Allah is a logical entity.
-
They also say that there resides a unique energy in every living organism and they call it by the name of The Aatma (The Soul).
Conjecture.
The soul is conjecture?
This soul cannot feel, cannot think, cannot see, cannot perform any work. They do not have any finite shape, nor have any mass, nor occupy any space. They cannot die. They just exist. But they have only one power The Will Power
Contradiction..explain
Let us consider a picture of a sphere intersecting a plane. To any living two dimensional living object on this plane, the sphere will only appear as a circle (which gets projected on the plane). To this object The Reality is the circle. But is that the Absolute Reality? No, the Absolute Reality is the sphere. It is only limitation impressed by space that binds the living object on the plane from visualizing further. Plagarism. See Flatlanders.
then so is quoting Qur'aan. Fine if we are not to quote anything. dont you do it either.
Also, by confirming an 'objective reality', he's agreeing with logic being objective. !
interpretation
But one can never take Total Control over his mind ----- if he does so, then he would be able to recognize Himself and knowing The Ultimate Truth, he would escape from the Physical Dimensions and enter into The Absolute Reality.
Conjecture.
proove it
Argues for my point, not yours.
Thus I posted 2 essay's. Point being that there are viewpoint's and nothing else. In a debate like this there are no objective evidence. How would you produce it?
-
In other words, due to our subjective nature, talking about an objective reality is futile because we only have subjective tools to see if it is so or not.
I think this is the crux of the matter isn't it? As neo says we have subjective interpretation of reality. If that is the case then how will we ever know the objective reality (even if it exists)?
As for Premise and Framework - once you agree on a Framework or Premise then you can't prove anything outside of that Framework or premise can you? or can you?
Regards,
-
We are sometimes deceived, therefore we could always be deceived!
Logically objective statement. !
We know things are there because science tell's us that
Light hits the retina of the eye.
And this changes the chemical composition of the eye.
And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve.
And this goes to a part of the brain.
And then something happens and we see the thing.
That's what happens according to science.According to science "We do not respond to the thing, but to electrical and chemical events in the brain."
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
So, do we really respond to a thing? Don't we respond' only the electrical and chemical events, that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object?
The external stimuli causes said electrical/chemical event, which in turn is caused by something else, etc. etc. so on and so forth.
Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don't see things directly. We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because
Without eyes, we don't see.
Without Optic Nerves we don't see.
Without certain bits of the brain, we don't see.You're asserting seeing something "directly" as 'being' it which couldn't be further from scientific truth. Again, pseudo scientific nonsense.
So we never directly see what is out there, according to science.
According to your branch of pseudo-science, which isn't really science at all.
Suppose someone were to put electrodes in our brains, and stimulate the visual part of our brains mimicking the impulses we normally receive. Would we see? Definitely we would. But we wouldn't be seeing what is there outside. We wouldn't be seeing, what is real. We'd be seeing because some electricity was put in our brain, and it would look the same as our real objects!
The Matrix is a great movie however it is not a basis for reality. Henceforth I shall ignore all matrix related philosophies because they are a waste of my time.
Science rushed off to discover these primary qualities and developed concepts like mass which were supposed to describe the real object. However, pretty soon, we realised that the so called primary qualities were just as much secondary as colour and the rest! Although we can specify conditions and measuring instruments which largely give us consistent results, it is a human being who is perceiving the measuring instruments and their reaction on him or her. We cannot know the real object apart from our perception of it. A question like, 'What does something look like when no one is looking at it?' is clearly nonsense, and unanswerable, as is a demand to prove that something can come out of nothing.
More pseudo-scientific bullshit. If what you're asserting is true than the universe began 50,000 or so years ago when Man first realised it could think and observe. Reality is independent of perception.
We naively think things are matter or they are mind. Mental things are thoughts, or ideas. They contrast with matter.
No. This is a shortcomming of your understanding of what the disparity between mind and matter is. Mind is thought, matter is reality. The two are linked, but because the mind employes filters its conception of reality has te possibility of being skewed, but this does not mean that matter changes.
If mind and matter are totally different - how can one affect the other?
Like I said, this is a shortcomming in your understanding of the concept, nothing more.
Similarly, how do you know that, a tree, for example, exists when no one is looking at it?
Our knowledge of the tree is irrespective of its existence.
It is subjective. Does this mean it is merely a matter of taste!
Lol, again we get back to this. Look, if you want to prove that everything is subjective you're going to have to do so logically and not through philosophies of the Matrix or arguments based on the fact that reality is subjective in the first place.
Does anything exist when no one is experiencing it? How could you answer 'Yes!' to this question? How could you know?
Descartes answered that quite neatly.
I do not like subjectivism in it's normal shape, even though it has won many arguments.
Lol, like this one? lol Subjectivism is fun to laugh at, but that's all.
I believe that some concepts are essential parts of certain systems, and some concepts appear to be almost absolutes.
So why the hell are you in the 'logic is subjective' bandwagon when you openly admit to the absolute laws of nature? ?
-
The soul is conjecture?
Yes.
This soul cannot feel, cannot think, cannot see, cannot perform any work. They do not have any finite shape, nor have any mass, nor occupy any space. They cannot die. They just exist. But they have only one power The Will Power
Contradiction..If the soul cannot perform any work then they cannot have will because having a will entails work.
then so is quoting Qur'aan. Fine if we are not to quote anything. dont you do it either.
- I didn't quote the Qur'an.
- If I do quote it, I always cite it.
interpretation
No. English 101.
proove it
Burden of proof lies on the one making the positive statement; he's saying we can escape and all that hoohaa, he has to prove how.
Thus I posted 2 essay's. Point being that there are viewpoint's and nothing else. In a debate like this there are no objective evidence. How would you produce it?
roll
-
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah (if you have problems with this please stop reading now).
Premise 2 the Qur?an tells us to reason for ourselves so that we may understand the difference between right and wrong, and not to accept anything at ?face value?; basically this means we are to not follow anything blindly and this would include the Qur?an itself (this is a premise, so if you wish to question this make another thread for it titled "am I supposed to follow the Qur'an blindly?" but don?t bring it up in this thread).
So we are not to follow blindly what you call the irrefutable word's of God`? We cannot trust God?
So, to wit, if something is verifiable through reason/logic then it is logical/reasonable.
At this point a definition of logic/reason would be nice. As we know for a fact that everything we sense and feel is but chemichal reaction and electrical pulses. And we know for a fact that we do not see with our eye's but the backside of our brain, and as we know that we can simulate those experiences to make people belive they experience something that is not happening at all. What can we use as a tool of measure, for this logic/reason that is trustworthy?
According to premise 2, we are to reason all our actions before we commit ourselves to them. What this means is we are to analyse our actions and verify, to the best of our abilities, that what we are doing is ?right? (?truth? in logical terminology). This also implies that all of our actions are subject to reason and thus has a consequence that is either right (if reasonable) or wrong (if unreasonable). Therefore before we do something, even if it is stated in the Qur?an, we have to question why we are doing it and verify that it is ?right?. This means that all of our actions, as dictated by the Qur?an, are reasonable and logical (Qur?an => irrefutable word of Allah => Allah always right). Thus it can be concluded that the Qur?an is a logical piece of text. ).
But we just can't trust him and take his word for it.
If the text itself is logical then the writer of the text must also be logical.
How can a text be logical that asks us to take it's word for it being the irrefutable word of God. Yet we have to not trust it. However, if we go and "prove" all the things in at and follow them it is good. But just doing it is bad.
If the Qur?an is a reasonable piece of text, then it necessarily follows that it came from a reasonable source ? if this source is Allah then it necessary follows that Allah is a reasonable entity.
conjeture. Because you assume that Qur'aan is a reasonable piece of text. But how can it be, when you on one hand is asked to belive in it, but on the other is asked to be sceptical about it? On one hand we're told that the believers will know it is all from their lord. On the other we are told that we have to verify that it is. then what is there to belive?
Note this does not mean that us humans well ever fully understand Allah or be able to decipher Allah?s intentions, all it means is Allah is logical.
You come to this conclution based on your own premise 1. Is that logic/reason. To put up you'r own premises as proof?
Then what am I doint that you're not? -
We know things are there because science tell's us that
Light hits the retina of the eye.
And this changes the chemical composition of the eye.
And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve.
And this goes to a part of the brain.
And then something happens and we see the thing.
That's what happens according to science.According to science "We do not respond to the thing, but to electrical and chemical events in the brain."
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
read it again. that is excactly what it says. you just agreed with me.
Besides what is pseudo science?The external stimuli causes said electrical/chemical event, which in turn is caused by something else, etc. etc. so on and so forth.
prove this please. prove that the object you think create the stimuli, does exist. How can you when all you have to do it with is your brain telling you that it's real. Dream are real to, does this mean that when we dream we are in fact in a whole new physical universe?
Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don't see things directly. We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because
Without eyes, we don't see.
Without Optic Nerves we don't see.
Without certain bits of the brain, we don't seeYou're asserting seeing something "directly" as 'being' it which couldn't be further from scientific truth. Again, pseudo scientific nonsense.
No that is not what it is saing. Try to read it again, and take you'r time. read it as many times as you need.
So we never directly see what is out there, according to science.
According to your branch of pseudo-science, which isn't really science at all.
http//www.pasadenaeye.com/faq/faq15/faq15_text.html
awww...all the scientist's working in the field of vision will be sorry to hear so. Besides. you know. Once round earth was pseude science too.
The Matrix is a great movie however it is not a basis for reality. Henceforth I shall ignore all matrix related philosophies because they are a waste of my time.
this is written before the matrix. try again
More pseudo-scientific bullshit. If what you're asserting is true than the universe began 50,000 or so years ago when Man first realised it could think and observe. Reality is independent of perception.
You assume that we have been thinking for some 50.000 years? how do you know?
is a shortcomming in your understanding of the concept, nothing more.
So why the hell are you in the 'logic is subjective' bandwagon when you openly admit to the absolute laws of nature? ?
We have obsered something that would seem as absoluts. Within the time we have known of absolutes several of them have been proved false over and over again. Wich strongly imply that we are unable to truely define them, thus it is futile to waste our time with it. Im not arguing for either, but both! is it that hard to understand?
-
In other words, due to our subjective nature, talking about an objective reality is futile because we only have subjective tools to see if it is so or not.
I think this is the crux of the matter isn't it? As neo says we have subjective interpretation of reality. If that is the case then how will we ever know the objective reality (even if it exists)?
As for Premise and Framework - once you agree on a Framework or Premise then you can't prove anything outside of that Framework or premise can you? or can you?
Regards,
Then what we have is a consensus reality. We agree on what is true and what isn't. But that is hardly an objective truth. Just look at government's- Just because we agree on something, does not make it right.
-
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah (if you have problems with this please stop reading now).
Premise 1 is FAULTY wink
The Framework is skewed winkAnd therefore rest of that article is a house of cards! -)
Regards,
-
So we are not to follow blindly what you call the irrefutable word's of God`? We cannot trust God?
Do you read the quran?
1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.
The verse above among others is what the quote below is drawing from
According to premise 2, we are to reason all our actions before we commit ourselves to them. What this means is we are to analyse our actions and verify, to the best of our abilities, that what we are doing is ?right? (?truth? in logical terminology). This also implies that all of our actions are subject to reason and thus has a consequence that is either right (if reasonable) or wrong (if unreasonable). Therefore before we do something, even if it is stated in the Qur?an, we have to question why we are doing it and verify that it is ?right?. This means that all of our actions, as dictated by the Qur?an, are reasonable and logical
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
Light hits the retina of the eye.
prove this please. prove that the object you think create the stimuli, does exist. How can you when all you have to do it with is your brain telling you that it's real. Dream are real to, does this mean that when we dream we are in fact in a whole new physical universe?
Perception is independent of reality as neo said in his post you are quoting from. You are the one confused as you think that dreams and real life are the same thing...as nothing is real and everything is fantasy and a dreamworld where you can see what you want...it's called projecting your fantasies onto what others are saying...Row row row your boat...
How can a text be logical that asks us to take it's word for it being the irrefutable word of God. Yet we have to not trust it. However, if we go and "prove" all the things in at and follow them it is good. But just doing it is bad.
The quran asks you to use reason, which if you have read it, is abundantly clear. All your actions/thoughts etc you are responsible for. You must verify to the best of your ability and then follow. God Himself has put the quran up for verification. It gives a challenge to people to check for contradictions, what proof of a logical text! (lmk if you need verse numbers). This is to increase capacity for logical and clear thinking in a human which helps in filtering bs like pseudo science amongst other things...
But we just can't trust him and take his word for it.
If you need some advice 1736 comes to mind, though there are plenty of blind following religions out there if this doesn't suit your fancy.
conjeture. Because you assume that Qur'aan is a reasonable piece of text. But how can it be, when you on one hand is asked to belive in it, but on the other is asked to be sceptical about it? On one hand we're told that the believers will know it is all from their lord. On the other we are told that we have to verify that it is. then what is there to belive?
Believe in it after you have ascertained to the best of your ability using rational and logical thought (which btw all humans have to, otherwise they end up thinking dreams are reality and reality are dreams). How will the believers know it is from their Lord? Using the same capacity of thought present in all humans unless they choose to follow flights of fancy.
awww...all the scientist's working in the field of vision will be sorry to hear so. Besides. you know. Once round earth was pseude science too.
They will be sorry to hear that the stimuli is external? From your own link
The human eye is remarkable. It accommodates to changing lighting conditions and focuses light rays originating from various distances from the eye. When all of the components of the eye function properly, light is converted to impulses and conveyed to the brain where an image is perceived.
You assume that we have been thinking for some 50.000 years? how do you know?
Missed the point perhaps?
We have obsered something that would seem as absoluts. Within the time we have known of absolutes several of them have been proved false over and over again. Wich strongly imply that we are unable to truely define them, thus it is futile to waste our time with it. Im not arguing for either, but both! is it that hard to understand?
What we have observed while 'seeing' you post is that you are arguing for everything is subjective as per your own quotes. If we can't comprehend the full extent of reality due to our shortcomings does that mean it does not exist? What both are you arguing for? There is reality and objective logic but everything is subjective? Dear God.
edited to correct
-
The quran asks you to use reason, which if you have read it, is abundantly clear. All your actions/thoughts etc you are responsible for. You must verify to the best of your ability and then follow. God Himself has put the quran up for verification. It gives a challenge to people to check for contradictions,
There are no contradictions in Bhagavad Gita, there are no contradictions in one of Shakepears's sonnets, there are no contradictions in Mozart piano concerto no 23 - But what does that prove? It proves nothing about Divine origin of Scripture. Scripture came through a human being and there is no way of getting around this. You either believe scripture to be God's word or you don't.
what proof of a logical text! (lmk if you need verse numbers).
What a LOGICAL conclusion! Euclids Textbook is a very logical text! What does that prove? nothing. If a text appears to be logical that is because our REASONING is tied to our LANGUAGE, there is no way of getting around this!
This is to increase capacity for logical and clear thinking in a human which helps in filtering bs like pseudo science amongst other things...
Is there such thing as FALSE SCIENCE? Science is empirical. If there is no observational data then that can't be science, can it?
Believe in it after you have ascertained to the best of your ability using rational and logical thought...
Why do you still have to believe in it if you have LOGICAL proof?
How will the believers know it is from their Lord? Using the same capacity of thought present in all humans unless they choose to follow flights of fancy.
Human capacity of thought once believed that earth was flat and was supported on a back of a giant turtle.
Human capacity to know changes continually. There is no certainty in human knowledge. As neo says our interpretation of reality is subjective. If that is the case then we will never know perhaps what objective reality is.
What we have observed while 'seeing' you post is that you are arguing for everything is subjective as per your own quotes. If we can't comprehend the full extent of reality due to our shortcomings does that mean it does not exist?
How will we know if it exists if our interpretation of reality is subjective.
Regards,
-
Do you read the quran?
1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.
The verse above among others is what the quote below is drawing from
Problem is. If you do not accept premise 1, premise 2 doesn't matter at all. It converts into subjective blabla
Perception is independent of reality as neo said in his post you are quoting from. You are the one confused as you think that dreams and real life are the same thing...
It might be, but you cannot know for sure. The tool's you have to confirm with are not good enough. I did not say dreams are real, i posed it as a question, atleast read what i write before you rush ahead and answer and say stupid thing's like
as nothing is real and everything is fantasy and a dreamworld where you can see what you want...it's called projecting your fantasies onto what others are saying...Row row row your boat...
who's rowing?
Carrot
You are the one confused as you think that dreams and real life are the same thing...
The quran asks you to use reason, which if you have read it, is abundantly clear. All your actions/thoughts etc you are responsible for. You must verify to the best of your ability and then follow.
How would you define thoughts? As a biochemical process or something else? As the mind can be utterly manipulated both to sense, feel and get impressions, we can in fact not even fully trust our thoughts. You dont belive me? Go into the off-topic forum and read the mind control thread.
God Himself has put the quran up for verification.
Of what excactly?
It gives a challenge to people to check for contradictions, what proof of a logical text! (lmk if you need verse numbers). This is to increase capacity for logical and clear thinking in a human which helps in filtering bs like pseudo science amongst other things...
Oh pseudo science like the 7 layers of heaven (old arab astrology, they thought there was 7 planets, and refered to them as "layers in heaven". Get any good book on old astrology and it will tell you this).
or howabout a wonder like
Have not the disbelievers seen that as-Samaawaati ("the heavens") wa ("and") al-Arda ("the earth") kaanataa ("were") ratqan ("sewn ") fa ("then") fataqnaahumaa ("we ripped them").
I know how it is translated mostly, to maintain the bigbang myth. That's right. You may not know this, but science has started to moved on.
That is suspiciously close to the creation myth's of ronos, Vishnu, Pan Gu etc. who altso sew together heaven and earth.Or maybe it's
wa al-arda farashnaahaa fani'ma al-maahidoona
And the earth we laid it out, we are the spreaders (of it).
hmmm....I have seen that before, that's right. From where the Qur'aan authors stole it
koh amar ha-el YHWH bore ha-shamaim v'noteihem, roqa ha-arets v'tse'etsa'eha noten n'shamah la'am 'aleiha v'ruach laholkhim bah
Thus said the god YHWH, creating the heavens, and expanding them out, spreading out the earth and its productions, giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it.
But my absolute favorite, of logic flaws. Is this single verse
Do they not consider the Qur'an? If it were from other than Allaah, they would have found many errors.
The proposition being put forth in the text is "if the Qur'aan is nt from Allaah, it would have errors." A quick intro to basic logic will explain how most Muslims have badly missed a couple of key points about the logical structure of this verse.
First let's introduce the "conditional" connective of formal logic (in this text it will be represented by an arrow, '-->'). So, if we let 'A' stand for "the Qur'an is from Allaah," let 'E' stand for "the Qur'an has errors," and let '~' represent the symbol for negation, the proposition can be translated into sentential logic as
~A --> E
In other words, if the Qur'an is not from God, it would have errors. Is it necessarily the case that a text that is not from God has errors? Certainly not. This problem is further complicated the logical rule known as "contraposition," is invoked and state that if the above is true, the following is also true
~E --> A
To explain why this is the case, lets give an example. Suppose we say that if you are in Jerusalem, you are in Israel (J --> I). If this proposition is true, then it follows that if you are not in Israel, you are not in Jerusalem (~I --> ~J). The logical structure of one implies the other.
So, this means that the verse is putting forth a proposition that is logically equivalent to saying "if the Qur'an does not have any errors, it is from Allah." That is a statement that is demonstrably false. I could easily present a text that is both free of error and not of a divine origin like a phone directory.
To prove a text with itself, is beyond idiocracy!
But we just can't trust him and take his word for it
If you need some advice 1736 comes to mind, though there are plenty of blind following religions out there if this doesn't suit your fancy..
Not, you need to read what I write before you post. The Qur'aan and neo states, that you must confirm the Qur'aan before you follow it. But God tell's us at the same time that believers will just say "it is all from our Lord". What is there to belive then?
Believe in it after you have ascertained to the best of your ability using rational and logical thought (which btw all humans have to, otherwise they end up thinking dreams are reality and reality are dreams). How will the believers know it is from their Lord? Using the same capacity of thought present in all humans unless they choose to follow flights of fancy.
Like following an old obviously logically "challenged" book and spending ones time trying to prove it. By putting on blinders? Good stuff you have going there. No really!
They will be sorry to hear that the stimuli is external? From your own link
And you will be sorry to hear that the guy who wrote it, put it forth as an oppinion. not an observable truth, wich you two have punked me about for 2 day's now. Because one one hand he admit's that the image is only drawn in the brain, on the other he use that very image to "prove" that light comes from a distance. (look at the Qur'aan's "logic" refutation)
Missed the point perhaps?
No, that is what he said. He said that we have been thinking for 50.000 and i would like to know how he came to that conclusion. Because I have some other thing's I would love to debate with him then.
What we have observed while 'seeing' you post is that you are arguing for everything is subjective as per your own quotes.
No, all perception is. How can we know the outside world? through perception. But as perception is subjective. So will our view on the world be. Gravity still works in here though. Get me now? You like computergames. Compare this life to a MMORPG, in lack of a better analogy.
If we can't comprehend the full extent of reality due to our shortcomings does that mean it does not exist?
how can we really know, if we have such shortcomings that does that we cannot comprehend it?
I will try to explain. God is perfect, his creation is perfect, it is in a perfect state of logic and balance. I however am not. My perception is limited, so it really doesnt matter if it's perfect or not. Because i would be left to belive that it is, rather than knowing. What you dont understand, you dont understand. and then its just conjecture. The very thing you blame me for.
Isnt it funny? when you point a finger at others, the last 3 on the same hand is pointing right back at you.
What both are you arguing for? There is reality and objective logic but everything is subjective? Dear God.
There is reality. And i can observe that it is in perfect harmony and balance. I have never seen anything happen by itself (thus neo's something out of nothing challenge, he observed it too) so this perfectly tuned machinery must have had a designer that was equally impressive.
That's why I belive in, and trust God. That is why i think God is a logical entity. That is why I THINK that God is a logical entity. But fact is. I dont know, all I know is that whatever God is. It is great at creating stuff. -
Hehe lote tree, we wrote at the same time, used the same arguments nearly.
Why do you still have to believe in it if you have LOGICAL proof?
this one is a keeper, thank you.
-
You either believe scripture to be God's word or you don't.
Euclids Textbook is a very logical text! What does that prove? nothing.
A fine example of ranting before reading. Sad.
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah (if you have problems with this please stop reading now).
The argument seeks to build on the premise provided to form a logically sound argument for why Allah has to be a logical entity.
- I'm not here to prove Allah
Is there such thing as FALSE SCIENCE? Science is empirical. If there is no observational data then that can't be science, can it?
Look up the definition of pseudo science, like your friend, dictionary.com may help.
Why do you still have to believe in it if you have LOGICAL proof?
roll Do you believe mathematics is logical? If you do, please stop believing in it. It does not behoove you to do so.
Human capacity of thought once believed that earth was flat and was supported on a back of a giant turtle.
Perception/blind belief as opposed to reality. You can go on believing it if everything is relative to you and there is no need of empirical evidence.
Human capacity to know changes continually. There is no certainty in human knowledge. As neo says our interpretation of reality is subjective. If that is the case then we will never know perhaps what objective reality is.
Neo says a whole lot more...this is yet another fine example of capacity for comprehension and logical thought. roll
-
hmmm....I have seen that before, that's right. From where the Qur'aan authors stole it
Oh thats what it is, it sounded familiar...you are in fine company with Lotetree, Apple Pie and Albion. Do us a favour, create yet another thread for 'the quran is just a copy, stolen from previous copies, and does God exist and is the quran the word of God'...It does not belong in this here thread.
-
Wisdom includes a recognition of what cannot be known - Goethe
oh this is ironic! lol
-
oh this is ironic!
Very, considering the fact that it's coming from you...the understanding of the phrase would be as 'logical' as your posts in this thread.
-
Oh thats what it is, it sounded familiar...you are in fine company with Lotetree, Apple Pie and Albion. Do us a favour, create yet another thread for 'the quran is just a copy, stolen from previous copies, and does God exist and is the quran the word of God'...It does not belong in this here thread.
The Qur'an is altso the words of God. Those can be found in many places. In fact for those who wants to know, the message can be found by looking at how the camels are created, and how the sky is raised etc.
You like logic, right? Please tell me why God didn't just preserve his scripture to begin with. Then we wouldn't have 200 different "the real/right relegion" fighting about whom is real about it and who isn't.
Where is the logic in that?
-
Very, considering the fact that it's coming from you...the understanding of the phrase would be as 'logical' as your posts in this thread.
Ouch fiesty!!. Getting worked up now are we? lol
On one hand you smack me around for seeking the unseen knowledge, on the other you use a quote with my excact viewpoint. -
There is reality. And i can observe that it is in perfect harmony and balance. I have never seen anything happen by itself (thus neo's something out of nothing challenge, he observed it too) so this perfectly tuned machinery must have had a designer that was equally impressive. That's why I belive in, and trust God.
But Mel this is the age old ontological argument for existence of God? They no longer work because we can't get outside of the system to know it for sure. I believe in a GOD but I don't think LOGIC can help us in understanding GOD because God lies beyond LANGUAGE and REASON. The Universe may hint at a designer but we can't use LOGIC to prove the existence of the designer itself....
That is why i think God is a logical entity.
But Mel, Entity implies God is another separate being who is bigger and more powerful?
But Prophets, Sages, Seers and Meditators and Mystics they never had a logical encounter with the Divine. They have all encountered "God" in a meditative trance. So God has always been a subjective experience of the individual and therefore God is not a separate being but rather God is bound up with all that exists.
But fact is. I dont know, all I know is that whatever God is. It is great at creating stuff.
I am in agreement here. I can't never be certain of anything....
Regards,
-
hmmm....I have seen that before, that's right. From where the Qur'aan authors stole it
Oh thats what it is, it sounded familiar...you are in fine company with Lotetree, Apple Pie and Albion. Do us a favour, create yet another thread for 'the quran is just a copy, stolen from previous copies, and does God exist and is the quran the word of God'...It does not belong in this here thread.
Please not in this vain!!!! You always do that why? Why this insecurity?
Can't you have a discussion without attacking people personally?I am nothing like Apple Pie and Albion! But I do question scripture, all scriptures in fact. You don't thats ok. But please don't assume that others should stop questioning...
Regards,