A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
In Islam, we have no knowledge of that. We do not know how long and how severely God punishes an individual for any particular transgression. What we do know is that His Mercy outstrips His rigour.
You agree that the punishment is supposed to be pretty darn nasty though right?

If the harm is "almost inconsequential" then your punishment shouldn't be "pretty darn nasty".
I think your answer is in the quote that you question.......
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
I think your answer is in the quote that you question.......
Oh cool so no punishment at all, or at least an "almost inconsequential" punishment. Doesn't really matter what you do or how you behave in this life then as it is all inconsequential in the end. That is a really strange way of looking at the world.

Why do you guys bother to have all these rules about not fornicating outside of a righteous sexist polygamous marriage and not drinking booze etc. if the punishments are so inconsequential as to not even be worth bothering about?

Unless they are worth bothering about... in which case see my argument that that is immoral.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
Yes but nobody 3000 years ago made the claim that there were radio waves, and if they had, they would have been expected to show some evidence to support the claim. If they could not, then their claim would not be taken seriously.

You are drastically lacking in the understanding of the Burden of Proof. You make the claim, you prove it.
And yet radio waves would have still existed regardless of his ability to prove it.I know all about the burden of proof believe me I have extensive scientific background but this isn't science, this is religion,your problem is you are trying explain religion using science,science was never developed to prove religion in the first place.

One deals in facts and proofs the other deals in beliefs.The day you realize that they don't need to be relevant at this point in scientific advancement or maybe ever is the day you may start understanding the philosophical ideas behind religion.
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,623
I made an edit to bring it back to the topic at hand.

The point was that we aren't talking about just some ordinary entity that is sometimes benevolent and sometimes nasty, this deity is supposedly omnibenevolent, all good (although perhaps in Islam it is different?). Can't be all good if you allow even that "almost inconsequential" amount of suffering to occur when you could easily stop it and judge from your omniscient position without them needing to suffer.
Being omnibenevolent does not mean that He will not employ rigour in the testing ground. God is Ultimately Good and Perfect, but all tribulations and relief in this world-of-trials are from Him. He is the Source of both the ostensibly good and the ostensibly evil (i.e. it is relative to our Earthly notion of morality, which is a tiny subset of justice within Absolute reality). God, alone, creates.

Voluntarily choosing the path containing suffering when you could choose a path within your power that contains no suffering and doesn't harm or even really effect you at all, is immoral IMO. It doesn't matter how inconsequential you may deem that suffering to be.
That would defeat the very point of having an instance of life on Earth.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,238
I'm not sure what point you were making. I was discussing the claim that the deity is judged as "immoral" for allowing bad things to happen to people on Earth, and I demonstrated how considering the rest of the religious system, which includes the After life, effectively refutes this claim. Can you perhaps elaborate on what your point was, because it is seems I incorrectly assumed we were discussing the same thing?
The point I'm making, and that only SoulTax apparently grasps, is that religions (specifically abrahamic ones) consistently apply a fallacy when discussing the nature of the deity they believe in.

Sodan said:
This is moving the goal posts. Let's focus and discuss one claim at a time, if you don't mind? I find that constantly moving the goal posts results in no resolution to a discussion/debate.
How am I moving the goalposts? I'm addressing this idea of reward/punishment in the afterlife, which is what your post was about?

Sodan said:
Yeah well I can tell you one feels like utter cr @p the first few times you do some serious exercise. Well worth the effort, though. You know what they say: No pain, no gain.
But I agree with you, there will always be those who want something for nothing. Take the current state of South Africa, for example, with this ridiculous mentality of entitlement. :mad:
I don't quite get this analogy of yours. A child of 5 gets murdered. No chance to 'train' for anything. Does the child get the same reward as an 80-year old that kicks the bucket? If the perpetrator gets killed by police immediately afterward, is he sent straight to hell, no chance of repentance? What about someone who does atone, does he get punished less?

Sodan said:
I don't suppose you also saw some other poster (wayfarer, to be specific) say :



Quite strange how you missed you that...
I didn't miss it. Falcon said the opposite. And Mother Teresa lived the opposite. She purposefully perpetuated people's suffering because she believed it was necessary and brought people closer to Jesus.

Sodan said:
So no need then get your knickers in a twist over the (incorrectly) judged "immorality" of a fictional being.
My knickers aren't in a twist. :p

And we're discussing beliefs. Beliefs that have real world implications.

Sodan said:
It doesn't really count as an "evaluation" of a system if one only evaluates one part of the system and pretends that the other relevant parts don't exist. Then one has actually evaluated a completely different system. Furthermore, it would be scientifically incorrect to apply one's evaluation to the original, complete system.
I believe I addressed the 'whole system'.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Yes but nobody 3000 years ago made the claim that there were radio waves, and if they had, they would have been expected to show some evidence to support the claim. If they could not, then their claim would not be taken seriously.
LOL.

3000 years ago someone talking about radio waves would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft, not asked to scientifically support his/her stance.

A scientific investigation is a pretty new concept.

Even guys like Newton, lauded as great scientists of the past, were involved in an awful lot of pseudoscience.

Just saying...
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,623
Oh cool so no punishment at all, or at least an "almost inconsequential" punishment. Doesn't really matter what you do or how you behave in this life then as it is all inconsequential in the end. That is a really strange way of looking at the world.

Why do you guys bother to have all these rules about not fornicating outside of a righteous sexist polygamous marriage and not drinking booze etc. if the punishments are so inconsequential as to not even be worth bothering about?

Unless they are worth bothering about... in which case see my argument that that is immoral.
Yet another reading of the post may help (see bolded part, again):

In Islam, we have no knowledge of that. We do not know how long and how severely God punishes an individual for any particular transgression. What we do know is that His Mercy outstrips His rigour.
 

Sodan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
2,765
I made an edit to bring it back to the topic at hand.

The point was that we aren't talking about just some ordinary entity that is sometimes benevolent and sometimes nasty, this deity is supposedly omnibenevolent, all good (although perhaps in Islam it is different?). Can't be all good if you allow even that "almost inconsequential" amount of suffering to occur when you could easily stop it and judge from your omniscient position without them needing to suffer.
I think I addressed this earlier, about us (humans) needing proof of our bad actions before accepting punishments for it. If I understand you correctly, this reduces to:
no one is ever harmed in any way, nor does anyone ever experience any hardship of any kind, ever.

Is that what you're aiming for?

Voluntarily choosing the path containing suffering when you could choose a path within your power that contains no suffering and doesn't harm or even really effect you at all, is immoral IMO. It doesn't matter how inconsequential you may deem that suffering to be.
I don't get it. If you're in a sparring session with your trainer, is your trainer never to lay a blow on you? Would you consider that to be "immoral", even though there are obviously some significant gains to be had from allowing the trainee to suffer some hardship? For the purpose of this example, lets assume the trainer loves the trainee and wants only the best for the trainee.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Being omnibenevolent does not mean that He will not employ rigour in the testing ground. God is Ultimately Good and Perfect, but all tribulations and relief in this world-of-trials are from Him. He is the Source of both the ostensibly good and the ostensibly evil (i.e. it is relative to our Earthly notion of morality, which is a tiny subset of justice within Absolute reality). God, alone, creates.
There we go. Islam is different. Your deity doesn't have to be a moral one. It can produce evil too. It can be immoral.

In my experience Christianity is different. Their deity is incapable of evil acts.


That would defeat the very point of having an instance of life on Earth.
Yes I agree. As far as I can see having to live out the horror of rape on this Earth when your deity already knows it is going to happen seems to be pretty pointless.

I'm asking why your deity allows this pointless charade to play out instead of just judging one with his infinite knowledge right off the bat and saving one the torment of something like rape.
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
And yet radio waves would have still existed regardless of his ability to prove it.I know all about the burden of proof believe me I have extensive scientific background but this isn't science, this is religion,your problem is you are trying explain religion using science,science was never developed to prove religion in the first place.

One deals in facts and proofs the other deals in beliefs.The day you realize that they don't need to be relevant at this point in scientific advancement or maybe ever is the day you may start understanding the philosophical ideas behind religion.
Sorry if I don't take your word for it, as your obvious lack of understanding of the burden of proof is in fact proof to the contrary.
See your statement below:
Well for your view to hold any water also you first have to prove there isn't an afterlife.
My retort about the burden of proof was related to this claim. You are making the claim, and so you are the one that must show evidence to support it. I am not claiming that there is no afterlife. I am rejecting your claim of there being an afterlife, based on the lack of evidence to support this claim. I have ZERO, burden of proof, in rejecting an unfounded claim that has not met it's own burden of proof.

As I already said, someone 3000 years ago could make the claim that radio waves existed. But without evidence nobody would have taken him seriously. So why must we take your claim of an afterlife seriously when you have ZERO proof that there is one?...... Oh because it is about belief and faith, not scientific evidence.... Well screw that.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
LOL.

3000 years ago someone talking about radio waves would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft, not asked to scientifically support his/her stance.

A scientific investigation is a pretty new concept.

Even guys like Newton, lauded as great scientists of the past, were involved in an awful lot of pseudoscience.

Just saying...
Yeah that I know. Falcon was using a terrible example of Radio waves 3000 years ago, obviously implying a hypothetical state of scientific inquiry as being equal to the current one. So I kept it there. That hypothetical person would surely have been burnt alive for heresy.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,238
There we go. Islam is different. Your deity doesn't have to be a moral one. It can produce evil too. It can be immoral.

In my experience Christianity is different. Their deity is incapable of evil acts.
Can a 'perfect' being be immoral?
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
I think I addressed this earlier, about us (humans) needing proof of our bad actions before accepting punishments for it.
and I think I countered by explaining that, an omniscient and omnipotent deity would, by definition, have all the proof it needs of your bad actions already. What you would or wouldn't want to see in order to be convinced is irrelevant. You aren't the judge and you don't get a say.

This is like arguing that you can't send a murderer to prison even if you have DNA evidence because the murderer doesn't believe in DNA. :wtf:

It doesn't matter what the murderer believes in or thinks of his actions, it matters what evidence the judge has at his disposal and what he thinks.


If I understand you correctly, this reduces to:
no one is ever harmed in any way, nor does anyone ever experience any hardship of any kind, ever.

Is that what you're aiming for?
An all powerful, all good, perfect deity should be aiming for that yes. Isn't that what you would aim for if given those sorts of powers? Wouldn't you consider aiming for anything less to be immoral and akin to someone without those powers, ignoring a rape even if he/she could stop it?



I don't get it. If you're in a sparring session with your trainer, is your trainer never to lay a blow on you? Would you consider that to be "immoral", even though there are obviously some significant gains to be had from allowing the trainee to suffer some hardship? For the purpose of this example, lets assume the trainer loves the trainee and wants only the best for the trainee.
Wow this counterpoint was a real stretch mate.

Of course I use harm in the legal and human rights sense, not the biological sense. Things like rape, murder, theft, slavery etc..

Then of course when you are a deity this also now covers 'accidents' as those are within your power to control too so you carry responsibility if you choose not to act to prevent them. This is like when a parent could have saved his/her child from drowning by pulling it out of the bathtub and instead stands by and chooses to watch as the child drowns. The parent is responsible through his/her inaction, for that death.

It even does as far as people stubbing their toes because this deity is "all good". Omnibenevolent. There are no half measures when you use the prefix "omni". It is all or nothing.
 
Last edited:

Sodan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
2,765
The point I'm making, and that only SoulTax apparently grasps, is that religions (specifically abrahamic ones) consistently apply a fallacy when discussing the nature of the deity they believe in.
Can you explain exactly what this fallacy is, and how you come to that conclusion?

How am I moving the goalposts? I'm addressing this idea of reward/punishment in the afterlife, which is what your post was about?
I may have referenced those things, yes, but what my post (in fact, my whole point) is about is mentioned in a previous post:

a previous post of mine said:
I was discussing the claim that the deity is judged as "immoral" for allowing bad things to happen to people on Earth, and I demonstrated how considering the rest of the religious system, which includes the After life, effectively refutes this claim.
If that's not what you're claiming, then I apologize for thinking you claimed that.


I don't quite get this analogy of yours. A child of 5 gets murdered. No chance to 'train' for anything. Does the child get the same reward as an 80-year old that kicks the bucket? If the perpetrator gets killed by police immediately afterward, is he sent straight to hell, no chance of repentance? What about someone who does atone, does he get punished less?
What would you think is fair?

I didn't miss it. Falcon said the opposite.
I'm having trouble finding the post where Falcon says humans should not help other humans out of their suffering. Please can you tell me the post number?

And Mother Teresa lived the opposite. She purposefully perpetuated people's suffering because she believed it was necessary and brought people closer to Jesus.
I'm sure wayfarer, falcon and mineer will all tell you that she was probably not representative of all muslims.

My knickers aren't in a twist. :p
Good, good. I'd hate to be the one to anger you.

And we're discussing beliefs. Beliefs that have real world implications.
Nope, I am only discussing (refuting) the claim as mentioned above. I don't know much about religious beliefs, and would not presume to be capable of discussing the ins and outs of whichever religious system(s). However, I can (usually) spot a (logically) false claim when I see one, and that is all I feel comfortable discussing.

I believe I addressed the 'whole system'.
Aah, you did, my apologies. Though a more accurate term (from the religious folks' point of view) would then be "put into perspective" as opposed to "glossed over".
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,623
There we go. Islam is different. Your deity doesn't have to be a moral one. It can produce evil too. It can be immoral.
He transcends beyond notions of morality that defines interaction between created beings. He has Mercy and Rigour, but is ultimately Good. God is Owner and Lord of everything, so what He does is by definition good. Evil is a moral category that God made relevant to the Earthly context for human beings. There is no universal principle of good to which God is bound. What people mean by evil is usually an anthropocentric view of harm or benefit.

...As far as I can see having to live out the horror of rape on this Earth when your deity already knows it is going to happen seems to be pretty pointless.

I'm asking why your deity allows this pointless charade to play out instead of just judging one with his infinite knowledge right off the bat and saving one the torment of something like rape.
Actions are judged according to intention, i.e. an actual action is judged, not one that would have taken place but did not. As I said previously:

...Furthermore, God holds us accountable for the actual deeds that accompany our free will, as that is how His Justice works. Even in our Earthly justice systems, attempted murder is generally not the same as murder...
Finally, I must agree with Sodan that there is a tremendous amount of goal shifting taking place. And Falcon is correct, this thread was supposed to be about "A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution".
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
Sorry if I don't take your word for it, as your obvious lack of understanding of the burden of proof is in fact proof to the contrary.
See your statement below:


My retort about the burden of proof was related to this claim. You are making the claim, and so you are the one that must show evidence to support it. I am not claiming that there is no afterlife. I am rejecting your claim of there being an afterlife, based on the lack of evidence to support this claim. I have ZERO, burden of proof, in rejecting an unfounded claim that has not met it's own burden of proof.
As I already said, someone 3000 years ago could make the claim that radio waves existed. But without evidence nobody would have taken him seriously. So why must we take your claim of an afterlife seriously when you have ZERO proof that there is one?...... Oh because it is about belief and faith, not scientific evidence.... Well screw that.
Now you're getting it,science was never invented to disprove religion,in fact science is simply a way of broadening our understanding of the universe and multiple times along the way we have been forced to concede that our deductions were incorrect.So the one aspect of it is that we cannot claim something does not exist in a system if we don't know about the system in its entirety.

The second aspect is that GOD has made himself undetectable to humans so surely he would know what our science can't achieve.Hence its not unthinkable that we may never be able to prove of the existence GOD using science because our science may be incapable of it.Hence it follows that we may not ever know the whole system in its entirety.Judging by the amount of new discoveries in science each and every single day its not hard to picture that scenario....every time we get answers we just open up more questions.No single theory in science today does not have questions surrounding it or its validity.Infinity?Seems like it from here and yet you would try to make a claim that it simply does not exist.

It amazes me how people try to use science which opens up doors to justify closing doors.How very unscientific .
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
He transcends beyond notions of morality that defines interaction between created beings. He has Mercy and Rigour, but is ultimately Good. God is Owner and Lord of everything, so what He does is by definition good. Evil is a moral category that God made relevant to the Earthly context for human beings. There is no universal principle of good to which God is bound. What people mean by evil is usually an anthropocentric view of harm or benefit.
Now you have lost me in poetic stuff. So Al could sodomise a baby and it would be a good act?


Actions are judged according to intention, i.e. an actual action is judged, not one that would have taken place but did not. As I said previously:
So you deity can't know intentions before an event actually occurs?



Finally, I must agree with Sodan that there is a tremendous amount of goal shifting taking place. And Falcon is correct, this thread was supposed to be about "A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution".
You are right that we have wondered off topic a little but in the domain of the current discussion (which seems to be about the morality of deities) the goalposts don't seem to be shifting much. All that has been said is that if you take that stance it doesn't suddenly make the deity moral, it just makes it immoral in another way.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
LOL.

3000 years ago someone talking about radio waves would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft, not asked to scientifically support his/her stance.

A scientific investigation is a pretty new concept.

Even guys like Newton, lauded as great scientists of the past, were involved in an awful lot of pseudoscience.

Just saying...
Yeah that I know. Falcon was using a terrible example of Radio waves 3000 years ago, obviously implying a hypothetical state of scientific inquiry as being equal to the current one. So I kept it there. That hypothetical person would surely have been burnt alive for heresy.
Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Now you're getting it,science was never invented to disprove religion,in fact science is simply a way of broadening our understanding of the universe and multiple times along the way we have been forced to concede that our deductions were incorrect.So the one aspect of it is that we cannot claim something does not exist in a system if we don't know about the system in its entirety.

The second aspect is that GOD has made himself undetectable to humans so surely he would know what our science can't achieve.Hence its not unthinkable that we may never be able to prove of the existence GOD using science because our science may be incapable of it.Hence it follows that we may not ever know the whole system in its entirety.Judging by the amount of new discoveries in science each and every single day its not hard to picture that scenario....every time we get answers we just open up more questions.No single theory in science today does not have questions surrounding it or its validity.Infinity?Seems like it from here and yet you would try to make a claim that it simply does not exist.

It amazes me how people try to use science which opens up doors to justify closing doors.How very unscientific .
So anything that you do not have evidence for, you can claim that we can never know the infinite or the spiritual realm. But then something that you do "Supposedly" have evidence for, God's message to mankind (ie Scripture), now it is perfectly reasonable to use this scripture as a basis for believing. And attempt to apply historical and scientific practices to it, to prove it's validity and authenticity. But then when the merits of many of the claims in that scripture are questioned and sometimes even shown to be untrue, you hop back onto the "We cannot use science to evaluate religion" bandwagon.

How very convenient for you.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
I'm having trouble finding the post where Falcon says humans should not help other humans out of their suffering. Please can you tell me the post number?
I second that.I cant seem to recall having ever said that,doubt I would ever even think it!:wtf: Where on earth did you make that one up from orbitaldawn?
 
Top