Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

.InshAllah.

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    3,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

.InshAllah. last won the day on June 17 2014

.InshAllah. had the most liked content!

About .InshAllah.

  • Rank
    Level 6 Member
  • Birthday 05/02/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,787 profile views
  1. .InshAllah.

    Belief in God

    Particles don’t come from nothing. What you might be referring to is thenm coming from a quantum vacuum. This isnt nothing - its a sea of fluctuating energy: According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
  2. I am not certain that this is right, so Im going to throw it away as it's useless : )
  3. Salam brother it looks like you put your trust in a girl who didn't deserve it, and she let you down. Have you thought maybe it's for the best you didn't get into that uni? Sometimes we want things that are ultimately not good for us. Have some patience, try and be content with the good that you have and trust in God
  4. .InshAllah.

    Belief in God

    The issue isnt lack of certainty but lack of justification. Or more accurately its lack of justification if you think an argument is always needed to justify belief. There is no non-circular argument for induction. Arguments that appeal to its past success presuppose it
  5. .InshAllah.

    Belief in God

    For the fine tuning argument I recommend you look up philosopher Robin Collins
  6. Being jahil is safer as long as its not culpable jahl. More knowledge equals more responsibility
  7. Dog ownership seems to increase cholesterol and high blood pressure according to a new study. https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l1294.full
  8. .InshAllah.

    Belief in God

    I wasnt arguing that 'people have a tendency to believe in God, therefore He exists'. I was drawing your attention to the fact that we have a rational faculty capable of perceiving certain truths, such as moral truths and metaphysical truths. There are people who have corrupted rational faculties - nothing I said denies that. If someone truly believes that torturing innocent children for fun is morally good, then they are simply wrong - their moral faculty is corrupt. The same goes for someone who truly believes that there is no God. Again, this isnt an argument for God - if you are an atheist then what I just said probably wont convince you. But for those to whom it really seems that God exists, just as it really seems that justice is good and torturing for fun is bad, then they are justified in believing this - they don’t need any further proof. Science presupposes lots of metaphysics. Two simple examples are: -the external world is real (I.e. not a hallucination) -the world is such that induction works (look up 'the problem of induction') Are you certain of the above? Hopefully the answer is yes - because you have functioning rational faculties (that hopefully also tell you moral truths and divine truths). There is no mathematical proof for any of these presuppositions. Does this mean we should stop believing them? No! For me, and for many, its as obvious that God exists as it is that the above is true. I cannot consistently doubt one, whilst accepting the others - such a move would be unjustifiable and depend on a double standard. One thing many people are guilty of is double standards when it comes to belief. They require unreasonable standards to be met for belief in the existence of God to be rational in their eyes, but don’t apply the same standards to anything else. Hyperskepticism is the norm when considering the claims of religion, but theyre quick to believe any speculative claim if its made by a scientist.
  9. Salam br MysticKnight! Its really good to hear from you
  10. In Surah Aal-Imran, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) recounts how He aided the believers with 3000 angels during the battle of Badr, and He also informs them that if they had been more patient and pious He would have aided them with 5000. The believers won that battle despite being outnumbered 3 to 1. The question I am thinking about is how powerful are Angels exactly? Did the believers really need the help of 3000? Surely 1 Angel alone could have destroyed all of the enemy? Considering how many Angels were present, and how many of the enemy were actually killed, it seems that multiple Angels are needed to help kill just one of the enemy. This seems to imply that Angels aren't all that powerful. I reject that conclusion. I'm going to give an account which (1) is consistent with the Qur'anic story in Surah 3, and (2) doesn't belittle the power of Angels. This account could be completely wrong, and so I welcome any corrections. First I want to reject one possible account, which is that the Angels held back. This account says that they were indeed extremely powerful, but they purposefully didn't make use of all of their powers. I reject this because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says that if the believers were more pious He would have sent more Angels. If the Angels will merely holding back, 'pulling their punches', then sending more wouldn't be necessary - He could just command them to use more of their power. One response to this objection is that there is a psychological benefit of knowing that you have thousands of Angels on your side, so just knowing this would have given the believers strength. This is a good reply, but ultimately I think my account is better. I think that there are laws that govern the interaction between humans and angels, much like there are laws that govern the interaction between humans and physical objects. The laws that govern physical interactions are purely physical laws, whereas the laws that govern spiritual interactions are at least partly spiritual laws. Now consider purely physical laws - as a general rule they don’t care about the spirituality of the individual. For example whether a kafir pulls the trigger of a gun, or a believer pulls the trigger of the gun, the physical outcome is the same, I.e. a bullet penetrates whatever the gun is aimed at. Spiritual laws on the other hand do care about the spirituality of the individual: these laws are sensitive to the individuals taqwa. Having said that, this is basically my account: the believers could only benefit from the Angels in proportion to their taqwa. This is a spiritual law that governs the interaction between believers and Angels. So for instance, if Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) sends a thousand Angels but the believers lose the battle, this is not evidence of the weakness of Angels, but of the weakness of the imaan of the believers. If their taqwa was much greater they would have benefited from the Angels more. In addition to that, if their taqwa was much stronger Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would have aided them by sending more Angels. So the relationship between taqwa and benefit is not linear but exponential.
  11. .InshAllah.

    Belief in God

    Salam Most people believe in God because their fitra tells them He exists. We have an innate divine tendency to believe in Him just like we have a tendency to believe in moral truths such as 'mercy is good', 'murder is wrong'. In the case of fundamental moral truths we don't need any argument to be justified in believing them. The same goes for fundamental metaphysical truths such as the existence of the external world, and for logical truths such as the law of non-contradiction. Now with respect to the existence of God, for those who want arguments then there are many good ones. Proof in the mathematical sense is not necessary for justification otherwise none of science is justified. So if you have good arguments for the existence of God that is more than sufficient.
  12. I agree that it certainly doesnt, however if ID is true then this discredits atheism (although strictly speaking the intelligence could be aliens, this isnt plausible). So thats one reason why ID is good. The other is that theres evidence for ID , at least according to Behe, in which case it shouldnt be rejected without first grappling with his arguments for it. Broadly speaking there are 2 reasons people reject ID, one is theological/philosophical and the other is scientific. I think the vast majority, including most scientists and atheists, fall into the first category even if they would deny that
  13. You don’t understand intelligent design. You should take a look at some of Behes videos online or read stuff by him / his supporters. The fact that Behe believes in common descent shows that intelligent design isnt simply the denial of evolution.
  14. https://darwindevolves.com/ Responses to critical review: https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/
  15. If its very problematic, then its very problematic for everyone including you, as you cannot escape using some norms when trying to understand the teachings of Ahlul Bayt as. The norm you use seems to be something like : if biographers have deemed transmitters of a hadith reliable, and the transmitters are connected, then accept the literal meaning of the hadith as the truth. Even if this rule is correct, an attempt to prove it from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) will be circular as it will rely on the same rule. You could attempt to prove it by applying another norm to the hadith, but then what I said will apply to that norm.
×
×
  • Create New...