New guy Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) So your logic is - doesn't have the same phy 51 minutes ago, panther said: And why can't you have both, In paradise you will be given what you desire and more, it will be such to beat your expectations. The reason why we can't be the same creation in paradise is simple, if we were the same in paradise there would be a limit on how much we could eat, after a while we would have to go and relieve ourselves, also after a while we would get old, lose our youthfulness, it makes no sense to have the same problems that we have on earth. I simply don't understand the child like thinking where you think paradise is just earth without limitations. Surely the joys, happiness, etc in paradise will be a billion times more than those on earth? Then why do we believe in the cavemen like thinking that paradise is more food, more sex, etc? surely the emotions and feelings you will have will be nothing compared to earth! So any religion talking about milk and honey is bull shot because it talks in terms of earth terms Edited October 8, 2016 by New guy
panther Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 Say your human desire is to sleep with 100 most beautiful women. And you want to go to paradise for it. After death, you discover that you are just a shining light with no ability to sleep with anyone. So how is the promise of getting your desire fulfilled in paradise work in this case? And if you are going to paradise thinking whatever your desire is at that point will be fulfilled, you are just shooting in dark and wasting your current life sold on a dummy idea .... Which is why focusing on good deeds is imp as it at least makes your current life worthwhile. And if you go to paradise for it, it is a bonus! This is where faith comes in my friend I have faith that paradise is true and it exists. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk So your logic is - doesn't have the same phy I simply don't understand the child like thinking where you think paradise is just earth without limitations. Surely the joys, happiness, etc in paradise will be a billion times more than those on earth? Then why do we believe in the cavemen like thinking that paradise is more food, more sex, etc? surely the emotions and feelings you will have will be nothing compared to earth! So any religion talking about milk and honey is bull shot because it talks in terms of earth terms Of course paradise is beyond our imagination but food, women, palaces, music these resonate with our worldly idea of pleasure, but paradise is far greater than that. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Deucalion 1
vayuu1 Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 It's just my observation, also during the life of the Prophet idol worshippers and Jews caused him the most harm. This isn't to say that all are the same but in a general sense. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk I think a person who marry a 6 year old girl and have 's. .x with her at 9 deserves harm. Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk
zen Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, panther said: This is where faith comes in my friend I have faith that paradise is true and it exists Sure! .... But your worldly desires may not materialize in Paradise And if good deeds don't get you there, there is no guarantee of everyone receiving the "mercy" The more I think about it, I get a feeling that Islam was created by some rebel power to seek some kind of vengeance against Gods First, If you see the stress in Islam is on believing in one God which is Allah and no one else. Why would one need to say there is no one else if there was only one God or "others" should not be worshipped? Second, why would there be a need to convert or fight Kafirs? It could be because this rebel power does not want anyone to follow the Gods that it has challenged. It could be more like I ll take away all your followers and people will only worship me Third, idol worship and other such traditions are purposefully banned to create a conflict with traditions of old religions such as Hinduism. Why would a God be upset if ppl worshipped him through idols or other mediums If this is the case, it would be probably explain why extremists muslims think of people of other religions as true enemies. And why ideas such as Ghazwa-e-hind are coveted
Texy Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 155 ppl died in Yemen today from Saudi bombing. Not a single cry of outrage from the Muslim world, surprise, surprise.....NOT. If this was Israel...there would've been riots and terrorist revenge attacks by now. zen 1
Muloghonto Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 5 hours ago, panther said: God always existed, the reason why 10 gods or many gods can't be eternal is because in order for 10 gods to exist they must have been created by someone, the moment they are created they can possibly not be god because they needed someone to create them, When the very idea of god is one who is free of all needs. Also look at it this way Allah mentions in the Quran Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe Chapter (21) sūrat l-anbiyāa (The Prophets) If There were 10 eternal gods as you say and they all had equal power How would the universe function? They all have equal power and can do whatever the will now one wants to cause an eathquake and another wants to stop it, will the earthquake ever happen? Allah created time, he is not bound by time. Again, you are not explaining why ignored for 10 gods to exist, they must've been created by someone but if its 1 God, then that 1 God doesnt need to be created. You are simply not saying why the moment there is more than 1 God, that God needs to be created. Why ? Why, if there is 1 God who is uncreated and eternal, there can't be two Gods, both of whom are uncreated and eternal ? What is it about >1 numbers that prohibits it from being 'uncreated and eternal' ? And if there are 10 Gods, the universe could function very well if all the Gods had separate portfolio. So one God is in charge of love & lust, one god is in charge of money, one god is in charge of eco system, one god is in charge of technology, etc etc. I don't see why it can't function that way if all the Gods have separate portfolio.
panther Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 17 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Again, you are not explaining why ignored for 10 gods to exist, they must've been created by someone but if its 1 God, then that 1 God doesnt need to be created. You are simply not saying why the moment there is more than 1 God, that God needs to be created. Why ? Why, if there is 1 God who is uncreated and eternal, there can't be two Gods, both of whom are uncreated and eternal ? What is it about >1 numbers that prohibits it from being 'uncreated and eternal' ? And if there are 10 Gods, the universe could function very well if all the Gods had separate portfolio. So one God is in charge of love & lust, one god is in charge of money, one god is in charge of eco system, one god is in charge of technology, etc etc. I don't see why it can't function that way if all the Gods have separate portfolio. The reason why 2 gods is impossible is because of the Situation i posted above, god by very definition is all powerful how does all powerful fit in with 2 gods. The reason why gods with different function is impossible is because god is all powerful, if god is limited to a specific function how can he be all powerful?, do you not see the moment you put any limit on god he is not god. Deucalion 1
Muloghonto Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, panther said: The reason why 2 gods is impossible is because of the Situation i posted above, god by very definition is all powerful how does all powerful fit in with 2 gods. The reason why gods with different function is impossible is because god is all powerful, if god is limited to a specific function how can he be all powerful?, do you not see the moment you put any limit on god he is not god. Why can't two things be all powerful ? Where does the definition of 'all powerful' say that it has to be only 1, if there is >1, then they are not all powerful ? Where is the explanation on why 'all powerful' can be only 1 entity. The ability to do anything or affect anything can be theoretically held by any number of beings. Gods can be all-powerful but may choose to limit themselves to a specific job. Just like how you can do gardening and computer coding, but decide to be a full-time computer coder instead of a gardener. Just because Mars is the God of war doesn't mean Mars can't be industrious like Hephasteus or just because Hepastheus is the god of industry, it doesn't mean Hepastheus can't fight. They just choose to do certain things, instead of all things. Edited October 9, 2016 by Muloghonto
panther Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 Just now, Muloghonto said: Why can't two things be all powerful ? Where does the definition of 'all powerful' say that it has to be only 1, if there is >1, then they are not all powerful ? Gods can be all-powerful but may choose to limit themselves to a specific job. Just like how you can do gardening and computer coding, but decide to be a full-time computer coder instead of a gardener. Just because Mars is the God of war doesn't mean Mars can't be industrious like Hephasteus or just because Hepastheus is the god of industry, it doesn't mean Hepastheus can't fight. They just choose to do certain things, instead of all things. If you have to share your power how can you be all powerful? If you say god chooses to limit himself to a specific job, which god decided to dispense the other duties onto other gods?, and if one is in position to dispense surely that makes him more powerful than the one who is dispensed to. Deucalion 1
Muloghonto Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 50 minutes ago, panther said: If you have to share your power how can you be all powerful? If you say god chooses to limit himself to a specific job, which god decided to dispense the other duties onto other gods?, and if one is in position to dispense surely that makes him more powerful than the one who is dispensed to. Because sharing power doesnt mean i don't have access to that power. If you are my wife, i give you the job to manage money expenses for the house. I am sharing power with you. But it doesnt mean i can't also manage money expenses myself, i.e., access the power. So God can be all powerful and still share power. Maybe no God decided to dispense the duties on to other Gods. Maybe all the Gods picked their favorite jobs. Or maybe they all made a list of jobs that need to be done and draw straws to see who gets what. You still haven't explained why 'there can be only 1 all powerful!' velu 1
Vilander Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 3:10 PM, panther said: In our tradition it is said Allah allows his slaves to sin just so that they will turn in repentance to him, Allah loves those who repent. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk so why is there Honor and shame in Islam ? There should just be sin and redemption. 4 minutes ago, Deucalion said: munnay, are you trying to talk to me ? run along.
Deucalion Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 10 hours ago, Vilander said: run along. Ponka Adi_91 and Finer 1 1
Vilander Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Deucalion said: Ponka what ever that means keyboard, insults wont work with me. run along and hide keyboardwarrior behind your new name. Adi_91 1
Deucalion Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Vilander said: what ever that means keyboard, insults wont work with me. munnay, why gt hyper thn ? Edited October 10, 2016 by Deucalion Adi_91, Vilander and Finer 1 2
Vilander Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, Deucalion said: munnay, why gt hyper thn ? right where you must be. run along.
panther Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 21 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Because sharing power doesnt mean i don't have access to that power. If you are my wife, i give you the job to manage money expenses for the house. I am sharing power with you. But it doesnt mean i can't also manage money expenses myself, i.e., access the power. So God can be all powerful and still share power. Maybe no God decided to dispense the duties on to other Gods. Maybe all the Gods picked their favorite jobs. Or maybe they all made a list of jobs that need to be done and draw straws to see who gets what. You still haven't explained why 'there can be only 1 all powerful!' By definition God is all powerful, all knowing, and can do whatever he wills and does whatever he wills. How does many gods work?, say one is in charge of mercy and another wrath, do they take turns in dispensing mercy and punishment?. The reason why there can be only one All powerful is because if there were 2 all powerful, and they disagreed with each other how would the universe function, remember they both have the same power, in order for anything to happen one has to be able to enforce his will on the other, and that is impossible when both are all powerful. And if you say they both agree with each other in all decisions, than that would also mean that one can not do anything without agreement from the other so in that sense God has to compromise his power and thus is no longer all powerful, and therefore not God. Deucalion and Finer 2
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, panther said: By definition God is all powerful, all knowing, and can do whatever he wills and does whatever he wills. How does many gods work?, say one is in charge of mercy and another wrath, do they take turns in dispensing mercy and punishment?. The reason why there can be only one All powerful is because if there were 2 all powerful, and they disagreed with each other how would the universe function, remember they both have the same power, in order for anything to happen one has to be able to enforce his will on the other, and that is impossible when both are all powerful. And if you say they both agree with each other in all decisions, than that would also mean that one can not do anything without agreement from the other so in that sense God has to compromise his power and thus is no longer all powerful, and therefore not God. If by definition, God is all powerful, all knowing and can do whatever he wills and does whatever he wills, then you need to explore the possibility of what happens if God decides to clone itself. Since God is all powerful and do anything it wishes, he can clone himself and create the clone with identical powers and ability as himself. If he cannot do this, then he isn't God, because then he isn't all powerful. If God is all-powerful and can clone himself, then he *HAS* to share power with his all-powerful cloned self. The 'what happens if they disagreed with each other on how the universe would function' is a flawed argument because: a) Even if they disagreed, it wouldn't mean God and God's clone wouldn't exist, it'd mean there is a disagreement and a deadlock, because two equally all-powerful differing entities cannot counter each other. b) Since God is all-knowing, if he cloned himself, his clone too would be all knowing. If two beings are all-knowing, then they know every permutation, combination, consequences, action, reaction, etc. theoretically possible. Therefore, they would HAVE to converge on the same idea because of all ideas and all possible scenarios, there would be one optimal one. Since they are all-powerful beings, it mean they don't want anything and have no desire- because to desire would mean they don't have something and all-powerful being means it has everything conceivable, thus it cannot want anything more. If they don't want something, then their plans also converge, as when you take 'desire' out of the equation, you are only left with 'optimal & logical' scenarios. Lastly, two all-powerful beings doesnt mean one being's power is no longer all-powerful. It means if they directly clash, they completely neutralize/equalize each other, as they are both representing infinity. If two infinities are pitted against each other, it doesnt mean either of them ceases to be infinite. For e.g., infinite negative numbers vs infinite positive numbers. They both exist. Existence of one doesnt negate the existence of another. Existence of one doesnt make the other non-infinite. And when pitted versus each other, they completely neutralize each other. But as i said, if there are multiple all powerful & all knowing beings, then there is no logical reason to conclude they'd EVER disagree.
panther Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If by definition, God is all powerful, all knowing and can do whatever he wills and does whatever he wills, then you need to explore the possibility of what happens if God decides to clone itself. Since God is all powerful and do anything it wishes, he can clone himself and create the clone with identical powers and ability as himself. If he cannot do this, then he isn't God, because then he isn't all powerful. If God is all-powerful and can clone himself, then he *HAS* to share power with his all-powerful cloned self. The 'what happens if they disagreed with each other on how the universe would function' is a flawed argument because: a) Even if they disagreed, it wouldn't mean God and God's clone wouldn't exist, it'd mean there is a disagreement and a deadlock, because two equally all-powerful differing entities cannot counter each other. b) Since God is all-knowing, if he cloned himself, his clone too would be all knowing. If two beings are all-knowing, then they know every permutation, combination, consequences, action, reaction, etc. theoretically possible. Therefore, they would HAVE to converge on the same idea because of all ideas and all possible scenarios, there would be one optimal one. Since they are all-powerful beings, it mean they don't want anything and have no desire- because to desire would mean they don't have something and all-powerful being means it has everything conceivable, thus it cannot want anything more. If they don't want something, then their plans also converge, as when you take 'desire' out of the equation, you are only left with 'optimal & logical' scenarios. Lastly, two all-powerful beings doesnt mean one being's power is no longer all-powerful. It means if they directly clash, they completely neutralize/equalize each other, as they are both representing infinity. If two infinities are pitted against each other, it doesnt mean either of them ceases to be infinite. For e.g., infinite negative numbers vs infinite positive numbers. They both exist. Existence of one doesnt negate the existence of another. Existence of one doesnt make the other non-infinite. And when pitted versus each other, they completely neutralize each other. But as i said, if there are multiple all powerful & all knowing beings, then there is no logical reason to conclude they'd EVER disagree. I knew your reply would be this, anyway this has already been dealt with by scholars, similar question which basically answer your question anyway. Is Can god create a stone that he himself can not lift? As you said if God cloned himself than he would create another one of himself, the mere fact that the 2nd one is cloned already proves that he can not be god, because God is free of needs, whilst your 'cloned god' needed to be cloned in order to exist. What you are arguing for is that Omnipotence or being all powerful is a created attribute i.e. God can create it and give it to another 'clone', this is impossible because God by necessity must be omnipotent. Having everything does not stop The all powerful god from doing what he wills,, if God wanted me to die now, and his clone did not i would never die until they came to an agreement, if you say they must always come to an agreement than you limit their power, and a limited god can not exist. you say they must converge, I say they must be able to do whatever they will in order to be all powerful. both can not be true because convergence puts a limit on them whilst I put no limit on them. Deucalion 1
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, panther said: I knew your reply would be this, anyway this has already been dealt with by scholars, similar question which basically answer your question anyway. Is Can god create a stone that he himself can not lift? As you said if God cloned himself than he would create another one of himself, the mere fact that the 2nd one is cloned already proves that he can not be god, because God is free of needs, whilst your 'cloned god' needed to be cloned in order to exist. What you are arguing for is that Omnipotence or being all powerful is a created attribute i.e. God can create it and give it to another 'clone', this is impossible because God by necessity must be omnipotent. Having everything does not stop The all powerful god from doing what he wills,, if God wanted me to die now, and his clone did not i would never die until they came to an agreement, if you say they must always come to an agreement than you limit their power, and a limited god can not exist. you say they must converge, I say they must be able to do whatever they will in order to be all powerful. both can not be true because convergence puts a limit on them whilst I put no limit on them. If he is a direct clone of God, it means he has the all-knowing, all-powerful attributes of God as well. That he was created, doesn't negate the fact that he too is all knowing & all powerful. Therefore, all-knowing and all-powerful can be created, because God can create a clone of himself. Your argument " What you are arguing for is that Omnipotence or being all powerful is a created attribute i.e. God can create it and give it to another 'clone', this is impossible because God by necessity must be omnipotent. " is flawed, because: It cannot be impossible for God to create another omnipotent being, because then it means something God cannot do and therefore, God isn't omnipotent to begin with. Convergence doesnt put any limit on them, it simply means that the two entities will always agree with each other. If two entities are all-knowig and all powerful, there is no reason why they wouldn't agree with each other on everything. It is not a limiting factor, because then it means for God to be omnipotent, God cannot agree with another being's view on anything. If convergence is a limit, then God's idea and Mohammed's ideas cannot converge, because then God is putting limit on himself. Therefore, Islam cannot be God's idea and no religion can be God's idea, because that would signify convergence with God's idea. Thus, 'convergence = limit' is a flawed idea. Edited October 10, 2016 by Muloghonto
panther Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If he is a direct clone of God, it means he has the all-knowing, all-powerful attributes of God as well. That he was created, doesn't negate the fact that he too is all knowing & all powerful. Your argument " What you are arguing for is that Omnipotence or being all powerful is a created attribute i.e. God can create it and give it to another 'clone', this is impossible because God by necessity must be omnipotent. " is flawed, because: It cannot be impossible for God to create another omnipotent being, because then it means something God cannot do and therefore, God isn't omnipotent to begin with. Convergence doesnt put any limit on them, it simply means that the two entities will always agree with each other. If two entities are all-knowig and all powerful, there is no reason why they wouldn't agree with each other on everything. It is not a limiting factor, because then it means for God to be omnipotent, God cannot agree with another being's view on anything. If convergence is a limit, then God's idea and Mohammed's ideas cannot converge, because then God is putting limit on himself. Therefore, Islam cannot be God's idea and no religion can be God's idea, because that would signify convergence with God's idea. Thus, 'convergence = limit' is a flawed idea. Can god go from being all powerful, to non powerful? your argument is similar to this, you are arguing for an impossibility. Deucalion 1
Recommended Posts