The reliability of an experienceable god

If God exists, he is, by definition, an all-powerful being, as is widely understood. But can we trust a God who presents himself to us? A complete understanding of God is completely impossible for human understanding. Even if God stands before us and demonstrates some of his power, we cannot trust or simply believe blindly, because it is possible to imitate God. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps there is a distinction between a real god and gods who imitate his behavior very well. Perhaps every god who can be understood and "felt" is precisely the false god, while the real god would be the one who is completely unintelligible, inaccessible to human understanding, where accessing him with the intellect is simply unthinkable.

Only according to a narrow definition in some religions. You're building off preconceptions shaped by your cultural exposure causing bias. There is no reason to think this is the case.

>>82586 >But can we trust a God who presents himself to us? God will obviously never show Himself or a obvious sign (like angels) to everyone because that'll end the point of why we're created here. This doesn't mean that God has left you alone and lost, He brought Messengers that you NEED because (if you're a deist) you'll never know what is absolutely right or wrong, and what will happen to you when you die. But there are many religions, some got corrupt, and maybe others stayed pure. When a religion NEVER contradicts itself, basic moral conduct or science, and has signs about the future in the short/long term that were either ALL true or not yet happened, then this religion is more likely to be true. Take a look at this book lain. This will blow your mind lol.

>>82588 My problem is similar to an epistemological question. No evidence is sufficient for the verification of a true god, and the limitation of verification is also related to human understanding, which is limited to fully understand a god and thus confirm it as the true god.

>>82587 Yeah, I realise that. I just wanted to bring up an idea that I've found interesting to think about recently.

>>82586 You would do well to study the works of William Blake, Ray Peat, Engels, Marx, Hegel, Aristotle. Dialectical Materialism. The true method of knowledge is experiment. In other words, what you are really pointing out is the infeasibility of idealist thinking as opposing to materialist thinking. https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/william-blake.shtml https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ExkJhk7lA

>>82586 It's tricky, isn't it? On one hand, I see no rational reason to accept the existence of an unlimited deity on the basis of limited evidences. On the other hand, a sufficiently powerful entity would have the ability to make us trust in its lack of limitations in every way that mattered to us. And yet, intriguingly, in the course of everyday life we seem to see no clear evidence of even a very powerful but limited entity that wishes to be known. The veil of divine hiddenness is a strange phenomenon that anyone who would posit the existence of a divinity must have a way of accounting for. In my own life, I usually bump up against the question of why hiddenness should be the norm, so then I try to accept the more straightforward explanation of nonexistence, but its implications have no sex appeal and so I have to return to the hiddenness question again and so on, ever waffling. A little more to your actual point, you may be interested to know that Benjamin Franklin addressed "Powerful Goodness" in his prayers, taking it as a given, apparently, that the only important features of a deific being are significant influence and a particular moral character. Such an entity need not be all-powerful in order to make a difference on the practical scale. But as for what we could ever truly "know" about such an entity...well, I think your question is well-founded, anyway, and I have no particular means of discerning the answer.

In the Christian worldview creation is God's proof. If you expect him to "give you a sign" you'd be disappointed. >What I'm trying to say is that perhaps there is a distinction between a real god and gods who imitate his behavior very well. You just discovered Gnosticism and the Demiurge - the false god of this world born from some fallen angel that fuarrrked herself.

>>82588 >Doesn't know This is fascinating. I'm always into understanding animal (including humans) behavior and why they act certain ways. The purpose and authenticity of any religion is obvious to anyone with a triple digit IQ but I'm always happy when I run into someone like you. Could you elaborate more on your beliefs? Messengers, not contradicting itself etc... I wish I could do experiments on brains of people like you, it is really interesting how brain can believe in obviously dumb soykaf to survive and fit in a tribe in order to be happy. I've always wondered what the difference is between people who don't need that stuff in order to function and people like you.

>>82586 What is your definition of this 'God'?

>>82665 When I mentioned "God", I was thinking of God as he is normally understood: an infinite, eternal, supernatural being, the creator of absolutely everything. A God who only appears to follow these criteria, as >>82641 pointed out, would not be enough, even though, in principle, they would be indistinguishable entities for us.

>>82656 But the point is that no sign would be enough for me to believe in any entity that calls itself "God". Not even dying and going to a destination promised by some religion would be enough. As long as my tool for analysis is human reason, I can't come to any conclusions.

>>82641 This question of "divine hiddenness" is very interesting. I think that this is usually overcome with anecdotal experiences, where, although it's not possible to have proof of God, "feeling" him is enough for many people. But apparently, proving this god that is felt to be the real one is a big obstacle, in my view.

>>82586 The fear of being manipulated by a false god or an evil spirit is common in many religious traditions. The critique of idolatry assumes humans are susceptible to taking false gods or worshiping spirits, daemons or angels in place of God. In the Christian tradition, this has always been an argument for revelation i.e. we can only know God through Christ. People being naively mislead by their own personal failures or selfish behavior into following false gods or idols is theme in the Jewish Bible too. In the Islamic tradition, which unlike Christianity assumes humans can directly experience God in the here and now, there's an emphasis on relying on a master to teach you the ropes and not relying on your own instincts and reason which are unreliable. Even in Buddhism and Hinduism you have this idea evil spirits can play tricks on you. All these stories underline the point that humans are flawed creatures. We're imperfect, we have faults, we're easily deceived, and all we can really do is have humility and reconcile ourselves with imperfection. I think that's one of the beautiful things about religion compared to secular society where everyone is expected to be perfect. >I see no rational reason to accept the existence of an unlimited deity on the basis of limited evidences. I see there are many reasonable and logically coherent arguments for the existence of God and many different definitions of a God to the point that one man's atheism is another's theism e.g. Deleuze's atheism is based on the theism of Scotus and Spinoza. Yet, there are no solid arguments or proofs for why a God cannot exist. So a God of some kind is at least possible while the confirmed non-existence of a God of some kind feels a lot less certain. I don't feel we can rule out revelation either. Philosophy, mysticism, and the occult shouldn't be held to the same standards as a hard science, except those people who see God as a prime mover or intelligent design theorists because they claim God is some kind of physical entity that exists within the material universe. Those theologies have been debunked by modern physics. Deism doesn't feel very convincing either.

>>82641 >I see no rational reason to accept the existence of an unlimited deity das y iz called a leep uv faith >>82664 lol

I've always had issues with Abhrahamism, and so far it has only been faith based explanations that serve to explain some of the inconsistencies I've seen. When I was religious they still didn't eliminate my concerns. Putting all of the actual contradictions in the Bible aside, condemning people to hellfire never seemed totally rational to me. Being a product of God in the Bible entails every element of you being created by God, your soul, your personality, your genetics. Your personality can only be meaningfully defined by the actions you take in the world, analyzing those actions one can determine your personality. But your personality was created by God, and everything in your environment is created by God, and controlled by God. It becomes difficult to see how you can be held responsible for anything you do, when you're just doing what you've been programmed into doing, and influenced by the world into doing. It can be said then that God created you as a force beyond his power, but then he's not omnipotent, Abrahamism portrays God as being omnipotent, one would assume a true god to be omnipotent, all-powerful, above all other things and a creator of all. Maybe God is unconscious and is doing stuff without his own knowledge, but the God of Abhrahamism is portrayed as being conscious. Maybe he just chooses to not control some things, this is incoherent, what is he not controlling? One justification in the Bible is that you are just a product of Satan, this still seems wrong to me, because if you're a product of Satan, how can the fault of your evil lie with you? Maybe he just chooses to not observe the future, though one would think that with his infinite wisdom he could deduce upon creating someone what kind of person they'll turn out to be. He has to know the future to some extent. There are individual cases in the Bible where he has seen the future, and there is also the fact that he at least vaguely knows how everything will end with the apocalypse, he knows of the events that will transpire, but perhaps he does not know who individually will take part, so this could seemingly leave room for influence outside of his dominion. In the case of Christianity we can infer that God knows the entirety of the future due to the Book of Life, it is a book that was written either before or at the beginning of the earth determining who will be in heaven. This nullifies the notion of free will. There are unending rationalizations, some fairly solid, others not so much. I think they can be disregarded, even if God doesn't know what his creation will do (which cannot be so) doesn't mean he harbors no responsibility for its actions. He's programmed every aspect of that creation, and controls the environment that shapes the creation. This just leads into a free will debate, any debate can be completely nullified by simply acknowledging that God gets to choose who goes to hell, which some people do, and that's fine for them. I don't think Abrahamism allows for free will, and to me that makes the religions seem wrong. Of course we can also question whether or not hell was a fabrication, it very well may have been, but the non-existence of hell won't turn me back, think I've harped on enough.

Kierkegaard talks about this doubt of God and how believing his existence is beyond our comprehension and how we can't prove it. He calls this a leap of faith and states that this very doubt would strengthen and reinforce ones faith. I'm obviously being a bit reductive and can't explain it as well as he did but I recommend you and anyone really to read his works. Particularly Concluding Unscientific Postscript which is where he talks about this leap of faith.

>>82687 I understand that in the end it all comes down to a leap of faith. But the possibility that the god I believe in is false is incredibly terrifying, more terrifying than the possibility that he doesn't exist.

why was my post removed ? seriously i made very good points, this is unfair!

>>82708 suspecting too few points and not very good. that world is subject to certain administration of things and to certain rules and dependencies is apparent. that our knowledge is limited is also apparent. that we do not tolerate lack of knowledge is our nature. as such in the lack of understanding, we are by nature forced to substitute gaps by arbitrary mental constructs. god is such a construct. it is not an omnipotent power, but rather our own way to explain aspects of universe we cannot comprehend. thus god is a creation of mind and a useful one. all religious discussion is thus equivalent to political discourse and is consequently equivalent to low iq. that god is dna is a wils schizo claim and needs argumentation to not be deleted. you don't usually provide an argument

>wils wild* sorry i am phone posting please don't call me nigger 'cause i'm not!

>>82711 >f a-gg o t f a-gg o t i-i hope you enjoying watching me cry you little cruel thing!!!!!!!

>>82682 >>82623 You should look into William Blake. In a world that is constantly discovering itself, forgiveness is the proper response.

>>82586 I have solipsism since maybe when i was 3 years old, i'm on theraphy but i know that i will have this feel for the rest of my life i just want to feel more normal? I believe if i'm not god i'm just in the matrix and everything is fake but is everything is real i'm special but i don't know why or how I don't believe in any religion anyway

>>82667 Alright. Still, I don't really understand this thread. Do you want to know if you can 'believe what you see' when the Supreme presents itself to you?

>>82714 why the fuarrrk are you on therapy whats the point of it does it actually seem to help you ? >>82712 lol that post actually had some real comments too not just the sillyness gawsh

>>82731 That's it. But I think that what needed to be discussed on the subject has already been done in the thread. It was just a reflection that I thought would be interesting to share here.

>>82741 What did you discover?

If God is all-powerful then presumably he is, or has the capacity through unlimited power to become all-knowing. As such, he knows or can know all, including how to present his presence in a way to humanity that would stand as irrefutable proof. If he could not do something as simple as appeal to the sensibilites of lower beings, could he not then be an all-knowing God? That said, why he would not do this would also be in the domain of an all-knowing entity. It is not our place or responsibility to be aware of these things, though it is in man's curious nature to try all the same.

>>82893 This doesn't seem right, because the only way for god to make us understand that he is true would be to understand his infinitude, but it's impossible to understand god's infinitude if you're finite, so god can't make us understand him. We can't verify him as true.

>>82930 I'm not sure if understanding infinitude would necessarily be the only way to verify God's truth. Doing the verifiably impossible would be one relatively quick way to go about it, like the whole "water into wine" thing. Nothing short of divine intervention explains that. But all the same, maybe it is true that understanding infinitude is necessary, and an all-powerful God may be able to provide that understanding in his infinitude, but it might also be best to not do that for reasons those of finite mind can't hope to explain or comprehend. I don't think it's possible to prove one way or another if this can or can't happen, there's just the truth that it has yet to happen. Doesn't definitively mean it can't, won't, or even should.

>>82586 personally I'm very skeptical of any spiritual experience that involves sensible things like visions/voices. that said, it was considered normal for a large part of human history, even in the early Church. it was taken for granted that there were prophets who would have these sort of experiences and that even people who didn't prophecy would have them sometimes. I've also met several Pentecostals who've had experiences with seeing/hearing things and speaking in tongues, and while I can't speak to the authenticity of their experiences, I do know that they're not lying. it's not inconceivable that what they experienced really did come from God. I think God does different things for different people in accordance with their individual needs and potential. there may just be some people for whom visible signs are appropriate, while for others it's better that God remains silent.

>>82586 My God(dess) is female

>>82586 >If God exists, he is, by definition, an all-powerful being, as is widely understood Power is potential, not actual. While you're dreaming you have a real body that's asleep, but even in the dream, you aren't all powerful. Power is potential, not inherent.

God is simply existence itself. God is pure existence. Since existence encompasses everything and there is nothing outside it (except nothingness), how can a powerful fake god possibly imitate this? Lets say a fake god appeared and showed off some power, it still is nevertheless something that possesses existence and therefore not God in its totality. Its fair to say that since this fake god has existence, it is within God to some extent but this is true of all things that exist including us. The real problem is schizo induced miscommunication where a guy thinks he's talking to God (the sentient voice of all existence) when in fact he's probably just having delusions, being manipulated by Eiri Masami types, or talking to some demon.

>>83660 I agree with that. What bothers me is how "experience with God" is usually used as a way of believing in God. What appears is that, in fact, even if they say that believing in god is a "pure leap of faith", everyone tries to stick to some evidence that can confirm his existence. In this way, believing in god never seems like a divine manifestation, but rather a manifestation of human desires.

>>82586 ITT: Lainon stumbles across Gnosticism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ockwMVE7PgM&pp=ygUKZ25vc3RpY2lzbQ%3D%3D

You know, we really should collectively have this down by now. Egregores are not God, or gods. God is the thing-in-itself, the collection of agents, the observer and the observed, the totality of noumena and phenomena, the continuum of shiny eyeballs reflecting and refracting, willing and observing, the everything throughout every phase and level of existence. Anything else is delusion.

yeah, lainy, > supposing an omnicient being that is You, stop looking outwards for Him God is not any object, it is the nondual state that you can achieve Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, > Fools deride Me when I descend in my human form we all have the potential for all the mystic powers, all paranormal phenomena, to make light shoot from your hands, to display a golden halo, mind-reading, telekinesis, know past-present-future, and many more, simply because we as humans are equipped with the hardware to do so what you're touching on > one who is completely unintelligible, inaccessible to human understanding, where accessing him with the intellect is simply unthinkable that's like the line of questioning by the vedic sages who wrote the upanishads, you're describing brahman from the perspective of atman what's missing though is, that 'unknowable' state 'must be realized'. atman and brahman Are One. when there is no difference between subject and object, That State is as available to you as your own nose.

almost all cultures and religions see god in a similar light. only when now mainstream christianity came along was this concept percieved. all religions and culutres seem to try to explain the same thing, same powers and same occurences with different names. greek mythology had gods for patterns in the universe, the gnostics had the archons for "sins" and so on. the "one" god, unified and understood (literally) in the bible is neither good nor evil. a god is understood as a creator, who has great power over his creations. humans can be a mimic of good but they can be both "good" and "bad". god IS the good and bad rather than a "being" subject to morality. there can't be good without bad. nor bad without good. you can't "trust" an all-powerful being, because it is just an all-powerful being. you can't trust god, because god is both trust and mistrust, it would be above subjectivity. jesus is a representation of good, the devil is a representation of... well. there are powers that reign over the universe. gravity, entropy, as above so below, the very existence of good and evil. you can explain them through religion or science, call them gods or phenomena. but the concept of god is the unification of all of these. this is neither informed nor organized enough to claim that this is a completely valid response, just a point. humans can mimic god in creation of patterns and artificial realities. would you trust a human with your reality? do you think you would know?

>>83700 > god IS the good and bad rather than a "being" subject to morality. All gods have certain views and pushed them on others whether it is other gods or people, so they do have a sense of morality just not always one that aligns with what most humans see as moral.

God can be understood, but only through revelation and can only be understood in what He Himself has chosen to share.

>>82682 Consider reading the Quran

>>82588 The rules of this universe seem objective, with that there are strategies that are objectively better than others at achieving a desired goal. Goals can also be objective. That's where a morality without scripture can derive. Look into game theory. >>82663 >le ebic fedora tipper The answer is simple stochastics. We are not rational beings (surprise) and so aren't you. Not really that is. Thinking eats resources. In a survivalist environment it's therefore critical you operate on a framework. Preferably one that co-evolved and distills truisms where they count so that even if the rational gets lost to time that it is still useful for day to day life. Now the mistake that the new atheists made was to throw out the baby with the bathing water and replaced it with nothing of value. To the point that Richard Dawkins now decries not living in a culturally christian society any more. Progressivism is a weak and fragile set of artificial ideas that will falter to even the most stone age of religions like Islam is. That or some sort of Deus Vult resurgence. But my point in short is that it really isn't as trivial as you imply to come up with such dumb ideas that are just sufficiently cohesive in practice, considering that christian culture lasted for a couple millennia while the modern progressive feminist society will by the looks of it likely not even last one century. As for OP, you are completely correct. We would not have any way of telling whether a superior being who presented itself to us is the true and only god, a fallen arch angel, a member of a Kardashev type 3 civilization (let alone anything beyond) or just 4 dimensional Bob running his own Earth server in his basement. We simply would have no way of telling. And the only thing we can deduce is that creation exists and that there must be something facilitating creation at the utmost fundamental and self referential level of all of existence. And that the ultimate prime creative force must be the barrier between existence and non-existence. This may be considered god (not a god, THE god) but it will most likely not directly correspond with any religious scripture. Not 1 to 1 beyond a few ideas like omnipotence (for obvious reasons), omnipresence since it permeates all matter and possibly more and omniscience since in a way we're tiny fragments of the universe perceiving itself through us. With that in mind it's unlikely that the real god will present itself to us, or can't or already does (philosophical question here) and anything that is embodied can likely be immediately disqualified as such even if it might be for your best interest to at least play along and muse them as the threat of extermination would still be real. As for the matter of death my personal thoughts are that hell is real and it is here, you never really cease to exist, might just not be in a way that is currently useful to you and even if death leads to nonexistence then it's still up to you to continue life through offspring, just like old and dead cells are replaced with new and healthy ones. >>82682 Sounds like that guy's just a server admin at best and this realm is a localized tragedy/comedy. >>82714 Even in the matrix things are real. You die in the game you die irl. >>82893 But why would he/she/it do that? Why would they bother? A scientific researcher doesn't jump into one of his vats, does he? >>83660 Holy crap did I write this? We truly are all connected, aren't we? >>83700 Since the concept of god being so universal to the human species do you believe it might be some sort of genetically deeply ingrained manifest destiny?

>>83681 >Egregores are not God, or gods How Egregores are formed wanna know? From copies of our Holy Scriptures. They are copies manifesting will of the notes in them. Of course they don't have power of God Himself, but they do manifest behaviors from those notes and inspire people to do their bidding from them and for those "copied" personalities, including humans born with "god behavior" manifesting EGO similar to the one of God or characters of the scriptures, like from a set script.

>>84149 >anything that is embodied can likely be immediately disqualified Tao can tao not constant tao

>>84154 >So such miracles, makes it impossible for it to come from someone other than God Why though? There's entire solar systems being swallowed and there's no entity that can manipulate a tiny rock (relative to cosmic scales) other than god? Like I've said, any type 3 civilization and beyond would most likely be capable of such feats. Hell, it doesn't even need to be that to merely produce an illusion. Making beings much more advanced and capable than us appear indistinguishable to us to a god. That's the whole point of OP's argument. >being a materialist necessarily means that you're an atheist who rejects morality, free will, consciousness, aesthetics and individuality (which clashes with the deeply ingrained human intuition on things like unjust murder which are objectively wrong and is inherently nihilistic) And while atheists are often cringey fedora tippers and moral relativism is bunk to a great degree (see game theory and evolutionary psychology) the inherent laws of the universe function without any man made scripture or faith. In fact we have no other choice but to abide by them if we wish to survive. And consciousness being a thing that we (hopefully) can observe to be present in us no matter what belief and deduct that the entities we interact with are other people with at least a similar capacity for such. And that it is consciousness which differentiates us from inanimate matter. For instance a rock can not wonder who we are or why we're here. But we can and through us the universe can ask itself that question. >and since the Universe began to exist Maybe it didn't. Maybe it was always there and always will be. >a God without a beginning created it Which makes god part of the universe. Or any utmost fundamental mechanism or mathematical rule which differentiates existence from non-existence would be self referential. We might therefore be talking of the same thing here. Furthermore, if we can consider that a god, a prime creative force or whatever it might not be certain that there is any consciousness contained with it, let alone having any need whatsoever to present themselves to us. There might not even be a need for it for us to survive. But it is consciousness which poses something special and that increasing it either brings us closer to god or it's "completing" god in some way but for that behaviors and strategies must be favored which one could describe as objectively moral. >Just because God knows what I and you will do doesn't mean we have no free will, you are free to punch yourself right now, but God knows you better than you know yourself or anyone else, so He knows what you'll do but He lets you do what you want anyway. I worry you have not understood the free will argument entirely. It's not about whether god is going to intervene or not but that either through the universe being deterministic or god knowing the exact action which will take place that through this it is destined that given the right conditions (which also were destined to occur) that you would for instance punch yourself. You would have no choice in that matter. Not really that is. And the only to change that trajectory is through attaining knowledge of what is destined but this is paradoxical since merely knowing what is destined changes what is destined (if that makes sense). >There's another Hadith that is a scientific fact: >As for the sperm of the man, it is a thick sperm from which are the bones and the nerves. As for the sperm of the woman, it is a thin sperm from which are the flesh and the blood I'm not sure that's how this works. Also I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see on those lunar images. But hey, at least you're not a flat earther.

>>84154 >So such miracles, makes it impossible for it to come from someone other than God, no demiurge or alien can do this either lmao. Why? I don't see a reason you've stated for that being the case. Other people witnessed things prophesied in Islam, therefore, the god of Islam is the true god? If the demiurge created earth, then he is the god of earth and all things in it, no? The case is similar for some alien civilization controlling earth long before we were sentient. >Just because God knows what I and you will do doesn't mean we have no free will, you are free to punch yourself right now, but God knows you better than you know yourself or anyone else, so He knows what you'll do but He lets you do what you want anyway. This statement can hold up on its own in a vacuum outside of the context of Islam. I would rather attack it within the context of Islam, which you seem to be promoting. There is no free will in Islam. Allah writes out the path people's lives will take in the Book of Destiny, which dictates whether they will be evil or good (and at what times they will act as such). Allah knows everything. Allah wills everything. Allah can see the future. Allah creates people knowing whether or not they are destined to go to heaven or hell. People then do not have free will, because their will is fettered by Allah. If Allah creates someone knowing that they will do evil things and go to hell, then Allah designed that person to go to hell. You can say that it was that person who chose to be evil, causing them to go to hell. But how could that be, when every fiber of their being, including their immaterial soul, was created by Allah? Their predisposition towards evil, the path their life took that lead them to be evil, their willingness to do evil, is all overridden by Allah. They have no more agency than a character written in a book by an author, in fact that is literally what they are, their whole life is predetermined. So to tie this to the statement you made. You do not have the free will to punch yourself in the face in Islam, Allah chose for you to punch yourself in the face before you even punched yourself. All of the factors that determined whether you would or would not were decided by Allah. >ALSO, being a materialist necessarily means that you're an atheist who rejects morality, free will, consciousness, aesthetics and individuality (which clashes with the deeply ingrained human intuition on things like unjust murder which are objectively wrong and is inherently nihilistic), You can still believe in morality as a materialist, but with different justifications. For religion, something is wrong (or right) because God said so, and maybe for some empirical reason in addition to that. For secularism, it is wrong for some empirical reason. Take pedophilia for example. It traumatizes children, and ruins their entire life, and the harm can typically only be overcome (but not undone) through years of self discovery and or therapy. There is empirical evidence for all of this, it is what caused me to make that statement. Most Abrahamists and non-religious people will share this view on pedophilia, with the one difference being that Abrahamists also believe it is wrong because the God of Abrahamism declared pedophilia to be evil. Perhaps the Abrahamists will even reason that God declared it to be evil because of how it harms children, since God usually does not provide a comprehensive reasoning behind his judgements when he speaks in religious texts. You speak of "unjust murder" as though it is objectively wrong, not realizing that your sense of objective morality is just a view of morality among many others. Do you know how many different people believe in an objective morality, with differing views composing their objective morality? Countless people. What is unjust murder but murder for the sake of whatever your own ideology deems to be unjust? For atheists, some killings that can be deemed justified in Abrahamism are unjust to them. Different atheists can have differing views on the morality of murder. Morality is subjective on the basis that there is not one view of morality, and the same is true for the perception of reality. People determine morality, it is not an objective thing. You say that things are deeply ingrained into humans as being wrong. This doesn't necessitate a god. From a materialistic perspective, human evolution would discourage things like the random killing of other humans, which the other lain mentioned. Yet still, one must buy into "game theory" as the basis for morality, but one can simply reject it in favor of their own. >rejects ... free will, consciousness Free will doesn't exist in Islam so this isn't an issue for materialists who don't believe in it. I don't see how consciousness cannot exist in materialism for any reason other than one I would construct, seeing as you never gave your own. >and since the Universe began to exist, it must have a cause for its beginning to existence, which necessarily means a God without a beginning created it, this also refutes pantheistic beliefs, since God is by definition eternal. Why must the universe have a cause? How do you know that the universe began to exist and it has not always existed? Can it not be possible that it instead always existed? In our current reality on earth, nothing comes out of nowhere, everything is caused by something, which was caused by something else, ad infinitum. Is this not more likely then on a cosmological scale? You say a god without a beginning started the universe, and that it is necessary, but why is that so? That statement doesn't offer a meaningful explanation for anything. Meaning must then be given to that theory by tying a religion on earth to that theoretical god, as in the case of Islam. But the added meaning then begins to fall apart as the Quran contradicts itself.

>>84161 Not sure what it is that my response didn't suffice with aside of the points I disagree with. >one must buy into "game theory" as the basis for morality, but one can simply reject it in favor of their own Some methods and behaviors are more optimal than others whether you "buy into it" or not. There's going to be a practical limit to whatever set of ideas and actions you are going to chose whether you agree with that or not. In a place where everyone's just stealing and murdering you will not likely get anything done while a co-evolved culture that keeps primal urges and impulsivity in check is often one where entire cathedrals were built. Especially after the middle ages having sorted out a great deal of criminals and troublemakers through execution. So it's not even an argument whether to subscribe to religious morality or be a Nietzschean uberman and follow your own rules but that there is more optimal sets of morals than others that you may ignore to your of peril and theologists simply codified those naturally emerging rules for the most part. That should be evident by seeing variations of the 10 commandments being present so consistently in one form or another in cultures that didn't even have contact between each other. >God of Abrahamism declared pedophilia to be evil Depends whom you ask. Both Maria and Aisha were fairly young. Way below what we accept as socially acceptable today. And the jewish Talmud appears to have some rules regarding the age of female goym that would make most people sick. After all, those are bronze age teachings which haven't changed much since and still carry the norms of those times. While someone sleeping around with their underage daughters wouldn't last long in most villages, religious teachings or not. Regarding free will in general, anyone who is interested in this topic certainly already heard the discussions, lectures and podcasts that it doesn't exist because everything is likely deterministic and already predestined. But at least from a secular perspective this discussion is a waste of time since we do not know our thread of fate in advance. And if we did, we would alter it to another outcome that's not certain to us by doing so. So in practical terms we might as well assume we have free will, at least to some degree. And with that also come all the responsibilities for everyone to act right and just. >everything is caused by something, which was caused by something else, ad infinitum Until it doesn't. Existence must contain the rules and laws for existence and therefore would be self contained and self referential because anything else outside of it is non-existence and this by definition does not exist. And it is those utmost fundamental principles and mechanisms which facilitate the rest of the universe beyond space and time which one could call THE god. There can not be anything outside of it. >>84152 In english? But tldr: anyone claiming to be THE god most likely isn't. Miracles or not.

>>84154 the problem of scattering inheritance among the relatives has mathematical errors according to the explanation given by qur'an. in fact to get around of this, sheria boosts up the paid sum or given sum with the state treasury. yet, it will hard for me to translate the explanation; thus you ought to look up for yourself.

>>82586 Your trouble may have something to do with the implicit simulacrum of what you wish to be confirmed as a divine experience. That powerful creature would need to limit itself to allow us to interact with it, yet you would never ever have the knowledge that this creature is the god you are looking for and not an impostor, a being whose power could be great but impossible to put under a trial to expose its limits. It would require a blind faith in what could be nothing more than a lie. This is truly why no legitimate god would ever bother appearing to us.

>>84164 yeah when you start dividing all those times you get floating point problems creeping in. >>84163 >Both Maria and Aisha were fairly young one thing I often think should be bourne in mind is that marriage does not require immediate consumation and can kinda just amount to serious betrothal / handing over the wife to the husband's household sort of deal. I dont know the specifics for aisha and the plebbit atheists I talk to all think he fugged her prepubescent guts out but idk.

This falls in line with many mystical kinds of texts that attempt to deconstruct god. An interesting concept I like is this jewish one of Ein Sof, the god before the god or the pre-emanation. All encompassing and endless but unknowable. Different interpretations of the concept follow different sorts of thinking around it outside of this. In order to create the world perhaps this god force in fact had to create space within itself in a non literal sense as if all is ein sof there is no space for creation. Ive heard sort of dialectical like stories where upon perceiving itself it came to know itself and what was known became the world; because ein sof is inherently unknowable and so what is "known", while it is birthed from it, is no longer it. There is non linear narratives where ein sof is still all and everything and ones where its more like the big bang ein sof is no longer relevant to us. Different stories or interpretations place the creation of the world a varying amount of steps removed from when things were purely ein sof. Regardless everything regarding this whole process of creation is largely considered to be divine in nature, many forces or aspects of god or the divine in totality still remain unknowable to us in life even if they arent the original unintelligible unknowable preemanation. My thinking around this or personal non canon interpretation of it all is that the original demiurge is something like a desire to be seen or known, maybe not literally but some kind of pure element of that dynamic. Butt it cant be known or perceived by nature, leading to this endless recursion of creation that echoes through all things from the generation of thoughts to reproduction to us wanting to know ourselves.

>>84841 There isn't evidence Muhammad even existed but the Quran and Hadiths are very clear on the narrative. Aisha bint Abi Bakr was the daughter of his friend and he picked her a 6 year old to marry over her teenaged sister, he later had consummated the married three years later when she was 9 and became his favorite wife. Most Muslims will gladly tell you this but some will outright lie or just are in denial from not actually being very religious and not really reading into anything. Basically they were only focused on not causing any physical harm from sex. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad%27s_Marriages https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Child_Marriage_in_the_Qur%27an

artificial eggs made from undifferentiated male stem cells and artificial wombs will be the answer.

>>84861 >prophet is fake Are we sure of that? You mean this as, there not being any trace of him outside of Islam's holy book? >haddiths These have been added at a later date and the Muslims follow a very stupid rule to decide what haddith to keep when there is a contradiction, literally quantity vs quality, they pick the one that's the most well known and found in most places. Could be called fake news, rumor, horsecrap consensus, you name it.

>>84861 some, actually many if you knew any, also say that the hadiths are not reliable and say all sorts of weird soykaf. e.g peeing standing up is a sin because someone saw muhammad squat to pee. exercise is a sin. etc. inbred algerians do interpret them literally though. you should read joshua little's research into the aisha 9 hadith claim, i went in critically but now i am unsure if she really was 9, she was probably older.

>>84867 There was a BBC documentary I cant recall the name of that basically suggested Muhammad didnt exist or is based on multiple people. I havent had time to look very deep into it. The purpose of the hadiths is because they are meant as accounts of Muhammad giving further insight into what he was like because part of Islam is about Sunnah which is being like him. Not only that but one of the pillars of Islam the Hajj pilgrimism to Mecca is only in a Hadith if i recall correctly so the notion of Islam being Quran only wouldn't really be accurate to how it is practiced. >>84868 Are you unironically thinking I don't know a single person from the world's largest religion? They usually just reject the Hadiths they don't like but most Muslims think some are correct and as I stated before you do need it to even practice Islam. Pure Quran only is called Quranism and it's a small minority of Muslims. Ive researched documentation of menstruation through history and if food is plentiful the average in past would be around 14 (but that's in Europe) but the lower end of the range would easily hit same ages we see in modern times and Ive seen multiple Muslims tell me the hot climate causes earlier menstruation so they say Aisha menstruated by 8 or 9. I only occasionally see someone try to claim she was like 19 and they every time fail to give a source.