I'm Starting To Disbeleive In God.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I am interested to see if you could make the same point you've made above, except in the following case: where we don't know for whom to vote in the upcoming American elections, and we're weighing the various pros and cons, and then, after analysis and evaluation, we come to a decision.

Do you think you could show me what you mean using this example? Thank you.

[iDevonian]

where we don't know for whom to vote in the upcoming American elections, and we're weighing the various pros and cons, and then, after analysis and evaluation, we come to a decision.

Do you think you could show me what you mean using this example? Thank you.

Its, kind of difficult to take this same concept, and to compare it to something less significant like a presidential candidate. Atleast without moving back to the overall existence of everything.

Lets see...we choose who our president is. However, our choice is manipulated by what we want in life. What we want in life is determined by how we exist and what our environment around us has influenced us to prefer. People who are anti abortion may feel empathy for fetus', an emotion not of our choosing to have. Maybe they have that feeling after living in a family who are also against it, maybe for religious reasons. Maybe they witnessed an abortion and are uncomfortable with dead babies. Again not of their choosing to have witnessed and not of their choosing to have such emotions. They didnt choose to live in a world with babies at all, they just do.

They then vote for the presidential candidate who opposes abortion.

We could live in a universe without babies, or abortions or fundamental religions that oppose abortion, or presidential candidates or in a world where we will have to view dead babies etc. We could live without any of this, but it all exists none the less. Not of our choosing, and it manipulates how we live and view things and ultimately determines who we vote for as a president. You could vote for or against abortion to help change whether or not babies will be aborted. But you couldnt get rid of babies all together, unless you wanted to destroy yourself. You couldnt get rid of presidents (or atleast leaders), unless you again wanted to destroy yourself. You wouldnt be able to get rid of other policies the presidents stand for, because you need them to exist. You didnt choose to live in a world in which you needed these laws, but you do. So you do the best you can, and work with what has been provided to you. But ultimately its not of your choice.

Or maybe the president is for or against health reform. Everyone worries about health insurance because if we dont, we suffer for it. So the president picks it, then people look at the predefined choices, and do what they have to do.

Predefined existence, predefined environment, predefined influences, predefined options, our choices reside within those options..

So if God is responsible for existence or the environment, or influences. Those determine our options, and then we pick from our options which are defined by the things under the responsibility of the creator. And so what we choose is really limitted to what exists for us to choose from, which is not of our choosing.

Edited February 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[iDevonian]

I think the bottom line here is, all of these things we dont have choice in, all influence us. They are not our creations. If you believe in God, they are Gods creations. Therefore God is responsible for the existence of the things that influence us.

For example. I have a choice to eat other living things. I didnt choose this existence, I didnt choose this nature. God created it. My choices are limited to what God has predefined. That is, I can either eat other living things, or die. And I dont want to die, so my decision is very clear and straight forward. My choice may as well be predefined with my nature.

Another example. Lets say I am, not to get graphic, but lets say I am with an attractive women. I have a choice of whether or not to have sex with her, however...my environment, my body, my mind, nature itself, inclines me to want to have sex. So sure I have this choice of whether or not to do so, but I am heavily influenced by something that I did not create.

So If I am heavily influenced, then why would I be 100% responsible for my choice? Am I really 100% responsible for my choice to eat other living things? Not really. If I had the option I wouldnt eat anything at all, especially not other things that want to live as I do. If I had the choice, I could decide not to have sex. But If I did that, then all of humanity would go extinct. Its against my nature to not have that interest. I am heavily influenced by something beyond me.

And with that, I dont believe we are 100% responsible for such decisions. And even before we had a conscious mind, we were performing these actions, which demonstrates even further that something is controlling us, beyond our own mind. That is our nature. And we did not create our nature, God did. Therefore God is responsible for the nature that manipulates our decisions.

You should agree with this.

[MHSK2011]

Please I need help. For some weeks now my emaan has been at rock bottom and I question everything about God. It has come such stage that sometimes I consider myself as agnostic. I have a few questions that I would like to get some answers on.

1. If God is so nice then why has He from the very start made a hell and a heaven? Doesn't it pain Him to see His own people in hell?

2. He already knows which who is going to go to hell and heven so why in the first place did He do a hell and heaven?

3. I heard somewhere that on the judgement day one person will say to God " Why did you let me die so early?" and God will reply that He knew that the guy wouldn't be able to behave himself and God couldn't take to throw him in hell. And then another person will ask "But why did you put me in hell? Why didn't you make me die earlier?" And when I asked the sheikh who said this he said that everything is not fair in life. But isn't God supposed to be fair?

Please I need help. God before was my light. I love Him with all my heart but now I can't seem to even beleive in Him. Please help me.

Your losing your Imaan because of authority,you have believed in authority 'without any observation'.You saw your father go to mosque,do matam and so you did,and because of so emotional nauha's you couldn't stop your self believing in that which is not proved,but you don't want to lose your imaan go listen to some emotional nauha,and if you want to know the truth here are some question's that I have asked.Shia sunni wahabi will keep fighting on authority,but what;s the truth? If someone wrote 1000 year's ago,that a + b = c ,does that mean he was god, because he knew-ed the alphabet? NO! because he just wrote what he thought,and so goes to Qur'an and Nahjul Balagha and may Islamic book's,those are all based on authority without any proof.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I understand that we are hugely influenced by natural causality, but we are not purely outside of nature and being acted upon nature. Our inclinations, our thought, we are ourselves part of this nature. When Luke say my taste-buds are such that I like raisins, it's an example of natural causality acting upon him, but when he says I won't eat until after dinner is an example of him being a cause within the network of causes, a force within the web of forces. So, while we are sometimes passive, other times we are active. The difference between us and most other causes is that ours are based on reasons, selfish reasons and moral reasons and rational reasons and other kinds of reasons, and often these reasons combine or fight it out for supremacy, and when we are active, we choose what we want because of who we are. If we are sensitive people, we care; If we are insensitive, we are cruel, and our choices reflect this.

-----------

Sometimes, in the example of Luke and Carl wrestling, Luke pins Carl down. Carl sweats and efforts to get up, he is forcing himself up, but it doesn't have the effect he wants. He is forced right back down by Luke. Here, despite what Carl wants, he can't get up. Thus, the action is not attributed to him.

However, if Carl succeeds in overthrowing Luke, he does so because he wants to. He has reasons for it, motives behind it, but this time he carries out what he wants. Thus, the action is attributed to him.

A language develops which differentiates between the first and the second. When one is free and when one is bound. Then, we see a further differentiation of the second:

Patrick wants to vote for the elections. He learns that the Republican candidate has more merit and his ideas more value than his Democrat counterpart. But, his father is the Democrat candidate.

He votes for Daddy, despite knowing who is better. It makes sense for someone to say, "he acted knowingly and willingly against what was better, and preferred the worse man. It was intellectually dishonest of him."

It was "knowing" because he knew who had more merit. It was "willing" because it was what he wanted to do in the end - it was not despite his want. He was free, not bound.

So, we get actions we do because we want to for rational and moral reasons, and there are actions we do because we want to do against rational and moral reasons. In the letter, we knowingly and willingly act immorally and irrationally.

This is reflected in our language: "what you did was stupid." or "how could you?!" This is what these expressions mean. These are the expressions we mean when we talk of "blaming" someone.

In conclusion, this is what it means to be blameworthy. When you are free rather than bound (as per example above - and not some metaphysical definition of freedom and boundedness), when you know rather than don't know the moral and rational virtue of a decision (as per example above) and act against it for other kinds of reasons. This makes your action knowingly and willingly immoral and irrational in English discourse, and that is when we say, "You were wrong."

------------

If we can really agree on this point, which shows what we mean by "blame" and how human beings are often blameworthy for their actions, then we could see whether God is an accomplice in our blame (being the Creator of all) or it's just us alone.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I understand that we are hugely influenced by natural causality, but we are not purely outside of nature and being acted upon nature. Our inclinations, our thought, we are ourselves part of this nature. When Luke say my taste-buds are such that I like raisins, it's an example of natural causality acting upon him, but when he says I won't eat until after dinner is an example of him being a cause within the network of causes, a force within the web of forces. So, while we are sometimes passive, other times we are active. The difference between us and most other causes is that ours are based on reasons, selfish reasons and moral reasons and rational reasons and other kinds of reasons, and often these reasons combine or fight it out for supremacy, and when we are active, we choose what we want because of who we are. If we are sensitive people, we care; If we are insensitive, we are cruel, and our choices reflect this.

-----------

Sometimes, in the example of Luke and Carl wrestling, Luke pins Carl down. Carl sweats and efforts to get up, he is forcing himself up, but it doesn't have the effect he wants. He is forced right back down by Luke. Here, despite what Carl wants, he can't get up. Thus, the action is not attributed to him.

However, if Carl succeeds in overthrowing Luke, he does so because he wants to. He has reasons for it, motives behind it, but this time he carries out what he wants. Thus, the action is attributed to him.

A language develops which differentiates between the first and the second. When one is free and when one is bound. Then, we see a further differentiation of the second:

Patrick wants to vote for the elections. He learns that the Republican candidate has more merit and his ideas more value than his Democrat counterpart. But, his father is the Democrat candidate.

He votes for Daddy, despite knowing who is better. It makes sense for someone to say, "he acted knowingly and willingly against what was better, and preferred the worse man. It was intellectually dishonest of him."

It was "knowing" because he knew who had more merit. It was "willing" because it was what he wanted to do in the end - it was not despite his want. He was free, not bound.

So, we get actions we do because we want to for rational and moral reasons, and there are actions we do because we want to do against rational and moral reasons. In the letter, we knowingly and willingly act immorally and irrationally.

I dont know about that. I dont think anyone ever acts against their rational or moral reasons to. When the boy voted for his father, he may have done so because he trusted his father. Maybe his father was abusive, and to avoid being beat up, he voted for him etc. The boy made a rational decision based on other values his father held aside from merit. He was not being intellectually dishonest.

This is reflected in our language: "what you did was stupid." or "how could you?!" This is what these expressions mean. These are the expressions we mean when we talk of "blaming" someone.

In conclusion, this is what it means to be blameworthy. When you are free rather than bound (as per example above - and not some metaphysical definition of freedom and boundedness), when you know rather than don't know the moral and rational virtue of a decision (as per example above) and act against it for other kinds of reasons. This makes your action knowingly and willingly immoral and irrational in English discourse, and that is when we say, "You were wrong."

------------

If we can really agree on this point, which shows what we mean by "blame" and how human beings are often blameworthy for their actions, then we could see whether God is an accomplice in our blame (being the Creator of all) or it's just us alone.

Also, you mentioned earlier that we are hugely influenced by our natural causality. Alright, so with this influence, why would you believe we are souly responsible for our actions? We may be inclined to trust our father, or perhaps fear him. We are the fathers natural progeny, so we have certain reasons for supporting him aside from supporting him on his merits. Natural inclinations to support him.

So the decision isnt purely ours, but rather is, as you said, influenced. Influenced by a nature that was not of our choosing. So we are not fully responsible for our decisions to vote for our fathers.

Edited February 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

In what circumstance would a person call another person's action intellectually dishonest?

I dont think anyone ever acts against their rational or moral reasons to

Course they do. I do myself. Sometimes I get angry and, knowing that I have to calm down, ignore it.

So we are not fully responsible for our decisions to vote for our fathers.

Even if we are 1% responsible, we can be blamed or praised. This "fully" makes no sense. We are blamed or praised in so far as we are responsible.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

In what circumstance would a person call another person's action intellectually dishonest?

I dont think anyone ever makes a statement they dont honestly believe is true, or believe is factually true...I never consider myself intellectually dishonest. And I dont think other people do either. A person can be wrong about something, but I wouldnt consider them dishonest, rather I would say theyre ignorant or immature. Or perhaps someone blinded by natural emotions, could be intellectually dishonest, though again I would attribute that dishonesty to the nature of the person rather than the persons intellectual self.

Course they do. I do myself. Sometimes I get angry and, knowing that I have to calm down, ignore it.

Something like becoming angry is a natural reaction to things. I wouldnt consider you responsible for such a reaction. In times when you are not influenced by nature, you wouldnt perform an action that you didnt consider rational.

Even if we are 1% responsible, we can be blamed or praised. This "fully" makes no sense. We are blamed or praised in so far as we are responsible.

Ok, and if we are 1% responsible and can be blamed or praised for that 1%, we can also blame and praise whatever may control the other 99%.

Edited February 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I think I'm clearer as to the error you're committing.

though again I would attribute that dishonesty to the nature of the person rather than the persons intellectual self.

You are differentiating between the person and the person's nature. As though the action flows from the person's nature and not the person.

Something like becoming angry is a natural reaction to things. I wouldnt consider you responsible for such a reaction.

You are differentiating between me and my nature. As though the action springs from my nature and not from me.

People makeing decisions do so under the nature of their existence.

You are differentiating between people and their nature. As though the decision stems from their nature and not from them.

If I prefer chocolate over crisps then I prefer chocolate over crisps. It's not that it's in my nature to prefer it and I am determined by my nature. I am not something upon which my nature imposes. I am my nature and I prefer it.

If I choose something because of reasons x rather than reasons y then that's who I am. That's my will. That's my identity as of now. That's my character. If I do things selfishly rather than on universal moral grounds, then I am, by nature, characteristically, selfish and not morally fussed. I would commit things which offend morality. It's not that I am manipulated to be immoral. It's that I am immoral - that's who I am. If I didn't want to be immoral, I would change myself. But that's how I choose, and that's how I want to be, and so that's what I am.

You are confused as to how this "I" refers.

--------------

As for "intellectual dishonesty", it often means that a person - who has intellectual reasons for doing something in an issue in which intellectual reasons are meant to be the criteria - ignores these reasons in favour of non-intellectual reasons. For example, publishing a non-scientific article in a scientific journal on the grounds that the writer is my best pal. He has reasons to do so, but these reasons are intellectually dishonest. This is not a good reason to publish an article.

So, given that that's what the phrase means, when we see someone publish a non-scientific article in a scientific journal on those dubious grounds, then we calll them "intellectually dishonest". Thus, we blame them, because they ought to know better.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I think I'm clearer as to the error you're committing.

You are differentiating between the person and the person's nature. As though the action flows from the person's nature and not the person.

You are differentiating between me and my nature. As though the action springs from my nature and not from me.

You are differentiating between people and their nature. As though the decision stems from their nature and not from them.

Is that not what you believe exists? I thought you believed that there is our physical existence through nature, and our supernatural existence through our mind and soul. In relation to the topic, the natural order of things, and our mind that is seperate. Do you not believe there is a mind seperate from nature?

If I prefer chocolate over crisps then I prefer chocolate over crisps. It's not that it's in my nature to prefer it and I am determined by my nature. I am not something upon which my nature imposes. I am my nature and I prefer it.

ok, i can agree with that. But is your nature the same as the nature around you? Is the nature that is you, the same as the nature around you? I would say so, but maybe you disagree.

If I choose something because of reasons x rather than reasons y then that's who I am. That's my will. That's my identity as of now. That's my character. If I do things selfishly rather than on universal moral grounds, then I am, by nature, characteristically, selfish and not morally fussed. I would commit things which offend morality. It's not that I am manipulated to be immoral. It's that I am immoral - that's who I am. If I didn't want to be immoral, I would change myself. But that's how I choose, and that's how I want to be, and so that's what I am.

How can you say that you are your nature, and then say that you may be immoral. Wouldnt that imply that your nature could be immoral? Maybe we need to determine what you mean by nature. Or your nature.

As for "intellectual dishonesty", it often means that a person - who has intellectual reasons for doing something in an issue in which intellectual reasons are meant to be the criteria - ignores these reasons in favour of non-intellectual reasons. For example, publishing a non-scientific article in a scientific journal on the grounds that the writer is my best pal. He has reasons to do so, but these reasons are intellectually dishonest. This is not a good reason to publish an article.

It could still be a good reason in regards to keeping a good friend though. Maybe your friend is intelligent, and you trust his non scientific works. So you have reason to assist him. It seems like whether or not its intellectually honest, would come down to how other people view the action, not how you view it yourself. And I imagine you would be blind to your own intellectual dishonesty.

So, given that that's what the phrase means, when we see someone publish a non-scientific article in a scientific journal on those dubious grounds, then we calll them "intellectually dishonest". Thus, we blame them, because they ought to know better.

Maybe they shouldnt ought to know better. Maybe their judgement comes from their perspective and their faithful trust in their intelligent friend. Maybe the decision he made was a good one, and there is nothing to blame him for. Maybe the rewards he will gain outweigh the detriment of passing his friends research without review. He is honest with himself and trusts his friend. His decision is made on what he considers good judgement. So hes not choosing non intellectual reasons, hes just choosing reasons that are reasonable to him, and not the rest of us. But he is not necisserily to blame for anything, if he doesnt realize what he is doing is blameworthy.

Edited February 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[iDevonian]

Sorry if it appears that I am just playing the devils advocate here or talking in circles. Im going to try to bring the discussion material together into something coherent in...maybe my next post.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Could we have a break of a few days from the discussion - even a week?

I'll use this opportunity to respond to the questions which will help clarify my position rather than make an argument for anything.

Is that not what you believe exists? I thought you believed that there is our physical existence through nature, and our supernatural existence through our mind and soul. In relation to the topic, the natural order of things, and our mind that is seperate. Do you not believe there is a mind seperate from nature?

Everything is natural. What the mind is or what we mean by the "soul" is not so important in this discussion, I suppose, but as far as what I believe, everything is natural and follows the exact nature which we experience and observe. I don't think that the mind is so simple as being a physical object though. It is a phenomenon, not an object.

I don't think there are 2 planes, one natural and one supernatural, with a mysterious metaphysical relationship. I do think there are objects and subjects which are naturally involved with each other. It is the job of natural science to understand their relationship.

ok, i can agree with that. But is your nature the same as the nature around you? Is the nature that is you, the same as the nature around you? I would say so, but maybe you disagree.

You would have to elaborate, because I'm not clear on what you mean.

How can you say that you are your nature, and then say that you may be immoral. Wouldnt that imply that your nature could be immoral? Maybe we need to determine what you mean by nature. Or your nature.

Our language expresses our complexity. We are much more complex than stones falling or plants growing. The complexity of what we can do is natural. It's part of the natural world. Part of this natural complexity of the human being is the phenomenon of morality.

A metaphor might help show why this is natural: An action is moral from the perspective of human conscience, just as a rainbow has certain hues for a person with tritanopia.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Could we have a break of a few days from the discussion - even a week?

I'll use this opportunity to respond to the questions which will help clarify my position rather than make an argument for anything.

Everything is natural. What the mind is or what we mean by the "soul" is not so important in this discussion, I suppose, but as far as what I believe, everything is natural and follows the exact nature which we experience and observe. I don't think that the mind is so simple as being a physical object though. It is a phenomenon, not an object.

I don't think there are 2 planes, one natural and one supernatural, with a mysterious metaphysical relationship. I do think there are objects and subjects which are naturally involved with each other. It is the job of natural science to understand their relationship.

You would have to elaborate, because I'm not clear on what you mean.

Our language expresses our complexity. We are much more complex than stones falling or plants growing. The complexity of what we can do is natural. It's part of the natural world. Part of this natural complexity of the human being is the phenomenon of morality.

A metaphor might help show why this is natural: An action is moral from the perspective of human conscience, just as a rainbow has certain hues for a person with tritanopia.

Ya, we can take some time away from the discussion. And nvm about the second group of questions, i think uve answered that. and yes...

[Guest Jebreil]

Ya, we can take some time away from the discussion. And nvm about the second group of questions, i think uve answered that. and yes...

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

OK. If anytime you want a philosophical chat, PM me. I'm going to gently slide into scarcity for a couple of months, with the odd post here and there.

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

OK. If anytime you want a philosophical chat, PM me. I'm going to gently slide into scarcity for a couple of months, with the odd post here and there.

Thats fine. Sometimes the real world beckons. The true issues and challanges are...out there for us to...embrace. And with that, I will join you in becoming more scarce (atleast till i get off from work again).

[MysticKnight]

I think the discussion has two fold questions.

Are we responsible for our actions?

Is God responsible for our actions?

There is all sorts of examples of choices we hardly have a choice in. We don't really have much of a choice in brushing our teeth. The fact that we need to brush our teeth for our health practically forces us to do so. We do have a choice, but it can't be said it's a total free choice.

But many choices we have, have much more freedom. For example, we can chose to go work out or not. It's healthier to work out and exercise, so we would be doing a better choice for ourselves. But does it mean we don't have influence. Some people will have to face "lazy" feeling more so then others. Some people have a lack of drive to do many things. But at the end, despite how much we are influenced positively or negatively, there is a choice.

I think many of our perceived free choices are influenced by so much factors. That is why I don't believe we are totally free. But the good choices that go against the "tide", are just more valuable that way, are they not?

Is God also responsible for our actions? In some respects yes. For many choices, more so responsible for it then we are. But is for a bad reason? I think not. I think it's for a good reason and benevolent reason that he created the world as it is, and created our minds and souls as it is. This is hard to see when you look individually at people suffering or forced into a desperate situation, but if you look at the over all purpose of the world, the bigger picture, I think you can see benevolent purpose and I tried to show that in a Theodicy thread.

[Haydar Karrar]

Yes I understanfd your point but if Allah (swt) is loves us so much how can He stand to see us in hell? Allah Loves everybody,so how can He put the sinners in hell? If you love someone you punish them but NOT that much punish as in hell.

When you have children, you love them so much....why do you slap them or hit them?

It is for their own good, to teach them a lesson.

When you have lived you know that everything reflects on the decisions you made, your job, school, health, family, marriage, religion, style etc. Allah (swt) gives us 60-100 years (our lifetime) to understand this concept of decisions. Then he judges us based on our decisions in this life. Good ones get heaven, Bad ones get hell.

But if you had made some good decisions and some bad....just like this life....you will be punished for your bad ones and then rewarded for the good.

[md. ammar ali]

REFLECT

just reflect and think

think in peace

think in the time when you are in bed to the time u actually sleep

think about the earth the universe

why we are here

what are we supposed to do

how come all this will happen by it self or is there a FORCE which is running the entire universe

then what is that force

it is GOD -THE ALMIGHTY GOD- MOST BENEFICIENT AND MOST MERCIFUL

[iDevonian]

When you have children, you love them so much....why do you slap them or hit them?

It is for their own good, to teach them a lesson.

When you have lived you know that everything reflects on the decisions you made, your job, school, health, family, marriage, religion, style etc. Allah (swt) gives us 60-100 years (our lifetime) to understand this concept of decisions. Then he judges us based on our decisions in this life. Good ones get heaven, Bad ones get hell.

But if you had made some good decisions and some bad....just like this life....you will be punished for your bad ones and then rewarded for the good.

What you fail to bring up here is that, we do not chose to give birth to imperfect children who will make mistakes. Allah if the creator, created imperfect humanity knowing they would make the mistakes they would, and then slapped them on the wrist to tell them they were wrong. So now we must ask, why slap us if we were created this way? Why create us this way, and not in a way in which we wouldnt be slapped?

[Haydar Karrar]

What you fail to bring up here is that, we do not chose to give birth to imperfect children who will make mistakes. Allah if the creator, created imperfect humanity knowing they would make the mistakes they would, and then slapped them on the wrist to tell them they were wrong. So now we must ask, why slap us if we were created this way? Why create us this way, and not in a way in which we wouldnt be slapped?

Allah (swt) created us...Akhi he did not choose for us our deeds, but he still knows, just doesnt choose.......like i know that i will die, just dont know how and dont choose my death......kind of the same

What you fail to bring up here is that, we do not chose to give birth to imperfect children who will make mistakes. Allah if the creator, created imperfect humanity knowing they would make the mistakes they would, and then slapped them on the wrist to tell them they were wrong. So now we must ask, why slap us if we were created this way? Why create us this way, and not in a way in which we wouldnt be slapped?

And a good parent knows how his kids will be.....if my son hits me, if i am a good parent and realize how i am raising him, i should be able to know if he will do it again or not....whatever he does (hits me or not) i dont choose it, I just know it

[iDevonian]

Allah (swt) created us...Akhi he did not choose for us our deeds, but he still knows, just doesnt choose.......like i know that i will die, just dont know how and dont choose my death......kind of the same'

Yes, and Allah created us in a way in which we would often choose to do wrong. And yes, he did know before he made us, and does know. Right? So he chose to create us in the way that we are, and he chose to smack us when we do wrong just as he knew we would do when he created us.

So why did he create us knowing we would do wrong? Why not create us in a way in which we wouldnt need to be smacked?

And a good parent knows how his kids will be.....if my son hits me, if i am a good parent and realize how i am raising him, i should be able to know if he will do it again or not....whatever he does (hits me or not) i dont choose it, I just know it

Yes, but unlike Allah, parents dont have the ability to simply create a child that wont need to be smacked. Allah does have that ability. So why not use it?

Edited March 16, 2012 by iDevonian

[Haydar Karrar]

Yes, and Allah created us in a way in which we would often choose to do wrong. And yes, he did know before he made us, and does know. Right? So he chose to create us in the way that we are, and he chose to smack us when we do wrong just as he knew we would do when he created us.

So why did he create us knowing we would do wrong? Why not create us in a way in which we wouldnt need to be smacked?

Yes, but unlike Allah, parents dont have the ability to simply create a child that wont need to be smacked. Allah does have that ability. So why not use it?

Akhi, i dont know the intentions of Allah (swt) except for the ones he has informed us of....but you did put up a good argument, you should ask someone like a Grand Scholar on their website...Inshallah you will get the answer

[iDevonian]

Akhi, i dont know the intentions of Allah (swt) except for the ones he has informed us of....but you did put up a good argument, you should ask someone like a Grand Scholar on their website...Inshallah you will get the answer

Well, thats the thing, i have asked scholars. It appears as though nobody knows the answer. Well, there are answers, but they raise more unanswerable questions.

Edited March 16, 2012 by iDevonian

[Haydar Karrar]

Well, thats the thing, i have asked scholars. It appears as though nobody knows the answer. Well, there are answers, but they raise more unanswerable questions.

Well, i asked...the answer id that the Human Mind and logic is limited...we are limited creatures....we are not eternal, and Allah (swt) is unlimited...in is very difficult (or in this case impossible) for limited to completely understand unlimited

[iDevonian]

Well, i asked...the answer id that the Human Mind and logic is limited...we are limited creatures....we are not eternal, and Allah (swt) is unlimited...in is very difficult (or in this case impossible) for limited to completely understand unlimited

A simple "nobody knows" is perfectly fine with me. Now that we realize our knowledge is limitted, we should ask ourselves what we do know.

Earlier you said "When you have children, you love them so much....why do you slap them or hit them?

It is for their own good, to teach them a lesson." and "But if you had made some good decisions and some bad....just like this life....you will be punished for your bad ones and then rewarded for the good.".

But we dont really know that either. We dont know the rules of this "test", we dont know why the test is here nor do we know why Allah created us the way that we are.

We dont know any of these things, and yet look at us. You are speaking of it, as if you know its true, but in reality, what do any of us really know?

Nothing.

[Haydar Karrar]

A simple "nobody knows" is perfectly fine with me. Now that we realize our knowledge is limitted, we should ask ourselves what we do know.

Earlier you said "When you have children, you love them so much....why do you slap them or hit them?

It is for their own good, to teach them a lesson." and "But if you had made some good decisions and some bad....just like this life....you will be punished for your bad ones and then rewarded for the good.".

But we dont really know that either. We dont know the rules of this "test", we dont know why the test is here nor do we know why Allah created us the way that we are.

We dont know any of these things, and yet look at us. You are speaking of it, as if you know its true, but in reality, what do any of us really know?

Nothing.

The Qur'an states the rules of this test, and maybe if we die and wait we will be told the reason for all this....

And it is true that we know nothing....Inshallah when the 12th Imam (as) returns....he might clear the doubts of people....maybe you and I will be alive.

[110_Fatima]

Please I need help. For some weeks now my emaan has been at rock bottom and I question everything about God. It has come such stage that sometimes I consider myself as agnostic. I have a few questions that I would like to get some answers on.

1. If God is so nice then why has He from the very start made a hell and a heaven? Doesn't it pain Him to see His own people in hell?

2. He already knows which who is going to go to hell and heven so why in the first place did He do a hell and heaven?

3. I heard somewhere that on the judgement day one person will say to God " Why did you let me die so early?" and God will reply that He knew that the guy wouldn't be able to behave himself and God couldn't take to throw him in hell. And then another person will ask "But why did you put me in hell? Why didn't you make me die earlier?" And when I asked the sheikh who said this he said that everything is not fair in life. But isn't God supposed to be fair?

Please I need help. God before was my light. I love Him with all my heart but now I can't seem to even beleive in Him. Please help me.

Allah First only made Heaveen, Hell was created when Shaytan didnt obey Allah, Allah never wanted Hell for his most beloved creatures, he made hell for thoose who dont listen to him, but Shaytan said i will bring every single child of Adam to hell, and Allah said These are my followers and surely they will find the right path, so u see hell wasnt exactly made 4 us, we jst lead our selves there

I heard the more evil and bad u are the longer life you have (thes why we still have the queen of england alive!)

Allah gives more life to the bad guys, the ones who are misleaded to give them a chance so they can turn to the right path, and thoose who have a short life probably cause they were on the right path from the start so Allah took there life, so they can come to heaven, but if they were good from the start well...most ppl get tested by Allah mostly everyone does.

imagine you in a class room your teacher knows you a bad student, so before the class even starts she kicks you out and gives you trouble when you havent done anything wrong, so would it be fair if Allah jst created u and threw u in hell wen u havent done anything wrong yet?

Allah knew Shaytan wasn't gonna bow to ADAM but why didnt Allah punish him before? because he wanted to give Shaytan a chance so they coudl think about it before acually doing the wrong thing, Allah loves us all an wants us on the rite path

[iDevonian]

The Qur'an states the rules of this test, and maybe if we die and wait we will be told the reason for all this....

And it is true that we know nothing....Inshallah when the 12th Imam (as) returns....he might clear the doubts of people....maybe you and I will be alive.

You dont know what this test is or may be or why or when or how it exists. Simply having these "rules" tells you little to nothing. What if i handed you a piece of paper that told you how to live life, but I didnt explain how I made the rules. You would look at me as if I were crazy and say "im not going to live by your rules just because you want me to". And yet here, you have rules in which you dont know their origins nor do you know anything about why they exist the way they do. Yet you dont ask questions, you simply believe.

[-Enlightened]

well if we give you the answers of the test, it won't be a test :rolleyes: ^

and umm..these rules are the rules of god .. just like you follow the rules of the chart of america.. we follow the one from god ..

if my english made sense :unsure:

Edited March 20, 2012 by -Enlightened

[Thaqalayn313]

You dont know what this test is or may be or why or when or how it exists. Simply having these "rules" tells you little to nothing. What if i handed you a piece of paper that told you how to live life, but I didnt explain how I made the rules. You would look at me as if I were crazy and say "im not going to live by your rules just because you want me to". And yet here, you have rules in which you dont know their origins nor do you know anything about why they exist the way they do. Yet you dont ask questions, you simply believe.

Bismihi Ta'ala

(salam)

You know what bothers me, it just really does, just reading your posts and i don't mean to offend you , are quite bothersome. I don't see where atheists get their confidence from, they are such a minority and there are billions of god believers around the world and for the past thousands of years and suddenly "we are all wrong" , it makes me laugh really, the common atheist questions his origin, understandable, but if he knew then what. The common atheist questions everything even the laws the rules people have been living with for the past 1400 years.What if they're wrong.

For the past 1400 years our messiah has obviously been the common atheist since hes so incredibly smart he just stood up and said " i dont know " and went on whatever form of shiachat there was the past 1400 years and tried to find an answer.

Brother, there are SCHOLARS for a reason, if your so confident and keen for answers go to them. I dont see the point of you coming to this topic and making the sister as paranoid as you.

And yes i mean it with all honesty i use the term paranoia because us believers dont need as much 'evidence' as you do, i'm satisfied with what i have and i know if i want to know more , and if i want to find the evidence all i have to do is study, and no not abiogenesis , but rather the Arabic linguistics or theology / jurisprudence or even philosophy if not i can go to the scholar and if he answers me and i ask him for 'evidence' he will with no doubt in my mind give me it.

So please i feel like you've already gone off topic twice ,

as much as you think your helping your 'confusing' the sister.

I apologise if this sounds adhomenim.

Wasalam

[Thaqalayn313]

i dont know why it wont let me edit, but anyways if i might add:

theres also

quran sciences - Ulum al Quran

quran exegesis - Tafsir al Quran

History - Tarikh

Depending on what i want to know

[iDevonian]

well if we give you the answers of the test, it won't be a test :rolleyes: ^

and umm..these rules are the rules of god .. just like you follow the rules of the chart of america.. we follow the one from god ..

if my english made sense :unsure:

Thats true, but when you take a test, you take it for a known reason. You know who made it, when, why, how and its purpose.

And yes all countries have rules and laws too. But again, we know who made it, when, why, how and its purpose.

We dont know anything about this "test" of the Quran. Who made it? I guess we assume Allah did, even though we dont really who when, or why. We dont know how it was made either, and we dont know what its purpose is.

We dont know any of these things, we simply assume small bits of it. We assume that Allah created it, but what specifically is there to even be created? Really take a moment to think about it. What do you really know about what you believe, and seperate what you really know, from what you believe you know.

And the rest we just say "yea. its true". But we cant say something is true when we know nothing about it. We may assume something is true, when we assume details about it. We may believe something is true, when we believe details about it. But does anyone really know anything about this test? The answer is no. And there is a big difference between what you know, and what you think you know (believe and assume), that should be defined.

[Thaqalayn313]

Thats true, but when you take a test, you take it for a known reason. You know who made it, when, why, how and its purpose.

And yes all countries have rules and laws too. But again, we know who made it, when, why, how and its purpose.

We dont know anything about this "test" of the Quran. Who made it? I guess we assume Allah did, even though we dont really who when, or why. We dont know how it was made either, and we dont know what its purpose is.

We dont know any of these things, we simply assume small bits of it. We assume that Allah created it, but what specifically is there to even be created? Really take a moment to think about it. What do you really know about what you believe, and seperate what you really know, from what you believe you know.

And the rest we just say "yea. its true". But we cant say something is true when we know nothing about it. We may assume something is true, when we assume details about it. We may believe something is true, when we believe details about it. But does anyone really know anything about this test? The answer is no. And there is a big difference between what you know, and what you think you know (believe and assume), that should be defined.

Bismihi Ta'ala

(salam)

Once again you completely disregard my post,

nonetheless

you are wrong again, we KNOW who put the test , as the brother mentioned it is in the quran and through riwayat and ahadith, we know more about the test.

we are not "assuming" ,

to use the word assuming means we dont know so were just taking a leap of blind faith.

like we dont know if the quran is the word of god or mohhamad (sawa) is his messenger.

no my friend we KNOW we dont assume, we are not blindly believing.

There is evidence that the quran is the word of god, and if the evidence is there and it IS the word of god then whatever is in it, be it a test or a law then it is non other than Allah s.w's law.

and i will mention it again since maybe you didnt understand the first time, if you had any knowledge in tafseer al quran or ulum al quran you would know that, and since you dont have that knowledge , you should as a scholar before making such a statement out of lack of knowledge,

so its you who's assuming , not us.

You keep asking "how do we know" , brother if you DONT KNOW , go find out. If your ignorant of these matters and you want answers, do you sit down or go to a forum go learn go to a scholar instead of trying to impose your idea that "we have no evidence , its not the word of god , how do we know" ,

if you really want to go there i suggest you go learn first then come back and repost your statements,

because in the end thats all they are statements.

No evidence what so ever , the only evidence you ever bring to the table is evidence of your lack of knowledge and your asumptions or conclusions,

so im advising you and not attacking you.

If you really are going to question and want to know go to a scholar ,

infact ill help you a new site has been made called

http://www.askthesheikh.com/

i suggest you send your questions there.

Wasalam

[Quisant]

There is evidence that the Quran is the word of god, and if the evidence is there and it IS the word of god then whatever is in it, be it a test or a law then it is non other than Allah s.w's law.

What evidence?

Reliance on indirect sources such as scriptures or the words of authority figures is not evidence.

You can have faith in a scripture if you like. But that is not knowledge.

It is reliance on someone else's opinion.

The believer's usual logic:

My religion says that my God is the only real God.

Therefore all other Gods are disproved.

Anyone who disagrees is deceived by Shaytan.

Before you reply, please acquaint yourself with the meaning of 'burden of proof'

wslm.

*

[Thaqalayn313]

What evidence?

Reliance on indirect sources such as scriptures or the words of authority figures is not evidence.

You can have faith in a scripture if you like. But that is not knowledge.

It is reliance on someone else's opinion.

The believer's usual logic:

My religion says that my God is the only real God.

Therefore all other Gods are disproved.

Anyone who disagrees is deceived by Shaytan.

Before you reply, please acquaint yourself with the meaning of 'burden of proof'

wslm.

*

Bismihi Ta'ala

(salam)

Here we are again with the "what evidence" i think you should read my post again before jumping to conclusions.

You are making assumptions.

from what you believe even when saying "the believers logic" , you make your statements seem pleasant but in reality they are bleeding with pride and self confidence.

No its not reliance on someone else's opinion and its more than faith , theres a difference my friend between faith and blind faith,

blind faith requires no "burden of proof" whilst faith does.

Judging by your pride and confidence , you give the impression to be a learned man , learned in arabic and quranic studies ,

tell me what evidence do you have against it?

wheres your burden of proof , i follow a religion with more than 2.2 billion followers so im not obligated to bring you any proof your the minority in order to disprove my ways and my teachings/scriptures you must first learn and understand my ways.

Im not here trying to prove gods existence according to my religion , i'm not the one going to you and telling you , your wrong.

You are , so its your job to prove or disprove not mine.

Anyways this conversation is not suited for this topic so lessen the posts unless anyone has anything relevant to say to the topic.

So with respect to Sweetn i hope it ends here.

Wasalam.