Of all gods,which god? Allah is the one and only God.

[Dhabaal]

Unless you are arguing that all religions come from a unitary source which would make islam not the only right religion but one of the many ones leading to god

The concept of God is universal. Just like language ,is perceived differently. We might have a conflict of ideas, but the idea itself is universal. For example i would drive a car on the right side of road, where as in England they drive on left side of the road and these two ideas would clash wouldn't they? yet the concept of driving a car is universal.

Just like Quantum physicists have at least 10 different physical interpretations of insinuations of quantum mechanics. Same holds true for religions,

Shmallah is not the Islamic god you are confusing him with. I have already established that.

The concept of God is universally quantified. Meaning its logically constant.which is interpreted as "given any" or "for all". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification

The idea of God is universal , just like food is universal, just like clothing is universal, transportation, housing. These are all universal ideas , because we live in different parts of the world our ideas on this is different, but they are also universal

More filler that has nothing to do with the subject. Please take your adhd medicine next time

Calling something by a different name ,doesn't make it a different thing. You have comprehension issues, sort it out.

 

[Dhabaal]

You can choose to not believe in Shmallah if you want. But you can't disprove him is all I'm sayin

You are arguing from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html


B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

 

[Dhabaal]

This guy doesn't understand the use of logic. Waa dhoqon, why am i wasting my time debating with this Airhead.

 

[McLovin]

If god is universal and religion is simply the language in which we interpret the unseen. Then what gives islam monopoly in claiming their way is the only way? Using your analogy, if god is the constant and all religions are merely equations to discovering the unknown. Islam is one of the many equations. I don't have to use it to find god when I can find him through another one. Am I reading you right?

 

[Dhabaal]

If god is universal and religion is simply the language in which we interpret the unseen. Then what gives islam monopoly in claiming their way is the only way? Using your analogy, if god is the constant and all religions are merely equations to discovering the unknown. Islam is one of the many equations. I don't have to use it to find god when I can find him through another one. Am I reading you right?

Then it becomes less about the philosophy of God, and more about Theology.

For example, Quantum physicists have at least 10 different physical interpretations of insinuations of quantum mechanics. The difference is if two scientific ideas are inconsistent. One is right and one is wrong. Or they are both wrong. They can never be both right.

The same holds for true for theology. Only one Religion can be right. This is called the law of contradiction https://www.britannica.com/topic/law-of-contradiction


I for one am not a relativist, i am not a pluralist.

I believe Islam is the one and only true Religion. I will rationally argue for it's case.

 

[McLovin]

You are arguing from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.


http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html


B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

That's funny because you have been quoted using the same argument

Then why are you asking the question ''Do you have evidence''? and i will just reverse the argument ask ''Do you have evidence''?

Don't worry. I will be the one leaving this shit show first

 

[McLovin]

Then it becomes less about the philosophy of God, and more about Theology.

For example, Quantum physicists have at least 10 different physical interpretations of insinuations of quantum mechanics. The difference is if two scientific ideas are inconsistent. One is right and one is wrong. Or they are both wrong. They can never be both right.

The same holds for true for theology. Only one Religion can be right. This is called the law of contradiction https://www.britannica.com/topic/law-of-contradiction


I for one am not a relativist, i am not a pluralist.

I believe Islam is the one and only true Religion. I will argue for it's case.

I think I'll pass on that. You have yourself a nice day

 

[Dhabaal]

That's funny because you have been quoted using the same argument


Don't worry. I will be the one leaving this shit show first

This is not an argument. I was pointing at the fact that you are committing a logical fallacy. Called Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

Do you even understand logic? or do you even know what it means? Or do you consistently try to speak from your ass in denial.

You cannot argue that something is true, just because it cannot be disproven.

 

[McLovin]

You cannot argue that something is true, just because it cannot be disproven.

Why because I don't have evidence to believe in him? That didn't seem to stop you

If you ask for evidence of God, equally i have every right to reverse it and ask evidence for the non-existence of God.

All you have to do is replace the words and it becomes this

If you ask for evidence of Shmallah, equally i have every right to reverse it and ask evidence for the non-existence of Shmallah.

Or does a fallacy stop becoming one when you use it. Don't bother quoting me I'm not going to respond to you are any of your posts again you spazz. What a complete waste of time

 

[Dhabaal]

Why because I don't have evidence to believe in him? That didn't seem to stop you

Let us separate rational and irrational belief. You cannot believe something due to the simple absence of evidence. That is a fallacy.

I believe in God for rational reasons such as objective moral evidence, “fine-tuning” of the universe, Cosmological evidence and from religious experience.'' Sensus divinitatus''.

Or does a fallacy stop becoming one when you use it. Don't bother quoting me I'm not going to respond to you are any of your posts again you spazz. What a complete waste of time

The point i was making is that. You cannot shift the burden of proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You cannot routinely ask for emprical evidence for God. Without providing proof yourself. You would just shift the burden of proof and that's a fallacy.

 

[Dhabaal]

Saaxiib go pick up a book in logic. Then comeback and debate me when you are informed.

 

[McLovin]

Let us separate rational and irrational belief. You cannot believe something due to the simple absence of evidence. That is a fallacy.

I believe in God for rational reasons such as objective moral evidence, “fine-tuning” of the universe, Cosmological evidence and from religious experience.'' Sensus divinitatus''.

There is nothing rational about your belief. I can go through and knock each and every one of your reasons down but, no. I want you to stay a dhabaal. Good luck convincing your kids with your crackpot beliefs. The whole world is headed to Atheism and there's nothing you can do about it :siilaanyolaugh::siilaanyolaugh::siilaanyolaugh:

 

[Dhabaal]

The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? .''


''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible
arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

Even without the use of Arguments to provide evidence. It is still possible to have rational belief in God, because God is self-evident and exist through experience.

 

[Dhabaal]

Headed towards Atheism? kulaha. Talk about being delusional.

Atheists are not even 1% of the worlds population. Islam is the fastest growing religion and it is taken over the whole western world as we speak. With 1 and half billion followers world wide.

So you should stop wasting time and learn to recite your prayers.

 

[VixR]

Where are all the ignorant Atheists . Who ask people which God?, @VixR come out!!

For something to be God, by definition it must be immaterial and exist outside of space and time.

I'm not really interested in the theological side of these arguments, esp as it deals with Quran verses and such, which is why I stopped our exchange on the other thread when it started to head down that road. It's a preference. I've traversed that road on my own enough.

But I wanted to point out that even if I were to accept your presented definition of the One God, and agree with Allah fitting all the necessary requirements of it, it still doesn't prove anything, i.e, that he in fact is the One God.

This second part of this:

Therefore there can only be One God and that is Allah.

= still a Belief (not proof).

 

[Dhabaal]

I'm not really interested in the theological side of these arguments, esp as it deals with Quran verses and such, which is why I stopped our exchange on the other thread when it started to head down that road. It's a preference. I've traversed that road on my own enough.But I wanted to point out that even if I were to accept your presented definition of the One God, and agree with Allah fitting all the necessary requirements of it, it still doesn't prove anything, i.e, that he in fact is the One God.

This is no theological argument persay , It's always other Atheists on this forum who would bring the Quran and Muslim politics into these debates and i usually end up correcting them on their misconceptions.

However this is the Philosophy of God (i.e God's existence). If you reject Philosophy then you reject rational thinking. How can you rationalize your disbelief/belief without thinking it through. and this requires Philosophy.

This second part of this: = still a Belief (not proof).

This is a deductive reasoning. There can only be one God.

I can compile all the deductive evidences for the existence of God in a different thread. I already posted one of them being the moral argument. These arguments give evidence to rational faith.

 

[Dhabaal]

@VixR

Please watch this video Walaal.

It explains the difference between deductive evidence (Philosophical) and inductive evidence(Scientific). Since god is unfalsifiable and outside of science you need to deal with the question with deductive methods with the help of philosophy.

 

[VixR]

This is no theological argument persay , It's always other Atheists on this forum who would bring the Quran and Muslim politics into these debates and i usually end up correcting them on their misconceptions.

However this is the Philosophy of God (i.e God's existence). If you reject Philosophy then you reject rational thinking. How can you rationalize your disbelief/belief without thinking it through. and this requires Philosophy.



This is a deductive reasoning. There can only be one God.

I can compile all the deductive evidences for the existence of God in a different thread. I already posted one of them being the moral argument. These arguments give validation to rational faith.

It boils down to two things:

1) The provided definition for the One God presents an argument for the necessary characteristics of the "One God" were one to exist, it doesn't prove that one, in fact, exists.

2) Were I to agree that Allah fits the provided definition for the "One God", it still does nothing in the way of proving he, in fact, is the thus defined "One God" either.

 

[simulacrum]

The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? .''


''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible
arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

Even without the use of Arguments to provide evidence. It is still possible to have rational belief in God, because God is self-evident and exist through experience.

The abundant evidence of unnecessary evil ( suffering) provides us with strong grounds for denying that there exists an omnipotent, morally perfect being who is the creator and governor of this world. Therefore your moral argument for god has no strong basis for the existence of a moral, righteous and good creator. But that's not my only contention of the moral argument. The form of your whole argument is non-sequitur and tautological in nature, besides even if it is a valid argument, you can't circumvent Euthyphro's Dilemma.

 

[McLovin]

The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? .''


''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible
arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

Even without the use of Arguments to provide evidence. It is still possible to have rational belief in God, because God is self-evident and exist through experience.

So I read your garbage article out of boredom and guess what I saw hiding in the conclusion statement

It seems clear that no version of the moral argument constitutes a “proof” of God's existence. Each version contains premises that many reasonable thinkers reject.

For those who think that some version or versions of the arguments have force, the cumulative case for theistic belief may be raised by such arguments.

If this wasn't the most clear case of confirmation bias...