-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
Stridone said:
How about "it's a faith-based religion". Good enough for you?
It's an awfully big stroke of luck that you happened to have been born as a member of the most intelligent species on a planet made of millions, and just happened to be the one sperm out of millions that penetrated your mother's egg. This, in a universe made up of thousands of galaxies and millions of planets, and the vast majority of which we can't even see or comprehend what is on those planets.
Some of us look at those kinds of odds of being born in the here and now and think, "there's got to be something other than a simple scientific explanation for this". Some don't. Some knowingly or unknowingly practice Pascal's Gambit and miss the point entirely. :lol
It being the likeliest of theories, as it is supported by quite a large amount of fossil evidence and even in observation. And it has little to do with a desire not to believe in a creator, or do you feel it makes more sense to believe something is there even though there is nothing supporting it than to not believe in something because there is no evidence supporting it?Hadji said:
Cheech said:
Why would you think that? And what do you mean by "more than a scientific explanation"? Surely anything that exists has properties and nature that could be described? Science's field of comment is everything that exists. The word "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms.
Kabouter said:
Science does not have to contradict the concept of G-d. It can enforce it.
KEEP IN MIND that this was revealed to an iliterate man in the desert who used to be a shepherd:
Muslims don't believe that the world was created 6000 years ago ( unlike some religions)
The Qur'an says this in [Holy Quran 7:54] and numerous other times
that Allah Created the universe in 6 "yawm" ( arabic for huge eras of time )
Now recently known to be the 6 epoch of the Big Bang;
Augustinian era (1)
String theory epoch (2)
The Planck epoch (3)
The grand unification epoch(4)
The inflationary epoch(5)
The electroweak epoch(6)
Also the Qur'an comfirms the expansion of our Universe:
(51:47)
"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."
The Qur'an is known for it's declarations of scienetific evidences way before humans even know it.
G-d does exist.
Warrior300 said:
The Enzo was formed by coincidence. It was a coincidence that Enzo Ferrari was born. It was a coincidence that he decided to go motor racing. It was a coincidence that he had to make road cars to fund his F1 habit. It was a coincidence that Luca Di Montezemolo was born and bought into the Ferrari family. It was a coincidence that he then decided to initiate the Enzo project.
It's all coincidence.
I would advise not to go down the path you've just been derailed onto. You started a great thread to provide some more insight into Islam and breakdown some misconceptions. If you derail into is there a god or not, then as a card carrying member of the Dawkins crew, I would have to say that this thread would hit the shitter and would not longer be any different from the other 7trillion threads on the same subject.
Warrior300 said:
You are trying to fit a square peg (Islam) into a round hole (science). You contradicted yourself above. You say that the world was created in 6 yawm, which means "huge eras of time." And then you say that this correlates with the 6 epochs of the big bang. Guess what, those epochs were fractions of fractions of fractions of a second.
Everytime a new scientific discovery is made, people with religious convictions scurry to try and find some way that it fits in with their theology.
Also, how is that (51:47) quote confirmation of the Koran recognizing the expansion of the universe? That's so silly.
Futureman said:
Mmm... I feel the same way as you do. I've read a good deal of articles that try to use science to justify their beliefs. I've only found a few to be sound. In most cases, the verses needed to be bended in interpretation to great lengths to "serve it's purpose". So, yeah, it's a sad thing. I take 'em all with a grain of salt.
However, the one about the expansion of the universe doesn't seem silly to me. The "heaven" mentioned in 51:47 isn't talking about paradise mind you, it's about "the skies". I could be wrong, but it sounds like it is talking about the expansion of the universe to me.
You can retrofit any number of different meanings into texts such as the Qur'an or Bible. Religious people have to do this to try and justify their faith. It doesn't prove anything.
I also wonder how the almighty creator of this universe sent down a book that is so obtuse and difficult to understand without the help of others(commentary/tafsir). I would assume this creator would like for the message to be spread to all people, and would not have the message set purely for one language. Muslims believe that one you translate the original Arabic into something else, it stops becoming the inerrant word of Allah. Well, how is anyone supposed to learn the true word?
Look, I used to believe in Islam. I used to think that the Qur'an was so beautiful that it had to have come from the creator. I loved the way in which Imams recited those beautiful verses. I loved the whole sense of brotherhood and community in the mosque. I would have such intense emotions in regards to my faith. I would dismiss these same things if they came from the mouth of a Jew or Christian in relation to their faith. I knew that Islam was correct, because I simply just knew it. How could something so beautiful be wrong?
Fortunately, reality hit. I knew my faith was simply the effect of being born to a Muslim family. It took a while, but emotional attachment to Islam faded. While I was still a Muslim, I read the arguments against the other two Abrahamic faiths, and was convinced that they were wrong. I then finally started applying the same arguments against Islam, and the religion just fell away. These religions cannot stand up to close scrutiny and reasoning. There's a lot more to it than that, but it'll take up too much time.
I understand the Muslims in this thread have a great emotional attachment to their faith. It's hard to think of life without it, until you really do live life without it. There are a lot of questions religion tries to answer, and the answers it gives are enough for a lot of people. None of these answers have any proof at all, but many people prefer to have an answer, even if it's not a good one, compared to "we're working on it". I care about what's true, even if I don't like it.
Sorry about the long post. I'll try to come back to this thread to discuss more.
I also wonder how the almighty creator of this universe sent down a book that is so obtuse and difficult to understand without the help of others(commentary/tafsir). I would assume this creator would like for the message to be spread to all people, and would not have the message set purely for one language. Muslims believe that one you translate the original Arabic into something else, it stops becoming the inerrant word of Allah. Well, how is anyone supposed to learn the true word?
Look, I used to believe in Islam. I used to think that the Qur'an was so beautiful that it had to have come from the creator. I loved the way in which Imams recited those beautiful verses. I loved the whole sense of brotherhood and community in the mosque. I would have such intense emotions in regards to my faith. I would dismiss these same things if they came from the mouth of a Jew or Christian in relation to their faith. I knew that Islam was correct, because I simply just knew it. How could something so beautiful be wrong?
Fortunately, reality hit. I knew my faith was simply the effect of being born to a Muslim family. It took a while, but emotional attachment to Islam faded. While I was still a Muslim, I read the arguments against the other two Abrahamic faiths, and was convinced that they were wrong. I then finally started applying the same arguments against Islam, and the religion just fell away. These religions cannot stand up to close scrutiny and reasoning. There's a lot more to it than that, but it'll take up too much time.
I understand the Muslims in this thread have a great emotional attachment to their faith. It's hard to think of life without it, until you really do live life without it. There are a lot of questions religion tries to answer, and the answers it gives are enough for a lot of people. None of these answers have any proof at all, but many people prefer to have an answer, even if it's not a good one, compared to "we're working on it". I care about what's true, even if I don't like it.
Sorry about the long post. I'll try to come back to this thread to discuss more.
Masenkame said:
We need commentary now, because during the time of the revelation of the Holy Quran. It made perfect for the people of the time. So it was understood then.
As for arguments against Islam. None of the arguments work. I've known people were Muslims who became atheists and then became Muslims again. In the end everything can not be random as some atheists tend to believe. It doesn't make any logical sense at all. All things have a creator instead of just spontaneously occurring. Basically what I am coming at God/Allah or what other name that you can come up to describe that being has to cause that spontaneous event to occur. Therefore God exists.
The Holy Quran makes very much logical sense if you try to understand the essence of it.
*Sorry if this post offends anyone here*.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Actually atheists would tend to believe that the universe works through mechanical processes... anything but random.Zapages said:
It's theists who would say that things just magically came together through the will of a benevolent intelligence.... Now THAT'S random.
I'm actually not interested in arguing theism, I just thought I'd point that perspective out.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It's an interesting question. I don't know if there needs to be a cause. Couldn't the universe just happen without someone planning or guiding it to happen? Regardless, wouldn't God "just happen" at some point without any prior cause? "What works or causes Allah?", you might as well ask. I don't see why putting God in front of the big bang (or underneath all reality) simplifies things. Who created him? Who made the rules that govern his ability to perform miracles? We could go on forever.Zapages said:
And if God made himself, or if God always existed, why not just say "The universe made itself. The universe always existed." (and the current universe we see after the big bang is just one aspect of its endless existance).
ummm, Warrior300. "Yawm" means "day" in arabic.
Also, the theory of evolution contradicts the belief that humans were created as they are right now.
So, muslims don't believe in it because:
1)humans are not animals
2)The story of Adam and Eve.
The theory of evolution applies to animals but not to humans.
Also, the theory of evolution contradicts the belief that humans were created as they are right now.
So, muslims don't believe in it because:
1)humans are not animals
2)The story of Adam and Eve.
The theory of evolution applies to animals but not to humans.
Hadji said:
You're probably right in that some or most of it was written down, but I doubt all of it was.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar
lopaz said:
That is what muslims are taught. It makes sense since God doesn't have a beginning and he doesn't have an end. Everything that exists in time and space has a beginning and an end.
Also, He made time and space, He wouldn't include Himself in it because it has a beginning and an end.
Using science to prove that God doesn't exist won't help you because of these reasons.
I can't physically prove to you that God exists. But I can show you at least one of his miracles, and it is the Quran.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Well, same thing about the "before" or "how" of our universe. It's so mind-blowing you can't attempt to understand it. No, you can't just assume that the deity of your culture's religion is confirmed by the existence of unanswered questions about how reality works.pewye said:
I don't know.. why?? I personally think he'd be all up in this shit!pewye said:Also, He made time and space, so why would He include Himself in it??
pewye said:That is what muslims are taught. It makes sense since God doesn't have a beginning and he doesn't have an end. Everything that exists in time and space has a beginning and an end.
Also, He made time and space, He wouldn't include Himself in it because it has a beginning and an end.
Using science to prove that God doesn't exist won't help you because of these reasons.
I can't physically prove to you that God exists. But I can show you at least one of his miracles, and it is the Quran.
Miracle? Ooh, a book, mindblowing. If you aren't going to use science to prove him, then there's no proof.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Personally the way you see God... I see the universe itself. Not requiring an explanation. Either there isn't an answer, or we can't know it.pewye said:
Except my version of reality is simple: reality, it just is.
Your version of reality is more complicated.... a god, and then reality. I don't know why you'd assume this kind of complicated world. Who made the god? Why does the god make the reality? Why assume any of this? Because some other humans told you, and they even wrote it down and everything!
NO disrespect intended... but this is honestly the way I see this.
FYI I have been seeking the true understanding of Islam recently, in the best possible light.. Even before this thread. I am open, but every interpretation I've seen has been nothing but authoritarian knowlege!
BocoDragon said:
I made you think about it.
How can universe just occur without something triggering, that would be very ignorant for us to think that ways at least in my opinion. If we would think if the universe is the case, then show me how you can make something with nothing. You simply can't... Logically everything has cause and effect. Its simple logic. Therefore something has to trigger it. That something for us is God.
God is imnicient thing/light or what ever it is. Its something as it has no gender or race. We humans don't know and we are not given the knowledge of it.
How can something create God *nowsbilla*, that would be very ignorant of us to think so. Wouldn't it be? As we are taught there is an all knowing and merciful God. The proof is right in front of our eyes, how does everything is balanced. The balance is established through nature, but what controls this nature. There has to be something there. Aside from those facts, the Torah, the Bible, and the Holy Quran can not just be fabricated from thin air. The similar message within them is live in peace, charity, be good to everyone, etc leading up to the basic ten commandments and then building upon them. Have to come from something. That something has to be God, which is what we are taught and how everything is able to function properly.
Zapages said:
They are similar because people wrote them, and people derive their material from other sources. They didn't magically appear, people wrote them.
What you're saying is "the universe can't appear without being made, but God can" with no rational explanation. You say the universe needs a balancing factor, and then from that go on to make the huge leap to "it was God, and the God of Islam/whatever religion, who influenced these holy books, and has certain rules" etc etc
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Allah crashed the forum for a minute there
lopaz said:
How can people write them, when in the Holy Quran at least it is written that it is God's word. I don't know too much about the Torah, but the Bible was corrupted due humans. But the essence was not taken from other sources, we were not there. How can we say that. There's no historical backing for that. All we know is that it was God's words.
God has not beginning and no end. We don't have the knowledge to question God as if we do it would be our ignorance that would be speaking not our logic. Logic tells otherwise. Yeah the universe is balance because God has created these balances.
I respect whatever you believe. But I believe in there is God, and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last messenger. Not just because I was taught that as a child, but through my whole learning process about my religion compared to other religions out there. It makes the most logical and coherent arguments for them. That's why its the only religion that makes sense in its basic values for every part of life including the shar'ia law, the caliphate, and how everything is structured.
Zapages said:
Gosh, the book SAYS it's God's word? I guess it's true then. Lies in a book, imagine that.
What? How do we know that? Was it proven in any other way than "the book said it"?
God has not beginning and no end. We don't have the knowledge to question God as if we do it would be our ignorance that would be speaking not our logic. Logic tells otherwise. Yeah the universe is balance because God has created these balances.
We also don't have the knowledge to understand everything about the universe. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and that we may not in the future. It's lazy and illogical to just say "God did it, we can't question him because we don't know enough".
Zapages said:
This statement is of course old and full of irony every time it is made.
1. Logically everything has cause and effect.
2. Therefore something has to trigger it. That something for us is God.
What you're really saying though, is that everything but God has an apparent cause and effect. Why not God? Because you say so.
lopaz said:
That would be our ignorance to state the book is filled with lies.
You can prove it by there is predictions of events that x, y, and z would occur. Then they do occur.
That's what God tells us in the Holy Quran. To only way to reach God is through knowledge and learning about the world around you. That's what it is created for.
Atrus said:
God has no beginning nor any ending. Therefore God can not be question as it is out of cause and effect loop
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
It's a good question, like I said. When I think about it it makes me less likely to settle on a particular answer. It doesn't point towards theism, it points toward certain paradox. No one can claim to know the answer without an assumption.Zapages said:
Zapages said:
I think nature just is. I percieve no imbalance or missing piece that requires an outside cause. There might be one, but I see no obvious reason to presume it.
Zapages said:
I don't see why old books are proof of anything... it's that simple. Basically from what I can tell, once people started writing down the stories and laws of their tribe, they were taken seriously as traditions and authorities unto themselves, passed on through the ages.
But I know you would perceive the story of the Quran to be much different, even though it has followed a similar pattern to many holy books (even non-abrahamic ones). Rest assured, I am investigating Islam as if that were true, but I just don't find it to be obvious from any standpoint.... Do I have to be completely biased toward Islam to accept it? (as you say "as we are taught there is a loving and merciful God") Or will Allah hit me with a thunderbolt? maybe it's just not true? show me, existance.
Why isn't the universe outside of the cause and effect loop... negating the need for a first cause-God?Zapages said:
Zapages said:
If you say so?
So, has there been any historical evidence of the Qu'uran predicting something completely unpredictable in advance, rather than the clumsy retrofitting such as "the Qu'uran says the world was made in 6 days, and there are 6 stages to the Big Bang theory OMG PREDICTION"
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'd really love to see GAF atheists take on Vedanta or Buddhist theology... it's so much more legitimately confusing than these Abrahamic religions, where we simply and clearly disagree over whether a book is an authority or not.
edit: nevermind the vedas are texts too...
edit: nevermind the vedas are texts too...
BocoDragon said:
Hmm... in my own brief learnings of Buddhism, it seemed to sort of shrug off questions such as the existence of God or the nature of the universe and say "you need to be enlightened to understand" and then offered a guide for how to achieve enlightenment. And it also had all the reincarnation stuff thrown in for good measure.
Zapages said:
Didn't I just state that when I said:
"What you're really saying though, is that everything but God has an apparent cause and effect. Why not God? Because you say so."
The best anyone can do to make assertions of what their 'God' is is to contextualize and re-imagine it in a way that suits the individuals needs.
You also state that God cannot be questioned. Not only is that a mark of a tyrant, but it is also an indication that the justifications that supports it are too weak to bear criticism.
Oh! My Car!
Member
Would it not be common sense to question the contents of a book?Zapages said:
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
lopaz said:
I've spent enough time studying Buddhism to understand that this is just a way to get theistic people to journey on the path. There are no "answers" to these questions to be found, but by the end of the practice you simply wouldn't care
lopaz said:
Yes, it originated as a modification of hindu ideas, so reincarnation was originally assumed. It was just assumed that you were constantly reincarnating, and in need of the state of moksha or "enlightenment" to escape from this cycle (it was bad I guess). Buddhist thought claims to be a method of enlightenment, so reincarnation came along as part of the belief, but it seems that "seeking enlightenment" has appeal for even those who don't believe in reincarnating souls. Buddhism has changed as it continues through secular, scientific societies.
If you step into a western Zen center today, you probably won't hear much that a modern scientist would disagree with, unless it is part of a clear Buddhist myth or history lesson. (if you stepped into a Japanese Pure Land school of Buddhism, though, you would probably be sure of its status as yet another religion
). Aside from all this... there is a kind of Buddhist theology which has nothing to do with gods or creation. Is everything inherently emptiness, defined only by the relationships of other things around it? Is there a state of enlightenment, and what would this exhaulted state look like? Magical? Highly efficient within physical limits? Does it resemble, or is it synonymous with a child-like curiousity? Insanity? It's like western philosophy's "what is the good life to live" on acid.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Well I study Buddhism, and I'm not "a Buddhist", I'm just philosophical. That really has to do with how much you want a religious badge or label,...and I have to say that often Buddhists are far less "attached" to self-images than your average self-identified atheistlopaz said:
edit (more):
It's definitely 99% of the traiditon intact in the west. The values of conduct are the same. The methods are the same. At worst, some of the assumed cosmology from earlier Buddhist cultures has been shaved off. Was it part of the original point of Buddhism, or were these just cultural assumptions of buddhist cultures? You tell me.
Can you enjoy Outkast without knowing its specific musical roots? Was it inspired by african beats or rock n roll? Who cares, right?
This isn't an appeal to authority... it is perhaps the ideal of culture.. an inspirational story, and a method for achieving similar results. Even if such a body of thought evolved organically over time, it is still worth understanding. This isn't about tracing a body of thought back to a true source... it's just a body of thought. The western ones are the heirs to this body of thought... it's hard to figure out where the "Buddhist" label would not truly apply? I personally think that those Japanese Pure Land Buddhists are not Buddhists... but is that my call? They are all inspired by the same ideas.
labels are tricky.
edit: oh and I apologize to Muslims for the derail.