The Improbability of God

[mit]

God is in a dilemma - If God were to appear on earth to prove that he/she/they exist about the only converts to believing in God would be the Atheists and Agnostics. Since it is highly unlikely that God would reveal which religion is right then by default all religions are wrong and their followers would turn away from God. God would also be pummelled with questions "Do you have to get your hair cut in Heaven?" - why did so and so die? - why do we have cancer and war?-The list would go on and on. Scientists and news reporters would be asking some tougher questions like why the diversity amongst humans if we are formed in your image - how does a seed know what to grow in to - In our quest for proof - God would likely have to demonstrate some awe inspiring power - curing cancer likely wouldn't cut it - wiping Australia from the face of the earth with a wave of God's hands would be a start towards proof. So you see by us questioning the existence of God does not prove God does not exist - God likely is tired of his experiment on our blue planet and feels confident that we will either improve or destroy ourselves so God's direct presence is not required. God can still live in the beauty of a spring flower, the smile from a stranger or the love of a child. Whether God exists or not is quite unimportant - what we as humans do in our day to day interactions with each other and the planet is what is important.

 

[eanassir]

[Spade said:] " So, a child reaching puberty raised by atheists, or polytheists, or any religion not approved by Islam is destined to hell? That is a barbaric, preposterous belief, admittedly shared by many Christians! That belief contradicts the very notion of a compassionate, loving God "


All people are God's servants; He created them and is Most Gracious to all of them by giving the believer and the unbeliever a large number of bounties.

So what's the crime of a child born to associating parents (polytheists or idolaters) that they will go to Hell; while the child born to Muslim parents will go to Paradise ?

Muslims and non-Muslims are God's created beings, and He is their Merciful Lord.

All of them will be tried and given chance [to believe from the start] and to see the truth of the pure monotheism and will be acquainted about the Quran,

and if the man is good-hearted and inclines to do righteous work, then God will guide him, and give permission or leave to the angels to talk to him through inspiration (while he is almost unaware) until he will believe and convert.

Such a chance will be given to every human being, even though he resides on a remote island.

I asked Abu abd-Allah about this, and he said:
"No excuse [in the afterlife] for anyone; because the meaning of the Quran has been translated to all languages; and all people have known about the Quran as the book of God."

Then I said: "Suppose there are some savage people on some remote island; how about their case?"

He said: "God will choose the most righteous among them, and inspires into him that the idols are only falsehood, and that God of the heavens and the earth should alone be worshipped. Then anyone that follows such a man, will be saved; while anyone that disobeys him will perish."

universeandquran.t35.com/#First_Commandment
​

 

[Spade]

Whether God exists or not is quite unimportant - what we as humans do in our day to day interactions with each other and the planet is what is important.

I totally agree!

PS
I get a kick out of Moslems, Jews, and Christians who claim monotheism when Israel's El is simply the chief god of the Sumerian pantheon. Also, there are layers upon layers of divinities - angels and devils.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, April 11, 1823

 

[L Gilbert]

The god du jour - SunDay, March 15.

I have been remiss in not paying proper attention to the Slavic pantheon. Today, meet Svarog, the sun god!
Slavic mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many Celtic gods, too.

 

[Spade]

There are many Celtic gods, too.

Absolutely. Every people is "chosen" by the god(s) they invent! Gods willing, we will get to them all!

 

[L Gilbert]

[Spade said:] " So, a child reaching puberty raised by atheists, or polytheists, or any religion not approved by Islam is destined to hell? That is a barbaric, preposterous belief, admittedly shared by many Christians! That belief contradicts the very notion of a compassionate, loving God "​

All people are God's servants; He created them and is Most Gracious to all of them by giving the believer and the unbeliever a large number of bounties.​

Perhaps you serve gods, goblins, and gremlins, but I don't. Creation is a fallacy.​

So what's the crime of a child born to associating parents (polytheists or idolaters) that they will go to Hell; while the child born to Muslim parents will go to Paradise ?

​

Muslims and non-Muslims are God's created beings, and He is their Merciful Lord.​

Merciful? Bullsh|t. Tell that to the millions of good people that have died and their families.
A friend of ours recently lost her daughter to a brain infection at the age of 3: if there were such things as "merciful" gods, why would they think a 3 year old girl was evil or had sinned enough to warrant death? The girl's mother didn't warrant having her baby taken from her, either. I'd like to know just what your definition of merciful is. And don't give me that bullsh|t answer that "God works in mysterious ways" either. That's just a convenient and meaningless way of evading the issue.​

 

[eanassir]

[talloola said:] "a baby can hear and see before he/she is born, as far as the spiritual, he/she will
figure that out on his/her own, with only input being from parents or outside
influences.
(sight at birth varies, as some see quite clearly and some take a short while to
develope clear sight)."


Everything that we say, you say contrary to it?

At least consider the observations mentioned about the baby at age of less than 40 days, then the baby at age of more than 40 days.

Then go yourself and do such tests as mentioned in our reply # 559 and in the link:
man-after-death.t35.com/#The_Fetus_Neither_Hears_Nor_Sees_
before believing anything said to you by others.
​

 

[L Gilbert]

Deities are simply the anthropomorphising humans do because they are too lazy and deluded to actually think about and see clearly what the universe is and how it works.

 

[eanassir]

[Spade said:] "I get a kick out of Moslems, Jews, and Christians who claim monotheism when Israel's El is simply the chief god of the Sumerian pantheon.

There isn't anything objectable here.
IL menas god, which is ilah in Arabic. Allah mean Al-ilah or "the God".

God is the same Lord of the heavens and the earth and Lord of nations and worlds.​

The idolaters, associaters and polytheists recognize God as the major god, but they associate some idols, prophets, angels or demons together with God Almighty.

man-after-death.t35.com/3.htm#The_association_:_sharing_or_polytheism​

 

[eanassir]

Merciful? Bullsh|t. Tell that to the millions of good people that have died and their families.

A friend of ours recently lost her daughter to a brain infection at the age of 3: if there were such things as "merciful" gods, why would they think a 3 year old girl was evil or had sinned enough to warrant death? The girl's mother didn't warrant having her baby taken from her, either. I'd like to know just what your definition of merciful is. And don't give me that bullsh|t answer that "God works in mysterious ways" either. That's just a convenient and meaningless way of evading the issue.​

So you are more merciful than God Most Gracious!

And very strange indeed; (and according to the expression of Niflmir) : "in one breath" you say no god, while then you say: He is not Merciful.

The child that died; it is a trial to her parents: will they forebear or will they blaspheme?

If they forbear patiently and they are monotheists working some righteous work, they will find her before them in Paradise; and it will be a great happiness when they see their child whom they thought disappeared from existence.

No one may have his children in Paradise, but the one whose children died in the life of the World.

Moreover, if this child lives, will you guarantee that she will be intact in her body and mind? And if she has some disabilities overt or manifest, how will her life be in the future?

Moreover, the materialists think that this life of the World is the ultimate and final one, while it is not; the next afterlife is the important and the everlasting (this in spite of their denial.)
​

 

[L Gilbert]

So you are more merciful than God Most Gracious!​

And very strange indeed; (and according to the expression of Niflmir) : "in one breath" you say no god, while then you say: He is not Merciful.​

Don't you understand the word "if"? Here is what I said, you silly goat,

if there were such things as "merciful" gods, why would they think a 3 year old girl was evil or had sinned enough to warrant death?

​

The child that died; it is a trial to her parents: will they forebear or will they blaspheme?

The woman is a single parent. As I said she has not warranted the suffering that she is going through . She is and as far as I know has always been a good person as well as deludedly religious and spiritual. ​

If they forbear patiently and they are monotheists working some righteous work, they will find her before them in Paradise; and it will be a great happiness when they see their child whom they thought disappeared from existence.

In the meantime she must go through the rest of her life suffering over the loss of her daughter. That is not what I would call merciful. It is simply more evidence that there are no such things as gods and that what DOES exist is an indifferent universe.​

No one may have his children in Paradise, but the one whose children died in the life of the World.

​

Moreover, if this child lives, will you guarantee that she will be intact in her body and mind? And if she has some disabilities overt or manifest, how will her life be in the future?​

The child is dead so there is no "if this child lives" to be considered. No wonder you keep condemning what others say, you don't even understand what they say.
Anyway, is there some sort of guarantee that the child would not be good even if she was disabled? Who cares if someone is disabled or not as long as they are a good person?​

Moreover, the materialists think that this life of the World is the ultimate and final one, while it is not;

Prove it. Convince me.

the next afterlife is the important and the everlasting (this in spite of their denial.)

​

That's just hearsay.

 

[ironsides]

I totally agree!

PS
I get a kick out of Moslems, Jews, and Christians who claim monotheism when Israel's El is simply the chief god of the Sumerian pantheon. Also, there are layers upon layers of divinities - angels and devils.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson, April 11, 1823

And I say Look to the skies, when the god returns be ready to serve, he/she will have at least 10,000 years on us. Unless they are peaceful creatures, in that case we will kick their butts.
You know what is not so funny about that, we probably will.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Forget the map for a moment, what about these objects?

What about them? Just because they somewhat resemble a contemporary object doesn't mean that's what they must be. The "mysterious flying cylinder" looks more like a curling rock to me; would you take me seriously if I suggested those people invented the game? The object suggested to be an ancient helicopter couldn't possibly be, a helicopter configured like that couldn't fly, it has no tail rotor. And several of the other supposed aircraft have big holes in them. Any loon with a dumb idea can put up a web site for other people to cite, and about 80% of what's out there is crap. Almost none of it has been vetted for accuracy or correctness or legitimacy, it's an unrefereed, unedited, unmoderated, free-for-all. Be deeply skeptical of anything you find out there, unless you can corroborate it from other sources known to be legitimate.

 

[talloola]

[talloola said:] "a baby can hear and see before he/she is born, as far as the spiritual, he/she will

figure that out on his/her own, with only input being from parents or outside
influences.
(sight at birth varies, as some see quite clearly and some take a short while to
develope clear sight)."​

Everything that we say, you say contrary to it? ​

At least consider the observations mentioned about the baby at age of less than 40 days, then the baby at age of more than 40 days.​

Then go yourself and do such tests as mentioned in our reply # 559 and in the link:
man-after-death.t35.com/#The_Fetus_Neither_Hears_Nor_Sees_
before believing anything said to you by others.​

What I stated is 'fact', proven by scientists. Secondly I have had four daughters,
each had a different level of sight at birth, and my third and fourth daughters could see
very clearly from the day they were born, I noticed it the first time I held them,
they looked directly at me, and saw me, and after having two babies prior
to her, I can tell the difference, then the grandparents noticed it as well,
with both babies.
I don't 'just' repeat things that others tell me as though everything I hear that
I agree with is what I repeat, give me a break.

 

[eanassir]

Don't you understand the word "if"? [/font][/size][/left]

I did a mistake when I spoke to you; I should only speak to some polite people.

 

[eanassir]

What I stated is 'fact', proven by scientists.

This is wrong.

Secondly I have had four daughters,
each had a different level of sight at birth, and my third and fourth daughters could see
very clearly from the day they were born, I noticed it the first time I held them,
they looked directly at me, and saw me, and after having two babies prior
to her, I can tell the difference, then the grandparents noticed it as well,
with both babies.

The newly born baby cannot hear neither can he see, like the little newly born cats.

It is some illusion that the mother may think her baby is directly looking to her (this occurs by chance that his eye is directed towards her, but in fact he is not seeing at that moment), or sometimes the newly born baby may smile to her (which is merely some twitching of the related muscles, and not in fact any smile.)

 

[eanassir]

No eanassir, it *is* the logical rule. You cannot show that a book is correct by citing it in support of itself, any more than you can personally show that you are correct simply by claiming to be. It's a circular argument that goes nowhere.

No, it isn't any logical rule, and neither is it any circular argument.
You have to study the book thoroughly then you may say it is good or not.

And as I've told you before on several occasions, I *have* read the book, in two different translations, not translations of its meaning, but translations of the book itself. Silly is one of the kinder descriptions I'd apply to it.
I don't think I've ever said it was useless, and if I did I'll withdraw that. I recall saying it's silly, dull, repetitive, boring, mythological, and a few other things, but not useless. It does provide some insight into the Muslim mind.

This is what you think, while people who studied the Quran, including the non-Muslims have other opinion, and esteem it highly. I can cite here many of such words of their admiring the Glorious Quran.

There are not such pillars. There's no heaven either, so pillars for it aren't necessary.

I asked you in a way of argument: because you said you read the Quran meaning translation (and any translation is only giving the meaning in another language in the expression of the translator); so I told you what you understand from such an aya: does such aya tells there are pillars for the sky or heaven or not; but you answered that you think scientifically there are no pillars, which is other than the answer that I demanded, which is: What does the aya implicate? And not what is yuor idea about the science.

Christianity, even in its most nasty and self-righteous fundamentalist forms, at least gives wrong-doers a chance to redeem themselves in this life. But not your Allah, he deliberately leads wrong-doers even farther down the paths of evil and then condemns them for what he's made them do. Nice. :roll:

The way to repentance is open to all people, and God forgives any sins of people ( other than the associating some imams, prophets, Jesus and others together with God which is unforgivable), when man repents from his sins and asks God for forgiveness.
This repentance is permitted and accepted until the hour of death comes when the repentance will not be accepted as will it not accepted when the protents of the Doomsday come: when the earth will stop its axial rotation; because then all people will repent. And may not be accepted unless man returns the rights of people that he stole.
So, these undelined words resembles some restriction or the repentance may not be accepted, and else God may forgive all sins other than the association when man repents sincerely.

universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_4.htm#Repentance_Will_not_Be_Accepted_on_That_Day_

​

 

[barney]

Whether God exists or not is quite unimportant - what we as humans do in our day to day interactions with each other and the planet is what is important.

Unfortunately, that's not the case where determinism is concerned: the issue of God's "existence" defines our "day to day interactions" (i.e. are our actions free?). The laws of most countries--including Canada's--are dependent on certain principles of free action (i.e. you are responsible for your own actions and can therefore be punished--as opposed to merely being detained and rehabilitated). Saying that there is no God would bring the law and even the Constitution to the ground.

I don't think it makes any difference outside of law because "God" in the fullest sense of the term must be beyond intelligibility (intelligence is dependent on existence and God is 'outside of' existence).

(I don't bother with religious arguments because religion is based on the assumption that there is a God--the topic of the thread is whether a God is probable, not what the nature of God is).

Deities are simply the anthropomorphising humans do because they are too lazy and deluded to actually think about and see clearly what the universe is and how it works.

I've heard say that to some people believing in a God is just as natural as atheists not believing in one.

Having said that, assuming there is a God is kind of like when they call plain butter "unsalted"; you actually just start with butter (i.e. the universe), the salt (i.e. the idea of a creator, God) is something you have added--milk doesn't come from the cow pre-salted.

 

[talloola]

This is wrong.

double post

 

[talloola]

This is wrong.



The newly born baby cannot hear neither can he see, like the little newly born cats.

It is some illusion that the mother may think her baby is directly looking to her (this occurs by chance that his eye is directed towards her, but in fact he is not seeing at that moment), or sometimes the newly born baby may smile to her (which is merely some twitching of the related muscles, and not in fact any smile.)

I really have lost respect for you now, you cannot understand the truth, and
you don't believe my statements of truth, you answer me as though I am a
dumb idiot who has no grasp of reality. There is no reason for me to tell you
that my daughters could see at birth, if they couldn't, it is very obvious looking at a new born, if they can see clearly,
just see a little, or some can't see well at all, and everyone, 'but you' realizes
that new borns can hear quite well, just notice how they 'jump' when they
hear sharp noises, it startles them quite often.
It would do you good to attend a 'care for your baby class', you could learn
about newborns.
I will repeat what I said, 'read my lips' two of my daughters were born with
good sight, we all could 'see' that they could 'see', that is a reality.
It is well known that they can hear before they are born, they have been
studied, reacting to sounds while in the womb.
Yes, as a mother of four, and a grandmother of 5, I am well aware of the
twitching that the muscles do on new borns, which has nothing to do with
their sight and hearing.