PHILOSOPHY Burden of Proof

[Internet Nomad]

@Internet Nomad u may be right it maybe petty from my frame of reference and it may indeed be a very wise book, but i've yet to see any muslim convince me of that yet, do I hold out hope one day a muslim will provide me with confidence in this book? yes I do. The only reason why I haven't completely thrown it out is I give it the benefit of the doubt, Islamic world is in a dark age post colonial(with 69-80 iq) ranges and therefore it's their intelligence that maybe a factor why the book isn't appealing to me.

But I personally would be dishonest if I said I believe in the current Islam, it would require me to dumb myself down to accept it. I do read islamic texts from a period n time where their intelligence was higher, I seek the time period where they were no 1 in the world as I assume their religious teaching would reflect a far higher grade.

True, the Islamic world is in a dark period, but I believe it is because we let nationalism, materialism, and prejudice to blind us. The ideal solution is to return to the words of earlier generations of Muslims who lived in a far more harmonious society. The only way to do so is to surrender to Allah, which would also provide an ideal environment for the sciences to thrive once more.

The muslim world is going through an identity crisis, which is why there are so many stupid viewpoints, such as redpill, and feminism/liberalism are at odds in the muslim world.Feminism arose because it was founded in the West, where women were oppressed in the same way that they are now in the Muslim world.

Therefore, you should not look at material or economic prosperity to determine who is right or wrong; instead, you should listen to the perspectives of the poor and the wealthy, the healthy and the sick, the religious wise and the sinner.
Then use your own wits to discover the truth.

May allah guide you, you sound very open minded which reflect your own inteligence.

 

[capevicar]

If B claims to A that something exists,
B now has to prove to A that it exists

If B doesn´t succeed in proving that the thing exists

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

This is the logic that should be applied when discussing the existence of a God

without taking any side of this, logical assumptions don't equate to whats true. they might be the most "reasonable" deductions from conversations about god's existence, but the truth is the truth and shouldn't be dependant on who can prove it or what arguments for it there are (whatever it may be).

And anyway, In both cases of science and religion, we really don't even have the means to provide a straight answer, regardless of if you believe in god or not. There will always be some fair arguments for and against religious interpretations of god, and theres no scientific experiment you can undertake to say if god's real or not, it's just not how it works.

Your decision to believe or not to believe in god is as legitimate as anyone elses.

edit; distinction to be made about the existence of god or higher power, and the many different interpretations of it

 

[capevicar]

imo i am "agnostic" on this, so Big Foot could exist or it could not. even if all the "evidences" showing it's existence are fake, i can't conclude it doesn't exist. best i can do is say the evidence is inconclusive. Now, if i wanted to deny it's existence then i'd need to provide proof as to why it doesn't exist.

Best thing you can actually do in this case is read it; with studies like these alot of the time there's plenty you can learn and read about it; from there its a case of finding how legitimate the source for it is, comparing it to other sources or seeing what professionals have to say, and then atleast if you make a decision after that, youll have been informed on it first.

OR you can choose to believe it because its from oxford and almost definetely went through alot of proccesses for like verification and stuff. And even outside of that, there'd almost definetely be a ton of people like you who read it, had the same doubts, and were willing enough to actually look into it enough to see if its legit. I think there's reason for doubt in literally everything so in some cases you shouldn't overthink it. and of course if its something you care about enough you can always check for yourself.

 

[induction]

Best thing you can actually do in this case is read it; with studies like these alot of the time there's plenty you can learn and read about it; from there its a case of finding how legitimate the source for it is, comparing it to other sources or seeing what professionals have to say, and then atleast if you make a decision after that, youll have been informed on it first.

OR you can choose to believe it because its from oxford and almost definetely went through alot of proccesses for like verification and stuff. And even outside of that, there'd almost definetely be a ton of people like you who read it, had the same doubts, and were willing enough to actually look into it enough to see if its legit. I think there's reason for doubt in literally everything so in some cases you shouldn't overthink it. and of course if its something you care about enough you can always check for yourself.

you are right, i was just trying to give an example of what can be concluded if all you know is the claim being wrong. To me, the claims for Bigfoot are wrong and from that i can conclude that i don't need to believe it. I am ok with that and don't care enough to deny it outright.

 

[capevicar]

you are right, i was just trying to give an example of what can be concluded if all you know is the claim being wrong. To me, the claims for Bigfoot are wrong and from that i can conclude that i don't need to believe it. I am ok with that and don't care enough to deny it outright.

ah gotcha

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

If B claims to A that something exists,
B now has to prove to A that it exists

If B doesn´t succeed in proving that the thing exists

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

This is the logic that should be applied when discussing the existence of a God

This reminds of my first year at Uni, on the debating team, wanting to debate any subject under the sun incl. the existence of Allah (God), for we fancied ourselves as enlightened intellectuals (I have come to despise that word) with the likes of B Spinoza, E Kant being our favoured thinkers. Very little did I realise then they were atheists. As a natural dissenter of all things traditional, I would apply didactic reasoning to every logical argument, till I learnt many moons later, the biggest flaw in my rationality: humans think they are smarter than their Creator. Imagine the credulity in such hubris.

One would raise the question of: 'Can you touch oxygen'? No, but one is certain of its existence, then we came up with: 'how do you prove 'oxygen' does indeed exist? Then, we came up with the burning test, where we would blow wind, if even, at the time, we could not prove whether it was oxygen, or any other entity, but good enough for our inquisitive, if foolhardy minds.

Then we asked, could you prove the existence of 'soul', the essence of life, 'ruux', the spirit that which proves the existence of life? We could not go past the pulse, and the human heart beat, but never were much the wiser.

That was when I came to the realisation of own deficiency, that one needed to seek wisdom, consult great minds, and recognise own lack of wisdom.

In a fine eve, whilst watching a documentary by Sir D Attenborough, the mystery of the 'Halocline' came to pass, as in the attached clip: 'a body of fresh, drinking water in the midst of the salty, sea water'. Even more so blowing my small mind: 'animals in that body of water would die if placed in the sea water'. Subhan Allah.



How is that even possible, one asks. Then came the following verses from Surah al Rahman:

مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ (19) بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخٌ لَّا يَبْغِيَانِ (20)
فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

وقوله : ( مرج البحرين يلتقيان ) قال ابن عباس : أي أرسلهما .
وقوله : ( يلتقيان ) قال ابن زيد : أي : منعهما أن يلتقيا ، بما جعل بينهما من البرزخ الحاجز الفاصل بينهما .
والمراد بقوله : ( البحرين ) الملح والحلو ، فالحلو هذه الأنهار السارحة بين الناس

• HE released the two seas, meeting [side by side],
• Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses,
• So, which of the two favours of your Lord would you deny?

https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura55-aya19.html

This refutes many of the falsities we have been entertaining. See, like many of my contemporaries, we thought we were smarter than our Creator.

It was because we were not all the wise, omniscient we thought we were. We were lacking in more ways than not, if lethargic, and apathetic in our rationale.

Here is the danger: when one is rather young, unknowing, albeit fancies oneself as omniscient, albeit only seeking the essence of life, one postulates in void.

Another thing I learnt: I know very little, when I think I know plenty. Prove: for certain, I acknowledge that I NOW know less of my field of study, with a Doctorate, than I thought I knew then when studying my A levels; how is that even possible? That was prove enough to me that I knew very little. Wisdom, and humility.

What object comes by itself, and from no where?

Then I discovered:
a) Sh. Ahmed Deedaat


b) Sh Zakir Naik.

To be continued ...

 

[DR OSMAN]

This reminds of my first year at Uni, on the debating team, wanting to debate any subject under the sun incl. the existence of Allah (God), for we fancied ourselves as enlightened intellectuals (I have come to despise that word) with the likes of B Spinoza, E Kant being our favoured thinkers. Very little did I realise then they were atheists. As a natural dissenter of all things traditional, I would apply didactic reasoning to every logical argument, till I learnt many moons later, the biggest flaw in my rationality: humans think they are smarter than their Creator. Imagine the credulity in such hubris.

One would raise the question of: 'Can you touch oxygen'? No, but one is certain of its existence, then we came up with: 'how do you prove 'oxygen' does indeed exist? Then, we came up with the burning test, where we would blow wind, if even, at the time, we could not prove whether it was oxygen, or any other entity, but good enough for our inquisitive, if foolhardy minds.

Then we asked, could you prove the existence of 'soul', the essence of life, 'ruux', the spirit that which proves the existence of life? We could not go past the pulse, and the human heart beat, but never were much the wiser.

That was when I came to the realisation of own deficiency, that one needed to seek wisdom, consult great minds, and recognise own lack of wisdom.

In a fine eve, whilst watching a documentary by Sir D Attenborough, the mystery of the 'Halocline' came to pass, as in the attached clip: 'a body of fresh, drinking water in the midst of the salty, sea water'. Even more so blowing my small mind: 'animals in that body of water would die if placed in the sea water'. Subhan Allah.



How is that even possible, one asks. Then came the following verses from Surah al Rahman:

مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ (19) بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخٌ لَّا يَبْغِيَانِ (20)
فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

وقوله : ( مرج البحرين يلتقيان ) قال ابن عباس : أي أرسلهما .
وقوله : ( يلتقيان ) قال ابن زيد : أي : منعهما أن يلتقيا ، بما جعل بينهما من البرزخ الحاجز الفاصل بينهما .
والمراد بقوله : ( البحرين ) الملح والحلو ، فالحلو هذه الأنهار السارحة بين الناس

• HE released the two seas, meeting [side by side],
• Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses,
• So, which of the two favours of your Lord would you deny?

https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura55-aya19.html

This refutes many of the falsities we have been entertaining. See, like many of my contemporaries, we thought we were smarter than our Creator.

It was because we were not all the wise, omniscient we thought we were. We were lacking in more ways than not, if lethargic, and apathetic in our rationale.

Here is the danger: when one is rather young, unknowing, albeit fancies oneself as omniscient, albeit only seeking the essence of life, one postulates in void.

Another thing I learnt: I know very little, when I think I know plenty. Prove: for certain, I acknowledge that I NOW know less of my field of study, with a Doctorate, than I thought I knew then when studying my A levels; how is that even possible? That was prove enough to me that I knew very little. Wisdom, and humility.

What object comes by itself, and from no where?

Then I discovered:
a) Sh. Ahmed Deedaat


b) Sh Zakir Naik.

To be continued ...

That's why I hold an 'agnostic' position not a 'atheist' position, I know my intellect is 'capped' and to assume I can use my limited intelligence to reach hard conclusions on an 'entity with no cap of intellect' made me agnostic. Plus 'absence of evidence isn't evidence for absence' what that means is just cause their is no 'proof' doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Point in case, did dark matter/energy only come to 'existence' when proven, or did it always exist and we humans lacked 'knowledge'.

 

[DR OSMAN]

This reminds of my first year at Uni, on the debating team, wanting to debate any subject under the sun incl. the existence of Allah (God), for we fancied ourselves as enlightened intellectuals (I have come to despise that word) with the likes of B Spinoza, E Kant being our favoured thinkers. Very little did I realise then they were atheists. As a natural dissenter of all things traditional, I would apply didactic reasoning to every logical argument, till I learnt many moons later, the biggest flaw in my rationality: humans think they are smarter than their Creator. Imagine the credulity in such hubris.

One would raise the question of: 'Can you touch oxygen'? No, but one is certain of its existence, then we came up with: 'how do you prove 'oxygen' does indeed exist? Then, we came up with the burning test, where we would blow wind, if even, at the time, we could not prove whether it was oxygen, or any other entity, but good enough for our inquisitive, if foolhardy minds.

Then we asked, could you prove the existence of 'soul', the essence of life, 'ruux', the spirit that which proves the existence of life? We could not go past the pulse, and the human heart beat, but never were much the wiser.

That was when I came to the realisation of own deficiency, that one needed to seek wisdom, consult great minds, and recognise own lack of wisdom.

In a fine eve, whilst watching a documentary by Sir D Attenborough, the mystery of the 'Halocline' came to pass, as in the attached clip: 'a body of fresh, drinking water in the midst of the salty, sea water'. Even more so blowing my small mind: 'animals in that body of water would die if placed in the sea water'. Subhan Allah.



How is that even possible, one asks. Then came the following verses from Surah al Rahman:

مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ يَلْتَقِيَانِ (19) بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخٌ لَّا يَبْغِيَانِ (20)
فَبِأَيِّ آلَاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

وقوله : ( مرج البحرين يلتقيان ) قال ابن عباس : أي أرسلهما .
وقوله : ( يلتقيان ) قال ابن زيد : أي : منعهما أن يلتقيا ، بما جعل بينهما من البرزخ الحاجز الفاصل بينهما .
والمراد بقوله : ( البحرين ) الملح والحلو ، فالحلو هذه الأنهار السارحة بين الناس

• HE released the two seas, meeting [side by side],
• Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses,
• So, which of the two favours of your Lord would you deny?

https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura55-aya19.html

This refutes many of the falsities we have been entertaining. See, like many of my contemporaries, we thought we were smarter than our Creator.

It was because we were not all the wise, omniscient we thought we were. We were lacking in more ways than not, if lethargic, and apathetic in our rationale.

Here is the danger: when one is rather young, unknowing, albeit fancies oneself as omniscient, albeit only seeking the essence of life, one postulates in void.

Another thing I learnt: I know very little, when I think I know plenty. Prove: for certain, I acknowledge that I NOW know less of my field of study, with a Doctorate, than I thought I knew then when studying my A levels; how is that even possible? That was prove enough to me that I knew very little. Wisdom, and humility.

What object comes by itself, and from no where?

Then I discovered:
a) Sh. Ahmed Deedaat


b) Sh Zakir Naik.

To be continued ...

U need to also come to 'rationality' and not ignore the liklihood religion may be man made. Just becuz religion is man made, doesn't always mean there no 'god', it could be he exists and religion is false. I mean doesn't your hadith say something along the lines of 'islam will return to small number reflecting how it was found', well islam is big numbers now, so it's not even heading in the right direction and possibly false man made.

 

[Garaad Hirabu]

If B claims to A that something exists,
B now has to prove to A that it exists

If B doesn´t succeed in proving that the thing exists

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

This is the logic that should be applied when discussing the existence of a God

Science is a tool used to measure the physical world. Your using wrong tools to get to know All'ah. There is noting similar to All'ah,only his attributes are perfect all the time.

 

[Gaban]

@KinsiHilaac do you believe your soul exists?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

U need to also come to 'rationality' and not ignore the liklihood religion may be man made. Just becuz religion is man made, doesn't always mean there no 'god', it could be he exists and religion is false. I mean doesn't your hadith say something along the lines of 'islam will return to small number reflecting how it was found', well islam is big numbers now, so it's not even heading in the right direction and possibly false man made.

A couple of questions:
a) Who is your favourite thinker, philosopher, present or past?

b) On a scale of 1 - 10, how well would you say is your knowledge of Islam?

 

[DR OSMAN]

A couple of questions:
a) Who is your favourite thinker, philosopher, present or past?

b) On a scale of 1 - 10, how well would you say is your knowledge of Islam?

Favorite philosophers are generally those who thrived while in golden age, irrespective of who they are or culture. This important pre-requisite for me wa in gurigissa ka muqata cilmi iyo horumar before he teaches me about god.

B. Modern Islam from 80 IQ saudi and 69 IQ Somali, I would say im 10 out 10, cause it's so low quality. As for islamic thinkers from the golden age, I wud say im very 'infant' stages to grasp it. I don't see islam or any topic as 'one system' it's different based on the ppl intelligence which needs a golden age to increase their IQ range.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Favorite philosophers are generally those who thrived while in golden age, irrespective of who they are or culture. This important pre-requisite for me wa in gurigissa ka muqata cilmi iyo horumar before he teaches me about god.

B. Modern Islam from 80 IQ saudi and 69 IQ Somali, I would say im 10 out 10, cause it's so low quality. As for islamic thinkers from the golden age, I wud say im very 'infant' stages to grasp it. I don't see islam or any topic as 'one system' it's different based on the ppl intelligence which needs a golden age to increase their IQ range.

Let us draw a distinction between Islam, and the current crop of Muslim scholars with whom you may have a displeasure, and focus upon its teachings; if you are 10 out of 10, then that makes you an outstanding scholar. That includes 'fiqi', I would assume, would I?

Postscript:
Am I right in concluding: 80 IQ means high IQ, 69 means low IQ; is that accurate?

 

[DR OSMAN]

Let us draw a distinction between Islam, and the current crop of Muslim scholars with whom you may have a displeasure, and focus upon its teachings; if you are 10 out of 10, then that makes you an outstanding scholar. That includes 'fiqi', I would assume, would I?

Postscript:
Am I right in concluding: 80 IQ means high IQ, 69 means low IQ; is that accurate?

80 Is semi retarded, 69 is fully retarded. That's the society u source ur islam from not wondering maybe their intellectually handicap to grasp Islam

 

[Garaad Hirabu]

Favorite philosophers are generally those who thrived while in golden age, irrespective of who they are or culture. This important pre-requisite for me wa in gurigissa ka muqata cilmi iyo horumar before he teaches me about god.

B. Modern Islam from 80 IQ saudi and 69 IQ Somali, I would say im 10 out 10, cause it's so low quality. As for islamic thinkers from the golden age, I wud say im very 'infant' stages to grasp it. I don't see islam or any topic as 'one system' it's different based on the ppl intelligence which needs a golden age to increase their IQ range.

Philosophy is questioning everything. They they don't have certenty in anything.

 

[Garaad Hirabu]

@DR OSMAN prove All'ah exist

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

80 Is semi retarded, 69 is fully retarded. That's the society u source ur islam from not wondering maybe their intellectually handicap to grasp Islam

Now that we have established parameters of your scholarly in Islamic teachings*, and the discernible confines of the debate, could I trouble you with a question: What is your understanding of these passages?

• وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِن سُلالَةٍ مِّن طِينٍ​
• ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاهُ نُطْفَةً فِي قَرَارٍ مَّكِينٍ​
• ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ​
• ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ لَمَيِّتُونَ​
• ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ تُبْعَثُونَ​
• ​

* ( forever grateful we shall be for your brilliance in sussing out as to the lack of intelligence in Muslims of the present day; I mean that, unless of course, you are pulling my leg, in which case, never mind).

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I suppose it would help if I were to offer you the translation:

[And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay
Then we placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging

The we made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and
We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and
We made [from] the lump, bones, and
We covered the bones with flesh; then
We developed him into another creation.
So blessed in Allah, the best of creators.

Then indeed, after that you are to die
Then indeed you, on the Day of Resurrection, will be resurrected]

Postscript:
Stages re: Embryology:
1st 40 days: liquid
2nd 40 days: clot
3rd 40 days: morsel of flesh

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

@DR OSMAN @KinsiHilaac

In embryogenesis, let us now consider how science, 1,400 years after those revelations, confirms, and agrees with the process of embryo development, as outlined in the said verses.

 

[Internet Nomad]

Favorite philosophers are generally those who thrived while in golden age, irrespective of who they are or culture. This important pre-requisite for me wa in gurigissa ka muqata cilmi iyo horumar before he teaches me about god.

B. Modern Islam from 80 IQ saudi and 69 IQ Somali, I would say im 10 out 10, cause it's so low quality. As for islamic thinkers from the golden age, I wud say im very 'infant' stages to grasp it. I don't see islam or any topic as 'one system' it's different based on the ppl intelligence which needs a golden age to increase their IQ range.

Never in my life have i seen a kaafir Salafi. You understand that the classical scholars are the best and better than modern and you are an kaafir. I have seen it all.