Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I need response to this atheist argument which I read from his book

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Ahsen82 View Post
    But this does not mean we should start questioning the commands of God. Every command of God is wise. Every command of God has a benefit for us, if not in this world, then in the Hereafter.
    How do you know ever command of God is wise? Maybe he has really poor impulse control, and issues unwise commands out of his whims.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post

      How do you know ever command of God is wise? Maybe he has really poor impulse control, and issues unwise commands out of his whims.
      God by definition is the all wise, perfect, all knowledgeable etc... It is the Christian perspective, and other religions, which say god is (a3oothobillah) a human, or a cow, or whatever else they came up with, which tends to influence others perception on god. God by definition does not make mistakes.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by ahmedyounes View Post

        God by definition is the all wise, perfect, all knowledgeable etc... It is the Christian perspective, and other religions, which say god is (a3oothobillah) a human, or a cow, or whatever else they came up with, which tends to influence others perception on god. God by definition does not make mistakes.
        It doesn't really work to say that God is all-wise by definition. I could just as easily say God is unwise by definition. Who is right? Rather, you have to *determine* whether God is wise. But how does one determine that?

        Comment


          #19
          Simple, you look at his perfect creation.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by muslim4life76 View Post

            common sense

            e.g Suppose you have a gun and ball at the same height and you were to shoot the gun and drop the ball AT THE SAME TIME common sense intuition says the ball would drop first but based on Galileo discovery all objects accelerate at the same rate both would reach at the same time.

            He gives other examples how common sense can be wrong e.g people believed earth is flat . Also, (I added this) e.g mirage in the desert is an illusion since we rely on our INTUITION.
            Originally posted by muslim4life76 View Post

            The whole of any body is larger than its part . This is a logical statement which I do not need to experience

            this leads me to another question what is the difference between logic and rationality?
            So when you say “common sense” you actually mean that impulsive “gut feeling” that we sometimes experience. This is not a source of knowledge, and our belief in the existence of God is not based upon it.

            “Gut feelings” are not a source of knowledge, because they can involve imagination and emotionalism. They are also influenced by ones upbringing. They are highly prone to error, and should not be depended on.

            This seems to be the case with all of the examples you offered. To take the flat earth example: just because the earth locally appears to be flat, doesn’t mean it is so in its entirety. This was just a mistake of the imagination that was popular in ancient times, and it is one without any rational justification.

            Our belief in the existence of God is not based upon “gut feelings”, it is based upon reason. Reason is the human ability to deduce more complex information from axioms (self evident truths, those that require no pondering to be known, whether conceptual or propositional).

            Propositions that are true by rational necessity include: “the whole of any body is larger than its part”, “even numbers are divisible by two”, “whatever emerges into existence was brought into existence by a creator”... etc. in each case, you require no more than a mere understanding of the terminology in order to deduce that the proposition is true.

            “Logic” is simply a set of standards, that when abided by, ensures that you make no mistakes during this deductive process.

            Propositions that are judged according to experience, are said to be judged nomically or nomologically (Al-Hukm Al-'Adi). For example: judging that “fire burns cotton”, which is based on repeatedly observing a correlation (between cotton coming into contact with a flame, and the cotton burning). This is a different topic altogether.

            Nomic judgements cannot falsify rational judgements, because rational judgment depend on the essence of the subject (i.e. the fact that the subject is itself), whereas nomic judgement depend on observing the subject, and a subject cannot be observed being not itself.


            Originally posted by muslim4life76 View Post
            Objects like tables, chair, cars.
            Yes, which is what I also meant when I said bodies. Beings with dimensions (a width, height or depth) stretched out in space. We know those beings beganto exist, because they areinseparable from accidents like rest and motion. And whatever is inseparablefrom accidentsis emergent. More on this here.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by karkooshy View Post



              So when you say “common sense” you actually mean that impulsive “gut feeling” that we sometimes experience. This is not a source of knowledge, and our belief in the existence of God is not based upon it.

              “Gut feelings” are not a source of knowledge, because they can involve imagination and emotionalism. They are also influenced by ones upbringing. They are highly prone to error, and should not be depended on.

              This seems to be the case with all of the examples you offered. To take the flat earth example: just because the earth locally appears to be flat, doesn’t mean it is so in its entirety. This was just a mistake of the imagination that was popular in ancient times, and it is one without any rational justification.

              Our belief in the existence of God is not based upon “gut feelings”, it is based upon reason. Reason is the human ability to deduce more complex information from axioms (self evident truths, those that require no pondering to be known, whether conceptual or propositional).

              Propositions that are true by rational necessity include: “the whole of any body is larger than its part”, “even numbers are divisible by two”, “whatever emerges into existence was brought into existence by a creator”... etc. in each case, you require no more than a mere understanding of the terminology in order to deduce that the proposition is true.

              “Logic” is simply a set of standards, that when abided by, ensures that you make no mistakes during this deductive process.

              Propositions that are judged according to experience, are said to be judged nomically or nomologically (Al-Hukm Al-'Adi). For example: judging that “fire burns cotton”, which is based on repeatedly observing a correlation (between cotton coming into contact with a flame, and the cotton burning). This is a different topic altogether.

              Nomic judgements cannot falsify rational judgements, because rational judgment depend on the essence of the subject (i.e. the fact that the subject is itself), whereas nomic judgement depend on observing the subject, and a subject cannot be observed being not itself.




              Yes, which is what I also meant when I said bodies. Beings with dimensions (a width, height or depth) stretched out in space. We know those beings beganto exist, because they areinseparable from accidents like rest and motion. And whatever is inseparablefrom accidentsis emergent. More on this here.
              Jzk for that response and the link

              Comment

              Working...
              X