Why are we here? - Islam

[DJAkuma]

Noting the perversity of this argument would seem to be a relevant point if you are acknowledging Islam had its own evolution, ergo is invalid, why then, do you either not recognize this is true of many old religions, including your own? Or why should one prove to be an exception to the rule? If the latter is the case, how would we know Islam isn't capable of being valid?

With the assertion that Islam is the newest revelation so therefore it must be right I'd say then that it can't be since the book of mormon is newer still and makes the same claim that it is true and the other ones are incorrect. At least until someone else needs money and writes a new revelation that declares itself to be the true one. It's really too bad that the people who believe that stuff don't even realize they're falling for the same thing over and over.

[hackenslash]

Why would a omnipotent and omniescient God be impossible? I'm not entirely sure I understand your reasons.

Seriously? OK, then. I'll walk you through the baby steps, but this is logic 101.

Can this omnipotent deity build a stack of bricks so heavy that even he can't lift it?

If he can, then he can't lift it and he isn't omnipotent. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent. The usual retort of the credulous here is to cite that he can only do what is logically possible, but that doesn't provide a get-out clause, because a) it places a limit on god's power, therefore he isn't omnipotent, and b) this constitutes something that god cannot do but that I can, meaning that I have a power that the deity does not, so he isn't omnipotent.

When taken together with omniscience, the questions is rendered 'can this magic man do something that he didn't know he'd do?'

If he can, then he isn't omniscient. If he can't, then he isn't omnipotent. The two attributes are mutually exclusive, and obviously the product of a human mind, and one not very good at thinking, to boot.

Now, your friend can cite all the vague wibble from the Qu'ran he likes, along with his explanations of what was meant by them. The fallacy in play here is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. I'm sure you can work out why it has that particular name.

So yes, the deity does not exist, and the Qu'ran is fiction. I can say this without ambiguity or fear of misunderstanding. In fact, I'll go one further. I'll state categorically, here and now, that NONE of the deities that have ever been presented by the credulous or the dim of wit enjoy existence, because they're all similarly impossible, having also been given mutually exclusive or logically absurd attributes. Whatever deity may or may not exist, it's not any of the ones we've heard of.

[LegendarySandwich]

If he can, then he can't lift it and he isn't omnipotent. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent. The usual retort of the credulous here is to cite that he can only do what is logically possible, but that doesn't provide a get-out clause, because a) it places a limit on god's power, therefore he isn't omnipotent, and b) this constitutes something that god cannot do but that I can, meaning that I have a power that the deity does not, so he isn't omnipotent.

Saying that God is limited by what is logically possible is pretty ridiculous. I mean, God created logic. Why would he then limit himself with it?

[DJAkuma]

If he can, then he can't lift it and he isn't omnipotent. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent. The usual retort of the credulous here is to cite that he can only do what is logically possible, but that doesn't provide a get-out clause, because a) it places a limit on god's power, therefore he isn't omnipotent, and b) this constitutes something that god cannot do but that I can, meaning that I have a power that the deity does not, so he isn't omnipotent.

Saying that God is limited by what is logically possible is pretty ridiculous. I mean, God created logic. Why would he then limit himself with it?

Any deity that would make rules that he is not willing to follow himself probably isn't worth being worshiped in the first place.

[LegendarySandwich]

If he can, then he can't lift it and he isn't omnipotent. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent. The usual retort of the credulous here is to cite that he can only do what is logically possible, but that doesn't provide a get-out clause, because a) it places a limit on god's power, therefore he isn't omnipotent, and b) this constitutes something that god cannot do but that I can, meaning that I have a power that the deity does not, so he isn't omnipotent.

Saying that God is limited by what is logically possible is pretty ridiculous. I mean, God created logic. Why would he then limit himself with it?

Any deity that would make rules that he is not willing to follow himself probably isn't worth being worshiped in the first place.

Why? Why would a deity force himself to follow logic? I mean, I understand limiting himself to logic when interacting with us in our universe; but he "cannot do what is logically impossible"? How does that make any sense? How could he not be able to, if he made it?

[DJAkuma]

Why? Why would a deity force himself to follow logic? I mean, I understand limiting himself to logic when interacting with us in our universe; but he "cannot do what is logically impossible"? How does that make any sense? How could he not be able to, if he made it?

I see what you mean, I was mostly pointing out that a god that refuses to follow the rules he put in place is being a dick and a hypocrite, like a cop who breaks ten traffic laws on the way to get donuts.

[Asmodean]

Why did you already deny the existence of a God without ever have read a religious book, except the Bible?

Why do you think there are truths about the existence of gods in religious books?

I have not seen, touched or read the Book of the Dead, but I'm pretty sure Anubis does not exist... Even though it would be cool if he did. Why do I not have to have read the book to deny Anubis..? Because beyond a pre-scientific method wall carvings, nothing can substantiate his existence. I have no urge to fill the gaps in my knowledge with Anubis nor to explain my existence beyond this life with him. The same applies to every deity ever described to me, even those whos books I've read.

[DJAkuma]

Why did you already deny the existence of a God without ever have read a religious book, except the Bible?

Why do you think there are truths about the existence of gods in religious books?

I have not seen, touched or read the Book of the Dead, but I'm pretty sure Anubis does not exist... Even though it would be cool if he did. Why do I not have to have read the book to deny Anubis..? Because beyond a pre-scientific method wall carvings, nothing can substantiate his existence. I have no urge to fill the gaps in my knowledge with Anubis nor to explain my existence beyond this life with him. The same applies to every deity ever described to me, even those whos books I've read.

At least the egyptians had pictures... how come there's tons of contemporary sculptures of romans and egyptians but none of jesus or anyone who knew him? I guess when the romans were persecuting christians they got rid of ever single sculpture but somehow couldn't get rid of their writings too. Maybe they should have hid a few in the cave with the dead sea scrolls.

[iSok]

Thanks for all your replies.

Davin put out some interesting points.
However, my finals are starting in a week.
So this is probably my last post now.

I'll try posting again in a day or 10.

with kind regards,
iSoK

[Tank]

Good luck in your finals. See you later!

[Gawen]

Perhaps, after this exchange, you may come back with a more open mind.

[Ihateyoumike]

All manmade religions are the same in that they are unable to lead men to God.

I do think this is the first thing I've read from you that I agree with.

Of course, your manmade religion is included in this statement... Right?

[iSok]

you people should stop hijacking my topic till I come back

[Tank]

you people should stop hijacking my topic till I come back

[Whitney]

Achronos' derail split to his new ego thread:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6601