God exists because objective morality exists!

[Dhabaal]

Not to mention that the god beings as described in religious texts are inherently anthropomorphic, outfitted with an amplified set of human characteristics, traits and emotions varying everywhere from base anger and jealousy to a desire for praise, and understandly so since they're quite obviously conjured by humans, and are a product of man.

God in Judaism and Islam is not Anthropomorphic. God can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because God is unlimited.

Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. By describing God you limit him.

The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. There can only be one God.

In the Quran it states you cannot liken Human with Allah.

Both Judaism and Islam reject an anthropomorphic deity, believing that God is beyond human comprehension.

Thus God is beginningless, changeless, timeless,spaceless,immaterial and omnipotent(all powerful). Beyond human comprehension.

Which proves that Allah is not conjured up by human beings.

 

[Federeeshan]

God in Judaism and Islam is not Anthropomorphic. God can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because God is unlimited.

Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. By describing God you limit him.

The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. There can only be one God.

In the Quran it states you cannot liken Human with Allah.



Thus God is beginningless, changeless, timeless,spaceless,immaterial and omnipotent(all powerful). Beyond human comprehension.

Which proves that Allah is not conjured up by human beings.

Ishaad ka tuurtay
You remind of my homie geeljire

 

[VixR]

God in Judaism and Islam is not Anthropomorphic. God can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because God is unlimited.

Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. By describing God you limit him.

The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him God. There can only be one God.

In the Quran it states you cannot liken Human with Allah.



Thus God is beginningless, changeless, timeless,spaceless,immaterial and omnipotent(all powerful). Beyond human comprehension.

Which proves that Allah is not conjured up by human beings.

It is claimed within Islam and the Quran itself that there is none like onto Allah even as it anthromorphises Allah non-stop, assigning attributes and human tendencies to a supposed creator.

 

[VixR]

Read what i explained to @McLovin About the distinction between Moral absoulutism and Moral objectivity(Realism).

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

Of course moral opinions differ from from a given society to another , but they are still objective independent of this subjective human opinion.

Our moral opinions are different but our reference point is objectively the same, which is God.

That "objective" moral realism exists only within the realm or context of the particular God being referenced, which of course has differed drastically between peoples and times, along with it's preffered and emphasized set of "morals". It isn't constant. It isn't fixed. It isn't universally morally objective.

 

[Dhabaal]

It is claimed within Islam and the Quran itself that there is none like onto Allah even as it anthromorphises Allah non-stop, assigning attributes and human tendencies to a supposed creator.

The Quran makes no assignment of human emotions ,attributes or tendencies to God. The fact that Allah is not anthropomorphic is pretty much accepted fact

Read this, it gives analysis of the Muslim concept of God.

The Most Concise Definition of God:

http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm

 

[Dhabaal]

That "objective" moral realism exists only within the realm or context of the particular God being referenced, which of course has differed drastically between peoples and times, along with it's preffered and emphasized set of "morals". It isn't constant. It isn't fixed. It isn't universally morally objective.

The reference point do not change, which is God. The moral opinions across cultures may differ but not the reference point. Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

So it follows logically.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

 

[VixR]

The reference point do not change, which is God. The moral opinions across cultures may differ but not the reference point. Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

So it follows logically.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

The reference point absolutely changes! It is the difference between Sango and Allah, and the "morals" engendered by the followers of the two deities, depending on what is tooted as "good" or "moral" within the context of the teachings of the particular religions. If the objective standard, the God, was the same all throughout, you'd have yourself a point. Since it changes drastically along with it's moral core, you have no point, and your premises are incredibly flawed.

 

[Dhabaal]

Ishaad ka tuurtay
You remind of my homie geeljire

Thanks,walaal

There are more evidences for God's existence. The moral argument is only one among many arguments. I will post some more of them later.

Once i am done with proving God's existence with philosophy, I will switch into discussing Islamic theology and defend it.

I will also debunk a lot of logically fallacious atheistic claims. Atheists have no logical arguments against the existence of God.

All they have is personal attacks, rhetoric, and constantly shift the burden of proof. This is just intellectually dishonest, furthermore they prove nothing in the process.

 

[Dhabaal]

The reference point absolutely changes! It is the difference between Sango and Allah, and the "morals" engendered by the followers of the two deities, depending on what is tooted as "good" or "moral" within the context of the teachings of the particular religions. If the objective standard, the God, was the same all throughout, you'd have yourself a point. Since it changes drastically along with it's moral core, you have no point, and your premises are incredibly flawed.

First of all the only God that can't exist is a Anthropomorphic God. The God of Abrahamic Religions is not Anthropomorphic God. (Especially Judaism and Islam).

We have to define God. God is the creator of the universe. In order for something to create a universe it must:

1.) Exist outside of creation (space and time)
-If God exists in creation, then he cannot be the creator of the universe. God has to be separate from his creation.
2.) Be Immaterial
-If God created matter, then he has to be immaterial, he cannot be matter.

According to this Zeus, Sanga, Hindu Gods etc cannot even exist or be God.

The only God we can consider as being God is an immaterial God that exists outside of space and time. The God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Secondly the concept of God, is logical constant it is universally quantified. So the reference point never changes from God and God becomes the standard for objective Moral values.

 

[VixR]

First of all the only God that can't exist is a Anthropomorphic God. The God of Abrahamic Religions is not Anthropomorphic God.

If we have to define God. God is the creator of the universe. In order for something to create a universe it must:

1.) Exist outside of creation (space and time)
-If God exists in creation, then he cannot be the creator of the universe. God has to be separate from his creation.
2.) Be Immaterial
-If God created matter, then he has to be immaterial, he cannot be matter.

According to this Zeus, Sanga, Hindu Gods etc cannot even exist.

The only God we can consider as being God is an immaterial God that exists outside of space and time. The God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Secondly the concept of God, is logical constant it is universally quantified. So the reference point never changes from God and God becomes the reference point for objective Moral values.

That is your particular definition for the object of your objective reference point (God), not the argument presented for moral objectivity in reference to a divine being, any divine being (or, in fact, devoid of one, as there also exists that view), and even so you're being disingenuous as to the anthropomorphism Islam rejects whilst all the while engaging in it within the body of the religious text itself.

 

[Dhabaal]

That is your particular definition, not the argument presentef for moral objectivity in reference to a divine being (or in fact without one, as there also exists that view), and even so you're being disingenuous as to the anthropomorphism Islam rejects whilst all the while engaging in it within the religious text itself.

No it's the scientific definition, for God to exist he must be immaterial , also exist outside of space and time. Just like the God of Judaism,Christianity and Islam.

Furthermore God is logically constant and universally quantified being .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification

Univerally quantified meaning God is "given any" or "for all". Which can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse.

Like i explained earlier ''Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.''



You can read about the islamic concept of God Dr. Zakir Naik shows by analazing the quranic texts and scripture that Allah is not anthropomorphic

The Most Concise Definition of God:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm

Many religions at some point believe, directly or indirectly, in the philosophy of anthropomorphism i.e. God becoming a human. Their contention is that Almighty God is so pure and holy that He is unaware of the hardships, shortcomings and feelings of human beings. In order to set the rules for human beings, He came down to earth as a human. This deceptive logic has fooled countless millions through the ages. Let us now analyze this argument and see if it stands to reason.

Its very lengthy and he goes over it analytically and proves that the religious texts shows no Anthropomorphism in relation to Ebbe.

 

[simulacrum]

There is a difference between logically valid syllogism and logically invalid syllogism. The example you used is a logically invalid syllogism.

The deductive argument follows.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.

This view, known in philosophy as “moral realism,” contrasts with “moral relativism” which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgements.

How is that even a meaningful argument sxb? First you have to explain descriptively the constituents in your first premise and second premise which is God and objective moral values. Secondly, what makes them inexorably linked together? And how did you arrive at this conclusion? ( epistemological question). It begs so many questions because your argument is tautological and meaningless to begin with. It has no predictive and explanatory power.

If you are going to assert something, at least present the logical justifications for it. You can't just boldly claim and say that moral values depend on God. That's like saying natural laws depend on God. Unless you are implicitly invoking the cosmological argument into your syllogism? You see! More questions...

 

[Dhabaal]

How is that even a meaningful argument sxb? First you have to explain descriptively the constituents in your first premise and second premise which is God and objective moral values. Secondly, what makes them inexorably linked together? And how did you arrive at this conclusion? ( epistemological question). It begs so many questions because your argument is tautological and meaningless to begin with. It has no predictive and explanatory power..

If you are going to assert something, at least present the logical justifications for it. You can't just boldly claim and say that moral values depend on God. That's like saying natural laws depend on God. Unless you are implicitly invoking the cosmological argument into your syllogism? You see! More questions...

You were trying to apply an invalid syllogism about lions existence etc with no logical premises and assert from that all syllogisms are invalid. I corrected you on that.

The moral argument is a deductive argument, it doesn't beg the question, no one is arguing that these premises are known with certainty, just that they are more plausible than their negations, which is all that's needed.

The video and i myself already explained the logical foundation for the premises and the arrival of the conclusion.. I will run it down for ya

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values – it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint – which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.

This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream – the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.

So, in a world without God, there can be “… no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, Atheist)

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature – highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.

We’re well aware that child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong . . . for everybody . . . always. Is this just a personal preference or opinion? No.

“The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” (Michael Ruse, Agnostic)

What all this amounts to, then, is a moral argument for the existence of God:

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

 

[VixR]

No it's the scientific definition, for God to exist he must be immaterial , also exist outside of space and time. Just like the God of Judaism,Christianity and Islam.

Furthermore God is logically constant and universally quantified being .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification

Univerally quantified meaning God is "given any" or "for all". Which can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse.

Like i explained earlier ''Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.''



You can read about the islamic concept of God Dr. Zakir Naik shows by analazing the quranic texts and scripture that Allah is not anthropomorphic

The Most Concise Definition of God:
http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm



Its very lengthy and he goes over it analytically and proves that the religious texts shows no Anthropomorphism in relation to Ebbe.

....I didn't think you wanted a theological argument. I'm not sure about the usefulness of getting into the nitty gritty on here with ayahs and hadiths. The Quran subjected Allah to the bounds of time, hence not timeless, though granted it was orders of magnitude higher than the time we're subject to, but it was something like a day of Allah's being x years of ours. I would actually have to look it up.

Personification and anthropomorphism are rampant within the Quran and sahih hadiths. Reading Zakir Naik, of all people, does little to dispel it.

 

[Dhabaal]

....I didn't think you wanted a theological argument. I'm not sure about the usefulness of getting into the nitty gritty on here with ayahs and hadiths. The Quran subjected Allah to the bounds of time, hence not timeless, though granted it was orders of magnitude higher than the time we're subject to, but it was something like a day of Allah's being x years of ours. I would actually have to look it up.

Well the moral argument is not a direct theological argument, it is Theistic argument. It simply says that God exist, This fact might seem to favor religious arguments for morality rather than moral arguments for religious belief, but if someone believes that morality is in some way “objective” or “real,” and that this moral reality requires explanation, moral arguments for God's reality naturally suggest themselves.

You are making claims which you have not supported. Continuously stating that Quran does this and that, does not prove that the Quran does it.

As far as Allah's timelessness goes you can look it up and this unanimously understood and accepted fact.

Allah’s Relationship with Time and Space
http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2013/05/27/allahs-relationship-with-time-and-space/

As for divine power (qudra), it is a timeless attribute ascribed to Allah’s entity. It is one of Allah’s seven affirmative attributes (sifat al-ma`ani), which are: power, will, knowledge, life, speech, hearing and sight.

All of these attributes are ascribed to the divine entity and are hence timeless, having no beginning or end. Therefore, they do not ‘enter’ creation or our lives. Rather, in the language of our theologians, they have what are termed ‘associations’ (ta`alluqat).

Divine power, for example, is ‘associated’ with everything conceivable: He brings into existence, or takes out of existence, whatever He wills of things conceivable. The created things are in time and space. The divine attribute is eternal, without beginning, end, or change.

How Exactly It Works

.

 

[VixR]

You were trying to apply an invalid syllogism about lions existence etc with no logical premises and assert from that all syllogisms are invalid. I corrected you on that.

The moral argument is a deductive argument, it doesn't beg the question, no one is arguing that these premises are known with certainty, just that they are more plausible than their negations, which is all that's needed.

The video and i myself already explained the logical foundation for the premises and the arrival of ithe conclusion.. I will run it down for ya

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values – it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint – which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.

This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream – the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.



Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature – highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.

We’re well aware that child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong . . . for everybody . . . always. Is this just a personal preference or opinion? No.



What all this amounts to, then, is a moral argument for the existence of God:

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

I was reading this only to realize that most of it is a literal, word-for-word transcription of the video in the original post

 

[Dhabaal]

Personification and anthropomorphism are rampant within the Quran and sahih hadiths. Reading Zakir Naik does little to dispell it.

This is a claim can you prove it in regards to Dr..Zakir Naik analytic examples and arguments. There is no personification and anthropomorphism in the Quranic scripture in relation to Allah. The Quran is to word of Allah and the Hadith is not.

You are trying to argue against something that is a widely understood Fact.

You need to give proof of your claims, all you do is emphasize that your claims are correct without giving proof for them. Which just indirectly shows how ignorant you are about Islam itself.

 

[Dhabaal]

I was reading this only to realize that most of it is a literal, word-for-word transcription of the video in the original post

And? It doesn't make it less logical or less true.

The transcription is available on their website .

 

[simulacrum]

You were trying to apply an invalid syllogism about lions existence etc with no logical premises and assert from that all syllogisms are invalid. I corrected you on that.

The moral argument is a deductive argument, it doesn't beg the question, no one is arguing that these premises are known with certainty, just that they are more plausible than their negations, which is all that's needed.

The video and i myself already explained the logical foundation for the premises and the arrival of the conclusion.. I will run it down for ya

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values – it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint – which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.

This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream – the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.



Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature – highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.

We’re well aware that child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong . . . for everybody . . . always. Is this just a personal preference or opinion? No.



What all this amounts to, then, is a moral argument for the existence of God:

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

You are saying that saying that God's nature is the reference point to which we gauge our moral values. How did you determine this? Can you give show me the existence of God's nature and objective moral values because your whole argument rests on these constituents to be clearly and distinctly proven, otherwise like I said, it's just a tautological and meaningless argument with no predictive and explanatory power like the one I posited.

 

[Dhabaal]

You are saying that saying that God's nature is the reference point to which we gauge our moral values. How did you determine this? Can you give show me the existence of God's nature and objective moral values because your whole argument rests on these constituents to be clearly and distinctly proven, otherwise like I said, it's just a tautological .and meaningless argument with no predictive and explanatory power like the one I posited.

Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

Since humans have an intuitive sense of what is good or bad. Objective moral values exist
Stated in the qoute:
''But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals..''

Therefore it logically follows an argument for the existence of God.