The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Frievolk]

An omnipotent being is not confined by the laws of logic, it is inherently above such constructs. If such a being wished they could easily create a four sides square, a rock which they couldn't lift and then lift it. Omni-potent means all powerful after all. From an atheist perspective there isn't an objective morality at all. So of course an atheist won't believe that God's morality is objective, because they believe it is a man made construct.

Um no. Start making sense. God, like every other entity and creation, is confined to the boundaries of logic. It can not, by definition, invent a four sided circle, nor a "rock which they couldn't lift and then lift it". Nothing is above logic, not even god, because god as an archetype is confined to the boundaries logic decides.
Let's not get into how the rumors of god's omnipotence and omniscience are at most exaggerated, anyway, because that's more a "Theology discussion thread" thing than "Islamic discussion thread"

[Kowani]

But logic also dictates that god's omni-stuff is limited (i.e. his omniscience and omnipotence are both limited to the boundaries of logic "can't invent a four-sided circle" and also to his whims at the time), which also makes the "Whatever he says goes" part untrue... which is actually not even an atheist's view, but a religious one (i.e. almost every Jew that I know of) because, you know, from an atheist's point of view, god's morality isn't superior because its benefactor doesn't even exist.

An omnipotent being is not confined by the laws of logic, it is inherently above such constructs. If such a being wished they could easily create a four sides square, a rock which they couldn't lift and then lift it. Omni-potent means all powerful after all. From an atheist perspective there isn't an objective morality at all. So of course an atheist won't believe that God's morality is objective, because they believe it is a man made construct.

That's what a square is.

The unliftable rock...nice try. That's onr of the strongest arguments against omnipotence. If he could make one heavier that he cannot lift than he can not lift it and is therefore not omnipotent, and if he made one and than lifted it, he did not make one that he could not lift.

[Negarakita]

An omnipotent being is not confined by the laws of logic, it is inherently above such constructs. If such a being wished they could easily create a four sides square, a rock which they couldn't lift and then lift it. Omni-potent means all powerful after all. From an atheist perspective there isn't an objective morality at all. So of course an atheist won't believe that God's morality is objective, because they believe it is a man made construct.

That's what a square is.

The unliftable rock...nice try. That's onr of the strongest arguments against omnipotence. If he could make one heavier that he cannot lift than he can not lift it and is therefore not omnipotent, and if he made one and than lifted it, he did not make one that he could not lift.

Ok, this is epic, all religcucks owned by the dilemma. The thing is, its been disproven before. I was wrong about the logic thing, I will concede that, but here's a christian website showing the problems with that thing. https://crossexamined.org/can-god-creat ... t-lift-it/

Or, stolen from reddit: "The problem here is the question is malformed. It is nonsensical to begin with. Omnipotence can be defined as the ability to do anything, or it can be defined as the ability to do anything that is logically possible.

Let us start with the definition that says omnipotent beings can only do that which is logically possible. In this scenario, the question, can God create a rock he cannot lift, is based on the idea that there can exist simultaneously such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects.

If God cannot do the logically impossible he cannot create this rock. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an irresistible force(God), it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object(the rock). If there exists an immovable object(the rock), then it logically follows that there cannot be such a thing as an irresistible force(God). Therefore a rock God cannot lift is a logical impossibility and outside the realm of what omnipotence entails.

Now, let us say that omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything, including the logically impossible. If this is the case, then God should be able to create a rock that is impossible to lift, and then lift it. You might say wait a minute that is contradictory! So what? You've defined omnipotence as the ability to do the logically impossible, so God can do things like that."

[Jolthig]

It is correct that morality is defined by what God thinks. But if we want to prove that position valid, then one must receive divine revelation in order to prove that ruling is valid. Argumentation cannot come from human reasoning alone. But through divine revelation.

[Frievolk]

It is correct that morality is defined by what God thinks. But if we want to prove that position valid, then one must receive divine revelation in order to prove that ruling is valid. Argumentation cannot come from human reasoning alone. But through divine revelation.

This is the part I don't agree with. Let's assume god exists. Let's assume he has, indeed, sent the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad, and let's assume the Quran, in the form that exists now, is word of god.
How, in the name of the same god, would that prove god's morality is objective? Even then, the only thing to say god's set of morals, as defined in the Quran, is objective is the word of god himself. That's the equivalent of me saying my set of morals is objective because I said so in a book that I dictated to some guy. (Keep in mind that the argument "god's omnipotent/omniscient/etc.", false as it is, is also only word of god, i.e. god's opinion)

[Jolthig]

It is correct that morality is defined by what God thinks. But if we want to prove that position valid, then one must receive divine revelation in order to prove that ruling is valid. Argumentation cannot come from human reasoning alone. But through divine revelation.

This is the part I don't agree with. Let's assume god exists. Let's assume he has, indeed, sent the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad, and let's assume the Quran, in the form that exists now, is word of god.
How, in the name of the same god, would that prove god's morality is objective? Even then, the only thing to say god's set of morals, as defined in the Quran, is objective is the word of god himself. That's the equivalent of me saying my set of morals is objective because I said so in a book that I dictated to some guy. (Keep in mind that the argument "god's omnipotent/omniscient/etc.", false as it is, is also only word of god, i.e. god's opinion)

The comparison of you making a book with your morality with that of God's isn't a bad comparison. But also that God doesn't have any human attributes. The emotions and morals of God are different than human emotions and morals. The revelation of God is given when humanity has gone astray.

When the night covers the earth, the morning sun of Divine Revelation rises. A heavenly rain comes on those who sincerely seek the guidance of Allah. Those who are sincere and through the will of God, succeed in becoming pious people.

Hence I argue that every single Quranic verse has great wisdom behind them including the ones we are discussing. They are suited for various times, circumstances, and situations. No one can create the like of the Qu'ran as history shows.

[Frievolk]

The comparison of you making a book with your morality with that of God's isn't a bad comparison. But also that God doesn't have any human attributes. The emotions and morals of God are different than human emotions and morals. The revelation of God is given when humanity has gone astray.

When the night covers the earth, the morning sun of Divine Revelation rises. A heavenly rain comes on those who sincerely seek the guidance of Allah. Those who are sincere and through the will of God, succeed in becoming pious people.

Hence I argue that every single Quranic verse has great wisdom behind them including the ones we are discussing. They are suited for various times, circumstances, and situations. No one can create the like of the Qu'ran as history shows.

That's just it. The only way we know god is omniscient or omnipotent is god's own word, or an argument that is derived from god's own word (i.e. "he can't logically not be omnipotent/omniscient since he's god"), which is precisely what I'm questioning here.
Even assuming god exists and that Quran (or whatever other religious book we're using as example) is quoted from him verbatim, that's still his own opinion. Why do we give god grace by accepting his own opinion as objective but not any other person? This is a question I legit had, even back when I was religious, and to my knowledge, apart from a group of Jews who unironically think "well, that's just god's opinion, man. He's not infallible", every other monotheist believes that god's word is objective.

[Jolthig]

The comparison of you making a book with your morality with that of God's isn't a bad comparison. But also that God doesn't have any human attributes. The emotions and morals of God are different than human emotions and morals. The revelation of God is given when humanity has gone astray.

When the night covers the earth, the morning sun of Divine Revelation rises. A heavenly rain comes on those who sincerely seek the guidance of Allah. Those who are sincere and through the will of God, succeed in becoming pious people.

Hence I argue that every single Quranic verse has great wisdom behind them including the ones we are discussing. They are suited for various times, circumstances, and situations. No one can create the like of the Qu'ran as history shows.

That's just it. The only way we know god is omniscient or omnipotent is god's own word, or an argument that is derived from god's own word (i.e. "he can't logically not be omnipotent/omniscient since he's god"), which is precisely what I'm questioning here.
Even assuming god exists and that Quran (or whatever other religious book we're using as example) is quoted from him verbatim, that's still his own opinion. Why do we give god grace by accepting his own opinion as objective but not any other person? This is a question I legit had, even back when I was religious, and to my knowledge, apart from a group of Jews who unironically think "well, that's just god's opinion, man. He's not infallible", every other monotheist believes that god's word is objective.

In my humble opinion, I do not know the whole answer to this, but what I can say is that one must have personal experiences with God, deep reflection and study of Quran (as it always invites us in verses such as 4:82) as well as the historical context behind certain verses in order to prove that the Quran is full of wisdom and why God's fact (since in our religion, it is fact; though yes, I acknowledge since not everyone in here is a Muslim, God's "opinion").

Using your comparison, if you are known for righteous conduct and consistency as well as spot on my many issues, then the Word of Pilarcraft would be an excellent law to follow. Similarly, this is my view of the Quran, and its recepient, Muhammad (saw).

[Kubumba Tribe]

God, like every other entity and creation

He isn't. Allah SWT is unique and uncreated.

[Frievolk]

God, like every other entity and creation

He isn't. Allah SWT is unique and uncreated.

An uncreated entity is a non-existent entity. Your god was either created, or it does not exist, as basic logic demands.

[Kubumba Tribe]

He isn't. Allah SWT is unique and uncreated.

An uncreated entity is a non-existent entity. Your god was either created, or it does not exist, as basic logic demands.

Liked was stated before, Allah SWT is not confined to the logic and other confines of this universe sense he is outside of it. And I don't have a god.

[Frievolk]

An uncreated entity is a non-existent entity. Your god was either created, or it does not exist, as basic logic demands.

Liked was stated before, Allah SWT is not confined to the logic and other confines of this universe sense he is outside of it. And I don't have a god.

Like stated before, If your god isn't confined to logic, it does not exist. It's just that simple. (And the only way you don't have a god is if you're an atheist. You have a god, and its name is Allah).

[Kubumba Tribe]

Liked was stated before, Allah SWT is not confined to the logic and other confines of this universe sense he is outside of it. And I don't have a god.

Like stated before, If your god isn't confined to logic, it does not exist. It's just that simple. (And the only way you don't have a god is if you're an atheist. You have a god, and its name is Allah).

That's like saying that something that exists outside of our plane of existence doesn't exist. I wanna use a movie as an analogy. There's this old movie but I forgot its name, about a 2d shape that goes on a quest and finds out 3d shapes exist. Now, 3d shapes were outside of the 2d shape's universe because they were not bound by length and width only. Same thing with Allah SWT. Just because we can't perceive him in our universe doesn't mean he doesn't exist beyond our realm. (No. I don't have a god because no god belongs to me)

[Frievolk]

Like stated before, If your god isn't confined to logic, it does not exist. It's just that simple. (And the only way you don't have a god is if you're an atheist. You have a god, and its name is Allah).

That's like saying that something that exists outside of our plane of existence doesn't exist. I wanna use a movie as an analogy. There's this old movie but I forgot its name, about a 2d shape that goes on a quest and finds out 3d shapes exist. Now, 3d shapes were outside of the 2d shape's universe because they were not bound by length and width only. Same thing with Allah SWT. Just because we can't perceive him in our universe doesn't mean he doesn't exist beyond our realm. (No. I don't have a god because no god belongs to me)

Yeah, and in the sense of 2d-3d paradigm, all of them still follow basic math, if different types of it. To claim math doesn't work in the "4d system" is just plain stupid. Logic is like math. It might follow a different set of rules, but the basics (i.e. "Everything needs to be created") still apply.

[Kubumba Tribe]

That's like saying that something that exists outside of our plane of existence doesn't exist. I wanna use a movie as an analogy. There's this old movie but I forgot its name, about a 2d shape that goes on a quest and finds out 3d shapes exist. Now, 3d shapes were outside of the 2d shape's universe because they were not bound by length and width only. Same thing with Allah SWT. Just because we can't perceive him in our universe doesn't mean he doesn't exist beyond our realm. (No. I don't have a god because no god belongs to me)

Yeah, and in the sense of 2d-3d paradigm, all of them still follow basic math, if different types of it. To claim math doesn't work in the "4d system" is just plain stupid. Logic is like math. It might follow a different set of rules, but the basics (i.e. "Everything needs to be created") still apply.

No, in the case of the movie, 2d and 3d were different universes (aka "dimensions") with different "laws of physics". Just because a 2d shape can't perceive the 3rd dimension doesn't mean 3d shapes don't exist. Same with Allah SWT. Just because we can't perceive him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

[Jolthig]

I can agree with you Pilarcraft that if no God is logical, it doesn't exist. However, it because the existence of Allah is logical (through aid of divine Revelation of course) is why I believe in Allah's existence.

EDIT: Terrible autocorrect

[Jolthig]

Yeah, and in the sense of 2d-3d paradigm, all of them still follow basic math, if different types of it. To claim math doesn't work in the "4d system" is just plain stupid. Logic is like math. It might follow a different set of rules, but the basics (i.e. "Everything needs to be created") still apply.

No, in the case of the movie, 2d and 3d were different universes (aka "dimensions") with different "laws of physics". Just because a 2d shape can't perceive the 3rd dimension doesn't mean 3d shapes don't exist. Same with Allah SWT. Just because we can't perceive him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

I think it's because of the fact God is beyond this physical world is why some people find it hard to believe.

Allah can be reached through prayer, and may respond back in the form of true dreams or revelation. As what happened to the prophets, saints, and other recepients of revelation.

[Saranidia]

Sufis on this site:
What in your opinion Is the best Sufi Order? (by the way I happen to be Sunni now)

[Negarakita]

Sufis on this site:
What in your opinion Is the best Sufi Order? (by the way I happen to be Sunni now)

Hurufiyya

Also pilarcraft there has to be a first cause for everything because true infinity cannot exist in space/time in this dimension, and religious people hold that god is this first cause. God can't have been created because then he isn't god.

[Greate Boston]

Sufis on this site:
What in your opinion Is the best Sufi Order? (by the way I happen to be Sunni now)

Hurufiyya

Also pilarcraft there has to be a first cause for everything because true infinity cannot exist in space/time in this dimension, and religious people hold that god is this first cause. God can't have been created because then he isn't god.

Not really. What you're suggesting is the First Cause argument (i.e. the Cosmological Argument), one that is pretty much accepted to be a fallacy across the board.

[Saranidia]

Hurufiyya

Also pilarcraft there has to be a first cause for everything because true infinity cannot exist in space/time in this dimension, and religious people hold that god is this first cause. God can't have been created because then he isn't god.

Not really. What you're suggesting is the First Cause argument (i.e. the Cosmological Argument), one that is pretty much accepted to be a fallacy across the board.

That itself is a fallacy(appeal to popularity).

[Frievolk]

Not really. What you're suggesting is the First Cause argument (i.e. the Cosmological Argument), one that is pretty much accepted to be a fallacy across the board.

That itself is a fallacy(appeal to popularity).

I know, but I only name the fallacy so that I won't need to go through the rhetorical gymnastics required to write down why the first cause argument is fundamentally illogical. There's google, the person I responded to can google it.

[Saranidia]

That itself is a fallacy(appeal to popularity).

I know, but I only name the fallacy so that I won't need to go through the rhetorical gymnastics required to write down why the first cause argument is fundamentally illogical. There's google, the person I responded to can google it.

So you're greater boston as well?

By the way you are a very intelligent person and if you decided to be religious again you would be an asset to whatever religion you joined.

[Jolthig]

While some people will quote Hadith of the apparent brutality and mercilessness of Muhammad (saw), I will start quoting Hadith of his kindness.

Narrated `Abdullah bin 'Abi Qatada:
My father said, "The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'When I stand for prayer, I intend to prolong it but on hearing the cries of a child, I cut it short, as I dislike to trouble the child's mother.' "
حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا الْوَلِيدُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَبِي قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ إِنِّي لأَقُومُ فِي الصَّلاَةِ أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُطَوِّلَ فِيهَا، فَأَسْمَعُ بُكَاءَ الصَّبِيِّ، فَأَتَجَوَّزُ فِي صَلاَتِي كَرَاهِيَةَ أَنْ أَشُقَّ عَلَى أُمِّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ تَابَعَهُ بِشْرُ بْنُ بَكْرٍ وَابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ وَبَقِيَّةُ عَنِ الأَوْزَاعِيِّ‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 707
In-book reference : Book 10, Hadith 102
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 11, Hadith 675
(deprecated numbering scheme)

[Kubumba Tribe]

Sufis on this site:
What in your opinion Is the best Sufi Order? (by the way I happen to be Sunni now)

Not a Sufi here, but most Sufi tariqat are cool.