[quote=RoCKiSTaN]
No smart a**. It'll defeat the purpose of life to see who follows his path and who doesn't. He's basically left it all on us and in a way gives us our own options to choose.
Well dont u think its a contradition from the statement that God knows every thing , God knows ur intetions and he knows what u are going to do in future or watever.If u are a true follower then let ke break this news to u my friend,our fate has already been decided we have been given no choice wat so ever.Its just a big game plan.everything has already been set.
*okay let me ask u some thing was God heart broken when adam ate that apple and disobeyed him ....ofcourse not cuz he knew that he was going to do that *
*do u get wat i'm saying *
I dont understand why all the people who state they are religious start name calling when they run out of steam.
Simple request isn't it. BTW dont bother to reply if it will be in passage so and so. or because its written in the holy books. or if you see the signs in the world and all.
Only seeing the signs is not enough how do you know who made it. I am talking about looking at the sign maker instead of signs.
Haha! Guess you'll never find God then. I'm sure you've heard this joke but it was right on the money. By all the faculties you mentioned you cannot prove you have a brain, I can't see it, I can't smell it, I can't feel it, I can't taste it and I can't hear it so then I have no proof that you have a brain. Very simple reasoning based on the proofs you asked for. Now we all know though that you have one.
No one can prove the non-existence of something one can't see. But if you claim he exists without being able to see, touch or feel him, it's you who needs to come up with some proof.
Badhaircut, if you’re such a firm believer and so sure that God doesn’t exist, you must have some solid proof to back that up, no? It’s something like turning the lights on and saying there is no ghost. You scan the room, you don’t feel anything, the natural reaction is to say nothing is there, right? Even I’ll agree to that, but let’s apply this to God and see a difference.
God is an entity that cannot be seen, touched, heard or felt. Because you claim that proving the non existence of an entity can’t be done, it should be easier to prove that it exists. But there are major problems with that statement which makes us equally wrong in our reasoning. That’s why I’ve decide to take a different approach to this.
I already mentioned, that just because something doesn’t appeal to your senses does not mean it doesn’t exist. Look at science; you can’t see an atom yet you believe in its existence. We know so little about the universe and our knowledge is constantly changing, we can’t make any information solid, our technology, our understanding is very limited. And in such a vast body of expanding space, cosmic life and the unknown, it would be foolish to assume that nothing is out there in the universe.
So, back to the ghost example. You are in the universe, and you’re claiming that a higher entity doesn’t exist. Unless you’ve experienced every aspect and space of the entire universe, then you are entitled to saying that nothing is out there. The problem is, you can’t turn that light on and see for yourself if God is there. You either take a step backward or a plunge forward.
You can’t say that God does not exist.
School? What’s that?
Since I think you don't know what you’re talking about I’d like an explanation of what you just said. I understand the scientific deductive method, but how exactly does mathematics come into play when negating a statement? Please enlighten me.
Only seeing the signs is not enough how do you know who made it. I am talking about looking at the sign maker instead of signs.
This is going in circles now. I posited that such reasoning fails miserably if we examine the nature of revelation, and realize that the discussion is really about contemporary emperical observations but historical veracity. You've failed to comment.
They can. The problem is, religionists make no claims on the physicality of God. There is no claim, for example, that God is on the moon, right where the Americans landed. That would be easy to check out.
The requirement of "prove God exists" presumes that there are attributes of God that are known that we can reason with. This presumption is baseless.
The retort, i.e. prove that God does not exist, is equally valid. The complaint that proving the universal absence of something is impossible (as it requires examination of infinite possibilities) does not wash, as it is unclear if God permeates the universe, or lies beyond it.
This is hardly a fault of theology, as the physical nature of God, if God has such a nature, is tangential to worship and the religious message.
However, dogmatically granting authority to the Scientific method to investigate metaphysical claims is the knee-jerk reaction among the non-religious, and it fails quite miserably.
Simple request isn't it. BTW dont bother to reply if it will be in passage so and so. or because its written in the holy books. or if you see the signs in the world and all.
Only seeing the signs is not enough how do you know who made it. I am talking about looking at the sign maker instead of signs.
I think you have a very idealized view of the scientific method.
Since I think you don't know what you’re talking about I’d like an explanation of what you just said. I understand the scientific deductive method, but how exactly does mathematics come into play when negating a statement? Please enlighten me.
Besides the normal scientific deductive method, there is a mathematical procedure to show if in fact the statement is true or false. In order to proof it wrong, one has to provide just ONE proof that negates the statement; however, in order to prove if the statement is in fact correct, it has to be correct in all scenarios.
They can. The problem is, religionists make no claims on the physicality of God. There is no claim, for example, that God is on the moon, right where the Americans landed. That would be easy to check out.
The requirement of "prove God exists" presumes that there are attributes of God that are known that we can reason with. This presumption is baseless.
The retort, i.e. prove that God does not exist, is equally valid. The complaint that proving the universal absence of something is impossible (as it requires examination of infinite possibilities) does not wash, as it is unclear if God permeates the universe, or lies beyond it.
This is hardly a fault of theology, as the physical nature of God, if God has such a nature, is tangential to worship and the religious message.
However, dogmatically granting authority to the Scientific method to investigate metaphysical claims is the knee-jerk reaction among the non-religious, and it fails quite miserably.
Thank you. Yes, the argument is equally sided in many aspects. Well, there’s always Pascal's wager.
I agree we are going around in circles, I said long time back its not possible to prove the existance of God its a belief, but some people are just refusing to accept this simple fact.
No man its not but the I am trying to make my point across to some people who are thick in head that God cannot be proven it is belief. As they say in Urdu, Bachon kay saath bacha ban kay baat karni chahiye.
:) You got a fair answer. Illiogical questions always end up with confusion. You should have learned that through all these posts.
As for all the signs, they can all be sensed through the faculties you mentioned. Like someone said in here before how much evidence do you require to believe that there is God.
Yes. And how does this exactly make your argument more convincing than the equally opposing argument? If someone says “God exists” and another person says “God does not exist” both arguments are invalid because they’re equally opposing something that cannot be proven. By this logic, your argument, despite any mathematical conations, is still the same, no?
Hey, that was pretty interesting. Although Naik's argument rests on the scientific documentation of the Quran, it still won't be too convincing to atheists. I bet they'd probably doubt the Quran as a credible source for such information before admitting anything.
ok i will believe for a moment that what you are saying is right...now pls tell me the purpose of the after life .. why would we want to have an eternal life what will we do all day long what will be the purpose of it all...we cant live together in peace on this earth what will be so special up in the sky that will make us live in harmony.
Just like God, afterlife is also part of belief. And beliefs are just that, beliefs. This is something which cannot be proven one way or the other. So its upto the person, what he thinks is right he follows.
