TED Conversations

S. Ahmadi

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

is more than one God possible?

is more than one God possible rationally?
if there is more than one God why we do not feel any war between them?
if there was more than one God we would see their messengers.
according to holly books like Torah, Bible, Koran they mention one and the same God.
is there any evidence showing there is more than one God?
are deities believed to be God are real Gods?
what is real God? and what is non-real God?

+2
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2011: .
    First, a reminder to myself: My European ancestors (the Celts, the Germans, the Greeks, the Romans), were all polytheists, until they were forced to swallow monotheism, by Christians, Jews, Muslims and other Zoroastrians.

    That said, I think God is bi. Like you said in another debate: God created everything in pairs. So why not himself? If he isn't bi-sexual, then at least he-she must be bi-polar.

    Why do you say "we don't feel any war between them?" Have you ever read Hindu scriptures, let alone the Ilias? You will notice that the Gods battle it out on a daily basis.

    And what's more: the fantastic film "The Gods must be crazy" clearly shows that not only 1 billion Hindus are polytheist, the majority of black Africans is so too, and that's about 500 million people.

    On a final note, I happen to thing that polytheist religions have a tendency to be less violent and less absolutist. Hence, if I ever have to choose between monotheist madness and polytheist bizarrerie, I will gladly choose the latter. But then, luckily, as an atheist, I will never have to make that absurd choice.
    • Jun 27 2011: "God created everything in pairs. So why not himself? If he isn't bi-sexual, then at least he-she must be bi-polar."
      God did not create himself.
      God has no start
      God is start of all starts
      God created eveything and himself has no creator
      pair is about materials. God is not material to be pair

      "Why do you say "we don't feel any war between them?"
      for example one wants to create one sun and other says no two sun should be created and finally sun will be destroyed. some things like that. but all nature is calm for Billions of years with peace. unless where humans are.

      "Have you ever read Hindu scriptures"
      some. can you explain?

      "1 billion Hindus are polytheist, the majority of black Africans is so too, and that's about 500 million people. "
      yes also many of them believe cow is God.

      "On a final note, I happen to thing that polytheist religions have a tendency to be less violent and less absolutist."
      so what? anything is less violent is truth? also Muslims are not violent. Muslims some times are forced to defend and it makes war. if you attack and kill Hindus they have not an important culture of defend and war.
      also please see:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
      truth has higher value even if sometimes some violence (defend) is needed.
      also please note not all Violante in the name of Islam are agreed by God and Koran. many non-believer Arab kings in history used Islam as a tool for their greed in the name of Islam.

      for an atheist monotheist and polytheist are the same and even no need to choose any of them.
      it depends on that if God exist or not.
      if one day you knew God exist then you will seek what he wants you and will research between long menu of religions to find which are true religion of true God to protect yourself from risks of after death and be friend of true God.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2011: If one God is possible, doesn't seem like such a stretch for there to be many Gods. That's the thing though. Is one God even possible?

    I find it interesting that you seek evidence for many Gods when you do not have any convincing evidence for one. (Interestingly, all the arguments you would use in favor of a God, although unconvincing , could be applied to many Gods).
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2011: All books were written by Men. Their content came from Men. All religions are Man made and Man ran. The question should be: "Is less than one God possible?"
    If the idea of one God is acceptable, so should be the idea of unlimited ones.
  • J Ali

    • +1
    Jun 12 2011: Vasil...until now I think I or we have been arguing on one thing and you have been arguing on another.......I have been arguing and giving proofs that there is only one and you have been arguing that there can be more than one controller and someone who takes care of the universes affairs....

    You can obviously see the big difference from the two arguments......

    All my proofs were on one creator regardless of any definition........it is impossible for many creators......regardless of any definition of God from anyone.....there is only one creator

    now if you want to argue with me that it is possible for more than one controller than i will argue with you on that issue too.......I believe it is impossible.....

    first let me explain what actually is impossible and then later i will explain WHY....

    what we are saying is impossible is that Power is shared between different ''gods'' with each of them not needing in his power for the other God or for the Creator....not That the creator gives power to the created but without giving him full power and independence from the creator.......

    just so thats clear...... now the proofs will come up in the next few comments.....some will be from the Quran BUT will be fully explained in a philosophical and logical way hopefully......

    indeed it is possible for the created to create a particle....but only through God on not independently.....the question then arises who created this thing that created the particle???

    this question can keep going from each created until it reaches the final creator of all creators(through God) ...we claim he is the one Creator God.

    if this question never ends it would be impossible because of infinite regress..........and infinite regress is impossible...
    • thumb
      Jun 12 2011: How do you define "creator"? My definition is "someone who creates something in some fashion". The universe is not a single irreducible entity, and therefore, it isn't necessarily made by one creator (it could be, but not necessarily). The starter of time is one, but the creator of time isn't necessarily one, and neither is the creator(s) of matter necessarily the same creator as the one(s) of time.

      It seems like you're arguing for a starter... the entity that started time. The one who, figuratively speaking, pressed the start button of our universe. Agree there can only be one such, but he's not necessarily a creator.
      • J Ali

        • +1
        Jun 12 2011: I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner......regardless of definition......as i have been asking you so many times....please read my comments in which i put forward some proofs....im not asking you to accept them without thinking...just read them and have a think.............this is the creator....

        the creator is the thing which everything owes existence to...the thing which made things from nothing.......im not going to re write everything i said a few days ago just have a quick read of them please.....thanks......

        the starter and the creator are one.........hehe just read the proofs please they have got nothing to do with definition.....
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner"
          This still leaves you with an infinite regress. If EVERYTHING had a beginning, then God had a beginning, and God's God, and God's God's God, etc.

          If this "everything" is not really "everything", then you're making a certain assumption by which you exclude God out of it. I suppose you're making the ex-nihilo/ex-materia fallacy, as made by the Kalam argument. You're using ex-materia causality to argue for ex-nihilo causality.

          Here's an Anti-Kalam argument:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
          (i.e. an argument that takes the Kalam argument's assumptions, corrects the fallacy, and proves no such god exists after that)

          If you say premise 3 is false (you can do that, since this premise is not backed up by evidence; it was simply migrated from the Kalam argument)... that there was some sort of supernatural matter that turned into what today we call "natural" matter, then it's possible that this matter was operated on by more than one supernatural being, i.e. more than one God.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: even though your definition is kind-of right even though it has some mistakes which i cannot explain right now because they are too long......

        the question arises of who created this creator......until it reaches the final creator of all creators....

        in other words i believe that there is a creator of creators who everything ends to in existence.......

        i mentioned this clearly in my previous proofs......
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: The reason why it doesn't cause an infinite regress is precisely because infinite regress impossible.....

        that is that everything had a beginning.....this is clear, even scientifically........

        there has to be a beginner and this beginner does not have a beginning or end....he is self existent....he does need a beginner only other things need him.........

        The question of who created the creator is always mentioned in proving the creator in kalam arguments......that is that everything has a beginning and that infinite regresses are impossible therefore there must be something which everything ends to which has no beginning and is self existence.......so the question is therefore false and doesn't make sense because it is mentioned and answered in the proof of gods existence in the kalam argument......in fact it is part of the proof...


        as for the youtube video, unfortunately youtube does not work where i am so i am sorry about that........every argument against the kalam argument is, from my point of view, false....

        one of the people who gave an amazing concept of Wajib al Wujud is Avicenna (wajib al wujud meaning necessary being)

        He is necessary because of infinite regress.....it makes part of the proof of his existence......


        as for why this universe cannot be wajib al wujud is because this universe is made up of things.....these things are always being destroyed and have no existence.....like humans dying.....after he turns into dust he is not a human any more........this material world is made of material objects who need their material parts and particles.....even an atom needs parts....even parts need parts....until it stops existing......

        therefore it is a universe of life and death of material objects which is obviously not Wajib al Wujud......


        If u want more insight on this you should read what avicenna has to say on this as with many other islamic philosophers.......
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God...........

        everything Mumkin " i.e. non necessary existent''

        this has been stated so many times before in my previous comments....

        again you are not reading the arguments well......

        I challenge any one who can disprove islamic arguments of god's existence..........

        I think the main reason why there are so many atheists in the west is because they think that the only proof of gods existence is what creationists usually use, that is intelligent design theory.......whereas Islamic philosophers put these proofs at the very end of their books......after Tens of philosophical, logical proofs from the like of The Quran (with explanation) and Avicenna, Sadr al din Al shirazi.....and so on......
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God"
          But why is God an exception to the rule? For the sake of removing infinite regress? If so, why not save a step, and say the universe itself is the real exception... that it had no beginning... that it always existed (but simply became "active" at the Big Bang), in the same sense you might say God always existed, but happened to start and/or create the universe at the Big Bang.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: This is the first time ive heard anyone call it a fallacy....maybe you just heard that in the youtube link which i can't see.........its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one......you can't just call it one like that.........

        this so called ''fallacy'' was used by the greatest logicians like Avicenna and Averroes and they obviously did not consider it a fallacy.............

        I want to find a logician or philosopher who doesn't just dismiss the proofs just because he feels like that....i want real logical and philosophical proof of why islamic arguments are wrong........you can't keep asking stupid questions of who created the creator? learning from people like Richard Dawkins who think that because Evolution is correct, God is False...while there is no connection between God's existence and Evolution.........
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "learning from people like Richard Dawkins who think that because Evolution is correct, God is False...while there is no connection between God's existence and Evolution..."
          Yes, there is no connection between evolution and God in general. However, there is a connection between the God of Abraham and evolution. An all knowing being that never lies should know better than to lie in its holy book, claiming he created all life as is from the start. If there is a God, he's not as described in the Quran. Either that, or Mohammad misheard what God was telling him, resulting in this, and potentially other flaws in the Quran. Or God actually lied when he said he doesn't lie. Either way, evolution renders the Quran as the imperfect word of an otherwise perfect God.

          "its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one..."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
          "The argument has been criticized [24] by such philosophers as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, and Quentin Smith, and physicists Paul Davies and Victor Stenger."
          OK, so maybe "fallcy" is not the best term... "the invalid premise of" is probably a better way to put it.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Have you read the Quran, Vasil??

        Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??

        in fact there is a verse which could possibly be mentioning evolution......

        ''When He created you by stages?'' Nuh, Quran.

        Even if the Quran mentioned creating Adam from mud....it does not mean that before Adam there was no evolution....in some Hadiths it mentions that before our Adam there were a thousand Adams.....(thousand is the highest number in arabic, meaning plenty of Adams)

        As regards to the Kalam Argument mentioned on wiki, i did not mention that in my comments..i mentioned all Muslim philosophy proofs in general.....like Imkan Wal Wujub by Avicenna and many others......and who from the names you mentioned can stand in front of Avicenna...regardless of his religion.....

        As regards to Why the Universe can't be the exception the answer is because The universe is material as all scientists admit......materials move and events happen after each other, occurrences.

        these movements must have a start otherwise we would have an infinite regress of movements and that is impossible....Who started them?? something must have started them......this something must not be material otherwise we would have the same problem with the material universe.....that is why Muslims believe God is not Material.......This universe Had a start somewhere regardless of whether there was pre- big bang or it was big bang only.........if there was pre big bang we would have the problem of infinite regress which i mentioned earlier......if it was Big bang then that would mean the beginning of the universe for the first time......the question arises again? Who started it, that is created it???

        infinite regress is only logical on material existents.....We believe God is not Material so the problem doesn't arise again and again.......

        I've always been curios why Richard Dawkins and people like him don't read More islamic proofs...i mean i've read the whole of the God Delusion with no fear...
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "Have you read the Quran, Vasil??

          Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??"
          Is anything in the Quran ever clear? Of the stuff I've read, few things were.

          I based that on the testimony of S.R. whom I previously asked how the Quran deals with evolution in this topic:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2680/extinction_of_human_being_in_p.html
          I admit I haven't personally read anything in the Quran, other than isolated verses quoted from him and other Muslims or atheists (which is different from the Bible, where I've read a few whole chapters, just to know the context in case someone says I'm taking the phrase out of context).

          You can support anything if you take the "right" verses and interpret them the "right" way.

          ''When He created you by stages?''
          That might refer to the way humans develop within an actual womb, 9 months and everything, especially if by "you", it is meant "you, the reader of the Quran".

          Here's one that's blatantly false, though I see how it could be believed in pre-science times:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/3:49
          "'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah."
          Clay... yeah right... even if the clay is a metaphor, the mere fact it's created like the form of a bird, rather than evolving to one looks like a clear contradiction to evolution.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: The Quran is so clear.....maybe the translation is bad....but thats a totally different thing.....


        with regards to the verse i said ''could possibly'' i did not say that it is talking about evolution........some Muslims believe the Quran hasn't mentioned evolution in the Quran or denied it......they could also be right....





        as regards to the verse you mentioned.........totally, totally out of context and totally not false......its talking about a miracle performed by Prophet Jesus son of Mary to the Israelites .....it has got nothing to do with evolution or even how God created Birds and how they changed over time.......it is mentioning Miracles performed by Jesus.........

        ''When he created you by stages'' you in the verse is a translation of the Arabic for plural of more than three people......if you read the verse in Arabic it is without doubt talking to the humans in general and not to the reader of the Quran which sounds really funny......the arabic would have had to say Khalaqaka and not khalaqakum the first being for singular person and the second being for plural of more than 2 people.....that said, most commentators of the Quran talk of the womb stages also and I also follow them in that...

        And do not forget the narration i mentioned where it says that before you (Humans) were a thousand thousand Adams.....

        If you can find me one verse which contradicts science in the Quran, please tell me of them....im ready to answer all your questions......

        atheists and christians so often misquote the Quran and take it out of context....Read translations and misunderstand......i encourage you to give it a read one day.......just see what it says.....

        check this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html

        And why are you not answering the rest of my arguments on God.....you keep answering only tiny sentences of mine while i answer everything you say......
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "And why are you not answering the rest of my arguments on God.....you keep answering only tiny sentences of mine while i answer everything you say..."
          Because instead of taking each argument to its conclusion, you're diverging the topic into multiple ones I can't possibly cover unless I was to make a full documentary or something. We started with me defending that polytheism shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because it's as likely as monotheism (since it's all speculation depending on the definition of "God"), went over to Kalam, we ended with evolution and the Quran. Those are three separate issues, and if I was to cover all of them, for every one of my answers, you'll likely throw several new claims per answer that have nothing to do with the original argument.

          I'm attempting to resolve at least one of those topics to its full conclusion, rather than creating new ones by splitting my arguments on several fronts, as I'm sure you have a few more.

          So... please pick an argument, and let's elaborate fully on it instead of diverging on several issues. Which one would it be? Evolution? Kalam? The possibility of polytheism? Contradicting characteristics of the Abraham god? Take your pick...
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: For most of my comments I have been talking about polytheism........in some of my comments i mentioned God's existence and then you started asking me questions about it and about Kalam and you started bringing more and more arguments and questions.....you put us into all these topic...for me, i have answered everything you have put at me.....you haven't done anything so far..just going into different topics, asking questions which don't make sense......if you want to argue with me ......im fine with that, just read all of my previous comments and stop misquoting the Quran....I think this conversation is over between me and you...you can be arrogant or not choose to think of my arguments if you want....doesn't really matter anymore......

        Have a good life ....
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: When I use the word "argument", I'm using the term to simply mean a thesis that is to be debated (normally)... not a mutually arrogant disorganized chaotic scandalous conversation, like the one spouses have between themselves on conflicting issues... I'm talking about a rational philosophical conversations if you will.

          My initial point is that the core of your argument is based on the Kalam argument, with further things solidifying it after it was taken as if it's a valid argument. Hence my link to the Kalam argument rebuttal. Why is this anti-argument not valid again?

          If I'm missing the core, then do not answer the anti-Kalam argument, and INSTEAD please define what God is. We need a proper definition of what God is before we can (dis)prove it. What's the least amount of restrictions that you need to place on a supernatural being to define that supernatural being as "god", rather than something else?

          Again, do one of those. Not both. Redefine "God" only if it's not the one the Kalam argument is about. If you're going to redefine it, don't prove it. Just define it, and let me see if there can possibly be more than one such being per your full definition.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Vasil, you started the other topics with your questions on everything..... if you want the rational philosophical argument from me , then i have been giving it to you in all my comments.......I'm arguing with my self....because you never replied.....sending me links and probably not even understanding what i am saying.....everything i say your reply is always: ''WHY?''

        I've been saying why for so many arguments....And you reply to short sentences in my comments which were just said for a bit of explanation......going on to other topics which are- at the moment- irrelevant........about your ''initial point'' how initial is this?? you only said this a few comments ago while I have been commentating for ages it just seems like you won't be convinced, and frankly I'm not really trying to sort of force you to convert or something......im just arguing...but with no one.....

        I've asked you many times to actually read my comments before you start talking.....your arguments are weak, in fact they are not arguments at all....they are just illogical dismissals, whereas my arguments were fully philosophical and fully logical.......

        There is a famous arab saying: If I argue with a scholar I win.....But if I argue with an ignorant person I always lose........I fully respect your search for the truth.....but you are very difficult, mainly because you do not argue back...

        Anyway I think i've given you a lot of comments which are full of philosophy and have got nothing to do with the kalam argument, because the kalam argument is for the existence of God whereas I was talking about polytheism etc.......

        You can read my comments.....maybe then you'll have time to argue with your soul.....

        Bye....
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: All of your arguments (I did read them) are a ton of assertions, which is why I'm trying to make you clean it all up, and rebuild it with a minimal set of assumptions. The fewer assumptions you can make, the more likely your statement is to be true, though you're inevitably inviting more possibilities.

          How am I suppose to argue with a larger set of assertions that happen to fit together? I can make my own such set, but it won't prove anything, because of all assertions that I make. I could've posed my earlier arguments in defense of polytheism as assertions. That wouldn't have made them true.

          Take your first proof for example...
          "what ever thing that exists and NEEDS is not god. because God NEVER needs. We need but god does not... if he did he would cease to be god."
          This is all a chain of assertions towards the nature of whatever your definition of "god" is. And besides, just because a state of the supernatural might be with more than one God doesn't mean that either of those being NEEDS the other. The power of one might be (no... I'll use your style... the power IS) delegable to another. It's just that the gods might be (scratch that... ARE) "all loving" and therefore choose not to destroy themselves, because "all loving" must refer to them loving even the other Gods, not just our world.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: you haven't even understood them.......just argue with the proof.....you don't have to ask questions on parts of the proof which will take us into other topics......as for the part you quoted....I clearly stated in my comments that the reason God cannot need is because All Existence ends to him......Which means that his existence is self existent........Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???

        it is impossible, if it were....nothing would exist....because before existence there would be nothing...and how can NOTHING give existence to existence......??

        If you want to know why all things in this universe end to a God who is self-existent then just read ALL my comments really well.......you just quoted me without giving the reason i stated (doesn't have to be in the same comment, you have to read the rest.....)

        I think the last part of your comment shows you didn't understand a thing i said.......I did not say the God's would need each other......i said the God would need...just have a good read of my comments......Existence cannot need.....it all ends to one existing being who is absolute..... why?? have a think about it..........If you believe in nothing before the big bang then you must admit in a God who is absolute leaving no room for other Gods.......if you believe in universes before the big bang then it has to end somewhere because of ad infinitum..........why it has to end to one god, only one, I've mentioned many times.......
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???"
          The universe exists, right? I think it's safe to assume that.

          Therefore, does existence (of the universe) need anything (e.g. God)? By your logic, which I agree with, no. Therefore, by this same logic, the universe always existed (or if you prefer - it's "self existent"), and therefore there is no god having caused it. If there is a God or gods, it would be pantheistic god(s).

          Now, I am making the assumption that the universe always existed, and we don't know that by any conclusive evidence. But assuming that the universe did not always exist (1) and that there is another thing outside of the universe which exits or exited (2) AND from which our universe came into existence by some means (3) is already 3 assumptions, none of which we have evidence for, and is therefore less likely.

          Even if we grant those assumptions, we could apply the same logic to the supernatural (or "pre-natural"; however you'd call it) realm, and conclude it's possible that there is more than one being in that realm. Only one of them could've started our universe, but it would be possible that others were responsible for its creation.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Vasil, I think I have given you a lot.....and you've given me a lot too......I don't think we are ever gonna reach a conclusion....thats the very annoying part of arguments....you think my arguments are irrational....i think yours are......it is just going to keep on going like this if we continue.....anyway, I hope one day you reach a conclusion that you like and see as right.....

        I just want to say this, all my arguments were not based on my definition of God......just read them well.....theres no point to continue this argument with you.....we've both reached a dead end where i can't convince you nor can you..

        Good Luck...
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely..please, please read my comments, or at least if you read one comment..finish it to the end.....it has a cause..It didn't exist....then it did.........AGAIN....you have failed to think about my comments or even read them.......I stated all the reasons in them....and I've said so many times why the universe could not have existed back in time forever...it had a beginning.....something must have started it.....if it was another universe that started it then the same question applies to that universe and so on.....it all has to end to some thing which was not caused....that thing always existed.....its reality is existence.....anyway I mentioned this and more in my previous comments....but you are showing me more and more that
        you are not even reading my comments well...
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely"
          You don't know that. Just because everything we've ever observed had a cause doesn't mean that it's impossible that there was once a single event within our universe with no cause (e.g. the Big Bang, or a hypothetical earlier point in time).

          If it's indeed impossible for ANYTHING to not have a cause, God must have a cause. If there is an exception, we don't know what the exception is, and whether it is part of our universe or not.

          Again, this is the Kalam argument you're making (I'm not changing topic - this is the name of the argument you're already using and elaborating on in your post; I'm focusing only this premise, because everything else is a moot point without it). The argument "everything must have a cause, and the cause of everything other than God himself is God, and God was uncaused" is what Kalam is about. That's the reason I gave you a link to that anti-Kalam video. In the absence of evidence, this argument is not valid. Possible, yes, but not valid/certain/truthful, so to assert "the Universe cannot have existed infinitely" is simply making another unverifiable claim.

          Time can't be infinite. In fact, that's what the current model of the Big Bang suggests - that time started at the Big Bang. But when you invoke God, you're already assuming it's possible that there is existence without time. So why not say the universe always existed, but time started at the Big Bang? It's the same thing with God - allegedly, he always existed (i.e. was without cause) without time, only in the case of God, you're asserting there is an extra realm for him to live in which satisfies the same characteristics which might as well be part of our own universe.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Firstly.....did you read why I said the universe cannot have always existed??

        secondly....ill quickly say why...........I KNOW that this universe didn't exist before...it was nothing...then it existed.

        This has got nothing to do with time.....it has got to do with that the world is material......

        it has more to do with the imkan wujub argument than with the kalam argument (and btw....i know these arguments well because I have been studying Islamic philosophy for a long time, I won't elaborate further because it is really complex and philosophical.).....

        I think we have both agreed that there has to be something that has always existed......

        Why this can't be the universe has got nothing to do with time.......

        it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material

        Firstly: if you believe that the big bang is the absolute beginning of this whole universe than there has to be a cause before it who has always existed as we both agreed......

        God....

        if you believe in another form of our universe before the big bang....then because the universe is material.....as scientists say, it had movement....events happened after events....now these events have to end to one event because of ad infinitum..this one event is material aswell..so it goes back as well until movement stops, the existence of the universe stops......they can't have gone for ever in the past....they ended at one point and before that they didn't exist (because they are material)......regardless of time...

        Therefore, God....hehe... we believe that God is immaterial...because of the problems mentioned above.

        before you reply have a good think of what i said.......
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: and also.....things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing......you cannot describe that as self existent.....a self existent being is existence itself..just think of existence...not material existence or immaterial existence....just existence.....and as you remember we both agreed that something always existed...

        also if there was only the universe how do you explain life? as in human life....our feelings..etc.. these are all immaterial......the universe obviously didn't give us life (humans and all animals and living things)
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material"
          The fact that the universe is material doesn't remove the possibility that it always existed. All matter in our universe today ALWAYS existed at least from the Big Bang (possibly earlier; possibly from whenever time started) up until this moment, and will persist long after we're gone (whether it would be forever or to a certain end of time is a separate question).

          When something was caused into existence or destroyed within the universe, it was always caused into existence or destroyed by the rearrangement of matter. To borrow a creationist metaphor, "A watch has a watchmaker", who made the watch from a previously existing metal, and this metal was made from previously existing lighter atoms, and so forth, down to the Big Bang. We haven't observed a case where something was created out of nothing - ex-nihilo creation. All we've ever observed was creation from matter - ex-materia creation. Same goes for destruction - a star being turned into a black hole is not a something (star) becoming nothing - it's a set of particles that we previously called a star being reconfigured into a configuration that has the characteristics of what we call a black hole. Something being burned doesn't make the matter is was made from disappear - this matter simply goes into the air in the form of what we call smoke, or on the ground in the form of what we call ashes.

          Therefore, the statement
          "things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing"
          is false, strictly scientifically speaking. "Things" cease to exist, but not the matter they were made of, so "in this material universe" nothing is ever created or destroyed. There is never a nothing-to-something or something-to-nothing transition, or at least, we haven't ever observed any.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: ''The universe is material'' read the rest of it....ad infinitum and so on....and then answer it...

        WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!

        Answer the Ad infinitum problem...which is because the universe is material.....please answer it....!!!.

        when i said that things cease to exist i knew that that matter just changes into different form...so you haven't really brought anything new to me.......I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies.....

        what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent.......matter is limited..the universe is, whereas existence is everything and is not limited..if it were ''nothing'' would exist which is an obvious contradiction.......existence itself does not need.....the universe is moving always....movement must have started somewhere because this universe is material....ad infinitum and so on....I've probably repeated my comments like 10 times because you just ignore them.....

        Please, please answer the rest of my comment.......its getting really annoying....
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!"
          Why should I reply to every part of an invalid argument if I can just point the part where it gets invalid, and elaborate on why THAT is invalid? The fact I'm only quoting the invalid part doesn't mean I haven't read the entire post. I'm simply quoting only the invalid part so that you can see where I think the argument breaks. You can't seriously expect me to answer a premise that's based on another invalid premise. Rather, I am to respond to the invalid premise itself, not its derivatives, and I wouldn't mind if you do the same.

          "what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent"
          Even God by definition (the loosest possible one - "a supernatural being") needs something to exist - a supernatural realm (i.e. a different kind of space) to be in. Likewise, matter needs a kind of realm (space) to be in. That doesn't imply that this space didn't always existed. If that was the case, then suggesting that the supernatural realm didn't always existed by virtue of being a kind of space calls for an infinite regress.

          The natural realm doesn't need time to exist. It only needs time to operate. The laws/properties of the universe only make sense in the context of time, but time is not necessary for the existence of matter in this realm - if we had ex-nihilo creation or destruction, then you'd have a point about time being required as well, since the existence of matter would then be different across time (before the event and after it).

          Some realm must have always existed, and we don't know if it's our realm or not. Our realm requires itself... which is self existing right there, unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of "self existing".

          "I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies....."
          He still remains a body with a brain that is off. He doesn't cease to be part of the universe.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: We don't need to observe to Know....because knowledge is not Observation ......we can use our minds...now answer the first comment please...
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: We can use our minds to make up stuff as well... that doesn't make what we made up true.

          We can't trust our minds without having verified our conclusions in some way, which is one thing science is about.

          And we can't let our minds make assumptions for stuff we base on unverified conclusions (i.e. assumptions) especially when taking cognitive biases into account. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises. Anything less is simply speculation that one can't claim as knowledge before verifying the premises.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: ''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''

        Why are you not trying to answer the infinite regress problem....??? maybe you can't, you keep ignoring it.....it is an argument in itself...now please answer it......


        ''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''

        The mind can do just that......thats so obvious.....I don't know why you are telling me the obvious but not answering the infinite regress problem.....

        As for god needing a realm.......we believe not...and islamic philosophy has many proofs for this.....logical, verified proof......which i will not mention because it is a different topic...

        the part which you think was invalid....was not an argument in itself or part of one.....it was a sort of explanatory sentence........look at the argument....think of it and then for once please answer it.....the infinite regress one is really short....
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: What infinite regress problem? If causality exists only in the context of time down to its start, and the universe always existed, even without time, there's no infinite regress.

          "the universe is moving always"
          Now that there is time, yes.

          Movement/time started at the Big Bang according to the current scientific model. It might have started earlier, but it started somewhere for certain, so there's no infinite regress in causality in the context of our universe.

          You're still assuming matter was created, which is not known. We've never observed matter created, so claiming with certainty that it was is an unsafe assumption. For the sake of avoiding infinite regress, there is only a need to invoke the supernatural and God with that assumption. There isn't a need to invoke it if you assume matter always existed, which is the exact same kind of break that you'd apply to God.

          BTW, I'm not sure if you edited it at some point, or if I missed it, but because I just not saw you said you have no YouTube, here's the anti-Kalam argument itself:
          "1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo.
          P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
          P3: The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
          P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
          P5: God is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo.
          C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist by definition."

          And here's its elaboration in text:
          http://12tuesday.com/on-causation-and-the-ethics-of-discourse/
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Time is always with matter....always.....because matter has movement...and time is always with movement....

        what i mean by humans needing time is that they are limited to it....they can't exist yesterday....etc..


        since when did i say that because the universe needs a realm it didn't always exist...that is another argument....

        my argument is based on infinite regress, ad infinitum etc...
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 14 2011: thanks for the link, vasil...youtube is blocked here..

        Forget the scientific definition of time for the moment..........you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without.......atoms are always moving.......everything is always changing........

        the problem will always be there.....regardless of scientific time or scientific movement........

        events occur always in the universe....no one can say that the universe was ever completely still in every single part of it,,,,,,it always had events.....these events must end at one point....and have a cause......

        as for the anti kalam argument........it is impossible.....because it admits that the universe began ex-nihilo i.e. from nothing.........
        nothing can also not start nothing...........onlu something existing can give existence......

        anything which began existing from absolutely nothing needs something existing to start it .....

        there is absolutely no proof for the first premise......

        the whole argument against this kalam argument or any other similar argument is that the universe can go form to form infinitely....existing forever in the past and in the future.............this falls into the infinite regress problem....even without time.....because matter is always changing even without time......this change must stop somewhere......and be created from nothing....just because we haven't seen this, observed it, does not mean that it is logically impossible....it is necessary as the arguments are trying to say.......the key point is that there was something that gave existence to this nothing....making it into something after it was nothing........because nothing cannot give existence to something......only something existing can.......the whole anti kalam argument is terribly, terribly bad......it hasn't realised that even though we are saying that something MUST have existed forever.......we both agree on that......it could not have been the universe....
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 14 2011: In other words the universe has always been causing and happening and so on.....even without time.....otherwise it wouldn't be a material universe.....just ask any scientist....atoms are always changing and so on.......

        this universe came from nothing......just imagine nothing....not in a scientific way where nothing is still something......because the infinite regress problem occurs where the universe changes from form to form even without the scientific time.....

        ________As in if the absolute beginning from nothing of the universe was the big bang.....then who caused the moments before the bang and after the big bang to come in to existence......
        everything has a cause.....except for that thing which has to be the starting point with nothing before it........it can't be the universe as i am and have explained....

        if you say that before the big bang there were always other forms.....then infinite regress comes in....that there cannot be an infinite regress of different forms of universe.......____________
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: I tried really hard to see if your assertions are based on anything scientific... I've been watching a few documentaries trying to see what is an assertion and what is fact.

          May I suggest the first season of the "Through The Wormhole" series with Morgan Freeman. Also BBC Horizon's "What Happened Before the Big Bang". Both were released in 2010, so they represent the latest in science.
          (If you can't find them yourself, email me and I'll try getting you some links...)

          All of your arguments assume that the Big Bang's assumptions (read: claims in the Big Bang theory that are NOT backed up by evidence) are correct. The mere existence of other coherent scientifically accepted theories shows those assumptions may not necessarily reflect reality. Among those assumptions are:
          1) 4D space-time is finite.
          2) 4D space-time has a starting point (=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)
          3) Matter exists only in 4D space-time.
          4) 4D Space-time expands infinitely.
          5) The matter (and inherently, energy) within 4D space-time is "everything".

          ALL of those are challenged by the scientific community, as you can see in those documentaries.

          The anti-Kalam argument goes a step further than I do - it suggests that even if the Big Bang assumptions are correct, it makes no sense to invoke God as a cause of it.

          Premise 3 in the anti-Kalam argument is an assumption in the Big Bang theory (2 on the assumption list). This assumption might be false, but if it is, it means that there was "something (else?)" before "something" (on a universe scale, we're talking about "something" = "everything in the universe"). In other words, if premise 3 is false, there must have been something for God to work with in order to cause our universe into existence. There must've been a "supernatural matter" for him to act upon and turn it into "natural matter". Just because he was present and the universe appeared wouldn't make him the cause of the universe.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: But to play around with your argument...

          There's no such thing as "scientific time". There's just "time" (we can make the assumption "time exists", though what exactly is time is a separate issue). If there is such a thing, there must be "non scientific time". To make the claim that there is "non scientific time" would be just another assumption (i.e. it's not evidence). One that you haven't even defined properly.

          With that in mind, your argument
          1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
          shoots itself by your later point
          2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"

          If both are correct ("with scientific time or without" being a particular key here), then time is infinite, matter is eternal and therefore there's no God required.

          "these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
          That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.

          If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: With that in mind, your argument
        1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
        shoots itself by your later point
        2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"


        Time exists with matter....your definition of time is scientific.....anyway I will not be going into this deeper but I have a very important book for you to read......below...

        "these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
        That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.

        No that is not a contradiction......because I said that there must be a first cause...but I also explained that it cannot be the universe itself or the big bang..The big bang claims it is the beginning of the universe..but not the first cause......Yes....the first cause does not have a cause......but you claim it is the Universe while I claim it is God.......I explained previously why it cannot be the universe......


        ''If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.''

        Evidence that God is the cause of causes is philosophical proof........Occams razor only applies (if it does) when there are possibilities.......while God being the cause of causes is philosophically a fact and not a possibility...I recommend you read Al Shifa' by Avicenna.....which, sadly is not studied in universities..

        Contd.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: Vasil, every single scientific possibility on the universe still brings up the infinite regress problem..........if the big bang was the absolute beginning then that proves God......if it wasn't then we have the problem of infinite regress........if you believe that the universe has existed eternally, then scientists all agree of causes also existing always.......which still brings up the infinite regress problem......if no-time were infinite ....we would not be here today.

        As for scientific time.....you were claiming that time possibly didn't exist until after the big bang.....so I just called it scientific time for you to understand better....even though there is only one time.....which keeps everything from happening at once....and happenings have always been happening.....I didn't just invent a new word....just for better understanding of what you and I were actually trying to say to each other.....

        ''"Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
        shoots itself by your later point
        2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"''

        it does not shoot me...because I only said that (scientific time or without it) for sake of argument, because you claimed that time could possibly have not existed.....I thought that was clear...sorry if it wasn't...Matter cannot be eternal for the reasons which I have explained......

        Vasil, I really appreciate that you have thought hard about this....and I think you are very close to grasping it.....I really respect the way you think and your love of knowledge.....with that, I hope you can read this very important book.....if the translation is vague you can ask for clarification....

        http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf

        Read this important book....- Our Philosophy by the great Muslim philosopher Muhammed Baqir Al Sadr..
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: ''(=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)
        ''

        (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event)''


        A cause has got nothing to do with time.......this is something important......for a scientist a cause is an event which makes another event happen (then, time exists).......while a Muslim Philosopher would say that an event of time is a cause of something else to happen but not a cause of its existence.....when we say God is the cause of causes.......we mean that he is the cause of existence.....he created the universe......then the universe, being material, began causing events and happenings, but it did not start creating from nothing.....I will make this clear in my next comment..

        I don't think I have explained this well, but in the link of the book I gave you it is explained very well and in a good objective way.......Vasil, I think that book has all the answers you want from me....so I highly highly recommend that you read it..I seriously think that if you had a very good insight on philosophy, you would know what I am trying to say....maybe I am not explaining it right...as I have only studied philosophy in Arabic...I apologize if that is the case but anyway.

        One thing I would like to say is that I haven't seen any philosopher reasonably refuting Avicenna's proofs or the Kalam argument properly..I believe that they cannot be refuted....Avicenna's books aren't even studied in universities......I think that Muslim Philosophers' books should be studied in universities....Mulla Sadras books should also be studied...... Islamic Philosophy has no more importance to the west as it used to, even though it is still a mighty mighty philosophy..these are very great philosophical books which should be studied somewhere.....

        .Good luck.

        http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it ......and when a Philosopher uses it......

        A philosopher: A cause is something that gives existence to something.....so something did not exist at all....it was nothing...and then this cause gave it existence....it gave it matter.....

        a simple analogy (just as an example for clarification, not the same thing with God) is when you, through your mind, start imagining something...for example you can imagine an Everest sized mountain of Gold and Silver even though it doesn't exist outside in reality....you are causing it to exist in your mind...

        A scientist: (roughly) : something which causes something else to move, to happen, for action to happen, a phenomena, a condition and so on.. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition etc...


        .....a cause here does not cause something to exist.....the thing already exists....


        in short....... the giver of existence is a cause, says the Muslim Philosopher, The cause of movement and action, eventw etc... is what a cause is.. says a materialist....

        Anyway, I stop here.....you can read the book which I gave you the link to.
        • thumb
          Jul 7 2011: "Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it... and when a Philosopher uses it..."
          That's one of the reasons such arguments persist, despite being weak ones - philosophers take scientific theories with philosophical definitions in mind, and try to derive scientific claims based on those definitions. But the different definitions aren't compatible for the issues discussed, so a mixture of them is not a thing that should be done.

          I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.

          Let's try to agree what we mean when we say "cause". What do you mean by that word?

          Generalizing the concept down to every single instance I've ever heard it used, I could say that a cause is an event that occurs before another event. An "event" is a change from one "state" to another. And a "state" is a configuration of anything (including "everything" and "nothing") regardless of whether there is any sort of matter or not. The words "before" and "change" though only make sense in the context of time. Whether you call it scientific or not is irrelevant. Time in both cases is some sort of a sequence of events occurring over a configuration with certain characteristic (e.g. finiteness - whether a configuration is finite or infinite is still a characteristic of it).

          Based on this definition, if there is a first cause, it means this first cause is an event that has no cause for it, and like every event, this one was a change from one state to another. In the case of both God and the Big Bang, we're talking about the change from the state of nothing to the state of something. The difference is that this "something" is either God or "everything" (assuming there's nothing before the Big Bang). If you go about the "something can't come out of nothing" route, there can't be a first (uncaused) cause.
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jul 8 2011: Hi Vasil,

        ''I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.''

        Don't be too quick to judge.. you're still in the INTRODUCTION which the author states is not part of the book...the introduction is on social issues...this book is from the 50s-60s in Iraq...the actual book starts from part one....I guarantee you that anything he will say in the book will not be 'initial assumptions'...continue reading the book...just read with an open mind. I'm worried that the translation is vague...so if there is anything which is not clear please feel free to ask me as I have the original Arabic with me...

        thanks.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2011: In god's world anything is possible!
    :)
  • May 27 2011: Is there any evidence showing there is a god?
    In some minds there is only one god ,in some minds there is more gods and maybe they are in war ,it depends on the imagination and delusion of that person or persons:)
    And real god is in reallity non-real god.
    May the Force be with you:)
  • thumb
    May 26 2011: I've had the opportunity to study and research various religions in my life during my travels and something I've noticed is that every religion was born at a certain place during a certain period of time. I urge everyone to conduct a similar study. What you will notice is that every religion seems to have been designed for a certain group of people who needed that particular form of spiritual guidance at that particular time. Another form just wouldn't work. For example, lets look at a rough comparison; Buddhism and Islam.

    Briefly put, the former came at a time when people were simply merciless against one another and extremely cruel and violent against animals in the northeastern Indian subcontinent. It was a strange time of mass confusion and there was no particular direction. Everything was just all over the place. In comes Buddhism, propagating peace and meditation to calm the mind, soul, and wild senses. It made perfect sense to the people.

    Now fast forward to the birth of Islam. Rape, murder, and thievery was around every corner. In comes the Quran with its extremely strict and at times very violent preachings, propagated by equally violent preachers, if not even more violent. Would a religion such as Buddhism work in such a violent era for such violent people? Of course not. The Quran was perfect for the Arabs. It managed to give them a form of guidance that reined them in and kept them under control. The peaceful solutions wasn't taken seriously because there was a lot of fire and passion in the air. A stricter and more passionate approach was required for the passionate people of the time.

    Conclusion: One religion cannot work for everyone and there are so many religions because there are so many types of people. My take after all my research, which showed extreme similarities between religions I might add, is that there is one God who has revealed Himself in different ways. Every religion is a school. Pick the path that is closest to your heart and soul.
    • May 26 2011: Dear Sargis,
      I agree you, but about Islam.
      can you say what is religion for our time?
      and why God did not send any other religion after Islam?
      I mean real religion with prophet/book/miracle.
      not human made religions.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Interesting questions. Well, for starters, I don't really understand what you mean by "real" religion but that aside, when it comes to the religion of our time, I think the traditional perception of religions is coming to an end. People have grown tired of the politics and propaganda, which is leading them towards grasping spirituality itself and leaving out the negative and restrictive aspects of religions. They are starting to see the alterations in scripture and how religious leaders have manipulated society. This is changing their perception of religion and changing their approach to God. They are starting to experience spirituality in a very positive, less restrictive, and very spiritual way. So in a nutshell, the religion of our time in my opinion is spirituality itself.

        I notice a slight suggestion from you that because Islam is the last major religion to be passed down in history and because it is the dominant religion, it is somehow automatically better than all the previous religions and is the religion of our time. I don't agree with that notion.

        Firstly, it is the dominant religion mostly because (no offense) lawful and true Muslims are supposed to have many children according to scripture. So it is a system of mass distribution. That is how Islam became so famous. It succeeded by number. That's the cold truth.

        Secondly, while I respect Muslims, I have nothing against them, some of my best friends are Muslims, there are a lot of things I don't agree with in any way. The world is starting to see how manipulative, dangerously restrictive, and corrupt it is in many respects, especially in major Islamic circles, which is leading to the conversion of countless Muslims.

        I don't know what the Islam of the past was but the Islam of today revolves around massive fear, manipulation, and blackmail. The best example is the verse in the Quran clearly stating that any Muslim who converts to another religion must be killed. So Islam is literally forced upon you.
        • May 28 2011: Dear Sargis,
          Real religion has:
          a known prophet (like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace on them))
          A miraculous holy book like Torah, Bible, Quran
          Having enough proof that that prophet is sent by God. (for example power of controlling and changing Natural laws)

          That all depend on believing God. If no God then religion has no meaning.
          If we accept a God that send all prophets of Abrahamic religions then problem changes and we look for that God and does want anything from us to we be safe after death?
          But if not believing to God and only need to some kind of believing to a supreme being then to have a calm psychic conditions then "spirituality itself" can solve the problem.
          Human made religions are those not having them like "spirituality itself"
          this is new religion? "spirituality itself"?
          who is its prophet?

          "negative and restrictive aspects of religions"
          they are from people evil deeds not from religion itself.

          "Muslims are supposed to have many children "
          yes, but this is not a "Must" and only suggested like many other suggestions and in real world most families (not all) have 2 children. But in old past yes it was usually more than one but most of Childs died for lack of health and mass sick. But I disagree this increase the population of one country. But not spreading in world. Many countries (like Iran) accepted Islam by their wisdom and heart.

          "The world is starting to see how manipulative, dangerously restrictive, and corrupt it is in many respects, especially in major Islamic circles, "
          agree but this is not related to Islam itself. This is for weakness and evil deeds of Muslims.

          "which is leading to the conversion of countless Muslims."
          Disagree, it opposite. Evidence?
          Do you know its growing number of Muslims France, Canada, England, Argentina,...?
        • May 28 2011: Dear Sargis,

          "Islam of today revolves around massive fear, manipulation, and blackmail "
          yes, please read this:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
          Its again for Muslims, not Islam.
          manner is affected by many factors including religion. religion is not manner of people.

          "any Muslim who converts to another religion must be killed. So Islam is literally forced upon you."
          yes, but I have not seen such case killed yet.
          Who disbelieve does not blare it. Any Belief is in mind. Not in face.
          Many Muslims does not believe even in God and they are not killed yet.
          You can not see or prove the believe of people. And also prophet Muhammad (peace on him) said:
          "Do not question about religion"
          Usually religion of some one is not questioned.
        • May 28 2011: Dear Iqbal,
          "If one God is possible rationally, more Gods are possible rationally too."
          Is God omnipotent or not?
          If yes is more than omnipotent possible?


          "Gods are not visible, audible and feelable to humans so we have no way of knowing it."

          Any way nature is under control of God and if they have war it will have effect on our universe and nature.

          " If you feel thunder and lighting are the result of Gods infighting, be my guest."
          thunder is for clouds.

          "what do you think you, me and others are for? we are all messengers of GOD/S."
          really you are messenger of God?
          can you show me message of God?

          "yes look around you. There are animals created by animal god, there are plants created by plant god, "
          so I think my understanding of God and your is different.
          Can you say what is a god by you?
          Can a statue be God?

          "depends on how you define God."
          Developer of universe s and earth, the One, the Omnipotent, the Merciful, the compassionate

          "The non-real God sits in our head and the real god sits in our pelvis (remember creations?)."
          Please explain this. I do not understand what is your meaning of real God.
      • thumb
        May 28 2011: What I am discussing is not Islamophobia Ahmad. Islam itself creates a lot of fear in its own followers.

        ~"any Muslim who converts to another religion must be killed. So Islam is literally forced upon you."
        yes, but I have not seen such case killed yet.~

        I have. And the threats and beatings and what not are increasing by the minute because many Muslims are getting tired of the fear and the hate and what not, which is resulting in their conversion to other more peaceful religions. This is upsetting the majority of strict Muslims gravely. Go to London for starters and you'll see what I mean. There are even documentaries and news reports available on YouTube now. I am not disrespecting Islam or Muslims by stating this. It is simply the cold hard truth.

        ~Many Muslims does not believe even in God and they are not killed yet.~

        A Muslim is an adherent of Islam. "Muslim" isn't a caste or social circle. So how can you be a Muslim and not believe in God? You are contradicting yourself.

        ~You can not see or prove the believe of people. And also prophet Muhammad (peace on him) said:
        "Do not question about religion" Usually religion of some one is not questioned.~

        Usually? But mostly millions were not only questioned but brutally killed over religion. Are there really any doubts in this regard? And prophet Muhammad seems to have contradicted himself, as well no offense by writing verses clearly stating what needs to be done with non-believers or shall I say, Kafirs...
        • May 28 2011: "Islam itself creates a lot of fear in its own followers."
          oh sorry. I had misunderstanding.
          you are right. but do not forget Islam (Koran) has also lots of hope.
          Islams says fear and hope should be always together. not only fear and not only hope.
          for example if we say God loves all and all are saved this is all hope. Islams says a believers should be like a sparrow in hand. fear and hope to to be free.
          also what is the problem of fear? it cause we take care of our manner and morals.

          "many Muslims are getting tired of the fear "
          fear of what you mean? fear of God (punish of evil deeds) or fear of cruel emperors of their countries?
          dream a street with no fear of police.

          "A Muslim is an adherent of Islam."
          most Muslims have only from Islam its name.

          a real Muslims is who all his/her life is according to Koran.

          "But mostly millions were not only questioned but brutally killed over religion"
          what you mean clearly?

          "writing verses clearly stating what needs to be done with non-believers or shall I say, Kafirs..."
          what verses you mean?
          do you mean what means Kafir? it means non-believer? kafir means farmer in word and has special definitions. and who Koran says to be killed? if some one want to kill you by cruelty what you do with him?
          do you know meaning of Koran or you say what you do not know?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 28 2011: I find it ironic how people claim that God is all powerful and can do literally anything, and then set artificial boundaries by asking questions such as "Can a statue be God?", "Can God have a son?", "Can God have a form?"...We can have a form, why can't all powerful God? We can have children, why can't God? We come in all shapes and sizes, can't God enter the form of a deity? This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what I believe or anyone else believes. It is simply logical answers in the form of questions to illogical questions. Many theists don't realize how they are undermining and minimizing the power of the God they believe to be all powerful and I find that inane, especially when I see just how passionate and fired up they are when discussing that power. It's these types of strange and inane contradictions that make people utterly confused and doubtful of God's existence.
        • May 28 2011: Dear Iqbal,
          a true messenger of God has not evil deeds.
          my evils are more than goods.

          "Please define Omnipotent."
          who has no limit in power and nothing/no one can limit him in doing any thing. Omnipotent do any thing only by Intend and do not need any thing for doing any thing.
          for example an Omnipotent Intent to create a universe with all its creatures and that universe becomes exist immediately. like we Imagine an Image in our mind.
          Intend=doing and not having any need and not being responsible to any one.

          "its pretty obvious that gods must be fighting. "
          yes all earth quake, Tsunami, volcano is made by God. but this not mean fight. if God want all the universe disappear in one moment. no need to fight. this is test or punishment. friends of God are always tested to have more rewards in other life. and enemies of God are tasting little part of their punishment in life of world.

          "Yes I'm and you are also. "
          a messenger of God should have a proof for his claim that he is from real God. for example messengers can control nature by power of God. can you rise sun from west?

          "Love your Kafir the same way as you love your own people. "
          I think you are messenger of yourself instead of God.

          "plz read this miracle"
          I have read it. God does need milk? who created milk? can this God protect himself?
          do you know Abraham? he is called "statue destroyer". one day he destroyed all statues unless biggest statue with axe and left the axe near big statue. when people came and see that situation searched and arrested Abrahim and asked him why did you such?
          he said the Biggest did this ask him if he can speak. they said they can do this.
          please read story of Ibrahim here:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/21:51
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85

          "plz explain Omnipotent. "
          absolute power. no limit in doing any thing Intended.
        • May 28 2011: Dear Sargis,
          "artificial boundaries"
          question does not mean boundaries. its argument mainly questions are from people praying statue.

          "We can have children, why can't God"
          why a God should have child?
          we need child for not extinction and protecting our generation.
          does a God needs child?
          if God have child then it is not God.

          "can't God enter the form of a deity?"
          if God want can speak you from a statue.like God communicated Moses (peace on him) by voice from a tree:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/28:30
          but God itself is not statue.
          if God created all universe and all materials then is it possible itself be material?
          can a material be material? who creates material itself should be beyond material.
          question is different of believe. question is for discuss and challenge.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 29 2011: ~"artificial boundaries" question does not mean boundaries. its argument mainly questions are from people praying statue.~

          And logically speaking, you are praying to an empty direction. That particular direction signifies God to you in some way though. In the same way, statues not necessarily ARE God but represent and signify God to Hindus. What's wrong with that? It is simply a matter of perception.

          ~"We can have children, why can't God" why a God should have child? we need child for not extinction and protecting our generation. does a God needs child?~

          No, God doesn't need children, but then again, God doesn't really need a stupid species like us who just argues, beats each other up, and destroys the planet, does he? The question is not whether he NEEDS children. He can easily HAVE children if he wants, that's the point. At the end of the day, he created the process of birth, didn't he? He gave birth to this entire universe. He can't give birth to a superior being?

          ~if God have child then it is not God.~

          God can do anything, including have superior, heavenly children (which is not the same as having our children). At the end of the day, we are all his children...we're just the dumber, material kind figuratively speaking lol.

          ~but God itself is not statue.~

          No one is saying God is a statue per say. But it signifies God and can communicate with the faithful and create a spiritual connection according to scripture. That's all there is to it.

          ~if God created all universe and all materials then is it possible itself be material?
          can a material be material? who creates material itself should be beyond material.~

          Why do Muslims think that if God comes down to the Material realm, he is automatically material from that point? If he created the bloody world, he is beyond it and can deal with or within it as he likes whilst still remaining beyond it. That doesn't make him MATERIAL. Again, these artificial boundaries being placed around God's power and essence.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: "Islam itself creates a lot of fear in its own followers."
          you are right. but do not forget Islam (Koran) has also lots of hope. Islams says fear and hope should be always together. not only fear and not only hope. for example if we say God loves all and all are saved this is all hope. Islams says a believers should be like a sparrow in hand. fear and hope to to be free. also what is the problem of fear? it cause we take care of our manner and morals.

          Do not confuse fear with respect and order. Fear of God is not the same as respecting God. The Qoran gives hope too, yeah, but mostly the latter. There is too much chaos that peace almost comes across as something symbolic that will be achieved in the afterlife, not in this world. Which is why I stated earlier that one religion cannot work for everyone. A Buddhist is not afraid of God, he meditates upon God all day and is sublime and in peace. This man would never EVER be able to grasp Islam or be able to convert to the chaos and fear. I hate how some Muslims have this ideology that if you aren't afraid, you are automatically going to be evil or something which is why the Qoran promotes fear. Let me tell you something, if I have to be afraid of God to be with God, I'd rather never be with God. Fear is not what God is or is supposed to signify and if you ask the millions of Muslims converting to more pious and peaceful religions out there what triggered them to convert, they all seem to say the same thing. They hate the fear, manipulation and degradation.

          "many Muslims are getting tired of the fear"
          fear of what you mean? fear of God (punish of evil deeds) or fear of cruel emperors of their countries? dream a street with no fear of police.

          When I walk the streets, I'm not afraid of the police. I respect them. Fear in Islam means being afraid of thinking about anything in a way that the majority doesn't think. It's almost a trap. Once you go Islam or are born a Muslim, you will be killed if you try to convert.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: ~"A Muslim is an adherent of Islam."
          most Muslims have only from Islam its name.~
          a real Muslims is who all his/her life is according to Koran.

          That doesn't prove my statement wrong or prove your previous statement right.


          "But mostly millions were not only questioned but brutally killed over religion"
          what you mean clearly?

          Muhammad stated "Do not question about religion" and you said that the religion of an individual is not questioned usually. What does that mean? That you follow what Muhammad stated only sometimes? If it wasn't "questioned", Islam wouldn't be one of the major religions in the world and millions of lives wouldn't have been taken. Rivers of blood would not have flown in almost every part of the world because of the Islamic sword. You my friend seem to not know enough about your own history. What you are describing is a flowery, loving religion. What I'm talking about is millions of people being brutally killed over religion or as you like to put it... being questioned over it.

          "writing verses clearly stating what needs to be done with non-believers or shall I say, Kafirs..."
          what verses you mean? do you mean what means Kafir? it means non-believer? kafir means farmer in word and has special definitions. and who Koran says to be killed? if some one want to kill you by cruelty what you do with him? do you know meaning of Koran or you say what you do not know.

          I only say what I know and I doubt you are properly taking in what I or anyone else in this forum is saying. I am not going to point out verses and go into a theological debate with you. Forgive me but I see it as a waste of my time. You are the Muslim. You have the Qoran at home. Read it again and take a look at what Islam says about non-believers and what needs to be done to those who don't convert. Then we'll continue our discussion.
        • May 29 2011: Dear Sargis,
          "you are praying to an empty direction."
          we pray to direction of Kaaba
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba
          And it is because God commanded to we do so:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:144 (al-Masjid al-Haram= Kaaba)
          So this means praying (obeying) God. Not praying Kaaba.
          Did God commanded praying statue?
          Praying statue if God commanded is OK. But praying statue itself has what meaning? It means that statue is God?


          "God doesn't really need a stupid species like us who just argues, beats each other up, and destroys the planet, does he?"
          Does not need. But Intended so:
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B6%20%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%88 (please click each result and click translate)

          "He can easily HAVE children if he wants,"
          exactly right. but did he wanted such?
          As Koran says did not want:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/112:3
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/3:59
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/4:171
          If you have any evidence please show.

          God created universe not born. Birth is in creatures like animals. God is animal?
          Why God give birth?

          "God can do anything"
          Yes can if want. Did he wanted have child in any kind?

          "God and can communicate with the faithful and create a spiritual connection according to scripture."
          Yes but if he want. As Koran says God strongly hates praying statue. And does not create a spiritual connection according to scripture.
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85
          Praying any thing unless God is highest sin according to Koran. If you have other evidence please show. We can not decide about God as we like when God himself is speaking (Koran). You can say Koran is not (or doubt) word of God. Its other topic:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2328/is_koran_scientifically_a_mira.html
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
        • May 29 2011: "Why do Muslims think that if God comes down to the Material realm, he is automatically material from that point?"
          This is not impossible but there is no evidence God did so. Also there are many evidence God never did so and will not do so. God do its Intends by creating creatures (like tools) and from one view all creatures are God because their existence belong to God.

          Dear Sargis,
          "The Qoran gives hope too, yeah, but mostly the latter."
          if you count the cases of hope and fear in Koran they are equal.
          and also God said:
          "my Merciful anticipated my Angry"
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/39:53

          You are right about respect. Believers are 3 category:
          1- Who pray God for fear of Hell
          2- Who pray God for avidity of heaven
          3- Who pray God for because found God worthy of pray and pray for appreciate.

          "something symbolic that will be achieved in the afterlife, "
          Are you sure its symbolic and not real?

          "he meditates upon God all day"
          what God and does it have any benefit for afterlife?

          "if I have to be afraid of God to be with God, I'd rather never be with God"
          Why? Evidence?
          This is a law of God:
          fear me to become like me
          If you become like God you will have power to do or create anything only by Intend.
          If you fear God all thing fear you.
          As we are not free we are slave of God and do you know what is the secret of becoming free?
          A good servant is worthy to become free.

          "Fear is not what God is "
          Yes God is not fear. But God wanted us to fear him as a test for unlimited rewards.

          "They hate the fear, manipulation and degradation."
          Please do not mix fear of God with fear of any thing other. Fearing God is higher than any majesty in earth.
          All the nature is servant of who fears God. For example you can transform soil into gold only by intend.(at high level of fear)
          Fear is a test by God.
          You have free will and can fear God or not fear.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: "We pray to direction of Kaaba. So this means praying (obeying) God. Not praying Kaaba. Did God commanded praying statue? Praying statue if God commanded is OK. But praying statue itself has what meaning? It means that statue is God?

          You pray in the direction of the Kaaba because it signifies God and spirituality. Others pray to a deity that signifies God and spirituality to them. That doesn't mean that God is the deity itself but that deity signifies God.

          "Does not need. But Intended so."

          By that logic, God can intend anything, whether or not it is written in the Qoran or any other religious literature and whether or not you personally have evidence of it or not. That is the power of God and trying to put it within boundaries contradicts everything.

          "exactly right. but did he wanted such?"

          I have no evidence to prove that and you have no evidence to disprove that except a couple of verses. The point is, don't say what God can and cannot do whether or not you find it logical or illogical. You may say "Why should God have a son?". You aren't God though, are you? According to scripture, we don't have enough logic to understand God's actions. So don't talk as if you know everything he would and wouldn't do. He can change his mind at any time and he can do anything he likes both within and beyond the material realm.

          "Did he wanted have child in any kind?"

          You and I will never know. I'll make it a point to ask when my time comes. Until then, lets not talk as if we know.

          Yes but if he want. As Koran says God strongly hates praying statue. And does not create a spiritual connection according to scripture.

          I don't see why. That sounds like it was written by someone who simply hated the other religions that approached God via deities.

          "Praying any thing unless God is highest sin according to Koran."

          They are praying to God via a statue that represents and signifies God and Muslims simply worship God without a form. No other difference.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: "This is not impossible but there is no evidence God did so. Also there are many evidence God never did so and will not do so. God do its Intends by creating creatures (like tools) and from one view all creatures are God because their existence belong to God."

          So now you question God and what he can do with your limited knowledge of God? Look Ahmad, no offense but if you want to break it down, there is really no physical evidence that almost anything ever happened. What I am discussing is not evidence. What I am saying is it isn't illogical or impossible from a religious perspective. Period.

          "if you count the cases of hope and fear in Koran they are equal. and also God said: "my Merciful anticipated my Angry"

          Why is there as much fear as hope? In other religions, there is an equal amount of say love and peace or spirituality and something else. In Islam, its hope and fear. And the reasoning behind all that fear is that it keeps one on the right path. Psychologically, that is very disturbing because that means you have to be driven by fear most of the time and just hope that everything will be alright. This creates a lot of aggression and frustration.

          "You are right about respect. Believers are 3 category: 1- Who pray God for fear of Hell 2- Who pray God for avidity of heaven 3- Who pray God for because found God worthy of pray and pray for appreciate."

          Is it just me or is that absolutely materialistic? What about the believer who loves God? Who wants to be with God? So on and so forth? When you are with God, why should you still be afraid of hell and what not? And it sounded like the three categories up there pray only if they want something.

          "Are you sure its symbolic and not real?"

          I'm sure its real but you didn't get my point.

          "what God and does it have any benefit for afterlife?"

          Absolutely. But I don't expect you to understand why. Islam can be very impersonal at times.
        • May 29 2011: "When I walk the streets, I'm not afraid of the police. I respect them."
          I respect you too. This shows you are not a simple human. I hope you respect who gave you hand/eye/ear/leg/hand/water/air/….

          As the above category few humans have such level of wisdom. Thy do not pray God for Heaven or Hell.
          Let me say a poem from greater Persian poet.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi
          Have you read his poets. Great

          "One day a woman go to a jewelry store. She thinks and say by herself:
          if I can make friend with the owner then all the jewelries are mine!"
          Who pray for fear or Heaven are like who work to buy a jewel. Who pray god for God is who have the owner.

          "you will be killed if you try to convert."
          Yes this is a written rule. But I disagree this in real world. People are free but take care of such rules. I have not seen or heard even one such case in my life.
          Also if such case happen finally that person leaves country. Not killed. Unless himself is stupid to be killed.

          "That doesn't prove my statement wrong or prove your previous statement right."
          Yes I mean please do not Judge about Koran by manner of Muslims. Please judge by Koran.

          "you said that the religion of an individual is not questioned usually. What does that mean?"
          I mean this is not done in all Islamic countries the same. But in my country people are free in religion (by respecting national rules). (this not mean I validate all manners done in my country. Do you know how many Jew are leaving in peace in Iran?

          "That you follow what Muhammad stated only sometimes?"
          I hope God help me to can follow Muhammad every moment and my pray and my life and my death be as prophet said.
        • May 29 2011: "You my friend seem to not know enough about your own history"
          Please do not mix all Islamic battles. I validate who were at time of life of prophet buy unfortunately after prophet some sharp evil people that were waiting for death of prophet to get power could cheat people and get power and true successor of prophet was forced to sit in home. They made wars for their greed. Not for God.
          About Iran after Iran Islamic revolution only one war happened that it was imposed to Iran.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala

          War is inevitable with or without religion.

          "millions of people being brutally killed over religion"
          Please think exact what is real cause of that killing? Religion itself? Or greed of emperors in the name of religion (to collect believer soldiers).
          A believer never start war. Although if be encroach defend his family and country.

          "I only say what I know and I doubt you are properly taking in what I or anyone else in this forum is saying. I am not going to point out verses and go into a theological debate with you."
          if you are talking about Islam you should show verses from Koran. If you are speaking about abuse of non-believer emperors in the name of Islam in History then I am sad and sorry for that abuse and I am like you about this problem .
        • May 29 2011: "You have the Qoran at home. Read it again and take a look at what Islam says about non-believers"
          Koran says this:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:256
          But this is misunderstood.
          Belief is some thing in mind and can not be see.
          But please do not mix belief with expose of opposition by religion in religion and doing opposite social activities against Islam in a Islamic society that may be offensive to society of Muslims.
          Until a non-believers maintains his beliefs in his mind or expose it in respect in a scientific and discuss context there is no problem in an Islamic society he is safe. But political opposition in a society of Muslims with special morals is other thing. Belief is different of political opposition.
        • May 29 2011: Dear Iqbal,
          "God is good and evil. he exits in two mindset."
          I not understand this. Please explain.
          God created good and evil. But what means this?


          "because intent implies a limit"
          this is limit of words for us. If use not this word how we say how an omnipotent do what he wants?
          If we want to discuss on words no one can say anything about God.

          "An omnipotent God has no needs to test the human."
          yes does not need. But the only reason of testing is not need.
          Test can be for other reasons. For example knowing the examiner.

          All messengers of God (like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad,.. (peace on them)) had such power. But we have not opportunity to see that messengers at our time. But other miracles are available today.

          "I think part of Koran is Satanic verses."
          I know who said such doubts by writing a book.
          Please say something from yourself about Koran.

          "who created God?"
          God is the only entity with no creator.

          "He is the first sinner."
          Evidence? Sin defined by who? Now he has near 5 Billion follower in earth. You mean all them are following a sinner?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
          "Middle east will never have peace. they fight and keep killing each other."
          war exist in earth with or without of religion. War is for greed of non-believer emperors that some times use religion as a tool for collecting believer soldiers.

          "please show him. "
          Show what to who?

          You mean I show you the omnipotent God? You show me first you can see it. For a small example can you look at sun? no one has ability to see God direct. But God can be seen by think and wisdom and believe.
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: "Please do not mix fear of God with fear of any thing other. Fearing God is higher than any majesty in earth."

          Fearing God and respecting and understanding God's position are two different things. Don't confuse that.

          "All the nature is servant of who fears God. For example you can transform soil into gold only by intend.(at high level of fear) You have free will and can fear God or not fear."

          The soil does not turn to Gold because it fears me but that aside lol....you state that nature is the servant of those who fear God and then you say that you have freewill to fear or not fear God. So if I don't fear God, is nature still my servant?

          "Fear is a test by God."

          Fear needs to be overcome through respect, spirituality and the spark of knowledge.
        • May 31 2011: "Fearing God and respecting and understanding God's position are two different things. "
          correct. but respect is higher level of fear and includes fear. who respects actually already fears God but his deeds are by respect rather than fear.
          its like if some one has PhD already has diploma.

          "The soil does not turn to Gold because it fears me but that aside lol."
          this ability is a reward from God for who fear God.

          "So if I don't fear God, is nature still my servant?"
          yes but in usual level of service of Nature (food water air ,...)
          but nature is not under your commands by your Intend.

          "Fear needs to be overcome through respect, spirituality and the spark of knowledge."
          yes. actually fear is lowest level of respecting God.

          for example you have a child that like to always play and does not go to school to get knowledge. you make some fears for your child to push him go to school. when he went school and grew up then fear is not needed.

          fear and reward (Hell and Heaven) are some incentives for human to know God and near God.
          heaven is like a chocolate for a child to go to school.
      • Comment deleted

        • May 31 2011: "The good act and the bad act in us, like positive and negative, are the work of God."
          agree.

          "but Koran says a lot about God using words!"
          Koran is not by word. is by meaning.

          "then he is not omnipotent. he is impotent."
          why?

          "the reason is Science has developed so much than 1400 yrs ago."
          yes developed but still under development? cancer HIV space ,....
          this is in lacks in science field
          but in rational and wisdom field human always has errors.

          "Such a God can't exists."
          why? what is the relation?

          "Koran contain satanic verses like kill infidels"
          do you know what is the definitions and many terms of killing a infidel? infidel is not equal to non-Muslim.
          if you know the real infidel you yourself kill him before Muslims.

          "whereas Bible says love your enemy"
          please know the meaning of Love in bible better and Love is for what situation.
          Love is not workable every where and for every kind of enemy.

          ""evidence" - Allah."
          proof?

          ""Sin defined by who" - Koran"
          you mean you prophet Abraham (peace on him) is did sin according to definition of sin in Koran?
          can you show me the related verses in Koran?

          "i doubt your census data."
          OK, look this:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
          do you have other more valid source?
          also many muslims are under fear in their country and are not free to be muslim and the real stat is more.
          for example in china the clear stat of muslims is not known and it is said from 40,000,000 to 200,000,000 and maybe even more.

          also in many European countries Muslims are under pressure to remove their Hijab in university and society. governments fear from Islam.

          "these 5 billions are bribed by promising a seat next to god."
          yes, even more. Heven, rivers of wine, milk , pure water, virgin girls and many more.
          is there any problem by you?
          do not worry. God does not spend his rewards from your pocket.
        • May 31 2011: "but without religion we would have a one less headache."
          as this assumption (world without religion) never happens in all the history your claim ( less headache) can not be proved or disproved in real world.

          religion(any kind, even believing in Big Bang and Evolution as creators) is a inseparable part and internal need of human. human without religion is impossible.

          "Yes i can look at Sun during Sun rise and Sun set, using a dark glass i can see Sun"
          very clever.
          also God shows himself to you from dark glass of Nature. for example look at your body and for some minutes think to systems of your body. for example the acid in your stomach can drill metal but why not drill you? why you have such advanced digital camera in your head? only because of a explosive(Big Bang)?

          you can see God by think. not by eye of head. like that you can not see far stars by eye of head and you need telescope as a tool. and for seeing God you need its special tool (think)

          "You are correct because there is no God."
          I submissively as a little brother ask you think again about God by thinking to signs of God in nature.

          "then you must believe other Gods. "
          other Gods seem God in first view without enough think. but by more think about nature and universe and existence and universe they themselves are dependent of other God. finally there is no more than one real God.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 4 2011: Dear iqbal,
          "how you will have meaning without describing it in words?"
          some times words can not be understood:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/16:43

          "An Omnipotent has no need to test the humans."
          Allah does not test for need. test is to Allah be known.

          "i'm saying technology has made expose of prophets or god man's magic"
          that God is different of Allah. Allah is not a man.

          "who is the creator of God?
          if you mean Allah, no creator.

          "please give your meaning of infidel."
          who knows truth 100% and hide it from people and say lie religion to people to people follow them.
          infidel in Koran (by word) means farmer. farmer is who cover soil on see. infidel is who cover on truth.
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:79

          non-Muslim is not equal to infidel.

          "but i don't need a prophet to tell me to hate the enemy. "
          yes you not need but this is a term by Allah to Allah love you and you enter Heaven.

          "[""evidence" - Allah."proof?]
          Koran."
          show the verse.

          "please define sin."
          disobeying Allah according to rules of Koran.

          "what is the source for your assumption?"
          about china research mostly Wikipedia.

          "even if you are correct to say that Muslim population ranks one, does it make Islam the true religion?"
          No, http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/6:116

          :do you remember what happened to Jews in Germany in the 40's? do you wish the same thing happening to your Muslim brethren in Europe?"
          mean houlocast? it is not real and has lots of overstatement and is a win card used by Israel to get aid and point from U.S and other countries.
          no. I do not like.

          "God doesn't have anything in his pocket either. his pocket is as empty as my bank balance."
          all creations of God like earth sky mines universe are from unlimited resources of Allah.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 4 2011: "Crusades disproves your assumption. No religion, no Crusades."
          how? do you know one day without religion in world? even believing Big Bang as a creator of universe is kind of religion.

          "I just want to remind you that Atheists are Humans like you and me."
          they have also some believes with no question. ask them how universe created?

          "I see only Santa claus."
          try and think more please in nature.

          "brilliant. similarly, God can appear in front of me without burning my eyes."
          God itself is not material and but God can emanate through material objects that it is like nature you already see. nature is speaking you but not in your language.by think you hear what they say. but if wants and not for any one. if you need communicating God, God sent all messages in Koran. and no need for new communicate.

          "i don't see a God by thinking but i create a God by thinking"
          good point. think show us the attributes of God. not God itself. for example if you write a book and I read it I understand the level of your knowledge by that book.
          if we make a God in our mind then it is a deity and God hate praying deity.

          "Gods. if only we have only eyes with no think we would be having a beautiful life."
          yes but then we are animal and we will not have the great opportunity to be friend of God and enter Heaven. use your opportunity. animals wish to be human.

          "i 'm wearing a glass."
          still it is advanced and it is for bad usage. for example alcohol harms eye.
          God created it perfect you made it imperfect.
          we have million deity. there is no God but Allah.

          "but i have a problem with your god"
          no problem. please ask before prejudice. please ask 40 questions or more.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 23 2011: Richard...............Excuse me, but your logic is flawed.
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: is there anything logical about god? its a topic beyond logic
        • May 24 2011: if any God exist then our logic is programmed by God. so what kind of logic you mean? human logic or God logic?
      • thumb
        May 25 2011: Helen....... please point out the flaw of Richard's logic.

        Richard thanks for opening up your profile I tried to email, but failed> Don't know what's going on.
  • thumb
    May 21 2011: Are not those answers available in The Quran ?

    Can you help me to understand the question below
    Why even believers of one GOD had been fighting each other so long and still continuing?
    • May 21 2011: hello,
      this is not a question. this is a debate mostly with Hindu people.
      this is from other talk that was out of topic there.

      "Why even believers of one GOD had been fighting each other so long and still continuing? "
      because their believe is weak and they love world more than God.
      • thumb
        May 21 2011: Better mark it as "To Hindus" only though there is no religion called Hindu................
      • thumb
        May 22 2011: Dear S.R. my Friend
        That's a misnomer. In ancient time people of Indian Sub Continent was known as Hindu irrespective of their religion , which is a geographical naming because Shindh was the main river.

        Majority of people of Indian sub continent were follower of the reiligion named "SANATON" thats the reason I told there is no religion named Hindu
        • Jun 5 2011: Dear Salim Solaiman,
          thanks for your explain.
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: Hi Dayne
        Everything is relative to time, space , person ..... referring Einstein
        What you wrote below my post is definitely very arrogant to me.
      • May 25 2011: Hello SR. The reason we are at loggerheads with each other over different religions is not because of selfish emotions, it is because of the way we were created. Emotions are what we are and who we are. The negative and positive emotions compliment each other and without them there would be no you or me or God and Devil. Example: How would we know the frustration of failure if we didn't know the thrill of achievment? How would we know love without knowing hate? It's these positive and negative emotions that make us the intelligent species that we are. It's the stimulation an intelligent species feeds on. We fight over a multitude of reasons, pride, jealousy, land, love and even football, thats just to mention a few, I could go on. You don't solve a problem by saying one religion is better than another, you solve a problem by understanding it in the first place. OUR EMOTIONAL STATUS!
        • Jun 5 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
          our OUR EMOTIONAL STATUS! how is created and why different peoples have different EMOTIONAL STATUS!?
          religion say obeying God. if God say a deed is good we do and if say evil we do not do.
          the obey beyond EMOTIONAL STATUS is important . not the EMOTIONAL STATUS itself.
    • thumb
      May 22 2011: Monotheism leads to people fighting for the power of their path to god, where as polytheism there is not the need for such strife. With polytheism there can be small eddies of strife between some particular faithfuls but it isn't the same dominating everything for one mentality. The thought of multiple gods tends to leave understanding that different things can be accredited to different reasons and that there are many pathways to god. Generally this breeds a more excepting society.
      • Jun 5 2011: Dear Thomas Pisarchick,
        agree.
        but which is true?
        moo or poly?
        the after death risk is more important or society?
    • thumb
      May 25 2011: Salim.....................The logic is flawed by my definition because two absolutes cannot co-exisdt.
      • thumb
        May 27 2011: Helen thanks for putting your thoughts

        Well there is nothing called absoulte (scientifically though) everything is relative to time , space , person / perspective to be very simple, even then I am giving an example how two seemingly absolute can co-exist

        In a color blind vision condition there is no Red & Green colors but with so called normal vision Red & Green colors are there .......
        • thumb
          May 27 2011: salim...................Red and Green are absolutes but they are not the same absolutes.
          When I speak of God there are no demiurges or other Gods.Absolute means one of a kind. (:>)
      • thumb
        May 28 2011: Helen.......... I actually missed your one point which is your "my defintion" so that's your defintion of absoluteness .........

        Ok fine , actually there can't be any debate between "Logic" or "Science" vs Belief, I usually avoid this as it's endless.

        I respect believers who are for the betterment of humankind & defintely you are one of them.
        Believers can starightly say "I don't believe you what you said" to any logical argument , instead of saying "your logic flawed", as believers don't need any logic or reasoning or proof ..............

        For that reason I am not going to put any other logic or proof in favour my argument above though I have enough to proof.....

        Thanks for your thoughts
        • thumb
          May 29 2011: Salim...........Under cover of being very polite you sound very put out with me . Too bad. I really would like to see your proofs about logic.
      • thumb
        May 30 2011: Dear HelenSorry Helen, it's nothing personal.As Belief vs Science / Logic debate is an enedless one I usually avoid that. I told same thing to some other post as well in similar situation. You talked about flaw in Logic that's why thought the discussion with you might be an logical one. So responded.

        As I could realize we might be getting in to a debate which is like one I mentioned here , so thought it is better to stop. Just an example , when scientifically there is nothing called absolute may be except change , you believe there are multiple absolutes as you mentioned about RED & GREEN color so it will be really endless......

        I am fine if someone with strong believe and have all the good intention for humankind & believe you are one of them.

        Well as because I was unable to communicate in right way , I am giving my last example focusing one thing to explain how one same thing at the same time it can be different to two different person which is below

        I am myopic, so from certain distance I can't read anything if letters are not sufficiently big , to me it's unreadable and I can say why it is written so unreadable way? But to a person with normal vision it's very much readable standing at the same point as I am & say your are wrong this is very much readable ....
      • Jun 4 2011: How do you know? I believe two absolutes can exist if they don'e occupy space. If you believe in a god that is not material, and does not occupy space, so infinite number of such gods can exist.
        • Jun 5 2011: the problem is not only lack of space.
          also power is important.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2011: Ian Mckellen and Patrick Stewart are absolute gods! They make X-men 2 the movie that it is.
    • Jun 26 2011: what you mean by God?
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2011: I mean like this ethereal force that nobody can grasp. It's got no boundaries, it's everything and nothing at the same time waffle waffle waffle waffle. That's what I mean by God.
        • Jun 27 2011: amazing thing!
          does such thing exist?
          i not call it God.
      • thumb
        Jun 27 2011: And that's probably a good thing. I prefer someone who has a clear sharp definition of God like you rather than someone who keeps moving the goalposts.
        • Jun 28 2011: 1- please read my comment here starting "Dear friend Vasil,
          1- we can know God how much we try with no limit. more knowing God more closing to God."

          2- knowing and defining God clear is not possible.

          3- you can prefer anything but only true God can help you before after death.
  • thumb
    Jun 18 2011: Suppose there exists just one god. Then any human being and whatever creature throughout the Universe must agree in all of his characteristics, like "He is a male god", "He is good", "He is merciful", "He is almighty", "He is the universe creator", "He is our savior", "He is the owner of everything in universe", and so on. I mean it's not possible that one person could think of one image (representation) of God and other person think of another different God's representation. And that's not possible because God shows just one face to the people, except for he might have several "faces" (profiles) showing to everyone of us. Therefore, if there exists just one god then he may have one or more "faces" showing to universe. Another chance is that God is not just one god, but several of them. Even there is another chance: there exists several gods, each one of these with one or more "faces". Don't you think this sounds as gods existing in India's theosophy?

    Even if one god were the true fact, it sounds to me as a (stress generating) monarch having a desire for controlling everything as any "good king" would do. If democracy is nowadays a "moral value" accepted throughtout the world, then God is not "tuned in" with human current affairs. He begins to weaken and so he may even loose his status as a "god". For sure, a real God is "tuned in" with times, with today, because the other way he won't be an eternal "god", seeming a common human being, instead. Some people might say that God has nothing to do with human vogues or trends. But I'm absolutely sure that if human race begins to think that "God is dead" or "God means nothing", then there is a real chance for God to dissapear once and for all from the Humankind records. And that's because God depends on human being the same as people depend on God.

    So, there is a pretty fair chance for existence of several gods at once. And then, existence of one god implies that there may be several of them. Don't you agree with me?
    • Jun 19 2011: the characteristics you said seems to be God in Christian beliefs. but not in Islam.

      why God should show his correct face (profile) to all humans correct?

      it is duty of humans to know God. not duty of God to know himself to humans.

      God intentionally wanted to all humans does not know him same.

      in that case all humans were like animals.
      and human was not human any more.

      there is only one God. but people have different knowings.

      "Even if one god were the true fact, it sounds to me as a (stress generating) monarch having a desire for controlling everything as any "good king" would do."
      so why humans are free to do any thing. good or evil?

      "If democracy is nowadays a "moral value" accepted throughtout the world, "
      disagree. democracy is most corrupted form of government and not accepted in all the world.

      "t I'm absolutely sure that if human race begins to think that "God is dead" or "God means nothing", then there is a real chance for God to dissapear once and for all from the Humankind records."
      why? this is logic?!

      if all think you are dead then you are really dead?

      "God depends on human being the same as people depend on God."
      God is the only thing depend on no thing.

      "So, there is a pretty fair chance for existence of several gods at once. And then, existence of one god implies that there may be several of them. Don't you agree with me?"
      no. more than one God has conflict with attributes of true God. for example absolute power.
      • thumb
        Jun 19 2011: "the characteristics you said seems to be God in Christian beliefs. but not in Islam."
        That means what? That there are no similar characteristics in Islamic God? I know both religions. Why Islamic is so different from Christian?

        "it is duty of humans to know God. not duty of God to know himself to humans."
        Why people must know God? Please give me just a one good reason for it. Humans just decide not to seek for God, and that's all. I mean, humans decide what to do and what don't. If you don't agree with this sentence, then maybe you are talking about a God serving to a bunch of animals, and being served by them. Only who wants to turn somebody into an slave forces him to "love" that person. Why humans can't find anything they want without a divine guide? Are we so tiny that we must seek for greatness outside of ourselves? This is absolutely an insane idea.

        "there is only one God. but people have different knowings."
        That means, almighty God does give to us the ability to understand him in several ways. Why other gods can't give to us the same power to understand them? Is there a monopoly of illuminating ways of understanding the divine? Who has the monopoly? Your god? My evil god? The God of all gods?

        "if all think you are dead then you are really dead?"
        Absolutely not. But, if all the world think that you are dead, can you go to a bank and ask for your money as a dead man? Can you manage your business and give commands to your employees as a dead man? No, because nobody that's not crazy can believe that it is possible to give money to or receive commands from a dead man. So, if you're not really dead, it's almost true that you're dead. Just staying at church may be one of the scarse ways to "stay alive" in a world that ignores you till the point it doesn't matter if you are considered "alive" or "dead". If you don't agree with me, try publishing throughout the world that you are dead, and see the effects of that "clever" decision.

        Nice to meet you, check it out
        • Jun 19 2011: "That means what? That there are no similar characteristics in Islamic God? "
          in Islam God is not human or male. God is not material at all.
          but there is similarities.

          "I know both religions. Why Islamic is so different from Christian?"
          because Christianity changed during history and many human-made beliefs mixed it.
          but Islam is much more original and not changed.

          in original version they have no conflict.

          "Why people must know God? Please give me just a one good reason for it."
          the reason is wisdom.
          wisdom says seek truth. and also no one proved afterlife and God not exist. so it is very important to find truth about God.

          yes. human decides to do or not do his duty.

          "Why humans can't find anything they want without a divine guide? '
          because the knowledge/rational/wisdom of human is limited and has limits.
          what happens after death? do you know?
          can you escape death?
          so we are limited.

          "Are we so tiny that we must seek for greatness outside of ourselves? "
          in fact yes. example is death.

          "This is absolutely an insane idea."
          its your idea and you will see the result of this idea.

          "That means, almighty God does give to us the ability to understand him in several ways."
          yes

          "Why other gods can't give to us the same power to understand them?"
          first prove other God exist. if other God existed at least sent us his messengers.

          "Is there a monopoly of illuminating ways of understanding the divine?"
          no. ways are many many. each human can have different way of knowing same and only God.

          "can you go to a bank and ask for your money as a dead man?"
          no. but I am still alive.

          "Can you manage your business and give commands to your employees as a dead man?"
          no. but I am still alive.

          "No, because nobody that's not crazy can believe that it is possible to give money to or receive commands from a dead man."
          death is not defined by giving money.

          about human that all world says is dead perhaps you are right.
          but God nor need any thing, money, business or any thing.

          tnx
  • thumb
    Jun 16 2011: Yes, there can be two Gods.

    By "God" I mean a being who is perfectly benevolent, that has perfect knowledge, and who has all powers necessary for carrying out all benevolent actions.

    Two such beings would be perfectly in alliance with each other, so it would not be the case that their competing omnipotent powers would be exercised against each other to ceate chaos.

    Their knowledge, being perfect and asolutely infinite, would be entirely coextensive

    The real question is whether they would be numerically two if they are in such total alliance with each other and exactly alike.

    I think the answer to that is that they would be two if they chose to be two, and they would choose to be two if that was the most benevolent way to be. I kind of think it would be the most benevolent way to be. Friendship is better than isolation for a perfectly benevolent being. That would suggest that there would not only be two Gods, but infinite Gods. Instead of a Trinity, there would be an Infinity.
    • Jun 19 2011: by what you defined two is possible.
      but what you defined is not true God.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2011: How do you define "true God" then? What qualities are essential to labeling a being "God" (other than the obvious - it being "a being").
        • Jun 26 2011: Dear friend Vasil,
          1- we can know God how much we try with no limit. more knowing God more closing to God.
          2- we can not know God perfect and complete because God has no end.
          3- God is absolute and unlimited in any attribute like knowledge power mercy,...
          4- God is not human nor man nor material and has not limitations of material like time place dimension,... God is everywhere and God is out of time and place. like when you are in sleep dream and see future or past or go other country or city in sleep dream.
          5- eye of head can not see God
          6- only God can be seen by eye of heart (soul and wisdom) using think/knowledge.
          7- who has no knowledge can not know God
          8- we can not know the entity of God (what is God itself). human has not such ability. it is like going where has no kind of way.
          9- the only thing we can know from God is its attributes
          10- God has many attributes (names) 99 of them mentioned in Koran:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam
          11- God was alone and Intended to be known.
          12- God created universe and good and evil and created human with wisdom and free will to human know God
          13- creation is step by step because this is nature of material and needs to evolve step by step. creation is not at once and then finish. creation is still continued every day.
          God used word creation in Koran about many facts like develop of fetus. "we create human in womb" this means creation is a step by step process. and evolution is already creation of God. creation is not only species. atoms, material itself and all you see is created and still being created. people think evolution solves all problems. but what about material itself? why universe has material? what is material? why material exist?,...
          also please read my comments in:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/1599/who_is_god.html
  • thumb
    Jun 13 2011: is not anything possible in a world with a god?
    • Jun 19 2011: anything is possible for God.
      • thumb
        Jul 8 2011: so he could easily mutiply himself at will. question solved.
        • Jul 8 2011: if want.
          do you know God wanted this or not?
        • thumb
          Jul 8 2011: Yes.

          Perfection desires perfect community with perfection and desires the accomplishment of perfection for all its children.
        • Jul 13 2011: perfect community has one God.
          more than one God will fight on power and we all will be destroyed in war of Gods.

          it is like a country with more than one King.
        • thumb
          Jul 14 2011: Two perfect beings would love each other. They would not fight. Only imperfect beings fight with each other. A world with more than one God would not be like a country with more than one king because Gods are not as stupid and selfish as kings.
  • Comment deleted

  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 12 2011: Vasil, until now you haven't answered any of my arguments, only giving questions and I am answering.......then...you just go to another argument altogether.........

    you say that its kind of wrong to use the word impossible......I have, and I have stated why.....i have given you proofs..as i said not one answer.....i hate to say this to you but you're just running away from my arguments.......misquoting the Quran and then asking, in all honesty, illogical and stupid questions.......
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 12 2011: the problem is :

    Why don't the two Gods or more just agree on one system???

    they have minds and are Good so why don't they just agree on everything.....????


    ANSWER:

    the Questioner thinks that controlling the universe with Laws is just like controlling a family where the responsibility is shared in agreement on both parents.........that is wrong......

    We as humans, base our laws on what we see in the outside world and what we know of laws that exist......that is that our laws are based on our knowledge...and our knowledge is based on the outside world.......therefore we can agree on things and act in accordance with out agreements......

    As for the proposed Gods.....their laws do not come in accordance with their knowledge of the outside world after it exists: that their knowledge is based on the outside world.....its completely the opposite for God....because the outside world is based on his knowledge........then we ask this question....if that is the case with God than how is it possibly possible for Gods to agree like us humans when their way is totally different........Gods system is not based on anything, it just comes about from nothing....it is the outside world...so in reality there is no meaning for them to agree about it.....

    this means that their systems will be different and chaos will arise and destruction and so on.......whereas we see the universe and it is perfect and amazing......

    therefore there is and can only be one God........as in a controller God is the same as the creator God.....they are one

    controlling is creating........because everything is changing......God is changing them.....he is Creating constantly....we call this controlling through systems...

    As you can see this proof was taken from the Quran and i explained it as best as i could.....if you need any clarifications thats fine with me........
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 12 2011: The Quran states (in meaning):

    ''Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) alihah (gods) besides Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth i.e. the universe) would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above all that they associate with Him!''


    This needs explanation:


    The Quran is asking us to look at the universe and see how harmonious it is and how laws work with each other without canceling each other out.....it is peaceful and there is no chaos and disaster everywhere......just look at the earth for example......btw this has got nothing to do with life now.....just look at the universe regardless of humans and animal......its amazing and beautiful....

    this means that there is one whole system......

    The Quran is claiming that this means there is only one controller....and system ''putter''......

    The reason that is is because.....if there were two gods controlling then they would have to be different in themselves for them to be 2.....otherwise they would just be one and the first sentence wouldn't make sense because we are just saying there is two when there is actually two....

    this i.e. that they must be different in themselves.....that they have different characteristics and different powers at the least....(for them to be different)......this means that they have different actions and effects too.....

    what that would mean is that both would have there own laws and own system.......the laws on the universe we see would cancel each other and be inharmonious and chaotic......we see the complete opposite

    the result is that there must be one God, the controller.......because there is one system...

    there is a problem on this proof which i will address in my next comment.....
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: Then what have i been doing in my last comments>???? you don't consider them proof? 2 proofs i gave to you....you don't call that evidence??? why are you scared of this word : impossible..........2+2= 5 is impossible somethings are impossible im claiming that two gods is also impossible.....i gave you my proofs.....and i said so many times that i don't just say something without evidence......Why is it impossible that we know whether there is only one God or not?????!! its completely possible......just like we prove everything else we can prove that there is only one God......why do you arrogantly insist on not reading my proofs in my previous comments......all you say is that both possibilities are possible but you are not telling me why....whereas I AM telling you why it is impossible for there to be more than one God.........complete arrogance....

    My views are fully backed up by evidence which i mentioned.....you may not think that they are right but please tell me why...argue with me ..... I want to be argued with....your just claiming stuff without evidence on anything.....maybe that is the reality of Atheism OR Atheists because till now its just been dismissal because it doesn't ''seem'' right......GIVE ME PROOF that you are right....I have, you haven't.....

    As i said, you MUST be neutral in arguments.........i would be....but i haven't got one argument from you so far......give me proof.....don't just dismiss with evidence lacking sayings......
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: Can you tell me why the Quran is flawed on God???

    you probably haven't even read the Quran....show me evidence from the Quran that its view on God is flawed....?


    The religion is obviously different from the Book and the person.........the religion is made up of what the book says....the people may or may not follow that religion......the religion is not a weapon...the name of that religion is a weapon.....

    and please know who you are standing against here......some of the greatest philosophers ever..mostly Muslims, have stated that every single word of the Quran is correct and that its statements on God are in such a high level of philosophical rank that they must be from God............just look at the list of the Muslim philosophers....Avicenna, Averroes, Farabi, Sadr al Din al Shirazi and so on..........Avicenna for example contributed so so much to logic....he was an incredible genius.....now im not a Muslim because of them...im a Muslim because of my own thought and my own conclusions.......

    and as regards to you judging the religion based on the people....im sorry about that... i just sensed it from you.....but now that you deny that then i'm fine with that.....but we shouldn't really care about the people because as you said they are distinct from the religion and the book.......the book and the religion are in essence one but in reality distinct..
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: I don't hate you Vasil, in fact i don't hate any atheist as a human...because hate of Humans is inhumane....i hate Ideas and thoughts which i believe are wrong......and you can't then say that i am biased to my own view..it doesn't make sense...of course i am biased to my own view, otherwise it wouldn't be my view......thats why if I argue i will debate other possibilities in a logical way and then say WHY my view is right.....you have free will to accept my view or not.....you can't just throw claims at me.....
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: "you can't just throw claims at me..."
      When it's just views and no evidence, I can, just as you can towards my views that are not fully backed by evidence, including this of polytheism. And even for my evidence backed up views, you could still throw another possibility. It's just that without additional evidence for your claim, you'd then have to excuse me for saying your view is less likely to be true, though if it doesn't contradict with what we know for a fact, I would not dismiss it.

      I'm not saying your views are wrong. You might as well be right. I'm merely offering another possibility. You were the one to make the claim that polytheism is impossible. I'm saying both are possible, because we don't know enough to say one or the other is impossible. I'm not giving you proof for polytheism. I'm giving you a reason not to dismiss it as impossible. If you have said "polytheism is less likely", then you'd be entitled to your view with or without the additional arguments for polytheism. But the conclusive claim "it's impossible" is a little more serious than that. It is for this very reason that even atheists rarely go around saying "It's certain that there is no God of any kind". That's a serious statement no one can really back up if pressed to it. Instead we say "it's likely that God doesn't exist due to its historical record of not ever having any evidence to support it". The possibility is not dismissed, but is given much less probability.
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: You can't judge a religion based on its people.....its a flawed judgment....

    with regards to the proofs, i clearly said that i was talking about only the creator......and what he can and cannot be, i did not assume anything, i brought possibilities and stated why they were wrong.....and I think throughout history the scholars and philosophers of islam are the most to have brought up other possibilities and debated them in thousands of books...

    The Quran is full of arguments against what polytheists believe......

    You can't just look at the followers and give a judgment.....if I were to do the same on Atheists you would obviously not accept this........btw many scholars have mentioned just the point you've mentioned , that is that we cannot blindly follow...in fact it is mentioned so many times the Quran....so if there are Muslims who are blindly following, then they are going against the teachings of the Quran, contradicting themselves, we are not scared to tell them that they are absolutely wrong.....

    ''And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth.''

    Chapter 10, Yunus......

    ''When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has sent down." They say: "Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following." (Would they do that!) even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?''

    Chapter 2: Al Baqara

    The word ''Think'' or ''Thinking'' and other similar meanings are mentioned so many times in the Quran that it would take me pages to give you all the verses......

    is it wrong for the Quran to order us to think??! are we blindly following if we think as the Quran ordered us??!






    So as you can clearly see, The Quran does not accept blind following at all......just because Muslims do that does not mean that Islam states so......there are people who call themselves muslims but still kill innocent children and humans......The Quran never once said that.....
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: "You can't judge a religion based on its people.....its a flawed judgment...."
      Where did I do that?

      I say many (though not all) monotheists believe what they believe simply because that's what they're being taught... where do I judge the religion based on that?

      On a separate note I say the Quran is bull... because the characteristic of the Quran God are as flawed as the Biblical one. That's a judgment of the holy book, not its followers or the religion.

      Where did I make a negative connotation towards the followers? It's not their fault that they're being taught this.

      I don't know about you, but I clearly separate the person, the book, and the religion in general. The person is typically good, the book is false, the religion is a weapon (with those applicable to all Abraham religions). One's religion being a weapon doesn't make its followers mindless, one's holy book being false doesn't make its followers naive, but the followers being good doesn't make the book true and the religion transparent.

      P.S. Would you please use the "Reply" link on my post so that we can keep this in a single thread?
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: Vasil you are just saying that there can be more than one God.....without giving proof, whereas i gave you proofs and you again just said that i didn't give you proofs....you are lazy and quite arrogant.
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: ''And those who, when they are reminded of the Ayat (proofs, evidence, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat.''

    25:73 : meaning that they think about it when they hear the verses.
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: Vasil, I can honestly tell you that no Muslim should ever believe in God or in ONE God JUST because the Quran says so.....as i said earlier, The Quran only says what is true in logic and in reason, we only believe what the Quran says because we have reached that conclusion in our logic, then comes the Qurans role to correct us in what we were wrong in and remind us of what we right in so that we may always remember God.

    secondly, its obvious that we can't all be right at the same time, some must be wrong and some will be right.....some people might just say ''My God, My God'' but just because they said it doesn't mean that they are right.....we have every right to ask why did you choose this to be your God and not this for example : Allah the one, the absolute.

    The idea of God has been with us Humans as long as we have been here, its natural. now if you are trying to say that some of the greatest philosophers ever like Avicenna, Sadr al din al Shirazi and others just SAID that God exists than how wrong you are....just read the amount of proofs they have...logical proofs.... not one verse of the Quran was just quoted like that without a full explanation, logically and reasonably.


    I never said My God or no God, im just saying that I, like alot of other muslims has been convinced that God must exist...through alot of thought......and the first thing i do is i read arguments that state that God doesn't exist and i think of them in a very neutral way and then i am compelled to reject them. I am willing to hear any argument that god isn't one or that he doesn't exist but when I reach to a conclusion that these arguments are false you can't say that i have an idea of My God or No God....

    it seems that you haven't even read my comments, where i didn't quote a verse from the Quran until the end, after logical proofs, well explained.....if there is someone arrogant than it is you....

    thinking is a vital part of a muslims life just read this verse from the Quran:
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: "Vasil, I can honestly tell you that no Muslim should ever believe in God or in ONE God JUST because the Quran says so"
      I agree... I'm just acknowledging reality... many Christians believe the Christian God just because that's what they're taught, and because "the bible says so", and it's pretty much the same deal with Muslims. They shouldn't do that... but many do. I'm not saying YOU believe in one God just because the Quran says so, but I am saying many monotheists do.

      Also, when you go out assuming the conclusion, you'll always inevitably find proof for it. A true proof is taking all possibilities on board, and arriving at ANY conclusion from them, possibly not the original one you set out to prove, and the truth is that without evidence, one can't reach any conclusion without making lots of assumptions along the way. Every time you say "God is..." or "God must be..." you're making an assumption of what it would be if the conclusion is true based on your definition of God, and eventually, you reach your conclusion as if it was the only possibility.

      I mean, just see me prove pantheism by your way of logic...
      God is omnipresent. The only way for this to be true if he is in all matter, or at least expressed through it.
      God is eternal. Therefore, matter is eternal, and therefore the universe is eternal.
      God is all knowing. I'm made of matter, therefore I have the potential for ultimate knowledge if I reach the God of that matter.
      God is love. Therefore, the way to reach God is through love.

      Based on those qualities, pantheism is true, and God is not a being, but a force that permeates the universe. Because God and the universe are eternal, there was no creation, and therefore no creator. Not even God is the creator.
  • J Ali

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: Vasil, so many people here have said why so many times.....if you don't want to be convinced then it's your choice.......and plus your an atheist so it doesn't really make sense for you to argue this......

    I think you just need to be neutral first and then look at the skies and look at the world around you and start to think really hard, about everything; about yourself, about your life, about what religion offers, about everything....to believe in God's existence..... so then, and only then you can start contemplating whether there is more than one god or whether that is possible. At the moment you are just wasting valuable time...you haven't even realized what I or others actually believe about God himself, just read my comments.

    I respect that you are contemplating alot and i hope that you will someday be guided to God, through God only, as God says:


    ''Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light ''

    Al Nur: 40
    The Holy Quran
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: "Vasil, so many people here have said why so many times.....if you don't want to be convinced then it's your choice"
      Everyone has different reasons, and I'm interested in each one of them. Just saying "No" doesn't add any value. While we're at it, we might as well ask which God it is, and just have everyone shouting "My God!" without any particular reason.

      I understand your view that because the Quran is holy and you unconditionally accept it as the truth, you refuse to accept anything else as a possibility if it contradicts with it (you've stepped outside of it, but you're still assuming the conclusion), and that too is your choice, and I hope you too understand that as far as I'm concerned (as well as far as any non-Muslim is concerned), the Quran is, to put it mildly, bull.

      "and plus your an atheist so it doesn't really make sense for you to argue this......"
      Oh, it absolutely does. More than you think. Many people, like yourself, are driven by a false dichotomy of the possibilities... my God or no God. Contemplating on other possibilities, and just accepting them as a possibility... even if it's not a likely one... is the first step of realizing why do you believe what you believe, which in turn inevitably shifts your understanding of God in one way or another. For me, it was the eventual realization that it's all a man made, unproven and unprovable hypothesis by its very definition, and therefore disposable (just the God idea... not necessarily stuff related to it). For others, this might turn them into pantheists or deists.

      Speaking of which, I must admit I was shocked to see S.R. Ahmadi, of all people, having started this topic.
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • 0
    Jun 11 2011: No , isn't more than one God possible .
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: good question but first I would like to know why would be it possible ? ;
        Have you heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein (I hope that yes) and his contribution to philosophy? ; he developed the philosophical school of "ordinary language philosophy" .Applying this system of thinking to the this word "God" and to the idea of God results that God is only one .
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "but first I would like to know why would be it possible"
          The mere fact our universe is not a static binary one, as further detailed in this post:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/3023/is_more_than_one_god_possible.html?c=261710
          Or the fact that a monotheistic God is credited with multiple responsibilities, where there's no evidence on which to assert that he's responsible for all of it:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/3023/is_more_than_one_god_possible.html?c=258037

          The definition of God as an "all powerful" being doesn't allow for there to be another God. But if all the power is divided between multiple deities, then a monotheistic God is simply the sum of all polytheistic gods.

          One should keep in mind that the word "God" means different things to different people. A monotheistic definition, by its very nature, doesn't allow for another God as a possibility. But if the definition of God is a "creator", then him being the creator of one thing doesn't make him a creator of everything, nor does it make him the manager of anything.

          The only common thread between any form of "God" is that God is supernatural - it's outside of anything we could naturally explore.

          '
          Have you heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein (I hope that yes) and his contribution to philosophy? ; he developed the philosophical school of "ordinary language philosophy"
          '
          I haven't, but I'm going to find me some video lectures on it now. Thanks.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Vasil in that comments you presented only some 'possiblities' , look your words:" it is possible that each ... Also, the universe......." I'm not interesting in this , I wanna some proofs(and by the way the fact that the universe is made up from more than a single kind of matter as you said doesn't involve neccesarilly that every kind of matter have one particular 'god', in fact doesn't involve it at all).
        The single idea which would look more like a proof is :"however, if God has limits (and considering the idea of entities like Satan, and the fact there are things God can't or doesn't want to do, it seems he does have limits), then it's possible that there are multiple God figures, each with a certain realm of full power, and only limited power on the rest."
        But however, it isn't an argument because you presented it wrong : the idea of entities like Satan doesn't say us that God is limited , it just say that there is a more powerfull 'entity' than many other entities. It is like to say that God is limited because we exist (and we are also entities) which is absurd , try to see the big picture...............the fact that exist another entities doesn't mean at all that every particular entity is limited by the others , ok?
        Look a bit man at what you talk here : you suppose that God is the creator (for keeping your points) and at the same time you suppose that God is limited by his creation: therefore from this two you suppose that God has limited Himself : an completely absurd supposition .
        (and be more careful you don't know what God can do or can't do, I'm an agnostic don't forget it ).
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "I'm not interesting in this , I wanna some proofs"
          In this area, it's all speculation. We don't have conclusive proofs for either zero, one or many gods. Occam's Razor is the primary reason why atheists lack a belief in God - because not having a supernatural realm is only one assumption that satisfies all evidence we have, whereas saying that there is a supernatural realm and a God who is there is already two assumptions, without even defining more assumptions about what this God does and what the supernatural realm actually is.

          But for the sake of argument, I'm making the assumption that there is a supernatural realm. From then on, because there's no evidence for any of it, we can speculate on anything and everything, which is kind'a the main message I'm making across the topic. That you can't prove anything, and Gnostic phrases like "It's impossible" or "it's the only possibility" should be viewed with the highest degree of skepticism. I know you didn't say it exactly like that. I'm talking in general.

          Whether there is one or more God highly depends on the definition of God. If God is any conscious being in a supernatural realm, then not only is God god, but also Satan is god, hence we already have at least 2 god entities. If one gets too specific with defining what "god" is (i.e. makes enough assumptions about the supernatural realm and what differentiates God from other supernatural entities), eventually there is a point where there can only be one god or the opposite - where having one god would be impossible with the additional (different) assumptions about what defines a "god".
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: So all what you have are assumptions , make them to be at least coherent with eachother , but that's right: reasonable it's impossible to know God , it is possible only by faith (and by faith we have the certainties of the existence of only one God but this is the religious realm and .......... ).
        Out of religion, I think it's sensless to argue for the existence of one or more gods , so I stop here.
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "reasonable it's impossible to know God , it is possible only by faith"
          In other words, a willful suspense of critical thinking, a.k.a. belief without evidence a.k.a. self deception. Yeah, I agree. The only way to know God is to fool yourself into thinking you know God.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 14 2011: Hey man , now I'm laughing as never in my life , and I'm wondering why the life is so much ironical to so many........................ man , the only way to know God is by faith because as I SAID (don't you know to read in English ? even my English ?...............I think you know , it's quite obvious that you know the English better than me) reasonable is impossible (when reason reach it's limits the faith come in play : you can take it so, you can take it otherwise but how you took it is completely absurd) .
        You agreed man but surely you didn't agree with me (perhpas with your preconcieved ideas)............... I hope too much sometimes.................that's it.
        • Jun 19 2011: what is faith and how we can know God by faith?
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 19 2011: good question : the faith in God is the process of believing what God says even though we understand that rationally (which is of wished ) even though we don't , applying that process and applying practically the applied process you can know God by faith.
        • Jun 19 2011: sorry,
          I did not understand what you mean.