The God of the Quran is a Fact

Zulf

Why not just this

If they reject you, then say, "I have my works, and you have your works. You are innocent of anything I do, and I am innocent of anything you do."

Shabat shalom.

In case the quote was a response to point 2 in my recent post

Well, because it is a bit like quoting to an alcoholic "when alcohol is easily and readily available, and you feel the urge for it, just avoid it"... it's not that simple. The development of one's character, insight and understanding... cannot be replaced by a wise instruction from the quran. Actually, you cannot even compare them. The quoted quranic instruction is something of great wisdom and benefit. But reading it and knowing it is not the same as finding it easy to implement.

Peace and Kind regards

StopS

It says

Setting up partners with God is forbidden
Be kind to your parents
don't kill children for fear of poverty; God provides for you and them.
Do not come near any kind of lewdness
Do not kill, unless it's in justice

I personally don't see a need for interpretation here. It's pretty straightforward from my point of view. Are there any other verses that are unclear to you? I like to list things out like I did just now in order to make sure I understand.

You have just performed interpretation, because that is not what the Koran says.
It says Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited (61515, arrama, has prohibited)

Join not anything as equal with Him
be good to your parents
kill not your children

So you need to assign partners, treat you parents badly and kill children. If you follow the Koran literally, that is. Do you follow the Koran literally? No, of course not, you interpret. Or you read other sentences such as 1731, which tells you the opposite of 6151 and you then decide that 1731 is better (Kill not your children for fear of want). You interpret what is correct and better.

The same goes for the "four-footed animals" in 51, where only interpretation gets you to a cow.
And in 1140 you can't have soil or rock boiling, so interpretation is required once again. There are many such sentences which are nonsensical when read literally without interpretation.

Oh so you've read them? You had said If I understand this correctly, it says that Mecca, where the Kaaba is located, existed then, when there is no evidence for this in historical records. The fruits and olives mentioned can't really stem from Mecca, which offers drinking water from wells, but not sufficient for irrigation in this arid area.
The Quran never says that the "Kabba" is located in "Mecca". And it's obvious that the history does not match up in order to support this.

From what I've understood, the town in Saudi Arabia became named as "Mecca" after the completion of the Quran. Which means they could have easily hijacked the word. So the only thing out there supporting that Mecca really exists at all is Hadith and faith. Not a solid foundation in my opinion.

Now yes! And I was incredibly surprised. I was so surprised in fact that I mentioned it to the historian Tom Holland, who was our special guest last night on our show.

A hadith search I just did on Mecca http//sunnah.com/search/mecca

Seven pages long (which is actually shorter than I thought it would be!).

An interesting story of supposed Abraham in Mecca when there's no archaeological evidence

http//sunnah.com/bukhari/60#43 yuck

peace

I totally agree and have made a mental note never to claim that Muslims in general believe that Mecca was founded by Abraham and was the center of the religion ever again.
Thank you for correcting my misconception.

StopS

Sorry, I didnt mean to talk down to you, I can see you are getting emotional.

No, annoyed.

Conservation of energy (and ultimately conservation of mass) is the basis for the "sum of everything is 0" theory. It applies to all matter including particles OR galaxies. Please read hawkins' work.

Did you mean Stephen Hawking? Hawking does not comment much on the 1st law of thermodynamics you brought up. Black holes don't provide compelling evidence for any law. Are you referring to particle promotion, by any chance?
Now can you please show me any law that covers ""the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" as is claimed by you to be a god.

Also, I challenged your knowledge, never your intelligence.... you are very defensive.

Indeed, I am, if someone just claims that "You don't seem to understand what you are talking about .... Buts that's ok, you are not an engineer like me."
If someone claims that the 1st law of thermodynamics is anything mathematical and then throws in -1 and +1 I get irritated, yes.
If someone simply ignores my points and questions and just harps on the one which doesn't make sense and throws name around, yes, I have the hairs on the back of my neck rising.

All Truth Manifested = all physical things (that can be measured and quantified)... aka reality
Opposite of truths manifested is something that doesn't exist in real life. A ghost. The lockness monster. Big Foot...
Examples of Truths not Manifested = ideas and concepts of things in your mind that may be true, but can never physically exist
I don't know what truth spiritual could possibly mean
Reality is truth. The screen you are staring at right now? exists. It is true. This is a small part of the entire reality. Please review the first paragraph in Wikipedia.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Please quote the statement which is nonsensical. All I did was try to explain that the Qur'an defines ?God? as ?reality?.

Cheers

Everything is nonsensical
Your claim Allah = truth manifested = all physical things (that can be measured and quantified) How does that make any sense??? How can anyone measure or quantify a god?

The opposite of "truth manifested" is also "lie manifested". Can you demonstrate a manifested lie?
What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical. Truth is a value or status statement. Just because I see a pencil, I can't say the pencil is true. Not everything I see or think I see is true.
The opposite of manifested is "non-manifested" or surreal, ghostly, spiritual.
That's why I said there's nothing compelling in your claims.

zulf81

Peace zulf81.

I welcomed you here few posts back. I believe Qoran is the word of God and following any " Men s books" is idolworship.

However, I would like to add that God requires us to take his message seriously!

Please browse
http//www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/test-page/

I look forward to your views/ discussion/ ...

Peace and friendship.

Thank you,

I will definitely take a look at it, and I would like to add that I do take it seriously. Since the Quran was a book that was designed to be valid for all time, I try to approach it from the standpoint of someone who has no bias. Obviously that is very difficult, but its something I learned how to do in law school, which taught me not to use any extraneous information when trying to understand something. That is especially applicable in Quranic study, because the book says its complete.

Thank you again, and I will take a look.

Peace

sonnie

Did you mean Stephen Hawking? Hawking does not comment much on the 1st law of thermodynamics you brought up. Black holes don't provide compelling evidence for any law. Are you referring to particle promotion, by any chance?
Now can you please show me any law that covers ""the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" as is claimed by you to be a god.

Never even heard of "particle promotion" in my entire life... Tried a quick Google, didn't find anything.

Yes, I was talking about Steven Hawkings, and no he doesn't mention it by name (probably because its so trivial, anyone with introductory knowledge of classical mechanics would understand). He claims..."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

Basically what he is saying is that the universe is and always has been just a set of laws (truths). His theory says that initially (before the big bang) there was physically nothing, but since nothingness is very unstable it just exploded, so this is how and why we exist today. This inference, which basically implies that gravity (negative energy) + mass energy (positive energy) = 0, is indeed valid because it is backed by the law of conservation of energy (the first LAW of thermodynamics). It is very clear what he is saying for those that have knowledge.

Read this for more info
http//www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

Having said that, "the sum of the universe = 0" is a mathematical statement and can only be true because of the 1st law of thermodynamics... get it?

Now can you please show me any law that covers "the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" as is claimed by you to be a god.

There is no such law. Laws are not required for setting definitions. If Webster creates a new word... lets call it "Bazinga" instead of "Allah"... then it goes on to tell you that "Bazinga is the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon". Does it need a law?

Everything is nonsensical
Your claim Allah = truth manifested = all physical things (that can be measured and quantified) How does that make any sense??? How can anyone measure or quantify a god?

Firstly, this is not a matter of claim, as I am not trying to prove anything. Secondly, to clarify, I am not talking about the western notions/perceptions of a ?god? or the ?God?. I'm talking about Allah as mentioned by the Quran. ?Allah? is defined as ?truth?? this is a fact. It was mentioned by the Quran 1400 years ago. I am just trying to explain to you what the Quran is saying (in english)... so then you can reject it properly. So far you didn?t even know what Allah was, and you have been rejecting Allah all this time.

The opposite of "truth manifested" is also "lie manifested". Can you demonstrate a manifested lie?
What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical. Truth is a value or status statement. Just because I see a pencil, I can't say the pencil is true. Not everything I see or think I see is true.
The opposite of manifested is "non-manifested" or surreal, ghostly, spiritual.
That's why I said there's nothing compelling in your claims.

"lie manifested" is a paradoxical...

Anyways... these last set of points you are making under an incorrect assumption. You are under the assumption that I am trying to prove to you what Allah is. I am not making any claims? just trying to explain to you the closest translation of the word ?Allah? in English is. Throw away any per-exisiting notions of "God" you might have. But perhaps, I am still being unclear. Here are some people who have translated the Quran into English.

Also, in regards to your attempt at incorrectly defining "Truth", here what it actually means.
Wikipedia
http//i45.tinypic.com/28luzqh.png

Webster
http//i50.tinypic.com/24cuxyu.png

This is Ch 24, Verse 25
--by Muhammad Asad On that day God will pay them in full their just due, and they will come to know that God alone is the Ultimate Truth, manifest, and manifesting .
--by M. M. Pickthall On that day Allah will pay them their just due, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth.
--by Shakir On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth.
--by Yusuf Ali On that Day Allah will pay them back (all) their just dues, and they will realise that Allah is the (very) Truth, that makes all things manifest.
--by Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar On that Day God will pay them their account in full, what is their just due. And they will know that God, He is The Clear Truth.
--by Wahiduddin Khan on that Day God will justly requite themand they will realize that God is the truth, that makes all things manifest.
--by T.B.Irving On that day God will repay them with their rightful due; they will realize that God means obvious Truth.
--by Al-Muntakhab There and then shall Allah requite them with what is commensurate with their deeds and what is owed to Him of acts and rites, wherefore they shall realize that Allah is indeed the truth personified.
--by Progressive Muslims On that Day, God will pay them what they are owed in full, and they will know that God is the Truth Manifested.
--by Abdel Haleem on that Day, God will pay them their just due in full- and they will realize that God is the Truth that makes everything clear.
--by Abdul Majid Daryabadi On that Day Allah shall pay them in full their recompense, and they shall know that Allah! He is the True, the Manifest.
--by Ahmed Ali God will pay them on that day their just due in full, and they will come to know that God is the tangible Reality.
--by Aisha Bewley On that Day Allah will pay them in full what is due to them, and they will know that Allah is the Clear Truth.
--by Ali ?nal On that Day God will pay them in full their just due, and they will come to know that God is the Absolute Truth (from Whom nothing is hidden and Who makes all truth manifest).
--by Ali Quli Qara'i On that day Allah will pay them in full their due recompense, and they shall know that Allah is the Manifest Reality.
--by Amatul Rahman Omar On that Day Allah will pay them in full their just dues and they shall know that Allah alone is the Absolute Truth, (and as well makes the Truth) manifest.
--by Hamid S. Aziz On that day Allah will pay them their just due; and they shall know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth.
--by Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali Upon that Day Allah will pay them in full their true Doom, (Literally their true Religion, i.e., their true Judgment) and they will know that Allah, Ever He, is The Supremely Evident Truth.
--by Muhammad Taqi Usmani On that day Allah will give them their rightful recompense in full, and they will know that Allah is the Very Truth who makes all things manifest.
--by Shabbir Ahmed On that Day Allah will pay them their just due, and they will come to know that Allah! He is the Manifest Truth.
--by Syed Vickar Ahamed On that Day, Allah will pay them back (all) their dues in full, and they will realize that Allah is the (Very) Clearest Truth (Al-Haq-ul-Mubeen).
--by Farook Malik On that Day, Allah will give them the full reward they deserve, then they will realize that Allah is the One Who manifests the Truth.
--by Dr. Munir Munshey That day, Allah will grant them to the full extent their rightful compensation; and they will know that Allah is the self-evident truth!
--by Tahir-ul-Qadri Mohammad On that Day Allah will pay them full recompense that they truly deserve (for their deeds). And they will come to know that Allah is (Himself) the Truth (and also) the Revealer (of the Truth).
--by Dr. Kamal Omar The Day when Allah will pay them their just due, and they will know that Allah, He (Alone) is the Manifest Truth.
--by Bilal Muhammad On that day, God will pay them back all that is due, and they will realize that God is the Truth, Who makes all things manifest.
--by Maududi On that Day Allah will give them the full recompense they deserve, and they will realize that Allah is the very Truth, Who makes the Truth manifest.
--by Rashad Khalifa On that day, GOD will requite them fully for their works, and they will find out that GOD is the Truth.

What you think Allah is exactly???... I want to know exactly what it is that you are rejecting.
Salaam

StopS

Never even heard of "particle promotion" in my entire life... Tried a quick Google, didn't find anything.

Yes, I was talking about Steven Hawkings, and no he doesn't mention it by name (probably because its so trivial, anyone with introductory knowledge of classical mechanics would understand). He claims..."Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." -Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

Basically what he is saying is that the universe is and always has been just a set of laws (truths). His theory says that initially (before the big bang) there was physically nothing, but since nothingness is very unstable it just exploded, so this is how and why we exist today. This inference, which basically implies that gravity (negative energy) + mass energy (positive energy) = 0, is indeed valid because it is backed by the law of conservation of energy (the first LAW of thermodynamics). It is very clear what he is saying for those that have knowledge.

Read this for more info
http//www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

Having said that, "the sum of the universe = 0" is a mathematical statement and can only be true because of the 1st law of thermodynamics... get it?

No, I don't get it. Not at all.

The gravitation at a black hole could energize particles and promote them into existence. It's part of Hawking's hypothesis using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You need to make up your mind.

Conservation of energy (and ultimately conservation of mass) is the basis for the "sum of everything is 0" theory. Please read hawkins' work.
no he doesn't mention it by name
Why should I read about it when it is not mentioned???

What is the common factor between "classical mechanics" and "particle physics" or "quantum physics" or plain cosmology? Are you suggesting we take the Universe as a closed or isolated system?

Where does he say the Universe is a set of truths?
Where does he mention "before the Big Bang"?
Where does he say anything about "before the Big Bang"? If I recall he says there is no time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang.
Where does he say nothing just exploded? I thought he said it could have been a quantum fluctuation.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

There is no such law. Laws are not required for setting definitions. If Webster creates a new word... lets call it "Bazinga" instead of "Allah"... then it goes on to tell you that "Bazinga is the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon". Does it need a law?

You said "Allah" or "God" = "physical truth" = "objective reality" = "the universe" = "existence" = "the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" and now you tell me that YOU get to define and decide what truth, reality and existence are?

Ah, bazinga, yes. That explains it. Did you watch a couple of episodes of TBBT and now think you understand quantum physics

Firstly, this is not a matter of claim, as I am not trying to prove anything. Secondly, to clarify, I am not talking about the western notions/perceptions of a ?god? or the ?God?. I'm talking about Allah as mentioned by the Quran. ?Allah? is defined as ?truth?? this is a fact. It was mentioned by the Quran 1400 years ago. I am just trying to explain to you what the Quran is saying (in english)... so then you can reject it properly. So far you didn?t even know what Allah was, and you have been rejecting Allah all this time.

Truth is not an attribute but a qualitative statement. Truth is a fact. Testable. Verifiable. Demonstrable. Measurable. Falsifiable. Do any of these attribute apply to a god?
Please, don't lie or spread untrue rumours. Why do you claim I did not know "what Allah was"? How can you say such a thing?
Also, from a logical point you can't reject what has not yet been proven to exist.

Again, these last set of points you are making under an incorrect assumption. You are under the assumption that I am trying to prove to you what Allah is. I am not making any claims? just trying to explain to you the closest translation of the word ?Allah? in English is. Throw away any per-exisiting notions of "God" you might have. But perhaps, I am still being unclear. Here are some people who have translated the Quran into English.
Also, in regards to your attempt at incorrectly defining "Truth", here what it actually means.

Again? Again a wrong assumption? By me? I don't recall having worked under a wrong assumption.
How is the definition you provide so different from mine?

You don't answer my questions and try to push your point based on a word used many centuries ago in the Koran and assign it the meaning we have today. Is that legitimate?
I don't know what people who used the word "truth" when the Koran was written, but I know that today it not correct to assign a descriptive term or adjective as a noun.

Why are you asking me what a god is? How could I possibly know? You are saying that a god is fact, so you should know what fact is and what is not fact.
I just try and find out why you believe what you believe and you go into science and etymology without any reason as far as I can make out.

inquisitivetrini

You have just performed interpretation, because that is not what the Koran says.
It says Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited (61515, arrama, has prohibited)

Join not anything as equal with Him
be good to your parents
kill not your children

So you need to assign partners, treat you parents badly and kill children. If you follow the Koran literally, that is. Do you follow the Koran literally? No, of course not, you interpret. Or you read other sentences such as 1731, which tells you the opposite of 6151 and you then decide that 1731 is better (Kill not your children for fear of want). You interpret what is correct and better.

If you would like to do it that way, go ahead. But remember that 1. the arabic language does not use punctuation to separate things, 2. arabic has it's own way of changing a form, and 3. the sentence is in English.

The breakdown of the verse http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=6&verse=151

Thank you for correcting my misconception.

No worries. It was a massive surprise to me as well. )

Peace. sun

sonnie

No, I don't get it. Not at all.

What is the common factor between "classical mechanics" and "particle physics" or "quantum physics" or plain cosmology? Are you suggesting we take the Universe as a closed or isolated system?

TBH, I dont know, and I dont care. Why are you introducing new and irrelevant science questions? I am not hawkings. You are the one who subscribe to the zero energy universe not me. You should tell me these answers...

You need to make up your mind.

Conservation of energy (and ultimately conservation of mass) is the basis for the "sum of everything is 0" theory. Please read hawkins' work.
no he doesn't mention it by name
Why should I read about it when it is not mentioned???

He doesn't spell it out for you as the book is written for the lay. He is saying that mass energy - Gravity must be 0. What law is he talking about here? How is this possible without the law of conservation of energy?
So the claim of a ?zero energy? universe is based on inflation theory, which states that the universe underwent a short, accelerated period of expansion shortly after the Big Bang. This produced both gravity as well as mass energy. You can not produce energy out of nothing, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

I guess I don't... You CLAIM that the sum of everything is 0... you still haven't explained to me how can that be without the first law of thermodynamics. I ask again... how can the sum of everything be 0, without using the law of conservation of energy? quantum fluctuations obey thermodynamics

You said "Allah" or "God" = "physical truth" = "objective reality" = "the universe" = "existence" = "the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now" and now you tell me that YOU get to define and decide what truth, reality and existence are?

When did I make such a claim? When did I decide what truth, reality, and existence are? Please show me where this happened...
Like i said before. Existence is not Allah. Allah is existence.
I regret using the English word "God" now. I can finally see abdun noor's point. See this thread if you want to learn the difference between God and Allah
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599046.0

Ah, bazinga, yes. That explains it. Did you watch a couple of episodes of TBBT and now think you understand quantum physics

Oh no, my secrets out!

What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical. Truth is a value or status statement.

Truth is not an attribute but a qualitative statement. Truth is a fact. Testable. Verifiable. Demonstrable. Measurable. Falsifiable.

Truth is not just a statement as I explained in my last post. Please stop posting the same thing again and again. You keep making argument without any proof or evidence. Where is your proof?
In the manner I am using it to explain "Al-Huq ul-Mubeen" in today's language, it is "the body of real things, events, and facts".

Do any of these attribute apply to a god?

No, this does not apply to gods. Allah is not a god.

Please, don't lie or spread untrue rumours. Why do you claim I did not know "what Allah was"? How can you say such a thing?
Also, from a logical point you can't reject what has not yet been proven to exist.

You keep saying that "this and that are nonsensical", like you know what Allah is. You were never even able to quote a single statement which was nonsensical. Can you quote me just 1 statement which is nonsensical? I am only asking you for 1 statement, please choose the most nonsensical of the lot and reply back.

Again? Again a wrong assumption? By me? I don't recall having worked under a wrong assumption.

Yes, you though that i was making claims.

How is the definition you provide so different from mine?

I don't know what you are talking about. What are you talking about? Why do you keep asking random questions?

You don't answer my questions

Besides your rhetorical questions, which question have I left unanswered for you? Please post it and I will answer it.

...and try to push your point based on a word used many centuries ago in the Koran and assign it the meaning we have today. Is that legitimate?

Yes it is legitimate. When you translate an old Arabic document into modern English, you use the vernacular of today so people understand the translation.

I don't know what people who used the word "truth" when the Koran was written, but I know that today it not correct to assign a descriptive term or adjective as a noun.

"Truth" is a noun. "Reality" is a noun. "Allah" is a noun.
I keep telling you that Allah is reality. Which adjective did I assign to a noun??

Why are you asking me what a god is?

I am just trying to find out what you believe.

How could I possibly know?

Why are you asking me this? Or is this another one of your rhetorical questions?

You are saying that a god is fact, so you should know what fact is and what is not fact.

When and where did I say "god is fact"? Why are you lying and spreading rumors about me?

I just try and find out why you believe what you believe and you go into science and etymology without any reason as far as I can make out.

Bottom line Allah is reality.
When did i go into etymology? Of which word's history and origin did I start the discussion about?
As far as science, I was trying to answer your question about thermodynamics. You seem to think that thermodynamics has nothing to do with conservation of energy.

P.S.
Life is one big Bazinga, and then you die...

StopS

You can not produce energy out of nothing, this would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

I will just summarise a bit. As the title says, the laws re thermodynamics are applicable to thermodynamical systems. NOT the Universe. Energy can be converted. Quantum fluctuations do not obey thermodynamics. It's like saying the sun follows Bernoulli's Law or Principle.

When did I make such a claim? When did I decide what truth, reality, and existence are? Please show me where this happened...

It's on page 3

God is not reality. Reality is God.
"God" is defined as "truth manifested" according to the quran. This is done so by definition; proof is not required for setting definitions.
When the quran talks about "Allah", just replace the word "Allah" with "the Universe", literally.

"Allah" or "God" is
-"physical truth"
-"objective reality"
-"the universe"
-"existence"
-"the sum of every proton, electron, neutron, photon right now"

Allah = truth manifested
truth manifested = reality
reality = universe/multiverse/existence

That is my current view.. there might be a hole in my logic... peace

Look, you are doing several things simultaneously and half cocked. You can't bring in science when talking about religion. It will backfire.
You need to keep track of what you are defining or claiming. You defined Allah as not being a god without defining either of them. You then define a god as reality, which would be factual. This entire thread is about the claim that god is a fact.
Then you say you didn't say that. That doesn't work, does it?
You accuse me of lying, when I say that you said "god=fact". Only in the next sentence you say "god=reality". What's the difference? NOT by listing 2 dictionary entries which might use different words, but explaining how your understanding of a god can be a reality without being a fact.
I explained that you can't attribute something to what does not exist or has not been proven to exist.
I explained that "Allah is Truth" is like saying "Car is Colour". It doesn't work, does it?
I explained that you try to assign meanings to words etymologically which maybe were common or in use centuries ago, but not today is meaningless. Defining "truth" or "reality" does not help when attempting to associate an attribute such as truth to a god, which is assigning a noun to a noun.

Examples of open questions
Is your definition of a god a physical being? If not, the "truth" can't really be physical.
Objective? That would make it real, factual, observable as in able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etcetcetc
If your definition makes god = Universe, why not call it Universe then? Why should we change a name everyone understand?
The same goes for existence. I exist and I'm not a god.
we see that your equation reality=god is not possible, so do you have another suggestion why your god should be considered a fact?
How can anyone measure or quantify a god?
What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical.
"lie manifested" is a paradoxical... well so is "truth manifested"
I will stop with listing my unanswered questions...

Oh and it's Hawking, not hawkins of hawkings.
And it's the sum of energy which is cancelled out by gravity (total mass-energy=0) - nothing anywhere near thermal differentiation in a closed system. (Thanks to you I found a basic explanation of what I am trying to say http//arachnoid.com/gravity)
I have given you x examples of what is nonsensical, like "I want to know exactly what it is that you are rejecting". How many times should I explain that logically, you can't reject what does not exist or has not yet been proven to exist.
That's also why I have no idea what a god or - translating the English term god into Arabic - Allah, is.

The way I understand it is that you explicitly trust the veracity of the Koran, literally, and thus consider Allah to be a factual entity.
You gather a few attributes mentioned in the Koran and isolate those until they become meaningful to you.
Yes, this works, but only for you and based on faith.

good_logic

Peace StopS.

Can I deduce from your post that " God does not exist?

Let us consider this

You see an " Audi car" passing , I say someone designed it. Would you answer no one designed it?

You see a " universe" with laws , billions of galaxies each galaxy following a path. You see a solar system beautifully designed with " earth" as a habitable planet and a sun and a moon providing its stability, life and timing device and you say " There is no designer? Just because you cannot see the designer, all the signs are there that there must be one?

Use all the faculties you have ( who designed you?) and give me an alternative to the creator of all that can see?

Peace.

StopS

Can I deduce from your post that " God does not exist?

No, of course not! How can anyone assert something like that? That is the reason we have epistemology to prevent blunders like that.

Let us consider this

You see an " Audi car" passing , I say someone designed it. Would you answer no one designed it?

Yes of course - I have never seen how an Audi gets designed. I would ask you for proof.

You see a " universe" with laws , billions of galaxies each galaxy following a path.

How do you know this? What "laws"? How many galaxies? What "paths"?

You see a solar system beautifully designed with " earth" as a habitable planet and a sun and a moon providing its stability, life and timing device and you say " There is no designer?

How would I know what a designed solar system looks like if I have never experienced the designing of a solar system?
Why would I call a solar system, where 99.999% of it is trying to kill me "beautifully designed"?
Diseases, poisons, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hail, radiation, droughts, tornadoes, epidemics, lightning, floods, avalanches, fires, asteroids, etc. etc. are all trying to kill life. Altitudes of sea-level and hills are fine for humans. A bit higher and we suffocate. A bit lower and we are crushed. Even higher and we have 90 seconds. Even lower and we die burning. Leaving our own planet and trying to live on some other planet is even worse, regardless of whether we stay in our galaxy or not. If a student would propose such a horrendous "design" he would never pass.
Sun and Moon don't provide stability. The Sun provides a gravitational indentation and we, Earth, are doing the same for the Moon.
In a few billion years our Sun will have consumed most of the hydrogen and turn into a red giant.
At around the same time the Andromeda galaxy will collide with our Milky Way. How is any of this beautiful or designed?

Just because you cannot see the designer, all the signs are there that there must be one?

No, there is not. There does not need to be either. You claim there are signs for the existence of a designer? Name one.
If you can't do that then name a reason why there "must be one"?

Use all the faculties you have ( who designed you?) and give me an alternative to the creator of all that can see?

I need glasses, an ear-piece, a toupet, a pacemaker, an artificial hip, orthopaedic shoes, a liver transplant and after my wisdom-teeth were removed, I still needed tooth fillings and a crown. The only piece still intact and 100% functional is my foreskin. The hair growing out of my ears always grows back - even though I don't need it but the finger I need - does not grow back. What on Earth gives you the idea I am designed?
Have you ever heard of the laryngeal nerve? Do you know of the huge detour it needs to make because evolution stuffed up? And now look at the 7 meters long detour this nerve needs to make in a giraffe? Design? Fail! How many children are born with an embarrassing tail and dolphins with legs and a woman, where the SRY gene has not triggered, lacks testosterone and leads to a woman with XY chromosomes - and no ovaries or testicles. Design?

Why does there need to be an alternative? And should humans, after only looking and researching for ~200 years have all the answers? And why, if we don't have all the answers, should we assume it is what YOU think it is with zero evidence to show for it? At least scientists have an explanation and a possibility of how abiogenesis works. The rest, evolution and the diversity of species here on Earth, is a fact.

I think bringing up Paley's ancient old and primitive "watchmaker argument" is hardly a challenge, much less an argument.

Zulf

Why would I call a solar system, where 99.999% of it is trying to kill me "beautifully designed"?
Diseases, poisons, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, hail, radiation, droughts, tornadoes, epidemics, lightning, floods, avalanches, fires, asteroids, etc. etc. are all trying to kill life.

What do you mean 'trying'?
Are all those things having will power and intentions with an aim to kill you and the rest of life?? Where is the proof that those things are trying to do anything?

StopS

What do you mean 'trying'?
Are all those things having will power and intentions with an aim to kill you and the rest of life?? Where is the proof that those things are trying to do anything?

I find this so hilarious! I make a factual claim and immediately, someone jumps up and demands proof.
Muslims here make the most extraordinary claims and require others to accept this on merit and blind faith.

But, you may rest at ease, there is an answer

There's this figure of speech thing, which allows for formulations like this.
There something called hyperbole, which explains most of what I wrote.
Yes, indeed, germs like bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa have free will and can kill their host. Millions die from these every year.
A venomous animal will kill for a meal or self protection, as will any carnivore. Then you have hippos, dogs, crocs etc and so on.
It's quite depressing how many ways a human can die on this planet. Thank goodness science has developed early warning systems, lightning rods and evolution provides the "shots".

hawk99

Yes, indeed, germs like bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa have free will and can kill their host. Millions die from these every year.

From Stop S November 08, 2012

I just showed you that god can't have a will. He is bound by his own laws. And there is no free will for humans either because of that.

Peace brother Stop S is this a contradiction? Please explain.

O0

StopS

From Stop S November 08, 2012

I just showed you that god can't have a will. He is bound by his own laws. And there is no free will for humans either because of that.

Peace brother Stop S is this a contradiction? Please explain.

O0

Of course not! It is written tongue-in-cheek as bacteria have never been shown to demonstrate conciousness
Don't take everything so serious! Look at the question! How can a tsunami possibly have an intent??? I am not at work and not in an exam, so I take some things not so serious and take liberties with my diction.
No, jokes aside for now, "free will", according to my understanding, is an artificial construct which does not really exist.

PS
I just realised I forgot to mention that I appreciate you not jumping on me and using a more indirect and polite approach. Thank you.

hawk99

Peace Stop S,

I thought I had a good sense of humor, but switching between hyperbole and facts,
tongue and check and scientific theory without warning or skill, in of itself is hilarious,
but don't mind me. Please continue.

O0

sonnie

I will just summarise a bit. As the title says, the laws re thermodynamics are applicable to thermodynamical systems. NOT the Universe. Energy can be converted. Quantum fluctuations do not obey thermodynamics. It's like saying the sun follows Bernoulli's Law or Principle.

Look, you are doing several things simultaneously and half cocked. You can't bring in science when talking about religion. It will backfire.
You need to keep track of what you are defining or claiming. You defined Allah as not being a god without defining either of them. You then define a god as reality, which would be factual. This entire thread is about the claim that god is a fact.
Then you say you didn't say that. That doesn't work, does it?
You accuse me of lying, when I say that you said "god=fact". Only in the next sentence you say "god=reality". What's the difference? NOT by listing 2 dictionary entries which might use different words, but explaining how your understanding of a god can be a reality without being a fact.
I explained that you can't attribute something to what does not exist or has not been proven to exist.
I explained that "Allah is Truth" is like saying "Car is Colour". It doesn't work, does it?
I explained that you try to assign meanings to words etymologically which maybe were common or in use centuries ago, but not today is meaningless. Defining "truth" or "reality" does not help when attempting to associate an attribute such as truth to a god, which is assigning a noun to a noun.

Examples of open questions
Is your definition of a god a physical being? If not, the "truth" can't really be physical.
Objective? That would make it real, factual, observable as in able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etcetcetc
If your definition makes god = Universe, why not call it Universe then? Why should we change a name everyone understand?
The same goes for existence. I exist and I'm not a god.
we see that your equation reality=god is not possible, so do you have another suggestion why your god should be considered a fact?
How can anyone measure or quantify a god?
What is the word "truth" doing in your statements? It is nonsensical.
"lie manifested" is a paradoxical... well so is "truth manifested"
I will stop with listing my unanswered questions...

Oh and it's Hawking, not hawkins of hawkings.
And it's the sum of energy which is cancelled out by gravity (total mass-energy=0) - nothing anywhere near thermal differentiation in a closed system. (Thanks to you I found a basic explanation of what I am trying to say http//arachnoid.com/gravity)
I have given you x examples of what is nonsensical, like "I want to know exactly what it is that you are rejecting". How many times should I explain that logically, you can't reject what does not exist or has not yet been proven to exist.
That's also why I have no idea what a god or - translating the English term god into Arabic - Allah, is.

The way I understand it is that you explicitly trust the veracity of the Koran, literally, and thus consider Allah to be a factual entity.
You gather a few attributes mentioned in the Koran and isolate those until they become meaningful to you.
Yes, this works, but only for you and based on faith.

Respectfully,

You keep producing conjecture and make arguments which you yourself don't even understand. I have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong while citing facts, but you keep ignoring the facts and reply by posting articles others have written . Then you say that what is written in those links is actually what you were saying all along.
I have answered all those question, go back and read what I wrote. In the meantime, you have basically ignored all of my questions and started new narratives.
I have made my self very clear and defined Allah as reality.
Your reasoning skill (just like your entire defense) is what is nonsensical; you say that "Allah is Truth is like saying Car is Colour". Color is an adjective not a noun.
First you claim not to have knowledge of what God is, then you claim that you yourself are cannot be god. Why would you argue about something in which you have no knowledge? Is that something a logical person would do? But you do seem to have a notion of what god is, dont you (or rather what god is not).

First learn some English and study the differences between nouns and adjectives. Then learn the difference between "reality" and "fact". Next learn the difference between the your notion of god and my notion of God. Then please go back and read what I said... Here is a tip for you refrain from conjecture and stick to facts while citing references.

I know you will probably not do any of these things, but these are in fact the prerequisites for this discussion.

Salaam

Zulf

I find this so hilarious! I make a factual claim and immediately, someone jumps up and demands proof.
Muslims here make the most extraordinary claims and require others to accept this on merit and blind faith.

But, you may rest at ease, there is an answer

There's this figure of speech thing, which allows for formulations like this.
There something called hyperbole, which explains most of what I wrote.
Yes, indeed, germs like bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa have free will and can kill their host. Millions die from these every year.
A venomous animal will kill for a meal or self protection, as will any carnivore. Then you have hippos, dogs, crocs etc and so on.
It's quite depressing how many ways a human can die on this planet. Thank goodness science has developed early warning systems, lightning rods and evolution provides the "shots".

;D I was thinking of whether or not I should put a at the end of my post. The intention was like a > . I was just pulling your leg. Of course I understand that it was just a matter of figure of speech.. it's obvious. I was just making some innocent mockery of the demand for proof. That's what I was teasing you with. And I agree that it was hilarious. laugh Peace!

StopS

You keep producing conjecture and make arguments which you yourself don't even understand. I have explained to you multiple times why you are wrong while citing facts, but you keep ignoring the facts and reply by posting articles others have written . Then you say that what is written in those links is actually what you were saying all along.

All you have done is tell me that energy and gravity as well as quantum physics have to comply with 1st law of thermodynamics. Have you been able to prove this? No, you merely assert this.
Now how can I prove that you are wrong in your perception? There is no scientist who says "you can't apply thermodynamics to particle physics."
So I have tried to show you what really happens. I have shown you sources which do not substantiate your view, but mine. I have no other way of showing you that thermodynamics don't apply here.

I have answered all those question, go back and read what I wrote. In the meantime, you have basically ignored all of my questions and started new narratives.

This can carry on for quite a while with both of us claiming unanswered questions. So let's drop it.

I have made my self very clear and defined Allah as reality.

Is that why we are here disagreeing on everything you say? Do you think that if you create a definition and say "I hereby define Allah as reality" this has any bearing on anything? I have asked you before if you say Allah=reality, why not use the word reality we are used to? Why invent a new word for reality, which has no universal definition?

Your reasoning skill (just like your entire defense) is what is nonsensical; you say that "Allah is Truth is like saying Car is Colour". Color is an adjective not a noun.

Haha, my defence??? Now you are seriously going off the rails! If coulour is an adjective, what is red or all the other colours? If I say "Car is Speed" is speed also an adjective?

First you claim not to have knowledge of what God is, then you claim that you yourself are cannot be god. Why would you argue about something in which you have no knowledge? Is that something a logical person would do? But you do seem to have a notion of what god is, dont you (or rather what god is not).

If I say the moon is made from blue cheese. Can I verify that without actually verifying the actual composition of the moon? Yes, because we can sometimes validate what something is not, before being able to discuss what is is. Have you heard of an elimination process?

First learn some English and study the differences between nouns and adjectives. Then learn the difference between "reality" and "fact". Next learn the difference between the your notion of god and my notion of God. Then please go back and read what I said... Here is a tip for you refrain from conjecture and stick to facts while citing references.

I know you will probably not do any of these things, but these are in fact the prerequisites for this discussion.

Salaam

Are you really in a position to give me any advice? So far you have only embarrassed yourself. But look, I am not interested in personal fights. I want to know what people think.

You are trying to tell me there is a reason why you consider a god to be real and a fact. Is thermodynamics the reason? No, I don't think so. Is grammar the deciding factor? No, I don't think so.

So why don't we handle this like adults and take a structured approach and do this one step at a time? You started off by asking me "do you think you live in the Matrix lol"
Now we know a bit more about each other and maybe you can give me your strongest argument why you believe god is a fact? Try to use a factual approach and first check the validity of your claims. If that's too much for you, I also understand.

PS
If you still struggle with fact, reality, truth etc, here's something which might help you http//www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20reality%20truth%20fact.htm

StopS

;D I was thinking of whether or not I should put a at the end of my post. The intention was like a >D . I was just pulling your leg. Of course I understand that it was just a matter of figure of speech.. it's obvious. I was just making some innocent mockery of the demand for proof. That's what I was teasing you with. And I agree that it was hilarious. laugh Peace!

Whew! It looks as though I need to take a step back. I am really sorry for mistaking your reply as being serious, but I have heard the most incredible claims recently - not necessarily on this forum.