Why do atheists preach?

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
Karlysymon, that was a very telling article. Thank you for sharing,

God bless!! :)

#Karlysysmon, this is interesting:

This – the evolution of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.” (Wilmshurst, p. 47, 1980)

This is interesting because I've been to the grand lodge in Covent Garden and seen the symbolism (The symbolism is very Judeo-Christian and theologically compromised - I took the tour) and know that they are the proponents for zionism at work within global FM - a stark reminder that the godless nature of the political form of zionism would seem to suggest that it is actually atheists who are "using" (inverting) religious ideas to push the religious into a war with each other, while they sit by eating cake, at their tea parties... clever! Perverse, but clever!!

Would it not then be easy to assume the true goal for secular atheism to be total world domination? Novus Ordo Seclorum?
 
Last edited:

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
The Wilmshurst quote was also my favorite part of the article, notably the last 3 sentences. Which leaves one to wonder if, other than the lure of the perks of Freemasonic membership, the Millennials signing up in droves, have been clued in on that little fact : "whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.”

Which science they are to pursue once they are led into any "high office" be it in the arts or the sciences.

PS: read through the Ariana grande thread, yet? The presence of this theme/'science' in movies, TV shows or music videos is proof that its the highest goal of mystery schools.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
"Evolution is a spiritual process and makes us more godlike," ~Ray Kurzweil [Google's (fmr?) head of engineering].

"Modern man is far from being irrelegious. He has, simply changed his old priests and gods for new ones."
 

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
383
One of the core logical principles of science is as follows: "An absence of proof does not necessarily prove an absence". So do tell me - How can you be so "certain" ???



I'm a believe in the One God! Not an atheist. Loving the mental gymnastic you tried though. Just doesn't work because you're attempting to split an hair on what atheist means, rather wishfully.
Sorry for the delay, I'm not on this board to often.

That is not at all a scientific principal. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, nothing is "proof" either way. The absence of evidence for a Loch Ness monster is good evidence that a Loch Ness monster does not exist. The same is true for faeries, big foot, Santa Clause, and gods. If you have evidence I am willing to hear it and evaluate it's merits, but in the absence of evidence, I must assume that your claim is false.

And you, most likely, are an atheist in respect to Zeus, Osiris, Brahma, Shiva, and, Quetzalcoatl the feathered serpent Aztec god. I am an atheist toward these gods as well, but I am also an atheist in respect to the one that you call the One True God. As I said you are an atheist in respect to most gods, I just go one god further than you.
 

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
Sorry for the delay, I'm not on this board to often.
I respect your right to disagree, but you've not really contributed to the premise of this thread. Namely, that secular atheism is hot when it wants to be and cold when it wants to be, without any consistency except for capitalist motivations and the dislike of religion, albeit, without validation. Your opposing view would be welcome if you could actually share a thing or two in order to provide some perspective, assuming there is one.
 

z gharib

Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
597
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!
QURAN -mohamed assad translation

40:56
Behold, as for those who call God's messages in question without having any evidence therefor(*) - in their hearts is nothing but overweening self-conceit, which they will never be able to satisfy(**) seek thou, then, refuge with God - for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing.

(*) Lit., "without any authority [or "evidence"] having come to them": i.e., without having any cogent evidence that would support their "denial" of the fact of revelation. - The verb jadala primarily denotes "he argued"; followed by the particle fi ("with regard to" or "about") it has the meaning of contesting the truth of something, or "calling it in question".

( **) Lit., "which they will never [be able to] reach" or "fulfill". This is a reference to the conceit which makes many agnostics think that man is "self-sufficient" and that, therefore, there are no limits to what he may yet achieve, and no need to assume that he is responsible to a higher Power. Cf. in this connection 96:6-7, which is one of the earliest Qur'anic revelations: "Nay, verily, man becomes grossly overweening whenever he believes himself to be self-sufficient." And since this "selfsufficiency" is entirely illusory, those who build their world-view on it "will never be able to satisfy their overweening conceit". (Cf. also the reference to "arrogant, self-exalting hearts" in verse 35 above.)

43:78
INDEED, [O you sinners,] We have conveyed the truth unto you; but most of you abhor the truth.(43:79) Why - can they [who deny the truth ever] determine what [the truth] should be?(43:80) Or do they, perchance, think that We do not hear their hidden thoughts and their secret confabulations?
Yea, indeed, [We do,) and Our heavenly forces are with them, recording [all).



45:21
Now as for those who indulge in sinful doings - do they think that We place them, both in their life and their death, on an equal footing with those who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds?
Bad, indeed, is their judgment: (45:22) for, God has created the heavens and the earth in accordance with [an inner] truth,and [has therefore willed] that every human being shall be recompensed for what he has earned and none shall be wronged.


45:23
HAST THOU ever considered [the kind of man) who makes his own desires his deity, and whom God has [thereupon] let go astray, knowing [that his mind is closed to all guidance], and whose hearing and heart He has sealed, and upon whose sight He has placed a veil?25 Who, then, could guide him after God [has abandoned him]? Will you not, then, bethink yourselves?


45:24
And yet they say: "There is nothing beyond our life in this world. We die as we come to life,
26 and nothing but time destroys us."
But of this they have no knowledge whatever: they do nothing but guess. (45:25) And [so,) whenever Our messages are conveyed to them in all their clarity, their only argument is this:
27 "Bring forth our forefathers [as witnesses), if what you claim is true!"

45:26
Say: "It is God who gives you life, and then causes you to die; and in the end He will gather you together on Resurrection Day, [the coming of] which is beyond all doubt - but most human beings understand it not." (45:27) For, God's is the dominion over the heavens and the earth; and on the Day when the Last Hour dawns - on that Day will be lost all who [in their lifetime] tried to reduce to nothing [whatever they could not understand]
28

26 I.e., by accident, or as an outcome of blind forces of nature.

27 Lit., "their argument is nothing but that they say".

28 I.e., whatever they could not "prove" by direct observation or calculation.
 
Last edited:

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, nothing is "proof" either way. The absence of evidence for a Loch Ness monster is good evidence that a Loch Ness monster does not exist.
Absolutely not, that is in fact a logical fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence_2

And you, most likely, are an atheist in respect to Zeus, Osiris, Brahma, Shiva, and, Quetzalcoatl the feathered serpent Aztec god.
I think most Christians especially on this site wouldnt agree with you here either, I am not an atheist of these "gods" I actually believe they existed and have a merit as to why humans worshiped them as such. There is much evidence that something existed that caused humans to relay, worship, sacrifice ect to these entities, I just dont accept them God Himself. Unlike your logical fallacy, the fact that all of these Religions exist many with correlating stories, worship ceremonies, buildings and temples, ect while all these different cultures are worlds apart, speak to the FACT that something existed that are the basis of these beliefs and religions. There is ample evidence you however just choose to overlook and deny them because you dont want to accept that it points to something bigger than yourself.

The same would be said with any evidence one provides to you concerning the reality of God, we can show you evidence upon evidence and you will still in your heart deny what you truly know deep down exists, because it means you must deal with the other aspects that come with there being a God, mainly the fact that you would be subservient to Him and most Atheist want to proclaim themselves their own gods.

What exactly qualifies as proof that something greater than yourself exists?

Please from an Atheistic stand point of pure reason explain how from nothing came everything, how does existence come into being before existences existed?

How does life come from nothing?

I can show you God in Science, would you accept it? I find it highly unlikely, but I am willing to share absolute proof of a creator scientifically and mathematically...
 

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
383
Absolutely not, that is in fact a logical fallacy
You are correct, that is a fallacy if it is your sole basis for your conclusion, and the way I stated my argument made that seem so. I apologize, I was being florid, and a little drunk. What I should have said is that absence of evidence is sufficient reason to reject a claim. The claim, in this case, is that god exist.
I think most Christians especially on this site wouldnt agree with you here either, I am not an atheist of these "gods" I actually believe they existed and have a merit as to why humans worshiped them as such. There is much evidence that something existed that caused humans to relay, worship, sacrifice ect to these entities, I just dont accept them God Himself.
So you aren't a monotheist? I actually applaud that. If you believe that gods exist it makes more sense to me to believe that there are many, after all nature seems to love repetition, it doesn't really do anything uniquely.
Unlike your logical fallacy, the fact that all of these Religions exist many with correlating stories, worship ceremonies, buildings and temples, ect while all these different cultures are worlds apart, speak to the FACT that something existed that are the basis of these beliefs and religions. There is ample evidence you however just choose to overlook and deny them because you dont want to accept that it points to something bigger than yourself.
No, the fact that religions exist is evidence that man is an inherently religious creature. The fact that many people believe something is not evidence that it is true, that is also a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_reinforcement
What exactly qualifies as proof that something greater than yourself exists?
Plenty of things greater than myself exist, the universe, humanity, and my family round out my top three. But If you are asking what would count as evidence that god exist, you would first have to define god. What are his characteristics? How would I know god if I met him? What differentiates the true god from all the others?
Please from an Atheistic stand point of pure reason explain how from nothing came everything, how does existence come into being before existences existed?
I can't answer this question, but there are those who can. If you actually want to find an answer I recommend A Universe From Nothing. If you search that phrase you will get links to Lawrence Krauss's book and lectures, it's not a complete answer, and it will probably leave you unsatisfied but I'm not a quantum physicist so this is the best I can do.
How does life come from nothing?
Again, I can't answer this question, I'm not a biologist either. Though I'm pretty sure no one can answer this question yet. It's a process that we humans have not been able to replicate yet, but there are lots of people working on it. And just like with the last question, the fact that I don't know doesn't mean that god is responsible.
I can show you God in Science, would you accept it? I find it highly unlikely, but I am willing to share absolute proof of a creator scientifically and mathematically...
If your evidence is good I will accept it. I will wait with baited breath.
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
What I should have said is that absence of evidence is sufficient reason to reject a claim.
Yet I am sure you accept plenty of things that have no actual evidence, just theories, and what you are doing is exercising Faith to accept such things. You have no clue how life exists however you have chosen to accept Evolution with no evidence that Macro Evolution exists and is the method in which creation has come about as you see it currently.

You dont reject these claims although there is no evidence to support them, by evidence I mean scientific facts, not random ideologies and inferences. You hold ideologies and infrenences of God as not being supportive however base most of what you believe on such things, I wonder why God needs to be proven to a higher degree than other beliefs you hold as true.

The facts are Atheists have much more faith in their Religion than those who believe in God.

So you aren't a monotheist?
Oh no, I never said that, there is but one True God, however there are plenty of other beings which have proclaimed and humanity has proclaimed are god/s. That is what I am speaking about, the Bible itself tells us there are other gods, little g being the differentiation.

No, the fact that religions exist is evidence that man is an inherently religious creature. The fact that many people believe something is not evidence that it is true, that is also a logical fallacy.
What it shows is that there MUST be something that all of them witnessed that caused them to all build Religions that share very similar traits, ideologies, and stories.

If you were to take the same thought and remove the Religious aspect you indeed without a doubt would accept this proposition. So for example, if we had people in Somalia, India, and Thailand all write in their books that there was a massive flooding, and earthquakes at the same time, then you would quite obviously assume that something happened that caused them to all write similar things. In 2004 there was a Tsunami that affected all these countries even tho they are located on different sides of the world.

As I stated before looking at the fact that these different cultures that are across the globe all have similar stories in their writings would lead someone to logically conclude that they all experienced something that would cause them to write these things down. One example is the Flood, in cultures all around the World from Asia, to the Middle East to the Americas, they all have a reference to a disastrous flood that wiped out their civilization, whats more logical, that everyone on the global all conspired and made it up, or there was an actual disaster that affected all of these cultures?

From your perspective you may possibly deny this because its attached to Religion, however logic would dictate something happened...

But If you are asking what would count as evidence that god exist, you would first have to define god.
I am asking you what would YOU define as God and thus what evidence would YOU accept as pointing to God. I can tell you what I hold as each of those but you can easily move the goal post and state that either those things are clearly defining God (to you) or that God isnt made up of these things.

So again what do YOU define as God and what could be evidence for His Existence?

Would scientific/mathematic proof of an intelligent being creating us be proof for you?

Do you need more, less? What do YOU need?

I can't answer this question
So you take on Faith what these men write in their books as the cause of life, which you are not able to comprehend or explain fully, however take what the Bible states as the cause of life to be either invalid, incorrect, written of men, or not suitable for the cause of life?

Again the Faith you have in Atheism and mens ideals is much greater than my Faith in God.

Again, I can't answer this question, I'm not a biologist either. Though I'm pretty sure no one can answer this question yet. It's a process that we humans have not been able to replicate yet, but there are lots of people working on it. And just like with the last question, the fact that I don't know doesn't mean that god is responsible.
I believe the question has been answered, but you choose not to accept the answers given, nor the proof, nor the simple logic associated with answering that question. According to Science it is impossible for something to come from nothing yet here we both sit typing away on computers, breathing air, living life, these facts lead logically to a conclusion. Im sure you are aware of Occams razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Atheists will do whatever it takes to keep from accepting the simplest explanation, even going as far as saying it must have been Aliens that created life on this planet...

If your evidence is good I will accept it. I will wait with baited breath.
I dont have the time atm to dive into it because I am at work, but I would like to know if you can define what you would need to accept a God, what proof would be reasonable in your mind. We can start at creation, what if any evidence could one provide that would proclaim to you that there must have been a higher level intelligence that created everything you see?
 

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
383
Sure.

It didn't take long to reach the first errors. On page 5 there are three big ones. First, the author states that something cannot come from nothing. What the author does not understand is that "nothing" is highly unstable. If anything happens to nothing, then nothing is irrevocably gone, and since something clearly did happen, we exist after all, we can safely assume that "nothing" no longer exists. So as counter intuitive as it seems, the universe can, and most likely did, arise form nothing. I can't say for certain what the first cause was, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that it was a being more complex than the entire universe. Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.

Second, the author assumes that appearance of design is proof of a designer. This is false. Appearance of design is good reason to look for a designer, and we have been looking, but we have never found one. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how life diversified into the myriad of forms we currently see, evolution. The process of reproduction with alteration, coupled with natural selection, over thousands of generations can have profound effects on a population of organisms. The author attempts to support this argument bu using cellphones as an analogy to living organisms. This is disingenuous because cellphones, unlike living things, do not have a method to reproduce them selves.

Third the author states that for any system there must be a designer that is greater and more complex than that system. This immediately begs the question what designed the designer? The obvious response is that the designer, God, is eternal and had no need of a designer. But then if something can be eternal why can't we just say that the universe is eternal, maybe not this time line, but the universe, or multiverse could easily be eternal.

The arguments in the book are consistent with it's own internal logic, the problem is that several of the premises that logic is based on are wrong.
 
Last edited:

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
Sure.

It didn't take long to reach the first errors. On page 5 there are three big ones.
I hope you are genuine enough to keep your heart honest, in this back n forth. Time is the most valuable thing, after all.

First, the author states that something cannot come from nothing. What the author does not understand is that "nothing" is highly unstable. If anything happens to nothing, then nothing is irrevocably gone, and since something clearly did happen, we exist after all, we can safely assume that "nothing" no longer exists. So as counter intuitive as it seems, the universe can, and most likely did, arise form nothing.
That's an highly illogical assumption.

Even Professor Lawrence Krauss (also atheist), admits that nothing is the absence of everything, and anything, including "voids" and this nothing cannot be affected by anything. Because that anything - is a something which can only affect another something - not a nothing. See A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Professor Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. You've not gotten off on a good foot here. But I'll bite. There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really mean "the universe from a potentiality" - and that, I see as a plausible theoretical construct, however the problem here is that his theory find contention among other atheist physicists, because they all compete for dominance with their theories. Ironically, they say different things.

I can't say for certain what the first cause was, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that it was a being more complex than the entire universe.
I like your honesty. No one can say for certain that they have scientific proof of the first cause/prime mover because it simply cannot exist. Your second point is unreasonable logically, philosophically and scientifically. Even the human genome consists of data far more advanced than anything an human can code, this irreducable complexity shows intent behind design and not just the idea that there is an intelligent and complex designer - it shows intent!!! From a purely philosophical standpoint, there are many objective arguments against your subjective opinion, and I'll name one here. I cannot give you something I myself do not possess. Take for example, the fact that we have life - the raison d'etre for existence itself is the BIGGER question, but when you deny your own purpose and reduce your existence down to just subjective whimsical reasoning in the vein of Dawkins, Krauss, Brockman, Myers etc then what you end up with is a rather sad outlook on your reason for existing. Humor the idea that God gives life, and free will, within limitation so you can find purpose, for a moment will you? And contrast that to your philosophically dead atheist caveat of "survival of the fittest" which itself is a great excuse for justifying wars, theft, r*pe, and a heck of a lot of other bad things, and try to tell me how philosophically, practically and purposefully you stand on better, higher, more virtuous ground than I do - you simply can't!

Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
I agree, the Occam's Razor is a valid argument. There can only ever be One God! In the Qur'an God states:

Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe. - Quran 21:22

Reading the commentary of this verse is a philosophical masterpiece in itself. I won't go into it here, but I will summarise the Occam's Razor instead for the sake of clarity. Occam's Razor is the idea that the most simple explanation is the best one. For example, if you heard a knock on your door, you'd assume someone was knocking - this is the most natural assumption. You wouldn't think there's an entire army waiting for permission to enter your house, unless you was expecting an army. But that would beg the question "why does an army need to knock when it ram raid the door down?"...

... By the same train of thought, if God is all powerful, then the existence of another all powerful God would cancel each other out, as the two "all powerful wills" would be locked in a eternal battle to over power each other, proving that they were not all powerful to begin with, and the universe as well as the gods, would be destroyed.

One could argue "what about having an all powerful God and another, not so all powerful God?" well that still means there is one divine will, as the all powerful God will subject the lesser to His will which takes the idea of a lesser God (or demi God) and throws this into a trashcan.

I can keep going but I guess we agree - if there is a God - there can be only One!

In the Quran God states:

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (A unique One, a One without a second and indivisible one - Ahad in Arabic)
Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (He relies on nothing but all creation is contingent and dependent on Him)
He neither begets nor was He begotten. (He is the uncaused cause, the infinite)
And there is nothing like Him" (You cannot imagine Him, He is beyond the limited human scope of imagination) - Quran 112


Second, the author assumes that appearance of design is proof of a designer. This is false. Appearance of design is good reason to look for a designer, and we have been looking, but we have never found one.
By proof, you mean empirical evidence. Hmm. The fallacy of this type of proof is that it is a one trick pony which has made a mockery of atheism since the fifties, my friend.

Let me ask you a question. Is a creator, contained by his creation? for example, if you built a house, does this now mean you have to live inside it and never leave it? Of course the answer is no.

Humor this, if you will: So why then, do you presume that God is contained inside of a universe which He creates? Did he not exist before the creation of this universe? Is His place not in heaven? Is He not transcendent? Or is the point of faith, to have faith or instead, to have ultimate evidence which negates the beautiful reasoning of faith itself? These are ideas which gel with the natural disposition of human beings and even have a root inside of philosophy, epistemology and knowledge proving that they are not constructs but rather - axioms - Innately coded knowledge which is naturally understood by human beings. And not constructs based on limited and faulty observations subjected to theoretical interpretations which go against the axiomatic truths which point towards an un-caused cause that we identify as God.

You cannot, by any measure of truthful inquiry, deduce that you can find empirical proof of a creator. Because the Creator is not subjected to His creation, it is instead the other way round. We are subjected to Him. And this is why, in Islam, we submit and surrender our will to His.

The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence - if you can understand this, then go one step further with your intellect and understand also that you now know God has made it impossible to prove He does not exist. Because The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence.

When you are able to know this truth, you will see all creation as proof of God.

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? - Quran 41:53

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for how life diversified into the myriad of forms we currently see, evolution. The process of reproduction with alteration, coupled with natural selection, over thousands of generations can have profound effects on a population of organisms. The author attempts to support this argument bu using cellphones as an analogy to living organisms. This is disingenuous because cellphones, unlike living things, do not have a method to reproduce them selves.
As I mentioned, you are lost in a maelstorm of theoretical constructs which are inferred by limited human observations and are subjected to faulty reasoning, re-modelling, and re-constructing, over and over again. A theory today will be tomorrow's BS. That's what you have decided to follow? Did I not give the example of the theory for phlogiston and the eventual discovery of nitrogen in this thread somewhere already to demonstrate this fallacious dichotomy of reason?

I love science, but I don't see that science makes one an atheist - au contraire, mon pote - science makes me marvel at God's ability to create with a divine and intelligent will which is all powerful, yet extremely merciful as well.

Third the author states that for any system there must be a designer that is greater and more complex than that system. This immediately begs the question what designed the designer? The obvious response is that the designer, God, is eternal and had no need of a designer. But then if something can be eternal why can't we just say that the universe is eternal, maybe not this time line, but the universe, or multiverse could easily be eternal.
I don't think you can do science. We have observed the bodies in space moving away from each other and so we can postulate that the reversal of this movement in space would lead to a common origination point which we call the Big Bang.

The real question is - what caused it. And we say God - if you now ask "what caused God?" you do a complete U-turn on your Occam's Razor... not to mention you also enter the Infinite Regress and if that were true, we wouldn't be here! Nothing would. Which leads us back to here: nothing is the absence of everything, and anything, including "voids" and this nothing cannot be affected by anything.

You know what's amazing though? It would take a will bigger than the laws it creates to make matter from nothing - that will is God! And God has to exist outside of our space-time continuum because He is not affected by time - He is the Creator of time! Time is His to command. And He has... just take a look at the universe, and how time moves differently in different parts of it... heck even in our own solar system, the celestial dance of planets around the sun tell us that their days are not like our days.

I started this post with the comment 'Time is the most valuable thing', after all and now I will quote Surah Al Asr from the Quran:

By time,
Indeed, mankind is in loss,

Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience. - Quran 103

The arguments in the book are consistent with it's own internal logic, the problem is that several of the premises that logic is based on are wrong.
You wasn't able to prove to prove that. In fact, you gave me a very strong opportunity to prove otherwise. I've been able to show you the faulty reasoning you have become prey to, and how you have not grounded your atheist epistemology with anything concrete because you arfe entirely reliant on a one trick pony called "empiricism" which, as I demonstrated, is an handicap to your intellect.

Thank you for replying,
 
Last edited:

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence - if you can understand this, then go one step further with your intellect and understand also that you now know God has made it impossible to prove He does not exist. Because The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence.

When you are able to know this truth, you will see all creation as proof of God.
That doesn't make sense because God can't be proven or disproven by looking at the material world/nature. No one can prove that God doesn't exist through science because God isn't a material being but that is also why it is impossible to prove that he does exist. No one actually knows and it's impossible to determine.
 

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
That doesn't make sense because God can't be proven or disproven by looking at the material world/nature. No one can prove that God doesn't exist through science because God isn't a material being but that is also why it is impossible to prove that he does exist. No one actually knows and it's impossible to determine.
If you read my post again, you will realise we are in agreement. Here, read this in sh'Allah,

By proof, you mean empirical evidence. Hmm. The fallacy of this type of proof is that it is a one trick pony which has made a mockery of atheism since the fifties, my friend.

Let me ask you a question. Is a creator, contained by his creation? for example, if you built a house, does this now mean you have to live inside it and never leave it? Of course the answer is no.

Humor this, if you will: So why then, do you presume that God is contained inside of a universe which He creates? Did he not exist before the creation of this universe? Is His place not in heaven? Is He not transcendent? Or is the point of faith, to have faith or instead, to have ultimate evidence which negates the beautiful reasoning of faith itself? These are ideas which gel with the natural disposition of human beings and even have a root inside of philosophy, epistemology and knowledge proving that they are not constructs but rather - axioms - Innately coded knowledge which is naturally understood by human beings. And not constructs based on limited and faulty observations subjected to theoretical interpretations which go against the axiomatic truths which point towards an un-caused cause that we identify as God.

You cannot, by any measure of truthful inquiry, deduce that you can find empirical proof of a creator. Because the Creator is not subjected to His creation, it is instead the other way round. We are subjected to Him. And this is why, in Islam, we submit and surrender our will to His.

The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence - if you can understand this, then go one step further with your intellect and understand also that you now know God has made it impossible to prove He does not exist. Because The Absence of Proof does not equate to a Proof of Absence.

When you are able to know this truth, you will see all creation as proof of God.

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? - Quran 41:53
Hope that helps.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
A creator always leaves an imprint/ his fingerprints on his creation. Creatorship, in the truest sense of the word, is the ability to make something out of nothing. I can't go to a mine, strip it of minerals i can't make myself, then make a computer and call myself a creator of a computer. No one can create anything except God. This is best illustrated hypothetically when man stands up to God and tells Him that he doesn't need Him because he can also create living things (think Frankenstein, gene editing, cloning etc) and God responds to the challenge by asking him to go ahead and 'create' without 'using my dirt'.

Since no creation is greater than its creator, just by looking at man and his habitation, one can deduce that a Being much greater than or more superior to man, would have brought him into existence.

That's why the Singularity is a lie. Machines can never outsmart man, inotherwords man will beat a machine on any given day. So, inorder to make the singularity happen, man has to be deliberately dumbed down, his intellect fiercely assaulted, and forced to adapt to this new reality by merging with his own 'creation' to become trans-human. But that also signals his extinction.
 

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
Yeah I got what you said... but I was moreso referring to when you said that creation is proof of God after you just said that it can't be proven by looking at nature/creation.
Ah, I see. I referred to empiricism in science and not reflecting over the signs of Allah, which is why I referenced 41:53

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?

I hope this clarifies for you, the holistic approach which I prefer over the empirical one.
 
Top