Is there a God?

[Albrenia]

The idea of an omnipotent and benevolent God seems highly unlikely to me. To realistically exist as the creator of this universe He must either lack omnipotence, omnipresence or omnibenevolence.

[Insaanistan]

Allah didn’t tell the Angels to worship Adam (pbuh), just to bow to him in a respectful manner. And think for a moment: what if God just didn’t test people at all. Everyone, even people who don’t really deserve it because of what they have in their hearts, would go to heaven. Or, people who were sent to hell would say “We never did anything wrong!” Additionally, this life is temporary, and working through God’s tests is the way to go to heaven. Additionally, God tells us he never allows us to be burdened with more than we can bear. Therefore, you CHOOSE to fail the test.

Fair enough point, it wasn't worship. But the rest of it still stands.


Allah created the Jinn with "free will" (which is a contestable point to say the least.) He created Satan knowing he would be pious enough to join the angels. He created humans out of clay, knowing Satan would view them as inferior (a mindset Allah would've known he'd develop if he didn't already have the mindset already). Allah told the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, knowing this would offend Satan. Allah allowed Satan to act as a deceiver, knowing that would lead many people astray.

Not to mention there are numerous verses that suggest that Iblis may not be the only one doing the decieving.

2:6-7
As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering.
6:25
We have placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and in their ears a deafness.
17:97-98
As for him whom He sendeth astray, for them thou wilt find no protecting friends beside Him, and We shall assemble them on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell; whenever it abateth, We increase the flame for them. That is their reward because they disbelieved Our revelations.
18:57
Lo! on their hearts We have placed coverings so that they understand not, and in their ears a deafness. And though thou call them to the guidance, in that case they can never be led aright.

What if God didn't test people and just taught people? Why make us go through all these tests to prove our worth, when he could create us worthy of paradise to begin with? Isn't it unfair to judge a person's soul knowing that their choices are largely influenced by the demonic spirit you've allowed to enter the world and interfere in our choices? What's the point of these tests if he already know whether or not we are capable of passing the tests in advance? If Allah could've made sure I was born in another country and ensuring that I became a Muslim, isn't my fate in his hands anyway?

And why are the possibilities 1. Allah conducts tests or 2. Allah conducts no tests at all? When the rewards and punishments are so extreme, any just ruler would have few more things to consider than merely, "Did they pass my tests or fall for the deception and lies that I allow into the world?"

As far as, "God tells us he never allows us to be burdened with more than we can bear" goes, that's unfalsifiable. There's no way to prove that wrong.

Claim: Allah never gives us more than we can bare.
I overcome the challenge: the claim holds up.
I fail to overcome the challenges and don't give my life over to Allah: I chose to fail or didn't try hard enough.

It's impossible to prove that wrong since there's no way to test and observe that claim. Speaking of, can you prove any of this?

Thank you for your questions. Firstly, your claim Allah deliberately misguided people is on based on lack of context and comprehension of Arabic. In these verses, it means He allows them to stay on the path to hell.
Your next question on why God doesn’t just teach people rather than test them. Because of Hebron did it the way you’re implying, bad people would never be punished. Additionally, God does teach us through his trials.
You choose beforehand what your life will be, what you will do etc. That’s not God’s fault.
On your last point, I agree, we can’t prove it’s false. I also acknowledge I don’t know everything.

[VoVoDoCo]

Fair enough point, it wasn't worship. But the rest of it still stands.


Allah created the Jinn with "free will" (which is a contestable point to say the least.) He created Satan knowing he would be pious enough to join the angels. He created humans out of clay, knowing Satan would view them as inferior (a mindset Allah would've known he'd develop if he didn't already have the mindset already). Allah told the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, knowing this would offend Satan. Allah allowed Satan to act as a deceiver, knowing that would lead many people astray.

Not to mention there are numerous verses that suggest that Iblis may not be the only one doing the decieving.

2:6-7
As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering.
6:25
We have placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and in their ears a deafness.
17:97-98
As for him whom He sendeth astray, for them thou wilt find no protecting friends beside Him, and We shall assemble them on the Day of Resurrection on their faces, blind, dumb and deaf; their habitation will be hell; whenever it abateth, We increase the flame for them. That is their reward because they disbelieved Our revelations.
18:57
Lo! on their hearts We have placed coverings so that they understand not, and in their ears a deafness. And though thou call them to the guidance, in that case they can never be led aright.

What if God didn't test people and just taught people? Why make us go through all these tests to prove our worth, when he could create us worthy of paradise to begin with? Isn't it unfair to judge a person's soul knowing that their choices are largely influenced by the demonic spirit you've allowed to enter the world and interfere in our choices? What's the point of these tests if he already know whether or not we are capable of passing the tests in advance? If Allah could've made sure I was born in another country and ensuring that I became a Muslim, isn't my fate in his hands anyway?

And why are the possibilities 1. Allah conducts tests or 2. Allah conducts no tests at all? When the rewards and punishments are so extreme, any just ruler would have few more things to consider than merely, "Did they pass my tests or fall for the deception and lies that I allow into the world?"

As far as, "God tells us he never allows us to be burdened with more than we can bear" goes, that's unfalsifiable. There's no way to prove that wrong.

Claim: Allah never gives us more than we can bare.
I overcome the challenge: the claim holds up.
I fail to overcome the challenges and don't give my life over to Allah: I chose to fail or didn't try hard enough.

It's impossible to prove that wrong since there's no way to test and observe that claim. Speaking of, can you prove any of this?

Thank you for your questions. Firstly, your claim Allah deliberately misguided people is on based on lack of context and comprehension of Arabic. In these verses, it means He allows them to stay on the path to hell.
Your next question on why God doesn’t just teach people rather than test them. Because of Hebron did it the way you’re implying, bad people would never be punished. Additionally, God does teach us through his trials.
You choose beforehand what your life will be, what you will do etc. That’s not God’s fault.
On your last point, I agree, we can’t prove it’s false. I also acknowledge I don’t know everything.

First, that's also kind of a point against Allah. A. I find it jarring that the all powerful creator of the universe needs me to download the Rosetta stone just to figure out what the hell he was talking about. B. Allah chose to communicate through "divinely inspired" ancient manuscripts, just like every other major religion. That is easily the worst way to communicate. Not only is it unoriginal, but it seems to suggests that Allah (just like all those other gods) struggles to overcome translation issues, language barriers, and a lack of context for those who don't have the time/ability/desire to learn a different language. And these obvious inhibitors that keep people from seeing the truth of Allah seem to be beyond the ability of the deity in question to foresee. C. I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but provided a user friendly source to help put it into context and translate it I can get by. It's something I've been willing to do for those who disagreed with me about the contents of OT and NT scriptures, could you do the same? Because for me, I would never describe the act of me allowing my child to go down a dark path as "blinding their eyes" or "deafening their ears" or "covering their hearts." In other words, can you prove your explanation holds water, or is it just an ad hoc explanation from Islamic clerical authorities to explain away what would otherwise be an unseemly bit of orthodoxy?

Next, that doesn't seem to follow. A. He could've created us with the knowledge necessary to live moral lives without infringing on our free will. B. Giving us sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision regarding his existence doesn't excuse us from punishment. C. Regardless, the punishment of hell is way too harsh given that (if my understanding is correct), morally outstanding people can still go to hell if they have the wrong religion (if you happen to be one of those that believe that there is no such thing as a morally good nonpractitioner of your religion, you're just simply wrong.)

Additionally, Trials are a terrible way to teach. Instead of punishing those who fail the trials due to their insufficient knowledge, he could (if he really cared) given us sufficient knowledge to see him as the one true god. Allah is putting the cart before the horse, and then judging us (and proceeding to send us to the appropriate level of hell) for our inability to drive the carriage in a straight line. He knew many would fail these tests, despite the fact his intervention would've provided those same souls (who don't know better) salvation. He could've made individuals like me born in a country that would all but guarantee we would end up being Muslim (meaning Allah is responsible for at least some inhabitants of Jahanam), directly intervened personally to make sure we all have sufficient knowledge uninhibited by language and cultural barriers (just like he was willing to do for people thousands of years ago for the prophets,- I know Allah had a specific reason for selecting prophets, but that's no excuse for not creating a "world of prophets" capable of understanding his will and desires and truth), or inserted himself into history on a larger scale to make sure his word and desires and existence was more readily understood by the world to make sure everyone accepted him. Any combination of those would have the capability of making hell more (not completely) of a destination reserved only for the morally bankrupt, not merely those unconvinced by books that appear to be no more spectacular or truthful than any other ancient mythology.

You're essentially saying, "You learn from your trials, unless you don't. If you don't, you're at fault. Since you're at fault, you go to hell, where Allah's existence becomes clear enough to satisfy the burden of proof that kept you from being Muslim in the first place. In the end, our trials are lessons, even if you only learn the lesson after you die and it's too late to prove yourself worthy of paradise."

Lastly, falsifiability is important. If something can't be falsified, then it can't be observed in such a way as to stand the test of time and scrutiny. That's not closeminded, that's just a pragmatic way to look at things. Surely Allah would’ve understood that and acted accordingly, or provided a superior epistemology to prove (before the day of my judgement) that his way truly is demonstrably the more reliable way of ascertaining truth.

Edited for grammar and precision.

[VoVoDoCo]

Personally, I err on the side of there not being a God, but I'm not remotely sure. The universe, for the most part functions as it would if there were no divine intervention in it (at least from the big bang onward). And I haven't seen much compelling evidence for, or many compelling reasons to put any intuitive faith in, any of the world's religions.

One theist argument that does give me pause is the question of how something could come from nothing. How did the universe begin from nothing? Did it begin from nothing? I don't know. However, inserting the divine as an answer to that question, I believe, raises more questions than it answers (Where did God come from? How did God create the universe? etc). It also stifles scientific inquiry I think, to fill every blank in our knowledge with the divine, it prevents those blanks from being filled in with hard science.

I'm not sure though. This is just the way I see it now. I'm open to being wrong.

The universe acting in the way that it acts is proof of divine intervention. The way the atoms work, the way time works, the way gravity works, the way evolution works, all these things coming together to create you, humanity, society, science and religion, and art. God's work is evidenced in the fundamental forces the same way that a sculpture shows the tools used to sculpt it, and a good understanding of those tools helps understand the wielder of the tools. Inserting the divine simplifies the question of our make and purpose, questions that science shouldn't attempt to answer.

As for the interesting questions, God always was, same as the universe, but His actions weren't felt until time began, same as the universe. When science tells us more concretely about what happened at the beginning of time re. the universe, I'll revise that statement accordingly.

Those are all things that need to be proven. Atoms exists and serve the functions they do and have the properties they do because of God. Gravity exists and serves the function it does and has the properties it does because of God. Evolution exists and serves the function it does and has the properties it does because of God. You can't observe a natural phenomenon that has been proven empirically by a rigid scientific methodology, say God did it, and call it good. You need to prove it.

As far as that statement you made that you would "revise accordingly" with new evidence, what evidence do you have that allows you to make that assertion with confidence now?

To keep it real with you, I view my entire life as proof that God doesn't exist.

People say "God must be protecting you young man. You've cheated death so many times." No, this isn't protection. Its sadism if any God is involved. I get to see people I know die left and right, and I should be thankful I'm alive? That's selfish. Me and my family and friends, we're all we got. Fuck it.

This is interesting to me, because you're taking your sapience, an utterly unique and unnatural experiential phenomena, and then you're putting value judgements on it and using that to disprove God. If you were a rock, you would be every bit a creation of God, but you wouldn't have these experiences; if you were a raven, you would have experiences, but lack the sapience, the closeness to God, to comprehend whether those experiences were good or bad (as opposed to pleasurable/painful); if you were a writing desk, you would be made of the creation of God, but be made by humans, and so you could be a good or a bad writing desk, but you wouldn't know better. But you are a human, interacting with other humans.

When Adam and Eve were tricked/sought out the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, they chose, willingly or not, to invite suffering into their life. The potential to cause suffering is a human invention, the war on entropy is a human conflict, all of the bad things in your life are the results of human actions, all of the relief from those bad things will be the results of human action. God wants you to be happy, He put us in the Garden of Eden, we evolved out of it, took on powers we hardly understood, and now wield our own destinies, often in conflict with eachother. By refocusing on God's teachings, we can invite goodness back into our lives. There's more to a happy community than just your family and friends, be tha change you want to see in the world, etc. etc.

Blessed be those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

That first paragraph is a nothing sandwich. So what? Suffering requires beings capable of experiencing suffering. That doesn't really tell us anything. I don't care what god does to rocks. I do care what God puts ravens through. The raven may not be able to label its circumstances as "good" or "bad", but the raven would still prefer not to starve or die from disease. If god existed, I would resent him for creating a reality in which animals must suffer to survive. Predators must kill, prey must be killed, parasites must feast, viruses and bacteria must propagate, etc. What's a sex slave suppose to say to her terrible life circumstances? "God refuses to answer my desperate pleas for manumission, but hey, at least I'm not a rock. Hallelujah." No one's complaining about him giving us sentience. We're complaining because it would be possible for an omnipotent being to create an environment in which one can be sentient enough to recognize and be grateful for prosperity and bliss and not have to endure pain or misery to the ridiculously large extent it's been present in human history. Your counter is a red herring. I'm not obligated to look past God's sadism simply because I'm sentient enough to label it as such.

As far as your bit about Adam and Eve goes, I thought you said it's best to read the OT as if it was just myth? Is some of the fantastical stuff myth and other parts real? How do you tell the difference with any level of certainty? Also, God is ultimately responsible for what happened in the garden. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. That means that everything that has happened, was known by God to happen, allowed by God to happen, and empowered by God to happen. This includes the fall of man:

• God created Lucifer
• God did this knowing that Lucifer had a prideful streak
• God did this knowing that character trait of his would lead him to the fall
• God created the heavens and the earth
• God created Adam and Eve
• God created Adam and Eve with knowledge that if they were tempted, they'd disobey him
• God also knew that Satan would tempt them
• God knew that an angel guarding the garden BEFORE Satan got there would preemptively take care of that mess
• God chose not to guard the garden
• God allowed the snake to talk to Eve
• God allowed Eve to bite the fruit
• God knew (with his omniscience)that due to the character traits he gave the originating actors (Lucifer, Adam,Eve) that those events (he could've prevented with his omnipotence and omnipresence) would never have happened.
• Therefore, the fall of man was obviously a part of God's plan
• Therefore, sin, and as a a result, evil, were planned by God.

We were doomed to fail from the get go. And we have God to thank for that.

The potential to cause suffering was a human invention? I thought you said, "I would say that the fall of man let death and sin and evil into the world, but thay it existed beforehand in the non-spiritual cessation, pain and accidents."

The war on entropy is a human conflict? What does that even mean?

All things in his/her life is a result of human actions? Can you say with certainty that the evil they've faced wasn't the result of nonhuman actors such as natural disasters, diseases, predators, etc? Or are you blaming those kinds of things on human action as well? On what happened in the garden? Well, you're going to run into the problem that I already went through in this post, but I have to ask, why does he have to punish Borderlands of Rojava with a life of suffering and pain because his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents ate some fruit? I would never punish my child in such a way, I don't see any sense in any person finding comfort or solace in God's plan of moral correction for us. It's despicable.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The universe acting in the way that it acts is proof of divine intervention. The way the atoms work, the way time works, the way gravity works, the way evolution works, all these things coming together to create you, humanity, society, science and religion, and art. God's work is evidenced in the fundamental forces the same way that a sculpture shows the tools used to sculpt it, and a good understanding of those tools helps understand the wielder of the tools. Inserting the divine simplifies the question of our make and purpose, questions that science shouldn't attempt to answer.

As for the interesting questions, God always was, same as the universe, but His actions weren't felt until time began, same as the universe. When science tells us more concretely about what happened at the beginning of time re. the universe, I'll revise that statement accordingly.

I don't see how the nature of the movement of particles, or time, or a weak force that pulls objects of mass together, or a process of natural selection where beneficial mutations gradually become the norm in a population, proves the presence of a God. I don't see there being an artificial or consciously designed nature to these forces and processes.

Maybe there are some questions that science can't answer, but there have been lots of questions throughout history that people thought science couldn't or shouldn't answer, but scientists eventually did find answers to them. That's the problem I have.

I don't see how it's possible that God always was. Logically he would've had to have come from somewhere.

[Tarsonis]

The universe acting in the way that it acts is proof of divine intervention. The way the atoms work, the way time works, the way gravity works, the way evolution works, all these things coming together to create you, humanity, society, science and religion, and art. God's work is evidenced in the fundamental forces the same way that a sculpture shows the tools used to sculpt it, and a good understanding of those tools helps understand the wielder of the tools. Inserting the divine simplifies the question of our make and purpose, questions that science shouldn't attempt to answer.

As for the interesting questions, God always was, same as the universe, but His actions weren't felt until time began, same as the universe. When science tells us more concretely about what happened at the beginning of time re. the universe, I'll revise that statement accordingly.

I don't see how the nature of the movement of particles, or time, or a weak force that pulls objects of mass together, or a process of natural selection where beneficial mutations gradually become the norm in a population, proves the presence of a God. I don't see there being an artificial or consciously designed nature to these forces and processes.

Maybe there are some questions that science can't answer, but there have been lots of questions throughout history that people thought science couldn't or shouldn't answer, but scientists eventually did find answers to them. That's the problem I have.

I don't see how it's possible that God always was. Logically he would've had to have come from somewhere.

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

[Sanghyeok]

A question I want to ask: Can we judge the existence of God/Gods based on only secular evidence?

[Great Imperium of Man]

There is a god, THE GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A question I want to ask: Can we judge the existence of God/Gods based on only secular evidence?

That depends. What is the "non-secular evidence" that we would be considering?

[Kowani]

I don't see how the nature of the movement of particles, or time, or a weak force that pulls objects of mass together, or a process of natural selection where beneficial mutations gradually become the norm in a population, proves the presence of a God. I don't see there being an artificial or consciously designed nature to these forces and processes.

Maybe there are some questions that science can't answer, but there have been lots of questions throughout history that people thought science couldn't or shouldn't answer, but scientists eventually did find answers to them. That's the problem I have.

I don't see how it's possible that God always was. Logically he would've had to have come from somewhere.

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Sub-prime mortgages were not very good for the economy, no.

[Senkaku]

A question I want to ask: Can we judge the existence of God/Gods based on only secular evidence?

how else do you think you can prove it to the satisfaction of secular people lol

[Geneviev]

A question I want to ask: Can we judge the existence of God/Gods based on only secular evidence?

how else do you think you can prove it to the satisfaction of secular people lol

Given past success in using secular evidence to convince secular people, we might as well try something new.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't see how the nature of the movement of particles, or time, or a weak force that pulls objects of mass together, or a process of natural selection where beneficial mutations gradually become the norm in a population, proves the presence of a God. I don't see there being an artificial or consciously designed nature to these forces and processes.

Maybe there are some questions that science can't answer, but there have been lots of questions throughout history that people thought science couldn't or shouldn't answer, but scientists eventually did find answers to them. That's the problem I have.

I don't see how it's possible that God always was. Logically he would've had to have come from somewhere.

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

[Punished UMN]

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

First of all that's a misrepresentation of what the prime mover is, and secondly, no it isn't. An infinite regression isn't even logically coherent. Time being eternal backwards is not logically coherent.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

First of all that's a misrepresentation of what the prime mover is, and secondly, no it isn't. An infinite regression isn't even logically coherent. Time being eternal backwards is not logically coherent.

You're probably right about infinite regress being incoherent. Still, I don't think God is the only or best way to break the infinite regress.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

First of all that's a misrepresentation of what the prime mover is, and secondly, no it isn't. An infinite regression isn't even logically coherent. Time being eternal backwards is not logically coherent.

Infinite regressions can be quite well defined. Zeno didn't know math.

Time existing infinitely into the past is a perfectly valid model. If you insist that time only goes back so far, then what caused the first thing?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

Infinite regression is incomprehensible to us ... but for a comprehensible reason. It's the infinite thing. Definable but incomprehensible. Do not use in debate.

[Albrenia]

Human logic isn't always the greatest measure of if something is true or not anyway. For most of us the idea that something can be so dense and heavy that it captures light and warps time doesn't make sense. Yet it is undeniably true.

What happened at the 'moment' before time and space existed isn't even the sort of question we know how to comprehend, let alone answer.

[Shommes]

I don’t think a god exists, but in the past a lot of people did. To the point where kingdoms and empires would declare “holy wars” against whom they viewed as apostates. To the point where caliphates would fundamentally alter the historical landscape in the regions they occupied. So while I don’t think a god exists, the consequences of the belief in a god definitely are. And I think that is what makes a god “real” to some, much like how our perceptions of the world physically manifest themselves in how we interact with (and ultimately affect) it, even if they are just thoughts in our head.

[Travislavania]

im one of those that needs proof, without proof it doesn't exist...

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Human logic isn't always the greatest measure of if something is true or not anyway. For most of us the idea that something can be so dense and heavy that it captures light and warps time doesn't make sense. Yet it is undeniably true.

What happened at the 'moment' before time and space existed isn't even the sort of question we know how to comprehend, let alone answer.

I have a belief, perhaps a faith based one, that nothing is entirely beyond human comprehension. There's lots of things beyond our knowledge, but I hope, nothing that we're completely incapable of grasping, given enough time, effort and knowledge. I think we'll one day find out the truth behind the big bang, whether it explicitly involves the divine or not.

[Tarsonis]

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Sub-prime mortgages were not very good for the economy, no.

Of all the autocorrect fails in all the threads, .....

[Tarsonis]

Because infinite regression is itself illogical as well. A prime mortgage is logically necessary.

Infinite regression is far less illogical than the idea of a magical sentient being having existed for a literal eternity before finally deciding to create the universe.

except that very concept of time begins with the universe. T1, necessitates the existence of a T0.

[Punished UMN]

First of all that's a misrepresentation of what the prime mover is, and secondly, no it isn't. An infinite regression isn't even logically coherent. Time being eternal backwards is not logically coherent.

Infinite regressions can be quite well defined. Zeno didn't know math.

Time existing infinitely into the past is a perfectly valid model. If you insist that time only goes back so far, then what caused the first thing?

Nothing caused the first thing, because existence does not predate the first thing.

If there is no first thing, there can be no sequence of events, so an infinite regress is not logically possible for the same reason a square triangle is not possible.

[The Gold Mines]

im one of those that needs proof, without proof it doesn't exist...

I mean it could exist, no one knows. But if it does exist, god is probably not what people think it is