☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 121445" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>Now, originally I was going to try to "write" this argument out. But it was essentially based on a conversation that followed after a remark I left on a facebook status <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />.</p><p></p><p>The status said: "We have just enough religion to make us hate; but not enough to make us love"</p><p></p><p>To which I replied: "If even alittle bit of religion is enough to make us hate, then alittle bit more isnt going to help <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />"</p><p></p><p>The following debate between me and a muslim colleague is the result of that facebook reply <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. And while i would try to "write out my argument" I was rather impressed by my friends "rebuttles" so I will simply copy/paste it and leave and attachment as well. It's a long read but I think you guys will enjoy it. And, as always, I'm looking forward to hearing some of your rebuttles. (lol, and yes, this debate happened over facebook so its <strong>easier to read if you download the attachment</strong>.) FYI this argument has nothing to do with islam, its strictly philosophy and logic. </p><p></p><p>Amanee: The person with the facebook status I originally replied too</p><p>Mustafa: Amanee's friend who saw my reply and chose to debate</p><p>Gurinder: Me</p><p></p><p> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/gurindersingh/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />ocumentProperties> <o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />ages>1</o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />ages> <o:Words>2879</o:Words> <o:Characters>16415</o:Characters> <o:Company>UBC</o:Company> <o:Lines>136</o:Lines> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />aragraphs>32</o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />aragraphs> <o:CharactersWithSpaces>20158</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />ocumentProperties> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />unctuationKerning/> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />rawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />rawingGridHorizontalSpacing> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />rawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />rawingGridVerticalSpacing> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />isplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />isplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />isplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />isplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />ontGrowAutofit/> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />ontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />ontVertAlignInTxbx/> </w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-ch{censored}t:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-ch{censored}t:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.textexposedshow {mso-style-name:text_exposed_show;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <strong>A Case for Agnostic-Atheism</strong></p><p> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Look who is talking!!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Amanee, I can name two people who are professional experts and fully certified in the industry of making Mustafa's blood boil. You are the first on the list, and the other is one of my guy friends. LOL</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Gurinder: you seem to have got some skills at driving her crazy. Keep it up bro. And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent manner so we can bring you to Islam</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Mustafa: I would gladly put my argument fourth <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> But is a facebook status the best outlet for my argument? Im not sure. Is there any other way I can post my argument? </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">you can post it on this thread?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Or, if you are interested, we can start a fan group bro. From experience, the discussion will grow preeeeettttyyyy big <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">The problem I have with starting a debate on this thread is the fact that im essentially hi-jacking amanee's status. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> Secondly, all three arguments would take up alot of room and require more room to respond to. Starting a fan group would be ok with me, has it been done before tho? </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">no no bro, the idea is to be short and concise. Don't give me paragraphs upon paragraphs. Just simple statements. Imagine it is TWITTER.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Twitter is a horrible format for debate <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. Having said that, I'll see what I can do. Condensing logic is pretty hard to do cuz every step is a result of the previous step and a part of the next step. Moreover, I'd like to present all three arguments at the same time as opposed to one by one. But, ill see what I can do, ill get back to you tomorrow after my midterm <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Perhaps I should take Amanee up on her offer and present the three arguments at a Islam Awareness Week? If you attend those events it would be so much easier to discuss in person I think. (I'm in no rush as you can see <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />). </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Yeah, twitter might be a bit unnatural, but it is a good idea to say exactly what we mean and only what we need to say bro.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">yeah dude, i was at the IAW, not everyday though.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">And i don't suggest you present all three arguments together, because that is not TWITTER at all. One at a time, u can even take half at a time.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">All right, in lieu of the three arguments I originally wanted to present (to provide proof for my position). I'll simply tell you why it is that I hold this position. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">But it's important that you understand my position first <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. I'm not religious (despite the appearance <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> its a facade). I'm not Atheiest (in the full sense of the word). And I'm not Agnostic. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">(There's a difference between the terms "Agnostic/Gnostic" and "Atheist/Theist" in that they are non comparable—the first two deal with assertions about knowledge [either I don't know or I know] and the second two deal with assertions about belief [either I don't believe or I believe] so one cannot classify "Agnosticism" as a Belief System like Theism or Atheism).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">I'm an Agnostic-Atheist. What that means is that I don't know if God exists in general (Agnostic) but I refute the possibility of an "Abrahamic God" (Atheism) while acknowledging the possibility of a "God" that holds drastically different properties (But in order to understand my view of God, I would have to explain it to you using the three arguments, we'll bypass that step for now). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">For some comparison between me and you. I'm assuming you are a Gnostic-Theist in that you can say "I know that Allah exists." If you are a Agnostic-Theist please feel free to correct me. My problem with Gnostic Atheism/Theism is that they both become dogmatic. They assert absolute truths about the nature of God when in reality you cannot be absolutely sure—you can only believe/assume you are sure. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">So that's my position first of all: Agnostic-Atheism. Now I'll talk about why I refute the possibility of an Abrahamic God. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">(BTW, you dont really have to respond to this post, this is not vital to my argument that I'm about to make in "Twitter Style." I only provided this as background <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> because I wouldn't wanna be labeled as simply an Atheist or Agnostic). </span></p><p> Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to. </p><p></p><p>I cannot believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. In my opinion, God (if he exists) cannot do the illogical. You might say "God is above logic" or "God created logic" but that would be euphemistic—your essentially saying "God is illogical." Simply put, anything that cannot be described logically is Illogical.</p><p></p><p>If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math and certain Scientific assertions can be considered "absolutely true"). And I</p><p>see no problem with that. However, such a God would be in direct violation of the characteristics that Islam attributes to God. </p><p></p><p>Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist. </p><p></p><p>Inorder to believe he did exist, one would have to admit that their belief is either illogical or God is constrained to logic—neither of which sits well with Islam.</p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />></span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Fantastic arguments. Definitely not Twitter style <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Anything else you want to say?</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Yuhhh I mean... if it was twitter style. All i could really say is. "You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5, I do not." But thats no fun <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> lol. Ummmm... nothing else to say <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> feel free to respond. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Alright. Thanks for giving me the floor. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">From what I have read from your two posts, you certainly don't know what YOU believe in. So allow me to dig a little deeper to define your belief system.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Do you believe in a higher entity that is of greater capabilities than us? Call that entity a God, or Supreme Power or Ultimate Source...</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">I believe that if there is a higher being. He is bound to the rules of logic, math and science. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Alright, so you still don't believe in a higher being? I see that because you said "if"?</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Well I explained that i'm an agnotic-atheist. Im open to the idea of God... just not the idea as represented in the bible, quran etc because I think that the Abarahamic God defies logic. I can certainly believe in a God that obeys the laws of logic, math and science. That did not create us directly. That does not sustain heaven or hell (my first argument would have dealt with this). That cannot do the illogical (my second argument has to do with this). And that hasnt given us a "moral system" that is absolutly true (my third argument would have dealt with this). But if my God has all those characteristics, then its as good as not having a God. I guess what im saying is, I can believe in God but not the God you believe in and the God i would believe in is ultimately pointless. If the God I can believe in is pointless, then its just as good as not believing in him.</span></p><p> Just as a side note <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> i think a pointless god would be a beutiful thing. But thats just a personal perspective <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Good answer.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">So, allow me to start here.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">You have said the you are open to the idea of a God that is bound by math, science and logic.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">My hold on this argument is that Math, Science and Logic can be unbounding factors in the first place. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">For example: who would have ever imagined that we have 11 dimensions in our universe? so far at least.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">When humanity started, did we really know 11 dimensions?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Allow me to note also that the theory started with 11 dimensions, then moved to 10 dimension, which became the fashion, resulting in 5 different equations. After a short while, these five equations were proven to combine in the 11th dimension.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Suppose we want to define God by Math, Science and Logic, OUR math, science and logic. Would God be expanding and shrinking? would God be changing every time we discover a new dimension or equation?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">To what extend can we define God by OUR math, science and logic?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Or wait, maybe OUR math, science and logic is only limited, and it is NOT all the math, science and logic that we are subjected to.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Another example:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">with quantum mechanics, we know that an electron particle can exist in two places at once. This discovery is what we have so far too. We didn't know this before, but now we have the proof such as the double-slit experiment.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">So, to what extend our math, science and logic can define God?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">The floor is yours.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">To reiterate, this is what I said earlier:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">"If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math AND CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS can be considered "absolutely true")."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">I do not think "all" scientific assertions are absolutely true. That's why I made a point of saying "some." I realize that you can use Quantum Mechanics to justify almost anything you want. Its been used to justify praying to bottles of water in order to make the water stronger (In the documentary: What the bleep do we know) and its been used to justify the existence of God. But quantum mechanics is a theory—and any theory is refutable (it is a necessary pre-req for a theory to have to be refutable). So for example, while I believe in the theory of evolution, I do not include "evolution" as a "scientific assertion" that is "absolutley true"—therefore, i do not use evolution to forward my disbelief in the abrahamic god. Similarily, I dont think any man of science would say Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity or String Theory are "absolutly true." When I said "some scientific assertions" What I had in mind were the "laws of physics" for example: The conservation of energy. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Now, if your going to define God as something similar to Quantum Mechanics. I have no problem with that because your acknowledging that God can be refutable. God is a theory. That position is "Agnostic-Theism" your acknowledging you could be wrong. And my problem is with Gnostic—Theism, the idea that you know your not wrong. And if you believe god is irrefutable then your comparing him to math, logic and SOME scientific assertions.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> If you notice how my discussion went, I used "OUR" to enable the fact that our Math, Science and Logic are incomplete. </p><p></p><p>My idea was to ask you: if our math, science and logic is incomplete, how can we define someone who is higher than us with incomplete standards?</p><p></p><p>If we were to do that, we are only assuming a changing being according to our knowledge. Note, that that more we know, the more we realize we don't know. </p><p></p><p>The result of this argument is that if we were to define a higher entity, a higher being, God, then we can't bind him by math, science and logic, because if we do, we are not reaching to the Ultimate Source, the Creator, even if that Creator (for now let's assume your belief) didn't create us directly.</p><p></p><p>Do you agree?</p><p> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">I should have dealt with this in my earlier post. I dont think there is a such thing as "OUR" logic, math and science. Simply put, "our" logic, math and science are as true here as they are across the universe (therefore, "our" logic, math and science are "universal" and "omnipresent" like god should be). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">If your saying God is "higher" or "above" our logic, I dealt with that position earlier. I said that saying "god is above logic" is like admitting "god is illogical." Saying god is "above" logic is a euphemism for saying God is illogical. Again, anything that isnt logical... is illogical... (thats a logical argument btw <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />) ... there is no third category of semi-logical. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">And like I said before. The only way u can continue to believe in god is if you believe God is illogical (or if u prefer, you can believe god is above logic, math and science; like i said, it means the same thing) or if God is bound by logic. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">You are giving me only one option of beliving in illogical god. How can you only define that as the "only" other option?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">For example: If you make a computer and program it, you are practically its designer. The computer is governed by the logic you designed it with. Are you bound by the computer's logic?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">If God designed us with a certain logic, he is the Creator of this logic, why do we bind him by that logic? Is it fair to do that?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">I know what your next argument will be, but I want to hear if you are convinced yet so far.</span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">"God created logic" is the same as saying "God is above logic" and like i said before, that too falls into the same euphemism for "God is illogical"</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">BTW, im giving you two options, not one. Admittedly, neither of which you probably like. But logically speaking, they are the only two conclusions you can draw. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">BTW, computers happen to be great at Logic and Math <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> better then us. But their logic and math is the same as ours, there just faster. I think your analogy supports me... not you? So I would say, both me and the computer are bound by the same logic. I did not "create" its logic. I gave it my logic. And I imagine that god would have gave us his logic if your metaphor was equivelent. </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Mustafa Abousaleh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Wait, what do you study?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">I am an electrical engineer and I work with computers all the time, program them, build them and destroy them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">If computers have the same logic as us, then they would have taken over the world.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Also, why do scientists and researchers continue to try to build the "human robot" if computers have our logic?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">I am picking on this point because it is important and that's what many people get stuck on.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">If we look at the point from two different perspectives:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">1. Computer perspective = human perspective: to the computer, the world is limited by how it operates and thinks. Everything it thinks of and creates is limited by the way the designer made it. For example, the computer will not come up with rules that are not previously programmed in it. To the computer, the designer himself is limited, because the computer can't go out of its ways and compute how the designer thinks. Statistically speaking, the logic of the computer is a subset of the designer's logic</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">2. Designer Perspective: to the designer, the computer is only one machine which he was able to facilitate its logical operations and give it enough to do a certain job. From the designers perspective, the machine's logic is limited. The designer is the higher entity, the source of this logic, but not all of the logic.</span></p><p> Makes sense?</p><p> <o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />> </o<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue">Gurinder Singh</span></a> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">I'm a Cognitive Systems major so this is also my area of expertise. I see the point your trying to make, but perhaps your missing out on the philosophical implications of the points I'm trying to make. So this time ill explain them in greater detail.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Your saying there are two areas. One area is filled with "computer logic" and the other area encompassing that area is filled with both "computer logic" and the "human logic" that we have yet to program in the computer (perhaps we'll never be able to program the computer in such a way so as to completely have human logic). Does this mean—human logic is above computer logic? No, and here's why.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." Lets call this area "godly logic" that is unknown to us and we may never know it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Now if a human deduces 4 from 2+2. There is no way that a God can contradict that human and deduce 5 from 2+2. BUT WAIT! That's exactly what the abrahamic god can do? </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">Therefore the Abrahamic god is still Illogical by contradiction. The only other possibility is that human's are illogical and that 5 is actually the sum of 2+2. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times'">One other point... while I was thinking of metaphors this came to my head. Incase your wondering if the phrase "God is above logic" is equivalent to the phrase "God is illogical." Lets change the subject... lets say... "President Bush acted as if he was above the law" I would say that phrase is indeed equivalent with the phrase "President bush acted unlawfully." Its odd how being "above the law" sounds bad but being "above logic" sounds good? Just something I noticed <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </span></p><p> <span style="font-family: 'Times'">Furthermore, the phrase "President bush is above the laws" implies that President bush created the laws (or atleast his own laws that contradict the laws for everyone else). </span></p><p> However, I will concede that at the very least you have shown that with your computer analogy, if God exists (and if he created us) then it is possible that our logic is incomplete. But even with incomplete logic—logic is still universal, and it is the same for us as it would be for him OR for a "future version of ourselves" that has access to that logic. For example, 2000 years ago we did not have access to the complicated math equations we have access to today. This doesnt mean that the math in question was "above us"—it was simply out of our reach. Even then, the future math was unable to contradict the math at the time: 2+2=4 regardless of whether the derivative of 4x=4 (a mathamatical truth that they did not have access too at the time). So with my above post, i sought to account for the hypothetical "lack of complete logic." And wat I showed was: you cannot contradict the "base" logic (known truths), even if you go higher up... from computer to human, or human to god. Contradicting the "base" logic (2+2=4) would be illogical. Consequently, if god's unknown logic happened to contain 2+2=5 then it wouldn't "complete" logic—it would entirely destroy logic. </p><p></p><p>With my relation to the President Bush anaologies, i sought to show you how your belief of god being "Above Logic" and god being the "Creator of logic" is consistant with my conclusion of God being "illogical." And quite frankly, your religion demands that position from you. As much as you dont wanna say "god is illogical" you have already said it (albeit, you said it by saying the other two forms but thas why i added the bush analogy—to show you that they are identicle ways of saying the same concept).</p><p></p><p>Anyways, I'm assuming you've gone to sleep or are studying for midterms like me <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. We'll pick up were we left off tomorrow?</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>END</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>He didnt leave any replies after that last message. Maybe you guy can pick up were he left off. </p><p></p><p> <!--EndFragment--></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 121445, member: 5962"] Now, originally I was going to try to "write" this argument out. But it was essentially based on a conversation that followed after a remark I left on a facebook status :P. The status said: "We have just enough religion to make us hate; but not enough to make us love" To which I replied: "If even alittle bit of religion is enough to make us hate, then alittle bit more isnt going to help :P" The following debate between me and a muslim colleague is the result of that facebook reply :P. And while i would try to "write out my argument" I was rather impressed by my friends "rebuttles" so I will simply copy/paste it and leave and attachment as well. It's a long read but I think you guys will enjoy it. And, as always, I'm looking forward to hearing some of your rebuttles. (lol, and yes, this debate happened over facebook so its [B]easier to read if you download the attachment[/B].) FYI this argument has nothing to do with islam, its strictly philosophy and logic. Amanee: The person with the facebook status I originally replied too Mustafa: Amanee's friend who saw my reply and chose to debate Gurinder: Me <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/gurindersingh/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages> <o:Words>2879</o:Words> <o:Characters>16415</o:Characters> <o:Company>UBC</o:Company> <o:Lines>136</o:Lines> <o:Paragraphs>32</o:Paragraphs> <o:CharactersWithSpaces>20158</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:Version>12.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing> <w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing> <w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> </w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-ch{censored}t:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-ch{censored}t:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.textexposedshow {mso-style-name:text_exposed_show;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> [B]A Case for Agnostic-Atheism[/B] <o:p> </o:p> [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Look who is talking!! Amanee, I can name two people who are professional experts and fully certified in the industry of making Mustafa's blood boil. You are the first on the list, and the other is one of my guy friends. LOL Gurinder: you seem to have got some skills at driving her crazy. Keep it up bro. And BTW, can you put your argument about atheism in a coherent manner so we can bring you to Islam[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Mustafa: I would gladly put my argument fourth :P But is a facebook status the best outlet for my argument? Im not sure. Is there any other way I can post my argument? [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]you can post it on this thread? Or, if you are interested, we can start a fan group bro. From experience, the discussion will grow preeeeettttyyyy big :)[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]The problem I have with starting a debate on this thread is the fact that im essentially hi-jacking amanee's status. :P Secondly, all three arguments would take up alot of room and require more room to respond to. Starting a fan group would be ok with me, has it been done before tho? [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]no no bro, the idea is to be short and concise. Don't give me paragraphs upon paragraphs. Just simple statements. Imagine it is TWITTER.[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Twitter is a horrible format for debate :P. Having said that, I'll see what I can do. Condensing logic is pretty hard to do cuz every step is a result of the previous step and a part of the next step. Moreover, I'd like to present all three arguments at the same time as opposed to one by one. But, ill see what I can do, ill get back to you tomorrow after my midterm :P [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Perhaps I should take Amanee up on her offer and present the three arguments at a Islam Awareness Week? If you attend those events it would be so much easier to discuss in person I think. (I'm in no rush as you can see :P). [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Yeah, twitter might be a bit unnatural, but it is a good idea to say exactly what we mean and only what we need to say bro. yeah dude, i was at the IAW, not everyday though. And i don't suggest you present all three arguments together, because that is not TWITTER at all. One at a time, u can even take half at a time.[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]All right, in lieu of the three arguments I originally wanted to present (to provide proof for my position). I'll simply tell you why it is that I hold this position. But it's important that you understand my position first :P. I'm not religious (despite the appearance :P its a facade). I'm not Atheiest (in the full sense of the word). And I'm not Agnostic. (There's a difference between the terms "Agnostic/Gnostic" and "Atheist/Theist" in that they are non comparable—the first two deal with assertions about knowledge [either I don't know or I know] and the second two deal with assertions about belief [either I don't believe or I believe] so one cannot classify "Agnosticism" as a Belief System like Theism or Atheism). I'm an Agnostic-Atheist. What that means is that I don't know if God exists in general (Agnostic) but I refute the possibility of an "Abrahamic God" (Atheism) while acknowledging the possibility of a "God" that holds drastically different properties (But in order to understand my view of God, I would have to explain it to you using the three arguments, we'll bypass that step for now). For some comparison between me and you. I'm assuming you are a Gnostic-Theist in that you can say "I know that Allah exists." If you are a Agnostic-Theist please feel free to correct me. My problem with Gnostic Atheism/Theism is that they both become dogmatic. They assert absolute truths about the nature of God when in reality you cannot be absolutely sure—you can only believe/assume you are sure. So that's my position first of all: Agnostic-Atheism. Now I'll talk about why I refute the possibility of an Abrahamic God. (BTW, you dont really have to respond to this post, this is not vital to my argument that I'm about to make in "Twitter Style." I only provided this as background :P because I wouldn't wanna be labeled as simply an Atheist or Agnostic). [/FONT] Islam, along with Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism, requires that you believe in a God that is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful)—essentially perfect in every way. With characteristics like that, I can only deduce that you (along with Christians, Jews and Sikhs) believe in a God that can make 2+2=5 if he wanted to. I cannot believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. In my opinion, God (if he exists) cannot do the illogical. You might say "God is above logic" or "God created logic" but that would be euphemistic—your essentially saying "God is illogical." Simply put, anything that cannot be described logically is Illogical. If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math and certain Scientific assertions can be considered "absolutely true"). And I see no problem with that. However, such a God would be in direct violation of the characteristics that Islam attributes to God. Therefore, I cannot believe God, as describes in the Qu'ran, Bible, Torrah or Guru Granth Sahib, can exist. Inorder to believe he did exist, one would have to admit that their belief is either illogical or God is constrained to logic—neither of which sits well with Islam. [FONT=Times]<o:p> </o:p>[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Fantastic arguments. Definitely not Twitter style ;) Anything else you want to say?[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Yuhhh I mean... if it was twitter style. All i could really say is. "You believe in a god that can make 2+2=5, I do not." But thats no fun :) lol. Ummmm... nothing else to say :P feel free to respond. [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Alright. Thanks for giving me the floor. From what I have read from your two posts, you certainly don't know what YOU believe in. So allow me to dig a little deeper to define your belief system. Do you believe in a higher entity that is of greater capabilities than us? Call that entity a God, or Supreme Power or Ultimate Source...[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]I believe that if there is a higher being. He is bound to the rules of logic, math and science. [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Alright, so you still don't believe in a higher being? I see that because you said "if"?[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Well I explained that i'm an agnotic-atheist. Im open to the idea of God... just not the idea as represented in the bible, quran etc because I think that the Abarahamic God defies logic. I can certainly believe in a God that obeys the laws of logic, math and science. That did not create us directly. That does not sustain heaven or hell (my first argument would have dealt with this). That cannot do the illogical (my second argument has to do with this). And that hasnt given us a "moral system" that is absolutly true (my third argument would have dealt with this). But if my God has all those characteristics, then its as good as not having a God. I guess what im saying is, I can believe in God but not the God you believe in and the God i would believe in is ultimately pointless. If the God I can believe in is pointless, then its just as good as not believing in him.[/FONT] Just as a side note :P i think a pointless god would be a beutiful thing. But thats just a personal perspective :P <o:p> </o:p> [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Good answer. So, allow me to start here. You have said the you are open to the idea of a God that is bound by math, science and logic. My hold on this argument is that Math, Science and Logic can be unbounding factors in the first place. For example: who would have ever imagined that we have 11 dimensions in our universe? so far at least. When humanity started, did we really know 11 dimensions? Allow me to note also that the theory started with 11 dimensions, then moved to 10 dimension, which became the fashion, resulting in 5 different equations. After a short while, these five equations were proven to combine in the 11th dimension. Suppose we want to define God by Math, Science and Logic, OUR math, science and logic. Would God be expanding and shrinking? would God be changing every time we discover a new dimension or equation? To what extend can we define God by OUR math, science and logic? Or wait, maybe OUR math, science and logic is only limited, and it is NOT all the math, science and logic that we are subjected to. Another example: with quantum mechanics, we know that an electron particle can exist in two places at once. This discovery is what we have so far too. We didn't know this before, but now we have the proof such as the double-slit experiment. So, to what extend our math, science and logic can define God? The floor is yours.[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]To reiterate, this is what I said earlier: "If you believe in a God that cannot make 2+2=5. Then you believe in a God that is bound to the rules of Logic (which along with Math AND CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS can be considered "absolutely true")." I do not think "all" scientific assertions are absolutely true. That's why I made a point of saying "some." I realize that you can use Quantum Mechanics to justify almost anything you want. Its been used to justify praying to bottles of water in order to make the water stronger (In the documentary: What the bleep do we know) and its been used to justify the existence of God. But quantum mechanics is a theory—and any theory is refutable (it is a necessary pre-req for a theory to have to be refutable). So for example, while I believe in the theory of evolution, I do not include "evolution" as a "scientific assertion" that is "absolutley true"—therefore, i do not use evolution to forward my disbelief in the abrahamic god. Similarily, I dont think any man of science would say Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity or String Theory are "absolutly true." When I said "some scientific assertions" What I had in mind were the "laws of physics" for example: The conservation of energy. Now, if your going to define God as something similar to Quantum Mechanics. I have no problem with that because your acknowledging that God can be refutable. God is a theory. That position is "Agnostic-Theism" your acknowledging you could be wrong. And my problem is with Gnostic—Theism, the idea that you know your not wrong. And if you believe god is irrefutable then your comparing him to math, logic and SOME scientific assertions.[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] If you notice how my discussion went, I used "OUR" to enable the fact that our Math, Science and Logic are incomplete. My idea was to ask you: if our math, science and logic is incomplete, how can we define someone who is higher than us with incomplete standards? If we were to do that, we are only assuming a changing being according to our knowledge. Note, that that more we know, the more we realize we don't know. The result of this argument is that if we were to define a higher entity, a higher being, God, then we can't bind him by math, science and logic, because if we do, we are not reaching to the Ultimate Source, the Creator, even if that Creator (for now let's assume your belief) didn't create us directly. Do you agree? <o:p> </o:p> [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]I should have dealt with this in my earlier post. I dont think there is a such thing as "OUR" logic, math and science. Simply put, "our" logic, math and science are as true here as they are across the universe (therefore, "our" logic, math and science are "universal" and "omnipresent" like god should be). If your saying God is "higher" or "above" our logic, I dealt with that position earlier. I said that saying "god is above logic" is like admitting "god is illogical." Saying god is "above" logic is a euphemism for saying God is illogical. Again, anything that isnt logical... is illogical... (thats a logical argument btw :P) ... there is no third category of semi-logical. And like I said before. The only way u can continue to believe in god is if you believe God is illogical (or if u prefer, you can believe god is above logic, math and science; like i said, it means the same thing) or if God is bound by logic. [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]You are giving me only one option of beliving in illogical god. How can you only define that as the "only" other option? For example: If you make a computer and program it, you are practically its designer. The computer is governed by the logic you designed it with. Are you bound by the computer's logic? If God designed us with a certain logic, he is the Creator of this logic, why do we bind him by that logic? Is it fair to do that? I know what your next argument will be, but I want to hear if you are convinced yet so far.[/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]"God created logic" is the same as saying "God is above logic" and like i said before, that too falls into the same euphemism for "God is illogical" BTW, im giving you two options, not one. Admittedly, neither of which you probably like. But logically speaking, they are the only two conclusions you can draw. [/FONT] [FONT=Times]BTW, computers happen to be great at Logic and Math :P better then us. But their logic and math is the same as ours, there just faster. I think your analogy supports me... not you? So I would say, both me and the computer are bound by the same logic. I did not "create" its logic. I gave it my logic. And I imagine that god would have gave us his logic if your metaphor was equivelent. [/FONT] [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=21009830"][COLOR=blue]Mustafa Abousaleh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Wait, what do you study? I am an electrical engineer and I work with computers all the time, program them, build them and destroy them. If computers have the same logic as us, then they would have taken over the world. Also, why do scientists and researchers continue to try to build the "human robot" if computers have our logic? I am picking on this point because it is important and that's what many people get stuck on. If we look at the point from two different perspectives: 1. Computer perspective = human perspective: to the computer, the world is limited by how it operates and thinks. Everything it thinks of and creates is limited by the way the designer made it. For example, the computer will not come up with rules that are not previously programmed in it. To the computer, the designer himself is limited, because the computer can't go out of its ways and compute how the designer thinks. Statistically speaking, the logic of the computer is a subset of the designer's logic 2. Designer Perspective: to the designer, the computer is only one machine which he was able to facilitate its logical operations and give it enough to do a certain job. From the designers perspective, the machine's logic is limited. The designer is the higher entity, the source of this logic, but not all of the logic.[/FONT] Makes sense? <o:p> </o:p> [FONT=Times][URL="http://www.facebook.com/G.Singh247"][COLOR=blue]Gurinder Singh[/COLOR][/URL] [/FONT] [FONT=Times]I'm a Cognitive Systems major so this is also my area of expertise. I see the point your trying to make, but perhaps your missing out on the philosophical implications of the points I'm trying to make. So this time ill explain them in greater detail. Your saying there are two areas. One area is filled with "computer logic" and the other area encompassing that area is filled with both "computer logic" and the "human logic" that we have yet to program in the computer (perhaps we'll never be able to program the computer in such a way so as to completely have human logic). Does this mean—human logic is above computer logic? No, and here's why. There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2. The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." Lets call this area "godly logic" that is unknown to us and we may never know it. Now if a human deduces 4 from 2+2. There is no way that a God can contradict that human and deduce 5 from 2+2. BUT WAIT! That's exactly what the abrahamic god can do? Therefore the Abrahamic god is still Illogical by contradiction. The only other possibility is that human's are illogical and that 5 is actually the sum of 2+2. One other point... while I was thinking of metaphors this came to my head. Incase your wondering if the phrase "God is above logic" is equivalent to the phrase "God is illogical." Lets change the subject... lets say... "President Bush acted as if he was above the law" I would say that phrase is indeed equivalent with the phrase "President bush acted unlawfully." Its odd how being "above the law" sounds bad but being "above logic" sounds good? Just something I noticed :P [/FONT] [FONT=Times]Furthermore, the phrase "President bush is above the laws" implies that President bush created the laws (or atleast his own laws that contradict the laws for everyone else). [/FONT] However, I will concede that at the very least you have shown that with your computer analogy, if God exists (and if he created us) then it is possible that our logic is incomplete. But even with incomplete logic—logic is still universal, and it is the same for us as it would be for him OR for a "future version of ourselves" that has access to that logic. For example, 2000 years ago we did not have access to the complicated math equations we have access to today. This doesnt mean that the math in question was "above us"—it was simply out of our reach. Even then, the future math was unable to contradict the math at the time: 2+2=4 regardless of whether the derivative of 4x=4 (a mathamatical truth that they did not have access too at the time). So with my above post, i sought to account for the hypothetical "lack of complete logic." And wat I showed was: you cannot contradict the "base" logic (known truths), even if you go higher up... from computer to human, or human to god. Contradicting the "base" logic (2+2=4) would be illogical. Consequently, if god's unknown logic happened to contain 2+2=5 then it wouldn't "complete" logic—it would entirely destroy logic. With my relation to the President Bush anaologies, i sought to show you how your belief of god being "Above Logic" and god being the "Creator of logic" is consistant with my conclusion of God being "illogical." And quite frankly, your religion demands that position from you. As much as you dont wanna say "god is illogical" you have already said it (albeit, you said it by saying the other two forms but thas why i added the bush analogy—to show you that they are identicle ways of saying the same concept). Anyways, I'm assuming you've gone to sleep or are studying for midterms like me :P. We'll pick up were we left off tomorrow? [B]END[/B] He didnt leave any replies after that last message. Maybe you guy can pick up were he left off. <!--EndFragment--> [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top