Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

[Ghost14]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@ajazali

Clock is not frame of reference, time is reference. and if go into past your reference(time) would become false. and your falback would be imagainary time. your previous reply was "i dont know" that implies that theory of relativity is faith.

No, that implies that the theory of relativity is **incomplete. **As I said before, some people think time travel is possible, some think it isn't, but most people agree that **the other side's argument has merit because there is no evidence proving either side correct. **That is not faith. Please stop being irrational.

[Ghost14]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@psyah

Example of logical tools used to extract information from the Qur’an:

Verse 2:2: Sahih International
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

Logically we deduce that

Qur’an is being equated with No doubt i.e. certainty …
It is also saying that it guides the class of people who are conscious of Allah …

Therefore by deduction we can say that The Qur’an alludes to saying there is no doubt that people who are conscious of Allah will be guided to Islam if they read it.

So this is a claim … We can ask … is it really true that people who are conscious of God are guided to Islam after reading the Qur’an … We can see that this claim is true, by finding three or more people … Because in Arabic it employs the plural … which is at least 3 …

Although for those who are not conscious of God must admit that it is certainly true that Believers are drawn to faith through this book.

So there is now information that we can test and information that is inaccessible.

How the Qur’an influences the believers who read it … Is testable …

The idea of Allah existing … We can do nothing with it logically neither confirm it nor negate it.

The idea of there being no doubt about the Quran is coming *from *the Quran. Do you not see the problem with that? If I write a book which states that everything I write in the book, and everything I say, is the absolute truth, does that make it so?

So basically, people who already believe in Allah, believe the Quran, therefore, God exists? The same can be said of Scientology. If an atheist reads both, and decides that neither is true, does that mean God doesn’t exist?

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@Ghost14

Your presupposition, is that God exists, which is illogical because that is the subject of the debate. If we are to determine whether the answer is A or B, we can’t start with the assumption that A is true.

The statement “God exists” is not illogical … You can call it an unfounded assertion, but not illogical … For something to be illogical it has to be drawing a false conclusion.

And we don’t start with the assumption that A is true either … We suppose that with an “if” …

the subject of the thread may be about God, but this sub-discussion is about showing how logical tools help us classify and organise information coherently. And can and should do this with our beliefs. So I am showing my beliefs are consistent using logic not showing that God exists or not.

what we can say through logic is that since we cannot prove God does or does not exist. Therefore we can suppose He does or does not exist. So for an atheist is quite ok for them to say … “Since God does not exist, therefore x,y,z happened” that gives the theists a chance to cross-check the logic, and vice-versa.

like some statements …

If Qur’an is Divinely Authored then it follows it will be fault free. (based on an agreed understanding of what is Divine).

Or the reverse approach …

If God did not exist then x,y,z could not have happened … And so on.

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

The idea of there being no doubt about the Quran is coming *from *the Quran. Do you not see the problem with that? If I write a book which states that everything I write in the book, and everything I say, is the absolute truth, does that make it so?

So basically, people who already believe in Allah, believe the Quran, therefore, God exists? The same can be said of Scientology. If an atheist reads both, and decides that neither is true, does that mean God doesn't exist?

Peace Ghost

There is nothing logically wrong in the Qur'an saying about itself that it is true ... as I said earlier ... You as a sceptic may call that statement unfounded, but me as a believer must accept it ... with faith ... Logic is about the use of the language rather than the meaning behind the language ... You need to understand that before you can continue.

so you ask a question ... If you wrote a book and claimed it to be the truth ... Does it make it so? Well no it does not but it does not make it false either ... Unless I test your book against accessible data I will not know ... The assertion is there ... Fine ... But logic will not allow me to accept it or reject it.

Lastly, you tripped up in your logical conclusion ... You said if an atheist reads both and decides neither is true ... Does that mean God does not exist? ... No, the Qur'an claim as per the ayah is not ... If you read it you will believe it and if you don't then God does not exist ... By deduction we can say an atheist will not be guided by the Qur'an, rather is most likely going to receive misguidance by it.

since it follows that a believer will be guided by it, but there is a chance that some atheists may be guided by it ... We are using logic to work out other matters.

[Southie]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

If apple is a fruit and all fruits are edible then of course apple is edible. It is a subset of fruits.

But whatever came after that does not follow. Too lazy to go to prev page and repost

[kchughtai]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Qudrat say apni zaat ka deyta hai Haq saboot

Us bay nishan ki cheraa numai yehi to hai

[diwana]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Science created nothing **and cannot create anything,

**
.........as in nada, zilch, zero, zippo, zippity do da! ;)

Science cannot 'create' human, animal or any life!

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

If apple is a fruit and all fruits are edible then of course apple is edible. It is a subset of fruits.

But whatever came after that does not follow. Too lazy to go to prev page and repost

I wrote fruits are edible ... Not all fruits ... And not all fruits are edible ...

Apple is a subset of edible fruits ... Where both edible and inedible fruits are subses of fruits

[Zafra]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

We used to assume the bolded part. Then experiments showed that the above wasn't true so we changed our ideas about time. We determined that light is the thing that's constant, and time bends around light. General Relativity further extends this idea. It is not simply time that bends around light, but space also bends around matter, which is what we call gravity. You see how experiments changed our beliefs?

This is ridiculous. Experiments show that time **does **bend in space. In contrast to scripture, I cannot argue with a religious person about Islam. It is literally in their belief to consider someone who is an atheist to be someone they should avoid. That is not being open to change. That is the opposite of scientific discourse.

Now you are sounding like someone who believes in scripture. Because my questions are logical. Any scientists will admit openly our views of the world are dependent on our understanding of it no? And more importantly the equipment we build to conduct our experiments are based on those assumptions and views. There is always a possibility that our theories do not hold up when there are a new scientific break through correct?

I mean the whole discussion on atoms, molecules and quarks has been rewritten over time to remove elements and add elements corretc? Higgs boson till a few years ago was a belief and not a fact.

[ajazali]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

No, that implies that the theory of relativity is **incomplete. **As I said before, some people think time travel is possible, some think it isn't, but most people agree that **the other side's argument has merit because there is no evidence proving either side correct. **That is not faith. Please stop being irrational.

the moment you say theory of relativity is incomplete you become the opponent of those you are defending, the side whom you declared meritorious say the theory is self-consistent.

[Ghost14]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Now you are sounding like someone who believes in scripture. Because my questions are logical. Any scientists will admit openly our views of the world are dependent on our understanding of it no? And more importantly the equipment we build to conduct our experiments are based on those assumptions and views. There is always a possibility that our theories do not hold up when there are a new scientific break through correct?

I mean the whole discussion on atoms, molecules and quarks has been rewritten over time to remove elements and add elements corretc? Higgs boson till a few years ago was a belief and not a fact.

You're missing the main point: until something has been proven empirically, with multiple experiments, it is okay to doubt it's existence. Nothing has ever been proven in religion, yet it is not okay to doubt the authenticity of the Quran. You see the difference?

the moment you say theory of relativity is incomplete you become the opponent of those you are defending, the side whom you declared meritorious say the theory is self-consistent.

See above. You're grasping at straws now.

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

You're missing the main point: until something has been proven empirically, with multiple experiments, it is okay to doubt it's existence. Nothing has ever been proven in religion, yet it is not okay to doubt the authenticity of the Quran. You see the difference?

See above. You're grasping at straws now.

Peace Ghost14

Many empirical evidences and multiple tests exist for religious beliefs ... Your claim that "nothing" has been proven in religion is false.

For example Surah Rum ... States that the Romans that were defeated by the pagan Persians will within 3 to 9 years defeat the pagans back. This is exactly what happened.

We can say that the Qur'an ... All of it was uttered by the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW), through the sciences of ilm-ul-riijaal we can indeed show that the Qur'an that we have is the same one that came from the Prophet (SAW).

The Qur'an states that it is preserved and behold we see each generation of Muslims do not come unless there are multitudes in them who memorise the whole of it and then transmit it to their next generation.

The challenge of the Qur'an, which is also its falsification test is for any verse to be brought like it ... If it were for that matter not from God ... people have since time not been able to emulate the Qur'an ...

[Med911]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Peace Ghost14

Many empirical evidences and multiple tests exist for religious beliefs ... Your claim that "nothing" has been proven in religion is false.

For example Surah Rum ... States that the Romans that were defeated by the pagan Persians will within 3 to 9 years defeat the pagans back. This is exactly what happened.

We can say that the Qur'an ... All of it was uttered by the holy prophet Muhammad (SAW), through the sciences of ilm-ul-riijaal we can indeed show that the Qur'an that we have is the same one that came from the Prophet (SAW).

The Qur'an states that it is preserved and behold we see each generation of Muslims do not come unless there are multitudes in them who memorise the whole of it and then transmit it to their next generation.

The challenge of the Qur'an, which is also its falsification test is for any verse to be brought like it ... If it were for that matter not from God ... people have since time not been able to emulate the Qur'an ...

Very nice.

But none of that is considered evidence of being factual.

Surah Rum for example. That the Romans won, does not prove the validity of religion. What was the probability, taking into consideration the history of Romans stretching over 1000 years, that they would return to fight the Pagan Persians? I would say the probability is very high. What is the probability that thy will win? 50/50 at the very least, but considering the history of the Romans probably still slightly in their favor. Predicting something accurately, especially with the odds being so high is not a conclusive sign of the divine, not matter how we would wish it were. If i predict India will win 2 games and Pakistan 3 ODI's in the upcoming games, that doesn't make me God.

If accuracy of "predictions" is what we consider as evidence of the divine, then we should also consider Nostradamus, who specifically mentioned "Hister" as a major threat in the 20th century, as being divinely inspired.

Why not be honest with one self. There is no evidence for religion. And you dont need evidence either. Why not just call a spade a spade instead of falsely and stubbornly insisting that its in any way verifiable?

[Med911]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@psyah

Peace yazdi

All I am doing is showing you using logic that my 'faith' cannot be proven false and that it can be shown to be possible or even probable. However, you keep saying that no logical discourse can take place as long as I have faith which is totally untrue.

LOL.. It cant be proen false, but nor can it be proven true. Even the logic you employ is not logic to verify exactly what you believe.

For instance, lets assume your empirical evidence and logic behind it is sound. Lets say there is something "supernatural" behind Islam. That still doesnt tell us WHAT that something is... For all we know, Islam was revealed by space Aliens.. Seems ridiculous doesnt it? but then so does the whole concept of God. Infact, in the realm of probability, Aliens are probably far more likely then God.

Personally I prefer to believe in God, because its nicer and believing Aliens created us is disturbing.

[Zafra]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

You're missing the main point: until something has been proven empirically, with multiple experiments, it is okay to doubt it's existence. Nothing has ever been proven in religion, yet it is not okay to doubt the authenticity of the Quran. You see the difference?

Of course its okay to doubt the existence of God. Many people do on a regular basis. And my entire discussion has been to make the point what if we just lack the tools and technology to verify the existence of a deity? After all most scientists and philosophers like Plato, Aristotle etc were all religious men who believed in Zeus, Aries and countless other deities.

[ajazali]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

See above. You're grasping at straws now.

so what! you statement was self contradictory.

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Very nice.

But none of that is considered evidence of being factual.

Surah Rum for example. That the Romans won, does not prove the validity of religion. What was the probability, taking into consideration the history of Romans stretching over 1000 years, that they would return to fight the Pagan Persians? I would say the probability is very high. What is the probability that thy will win? 50/50 at the very least, but considering the history of the Romans probably still slightly in their favor. Predicting something accurately, especially with the odds being so high is not a conclusive sign of the divine, not matter how we would wish it were. If i predict India will win 2 games and Pakistan 3 ODI's in the upcoming games, that doesn't make me God.

If accuracy of "predictions" is what we consider as evidence of the divine, then we should also consider Nostradamus, who specifically mentioned "Hister" as a major threat in the 20th century, as being divinely inspired.

Why not be honest with one self. There is no evidence for religion. And you dont need evidence either. Why not just call a spade a spade instead of falsely and stubbornly insisting that its in any way verifiable?

Peace Med911

"Does not prove the validity of religion" ... This sentence of yours demonstrates to me that you have not studied logic or that you have not understood it.

Firstly, I was not arguing for religion per se, but for a specific religious belief.

Secondly this level evidence is the same as the level of evidence offered for certain scientific experiments too ... Let's put it this way ... If it is 50/50 for getting this prediction right or wrong ... Then it should be the case that 50% of the Islamic predictions should have been wrong ... Can you demonstrate that 50% of the predictions were wrong?

thirdly religion is either true or false ... Validity is in a given argument.

[psyah]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

LOL.. It cant be proen false, but nor can it be proven true. Even the logic you employ is not logic to verify exactly what you believe.

For instance, lets assume your empirical evidence and logic behind it is sound. Lets say there is something "supernatural" behind Islam. That still doesnt tell us WHAT that something is... For all we know, Islam was revealed by space Aliens.. Seems ridiculous doesnt it? but then so does the whole concept of God. Infact, in the realm of probability, Aliens are probably far more likely then God.

Personally I prefer to believe in God, because its nicer and believing Aliens created us is disturbing.

Med911

Again showing lack of logical nous are you? If something is not false then it is possible ... If something is possible then those who observe within the confines of possibility should not be criticised for doing something as if it is false.

If there are some places in discourse where logic can neither tell us if something is true nor false ... Then the only sound conclusion is to say that logic in that instance is deficient. And this reference is to deduction rather than induction.

Probability of aliens is higher than God ... .??? How did you come by that absurd conclusion? Probability cannot just be made up ... It is supposed to be backed up with data ... What is your data on this statistic?

[Ghost14]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

@psyah

The statement “God exists” is not illogical … You can call it an unfounded assertion, but not illogical … For something to be illogical it has to be drawing a false conclusion.

And we don’t start with the assumption that A is true either … We suppose that with an “if” …

the subject of the thread may be about God, but this sub-discussion is about showing how logical tools help us classify and organise information coherently. And can and should do this with our beliefs. So I am showing my beliefs are consistent using logic not showing that God exists or not.

what we can say through logic is that since we cannot prove God does or does not exist. Therefore we can suppose He does or does not exist. So for an atheist is quite ok for them to say … “Since God does not exist, therefore x,y,z happened” that gives the theists a chance to cross-check the logic, and vice-versa.

like some statements …

If Qur’an is Divinely Authored then it follows it will be fault free. (based on an agreed understanding of what is Divine).

Or the reverse approach …

If God did not exist then x,y,z could not have happened … And so on.

The illogical part was that your premise was taking a position on the subject at hand. That is what is illogical.

[Ghost14]

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Peace Ghost

There is nothing logically wrong in the Qur'an saying about itself that it is true ... as I said earlier ... You as a sceptic may call that statement unfounded, but me as a believer must accept it ... with faith ... Logic is about the use of the language rather than the meaning behind the language ... You need to understand that before you can continue.

so you ask a question ... If you wrote a book and claimed it to be the truth ... Does it make it so? Well no it does not but it does not make it false either ... Unless I test your book against accessible data I will not know ... The assertion is there ... Fine ... But logic will not allow me to accept it or reject it.

Lastly, you tripped up in your logical conclusion ... You said if an atheist reads both and decides neither is true ... Does that mean God does not exist? ... No, the Qur'an claim as per the ayah is not ... If you read it you will believe it and if you don't then God does not exist ... By deduction we can say an atheist will not be guided by the Qur'an, rather is most likely going to receive misguidance by it.

since it follows that a believer will be guided by it, but there is a chance that some atheists may be guided by it ... We are using logic to work out other matters.

So again, you have to be willing to believe otherwise you are misguided by it? That's called the placebo effect. That is again emotion.