What is the language in heaven?

Zulf

This is explained in epistemology, where the difference between belief and knowledge is explained. If Mr. Smith had an experience, would there be a difference between knowledge and belief? No. Would anyone else be able to share that experience? No. Why should I believe the extraordinary experience Mr. Smith claims to have had? So that is the difference. It is not knowledge.

Greetings StopS,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the experience gave Mr. S knowledge, while others can only have faith in that same experience, since they didn't experience it themselves. If this is what you are saying, then I agree fully. Faith, in this sense, is not the same as knowledge. And religion is almost only based on faith (with only few exceptions (that can not be proven anyway)).

Example I believe my car is in the garage. Is this also knowledge? No, because even though I left it there, maybe it was stolen or my wife took it to go shopping. Belief, not knowledge.

Yes, this could be likened with faith. And as long as you are seeing the car in the garage, it is knowledge.

So, you actually nailed it with your question. God can't be proven to exist. There is no physical, appreciable means of verifying any manifestation of the super-natural. It is faith. Without proof or evidence. And what is claimed with evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Well yeah, God cannot be proven to exist in the sense that we have an isolated proof that can be picked up by anyone who wish to be convinced. It is only possible to prove God to ourselves, if at all. Everyone has to obtain proof for themselves, nothing else is possible. This is why I find it stupid (but understandable) to see people inherit a creed from their parents or society, yet they still act as if they have chosen it and that it is very deliberate. People belong to a religion simply because they were born in a certain geographical place, context and environment. I have problems with this sort of non-thinking behavior, but I guess it can be explained by natural instincts to belong to and be accepted/protected by a group. Religious affiliation is many times not even about faith, but rather about psychology, sociology and politics.

I'd like to expand a bit further if you don't mind.
Why are we talking about physical proof? Why does a proof have to be physical? How could it be, when we are talking about something that is not physical? This is exactly why God cannot be proven. They are looking in the wrong "place" with the wrong "glasses".

And I'm not sure what super-natural means here. But I guess it means non-physical, as in "not measurable and detectable by physical tools". I think it is limiting, but understandable, that 'non-physical' has become 'non-natural' or 'super-natural', just because physical reality is the only accepted reality. And it is accepted only due to the nature of the tools and the method of detection. The nature and capacity of the tools determine what is considered real (not just proven, but also real). So in a sense it is correct. There is indeed no physical God, but again, the God we are talking about is not physical, so we are actually talking about different things, and people want the lack of a physical God to translate to the lack of a non-physical God. This logic is not valid. All the blind scientists of a world of blind people will not prevent the rainbow from existing just because they cannot see and measure it. The rainbow is just not part of the world they can sense/detect. Even if they erect ladders all over the sky, they won't find it. They're are using the wrong tools and the wrong senses.

Why should tools of the five senses determine the reality of things beyond their scope and reach, beyond the five senses? We humans can experience something, without using the five senses, why should they then reject that same experience just because it wasn't experienced by the five senses? Ok, I can understand that for someone who has had no experience of anything beyond the five senses, then it sounds incredible at best, and probably just ridiculous. But one would be able to stretch further using logic and possibilities. A proof only proves that which is proved. A proof doesn't say anything about that which it doesn't relate to.

I think that the debate about whether God exists or not is crippled by silly images of God. If we think of God as something of the created world/universe/physical reality.... we'll never ever find it, except it people's faiths. A proof for a physical (although perhaps not material) God, will never be found, because such a God is just a fantasy, made up by those who haven't ever experienced anything beyond the physical world and the five senses. The debate is about the physical realm, and will go on and on. Many times, the images of God that the religions put out, are not very sensible. They are often very human-like, like Zeus and Thor, and even images of God in the big monotheistic world religions are very human-like in character... and why would anyone start believing in that?

Anyhow, I'll cut it here. I find it hard to convey my thinking.
Cheers and Peace!

StopS

According to this Islam Ulema/Cleric.. they will flock to the malls... and hangout with blond girls...
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=so344eQFVtc

Wow! That is freaky. I wonder who the waiters are. Also Muslims?
And what would a woman, who died 120,000 years ago, do in a mall with shops, coffee and a cup?
What a primitive mind.

StopS

Heaven and hell are real, the description of which it is not stated in a literal sense for reasons that would be problematic because of the voluminous details needed to describe every possible personal satisfaction of heaven and horror of hell. A literal explanation is not necessary for believers because "we get the picture."

Peace O0

Ok, so if heaven and hell are real, who tells us that the descriptions are correct? Who describes hell? Satan, the devil? Or is it straight from god? If yes, did he go to hell and check?
Or did he create hell himself to torture the humans he created himself also?
How do you get the picture?

StopS

Some of them, yes. But actually, not just humans who passed the test will live in the new earth. All humans will. But the people who passed the test, will live in Jannah (garden), and who doesn't, will be burn in fire. All of them will happened in the new earth.

Ooops, I thought I understood. Let me try again both, heaven and hell, will be on this new Earth? Where?

Don't bother with the language you have in the first creation. The language in the second creation will be formed naturally. Just like what we have today. Don't bother with the time frame. Maybe you would like to learn the language of the people who born 500 years before you (if it has changed) in the second creation, as you would like to learn the language of the people in the different location. It doesn't make any difference.

How will a single language form naturally, if everyone speaks a different language? You need to remember that someone who died 200,000 years ago in Africa will be attempting to communicate with someone who died yesterday in Iceland.

It seems the confusion we have in 144 regarding who spoke what language to whom is now even more puzzling when we die.

StopS

Greetings StopS,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the experience gave Mr. S knowledge, while others can only have faith in that same experience, since they didn't experience it themselves. If this is what you are saying, then I agree fully. Faith, in this sense, is not the same as knowledge. And religion is almost only based on faith (with only few exceptions (that can not be proven anyway)).
Yes, this could be likened with faith. And as long as you are seeing the car in the garage, it is knowledge.

Almost. Mr. S (haha, I like that!), through his personal experience, has gained belief, not knowledge. Knowledge is based on verifiable facts.

Well yeah, God cannot be proven to exist in the sense that we have an isolated proof that can be picked up by anyone who wish to be convinced. It is only possible to prove God to ourselves, if at all. Everyone has to obtain proof for themselves, nothing else is possible. This is why I find it stupid (but understandable) to see people inherit a creed from their parents or society, yet they still act as if they have chosen it and that it is very deliberate. People belong to a religion simply because they were born in a certain geographical place, context and environment. I have problems with this sort of non-thinking behavior, but I guess it can be explained by natural instincts to belong to and be accepted/protected by a group. Religious affiliation is many times not even about faith, but rather about psychology, sociology and politics.

Wow! Excellent explanation and well formulated, at least in my eyes.

I'd like to expand a bit further if you don't mind.
Why are we talking about physical proof? Why does a proof have to be physical? How could it be, when we are talking about something that is not physical? This is exactly why God cannot be proven. They are looking in the wrong "place" with the wrong "glasses".

You are now exactly where I am. How do you define what would constitute proof? Or evidence at least.

And I'm not sure what super-natural means here. But I guess it means non-physical, as in "not measurable and detectable by physical tools". I think it is limiting, but understandable, that 'non-physical' has become 'non-natural' or 'super-natural', just because physical reality is the only accepted reality. And it is accepted only due to the nature of the tools and the method of detection. The nature and capacity of the tools determine what is considered real (not just proven, but also real). So in a sense it is correct. There is indeed no physical God, but again, the God we are talking about is not physical, so we are actually talking about different things, and people want the lack of a physical God to translate to the lack of a non-physical God. This logic is not valid. All the blind scientists of a world of blind people will not prevent the rainbow from existing just because they cannot see and measure it. The rainbow is just not part of the world they can sense/detect. Even if they erect ladders all over the sky, they won't find it. They're are using the wrong tools and the wrong senses.

Now you are killing yourself because now you have the additional problem of showing how a super-natural and non physical entity is able to manipulate physical matter.

Also, you are underestimating science. A rainbow detector can work with tones or in Braille. It is a physical phenomenon, detectable, measurable and reproducible.

Why should tools of the five senses determine the reality of things beyond their scope and reach, beyond the five senses? We humans can experience something, without using the five senses, why should they then reject that same experience just because it wasn't experienced by the five senses? Ok, I can understand that for someone who has had no experience of anything beyond the five senses, then it sounds incredible at best, and probably just ridiculous. But one would be able to stretch further using logic and possibilities. A proof only proves that which is proved. A proof doesn't say anything about that which it doesn't relate to.

What 5 senses? What about temperature, balance, etc etc
Humans can't sense electricity, x-rays or magnetism and have developed external sensors for that. Humans have logics and rational as well as reasonable thinking. Very powerful to examine our surroundings.

I think that the debate about whether God exists or not is crippled by silly images of God. If we think of God as something of the created world/universe/physical reality.... we'll never ever find it, except it people's faiths. A proof for a physical (although perhaps not material) God, will never be found, because such a God is just a fantasy, made up by those who haven't ever experienced anything beyond the physical world and the five senses. The debate is about the physical realm, and will go on and on. Many times, the images of God that the religions put out, are not very sensible. They are often very human-like, like Zeus and Thor, and even images of God in the big monotheistic world religions are very human-like in character... and why would anyone start believing in that?

Anyhow, I'll cut it here. I find it hard to convey my thinking.
Cheers and Peace!

Well put. Which is why I look for traces of the consequences of this faith here.

Jafar

Wow! That is freaky. I wonder who the waiters are. Also Muslims?

The christians will be the waiters, and the jews will be the cashier...
And the chinese/taoist/hindus/buddhist, as usual, will do the dishwashing and laundry..
Except for the convenience store, it will be maintained by strictly Pakistanis...

And what would a woman, who died 120,000 years ago, do in a mall with shops, coffee and a cup? What a primitive mind.

They become chef in the cafes and restaurants...

Farabi

Salam,
We did not have knowledge about spirits, hell or heaven except tiny piece. But we will know it soon after we die.

Zulf

Almost. Mr. S (haha, I like that!), through his personal experience, has gained belief, not knowledge. Knowledge is based on verifiable facts.

How can it be faith when S had a direct experience?? Wasn't it knowledge if you see the car in the garage? To S it is knowledge, but to his audience it is faith. Just because tools of physical science cannot observe what S observed, we cannot downgrade it to faith. Yes, knowledge is based on verifiable facts. If the experience of S is indeed repeatable and consistent to him, then it is knowledge. But then again, we have to define knowledge. I think you define it as something like "facts verifiable by tools of physical science". But this then would not include all knowledge, but only a sub-set of knowledge. So it's about definitions, like everything else. The world and reality extends beyond what tools and methods of physical science can observe and detect. Some human beings can see things that no tools have ever been able to record, and they see it consistently. It is another issue that other people cannot see it, and hence dismiss it as bullshit. It seems this focus and dependency on physical science is at the core of our discussion. Another dimension of this is to whom something is a fact or proved. In my case of S witnessing something by himself due to his own sensitivity to it, it will naturally not be accepted as a fact or knowledge by the virtue of external proof. Not even those who can witness similar or same things can know what S witnessed. They can only know about their own experiences. This means we talk about different types of facts. These things that can only be witnessed by one person (no tools or aids) should not be discussed in terms of proof or evidence, and it doesn't matter. People are not supposed to be convinced about these things... coz that would be faith (which is useless, except at perhaps an psychological/emotional level). We can accept the possibility of such experiences, but that's all. The rest is up to each person. Some will sense them, some will not. It's a personal thing. It is useless to try to determine if they are real knowledge or not. It is of course knowledge to a person, like S, who has witnessed it, but to someone else it could be faith, or it could be a possibility. We may also have faith that something doesn't exist, since there haven't been proof presented for its non-existence, so this is also faith (if opposite of knowledge is faith when we believe a certain thing, that it exists or doesn't exist.)

Wow! Excellent explanation and well formulated, at least in my eyes.

Thanks. Religious people however are usually not very fond of this idea when I present it, even though I personally find it pretty obvious.

You are now exactly where I am. How do you define what would constitute proof? Or evidence at least.

Whatever you find when looking it up in a dictionary, basically.
As you have understood by now, I mean that i)the world is not limited to what tools of physical science can observe, and ii) that knowledge can be obtained by anyone through witnessing (not faith nor conclusions nor wishful thinking), and it is not dependent on that others can also witness it through that persons "eyes". A fact is a fact no matter how many or how few people can witness it. The reality isn't a function of the size of it's audience or the method of it's observation.

Now you are killing yourself because now you have the additional problem of showing how a super-natural and non physical entity is able to manipulate physical matter.

Na, I don't think so. Why would I need to show that? Why would we need to know the mechanics of it?

Also, you are underestimating science. A rainbow detector can work with tones or in Braille. It is a physical phenomenon, detectable, measurable and reproducible.

Tones or Braille would be the mode of feedback from the tool, but it would never give the colors (since the scientists are blind). And how would they find out that there is something like a rainbow in the first place? My point was that they would not be able to approach something when the witnessing of it is dependent on a sense that they don't have (they're blind). I was talking about the colorful rainbow on the sky, as seen by seeing people.

What 5 senses? What about temperature, balance, etc etc
Humans can't sense electricity, x-rays or magnetism and have developed external sensors for that. Humans have logics and rational as well as reasonable thinking. Very powerful to examine our surroundings.

True. I guess I was a bit inexact when I said '5 senses'. I was referring to all things that can be detected by our tools, which would go for all things of the physical world, like gravity, particles, energy waves that we normally cannot detect such as UV-light and gamma rays... etc etc. The five senses would include anything that the body can detect, i.e. balance, temp, oxygen level, gravity. I think we can sense electricity, in the same way tools can but we cannot quantify it. We feel it when we get a jolt. A tool feels it too, but gives a number or other type of feedback instead of a scream and jump. )

Let me summarize

You can get knowledge about something through experience/witnessing/sensing regardless of whether other people, or scientific tools, can witness it or not.
The capacity of scientific tools do not determine the extent of reality or if what people can witness is to be deemed knowledge or not.

Best regards

StopS

How can it be faith when S had a direct experience?? Wasn't it knowledge if you see the car in the garage? To S it is knowledge, but to his audience it is faith. Just because tools of physical science cannot observe what S observed, we cannot downgrade it to faith. Yes, knowledge is based on verifiable facts. If the experience of S is indeed repeatable and consistent to him, then it is knowledge. But then again, we have to define knowledge. I think you define it as something like "facts verifiable by tools of physical science". But this then would not include all knowledge, but only a sub-set of knowledge. So it's about definitions, like everything else. The world and reality extends beyond what tools and methods of physical science can observe and detect. Some human beings can see things that no tools have ever been able to record, and they see it consistently. It is another issue that other people cannot see it, and hence dismiss it as bullshit. It seems this focus and dependency on physical science is at the core of our discussion. Another dimension of this is to whom something is a fact or proved. In my case of S witnessing something by himself due to his own sensitivity to it, it will naturally not be accepted as a fact or knowledge by the virtue of external proof. Not even those who can witness similar or same things can know what S witnessed. They can only know about their own experiences. This means we talk about different types of facts. These things that can only be witnessed by one person (no tools or aids) should not be discussed in terms of proof or evidence, and it doesn't matter. People are not supposed to be convinced about these things... coz that would be faith (which is useless, except at perhaps an psychological/emotional level). We can accept the possibility of such experiences, but that's all. The rest is up to each person. Some will sense them, some will not. It's a personal thing. It is useless to try to determine if they are real knowledge or not. It is of course knowledge to a person, like S, who has witnessed it, but to someone else it could be faith, or it could be a possibility. We may also have faith that something doesn't exist, since there haven't been proof presented for its non-existence, so this is also faith (if opposite of knowledge is faith when we believe a certain thing, that it exists or doesn't exist.)

You need to either agree that there are common definitions or play nihilist. A personal experience is defined as faith. If I tell you my car is in the garage it remains faith until I can convincingly share my experience of verification and provide reliable evidence. This not my definition, but the generally accepted one.
You are actually playing word games with the term "physical science". What is "physical science"? Is there something like "non-physical science"?
Knowledge is what refers to a fact.
There are 1000s who swear they were abducted by aliens every year. Are all of them right?

Thanks. Religious people however are usually not very fond of this idea when I present it, even though I personally find it pretty obvious.
Whatever you find when looking it up in a dictionary, basically.
As you have understood by now, I mean that i)the world is not limited to what tools of physical science can observe, and ii) that knowledge can be obtained by anyone through witnessing (not faith nor conclusions nor wishful thinking), and it is not dependent on that others can also witness it through that persons "eyes". A fact is a fact no matter how many or how few people can witness it. The reality isn't a function of the size of it's audience or the method of it's observation.

Here I disagree. You use this funny "physical science" again. Science objectively measures, observes, describes, explains and verifies the natural world we live in and uses sensors way beyond the limited capabilities of a human. No, a fact is what is verified and considered truth and reproducible for anyone.

Na, I don't think so. Why would I need to show that? Why would we need to know the mechanics of it?

Easy what is the difference between making stuff up and claiming it happened through some super-natural, unproven entity?

Tones or Braille would be the mode of feedback from the tool, but it would never give the colors (since the scientists are blind). And how would they find out that there is something like a rainbow in the first place? My point was that they would not be able to approach something when the witnessing of it is dependent on a sense that they don't have (they're blind). I was talking about the colorful rainbow on the sky, as seen by seeing people.

Ah, you are not a scientist. There are different ways of expressing and describing the attributes of light, once you understand the properties. So, yes, you can explain a rainbow to a blind scientist.

You can get knowledge about something through experience/witnessing/sensing regardless of whether other people, or scientific tools, can witness it or not.

Unfortunately, no, you can't. It is not knowledge, but belief by definition.

The capacity of scientific tools do not determine the extent of reality or if what people can witness is to be deemed knowledge or not.

As long as we don't have anything else, this is the only way to determine truth and knowledge.
Intuition or a personal belief does not constitute knowledge. If It could I would be convinced I could fly and everybody would have to believe it. Can I fly? Is the belief I can fly now common knowledge? No, hardly. Is it the truth? Will anyone believe me without any attempt by me to prove it?

hawk99

Peace Stop S,

Ok, so if heaven and hell are real, who tells us that the descriptions are correct?

God.

If yes, did he go to hell and check?

Stupid

Or did he create hell himself to torture the humans he created himself also?

Did he create hell to torture the humans and jinns?

Yep

How do you get the picture?

We believers understand from the Quran Heaven=good Hell=bad.
understand = get the picture

Peace O0

StopS

God.

How do you know? When will you know for sure?

Stupid

No, not all. How would god know if satan had created it?

Yep

If god created hell, why introduce satan? 4/5 humans will fail the test and be relegated to hell anyway.

We believers understand from the Quran Heaven=good Hell=bad.
understand = get the picture

So it is meant literally?

drfazl

In Islam we get the dichotomy of believing and not believing.

The result of being good or not good is irrelevant, but believing in one god and that there is a messenger determines whether a person gets to spend eternity in a place of reward or punishment.

The place of reward is called heaven and the place of punishment is called hell.

As far as I know, no Islamic literature specifies what exactly humans do in heaven. We learn that all humans are resurrected and then sent to heaven if they pass the criteria. But then what? After having sex, eating and drinking, what do people do? Do I get a new PlayStation? What if a child who died 20,000 years ago sees me playing Flight Simulator XXII on a 75" flatscreen TV? Will everyone have the same level of knowledge? Will everyone speak the same language?
Or are heaven and hell to be understood as metaphors?

It is the unified and universal language of communication - the mind and the heart that carry one clear understanding and gathering of all pervading truth or absolute falsehood. It is non-dichotomous existence in choice less language.
.

hawk99

Peace Stop S,

How do you know? When will you know for sure?

Quran....already sure

No, not all. How would god know if satan had created it?

God created hell

If god created hell, why introduce satan?

My answer would not be from Quran therefore conjecture.

4/5

4/5 is your number therefore irrelevant

humans will fail the test and be relegated to hell anyway.

many will be

So it is meant literally?

Yep! Heaven is literally good hell is literally bad. Keep in mind I am not referring to literal detailed description.

Peace O0

hawk99

Peace Stop S,

not knowledge. Knowledge is based on verifiable facts.

Sorry, but one can have knowledge of facts or ideas, conjecture or myths.

Knowledge can simply mean information.

O0

StopS

It is the unified and universal language of communication - the mind and the heart that carry one clear understanding and gathering of all pervading truth or absolute falsehood. It is non-dichotomous existence in choice less language.

I don't understand anything of what you wrote.
There is no unified or universal language. Otherwise the Koran would most probably be written in that language and maybe people people could understand it without arguing. As it is, the Koran is vague and ambiguous and ~20% is not able to be understood. It says it is clear and easy to remember and understand, but we require multiple scholars to explain some sentences and some will never be understood at all.
The heart carries no understanding. It is a muscle which pumps blood.
What is "absolute" falsehood? What is the difference between "falsehood" and "absolute falsehood"?
What is "non-dichotomous existence"?
What is "choice less language"?

StopS

Peace Stop S,

Quran....already sure

God created hell

My answer would not be from Quran therefore conjecture.

4/5 is your number therefore irrelevant

many will be

Yep! Heaven is literally good hell is literally bad. Keep in mind I am not referring to literal detailed description.

Peace O0

What I understand is that you explicitly trust the Koran. But what if the descriptions are wrong?

Nope, the 4/5 is reality and not under my influence. The Koran says that god creates humans and knows what they will be and what they will do. In fact, he has knowledge of all things, so he should know that 4 out of 5 humans will not do as they are expected to do. This has nothing to do with me.

hawk99

What I understand is that you explicitly trust the Koran.

Yep

The hypocrites and those who harbored doubt in their hearts said, "These people are deceived by their religion." However, if one puts his trust in GOD, then GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

But what if the descriptions are wrong?

The hypocrites and those who harbored doubt in their hearts said, "These people are deceived by their religion." However, if one puts his trust in GOD, then GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

Nope, the 4/5 is reality and not under my influence. The Koran says that god creates humans and knows what they will be and what they will do. In fact, he has knowledge of all things, so he should know that 4 out of 5 humans will not do as they are expected to do. This has nothing to do with me.

4/5 not from Quran, who made it up. Your point is understood, yes there are humans and jinns
going to hell.

Peace O0

Zulf

You need to either agree that there are common definitions or play nihilist. A personal experience is defined as faith. If I tell you my car is in the garage it remains faith until I can convincingly share my experience of verification and provide reliable evidence. This not my definition, but the generally accepted one.
You are actually playing word games with the term "physical science". What is "physical science"? Is there something like "non-physical science"?
Knowledge is what refers to a fact.
There are 1000s who swear they were abducted by aliens every year. Are all of them right?

If you have a car in the garage, and you are currently seeing it... do you consider that you know that your car is there , or that you only have faith that your car is there? I mean, is it knowledge or faith to you?
Regarding the abductees, I totally agree with the problem you highlight.
If, as you say, the definition of knowledge is something that can be verified and shared by others, then I agree with your standpoint. So, yes, I agree that there should be common definitions. But then I need more words to describe things...
Let's leave the topic of "physical science" until I find better words... like I said, I find it hard to express myself properly... almost like describing emotional feelings or flavors using only mathematical notation.

Easy what is the difference between making stuff up and claiming it happened through some super-natural, unproven entity?

I disagree that we need to know the mechanics of it. If I order a dish in a restaurant, I don't need to know everything about what the cooks are doing in the kitchen, or the whole supply chain and production of the ingredients. I just have to be able to communicate with the waiter, and eat the meal when it is served.
Actually, I agree with what you point out, and I have already hinted at that when I said that knowledge has nothing to do with proof. If I alone observe a certain flower in the jungle, then that is knowledge to me, regardless whether or not anyone else will believe me, or ever find that spot again. I still know what I saw. Others agreeing with me doesn't make it true. Of course, perhaps I had an illusion, and I'm mistaken, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Ah, you are not a scientist. There are different ways of expressing and describing the attributes of light, once you understand the properties. So, yes, you can explain a rainbow to a blind scientist.

Scientist or not, you're missing my point, probably because I didn't explain myself clearly. I understand that you can describe the water particles and their location and diameter, the curvature of Earth, the angle of the incoming light into the droplets, the density difference between water and air, the refraction and how the light is "split" into colors. But my point was (perhaps it was a weak example) that you can fill volumes of books containing descriptions of all the physical properties of the constituents of the rainbow and all physical laws that give rise to it... but the blind scientist will never see the rainbow... he or she will only get an understanding of the physical scenario. The blind one will never understand color. Color is not the same as a wavelength of light. Color is something that your brain and you experience through your body. They're not the same. Are they?

You can get knowledge about something through experience/witnessing/sensing regardless of whether other people, or scientific tools, can witness it or not.

Unfortunately, no, you can't. It is not knowledge, but belief by definition.

Of course you can. I know when I have certain emotions, or when I smell certain scents. No brain wave machine can describe or prove this. It is still true.
If it is like you say, then the definitions are faulty and limited as per people's experiences. The definitions are after-all created by people and would reflect the limitations of the people who define the words.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this.

As long as we don't have anything else, this is the only way to determine truth and knowledge.
Intuition or a personal belief does not constitute knowledge. If It could I would be convinced I could fly and everybody would have to believe it. Can I fly? Is the belief I can fly now common knowledge? No, hardly. Is it the truth? Will anyone believe me without any attempt by me to prove it?

You base this example on the idea that knowledge is defined as containing an element of inter-sharing between people and reproducibility and what not. I say that the term 'knowledge' is actually not that well-defined that one would like to believe.

If something should only be considered knowledge, how large group of people would have to agree on it's reproducibility? What if all these people who agree on certain things to be true or not, only have a limited understanding and perception... then what? If I cannot say (to myself) what is true (reproducible experience), then how can a group say it to itself? How large does this group have to be? Does it depend on the number at all? There is reproducibility in both cases, but the size of the subject/audience is different (one vs many).

Note that I'm talking about knowledge as a witness of a fact. The fact has been witnessed and knowledge has been obtained (assuming that it was a true fact that was witnessed!), no matter whether or not I can convince others about this. A fact is a fact regardless of proof.

Anyhow, I'm not sure we'll get much further in this discussion, but I have indeed enjoyed it.
Thanks and Peace!

StopS

Yep

The hypocrites and those who harbored doubt in their hearts said, "These people are deceived by their religion." However, if one puts his trust in GOD, then GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

4/5 not from Quran, who made it up. Your point is understood, yes there are humans and jinns
going to hell.

Peace O0

Well, the Koran is wrong about descriptions such as mountains. Am I a hypocrite for saying what I believe and what I consider to be facts. I think you don't understand the words you are using.

No, it seems you don't understand the story with the 4/5 at all.

It is not made up, but represents reality and facts.
It is not part of any book but is part of real life.
Let me try one last time to explain it to you

We have >7 billion humans on this planet.
~1.5 billion are Muslims.
That means ~20% or expressed differently 1/5 are Muslim.

A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 1st
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 2nd
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 3rd
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 4th
A creator creates a human. Yes, a Muslim. 5th

This means only 1 in 5 created humans is a Muslim.
This means that 4 out of 5 created humans are not Muslims. This further means 4 created humans don't do what they are intended to do and only 1 does what he is supposed to do.

We now understand that 4 out of 5 go to hell and 1 out 5 go to heaven. What language to they speak?

good_logic

Peace StopS.

Quote We have >7 billion humans on this planet.
~1.5 billion are Muslims.
That means ~20% or expressed differently 1/5 are Muslim.

A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 1st
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 2nd
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 3rd
A creator creates a human. Not a Muslim. 4th
A creator creates a human. Yes, a Muslim. 5th

This means only 1 in 5 created humans is a Muslim.
This means that 4 out of 5 created humans are not Muslims. This further means 4 created humans don't do what they are intended to do and only 1 does what he is supposed to do.

If by " Muslim" you mean -traditional islam religion- ,I am afraid you misunderstand what most on this forum say and mean.

" True Islam" means Total submission to the creator, a way of life/ a system. It is not a religion and most certainly it is not traditional islam as people know and define it.

How can we possibly know how many people have sincerely submitted to their creator? Where would any figures come from? Only God Himself could provide accurate figures. He is the only one who knows who has sincerely submitted to Him!

Therefore there could be " Muslim Christians", "Muslim Jews", Muslim Muslims", " Muslim... any sect or religion "... ie All those who seek God Alone and submit to Him.

I hope you will try and revise your figures, if indeed you have any figures at all.

Peace.