Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Welcome to the forum → The Lounge → Confused

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
Today at 03:12 PM
What music are you listen...
Yesterday at 11:05 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 07:54 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 23, 2025, 04:57 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2025, 09:27 AM
New Britain
November 20, 2025, 05:47 PM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 05, 2025, 11:34 PM
Ex-Muslims on Mythvision ...
by zeca
November 02, 2025, 07:58 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM
What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM
Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Confused

 (Read 5923 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Confused
     OP - July 04, 2013, 03:57 AM
    Hi, I am struggling with this concept for a few weeks now. So i wanted to ask for help.

    Let's take an example : Evolution. It is obvious that the theory of evolution contradicts Islam face first, if the Qur'aan is to be taken literally. However, does this categorically prove that Islam is not true? Or does it simply show that there is no evidence for Islam? Since God, by definition, is without constraints, He can obviously trick everyone into believing that evolution is true by fooling us with a massive load of evidence. So, if one was to use a reason like evolution to not believe in Islam, would it mean that the person believes it is not true, or would it simply mean that there is no evidence for it? Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?
  • Confused
     Reply #1 - July 04, 2013, 04:28 AM
    Nah, God does have constraints. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot participate in physical things, and if he can, then he can obviously make a rock too heavy for himself to lift.

    But yeah, re: evolution, this is the dilemma of the sceptic, whether they be pyhronian, Cartesian, Kripkensteinian or the brain in a vat psychology undergraduate type.

    'Am I dreaming? Or is this reality?' Has been a perennial question on many a mind of the western philosopher.

    Fuck essentialism and fuck Plato's poisoning of intellectual discourse with his ideas of non-corporeal reification.
  • Confused
     Reply #2 - July 04, 2013, 04:51 AM
    What's the difference between God creating a universe with evolution in it and God creating a universe with the appearance and evidence of evolution in it?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #3 - July 04, 2013, 04:58 AM
    I have no idea what you just said in your last paragraph schizo. It's 'reification' a real word? If it is, I like it, and I will use it often  yes

    OP: I will attempt to reply to this in some slightly more simple terms. Because, unfortunately, simple is all I have.

    Why would an all-knowing, merciful, guiding deity go to all the trouble of sending his word down to mankind, only to lace that message with untruths, contradictions, repititions, gaping-holes and fallacies? Why would he then choose to punish us eternally in the fires of hell, if we choose to view these fallacies as an indication that the message may have in fact come from someone human, albeit an insecure, immoral, egotistical, whimsical, homophobic, misogynist, dishonest, and slightly crazed human? Not everyone is as clever as you Kutta. Not everyone will see through the quadruple bluff of the Quran, and possibly one day untangle God's warped mind. But I wish you luck in your quest to understand it, my clever friend.
    Hi
  • Confused
     Reply #4 - July 04, 2013, 07:03 AM
    Quote from: musivore on July 04, 2013, 04:58 AM
    I have no idea what you just said in your last paragraph schizo. It's 'reification' a real word? If it is, I like it, and I will use it often  yes

    As will I.

    I am a great admirer of Schizo's even though I understand only about 10% of the words he uses and 5% of the points he makes. But that's Throbbing Gristle fans for you.

    I think of him as the forum's Hunter Thompson, Home Counties version, sans guns.
  • Confused
     Reply #5 - July 04, 2013, 09:38 AM
    Hi kutta,

    Your OP persuaded me to finally sign up to this forum which I've been lurking on, and greatly enjoying, for some time.

    Basically, I think you're coming to this question from the wrong direction. You say, "He can obviously trick everyone into believing that evolution is true by fooling us with a massive load of evidence.", and that's true but exactly the same could be said for "Last Tuesdayism". (i.e. That the entire Universe,  including us, complete with all our knowledge and memories, came into existence last Tuesday.) Islam is therefore no more likely to be true than Last Tuesdayism or, indeed, that the Universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Intergalactic Gargleblaster. If you can dismiss Last Tuesdayism and the Gargleblaster there is no logical reason why you should not also dismiss Islam.

    "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?" No, but it is evidence of irrelevance. There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for leprechauns, fairies, the Easter Bunny, the IPU, the FSM and Celestial Teapots - but do you live your life based on the assumption that these things do exist? If there is no evidence for the existence of something then it is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to us - it might be interesting to speculate about it but praying to it five times a day is just crazy.

    There is a near infinite set of things that might possibly exist in the Universe but for which we have no actual evidence. God is part of that set. There is no reason why we should treat God as being any different to any other member of that set.

    If you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist then I think you'll fail. But your failure will not make it one iota more likely that God does exist.

    God, I enjoyed that! Nothing like a good rant to start the day!

  • Confused
     Reply #6 - July 04, 2013, 10:02 AM
    All the evidence seems to point to the fact that your dad is your dad. Of course, it is entirely possible that your dad is really a Columbian former drug warlord who now sits rotting in an FBI prison off the coast of Nigeria. It is entirely possible, but why should you believe that?
  • Confused
     Reply #7 - July 04, 2013, 10:40 AM
    Quote from: David on July 04, 2013, 07:03 AM

    I am a great admirer of Schizo's even though I understand only about 10% of the words he uses and 5% of the points he makes. But that's Throbbing Gristle fans for you.

    I think of him as the forum's Hunter Thompson, Home Counties version, sans guns.

    +1
    Quote from: ZooBear 

    • Surah Al-Fil: In an epic game of Angry Birds, Allah uses birds (that drop pebbles) to destroy an army riding elephants whose intentions were to destroy the Kaaba. No one has beaten the high score.

  • Confused
     Reply #8 - July 04, 2013, 04:04 PM
    Quote from: sirderam on July 04, 2013, 09:38 AM
    Hi kutta,

    Your OP persuaded me to finally sign up to this forum which I've been lurking on, and greatly enjoying, for some time.

    Basically, I think you're coming to this question from the wrong direction. You say, "He can obviously trick everyone into believing that evolution is true by fooling us with a massive load of evidence.", and that's true but exactly the same could be said for "Last Tuesdayism". (i.e. That the entire Universe,  including us, complete with all our knowledge and memories, came into existence last Tuesday.) Islam is therefore no more likely to be true than Last Tuesdayism or, indeed, that the Universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Intergalactic Gargleblaster. If you can dismiss Last Tuesdayism and the Gargleblaster there is no logical reason why you should not also dismiss Islam.

    "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?" No, but it is evidence of irrelevance. There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for leprechauns, fairies, the Easter Bunny, the IPU, the FSM and Celestial Teapots - but do you live your life based on the assumption that these things do exist? If there is no evidence for the existence of something then it is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to us - it might be interesting to speculate about it but praying to it five times a day is just crazy.

    There is a near infinite set of things that might possibly exist in the Universe but for which we have no actual evidence. God is part of that set. There is no reason why we should treat God as being any different to any other member of that set.

    If you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist then I think you'll fail. But your failure will not make it one iota more likely that God does exist.

    God, I enjoyed that! Nothing like a good rant to start the day!



    You answered the OP head-on. Very impressive  Afro

    I hope you either introduce yourself properly someday, or just stay with us and join in when the mood takes you, as it did today.
    Hi
  • Confused
     Reply #9 - July 04, 2013, 08:55 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on July 04, 2013, 04:51 AM
    What's the difference between God creating a universe with evolution in it and God creating a universe with the appearance and evidence of evolution in it?


    I don't think there's any difference, from as far as what I understand of your statement. My point was that I don't think disproving a claim of Islam necessitates the fact that Allah doesn't exist.

    Happymurtad, good point you made there. However, which approach would you first take into convincing someone that Islam is not true? As an example, would you spend time pointing out the obvious contradictions within God's attributes that make His existence logically incoherent, or would you spend time disproving claims made by Islam?

    I think I should phrase my question better. What is the benefit in disproving Islam's claims when you can simply display the logical incoherence of some of Allah's attributes and get it done with?
  • Confused
     Reply #10 - July 04, 2013, 08:57 PM
    Quote from: musivore on July 04, 2013, 04:58 AM
    I have no idea what you just said in your last paragraph schizo. It's 'reification' a real word? If it is, I like it, and I will use it often  yes

    OP: I will attempt to reply to this in some slightly more simple terms. Because, unfortunately, simple is all I have.

    Why would an all-knowing, merciful, guiding deity go to all the trouble of sending his word down to mankind, only to lace that message with untruths, contradictions, repititions, gaping-holes and fallacies? Why would he then choose to punish us eternally in the fires of hell, if we choose to view these fallacies as an indication that the message may have in fact come from someone human, albeit an insecure, immoral, egotistical, whimsical, homophobic, misogynist, dishonest, and slightly crazed human? Not everyone is as clever as you Kutta. Not everyone will see through the quadruple bluff of the Quran, and possibly one day untangle God's warped mind. But I wish you luck in your quest to understand it, my clever friend.


    Trust me, I only wish I was clever, haha.
  • Confused
     Reply #11 - July 04, 2013, 09:01 PM
    Quote from: sirderam on July 04, 2013, 09:38 AM
    Hi kutta,

    Your OP persuaded me to finally sign up to this forum which I've been lurking on, and greatly enjoying, for some time.

    Basically, I think you're coming to this question from the wrong direction. You say, "He can obviously trick everyone into believing that evolution is true by fooling us with a massive load of evidence.", and that's true but exactly the same could be said for "Last Tuesdayism". (i.e. That the entire Universe,  including us, complete with all our knowledge and memories, came into existence last Tuesday.) Islam is therefore no more likely to be true than Last Tuesdayism or, indeed, that the Universe was sneezed into existence by the Great Intergalactic Gargleblaster. If you can dismiss Last Tuesdayism and the Gargleblaster there is no logical reason why you should not also dismiss Islam.

    "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?" No, but it is evidence of irrelevance. There is just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for leprechauns, fairies, the Easter Bunny, the IPU, the FSM and Celestial Teapots - but do you live your life based on the assumption that these things do exist? If there is no evidence for the existence of something then it is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant to us - it might be interesting to speculate about it but praying to it five times a day is just crazy.

    There is a near infinite set of things that might possibly exist in the Universe but for which we have no actual evidence. God is part of that set. There is no reason why we should treat God as being any different to any other member of that set.

    If you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist then I think you'll fail. But your failure will not make it one iota more likely that God does exist.

    God, I enjoyed that! Nothing like a good rant to start the day!




    I don't think it is possible to disprove God just because the concept is not unanimously defined. However, I definitely think it is possible to disprove a God with a certain set of attributes and characteristics such as Allah.
  • Confused
     Reply #12 - July 04, 2013, 10:40 PM
    Quote from: kutta on July 04, 2013, 09:01 PM
    I don't think it is possible to disprove God just because the concept is not unanimously defined. However, I definitely think it is possible to disprove a God with a certain set of attributes and characteristics such as Allah.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22cYcsVPOok
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Confused
     Reply #13 - July 04, 2013, 11:21 PM
    Quote from: kutta on July 04, 2013, 08:55 PM
    I don't think there's any difference, from as far as what I understand of your statement. My point was that I don't think disproving a claim of Islam necessitates the fact that Allah doesn't exist.

    Well, a god doesn't exist until its existence is demonstrated. A god's non existence is the null hypothesis.

    Quote from: kutta on July 04, 2013, 08:55 PM
    I think I should phrase my question better. What is the benefit in disproving Islam's claims when you can simply display the logical incoherence of some of Allah's attributes and get it done with?

    I guess because certain claims of Islam trespass on the realms of the testable. They are demonstrably false and can be proven so in various ways. God's attributes usually exist in abstract philosophical/theoretical terrain. They are slippery, illusory, phantom things made of words and ambiguity. Not necessarily harder to disprove, but more annoying to disprove. Logical argumentation is not necessarily the most compelling of ways to convince someone of something.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #14 - July 04, 2013, 11:28 PM
    Try arguing with a perennialist Ishina. Logical arguments are the only way to go. Tongue
  • Confused
     Reply #15 - July 04, 2013, 11:34 PM
    I have not had a good argument about god in a long time.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #16 - July 04, 2013, 11:42 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on July 04, 2013, 11:21 PM
    Well, a god doesn't exist until its existence is demonstrated. A god's non existence is the null hypothesis.
    I guess because certain claims of Islam trespass on the realms of the testable. They are demonstrably false and can be proven so in various ways. God's attributes usually exist in abstract philosophical/theoretical terrain. They are slippery, illusory, phantom things made of words and ambiguity. Not necessarily harder to disprove, but more annoying to disprove. Logical argumentation is not necessarily the most compelling of ways to convince someone of something.


    I agree that certain claims of Islam dive into the area of the testable. However, disproving these claims can still comply with the theistic hypothesis. I mean, let's say, for example, that the Qur'aan made 2000 predictions and got every single one of them wrong. This still would not contradict the theistic hypothesis because God may have a moral, or inaccessible reason for permitting that. I mean, because of the fact that His nature is devoid of constraints (atleast within everything that is logically possible), it just doesn't knock Islam off the railings. Ofcourse, this doesn't mean that it is likely, like happymurtad and musivore seemed to imply. It's just that once you have a specific definition of God based on what the religion defines it as, it is more efficient (even if it may be more annoying) to simply point out why, for example, the free will of a human being and the eternal will of a divine being cannot co-exist. A simple logical contradiction like that directly implies that this God does not, and cannot, exist.
  • Confused
     Reply #17 - July 04, 2013, 11:47 PM
    When one says God works in mysterious unknowable ways, it amounts to abandoning all claims made about God's nature.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #18 - July 05, 2013, 12:00 AM
    Hm, I just thought about this for a good while and it seems like a sufficiently good point. Can you elaborate though?
  • Confused
     Reply #19 - July 05, 2013, 12:05 AM
    If a thing is defined as unknowable, how can you claim to know something about it?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #20 - July 05, 2013, 12:11 AM
    "Well, a god doesn't exist until its existence is demonstrated. A god's non existence is the null hypothesis."

    I don't understand this. If the null hypothesis refers to a default position, how does that mean that god doesn't exist? Doesn't it only mean that we don't know whether god exists or not?

    * I am only talking about a specific god, not in a generic sense.
  • Confused
     Reply #21 - July 05, 2013, 12:29 AM
    As far as I can tell, there is no difference between God does not exist and God might exist. Except a few letters.

    I might provisionally grant the possibility of God's existence to facilitate a particular line of discussion, in a hypothetical sense. But God still does not actually exist yet, and only possibly exists in a conversation. You can't define or talk something into existence. Where does it possibly exist? How does it possibly exist? In what form does it possibly exist? I believe we are entitled to some kind of explanation for a few things before we commit to saying something could possibly exist.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #22 - July 05, 2013, 12:42 AM
    Exactly. Which is why having a definition for God and laying down some basic characteristics of a certain Being is a form of an explanation itself. If this explanation is logically incoherent, it is simply false and can be ruled out.
  • Confused
     Reply #23 - July 05, 2013, 12:59 AM
    Sure. Theists willing to do that are rare though. They are normally victims of cultural assumptions of God. And further assume that you already know what they mean by God and that you're just being difficult or nit-picky if you want a definition. In my experience anyway.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Confused
     Reply #24 - September 17, 2013, 01:43 PM
    Quote from: kutta on July 04, 2013, 11:42 PM
    I agree that certain claims of Islam dive into the area of the testable. However, disproving these claims can still comply with the theistic hypothesis. I mean, let's say, for example, that the Qur'aan made 2000 predictions and got every single one of them wrong. This still would not contradict the theistic hypothesis because God may have a moral, or inaccessible reason for permitting that.


    That's called making up an excuse. If you're talking about allah specifically then allah says this is true. If it turns out that this is not true, you're left with two options. Number one, allah is a liar, or number two, allah does not exist.

    There was a first human. His name was Adam. He was made from clay. This is nonsense. But allah says it's true, this is how humans began. So, is allah a liar or a fictional character? The catch is that whichever of the two is correct, the result is the same. Islam is not true.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Confused
     Reply #25 - September 17, 2013, 02:57 PM
    You forgot the third logically possible option : There exists an Allah who lied about claiming that Adam being made from clay is true.
     Cheesy Not saying that it is likely though lol.

    EDIT: Never mind. This only works for the proposition that Allah exists.
  • Confused
     Reply #26 - September 17, 2013, 03:01 PM
    Didn't I say that? Huh?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Confused
     Reply #27 - September 17, 2013, 03:04 PM
    Yes, but Allah being a liar does not make His existence false. Which is what you didn't claim in the first place.
    So I apologize.
  • Confused
     Reply #28 - September 17, 2013, 03:07 PM
    I didn't say it makes allah false, I said it makes islam false. By that I mean islam's notion of allah. Can't trust the quran. Though to be fair he also liked the jews then cursed them, then deliberately misled the christians, to be fair he doesn't seem the most trustworthy. If I was a muslim I'd read this and be like "Hang on a minute, how do I know he didn't do it a third time?"
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Confused
     Reply #29 - September 17, 2013, 03:17 PM
    Allah, The One who makes Himself a puppet
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »