Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Bob

How can God be good?

No, I'm not thinking here about the question 'How can God be good when there is so much suffering etc?' but rather about the logical/philosophical implications of the statement 'God is good'.

What do we mean by good in this context? What do we mean by bad? For the Aztecs, human sacrifice was neither wrong nor bad. It was right and good. Why? Because the Aztec gods required human sacrifice. If a god (any god) is believed to be the source of the right and the good, then those who believe in that god and fear it will try to comply with what they believe that god requires. I fail to see the difference between the Aztecs and Muslims (Christians and Jews are a little different!) Both wish to PROPITIATE their respective gods out of fear.

Regarding monotheism's uncreated God there is also a logical problem concerning the right and the good. If one says that 'God is good', then logically the notions of 'the good', 'the bad', 'the right' and 'the wrong' are independent of God himself and they precede him. This is what Bertrand Russell says on the subject:


Quote:
One form (of the argument) is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.


As Russell is arguing in a manner to which monotheists are not accustomed, perhaps it will be best if I tried summarize his line of reasoning.

One

If the difference between right and wrong is due solely to God's will then that difference is meaningless for God himself. Let us imagine, for example, that God might decide to say to people that it is good to pray to him five times a day. But what he says to others and what he can say to himself are different. Allah himself cannot justify TO HIMSELF his commands by sayng 'they are good' because they are simply the expression of his fiat or will. For Allah himself 'the good' is a meaningless notion.

Two

As the notion of 'the good' is meaningless for God himself, then it is also meaningless to say that "God is good."

Three

Another difficulty is this. If you say "God is good" as one says "Mother Teresa was good", then 'the good' (along with 'the right', 'the wrong' and 'the bad') must correspond to a quality that is INDEPENDENT of the object or person to which it is attributed. This argument would be a logical consequence of affirming that 'the good' etc are NOT meaningless to God.

Four

In turn, this woudl mean that 'the good' etc logically precede the existence of God himself.


Would anyone care to provide a counter-argument?
Raza

I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.
All_Brains

Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.
Mutley

Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them.


Who told you that? That concept is borrowed from Christianity. It's the concept that says even if you are a sinner all of your life, if you sincerely repent before you die, your sins will be forgiven and forgotten. Muslims often complain about this idea saying it's not justice and that one must always pay for their sins, and there is even a book of records and that all of your actions will be put on a scale and that you must perform good actions to outweigh your bad actions. So why are you conveniently borrowing a Christian concept that Muslims often complain about?


Raza wrote:

And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.


The Islamic God values justice more than mercy because Muhammad valued justice more than mercy.
Mutley

There is no such thing as good and bad, those are human inventions. There is only true and false and existent and non existent. If one sees the world as good or bad, then that is because one wants to get something out of the world. One wants personal gain.

The dog trainer studies the dog not because the trainer simply wants to know more about the dog, but because it wants the dog to suit his or her desires by performing the desired tricks. In that scenario, the dog can exhibit what the trainer believes to be good behavior and bad behavior. But let's rephrase that to be more accurate. The dog can exhibit desirable behavior and non desirable behavior.

A scientist who studies ants doesn't want to train them or use them to his or her advantage, he or she just wants to know more about them for the sake of knowledge and interest. Therefore, the ants cannot exhibit bad or undesirable behavior, because ALL of their behavior would be considered desirable. The only behavior that would be undesirable to the ant scientist would be a lack of behavior altogether.

If we parallel the ants behavior with existence, then it could be said that since behavior is good, then existence is good, and if lack of behavior is not good, then lack of existence is not good.

Therefore, aside from personal self interest, if there is a good and bad, then existence itself is good and non existence is bad. All the rest of it merely falls under the category of self interest.
All_Brains

Mutley wrote:
There is no such thing as good and bad, those are human inventions. There is only true and false and existent and non existent. If one sees the world as good or bad, then that is because one wants to get something out of the world. One wants personal gain.

The dog trainer studies the dog not because the trainer simply wants to know more about the dog, but because it wants the dog to suit his or her desires by performing the desired tricks. In that scenario, the dog can exhibit what the trainer believes to be good behavior and bad behavior. But let's rephrase that to be more accurate. The dog can exhibit desirable behavior and non desirable behavior.

A scientist who studies ants doesn't want to train them or use them to his or her advantage, he or she just wants to know more about them for the sake of knowledge and interest. Therefore, the ants cannot exhibit bad or undesirable behavior, because ALL of their behavior would be considered desirable. The only behavior that would be undesirable to the ant scientist would be a lack of behavior altogether.

If we parallel the ants behavior with existence, then it could be said that since behavior is good, then existence is good, and if lack of behavior is not good, then lack of existence is not good.

Therefore, aside from personal self interest, if there is a good and bad, then existence itself is good and non existence is bad.


“The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong” by Carl Jung
Bob

Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.


Hello Raza,

I do not think you have understood the logical issues at stake here. Part of the question is to do with the attributes of God/Allah. Let's take another example.

Allah is often referred to in the Koran (in the bismillah and elsewhere) as 'merciful' or  'the most merciful' 'ar-rahim' What does this mean for Muslim commentators?  Al-Mizan in his tafsir on the bismillah writes:

Quote:
Also, it teaches a lesson to mankind, showing them the perfect manner of starting all their talks and actions; it guides them to put the stamp of the divine name on all their activities; doing every work for the sake of Allah, associating it with His good names and attributes.


Mercy is one of the attributes of Allah. I have found no Muslim commentator who states otherwise. For a Muslim Allah describes himself in the Koran as ar-rahim. And so the logical and theological problem is this. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

How can the attribute of MERCY which is supposed to be eternal (Allah cannot have attributes that are limited by time) really be eternal? How did Allah exercise the attribute of Mercy before Creation? The only object to which mercy could have been applied BEFORE creation was Allah himself. Did Allah require his own mercy? If He did then he is imperfect! If Muslims say that the attribute of Mercy is dependent upon the creation then they are arguing that one of Allah's qualities is contingent upon the existence of a created world, i.e. that one of Allah's attributes can only fulfill itself AFTER the creation of man (or the angels and jinns). Allah is therefore a being whose attributes are determined or limited by his own creation.

Now let's take the statement "Allah is good". For Allah himself, the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' CANNOT exist because Allah does not have the choice of  being 'good' or 'bad'. EVERTHING that Allah does is exercised through his will or fiat. The notion of 'the good' can only exist for beings who have the CHOICE between committing a good deed and a bad one. This does not exist for Allah. Therefore  the notion of 'the good' is MEANINGLESS for Allah himself. As it is meaningless for Allah to say 'I am good' it is also meaningless for us to say that  "Allah is good".

If you can solve these logical and theological conundrums here then feel free to do so!
norwegian

Good and bad are man-made concepts, as are desirable and undesirable. I don't take the phrase "God is good" seriously because you can't assign any absolute meaning to it.

But its a great question nevertheless because you can't answer it without attempting to define a "reality" in which good and bad makes sense.

Most of us define reality by our six senses: sight, sound, hearing, taste, touch and mind. These senses allow us to pick up and internalize our culture, upon which we decide right and wrong, truth and falsity. Senses are absolutely crucial to the equation.

Now lets change that mix of senses. Try describing the color red to a blind person or describing Mozart to the deaf. Are their realities the same as ours? If you ask a blind man to describe an elephant, you'll wonder if he's living in the same world as you are.

We can assert the color of our shirts with great confidence in court, until someone shines an ultra-violet light and change color itself. This is how much our senses are trustworthy.

What I'm trying to say is, I believe much of "reality" is an illusion, created partly by senses that are incomplete and the rest by faith. Many animals outdo us in sensory capability, being able to pick up sounds and colors outside the human spectrum. Some humans have more developed minds that can influence matter. But because we don't have these capabilities, we like to label them as unreal, a fantasy.

Coming back to "God is good." The argument now becomes:

1. Goodness is defined by cultural belief
2. Culture is what one learns from society
3. We can only learn what is captured by our senses
4. Our senses are incomplete at best, dodgy at worst
5. If we only have a subset of the full spectrum of possible senses, reality becomes relative
6. If reality is relative, then truth is relative
7. If truth is relative, then our concept of good and bad is relative
8. If good and bad is relative, the words "God is good" has no absolute meaning

The irony of god's "truths" is when people claim these truths to be absolute and inviolable when such "truths" are milled from flawed or incomplete realities.
All_Brains

norwegian wrote:
Good and bad are man-made concepts, as are desirable and undesirable. I don't take the phrase "God is good" seriously because you can't assign any absolute meaning to it.

But its a great question nevertheless because you can't answer it without attempting to define a "reality" in which good and bad makes sense.

Most of us define reality by our six senses: sight, sound, hearing, taste, touch and mind. These senses allow us to pick up and internalize our culture, upon which we decide right and wrong, truth and falsity. Senses are absolutely crucial to the equation.

Now lets change that mix of senses. Try describing the color red to a blind person or describing Mozart to the deaf. Are their realities the same as ours? If you ask a blind man to describe an elephant, you'll wonder if he's living in the same world as you are.

We can assert the color of our shirts with great confidence in court, until someone shines an ultra-violet light and change color itself. This is how much our senses are trustworthy.

What I'm trying to say is, I believe much of "reality" is an illusion, created partly by senses that are incomplete and the rest by faith. Many animals outdo us in sensory capability, being able to pick up sounds and colors outside the human spectrum. Some humans have more developed minds that can influence matter. But because we don't have these capabilities, we like to label them as unreal, a fantasy.

Coming back to "God is good." The argument now becomes:

1. Goodness is defined by cultural belief
2. Culture is what one learns from society
3. We can only learn what is captured by our senses
4. Our senses are incomplete at best, dodgy at worst
5. If we only have a subset of the full spectrum of possible senses, reality becomes relative
6. If reality is relative, then truth is relative
7. If truth is relative, then our concept of good and bad is relative
8. If good and bad is relative, the words "God is good" has no absolute meaning

The irony of god's "truths" is when people claim these truths to be absolute and inviolable when such "truths" are milled from flawed or incomplete realities.


Loved your post and your views!
Baal

Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Hey Raza, why do you say (Subhanu Wa Ta'ala) after you mention Allah?
BMZ

Baal wrote:
Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Hey Raza, why do you say (Subhanu Wa Ta'ala) after you mention Allah?


Don't you know Baal? You are an Egyptian, an speaker of Arabic and an ex-Muslim?  Laughing
brainout

I disagree with you all.  Absolutes exist, else there can be no relatives.  1 relative to 0 is 1, but zero itself is an absolute.  At the opposite end, you have Infinite stasis, beneath which all the relatives 'house', so you can have an infinite progression or regression.

It therefore stands to reason that absolute good exists also, as the inherent meaning of "good" would have to mean internal integrity, without which there is no stasis.

That man also adds his own ideas of good or bad and projects them onto God doesn't mean there's no God or no good.  It only means that man puts his own ideas into the mix.

So I think y'all are a tad narrow in the scope of your question, viewing "good" and "bad" tautologically, restricting the term to man-made ideas and then pronouncing no God because good can only be a man-made idea.  Math doesn't work like that, so truth doesn't either.  Math teaches you that there is such a thing as an independent absoluteness, on which all relativities depend.
Bob

brainout wrote:
I disagree with you all.  Absolutes exist, else there can be no relatives.  1 relative to 0 is 1, but zero itself is an absolute.  At the opposite end, you have Infinite stasis, beneath which all the relatives 'house', so you can have an infinite progression or regression.

It therefore stands to reason that absolute good exists also, as the inherent meaning of "good" would have to mean internal integrity, without which there is no stasis.

That man also adds his own ideas of good or bad and projects them onto God doesn't mean there's no God or no good.  It only means that man puts his own ideas into the mix.

So I think y'all are a tad narrow in the scope of your question, viewing "good" and "bad" tautologically, restricting the term to man-made ideas and then pronouncing no God because good can only be a man-made idea.  Math doesn't work like that, so truth doesn't either.  Math teaches you that there is such a thing as an independent absoluteness, on which all relativities depend.


In FORMAL systems such as mathematics absolutes exist, yes, but the concept of 'the good' is not, unlike zero,  part of any formal system that can be expressed symbolically. Your argument is a typical neo-Platonic one that maintains that ideal essences of objects and concepts must exist for there to be any tangible expression of them.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, our notion of 'good' is contingent upon belief systems. We have simply extrapolated the various meanings of 'good' through induction and then projected them onto an ideal being so that we can state that 'God is Love' God is oft-forgiving and merciful' et cetera.

But even if we do say that  GOD IS GOOD that still does not remove the LOGICAL problems inherent in such a statement and which I explained in my first post. If you disagree with what I wrote about the logical issues at stake then say so and why!
brainout

Bob wrote:
brainout wrote:
I disagree with you all.  Absolutes exist, else there can be no relatives.  1 relative to 0 is 1, but zero itself is an absolute.  At the opposite end, you have Infinite stasis, beneath which all the relatives 'house', so you can have an infinite progression or regression.

It therefore stands to reason that absolute good exists also, as the inherent meaning of "good" would have to mean internal integrity, without which there is no stasis.

That man also adds his own ideas of good or bad and projects them onto God doesn't mean there's no God or no good.  It only means that man puts his own ideas into the mix.

So I think y'all are a tad narrow in the scope of your question, viewing "good" and "bad" tautologically, restricting the term to man-made ideas and then pronouncing no God because good can only be a man-made idea.  Math doesn't work like that, so truth doesn't either.  Math teaches you that there is such a thing as an independent absoluteness, on which all relativities depend.


In FORMAL systems such as mathematics absolutes exist, yes, but the concept of 'the good' is not, unlike zero,  part of any formal system that can be expressed symbolically. Your argument is a typical neo-Platonic one that maintains that ideal essences of objects and concepts must exist for there to be any tangible expression of them.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, our notion of 'good' is contingent upon belief systems. We have simply extrapolated the various meanings of 'good' through induction and then projected them onto an ideal being so that we can state that 'God is Love' God is oft-forgiving and merciful' et cetera.

But even if we do say that  GOD IS GOOD that still does not remove the LOGICAL problems inherent in such a statement and which I explained in my first post. If you disagree with what I wrote about the logical issues at stake then say so and why!


It has nothing to do with neo-Platonism, it has everything to do with common sense.  In order to feel comfortable with his atheism, an atheist must make everything relative, because if absolutes exist, then God exists.  In such a case, he is just as narrow-minded and blind as the Muslim.  For then he must accuse everyone else of subjectivity and bias when they disagree.

Absolutes exist, and absolute Good would be a set of answers, truths, just as any other set of truths.  Period.
kafir forever

brainout wrote:
In order to feel comfortable with his atheism, an atheist must make everything relative,


Why is that?  I do not see your conclusion following from your premise.  Maybe I missed something?

Quote:
because if absolutes exist, then God exists.  


Again, I do not see your conclusion following from your premise.  If 1 > 0 is an absolute, how does it follow that God exists?

Quote:
Absolutes exist, and absolute Good would be a set of answers, truths, just as any other set of truths.  Period.


I agree that absolutes exist, but that does not mean that God exists.
brainout

Kafir forever, if absolutes exist, then it stands to reason that Absolute Personhood also exists.  Absolutes must have a cause, and there must be an attribute set which contains all the others.  That is why (maybe not you) atheists must say everything is relative, truth is not some absolute.  For if there is an absolute, then there must be a 'parent' of it -- and that lead ultimately to come kind of God.

Not necessarily the 'Christian' idea, that's for the individual to determine on his own.  But you cannot have the relative without an absolute.  It's impossible.
kafir forever

brainout wrote:
Kafir forever, if absolutes exist, then it stands to reason that Absolute Personhood also exists.  


Why does that stand to reason?  Please elaborate with your logic, and please explain what Absolute Personhood means.  I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Quote:
Absolutes must have a cause,


Why?  What is the cause of 1 > 0?

Quote:
and there must be an attribute set which contains all the others.  


Why?  And what do you mean by an "attribute set?"  Examples?

Quote:
That is why (maybe not you) atheists must say everything is relative, truth is not some absolute.  


Don't know about other atheists, but as far as I am concerned, truth is an absolute.  That is the whole point.  Either 1 > 0 is true, or it is not, and the truth of that assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of God.

Quote:
For if there is an absolute, then there must be a 'parent' of it -- and that lead ultimately to come kind of God.


There are many missing steps in your logic from your premis to your conclusion.  Sorry, but I do not follow.  Please explain.

Quote:
Not necessarily the 'Christian' idea, that's for the individual to determine on his own.  But you cannot have the relative without an absolute.  It's impossible.


If you believe in the Theory of Relativity, then you must believe in the "relative" without the absolute.  That is the whole point of Relativity theory.  Personally, I have many doubts and criticisms of Relativity, but that is another matter.
Baal

BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Hey Raza, why do you say (Subhanu Wa Ta'ala) after you mention Allah?


Don't you know Baal? You are an Egyptian, an speaker of Arabic and an ex-Muslim?  Laughing

It is a simple question directed at Raza. Either he can answer it or you can answer it. And while you are at it, what do you say after Muhammad. In your country, not in English.
Bob

brainout wrote:
Kafir forever, if absolutes exist, then it stands to reason that Absolute Personhood also exists.  Absolutes must have a cause, and there must be an attribute set which contains all the others.  That is why (maybe not you) atheists must say everything is relative, truth is not some absolute.  For if there is an absolute, then there must be a 'parent' of it -- and that lead ultimately to come kind of God.

Not necessarily the 'Christian' idea, that's for the individual to determine on his own.  But you cannot have the relative without an absolute.  It's impossible.


Of course Kafir Forever is right. A symbolically expressed absolute such as 1>0 does not lead LOGICALLY to the conclusion 'God exists' ! Did you know Brainout that ever since Aristotle a logical conducted argument has been considered one that proceeds by correct deduction from a  set of premises such as :

All birds have wings
Penguins are birds
Therefore penguins have wings

Simply by stating 'it stands to reason' does not get you off the hook! Present a logical argument based on the fact that mathematical absolutes exist and concluding with the statement 'Therefore God exists.'

If I say 'This pullover is green' does that mean relatively green, in relation to an absolute green? If not why not?
If I say 'This shirt is big' is that, according to you, only in relation to 'absolute bigness'?


Brainout, have you ever studied logic? I have my doubts. The questions I posed were strictly LOGICAL ones. If we say GOD IS GOOD then certain LOGICAL questions arise from that statement. Here they are again:

One

If the difference between right and wrong is due solely to God's will then that difference is meaningless for God himself. Let us imagine, for example, that God might decide to say to people that it is good to pray to him five times a day. But what he says to others and what he can say to himself are different. Allah himself cannot justify TO HIMSELF his commands by sayng 'they are good' because they are simply the expression of his fiat or will. For Allah himself 'the good' is a meaningless notion.

Two

As the notion of 'the good' is meaningless for God himself, then it is also meaningless to say that "God is good."

Three

Another difficulty is this. If you say "God is good" as one says "Mother Teresa was good", then 'the good' (along with 'the right', 'the wrong' and 'the bad') must correspond to a quality that is INDEPENDENT of the object or person to which it is attributed. This argument would be a logical consequence of affirming that 'the good' etc are NOT meaningless to God.

Four

In turn, this woudl mean that 'the good' etc logically precede the existence of God himself.


Can you deal SPECIFICALLY with these points?   Once again I have my doubts.
BMZ

Baal wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Hey Raza, why do you say (Subhanu Wa Ta'ala) after you mention Allah?


Don't you know Baal? You are an Egyptian, an speaker of Arabic and an ex-Muslim?  Laughing

It is a simple question directed at Raza. Either he can answer it or you can answer it. And while you are at it, what do you say after Muhammad. In your country, not in English.


That was a silly question, Baal. You are supposed to know that. Any ex-Muslim knows that. It shows that you are a fake, one who pretends to be an ex-Muslim like Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq, the seniles.  Laughing It is something like an ex-Christian asking 'what is trinity?'  Laughing
All_Brains

BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Baal wrote:
Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Hey Raza, why do you say (Subhanu Wa Ta'ala) after you mention Allah?


Don't you know Baal? You are an Egyptian, an speaker of Arabic and an ex-Muslim?  Laughing

It is a simple question directed at Raza. Either he can answer it or you can answer it. And while you are at it, what do you say after Muhammad. In your country, not in English.


That was a silly question, Baal. You are supposed to know that. Any ex-Muslim knows that. It shows that you are a fake, one who pretends to be an ex-Muslim like Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq, the seniles.  Laughing It is something like an ex-Christian asking 'what is trinity?'  Laughing


Hi BMZ

I think Baal is asking the question not because he does not know the answer, but to lead Raza to a certain conclusion.
Mutley

brainout wrote:
Kafir forever, if absolutes exist, then it stands to reason that Absolute Personhood also exists.


What do you mean by Absolute Personhood?

brainout wrote:

Absolutes must have a cause,


Or be the cause? Maybe?

brainout wrote:

and there must be an attribute set which contains all the others.  That is why (maybe not you) atheists must say everything is relative, truth is not some absolute.  For if there is an absolute, then there must be a 'parent' of it -- and that lead ultimately to come kind of God.


If one says absolute, then by meaning itself, you've reached the ultimate end of the logic chain. There is no need for the absolute to have a parent. As to what the absolute might produce and why? Who knows?

brainout wrote:

Not necessarily the 'Christian' idea, that's for the individual to determine on his own.  But you cannot have the relative without an absolute.  It's impossible.


I think that would take a little more explanation.
AhmedBahgat

All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL
brainout

My replies are in blue, kafir.  Sorry, I didn't realize I missed this.  I can't stay long, but now I'll watch this topic so when you reply, I'll catch it sooner!

kafir forever wrote:
brainout wrote:
Kafir forever, if absolutes exist, then it stands to reason that Absolute Personhood also exists.  


Why does that stand to reason?  Please elaborate with your logic, and please explain what Absolute Personhood means.  I do not understand what you are trying to say.  I'll try to answer better, in what follows (i.e., in blue) below.

Quote:
Absolutes must have a cause,


Why?  What is the cause of 1 > 0?  ABSOLUTE TRUTH, which we can see here operating in the form of math.  There are two things going on:  a) the action of 1 succeeding zero, and b) some rule that 1 ought to succeed zero.  So the rule is first, and the action is what we see.  The rule is b)ehind the a)ction.  The rule is thus an absolute which itself is neither mass nor energy.

"Hupostasis" is the Unified Theory of Everything:  "if A, then -A."  So if finity, then everything that is NOT finity, is Infinity.  Thus we know Infinity is a stasis.  (Greek term "hupostasis" means one thing standing (stasis) under (hupo) another, and is classical Greek for Reality, usually mistranslated "substance".)


Quote:
and there must be an attribute set which contains all the others.  


Why?  And what do you mean by an "attribute set?"  Examples?  Attributes are the characteristics of a thing, person, entity.  So, for example, human attributes include self-consciousness, will, cognition, creativity, etc.  So the biggest attribute set by definition would have to be that which includes all other attributes both real and potential, unreal and non-potential, else there would be no freedom for the real and the potential, to occur.  So thus the biggest attribute set must needs be personal (doesn't mean you have to call it "God", though the idea is logical enough), because we are persons.

Quote:
That is why (maybe not you) atheists must say everything is relative, truth is not some absolute.  


Don't know about other atheists, but as far as I am concerned, truth is an absolute.  That is the whole point.  Either 1 > 0 is true, or it is not, and the truth of that assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of God.  Agreed.

Quote:
For if there is an absolute, then there must be a 'parent' of it -- and that lead ultimately to some kind of God.


There are many missing steps in your logic from your premis to your conclusion.  Sorry, but I do not follow.  Please explain.  All relatives are in regression and progression with some type of incremental iteration between each one.  Any absolutes which are not animate would also have an origination, here most logically as characteristics of some ANIMATE Absolute.  Again, you could call it "life", if you don't like the idea of "God".  Or if "God", that still leaves one with the task of determining the identity of "God".

Quote:
Not necessarily the 'Christian' idea, that's for the individual to determine on his own.  But you cannot have the relative without an absolute.  It's impossible.


If you believe in the Theory of Relativity, then you must believe in the "relative" without the absolute.  That is the whole point of Relativity theory.  Personally, I have many doubts and criticisms of Relativity, but that is another matter.

Theory of Relativity 'caps' at the spacetime idea of universe, which itself is a finite thing.  Absoluteness must be Infinite or it's not absolute.  Hence whatever the Absolute is, it's the largest dataset containing all attributes and itself would be outside spacetime.  Of course, this means that Einstein was wrong, in the same way Newton was.  Newton's constant was too small.  Einstein found a bigger one.  But if there is no constant, but instead a progression such that the speed of light is "x" MATCHED TO a given underlying law (much like you cook different foods at different temperatures), then a whole lot more about the universe's function, could be explained.  But I digress...


kafir, I always 'see' this in my mind analogous to a circle in which all else is 'contained'.  Kinda like pretending that the entire universe exists in a bowl, with the exception that the characteristics of the bowl FURNISH the free creation, development and interaction of what's IN the bowl.  Think of it as a kind of parenting, but the parent's characteristics are exactly the opposite of the 'kids'.  Infinity-finity dichotomy, a hupostasis.

Again, the "God" question is really a subset IDENTITY question.  First, we're looking at Absolute holding Relatives, and in fact the Absolute being the sustenance for those Relatives without itself having the characteristics OF the Relatives.  Does that abstract description help?  It's not metaphysical at all.  Math isn't really metaphysical, and math is the dynamic depiction of truth;  math unlike all other science can display the unseen and otherwise untestable.  That very attribute tells you that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth.  Since we are persons, the attribute of personhood (inside which are subattributes like self-consciousness, will, etc.) -- since we are persons, it stands to reason that there is one or more Absolute Persons.

Infinity is non-spatial, so technically the number of Absolute Persons being qualitative, is not limited in quantity.

Well, I guess you could call it "meta"+"physical", if you stripped all that goofy religious nonsense from our English usage of the term "metaphysical".  Greek "meta" means "in association with", and in some respects (time phrases) means "after".  Both of those root meanings are rather prosaic, not woo woo woo new-agey ideas.  So I apologize for the large vocabulary, and I don't use it to imply some kind of Twilight Zoney depiction.  It's just TRUTH, housed.  This housing is qualitative and hence immaterial (timeless, non-spatial, a set of characteristics), not quantitative.  The finite quality of the quantities is a function of/derives from the infinite quality.

So look:  if A, then -A.  If this brainout is human, hence -a, has will: then there must be an A, a Who of Absolute Will also existing;  my own FREE will is a 'kid' of the Absolute Free Will.  Notice how simple rules of genetics or of math, carried out to the ultimate conclusion (or back to ultimate premise, take your pick) is consistent throughout.  It's really quite simple.

So:  REALITY, aka "hupostasis", is the SUM of everything true, and everything false.  So notice that "no information is lost", a big criterion in science.  You have to say the sum of, because even what's false, is true in the sense of the FACT that a thing is false.  It has a kind of 'existence' in that it IS false.  Now:  in between, are the dynamic probabilities or possibilities of something not true, becoming true; or something true, becoming false.  Hence REALITY is the largest set, containing all others.  A whole.  Inter alia, thus you immediately can predict that there are five dimensions, not 11, because you never need more than five.  The fifth, is the larger reality, which includes what is false and the probabilities, since their sets are (at any given moment) NOT realities.  "Non-existence" is too small a name for that fifth dimension, and so is "probability" or even "possibility".  You could only call it "non-real": or maybe, some other neutral term which at 2am, eludes my brain.

Didn't they always tell you in college that the ultimate theory would be the most simple and most elegant?  So, then:  if A, then -a, such that each -a is part of -A, and -A, is the whole of non-Infinity.  Descartes' typo.  The guy should have said, "CogitA ergo sum."

Then it's up to the individual, to find out whether the "A" is an "it", or one or more Persons. That, I submit, is a fantastic PERSONAL journey one takes privately.  Individually, not part of groupthink!

There's more to it all than what's been written here.  I'm trying to keep it simple, focusing on the forest, not the trees.

Golly I hope I'm making sense.  If not, yell at me.  Sometimes in an effort to be succinct I succinctly succeed in being obtuse. Smile  I'm a big picture person who sees things in wholes.  But don't ask me to tie my shoes, I'll do it wrongly!
careperson

God cannot be Good.
Neither we can be good if we continue to believe in God.
When we realize that there exists no god, we come in grip with the reality.
We then know that there exists only ourselves and the others.
The 'other' now assumes the place of God;the object of reverence, responsibility, commitment and truthfulness.
I lose the greed of achieving the eternity for myself; I stop reifying or deifying my hallucinations as divine revelations; I stop being closed into 'sacred' illusions; I stop believing that somebody greater other than the other can forgive my violations. I learn that i cannot achieve things through the magics of prayer! I stop desiring winning others by means of some super power of God!...
Loss of god is loss of malignant ego
The first step to be ethical is in giving up the God belief.
careperson

brainout wrote:
I disagree with you all.  Absolutes exist, else there can be no relatives.  1 relative to 0 is 1, but zero itself is an absolute.  At the opposite end, you have Infinite stasis, beneath which all the relatives 'house', so you can have an infinite progression or regression.

It therefore stands to reason that absolute good exists also, as the inherent meaning of "good" would have to mean internal integrity, without which there is no stasis.

That man also adds his own ideas of good or bad and projects them onto God doesn't mean there's no God or no good.  It only means that man puts his own ideas into the mix.

So I think y'all are a tad narrow in the scope of your question, viewing "good" and "bad" tautologically, restricting the term to man-made ideas and then pronouncing no God because good can only be a man-made idea.  Math doesn't work like that, so truth doesn't either.  Math teaches you that there is such a thing as an independent absoluteness, on which all relativities depend.


There exists no 'absolute zero'.
Had there been one, there would be self sameness. Selfsameness is a myth.
There is no absolute zero space. There exists no absolute zero time.
Time cannot be divided into zero time. But a relative zero time can be assumed.
What we assume the smallest dividend, we call zero.
There exists no selfsameness.
Non existence of absolute zero makes diversity possible.
Nothing can be copied with zero difference.
So every genetical material differs from its other.
Zero is always approximate.
Non existence of absolute zero makes absolute impossible.
Approximate and relative!
absolute is a myth.
Selfsameness is a myth.
absolute zero is impossible.
Two zeros are not equals.
All_Brains

careperson wrote:
God cannot be Good.
Neither we can be good if we continue to believe in God.
When we realize that there exists no god, we come in grip with the reality.
We then know that there exists only ourselves and the others.
The 'other' now assumes the place of God;the object of reverence, responsibility, commitment and truthfulness.
I lose the greed of achieving the eternity for myself; I stop reifying or deifying my hallucinations as divine revelations; I stop being closed into 'sacred' illusions; I stop believing that somebody greater other than the other can forgive my violations. I learn that i cannot achieve things through the magics of prayer! I stop desiring winning others by means of some super power of God!...
Loss of god is loss of malignant ego
The first step to be ethical is in giving up the God belief.


You sure don't post much, but when you do...YOU DO! Thanks for the great insight! Very Happy
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


Ahmed, stick to translating Arabic and Koran. Steer clear from philosophy, it makes you sound like an infant.

If spiders the size of cats exist then humanity will be wiped out.

Oh look, I just contradicted myself big times. If I believe big spiders do not exist, how can I say if they are bad or good?
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


Ahmed, stick to translating Arabic and Koran. Steer clear from philosophy, it makes you sound like an infant.

If spiders the size of cats exist then humanity will be wiped out.

Oh look, I just contradicted myself big times. If I believe big spiders do not exist, how can I say if they are bad or good?


mister baal, some of the biggesr spiders are not poisonos, on the other hand some of the smallest snakes are real killers

your metaphor is dismissed, pal
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


LOL sure he can judge the figure being described in the abrahamic doctrines. There's no contradiction there. I don't believe that Jafar (from Aladin) existed, but I can still argue that I find the figure, being described, as an evil person.

So based on the attributes of the "god" confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, All_Brain can reach to the conslusion that "god" (as atributed in the Abrahanic trio) is bad.

Peace
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


Ahmed, stick to translating Arabic and Koran. Steer clear from philosophy, it makes you sound like an infant.

If spiders the size of cats exist then humanity will be wiped out.

Oh look, I just contradicted myself big times. If I believe big spiders do not exist, how can I say if they are bad or good?


mister baal, some of the biggesr spiders are not poisonos, on the other hand some of the smallest snakes are real killers

your metaphor is dismissed, pal

As I said earlier, steer clear from philosophy, it makes you appear dim and lost.

My metaphor was about: "How we are capable of discussing and criticizing subjects that we do not believe exist. "

You childishly accused careperson of contradicting himself "Big Time" just because he theorized about a god he does not believe in.

Whether you understood the concept and was just trying to derail the thread, which is the probable case, or whether you do possess the wisdom of an infant, is irrelevant. The end result is that you got caught saying something childish.
All_Brains

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


Ahmed, stick to translating Arabic and Koran. Steer clear from philosophy, it makes you sound like an infant.

If spiders the size of cats exist then humanity will be wiped out.

Oh look, I just contradicted myself big times. If I believe big spiders do not exist, how can I say if they are bad or good?


mister baal, some of the biggesr spiders are not poisonos, on the other hand some of the smallest snakes are real killers

your metaphor is dismissed, pal

As I said earlier, steer clear from philosophy, it makes you appear dim and lost.

My metaphor was about: "How we are capable of discussing and criticizing subjects that we do not believe exist. "

You childishly accused careperson of contradicting himself "Big Time" just because he theorized about a god he does not believe in.

Whether you understood the concept and was just trying to derail the thread, which is the probable case, or whether you do possess the wisdom of an infant, is irrelevant. The end result is that you got caught saying something childish.


Hey Baal

He was actually responding to my post, not careperson's.

Ahmed

I don't think Count Dracula exists in reality, but I can tell you that based on his conduct that he represents evil.

I am also judging Allah's character based on his "alleged" book and I have unfortunately reached this same conclusion, that of Count Dracula!!!

This judgment led me to NOT believe in him, because if there was a creator to this world then he'd not posses the attributes of common thug. I am afraid the attributes of this God does not transcend above the normal daily atrocities, which we witness every day!
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


LOL sure he can judge the figure being described in the abrahamic doctrines. There's no contradiction there. I don't believe that Jafar (from Aladin) existed, but I can still argue that I find the figure, being described, as an evil person.

So based on the attributes of the "god" confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, All_Brain can reach to the conslusion that "god" (as atributed in the Abrahanic trio) is bad.

Peace



can I ask ya, what is your religion?

you sound like a jew, is that right?
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


Ahmed, stick to translating Arabic and Koran. Steer clear from philosophy, it makes you sound like an infant.

If spiders the size of cats exist then humanity will be wiped out.

Oh look, I just contradicted myself big times. If I believe big spiders do not exist, how can I say if they are bad or good?


mister baal, some of the biggesr spiders are not poisonos, on the other hand some of the smallest snakes are real killers

your metaphor is dismissed, pal

As I said earlier, steer clear from philosophy, it makes you appear dim and lost.

My metaphor was about: "How we are capable of discussing and criticizing subjects that we do not believe exist. "

You childishly accused careperson of contradicting himself "Big Time" just because he theorized about a god he does not believe in.

Whether you understood the concept and was just trying to derail the thread, which is the probable case, or whether you do possess the wisdom of an infant, is irrelevant. The end result is that you got caught saying something childish.



mister baal

what i said to a_b has nothing to do with phlisophy, are you drunk or somethin?
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Great post Bob, it does provoke the brain cells.

But if you think like me that God does not exist, then the question becomes a lot simpler.

The definition of good is relative to the time, circumstances and side you're on when judging the attribute of good.

Based on the attributes of God confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, I can reach the conclusion that God is bad.


mate you have contradicted yourself big times

if you believe god does not exist, then you can not say he is bad or good, this is because he does noot exist for you, LOL


LOL sure he can judge the figure being described in the abrahamic doctrines. There's no contradiction there. I don't believe that Jafar (from Aladin) existed, but I can still argue that I find the figure, being described, as an evil person.

So based on the attributes of the "god" confirmed by the Abrahamic trio, All_Brain can reach to the conslusion that "god" (as atributed in the Abrahanic trio) is bad.

Peace



can I ask ya, what is your religion?

you sound like a jew, is that right?


What!  are you seriously asking those questions?

If not, I don't get! Is it some special muslim humor?

But just in case you are being serious. Hell no. I do not believe in any religion, I do not believe in any "god". And honestly I thought you would have understood that by now.

Peace (or should I say shalom to satisfy your humor?)
AhmedBahgat

LOL

so why you wrote God, g_d?
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
LOL

so why you wrote God, g_d?


Well if you have to know. Out of respect for you, which I will come back to. In my opinion the word "God" is being used to much, also in places where people are not refering to any "god", so that's the reason, that when I refer to the idea of "God", I write "god", cause my disbelieve is in concern of every understanding of a "god" or divine entity(ies) I see no reason to use the capital-G.
Now you seemed upset at a time, because I called the "god" described in Quran a bit sadistic. So therefore in some post, out of respect for fx you, I choose to write "g-d" or perhaps some times "g_d". If you had paid attention you would have seen that I write it with a little g, and that I foremost write "god", as I also have been doing in this thread, ie. the comment you responded to. And now that you are mentioning it, you havent answered my comment at the very place I used "g-d"/"g_d".

Peace

Wow this was a waste of time and space  Wink But I hope that I answered your conumdrums
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
LOL

so why you wrote God, g_d?


Well if you have to know. Out of respect for you, which I will come back to. In my opinion the word "God" is being used to much, also in places where people are not refering to any "god", so that's the reason, that when I refer to the idea of "God", I write "god", cause my disbelieve is in concern of every understanding of a "god" or divine entity(ies) I see no reason to use the capital-G.
Now you seemed upset at a time, because I called the "god" described in Quran a bit sadistic. So therefore in some post, out of respect for fx you, I choose to write "g-d" or perhaps some times "g_d". If you had paid attention you would have seen that I write it with a little g, and that I foremost write "god", as I also have been doing in this thread, ie. the comment you responded to. And now that you are mentioning it, you havent answered my comment at the very place I used "g-d"/"g_d".

Peace

Wow this was a waste of time and space  Wink But I hope that I answered your conumdrums


To be honest pal, I donlt give a dman what faith you follow, I was only concern because one of FI members raised that wonder regarding your comment:, you can read it in the following url:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules...rums&file=viewtopic&t=658
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
LOL

so why you wrote God, g_d?


Well if you have to know. Out of respect for you, which I will come back to. In my opinion the word "God" is being used to much, also in places where people are not refering to any "god", so that's the reason, that when I refer to the idea of "God", I write "god", cause my disbelieve is in concern of every understanding of a "god" or divine entity(ies) I see no reason to use the capital-G.
Now you seemed upset at a time, because I called the "god" described in Quran a bit sadistic. So therefore in some post, out of respect for fx you, I choose to write "g-d" or perhaps some times "g_d". If you had paid attention you would have seen that I write it with a little g, and that I foremost write "god", as I also have been doing in this thread, ie. the comment you responded to. And now that you are mentioning it, you havent answered my comment at the very place I used "g-d"/"g_d".

Peace

Wow this was a waste of time and space  Wink But I hope that I answered your conumdrums


To be honest pal, I donlt give a dman what faith you follow, I was only concern because one of FI members raised that wonder regarding your comment:, you can read it in the following url:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules...rums&file=viewtopic&t=658


Lol. He seems like a nice person  Wink  full of love.

But you can tell him that I'm an atheist and that I'm not able to fcuk myself. I'm sure he would be glad for the information.

Haven't there been any jews in the 4-5 years (I don't know how long, I'm guessing) you have posted on FFI? I thought it was "standard-knowledge" about judaism that many jews don't write the full name. Oh and by the way you posted it as a FFI-post, but of course it was originally made on FFI. But why don't you give any links, so the readers can get the full picture instead of your biased comments. I have wondered about this concerning your posts on FI for some time now. And you could also post my respond for your comment.

Peace
AhmedBahgat

Sure, will do add the links for this one and from now on to any copies I pass to my web site
AhmedBahgat

See:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules...mp;file=viewtopic&p=3049#3049
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Sure, will do add the links for this one and from now on to any copies I pass to my web site


AhmedBahgat wrote:
See:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules...mp;file=viewtopic&p=3049#3049


Great, I think it increases your credibility as a transmitter of information if you do that.

Peace
Baal

The story is BS. You are in the middle of the desert. You see some light, you have no clue what it is, you go alone?! and you send the leader? and you send the leader alone?

Also although both verses mean the same, what moses said in each verse is different. He meant the same though. You can blame it on the fact that he was not speaking arabic and the koran was just trying to translate what moses said.

But now we have an issue Ahmed, which of the Two verses is the better translation for what Moses said?
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
The story is BS. You are in the middle of the desert. You see some light, you have no clue what it is, you go alone?! and you send the leader? and you send the leader alone?

Also although both verses mean the same, what moses said in each verse is different. He meant the same though. You can blame it on the fact that he was not speaking arabic and the koran was just trying to translate what moses said.

But now we have an issue Ahmed, which of the Two verses is the better translation for what Moses said?


mister baal

Allah is telling us the story USING HIS OWN words, then He told us the story again, using His own different words but same context then  He told us about it for the third time using His own different words and still same context, This is the miracle of the Quran, pal

Allah is not reading to us a log book of what is excatly been said

don't act desperate as Tv

cheers
Tvebak

Hello both

Could we continue, if it needs to be continued, in the appropiate place. This thread is a discussion about "how can God be good", and not some specific textual references to a specific book.

So I'll put it over here or suggest the mods to do it.

http://freefaith.myfreeforum.org/ftopic205-10.php

Cheers
ronyvo

Raza wrote:
I think Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) gave out the traits for a good being and a bad being.
So Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) fits the traits for good being, so God is Good.

For example, Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the He will forgive all of your sins if you sincerely repent for them. And for the humans, there is a chance that humans can go to eternal heaven.

By this, you can pick up two traits of God, He is forgiving and He is merciful.

Forgiving and merciful are two traits that are considered good.

Please, give me the surahs, wit references, from the Koran which says that Allah is merciful and forgiving.

Please, do not mix the terms.
Allah is NOT God (the God of the Jews and Christians).
ronyvo

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
The story is BS. You are in the middle of the desert. You see some light, you have no clue what it is, you go alone?! and you send the leader? and you send the leader alone?

Also although both verses mean the same, what moses said in each verse is different. He meant the same though. You can blame it on the fact that he was not speaking arabic and the koran was just trying to translate what moses said.

But now we have an issue Ahmed, which of the Two verses is the better translation for what Moses said?


mister baal

Allah is telling us the story USING HIS OWN words, then He told us the story again, using His own different words but same context then  He told us about it for the third time using His own different words and still same context, This is the miracle of the Quran, pal

Allah is not reading to us a log book of what is excatly been said

don't act desperate as Tv

cheers


First, the Koran is full of contradictions. I can prove it.

Second, Muslims brag that the Koran is the only miracle Mohammad brought forth, because of the equisite Arabic language. Well, it has been proven over and over again that the languestic mistakes are numerous. Taha Hussein, a Muslim scholar in Arabic proved it, so many others.

Third, please read my post about who is allah.
BMZ

ronyvo wrote:
 First, the Koran is full of contradictions. I can prove it.

Second, Muslims brag that the Koran is the only miracle Mohammad brought forth, because of the equisite Arabic language. Well, it has been proven over and over again that the languestic mistakes are numerous. Taha Hussein, a Muslim scholar in Arabic proved it, so many others.

Third, please read my post about who is allah.


Please prove it using your own words and understanding, without quoting any links of ill repute.

Just copy/paste a verse in Arabic and show us the contradictions, if any. Would appreciate if you can do that in a separate topic.

By the way, who is Taha Hussein? I have never heard about him.

BMZ
Psycho Bunny

BMZ wrote:
By the way, who is Taha Hussein? I have never heard about him.

BMZ[/i]


Neither had I. This is just a quick Google -

Quote:
DR. TAHA HUSSAIN  [b. 1890]
Dr. Taha Hussain, a leading Egyptian scholar,  rejects the theory that the political system of early Islam was prescribed by God thr ough His revelation to the Prophet. He says that there is no doubt that in the addresses of the Caliphs to the people and in the traditions related from them mention is made of the authority of God and the duty of obedience to Him. From this some people have concluded that the political system of Islam was not man-made but God-sent. But there is nothing divine in this system except that Caliphate was a contract between the Caliphs and the general body of Muslims and God has commanded the Muslims to fulfil their contracts. Beyond this, the political system of early Islam had no divine sanction behind it.

Taha Hussain emphasises the fact that in state affairs the prophet used to consult his Companions and this shows that the political system of early Islam was not divinely ordained. The revelation only drew the attention of the prophet and his Companions to their general interests without taking away their freedom to order their state affairs as they liked, of course, within the limits of truth, virtue and justice. The best proof of this thesis is that the Quran did not lay down any political system either in outline or in detail. It laid down only general limits and then left the Muslims free to order their state affairs as they liked. The only condition was that they should not  transgress the limits laid down in the Quran. The prophet himself did not give any specific political system to the Muslims. He did not even designate his successor either by word or in writing, when he fell seriously ill. He merely ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayers in his absence.16  

Taha Hussain, in his book On Pre-Islamic Poetry, published in 1926, contended that a great deal of the poetry reputed to be pre-Islamic had been forged by Muslims of a later date for various reasons, one being to give credence to Quranic "myths".  He also cast a doubt on the autehnticity of  the story of Abraham and Ismail of having built the Kaba. "Torah may speak to us about Abraham and Isma el and the Quran may tell us about them too, but the mention of their names in the Torah and the Quran is not sufficient to establish their historical existence, let alone the story which tells us about the emigration of Ismael, son of Abraham, to Mecca and the origin of Arabs there. We are compelled to see in their story a kind of fiction to establish the relationship of the Jews and Arabs on the one hand and Islam and Judaism on the other."17

In  another book entitled "The Future of Culture in Egypt,"  published in 1938, Taha Hussain, advocated that Egypt is cultrually a part of Europe and advocated for the assimilation of modern European culture. He argued that Egypt has always been an integral part of Europe as far as its intellectual and cultural life is concerned in all its forms and branches. "Egypt belongs by heritage to the same wider Mediterranean civilization that embraces Greece, Italy and France".  

In his ripe age, Taha Hussain's appar ently had a second thought about some of his early writings and pleaded for blind faith in religion. "Reason does not have that power and penetration which the Greek, Christian and Muslim philosophers thought it had. Human reason is really one of the many faculties given to man. Like other faculties its power is limited. It can understand certain things, but certain others are not amenable to reason," he advocated.18 Taha Hussain also crticised the apologists who try to reconcile the Quran with modern science and said that "it matters little whether Din (religion) is reconciled with modern knowledge or reamins unreconciled. "Din is a knowledge from God which knows no limits while modern knowledge, like ancient knowledge, is limited by limitations of human reason."19  


http://www.ghazali.net/book2/chapter7/body_chapter7.html

I could not find the sources represented by the numbers in the text - I think it was copy-pasted from another site.
ronyvo

BMZ wrote:
ronyvo wrote:
 First, the Koran is full of contradictions. I can prove it.

Second, Muslims brag that the Koran is the only miracle Mohammad brought forth, because of the equisite Arabic language. Well, it has been proven over and over again that the languestic mistakes are numerous. Taha Hussein, a Muslim scholar in Arabic proved it, so many others.

Third, please read my post about who is allah.


Please prove it using your own words and understanding, without quoting any links of ill repute.

Just copy/paste a verse in Arabic and show us the contradictions, if any. Would appreciate if you can do that in a separate topic.

By the way, who is Taha Hussein? I have never heard about him.

BMZ

Here are some of the contradictions:
In surah 2:256 Allah tells Mohammad not to impose Islam by force, “There is no compulsion in religion:” while in surah 2:193 Allah tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam, ”Fight (kill) them; until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s.”
In surah 73:10 Allah tells Mohammad to be patient with his opponents, “ Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously.” While in surah 2:191 Allah tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam, “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.
In surah 29:46 Allah tells Mohammad to speak nicely to people of the book (Christians and Jews), “And argue not with the people of the scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner….we believe in that which has been revealed to you, our god and your God is one..”
While in surah 9:29, Allah tells him to fight the people of the book, “Fight those who believe not in god not the last day…not acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the book.”
Surah 8:13-17, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not ye who slew them; it was God.”
Surah 5:54 “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is one of them. Allah guideth not a people unjust.”
Allah’s apostle (Mohammad) said, “There is no Hijra (i.e. migration from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but jihad and good intentions remain; AND IF YOU ARE CALLED (BY THE MUSLIM LEADER) FOR FIGHTING, GO FORTH IMMEDIATELY.
The Koran is full of contradictions. When Mohammad was asked why the drastic changes, Allah revealed.  Surah 16:101, “And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’an) in place of another- and Allah knows best what He sends down-they (the disbelievers) say; “You (O Mohammad are but a Muftari (forger, liar).” Nay but most know not.”
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam; it will never be accepted of him. Surah 3:85.  

Please note that, this is a result of my own research. When I was writing in the Net just after 9/11, there were no sites to copy and paste from, not that I know of anyway. Muslims and others argued and challanged me. Others asked many questions. As a result, I accumulated about 40 essays in various topics in my computer where I copy and paste FROM MY OWN WRITINGS (TYPING).

As for Taha Hussein, I noticed that some one, thankfully, gave an idea baout him.
Let me add, that he was the Minister of Education for few years.
Baal

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
The story is BS. You are in the middle of the desert. You see some light, you have no clue what it is, you go alone?! and you send the leader? and you send the leader alone?

Also although both verses mean the same, what moses said in each verse is different. He meant the same though. You can blame it on the fact that he was not speaking arabic and the koran was just trying to translate what moses said.

But now we have an issue Ahmed, which of the Two verses is the better translation for what Moses said?


mister baal

Allah is telling us the story USING HIS OWN words, then He told us the story again, using His own different words but same context then  He told us about it for the third time using His own different words and still same context, This is the miracle of the Quran, pal

Allah is not reading to us a log book of what is excatly been said

don't act desperate as Tv

cheers

This little issue is not a back-breaker for the koran, just another extra weight a koran apologist has to carry around.

A good (perfect) translator will have all his terms and equivalences straight. He will not waver in terms as he tells the same story twice.

On another level, you only have 6000+ verses, you waste your time and mine to tell me the same story twice? What is up with that? One of the reasons the koran is so boring is how it keeps repeating the same empty "1001 Arabian Nights" type stories over and over.

As I said, not a back-breaker, but I will add it to your backpack of apologies.
ronyvo

Agreed, Ball.
Also, Ahmed forgot that our God is NOT Allah.
We MUST make this distinction if we to continue this topic.

So, Allah (created by Mohammad) is well known to change his mind all the time. See the contradictions in the koran.

When Mohammad was asked why the drastic changes, Allah revealed,  Surah 16:101, “And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’an) in place of another- and Allah knows best what He sends down-they (the disbelievers) say; “You (O Mohammad are but a Muftari (forger, liar).” Nay but most know not.”
Baal

It is like those Jehovah's Witness. They made a religion where they believe in the same god as us. Only that Jesus is really the Archangel Michael (Mikhaeel), and he changed to become a human, then after he went back to become the archangel and will one day judge everybody and only 144,000 people will be accepted in heaven.

Somehow I have to believe that their god is my god since they claim they believe in the same god as us. Stupid Gits.
ronyvo

Baal wrote:
It is like those Jehovah's Witness. They made a religion where they believe in the same god as us. Only that Jesus is really the Archangel Michael (Mikhaeel), and he changed to become a human, then after he went back to become the archangel and will one day judge everybody and only 144,000 people will be accepted in heaven.

Somehow I have to believe that their god is my god since they claim they believe in the same god as us. Stupid Gits.

Ironically, they call themselves Christians and the uninformed believe them.
The same thing with the Mormons.

They are decievers like Muslims, but, at least their books do not instruct them to KILL whoever do not belong to them.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> God
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home