What is your god like? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
He doesn't have to prove the otherwise. He believes that Mohammad lied. In Islam it's a blasphemy. Extremists would kill you because of it. But that's just Seven's personal belief. If you think he's wrong, if you really think that Mohammad has not faked the whole thing you'll either have to prove it or to accept that believing in Mohammad is ONLY your personal belief without having any proof for him being the God's Messenger.
If I tell you that I've got 10245876 hairs on my head you won't believe me because no one can safely say the exact number of his/her hairs. You tell me that you don't believe that I have 10245876 hairs on my head and then I tell you: "Prove me wrong" knowing that you are not able to count my hair as well. But in fact it's not up to you to prove that I don't have 10245876 hairs on my head. It's up to me and as long as I can't prove my claim, it's all worthless and untrue. I'm only able to say that I feel I've got 10245876 hairs on my head and it's all ok.
If you say you feel that Mohammad was telling the truth, you don't need to prove it to anybody. It's you and your feelings.
You know that it has nothing to do with you not being able to prove that Mohammad was not lying. No one has proved it yet, not even the Islam experts. If there's such a convincing proof for Mohammad telling the truth, don't you think everyone should have been convinced by now?
That's true. As Ghaith says, (p or q) is always a true statement unless both p and q are false. You don't need to prove that Mohammad's either a liar or not. It's obvious.
If I tell you that I've got 10245876 hairs on my head you won't believe me because no one can safely say the exact number of his/her hairs. You tell me that you don't believe that I have 10245876 hairs on my head and then I tell you: "Prove me wrong" knowing that you are not able to count my hair as well. But in fact it's not up to you to prove that I don't have 10245876 hairs on my head. It's up to me and as long as I can't prove my claim, it's all worthless and untrue. I'm only able to say that I feel I've got 10245876 hairs on my head and it's all ok.
If you say you feel that Mohammad was telling the truth, you don't need to prove it to anybody. It's you and your feelings.
You know that it has nothing to do with you not being able to prove that Mohammad was not lying. No one has proved it yet, not even the Islam experts. If there's such a convincing proof for Mohammad telling the truth, don't you think everyone should have been convinced by now?
That's true. As Ghaith says, (p or q) is always a true statement unless both p and q are false. You don't need to prove that Mohammad's either a liar or not. It's obvious.
I'm not sure you understand the point i was trying to make. My faith is that the prophet(pbuh) did not lie, i am not forcing it upon anyone. Seven then comes along and accuses the prophet of lying. From where i stand, Seven should provide me with proof that the prophet(pbuh) did lie. Since he didn't bring any evidence to the table, then i am not budging in my belief that Muhammad (PBUH) was truthful.
Probably slightly unrelated, but just a note you might be interested in, preserving the contexts of the Quran is not merely publishing the same thing word for word everytime etc. When muslims pray, and therefore recite the Koran, they have the imam, as well as - I don't know what you call it - the one (or more I believe) 'back up' imams, who also memorize the whole script. When an imam forgets or makes a mistake in reciting, these people are the ones that correct him during a prayer. It goes on for centuries, millions of people do it - it's quite difficult then to make an alteration to the original Quran I think. Prayer plays an important role in this as well I think, as millions of people would recite the quran at average 5 times a day during prayers too, it's quite difficult to lose its essence.
While I'm still here, might I add, I've been on the forums for as long as I can remember (2003 in my account does not do it justice, been here even before.) And though I've always appreciated the different opinions and questions asked by various members, and debates, I cannot help but feel slightly disgusted because it cannot be blatantly obvious that there have been many occassions where believers were disrespected. It's okay for you have a discussion and debate but it's not when we get mocked. Some things that are sensitive to us are not to you, vice versa, everyone should respect that. Funny how if one makes some racist comment they'd get banned, yet here we have a free flow of Islam (in particular) bashing and everyone gets away with it. Such double standards. And don't say we're too sensitive, make racist comments to a black person, he gets offended, try telling him not to 'be too sensitive'.
While I'm still here, might I add, I've been on the forums for as long as I can remember (2003 in my account does not do it justice, been here even before.) And though I've always appreciated the different opinions and questions asked by various members, and debates, I cannot help but feel slightly disgusted because it cannot be blatantly obvious that there have been many occassions where believers were disrespected. It's okay for you have a discussion and debate but it's not when we get mocked. Some things that are sensitive to us are not to you, vice versa, everyone should respect that. Funny how if one makes some racist comment they'd get banned, yet here we have a free flow of Islam (in particular) bashing and everyone gets away with it. Such double standards. And don't say we're too sensitive, make racist comments to a black person, he gets offended, try telling him not to 'be too sensitive'.
here's an entry from Adams' blog that nicely summarizes the ideas behind the book
Time as Religion May 29, 2009 by | General Nonsense | Permalink
Sometimes I like to dredge up an argument I have made before if I think I have a new and better way of expressing it. So I apologize if this looks like a repeat.
People keep sending me links to articles about how time is an illusion and not a quality of the universe. Apparently that is the common view of physicists. Scientists prefer concepts such as warped space-time and whatnot. I won't pretend to understand any of that. The point is that science doesn't recognize time -- in the way we understand it -- as a quality of the universe.
You might say time has something in common with God. Most people have a sense that both time and God exist, and they need both concepts to understand their own existence. Atheists and dyslexics (who experience time out of order) are the minority.
Given that science can't find evidence for either God or time, it takes a leap of faith to assume either one exists. Therefore, anything in our daily life that depends on either God or time is built on a foundation of faith and not science.
As a practical matter, faith is necessary to navigate our daily existence. You need to believe without benefit of scientific evidence that the way things work today, or seem to work, will be similar to how things will work tomorrow.
Evolution is a scientific fact. It meets all the tests of science. But it also depends entirely on the common notion of time. Therefore, while evolution is not a religion per se, it is built on a foundation of faith in something that scientists recognize as an illusion.
That doesn't make the theory of evolution any less useful within the reality we imagine we are experiencing. And it doesn't make it any less a scientific fact as we commonly define such things. But as a non-believer and a dyslexic, I twitch when I hear anything being touted as truth or reality when it so clearly depends on faith.
Time as Religion May 29, 2009 by | General Nonsense | Permalink
Sometimes I like to dredge up an argument I have made before if I think I have a new and better way of expressing it. So I apologize if this looks like a repeat.
People keep sending me links to articles about how time is an illusion and not a quality of the universe. Apparently that is the common view of physicists. Scientists prefer concepts such as warped space-time and whatnot. I won't pretend to understand any of that. The point is that science doesn't recognize time -- in the way we understand it -- as a quality of the universe.
You might say time has something in common with God. Most people have a sense that both time and God exist, and they need both concepts to understand their own existence. Atheists and dyslexics (who experience time out of order) are the minority.
Given that science can't find evidence for either God or time, it takes a leap of faith to assume either one exists. Therefore, anything in our daily life that depends on either God or time is built on a foundation of faith and not science.
As a practical matter, faith is necessary to navigate our daily existence. You need to believe without benefit of scientific evidence that the way things work today, or seem to work, will be similar to how things will work tomorrow.
Evolution is a scientific fact. It meets all the tests of science. But it also depends entirely on the common notion of time. Therefore, while evolution is not a religion per se, it is built on a foundation of faith in something that scientists recognize as an illusion.
That doesn't make the theory of evolution any less useful within the reality we imagine we are experiencing. And it doesn't make it any less a scientific fact as we commonly define such things. But as a non-believer and a dyslexic, I twitch when I hear anything being touted as truth or reality when it so clearly depends on faith.
...- Status