Print Page | Close Window

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Printed From:
Category: General
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Discription: The place to discuss various current events around the globe
URL: /forum_posts.asp?TID=32736
Printed Date: 26 March 2019 at 7:18pm


Topic: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Posted By: Ken7
Subject: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Date Posted: 10 December 2018 at 1:50pm
Today, 12/10/2018 is the 70th anniversary of the United Nations general assembly passing the UDHR The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 is of particular interest to Muslims. It says that all people have the right to freedom of religion and that genuine freedom of religion NECESSARILY includes the right to change your religion for any reason you see fit. That particular article is the reason Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries refuse to ratify this document. Muslim scholars and governments of Muslim majority nations should support this document by guaranteeing all individual Muslims the absolute right to leave Islam for any reason they see fit but of course those governments and scholars will not do that because the UDHR is against Islam. Islamic scholars drafted a response document called the Universal Islamic Declaration on Human Rights which guarantees individual religious freedom but dances around the subject of Muslims right to leave Islam. It does not say Muslims can leave Islam it doesn't say they can it dishonestly dances around the question like Muslims clerics and individuals do whenever this subject is brought up by nonMuslims.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell



Replies:
Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 16 December 2018 at 3:01pm
I never heard of a faithful Muslim that wanted to leave Islam. Sounds like an oxymoron to me..

And they're free to make any choice they want - no one's stopping them.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 16 December 2018 at 3:04pm
There were several "Muslims" on here that later renounced their religions. Shame. But they were probably never truly Muslim in heart in order for them to just suddenly reject the faith. Some people go through phases in life, others find benefit in belonging to social circles they would otherwise not be associated with, and still others have no idea what Islam teaches in detail and just convert based on emotions(?). I don't know. I don't have any issue personally with someone leaving Islam - it doesn't affect me. I don't think other Muslims should be upset by this either - maybe sad for them, but it's their choice, their life, not ours.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 17 December 2018 at 10:24am
Originally posted by Magister

I never heard of a faithful Muslim that wanted to leave Islam. Sounds like an oxymoron to me..

And they're free to make any choice they want - no one's stopping them.


In western secular countries no one is stopping them. But the issue here is the main objection Muslim countries have to the UDHR is article which states that genuine religious freedom necessarily includes the right to leave the religion he/she belongs too. Not a single Muslim majority country guarantees Muslims freedom to leave Islam if they choose too. This is wrong. Muslims respond by saying guaranteeing Muslims that freedom is against Islam. That means Islam itself is wrong about this particular issue.Google ex Muslims there many websites advocating rights of ex Muslims.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 20 December 2018 at 1:29pm
Islam is never wrong.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 December 2018 at 8:33am
Originally posted by Magister

Islam is never wrong.


So, you ARE in favor of denying individual Muslims the freedom to leave Islam.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 December 2018 at 12:33pm
Originally posted by Magister

There were several "Muslims" on here that later renounced their religions. Shame. But they were probably never truly Muslim in heart in order for them to just suddenly reject the faith. Some people go through phases in life, others find benefit in belonging to social circles they would otherwise not be associated with, and still others have no idea what Islam teaches in detail and just convert based on emotions(?). I don't know. I don't have any issue personally with someone leaving Islam - it doesn't affect me. I don't think other Muslims should be upset by this either - maybe sad for them, but it's their choice, their life, not ours.



How could you possibly know that they were not real committed Muslims. It sounds like because you don't like Muslims leaving Islam so you want it to be that they never were really committed. How could you know That? If you really think no one is stopping Muslims from leaving Islam you need to step out of your fantasy world and go to Mauritania or Afghanistan or Iran and try openly leaving Islam there. Not a single Muslim nation guarantees Muslims freedom to leave Islam. If you think that that should I applaud you. You should speak to your imma and contact the few scholars who say there should be no prohibitions against leaving Islam. Most scholars say rules and laws against apostasy are necessary to deterr Muslims from leaving the religion. If you think they are wrong write to them.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 December 2018 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by Magister

Islam is never wrong.


So, you ARE in favor of denying individual Muslims the freedom to leave Islam.


I never said that - I said that Islam is never wrong. Not sure how you came to your conclusion though.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 December 2018 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by Ken7


How could you possibly know that they were not real committed Muslims.


Call it a hunch

Originally posted by Ken7


It sounds like because you don't like Muslims leaving Islam so you want it to be that they never were really committed. How could you know That?


TBH, I don't care either way whether someone leaves Islam or doesn't. I just think that those who really weren't 100% in it leave...yes, they can act it out or whatever, but it doesn't make sense to me that someone would leave the Truth. I don't know anything, only Allah truly knows.

Originally posted by Ken7


If you really think no one is stopping Muslims from leaving Islam you need to step out of your fantasy world and go to Mauritania or Afghanistan or Iran and try openly leaving Islam there.


I wouldn't go to any of those countries no matter WHAT religion they follow. Shocking you'd choose 3rd world, impoverished cultures in order to make a point. But then again, without those horrible, impoverished countries, you'd have little to use for arguments. Either way, what happens in certain countries is a mix of religion, culture, social needs/desires, and more. If I'm not mistaken, Afghan culture also allows for men to sleep with little boys - something that anyone being fair with their words would say is far from Islamic.

Originally posted by Ken7


Not a single Muslim nation guarantees Muslims freedom to leave Islam.


Not a single Muslim nation has a Caliph either...so what?

Originally posted by Ken7


You should speak to your imma and contact the few scholars who say there should be no prohibitions against leaving Islam. Most scholars say rules and laws against apostasy are necessary to deterr Muslims from leaving the religion. If you think they are wrong write to them.


I think the pope is wrong - should I write to him too? If I wrote to everyone I thought was wrong, I'd be writing letters for the rest of my life. That's not realistic now is it?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 December 2018 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by Magister

Islam is never wrong.


So, you ARE in favor of denying individual Muslims the freedom to leave Islam.


I never said that - I said that Islam is never wrong. Not sure how you came to your conclusion though.


Because you said Islam is never wrong after I showed that the vast majority of Islamic scholars oppose guaranteeing Muslims right to leave Islam. So it would make for me to think you agree with Islamic authorities. If you are going to those scholars are wrong then your disagreement is with them not me. Bring that up to your fellow Muslims

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 25 December 2018 at 10:09am
There's a difference between me saying that Islam is never wrong and me saying I disagree with so-and-so. Humans differ in their views. My view can be incorrect, and another's could be correct. I've heard arguments that there is no law against leaving Islam while others maintain there is. Still others (perhaps the majority I've come across) point out that leaving Islam in the early days was not about apostasy and more about treason, which should rightfully be punished. In this regards, I'm in full agreement.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 29 December 2018 at 11:55am
Since there are some teachings Muslims disagree among themselves about what the true teaching is then it doesn't seem meaningful to say "Islam is never wrong".
If leaving Islam is considered treason that is the absolutely the best argument for keeping civil authority independent of religious authority.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 03 January 2019 at 12:39pm
Well, you have to remember, it was considered such at a different time - when becoming a Muslim meant getting Muhammad (saws) and the Muslims as allies. People typically left Islam in order to leave the alliance and work with the enemy. This is where the discrepancy in modern times comes - whether they were being punished solely for leaving the religion, or if they were being punished for what they did upon leaving the religion. Some (especially the ones we hear about most in the West) favor leaving the religion as the impetus for punishment. This makes sense to some extent since there are hadiths that say that the person who leaves their religion should die. On the other hand, the other explanation also makes sense since there are instances of Muslims leaving Islam and going about their lives peacefully and they weren't punished. I think that when you hear all the possible explanations and read all the evidence, it becomes clear that the very religion (the ONLY religion I can think of) that promotes FREEDOM of religion would not then punish someone for making a religious choice.

Consider this:

The jurist Imam Ibnul Humam (d. 681 AH) wrote in his book Fathul Qadir:

The reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and not for the reason of his disbelief. The punishment of disbelief is far greater with God. Therefore, only such an apostate shall be killed who is actively engaged in war; and usually it is a man, and not a woman. For the same reason, the Holy Prophet has forbidden to kill women. And for this very reason, an apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal. She is not killed because of her apostasy, but for her creating disorder (through war) on earth.

 Imam Ibnul Humam[55]

Contemporary Islamic Shafi`i jurists such as the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa[99][100] and fiqh scholar Taha Jabir Alalwani[101] along with Shi'a jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri[102] and Grand Ayatollah Hussein Esmaeel al-Sadr[103] and some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects,[who?] have argued or issued fatwas that the changing of religion is not punishable, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars.[citation needed] However others have successfully argued that the majority view, in both the past and the present, wasn't a severe punishment for mere apostasy.[104]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#What_constitutes_apostasy_in_Islam

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 03 January 2019 at 12:41pm
Either way, Islam is still perfect and never wrong - it's just us Muslims that might get things wrong for whatever reason. Maybe we're in a rush to come to a conclusion, maybe there's personal gain we get for a conclusion, or maybe we're just ignorant and draw such conclusions. Like in science, when you hear another perspective and there's evidence for it, you're kinda obligated as a Muslim to accept it - which is why over the years I've heard different arguments and shifted my position according to where I found the most evidence and/or the most logic/sense.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 04 January 2019 at 10:20pm
Originally posted by Magister

Either way, Islam is still perfect and never wrong - it's just us Muslims that might get things wrong for whatever reason. Maybe we're in a rush to come to a conclusion, maybe there's personal gain we get for a conclusion, or maybe we're just ignorant and draw such conclusions. Like in science, when you hear another perspective and there's evidence for it, you're kinda obligated as a Muslim to accept it - which is why over the years I've heard different arguments and shifted my position according to where I found the most evidence and/or the most logic/sense.


This statement that even though Muslims can't agree on what the proper response to apostasy is Islam is still perfect and never wrong reminds me of the archer who claimed he never missed the bulls eye and was a perfect archer and was never wrong. He would shoot the arrow at a target and then draw the bulls eye around wherever the arrow hit thus achieving a perfect record.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 05 January 2019 at 3:53pm
That analogy doesn't quite work since you're assuming the circle is drawn around the archer's "intentional" target. Islam was designed by Allah, not man. Islam is for us to follow, not the other way around. Islam is perfect. We might miss the mark, but that doesn't mean Islam is imperfect.

To better use your own example, I'll make some changes: the bull's eye is perfect - fair, in the right proportions, allowing anyone to hit it straight on, but some archers might miss while others might get close and still others might land dead on target. It doesn't change the nature of the bull's eye, it just demonstrates how some might miss something that is still fair to hit while others will hit it dead on.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 06 January 2019 at 12:02pm
Originally posted by Magister

That analogy doesn't quite work since you're assuming the circle is drawn around the archer's "intentional" target. Islam was designed by Allah, not man. Islam is for us to follow, not the other way around. Islam is perfect. We might miss the mark, but that doesn't mean Islam is imperfect.

To better use your own example, I'll make some changes: the bull's eye is perfect - fair, in the right proportions, allowing anyone to hit it straight on, but some archers might miss while others might get close and still others might land dead on target. It doesn't change the nature of the bull's eye, it just demonstrates how some might miss something that is still fair to hit while others will hit it dead on.



No. I am not assuming the circle is drawn around the archers intended target. The person did not have any intended target. If he drew the bulls eye target before shooting or whatever he is trying to hit target with then he would have a intended target. When he draws the bulls eye around wherever the arrow hits that is a dishonest attempt to say he hit the target. I figure you will say well, how do know he didn't intend the arrow to hit where it did. My answer is we would know if he had drawn the bullseye ahead of time. Saying well, I believe the bullseye is perfect and wherever it landed is what was intended just like Islam is perfect, how do know that? It sounds like it is a matter of faith

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 07 January 2019 at 3:01pm
No, I didn't misunderstand what you said. That's why I put the word intentional in quotes. It's the target he wants you to think he intended to reach, but it was obviously up to chance/randomness. That's why I'm saying that Islam is a perfect target - anyone can reach it - like equal opportunity - but not everyone does for whatever reason. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're distracted, maybe they have their own personal target, maybe they don't care where their arrow lands, etc. Islam is perfect.



-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 15 January 2019 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by Magister

No, I didn't misunderstand what you said. That's why I put the word intentional in quotes. It's the target he wants you to think he intended to reach, but it was obviously up to chance/randomness. That's why I'm saying that Islam is a perfect target - anyone can reach it - like equal opportunity - but not everyone does for whatever reason. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're distracted, maybe they have their own personal target, maybe they don't care where their arrow lands, etc. Islam is perfect.



Exactly. So, Islam is perfect just like a person shooting an arrow at a tree, drawing a bullseye around where it hit after the fact and declaring that's what he intended to hit all along. Reminds me of people who say the I Jing is perfect or Tarot is perfect just
some peoples interpretations can be wrong, it sounds like a good way to deceive oneself.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: a well wisher
Date Posted: 16 January 2019 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Ken7


Originally posted by Magister

That's why I'm saying that Islam is a perfect target - anyone can reach it - like equal opportunity - but not everyone does for whatever reason.

Exactly. So, Islam is perfect just like a person shooting an arrow at a tree, drawing a bullseye around where it hit after the fact and declaring that's what he intended to hit all along.

Reminds me of people who say the I Jing is perfect or Tarot is perfect just
some peoples interpretations can be wrong, it sounds like a good way to deceive oneself.


Hello brother Ken

Interesting exchange of views...

If i may add something ....hopefully it is ok with brother Magister...

Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself as said by Suzuki

Islam means to reconcile in peace with God...there is no deception but an honest effort to hit the mark -to enter that peace....the peace that has always been there ready to be recognized but for whatever reason deferred to be probed into.

We are not perfect, God is perfect.So everyone's level of hitting the target - that spot within themselves that houses the Truth and thus brings peace is according to the state and effort of the individual.


-------------
La ilaha ill-Allah, Muhammadur Rasulullah


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 17 January 2019 at 6:57am
Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by Magister

No, I didn't misunderstand what you said. That's why I put the word intentional in quotes. It's the target he wants you to think he intended to reach, but it was obviously up to chance/randomness. That's why I'm saying that Islam is a perfect target - anyone can reach it - like equal opportunity - but not everyone does for whatever reason. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they're distracted, maybe they have their own personal target, maybe they don't care where their arrow lands, etc. Islam is perfect.



Exactly. So, Islam is perfect just like a person shooting an arrow at a tree, drawing a bullseye around where it hit after the fact and declaring that's what he intended to hit all along. Reminds me of people who say the I Jing is perfect or Tarot is perfect just
some peoples interpretations can be wrong, it sounds like a good way to deceive oneself.


No - the bullseye is already stationed somewhere, and if the arrow misses, they might THINK they hit it, but they still missed. The bullseye is fixed, stationary. There's no drawing it around arrows that already landed.

As for Tarot/I Jing, that's different. In Tarot/I Jing, the diviner is attempting to read oracles, and if they get it wrong, they'll usually do one of several things: a) admit they misunderstood what they were reading, b) admit that the practice might be nonsense after all (very rare), c) try to fit what actually happened with their oracle no matter how much stretching needs to be done, d) argue that their oracle didn't come to pass yet or that it's being represented in a different way, or e) claim that destiny is malleable and therefore the oracle did not need to come to pass because the querent made the appropriate changes in advance.

That's not what's being said here for Islam. None of that except for a). In a), the diviner is saying that the oracle is still correct, he/she just did not yet decipher it correctly. That is more or less the claim I'm making - that Islam is perfect, even if some (or many) of us are not interpreting/understanding it correctly. The difference between Tarot/I Jing and Islam is rather obvious - one is man-made, the other is from the Creator of the universe.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 10:39am
Islam is not perfect just because you SAY it is or just because you SAY that some supposed god says it is. What basis do you for saying Islam is perfect other than some book saying it is?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 6:45pm
Originally posted by Ken7

Islam is not perfect just because you SAY it is or just because you SAY that some supposed god says it is. What basis do you for saying Islam is perfect other than some book saying it is?


Islam is perfect because the Creator of the universe says it is. After all, who would know except for Him, the Omniscient? So, therefore I believe it to be true.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by Ken7

Islam is not perfect just because you SAY it is or just because you SAY that some supposed god says it is. What basis do you for saying Islam is perfect other than some book saying it is?


Islam is perfect because the Creator of the universe says it is. After all, who would know except for Him, the Omniscient? So, therefore I believe it to be true.


That statement does not answer the questin: "How do you know Islam is perfect?". That is another claim you need to back up with evidence. First, you claimed that Islam is perfect, then you claimed there is a "creator of the universe" whatever that is and that he/she/it says Islam is perfect. Now what actual EVIDENCE can you point too to establish that those 3 claims are in fact so?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 6:13pm
Originally posted by Ken7


That statement does not answer the questin: "How do you know Islam is perfect?".


I don't "know", I believe. It's a statement of belief.

Originally posted by Ken7


First, you claimed that Islam is perfect, then you claimed there is a "creator of the universe" whatever that is


If you don't believe there is a creator to the universe, you would be too ill-informed on reality in order to discuss things with in any significant length. In reality, you DON'T believe there is a lack of a creator, you simply cannot tell me who/what it is. Let's not fool ourselves here, everybody believes there to be a creator of the universe - atheists, theists, and everyone in between. The difference is that on one side of the spectrum, I believe the creator is a conscious entity, while the militant atheist might believe the creator to be unconscious phenomena.

Your argument should therefore become whether I have evidence to support my belief that He is a conscious entity with volitional capacity.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:12pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by Ken7


That statement does not answer the questin: "How do you know Islam is perfect?".


I don't "know", I believe. It's a statement of belief.

Originally posted by Ken7


First, you claimed that Islam is perfect, then you claimed there is a "creator of the universe" whatever that is


If you don't believe there is a creator to the universe, you would be too ill-informed on reality in order to discuss things with in any significant length. In reality, you DON'T believe there is a lack of a creator, you simply cannot tell me who/what it is. Let's not fool ourselves here, everybody believes there to be a creator of the universe - atheists, theists, and everyone in between. The difference is that on one side of the spectrum, I believe the creator is a conscious entity, while the militant atheist might believe the creator to be unconscious phenomena.

Your argument should therefore become whether I have evidence to support my belief that He is a conscious entity with volitional capacity.



Thank you informing me about what I really believe. Actually, no I do NOT think there is a creator of the universe which I just don't know what it is. The claim that there is a creator of the universe needs to be supported with evidence. The big bang theory is the current accepted theory of how this universe started but it doesn't tell anything about the origin of whatever it was that "banged" . God believers like to say "well you get something from nothing" but how do we know there ever was absolute nothingness. It might be that it is impossible for there to be nothing therefore the cosmos is eternal there it doesn't need a "creator" to get it started. Of course research continues maybe someday we will have some actual answers about the great mystery of the origin of the universe. What evidence supports belief in a conscious creator?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 1:12am
Ken, evidence is all around you - there is a beginning to everything. Name me one thing thing for which there is not a beginning, and then you would dispel this evidence. By that very evidence, you admit that there was a beginning, and therefore there must've been a "beginner" that began it all - whatever it is, you may be agnostic to, but you have evidence coming out the wazoo that there was a creator. Don't deny that.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 9:52am
Yes, everything we observe that begins came from something else. So, if everything has to be caused by something else then your God would logically have to be caused by something else and that entity also ad infinitum. You of course will say no no no the original creator is eternal without beginning outside of space and time all powerful omniscient. But what does that even mean? How do you get outside of space and time? It could just as easily be that the universe or cosmos itself is eternal with no need of some outside entity to start it. It has not been established that there was an absolute original b3leginning. You God cannot do anything unless he/she/it actually exists and it has not been established that any god/goddess exists

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 5:25pm
If you admit that everything in this universe had a beginning, and that for every effect there is a cause, then you yourself admit into believing in a creator of some sort - some kind of "cause". The difference between you and me is that I'm not living in denial, I'll readily accept the Creator as not only existing but also as being the One we should all turn to.

And like most people, you seem to admit that there was a cause to our universe through one part of your mouth, but out the other goes "Well, I bet you can't explain who created God?!"

Logic and the laws of nature apply only up to the beginning of the universe, and only up to the edges of the actual universe. Whatever created the universe is obviously not a part of the universe, just as a computer software engineer is not a part of the video game he creates. Even though the engineer and the simulation both exist simultaneously, and the engineer has influence over the software while the software cannot access the world/universe outside the simulation as readily. (Sounds like Deja Vu, no?)

Originally posted by Ken7


It could just as easily be that the universe or cosmos itself is eternal with no need of some outside entity to start it.


Most scientific evidence and even logic say that this isn't true. In fact, such a claim would require far more evidence given that we've never seen such a thing before and it goes against everything we know about the universe (unlike the argument that there is a Creator). We can explain thoroughly how planets formed, we can measure the rates at which the universe expands, we can even pinpoint with a rough amount of accuracy just when the universe came into being as we know it. Some of our technology still picks up remnants of our creation (e.g., some TV static). So, there's an emphatic NO that the universe "could just as easily" be eternal without an external entity.

As for an absolute beginning, that's not dealing with our universe. That's dealing with the era before our universe came into being. I never made the claim that the creation of our universe was the mark of our absolute beginning. In fact, my arguments tend to hint that it's not. After all, I believe in a Creator who existed PRIOR to our universe. And this is not only highly plausible in scientific circles, but even embraced in some form or another (though not in the form of an entity called God). We are speaking about our universe, our time. Our brains are not evolved to understand things outside this universe.



-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 10:45pm
The word "creator" implies an entity with will and intention so it is laughable to say that if the big bang was caused by natural causes that those causes are a kind of "creator" and thus "ha ha ha I got you, you DO believe in a creator after all". It sounds to me like you are playing word games here. Everything we observe in this world that has a beginning came from something else so it is logical to conclude that your god if it exists at all had to have been created by something else. You don't get to exempt god from that just because you want too you to need a reason to say god is eternal and did not have a beginning. What basis there for saying the laws of logic don't apply to a god or "outside the universe"   plus how do you get "outside the universe" your god could not have created the universe unless he/she/it exists in the first place and you have not established the existence of anything supernatural.   

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 4:52pm
creator[kree-ey-ter]
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR creator ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a person or thing that creates.

Originally posted by Ken7

The word "creator" implies an entity with will and intention so it is laughable to say that if the big bang was caused by natural causes that those causes are a kind of "creator" and thus "ha ha ha I got you, you DO believe in a creator after all". It sounds to me like you are playing word games here.


I sense defeat, as you are anticipating what possible wins I'll claim over you in the scenario that you admit I'm correct (which I am). Your inferring of an "entity" is on you - as the dictionary.com definition above is posted and includes a person OR a thing. And if that's too difficult of a word to use, we can use the word "cause", where the inherent ambiguity of the word leads to less ambiguity as to whether a conscious or non-conscious force is being referenced.

But, as it stands now, it seems you agree with me that there is indeed a Creator/Cause to the universe. I call Him Allah and you might call Him "natural phenomena". But ultimately, you and I are both viewing the same "Cause" - I just know more about it than you do (or so I believe).

Originally posted by Ken7


Everything we observe in this world that has a beginning came from something else so it is logical to conclude that your god, if it exists at all, had to have been created by something else. You don't get to exempt god from that just because you want too you to need a reason to say god is eternal and did not have a beginning. What basis there for saying the laws of logic don't apply to a god or "outside the universe"   plus how do you get "outside the universe" your god could not have created the universe unless he/she/it exists in the first place and you have not established the existence of anything supernatural.   


God is the Creator of the universe, that means He existed before the universe. If that's the case, how then can he be a part of the universe? And if He's not part of the universe, how the heck could you hold the same laws that apply here to Him? You can't because He existed for who knows how long without those laws applying to Him, am I right?

And if you're up to date with science news, it's highly possible for there to exist an existence outside this universe. While string theory may be losing the spotlight in recent years due to its ever-growing complexity, it's widely accepted in physics that there exists the theoretical "extra-dimensions" or parallel universes. So don't act like this is all "far-fetched" and "scientifically implausible". It's not. In fact, the more and more science advances, we're uncovering more and more evidence that supports a universe that the scriptures described. Till recently, popular opinion thought the universe was eternal. Till recently, parallel worlds was an impossibility and only found in religious and fictional stories.

Now, the burden of proof is not on me to prove there is a Creator/Cause - that is self-evident. The burden of proof I have is to demonstrate that this Creator/Cause is Allah. And of course I work with evidence, not "proofs". The only field that deals with proofs as far as I'm concerned is mathematics. Science rejects the notion of "proof" since science doesn't try to prove anything. So asking me to "prove" something is unfair given that you'll perfectly accept a scientific theory that merely has the word theory and has no proof. Instead, we need to work with something called "evidence".

And for evidence, I'd ask you to read the Quran .

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 6:28pm
"god", whatever that is, can't do anything unless it/he/she exists in the first place. Nothing you have said so far in this exchange establishes that a god exists. How the big bang got started is a great mystery. It is not legitamate scientifically to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe until or unless someone establishes the existence of a god. You can't explain a mystery with another mystery. You also never said what is meant by "outside the universe"

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 9:46pm
We've already established that a Cause exists. There's no getting around that.

Yes, how the Big Bang was started is indeed a mystery.

I am speaking with you about there being a beginning and therefore a Cause. That's a fact.

I am saying Allah (swt) is that Cause - which I believe to be fact, but which can only be demonstrated with evidence, both anecdotal and correlational. I found this evidence by reading the Quran.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 9:55pm
You ever heard of anti-vaxxers?

They are these people who believe this conspiracy that vaccinations cause autism.

Despite scientific evidence available for them to read, they simply come up with excuses and insist that the evidence is false and that vaccinations do indeed cause autism.

No matter what people tell them, pointing them to the sources of evidence, they continue to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

Unfortunately, the rest of us know that this is bad decision-making on their part, and they're engaging in a very, very dangerous pattern of behavior.

Ultimately, the evidence for God is the same - it's available for atheists to view, but instead of viewing the evidence, many of them insist on their own conspiracies and reject all claims of God.

Yet it's plain as day that they too must admit that there was a beginning and therefore a Cause, and that the only difference between them and theists is whether the Cause is an agent of change.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 10:53pm
Originally posted by Magister

You ever heard of anti-vaxxers?

They are these people who believe this conspiracy that vaccinations cause autism.

Despite scientific evidence available for them to read, they simply come up with excuses and insist that the evidence is false and that vaccinations do indeed cause autism.

No matter what people tell them, pointing them to the sources of evidence, they continue to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

Unfortunately, the rest of us know that this is bad decision-making on their part, and they're engaging in a very, very dangerous pattern of behavior.

Ultimately, the evidence for God is the same - it's available for atheists to view, but instead of viewing the evidence, many of them insist on their own conspiracies and reject all claims of God.

Yet it's plain as day that they too must admit that there was a beginning and therefore a Cause, and that the only difference between them and theists is whether the Cause is an agent of change.


It can be demonstrated that vaccines prevent diseases and that autism is not caused by them. If you could demonstrate the existence of a God that isn't caused by something else I would listen but all you done is assert a God exists and that it has to be so. You say your God has no beginning or end where is your evidence?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 3:52pm
If it can be demonstrated, then why aren't anti-vaxxers getting vaccines?

That's exactly my point.

They don't want to read the research or replicate it themselves. They're content with rejecting facts that they don't know yet to be facts while still demanding evidence that vaccines don't cause autism lol. Sound familiar? (cough atheists cough)

And no, I am not merely asserting God exists. I am saying that I believe the ultimate cause of all things was Allah, and I believe this for several reasons, but one that is most readily available to you is the Quran.

Just as I assert that I don't believe the cause of autism is vaccination, and I believe that conclusion for several reasons, but one of the reasons most readily available might be peer-reviewed journals on the subject which you can read or take your doctor's word on.

The parallels are uncanny.



-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 11:07am
You are claiming that I don't believe a god exists because I'm closed minded like anti vaxxers are closed minded about vaccines. The reality is I'm rejecting "god" claim because you have failed to make your case. You said "no, I am not merely asserting that God exists" and then you went on to merely asserting that a god exists and that the Qur'an is one of the reasons. The Qur'an is just a collection of assertions expressing the beliefs of the people who   wrote it.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 9:24pm
Originally posted by Ken7


The Qur'an is just a collection of assertions expressing the beliefs of the people who   wrote it.


Just as the anti-Vaxxers would say. Have you ever read it before? It's not that long. Perhaps the size of a Dan Brown novel, give or take?

I've shown you the logic I used to reach the conclusion that we were all created. Then I argued that the Quran is one of the evidence I use to determine that the Creator is a conscious entity.

You don't have to believe in God, I'm not here trying to force everyone wrong to be correct, I'm only showing you how one could have evidence for Allah and quite easily too

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 12:30am
Originally posted by Magister

We've already established that a Cause exists. There's no getting around that.

Yes, how the Big Bang was started is indeed a mystery.

I am speaking with you about there being a beginning and therefore a Cause. That's a fact.

I am saying Allah (swt) is that Cause - which I believe to be fact, but which can only be demonstrated with evidence, both anecdotal and correlational. I found this evidence by reading the Quran.




No matter how much you WANT there to be a first cause which wasn't caused by something else that doesn't mean there is one. Your efforts to exempt your god from needing to be caused have not explained anything. You say atheists can't explain the beginning of the universe because we don't acknowledge a first cause. You are right. But guess what you don't have an actual explanation either just an assertion of a first cause without evidence.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by Ken7


No matter how much you WANT there to be a first cause which wasn't caused by something else that doesn't mean there is one.


You've had nothing but evidence shown to you, and you rejected it. So your position is our universe wasn't created, and it follows from that it was either eternal (which science demonstrates isn't so), or doesn't exist (which experience shows isn't so).

Originally posted by Ken7


You say atheists can't explain the beginning of the universe because we don't acknowledge a first cause. You are right. But guess what you don't have an actual explanation either just an assertion of a first cause without evidence.


Everything I said was based on evidence of what we know along with logical conclusions using that evidence. Not knowing is a cop-out at this point.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 9:47pm
then why did you say "we do KNOW' in another thread?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 9:52pm
What is it you are calling evidence? All you have said is everything has to have a cause and then commit the logical fallacy of special pleading that you "god" is independent of the universe and thus did not need to be created but did not point to any evidence that that is in fact true.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 27 January 2019 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by Ken7

then why did you say "we do KNOW' in another thread?


Read the other thread where I clarify what I meant by the word "know".

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 27 January 2019 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by Ken7

What is it you are calling evidence? All you have said is everything has to have a cause and then commit the logical fallacy of special pleading that you "god" is independent of the universe and thus did not need to be created but did not point to any evidence that that is in fact true.


It's a logical conclusion. If the cause of our universe (whatever it is) is independent of the laws of our universe, and our universe contains laws in it, then it is not necessary for the cause to be tied to the laws of our universe. There are two major reasons for this: a) the cause is independent of our laws (which must be the case since they came about due to the cause's creative acts and so therefore had a beginning and therefore likely did not exist prior to their beginning alongside their Cause), and b) while we don't know the laws of existence prior to the universe's creation (if there were even any), we don't know if the cause-and-effect laws are the same as they are now prior to the creation of our universe. This means that not only is there a first cause, but we can also attribute to it/him an eternal existence without violating any laws of reason or logic.

Indeed, some of the prevailing theories of the universe's origins argue for the existence of eternal phenomena (something you yourself almost alluded to in a previous post).

So we're back at the basics for you: You've yet to admit that the universe had a beginning, and you've yet to come to the conclusion that the cause of the universe need not follow the laws of our universe.

Maybe this subject is too much for you, I don't know.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven



Print Page | Close Window