A Tradgedy

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah:


First of all, you don’t know what is the definition of God to reject Him…how can you reject something which you are totally ignorant of? If I show you a pen and told you that it is a book, how will you ever going to disprove my statement unless you know very well the definition of a pen?

Firstly Wael. I do not have to conclusively disprove every screwball assertion that comes my way (even so popular a one such as Jinn and devils etc.). You and I both know that if we were tasked with disproving every assertion we would spend every moment of every day of our lives doing just that. We don't operate that way.


I also do not go around making assertions that are by definition outside the realm of possible experience such as god(s). Look, take that assertion and break it down. How can one even assert "that which is outside the realm of possible experience"? By asserting it at all, you are acknowledging that at some level it is outside the realm of possible experience! Your statement self-contradicts and thus is absurd.


If something is not knowledge, it cannot be fact, if it is not fact, then it is unsupported conjecture. What you are doing is not defining limits of logic, which work perfectly fine in the context of existence, but you are pointing out that we shouldn't come to any conclusions about whatever absurd, ludicrous, or outlandish nonsense a theist might choose to utter as a "fact". Sorry. Humanity can do better than that, and we are doing better -- except when we run into throwbacks like Al-Quaeda, who use precisely that idea, that assertions are true without applying any standards to them. Where did the hijackers go? Paradise? 72 virgins? Well, hey, they assert it, you can't disprove it, so it's likely to be true!


No, it isn't.


Anyway, on to the substance of your question. So Wael, you ask the fundamental question, but you do so prematurely, IMO, because you don't first define what you are asking evidence for. What do you mean by "god(s)"? There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals.


And if, by definition, the theist (who makes the claim that something <i>is</i>, thus owns the burden of proof) claims there is no possible proof in this natural world of ours, then the answer is clear: If I admit that what I claim to have existence has no evidence to support my claim, I am describing that which is indistinguishable from nothingness.


Unless one is omniscient, one cannot rule the supernatural out as a possible answer. However, by a simple exercise we can show that asserting a supernatural explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:


In the theist worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a Supreme Being whose mind we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).


This, the theist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be "reasoned". Well, what has the theist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.


Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the theistic, "God did it" and go back to hewing arks from cubits of gopher wood.


Everyone's concept of god comes from various books written by men. It's again so convenient that god displays all these attributes of humanity in texts we know are written by humans (the source being the part of the debate). But if that billboard was up there, then we would know it wasn't written by man's hand, and then we'd have a foundation to go on.


Again, it boils down to things being confused and muddled and hopelessly complicated because god wants them this way. Or, there is no god and we are discussing a fictional character that workls fine as a fictional character but fails as an actual being. I'm feeling the edge of Occam's razor here...


I think you pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.


Tell me, what is the difference between your assertion of supernatural entities and a certifiably insane person's claim that he is Napoleon? Both are equally demonstrable and reasonable claims, (according to your standards), and why should I believe your claims of “miracles” is real, but the individual with cognitive impairment (claiming to be Napoleon) is uttering a false claim?


Faith means you have no way to discern the difference.


Reason lets us understand both for what they actually are.


The single strongest argument against the assertion that gods exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gods. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of this simplistic argument, it is just not good enough to sway many people of a theistic bent.


Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

<b>secondly, have you met any Muslim in your whole life who forced you to submit yourself to God? </b>

No, I haven't. In large part because I've been raised in the West where islam has not had the opportunity to secure a position of majority where we might otherwise be coerced and compelled to kowtow to islam under threat of death as many around the world are.

and lastly, your existence now is very important to me, since you are demanding for extraordinary evidence to prove God’s existence, then I have full right to ask you to show me just an ordinary evidence to support your clam that YOU do exist, but you failed to do so, you are always “lacking in the "support your argument"…
Salam


Wael.

I noticed you’ve made this, (rather silly), charge before, Wael, and except for making a grasp at derailing the subject, why do it?


Clearly, we are all here posting, reading, responding and mutually agreeing that there is a context of reality that we share and as such, we can forgo actually being in one another's presence. I know when FHC, for example, responds to one of my posts that there is a direct, contextual response that speaks to my comments. Clearly, <i>someone</i> is responding to what I write. In addition, I know that my actions have clear and unmistakable consequences. There is a trail of evidence (discernible and extant), to display those consequences.


If I were to go to FHC’s house and speak to her directly about her post, how is that not proving both her’s (and my) existence? I would agree to <i>you</i> it might then be considered hearsay, but nothing is stopping <i>you</i> from investigating it as well and concluding from the source (me) whether or not it's true. Sorry, your take on this collapses, and even if it is true, then your posts fall into the exact same category, and hence you are arguing your own argumentation that it is unreliable as we are not getting it "from the source". (FHC, sorry about all the unwanted company at your house)


Second, we are agreeing the posts <i>exist</i> and we are <i>reading and replying to them</i> -- we are not agreeing that everything said in every post is something we all agree with. I said this plainly and since you seemed to have missed it in innumerable posts, here it is again:


You are assuming the Koran is the final arbiter of what gods are about and you sure haven't made a single argument proving to me that we should take this assumption as fact. So before you quote chapter and verse, may we please see your proof that the Koran is authoritative on the question of god?


It’s a rhetorical question, of course. The litany of exceptions regarding irrational assertions is effectively endless. These are excuses, couched in terms of the supernatural to allow you to embrace your desires for existence to be more than what is right here and now. The fact is, look around you. As much of a struggle, as nice or as bad as it gets-- this is reality.