I'm Starting To Disbeleive In God.

[iDevonian]

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

I dont know who you are, or why you think im ignoring your posts. I dont even know if you were even talking to me before. Thank you for quoting me at the beginning of your post. It allows me to take notice of your commentary without assuming its useless junk like the rest of them.

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

So lets see what you really do know.

Right now, I want you to tell me to answer to the question that was asked earlier. Why does this "test" exit, and how do you know it?

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.

*

I think this is good that he is responding in this way. He seems confident, so lets take him now, and see what he has for us. And lets see how much he really does know. Because who knows, maybe he's different from the other 99.9% that think they know the unarguable truth.

[Thaqalayn313]

I dont know who you are, or why you think im ignoring your posts. I dont even know if you were even talking to me before. Thank you for quoting me at the beginning of your post. It allows me to take notice of your commentary without assuming its useless junk like the rest of them.

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

So lets see what you really do know.

Right now, I want you to tell me to answer to the question that was asked earlier. Why does this "test" exit, and how do you know it?

I think this is good that he is responding in this way. He seems confident, so lets take him now, and see what he has for us. And lets see how much he really does know. Because who knows, maybe he's different from the other 99.9% that think they know the unarguable truth.

Bismihi Ta'ala

(salam)

I apologize for assuming you ignored me , i'm not used to the shiachat system yet unfortunately i thought i had quoted you properly and that you would have received the notification, i was wrong.

To be completely honest, i think this needs to be moved to another topic and if i were to answer your question from my knowledge,

you must understand that in Islam ,

before understanding the "test" and understanding the quran and the prophet ,

you must first understand and accept the existence of god before entering such topic,

and it must be explained , to a knowledge seeker like you, every aspect of it AND extensively i suppose because you want an answer to all the circumstances and situations possible, am i correct?

You cannot jump steps, and if i was to answer you wouldnt understand because we first would have to lay out the whole concept.

I am completely busy in my islamic studies and im building an islamic website at the moment and working with organisations, i only have time to drop by shiachat when im spammed with email notifications.

So inshallah if you are willing to wait ,

i will open a topic where first we can discuss extensively on the existence of god THEN when we reach an understanding we can enter the discussion of the test and other than the test.

I apologise, for not having the time i really do , but i also have my commitments to fulfill ,

i will let you know when im done and inshAllah all questions will be answered.

I hope you understand.

Wasalam

[Quisant]

I am completely busy in my islamic studies and im building an islamic website at the moment and working with organisations, i only have time to drop by shiachat when im spammed with email notifications.

Good luck with your studies and website, do let us know when it is up and running.

And...by the way, welcome to S.C. I hope you enjoy yourself :)

Wslm.

*

[Abu Nur]

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

It is reliance on someone else's opinion.

The sum of portion of knowledge in individual mind can have a reason to belief in someone else opinion (having interference with current knowledge and other information.). So yes it can be a knowledge.

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.

That is a subjective matter in some sense. But these sentences are not well defined so such a conclusion may be meaningless.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Dhulfikar

[Quisant]

The sum of portion of knowledge in individual mind can have a reason to belief in someone else opinion (having interference with current knowledge and other information.). So yes it can be a knowledge.

Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, truths or principles, as from experience, study or investigation;

Believing is not the same as knowing.

You can believe that Joseph Smith (founder of The Mormons) received revelations from God but you don't know he did.

Nor does it make it true.

Put your hand on a hot stove and you know it burns.

That is a subjective matter in some sense. But these sentences are not well defined so such a conclusion may be meaningless.

As long as people understand... the conclusion may not be meaningless or wasted.

wslm.

*

Edited March 20, 2012 by Quisant

[iDevonian]

Bismihi Ta'ala

(salam)

I apologize for assuming you ignored me , i'm not used to the shiachat system yet unfortunately i thought i had quoted you properly and that you would have received the notification, i was wrong.

To be completely honest, i think this needs to be moved to another topic and if i were to answer your question from my knowledge,

you must understand that in Islam ,

before understanding the "test" and understanding the quran and the prophet ,

you must first understand and accept the existence of god before entering such topic,

and it must be explained , to a knowledge seeker like you, every aspect of it AND extensively i suppose because you want an answer to all the circumstances and situations possible, am i correct?

You cannot jump steps, and if i was to answer you wouldnt understand because we first would have to lay out the whole concept.

I am completely busy in my islamic studies and im building an islamic website at the moment and working with organisations, i only have time to drop by shiachat when im spammed with email notifications.

So inshallah if you are willing to wait ,

i will open a topic where first we can discuss extensively on the existence of god THEN when we reach an understanding we can enter the discussion of the test and other than the test.

I apologise, for not having the time i really do , but i also have my commitments to fulfill ,

i will let you know when im done and inshAllah all questions will be answered.

I hope you understand.

Wasalam

alright, so we are back at square one and it appears that "you must first understand and accept the existence of god before entering such topic,".

And there goes the entire discussion out the window. Moving on...

Anytime you are ready to have the discussion, i will be here. In the mean time, we can agree to disagree,

Ah yes, i see you are new here, welcome. I will be more kind then. Yea, i usually skim past posts that do not quote my name just because often, you will have 2 or 3 discussions going on all at once and often commentary isnt directed at me. Sorry if i was a bit blunt.

but yes, anytime you are ready, just let me know. If you create a topic on the subject just message me and ill be there.

Edited March 20, 2012 by iDevonian

[Abu Nur]

Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, truths or principles, as from experience, study or investigation;

Believing is not the same as knowing.

In simplicity, Belief itself is an conclusion which include Sum of Knowledge.

You can believe that Joseph Smith (founder of The Mormons) received revelations from God but you don't know he did.

For example, I actually can have an subjective inductive probability (Well personally i do not much rely on this method), which from sum of knowledge i can come to an "probability" to know that God revelation (for example Quran) is truth , but it's never can be an actual fact.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Dhulfikar

[Quisant]

In simplicity, Belief itself is an conclusion which include Sum of Knowledge.

In simplicity, including the 'Sum of Knowledge', as you say, we believed that sun revolved around the earth; that was later found to be false.

We believed that the earth was flat, that too was later found to be false.

For example, I actually can have an subjective inductive probability (Well personally i do not much rely on this method), which from sum of knowledge i can come to an "probability" to know that God revelation (for example Quran) is truth , but it's never can be an actual fact.

I agree with you; 'subjective inductive reasoning' does not necessarily lead to the truth otherwise the Christian Trinity or the Aztec Quetzalcoatl would also be true.

In my opinion science is the only path of knowledge because it operates by using evidence and reason.

Here is one I prepared earlier:

If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; then science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth.

The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.

wslm.

*

[Abu Nur]

In simplicity, including the 'Sum of Knowledge', as you say, we believed that sun revolved around the earth; that was later found to be false.

We believed that the earth was flat, that too was later found to be false.

Yes you can also include an belief which was proved to be true. I will say that the conclusion (a belief) from sum of knowledge is a some kind of thought which is either is true or false in our "logical terms" because it have not yet been proved.

In my opinion science is the only path of knowledge because it operates by using evidence and reason.

I disagree with this, but only the "only" part here.

The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both.

What if good science is not truth, but it seems to us that it is truth?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Dhulfikar

[Quisant]

What if good science is not truth, but it seems to us that it is truth?

What if religion is not truth but we want it to be truth?

In the last 200 years science has discovered more of nature's mysteries than religion has in millennia.

Although science is no guarantee and quite often, even the most cutting edge scientists do no more than just guess; I have more respect for their guesses than the assurances from clerics or priests, regardless of religion.

Disregarding the scientific method would be foolish, as far as I can work out the only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation or evidence.

wslm.

*

[Abu Nur]

I actually gave an good question to relationship that Religion does not necessarily depend on Scientifical definitions, because such a definitions may in our terms be wrong in some sense. It is "possibility" that an assumption from Religion can be truth but Scientifical evidence for assumption can be false, because the definition of assumption in Scientifical terms can be wrong. And vice versa.

What if religion is not truth but we want it to be truth?

"We want" is the problem here, actually any religion statements should based on truth or false. But the definition of these two does not depend only on Scientifical proof. Because amoung of them (Religion statements) there are statements that even Science does not understand it (or yet). But like i said before such a statements are for "Belief" which their truthness (not an fact) depends on sum of (true) knowledge.

Although science is no guarantee and quite often, even the most cutting edge scientists do no more than just guess; I have more respect for their guesses than the assurances from clerics or priests, regardless of religion.

Two different fields.

Disregarding the scientific method would be foolish, as far as I can work out the only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation or evidence.

Yes it would be foolish. Because we are fallible people, sometimes we must accept things in some sense.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Dhulfikar

[Quisant]

I actually gave an good question to relationship that Religion does not necessarily depend on Scientifical definitions, because such a definitions may in our terms be wrong in some sense. It is "possibility" that an assumption from Religion can be truth but Scientifical evidence for assumption can be false, because the definition of assumption in Scientifical terms can be wrong. And vice versa.

"We want" is the problem here, actually any religion statements should based on truth or false. But the definition of these two does not depend only on Scientifical proof. Because amoung of them (Religion statements) there are statements that even Science does not understand it (or yet).

Truth is quality of reality, not belief.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others

Science and Belief are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth.

Over the years science has disproved many religious claims while religion has nothing to add to science ... apart from appropriating scientific findings (like the size of the universe, Big Bang etc..)

But like i said before such a statements are for "Belief" which their truthness (not an fact) depends on sum of (true) knowledge.

As far as I can tell religion cannot / has never been able to demonstrate the existence of God. Not even that!

Can you give me an example of a 'truthness' discovered by the sum of religious knowledge?

What is your definition of 'truthness'?

wslm.

*

[md. ammar ali]

if u start disbelieving in god ..........u r nearing hell fire

[Abu Nur]

Truth is quality of reality, not belief.

Truth is an quality of reality and Belief can include these Truths and form new conclusion which can be true or false. My whole point.

Science and Belief are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth.

Before even the Modern Science was form, some of people believed that for example like gravity have some kind of mathemathical form. So by the devoplement of Human logic and mathemathical principles, this was a possibility. Which leads to my first statement of this post.

As far as I can tell religion cannot / has never been able to demonstrate the existence of God. Not even that!

You should understand the point that Religion is not ment for demostrating things which by our logical terms is impossibility. For example like existence of God. How can you prove an existence which it's definition is not coherent with Human mind?

Can you give me an example of a 'truthness' discovered by the sum of religious knowledge?

You did not understand my point. Belief does not include only an religious knowledge but an knowledge that we observe in this reality. Belief is an harmonic between these two knowledge. Religion can have sum of objective assumption which when we study in reality, they seems to be truth. For example Morals values. Or our Fitrah nature etc.

What is your definition of 'truthness'?

What i mean here with truthness is sum of "fact" knowledge that make an belief which by its nature is not an fact.

I will continue this discussion later if you want, i have too much study in these days, so i must go away some days.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Dhulfikar

[Quisant]

I will continue this discussion later if you want, i have too much study in these days, so i must go away some days.

We'll continue the discussion whenever you feel like it.

Nice talking to you, all the best. :)

*

[Abu Nur]

We'll continue the discussion whenever you feel like it.

Nice talking to you, all the best. :)

*

Thank you Quisant :)

[Jaysro]

I thought God didn't love all of his creation randomly... God only loves those who listen and believe and pray to him after they've been given the signs.

I thought that if one counts all the mercies of God together he will come to the conclusion that Hellfire will only have a handfull of people abiding there forever...

isn't it so?

[kimsland]

I question everything about God. It has come such stage that sometimes I consider myself as agnostic.

It is good (and human) to question what may not be real.

Agnostics feel that they do not believe one way or the other without any new information coming (one day)

But if we look at the known facts, we see that its most likely that religion is fantasy. Therefore even agnostics must conclude that the middle ground (sitting on the fence) leans heavily towards no god existing at all. To be agnostic really means you are atheist, as you do not believe or praise or follow any god whatsoever. And according to ALL religious beliefs this denotes you as NOT religious or a fantasy believer.

Since our modern scientific ongoing discoveries continue to over shadow religos, we are left to weigh up what exactly is reality.

The only single number one 'evidence' of any god by anyone is that totally not allowed questionable existance and prayer. Of the 100 billion people who have lived and died in our world NOT one prayer has EVER been answered, EVER.

Plus there is zero evidence of any god in the first place.

Yes agnostics must also lean towards NO god, or atheism. Until such time any evidence shows otherwise. Through 13.7 billion years of our universe there NOTHING has been shown to us as evidence of any god, ONLY the natural occurances and existance of life through normal natural universal ways.

If you are 'questioning' your god, then good on you :) You are finally accepting life with many others worldwide.

Understand that Allah is not universally accepted as the one. Nor is Jesus or any other prophet or 'god'. The only universally accepted truth is that there is no god and we are all living in the natural universe.

There is hope for agnostics with proper guidance. I (and a world of others) can help you get over your unfounded fears.