, people have begun clinging to the 'culture' of Islamic revolution. Artists such as Eric B and Rakim, Brand Nubian, Poor Righteous Teachers, the Wu Tang Clan, Jurassic Five, Big Daddy Kane, Pete Rock and CL Smooth, Tragedy Khadafi, King Sun, Gangstarr, Kool Moe Dee, and Lakim Shabazz ushered in the hip-hop religious revolution, particularly with the principles inherent in the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths; and modern artists like Common, Erykah Badu, Jay Electronica, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Busta Rhymes, Wale, Capone-N-Noreaga, Nas, AZ, Canibus, Lord Jamar (as a solo artist), Sun Tzu Cadre, Sunz of Man, Styles P, Papoose, and many others are STILL openly promoting Islamic concepts in their music. That's not even mentioning pioneers like The World Famous Supreme Team, Grand Puba and Shabazz The Disciple, who projected their own perspective of hip-hop and put it into motion, with their methodology still being used today. Hell, even T-Pain and Akon claim to be practicing Muslims in today's hip-hop generation!

And you're seriously saying that it took you twenty (20) minutes to think of Lupe Fiasco, and you couldn't think of any others? You obviously don't listen to much hip-hop music...

I can name many, many hip-hop (and R&B) artists who promote (or promoted) Islamic concepts in their music. Again, hip-hop was started and perfected by Islamic (or, again, pseudo-Islamic) artists. The fact that you can only name one Islamic hip-hop musician, and it took you twenty minutes to do so, shows me that you don't know much about the subject you're trying to talk about.

Peace,

Ahmad

I'm familiar with almost all of the artists that you listed here and the only ones who are actually Muslim are Busta Rhymes, T-Pain, Akon, Big Daddy Kane, Mos Def, and Nas. Of those, the only one who made his private religion a part of his public persona as an artist was Mos Def and he is a Sunni Muslim. Busta Rhymes and Big Daddy Kane both only embraced religion after retirement. T-Pain and Akon were both simply born into Muslim families. I also think it's telling that very few of the artists you listed are currently active and the ones who are have no bearing on the point you're trying to make here.

As for the others on your list, you seem to be confusing Afrocentricity with Islam. I have no idea why, but I'm only here to point out inaccuracies and/or blatant lies in what you're saying about things you clearly haven't researched. I, personally don't see too many connections between Afrocentrism and Islam, but if you see similiarites, that's fine, just don't present that as something universal and especially don't make up connections that are NOT there.

Also, what the heck do you mean by "Islamic concepts"? You just posted a list of artists from the Conscious Hip-Hop genre, and shoe-horned Islam in there. I am a fan of most of those artists and the only "Islamic concepts" I hear in their music is the promotion of education, a call for unity in the Black community, and a shunning of vice. In case you haven't heard, the Quran does NOT have a monopoly on those ideas. One does not have to be familar with or connected to Islam to teach any of those concepts.

Hip-Hop was NOT started or perfected by Islamic artists. The fact that you would even say something so demonstrably untrue is a sign of your desperation to force some kind of link between the two. The closest even experts who go to college to study the history of Hip-Hop can get to pinpointing the origin of the art form is the African-American spoken-word artists of the 1940's collaborating with jazz musicians.

The reason I couldn't think of any other artists related to Islam is because Lupe Fiasco is the ONLY ONE who makes his private religious life publicly known in his music and that was only with one song at the beginning of his career called "Muhammad Walks", the rest of his work is focused on universal concepts not pertaining to religion or faith. Other than that, there are no other mainstream artists who talk about Islam in their music, no matter how hard you try to imagine otherwise.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

When looking at religions of the world, it indeed seems that religion produces at least arrogance. With arrogance I here mean a mindset that I'm holier than thou and that I know how things are and you are mistaken. This seems very typical with the majority of people following religion. It all seems to be about division and separation. At least this is my own observation, whether accurate or not. Of course it is a generalization, but quite representative I think.

I completely agree... And, as you mentioned (and before I catch a bunch of backlash for the statement), it's a generalization, and it doesn't specifically apply to each individual person. However, I think it's quite representative of reality...

What do we mean with unity? What are the criteria for calling something unity? You just have to select the suitable level of zoom in order to find unity. At one level we could even say that there is no unity at all... since every individual is unique in thinking and perception of the world and the resulting held world view and concepts. So what is unity?

Spontaneously though, I'd say there is NOT unity in Islam, looking at the level of sects and sub-sects.

That's exactly what I was alluding to. There are now hundreds of Islamic sects around the world, and each group calls its rival groups "disbelievers" and "hypocrites", etc. There may be a level of unity within a specified mosque; but there isn't much unity among the entire Islamic (Muslim) populace. They've differentiated themselves to the extent of being completely separate religions; they merely call themselves by the same names.

This is due to an unrealistic world view.

To think of God/Allah/Source/Creating Power as a OUTSIDE agent per definition means you get it wrong. This is a description of a god from mythology... a person in the sky.
The 'supernatural' idea is only held by those who do not feel the presence of that which people call The Creator. By calling it supernatural, you are actually calling it 'outside', 'abnormal' and 'other'... which means it is no more than a fictional character in your mind.
Those who stop working and just prays, also do not understand how things work in life. This behavior is unrealistic. The laws and rules of this life is the same for all, believers or not. Praying without action is useless.

A. One issue is that those who cannot sense Source/Allah/God (i.e. atheists etc) assumes that all others (those who claim to believe in that Source) are all alike. I'd say this is far from the truth. I tend to see the majority of the followers of religion actually as followers of culture and tradition. Yes, you may claim to believe in God, but what sort of faith is that really? Do you actually have a sense of God, or you just claim to have? Perhaps there are infinitely many levels of faith. So, just because you claim to believe in God, it doesn't really say much about your ACTUAL faith. No-one can say ANYTHING about the faith of another. I should not even say 'majority of those who' like I have done in this post. Who am I to judge others? It many times says more about me than about those I'm talking about. What does it matter to others anyway what they believe? The only thing that matters in society is how we behave with each other. Let our actions speak! The business of belonging to groups is more about psychology and politics and less about actual faith. Why else are religions distributed geographically in groups? Culture and heritage!

B. Someone who cannot sense God (whether atheist or religious believer) simply cannot imagine the existence of God. They assume the non-existance of God, since that's all they can do, and therefore the discussions will at best be philosophical. When a God-person and a non-God-person discusses God, they are discussing DIFFERENT things.

That's a very interesting perspective... What's your view concerning naturalists and pantheists? Also, if God can't theoretically be detected by the senses, or anything else other than a scope of "feelings" (which are ultimately nothing more than reactive chemicals in the brain), then how can we make the determination that he's "real"? Rationalization, based on the concept of objective reality, is how we separate fact from fiction. So, if we can't logically define and characterize God, then can we really claim to know that he's real at all? And, as it applies to your ideologies, do you view God as being 'personal', or is he completely incomprehensible?

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

That's a very interesting perspective... What's your view concerning naturalists and pantheists? Also, if God can't theoretically be detected by the senses, or anything else other than a scope of "feelings" (which are ultimately nothing more than reactive chemicals in the brain), then how can we make the determination that he's "real"?

This is what I cannot explain. When I say "feelings" I'm not talking about emotions... because they are just another form of thoughts. How do you explain sound to someone deaf, or visuals to someone blind? You cannot transmit the experience to such a person.
We cannot determine the "reality" if we cannot sense it. Simple as that. The five sense won't help. The mind (thoughts and emotions) won't find it. Either we sense/grasp/know it, or we don't.

Rationalization, based on the concept of objective reality, is how we separate fact from fiction. So, if we can't logically define and characterize God, then can we really claim to know that he's real at all? And, as it applies to your ideologies, do you view God as being 'personal', or is he completely incomprehensible?

You are right in what you say, but there is more to it. The "ceiling", or limits, of objective reality, is still determined by our perception... so what is objectivity if not just consensus, or a least common denominator, of subjective perceptions. ALL we perceive enters our perception through our senses.

We can logically think that since there is something, aka creation, then there is a source. But to call that source "he", giving it human characteristics, and making it a separate entity, is less than convincing. It's not logically sound.

I think of God as the source of all. The reality of God can be "known". But this knowing cannot be explain to someone else, and it may sound totally incredible and baseless, hence it is useless to try to convince people of it. That's it.

Further more, I suspect that different people can have different "degrees" of this "knowing/seeing/sensing/grasping".

All the best

hawk99

This is what I cannot explain. When I say "feelings" I'm not talking about emotions... because they are just another form of thoughts. How do you explain sound to someone deaf, or visuals to someone blind? You cannot transmit the experience to such a person.
We cannot determine the "reality" if we cannot sense it. Simple as that. The five sense won't help. The mind (thoughts and emotions) won't find it. Either we sense/grasp/know it, or we don't.

You are right in what you say, but there is more to it. The "ceiling", or limits, of objective reality, is still determined by our perception... so what is objectivity if not just consensus, or a least common denominator, of subjective perceptions. ALL we perceive enters our perception through our senses.

We can logically think that since there is something, aka creation, then there is a source. But to call that source "he", giving it human characteristics, and making it a separate entity, is less than convincing. It's not logically sound.

I think of God as the source of all. The reality of God can be "known". But this knowing cannot be explain to someone else, and it may sound totally incredible and baseless, hence it is useless to try to convince people of it. That's it.

Further more, I suspect that different people can have different "degrees" of this "knowing/seeing/sensing/grasping".

All the best

Agreed

Also remember the enormously important reality of our observable existence that
is beyond all emotion (normally) and that is BALANCE
Hot-cold, wet-dry, mumin-kaffir, of course I could go on with opposites but I hope you
all get the point. There must be non-believers if there are believers. Positive-negative,
light-dark, acid-caustic.

If their rejection gets to be too much for you, you should know that even if you dug a tunnel through the earth, or climbed a ladder into the sky, and produced a miracle for them (they still would not believe). Had GOD willed, He could have guided them, unanimously. Therefore, do not behave like the ignorant ones.

Peace

supportpeacenotwar

This is what I cannot explain. When I say "feelings" I'm not talking about emotions... because they are just another form of thoughts. How do you explain sound to someone deaf, or visuals to someone blind? You cannot transmit the experience to such a person.
We cannot determine the "reality" if we cannot sense it. Simple as that. The five sense won't help. The mind (thoughts and emotions) won't find it. Either we sense/grasp/know it, or we don't.

That's a good point. It's as though some people want a type of proof that means every little single detail is set in place - but I don't think you get this with anything in life. It seems more like the proof is there, open to those who want to get it and appreciate it and there is still room for people to disbelieve such as all the questioning over Moses and so on. But there are further elements and questions about the belief in God and the Hereafter that are mentioned in the Quran such as do you believe you will be left without justice (not sure what the verse number but that is my paraphrasing) and the point that everything we know around us was not created in play and it is purposeful. The point about justice is important - if there is no final justice, then what it the justice that we provide for ourselves? Doesn't our notion of justice tie in with the idea that final justice will be meted out - that there is some objective notion of justice out there?

Sorry if this is going a bit off topic, these are just thoughts that came to mind.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

This is what I cannot explain. When I say "feelings" I'm not talking about emotions... because they are just another form of thoughts. How do you explain sound to someone deaf, or visuals to someone blind? You cannot transmit the experience to such a person.
We cannot determine the "reality" if we cannot sense it. Simple as that. The five sense won't help. The mind (thoughts and emotions) won't find it. Either we sense/grasp/know it, or we don't.

I see your perspective, but that's what I have a hard time grasping... How can we come to "know", "sense" or "grasp" it? Isn't that also a facet of the mind, particularly aimed toward faith and belief? If I wanted to somehow verify the existence of a supernatural entity (e.g. 'god&#039, how would I go about doing so? Where would I even start?

You are right in what you say, but there is more to it. The "ceiling", or limits, of objective reality, is still determined by our perception... so what is objectivity if not just consensus, or a least common denominator, of subjective perceptions. ALL we perceive enters our perception through our senses.

We can logically think that since there is something, aka creation, then there is a source. But to call that source "he", giving it human characteristics, and making it a separate entity, is less than convincing. It's not logically sound.

I think of God as the source of all. The reality of God can be "known". But this knowing cannot be explain to someone else, and it may sound totally incredible and baseless, hence it is useless to try to convince people of it. That's it.

That's still a subjective position, since you specifically referring to "creation". Science doesn't necessarily confirm the idea regarded as 'creation' - it merely confirms the presence of 'existence'. And, by position, there's no "source" (e.g. creator) necessary from this type of perspective. That's why people often equate God with nature and/or energy. In other words, modern 'scientific religiosity' teaches that God is the Universe, and that the Universe is God; they're one and the same... Now, of course, to a traditional (or even non-traditional) Muslim, this is unacceptable, even blasphemous. However, in reality, it's nearly impossible to reconcile modern scientific propositions with the idea of a personal god who creates worlds, performs miracles, sends prophets, writes books and hears prayers. From a philosophically defined and logical standpoint, it's totally nonsensical. That's one of the main reasons why people are convinced that science and religion can't coexist, especially in a naturalistic (and skeptical) world.

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

Peace, Zulf.

I see your perspective, but that's what I have a hard time grasping... How can we come to "know", "sense" or "grasp" it? Isn't that also a facet of the mind, particularly aimed toward faith and belief? If I wanted to somehow verify the existence of a supernatural entity (e.g. 'god&#039, how would I go about doing so? Where would I even start.

Yeah I know what you mean. Actually, this whole thing with knowing/sensing seems nonsensical and unfounded... for the very reason that it is the mind that comes to this conclusion. But this experience is not like something the mind understands. It's a little bit like trying to logically understand the flavour chocolate. Well, you can understand how molecules interact with your sensory organs and signals being interpreted by the brain, but you cannot grasp the very experience of the flavor... that, you can only experience. Of course this is a bad example, since we can figure out the mechanisms of the experience all the way till the electric signals in the brain, sort of... but, we don't know about what happens between the electricity in the brain and our experience in our consciousness. We have defined impulses as consciousness, but that's just a decided definition... is it just that? Is everything in our lives just electric impulses and molecules in the brain?

In any case.. I don't claim to posses the truth... these are just my experiences... and I know I can never convince anyone about them... and there is no need to.

About your initial question... where to start... well, I only know one place, but it is very easy to misunderstand that as something religious and hence dismiss it. I believe, from experience, that anyone can do this... and often it happens in very difficult times (and there can be different reasons for that). What I'm talking about is to totally let down the guard, relax the mental resistance... and desire to be shown (in WHATEVER way) the truth about reality. This desire is directed toward "something bigger"... no matter what it is.... we are NOT concerned with what that is. Forget all about God. Just be purely desiring to be shown something that you currently do not see. Direct it to "that which is above all else". Dare to ask without knowing, without believing, without having proof or signs. The important matters here are two things.

We need to have the desire to find the truth, WHATEVER it may be.... which means we have to be relaxed and open, without ideas about how things should be or what they cannot be. This is not the same as accepting things we don't believe in... how could we? We always have good reasons for believing what we believe, as we see it. It is rather about suspending disbelief and giving the UNKNOWN a chance to come in and be seen, IF it is there.
We have to take the initiative, like closing eyes and nose and jumping into the water, without knowing first. It's like the farmer who waits for the first tiny seedlings to come up, so that he has proof that he'll have a crop, so that he then confidently can sow all the seeds. This farmer will never have a crop. He has to take the initiative. He can't sit around a wait for proof. So we should also take the initiative. We should put out a desire and question into "the universe" without assumptions, and then just let it be. We should take the risk of totally relaxing within... for some time ceasing to be run by the mind and its beaten tracks... and let "the heart" sense the things that the mind cannot sense... 'cause the mind doesn't sense anything, it only reasons things out.

I know all this sounds just like philosophies, and probably stupid, nonsensical and intangible... but I cannot explain it better at this point in time. I know it works for me. I have lots of resistance in me, and it is not easy to shed it. It takes time and effort... but it has done great good for me.

To summarize it briefly, I have come to see the mind as a marvelous tool that is doing all it can to protects us through instincts and inherited behaviour etc, but we need to understand the proper role and limitations of the mind. When the mind is let loose, it will not guide us, but lead us astray, although it does its best. Resistance comes from the mind. Resistance will prevent us from seeing all those aspects/dimensions of reality that there is. The mind cannot see these, simply because it is not made for this. We should instead "think", or rather experience/sense, with our "hearts". I mean, look at the world today. It's in a mess, in havoc. We are ruining eachother and we are ruining the planet. The mind, with all it's ingenuity and intelligence, has not been able to create anything sustainable. Why does it take damage before some of us understand? You don't need to believe in a god to understand that there is something deeper within us that KNOWS what's right. Of course, even this example is bad since people will always say that it is the mind that knows this, but it sometimes has other overriding priorities. So, either we feel/sense/experience it, or we don't. But anyone can. But it is us who has to take the initiative to crack that hard shell of resistance that we carry around... so that we can open up to all there is. If we wait for proof, we'll end up waiting forever. It's like asking for proof that you have a pencil in the hand. Ok, you feel it and see it, but maybe you are delusional, maybe you think you live in a matrix or dream and the pencil isn't real. You want proof that there is a pencil and it is real. Where will you find such a proof? And what value and purpose would such a proof have? Will it change something?

Either we experience it, or we don't. It cannot be explained.

I should not ramble on anymore.
I'm just a human being, with limited understanding. This is how I currently see things and I have tried to put it in words. I have no clue to what degree I'm right or mistaken. We are all on individual journeys.

Cheers and take care!

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

I understand your philosophical viewpoint, especially with regards to personal experiences. However, I can't use this as a valid position reared toward reality, and there are several reasons for that... Here's a brief example

A woman prayed for the Christian God to 'show himself' to her, due to what she regarded as her 'bad luck'. Her prayers lasted for weeks, and nothing happened. Eventually, she gave up, stating that God must not be real, since he didn't respond to the prayers (even though Jesus explicitly said that God would do so)... Well, according to this woman, about three weeks later, she received an "answer" to her prayers. She got up one morning and decided to eat a light meal for breakfast (or brunch). As she was preparing her meal, a grilled cheese sandwich, she noticed something peculiar once she took a few bites - the face (or, what she perceived to be a face) of the Virgin Mary was on her toasted bread! She was so shocked that she sealed up the half-eaten sandwich and kept it for over ten years, claiming that her luck changed dramatically from that day onward, even to the degree of her winning 70,000 American dollars at a casino - all thanks to this "holy toast"! And no, I'm not making this up... http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4019295.stm

Experience doesn't always authenticate reality. Sometimes, especially due to our values and preconditions, we tend to see and feel things that aren't really there. This "Virgin Mary Sandwich" is a prime example of this. Did God actually, miraculously draw a picture of Mary and place it on this woman's toasted bread? The idea of that sounds plain silly, if not completely ridiculous. We know, through rational thought, that people often see what they want to see - whether what they see is real or imaginary.

Now, is there anything wrong with believing in God? Of course not - that's not my position at all. However, I do believe that we need to be able to verify and authenticate our convictions. Otherwise, who's to say whether our beliefs are warranted or not? We could be completely delusional, just like this woman - as well as the thousands of people who wholeheartedly believe in this magic toast. If we can't confirm what we believe through science and rational thinking, then what makes us so sure that we're right and everyone else is wrong?

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

I know... I see the dilemma. Those that are delusional don't realize it. However, are they open to this possibility?
I maintain that either we see, or we're blind. If we're blind (delusional or not), we won't realize it, because we don't know what it is we don't see, since we've never had the experience of it. It would only be an intellectual exercise. This is also why it is useless for one to try to convince the other. But I also maintain that this fact however doesn't mean that the seeing persons are clueless about his/her own situation. But of course there is no way to tell, from the outside. There's a difference between seeing and blind, to use allegorical words.

Best regards

Ibrahim-Khalil

Really interesting topic. Just to add my 2 cents to discussion on links between Islam and Hip-Hop. I agree with most what the brother Ahmad said about this. Islam is like unofficial religion of Hip-Hop. People often call some rappers muslims, and they are really not (they are not traditional muslims). I know a lot about the american Hip-Hop, and I'm listening to it a lot. And forgive me for my bad english, by the way.
Peace.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam,

It is difficult to start to believe in the unseen and what you cannot touch and feel in a normal way, and what science cannot prove. I suppose this keeps many people from believing and that a lot, actually the majority of believers, are mislead fanatics who do not have anything in common with the religion of God, making it look lame and something only a stupid person would believe in.

To be honest, this was what kept me from seriously embracing religion to begin with, but God opened my eyes despite this and I try to be a rational man of faith, and I thank Him for it. Although I had some old diary inputs which mentioned God in them, so I was not completely cut off from God even years ago, but I was far from as reverent and devout as I am today.

So to the question of the thread, "Why believe in God?". Well, I guess one who cannot believe in abstract things very well will have a hard time finding out about God and religion. It is hard imagining myself in your place (the critics), but I understand a little bit about how you feel about some things, so anyway, I think you have to first of all dare believe in something which sounds like a fairy tale to a starter. Put aside prejudices and think about the existence of the human race and some rational explanation to it and at least my mind landed at the existence of an almighty God in the end, after about a decade or so later after I thought about the creation and big bang for the first time I came to realize slowly that God existed.

I was not absolutely sure at first, it took me an additional few years to try my new personal thesis and try to challenge my belief and "feel" that God existed. I became very determined that God existed because my logic worked this way, I could not find it logical that the world created itself in its complexity and control itself too. Would be like a huge big bang, with an astronomical low amount of probability cause the world to explode into existence with everything knowing were to be to have life evolve. Sure Universe is big and life has not evolved just about anywhere, but yet the ultimate complexity of the world as we know it felt too overwhelming an experience to be just coincidence. Even by disregarding this fact, what would trigger the initiation of the creation?

Natural selection and human science was no enough for me, I adopt science a lot, more than the common believer, but I was not satisfied there. I have come to confess to myself that I am incapable of comprehending the vast power of the Creator Himself, I simply need to believe in my own inspiration and intuition and personal logic regarding what I previously mentioned about the world existing on its own. The probability law was not enough to ensure I could exclude God from the map.

God is simply beyond science and any measurable means, and it is because God probably wants it that way and by combining my own logic with religious scriptures this reinforced my certainty further these past few years. I believe it is a divinely created world for a purpose of testing the self-aware inhabitants of it and since it seems to be a test of being a good person and using the intelligence to find out that there is a God this all seems feasible to me now.

Sorry if I was a bit frank and casual in my approach in this post. I hope I did not hurt anyone, I was tired of today's earlier posts which were more respectful. I know this is how I discovered the Truth and it may be invisible to people and you may not believe even though my arguments and just want to argue on what I wrote. I did not write it to open a dialogue, so just swallow or leave it. It was my honest path to my own position as a Believer today.

Of course I could probably write a book about this, and it is probably what I am going to do too. Just this post was just a depiction of my life, and it did not cover everything, just hinting at why to believe in God.

God bless you all and try to think deeply upon existence that you may have your eyes opened.

Someone

Peace all,

The story of the Blind men and an elephant (from wikipedia)

"In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

The stories differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved.

In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant all at once, they also learn they are blind. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow. Denying something you cannot perceive ends up becoming an argument for your limitations."

Just food for thoughts peace

The creator is certainly beyond any and every example we may use to understand him, we may agree or disagree about his properties and attributes,but denying the creator's existence altogether is what I find nonsensical and illogical.

Man_of_Faith

The creator is certainly beyond any and every example we may use to understand him, we may agree or disagree about his properties and attributes,but denying the creator's existence altogether is what I find nonsensical and illogical.

I like this last part, we can argue about everything from Earth to Heaven, but we cannot argue the existence of God. It was the start of my religious path that I took some years ago, that I realized the logic in the existence of a Creator.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Someone.

The creator is certainly beyond any and every example we may use to understand him, we may agree or disagree about his properties and attributes,but denying the creator's existence altogether is what I find nonsensical and illogical.

Can you please elaborate on this? How is it nonsensical and illogical to 'deny the existence of a creator', when modern science illustrates that it is possible (even plausible) for the universe to have come into existence without one? In order for disbelief in a creator deity to be nonsensical and illogical, wouldn't there have to be verifiable (and obvious) evidence of a creator's existence? So, where is it?

Peace,

Ahmad

Man_of_Faith

Salaam Ahmad,

I think he was meaning for those who believe in God. Please dear friend, try to read the whole context.

Atheists is another group of people and we (sensible people) accept this, if we are the right people.

And we believe that there is a God and we believe that you cannot verify God's existence because you cannot measure or comprehend Him, so what science says means pretty little too us.

Obviously, those who decided to believe, who are not hypocritical, choose to do it because they believe that there is an external kind of intelligence. And they believe that the creation of the Universe did not occur by coincidence.

You have to believe in the unseen to be a believer, so pretty much yes, it involves blind faith, at least to begin with, but you may or may not remain a believer after some time.

Dear Ahmad Bilal, I begin to realize your intent of being in here is just trying to convince people that there is no God, but of course you are allowed to be here. I just wonder what it is that makes you want to convince people that God does not exist, is it because you feel you do us a great service?

Or is it your hobby?

It seems to me as wasting your time, I feel I am wasting my time here and I try to strengthen the faith of those who already believe primarily. Of course go on do your work, those who are steadfast and reverent will never turn away an inch from their paths.

Shame everyone could not just start to see your posts as less provocative so that you got bored of being here rotfl

Anyway, I hope you see I did mean no harm, I was just curious. Of course I would love to have you here and if you benefit from being here then I am glad. I can see you are a great test for us, just like the user 'Stops' is on another level. No matter this, I hope I was still being respectful of your character even with these questions.

God bless you, regardless if you believe or not

Someone

Peace, Someone.

Can you please elaborate on this? How is it nonsensical and illogical to 'deny the existence of a creator', when modern science illustrates that it is possible (even plausible) for the universe to have come into existence without one? In order for disbelief in a creator deity to be nonsensical and illogical, wouldn't there have to be verifiable (and obvious) evidence of a creator's existence? So, where is it?

Peace,

Ahmad

When you see a car, can you deduce then that there exist certainely a car-maker?

When you see such a univers around you, doesn't it telling you that there exit certainly a univers-maker? A creator?

Now can you tell me what science can make a car come into existence without a car-maker? Because I would love to have a Ferrari ... yay

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Man of Faith.

I begin to realize your intent of being in here is just trying to convince people that there is no God, but of course you are allowed to be here. I just wonder what it is that makes you want to convince people that God does not exist, is it because you feel you do us a great service?

If this is what you think, then you clearly haven't carefully read my posts at all... I don't have to convince people that there is no god. The lack of evidence for a god's existence inadvertently leads rational thinkers to believe that there is no "personal" god floating around somewhere in space. However, the derived nonexistence of a 'personal' deity doesn't mean that there is no god at all, as there are many meanings for the word "god". According to the bible, even you and I are 'gods' (Psalms 826)!

I'm definitely not against the belief in a god (or gods), as I never blatantly stated that no god exists. I merely said that there's no evidence for the existence of a supernatural god, who is also somehow 'personal' one who needs prayers and offerings, yet transcends us in every possible way; one who possesses a plethora of human attributes, but is identified as being unlike humans in any way; one who claims to be a universal god, but demands that we adopt Arab language and traditionalism in order to be pleasing to him, or demands that we travel to a designated place on Earth (e.g. Saudi Arabia) in order to receive his approval; one who is omnibenevolent and responds to the prayers of the righteous, but also (somehow) fails to alleviate suffering and eliminate evil; one who is willing to send 'prophets' and 'messengers' to ancient nomadic tribes, inscribing his commandments in books and on stone tablets, performing miracles and fantastic feats in front of the people - but does nothing of this sort in front of the people of our time, in the so-called "intellectual", "skeptic" and "technological" age, nor does he even provide some sort of modern historical evidence for the existence of these works in the past; etc. Again, this is a lot different than saying that 'no god exists', and if you think I'm promoting a variation of philosophical atheism, then you haven't been reading my posts.

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Someone.

When you see a car, can you deduce then that there exist certainely a car-maker?

When you see such a univers around you, doesn't it telling you that there exit certainly a univers-maker? A creator?

Now can you tell me what science can make a car come into existence without a car-maker? Because I would love to have a Ferrari ... yay

There are many problems with this analogy, especially since you're trying to compare a car (automobile) to the Universe. However, for the sake of time, I'll only name a few...

If we deduce that, as a car must have a designer, there must be a designer (or creator) of the Universe, then we also have to conclude that, as there are many people who work on the production and distribution of an automobile, there are also likely many gods who aided in the formation of the Universe. Correct?
There is a clear disanalogy in composite functions between the Universe and a car. For starters, we know that a car is built for a purpose, which is likely to be driven, to make travel faster and easier. Yet, can you tell me what the 'purpose' of the Universe is? For what purpose was it supposedly designed?
If we deduce that the Universe must have a creator, merely because a man-made object had a designer, then we need to correlate the existence of this 'maker'. For example, a car maker has parents, who had parents, etc. So, we can reasonably conclude that the 'creator' of the Universe did too! Therefore, we can't infer the existence of a creator, unless we also speak of the creator's creator, the creator's creator's creator, and so on. If someone (or something) had to create the Universe, then someone (or something) also had to create the 'designer'.
Location plays a role in this established clause too. The Universe is generally recognized as consisting of everything in existence, composted of both space and time. So, where exactly was this creator located when he 'created the Universe'? Was he somewhere in another Universe? And, if so, who created that one, etc.?

Peace,

Ahmad

Awaal_Muslim

Peace, Someone.

Can you please elaborate on this? How is it nonsensical and illogical to 'deny the existence of a creator', when modern science illustrates that it is possible (even plausible) for the universe to have come into existence without one? In order for disbelief in a creator deity to be nonsensical and illogical, wouldn't there have to be verifiable (and obvious) evidence of a creator's existence? So, where is it?

Peace,

Ahmad

If that's the case than we can drop the Newton's Law of Motion

Law III To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction

Therefore, the big bang theory you are referring does not qaulify fully

However Allah tells us how it has been done

Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, which We (I, your God) then split, and from water We (I, your God) made all living things? Will they not believe even then?