What is GOD? (I will try to explain to skeptics)

OK, this thread is for me to get rid of confusion some people have about god.

1. God is not man made, let me explain why not. And people who worship idols are wrong.

Yes, as real prophets crashed the idols; the discrete idols of our age are to be crashed and refused. (Well, discreteness is not an important difference between contemporary and anscient idols, because most of the idolators suggest/ed that they were in fact believing in the spirits that exist within the idols.)

Human products do not make this universe and the events exist.

Statements/accepted facts as:
E=(1/2)m*v2 or E=m*c2 are not what causes physical events; nor any relation that will be discovered later.
Energy=f(mass, velocity);
mass= f(velocity, energy);
velocity= f(energy, mass)= f (time, space)
time=f(velocity, space)
space=f(velocity, time)
location (a)= f (location); location(b)= f (location[a])

or

the length of x is y meters; x meters is the length of y


are NOT the source of any thing. (f represents different functions for each statement)

Rather, as these relations are real while they are tautologies - determining each other by a vicious circle; they must not be causes, especially not the causes of reality; but results of one reality of higher (better adjective: undeterminable/uncomparable; because if determined, or compared, there remains no difference between the idols we reject and One God we accept) order.

Why it is said "One" reality? Because they (the man christened-created relations or better: Names of relations) are the unifying things (or proof of the unity of real things) while there is no reason for such a unity; and they do not constitute such a reason, for they are only RESULTS (TEMPORARY ONES); they are not real-executive entities/things.

Today, every fact X, is known in Ys; and every fact Y is defined in Xs. Every fact (for example matter) is formed of constituents; constituents that have no limit in infinitesimally small levels. For example, today, can we see any nuclear physicists who suggest certainly that there is not a sub level of the smallest particle we know today? Can anybody say; an explanation of gravity based on spacetime curvature and/or gravitons is complete and ultimate? No, because every entity is constituted of two halves, or three 1/3s, or four 1/4s, ... And this infinitesimality makes any ultimately exact and full knowledge even theoretically impossible. As this is so, no known thing can be eternal, because of this multiple and comparable aspect.

However, one should not conclude from above written statements, that Islam is against science or that there is a trade-off between science and Islam. It is clear that the reality is otherwise. Islam supports the science; but a full and continuous science, which does not include conjectures, a science which does not stop to take responsibility for explaining some facts after a point, a science able to explain itself too. Islam being the Ultra-Science, gives us tools to understand everything including science; and bestows upon science the place it deserves; while in the present mentality, science is something that makes us understand physical, chemical, biological, ... events; but does not provide us with any tool to understand itself. When the latter is the situation, how can one say that science is able to explain us anything, even the simplest thing convincingly?

2.The basic statement of Islam is: "There is no god other than Allah" (Qur'an:Ch.37 v.35).

3. Everything is created, that is to say given its qualifications, and directed according to these qualifications by Allah and while He wants.

"And Who makes (things) according to a measure, then directs" (ch87/v3)

"He said who is your Lord, Moses? He answered, Our Lord is He who giveth all things their qualifications and directed them." (ch20/v.49,50)

"Unto Him do all creatures in heaven and earth make petition; every day is He in work." (ch.55/ v.29)

"Then let man look to his food: How We pour water in showers. Then split the earth in clefts. And cause the grain to grow therein. And grapes and green fodder. And the olive and the palm..."(ch.80/ v.25-29)

"Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him." (ch.112)

"They said, burn him, and avenge your gods: If ye do this it will be well. We said O fire, be thou cold, and a preservation unto Abraham. And they sought to lay a plot against him: but we caused them to be the sufferers." (ch.21/v.68-70)

4. So, according to Qur'an, nothing can be explained fully when Allah is not taken into account. In other words everything needs Allah for existing. If you say that anything does not need Allah, or that you can explain something ONLY by a factor which is not Allah, you will have assigned this factor to some extent a property of Allah, which in fact it has not. And anything which does not need Allah, is assigned a status similar to Allah, a divine status.

Mankind have often made the assignment I mentioned above. To gods such as god of sun, god of water, god of love and so on.These were thought as having partial authority on some parts of the world.

Today the same is true for some mathematical, geometrical, physical concepts and relations. A simple atheist is probably to say:Everything is explained or will be explained by sciences; so there is no need for a god. The first part of this argument is good and strong and Qur'an also favours this kind of reasoning. But there is a difference as to the second part: According to Qur'an, science (-or causal thinking) needs Allah in order to explain the existence. Again, as you need Allah to explain the existence, if He is not taken into account; then there must be godlike things that are assigned the post.

Many of our atheist friends suggest that we create our gods in our minds. But is it not interesting that some prophets say also the same to their people concerning their gods, according to the Qur'an: "Hud answered, now shall there suddenly fall upon you from your Lord vengeance and indignation. Will ye dispute with me concerning the names which ye have named, and your fathers; as to which God hath not revealed unto you any authority?" (ch. 7/ v. 70) and that the atheists also may have given some things (as matter and its parts) the posts of god?

So, the critical question is: "Whether Allah excludes godlike properties ( as unity, coordination, execution, knowledge, predictability, absoluteness, creation of new entities and so on) of: Scientific entities (as matter and energy), the media where these exist (dimensions), their states (as order, chaos), relations between all these (as of matter relating to space or energy; relevant formulaes and so on) or whether these latter things leave no place for the existence of an active god.


These really constitute good subjects for debate, especially if you consider verses as "And (He is) Who makes (things) according to a measure, then guides (them to their goal)" (ch87/v3) "He said who is your Lord, Moses? He answered, Our Lord is he who giveth all things their properties, and directed them." (ch20/v.49,50)

The difference between the two approaches may be resumed so:

The muslim says:"The creatures (includes everything) are given by God, their qualifications (including the physical laws, equations, formulaes [we may be unknowing everything, the real is known by Allah]) and they are executed and may be changed by Allah when(r)ever He wants.".

The (atheist)scientist says "The properties (including above mentioned laws and so on) of everything are intrinsic to them and absolute and not subject to change except for any specific conditions"

And therefore, there is no trade-off between Islam and Real-Science, both support each other. Let us discuss this issue in the next part in more detail.

In general, those who try to philosophize, begin by philosophizing tons of materials while they have/could not philosophize(d) a single point; and they are overcome, the natural result of this, being basic mistakes; because of the small quantity of energy per material, due to the lack of concentration.

Therefore, let us use a different method here for understanding things without being indoctrinated; and questioning everything:

Let us create in our mind a universe consisting of three simple objects: M, L, A. The nature of these objects does not matter. I did, did you? If yes, let us go on:

What are there in this universe? There is: M, there is:L, there is:A; what else? There is: MA, there is: ML, there is: LA and the combinations summed up, there is MLA. What else? There is the frame where MLA, or M, L, A or the combinations exist. Is there anything else? Time? Yes, however, we may consider our universe as a three dimensioned one, and add time later.

Now let us begin by an individual consideration: As M, L, A are comparable, let us take one of them (M) and consider it: In this universe, what are its properties?

MY SUGGESTIONS:

Article 1. INFINITESIMALITY: The object is a positive thing: A sum of parts, that we may divide (to some extent really and) theoretically infinitesimally.

Article 2. LIMITATION: It is a limited thing. It ends somewhere in the frame wherein it exists; at least where L, or A begins.Whether your frame is two or ten dimensional it is so. You may argue perhaps: I imagined it in order to extend towards infinities; if so, you must add another dimension, in order to make L and A easily existable, and limit M according to this dimension.

Article 3. THE UNITY BETWEEN FRAME AND OBJECT: As this is an essentially limited thing, it needs the frame and can not be understood without the frame. So, anything can not be thought without a frame. The frame is the part of the object. They are not apart. Therefore, it is wrong in fact to consider them as different things. Here we see unity and apartness that coexist.

Article 4. THE RELATIVITY BETWEEN FRAME AND OBJECT: It can not be defined by the frame except by the line that separates it from the frame, because, otherwise there would be a tautology; for the frame is defined by the object itself.

Up to now, I dealed with the unity relating to M; internal unity: That exists between the parts of M; The unity between M and the frame: That they are not separable and none can be understood/is meaningfull without other. The existence of frame without object is impossible, as the existence of the object without the frame.

Article 5.THE EXTERNAL UNITY(The unity between M, L and A): As we have seen above, M and its frame is one. The same is true for L and A. Now, we ask: OK, M, L and A exist separately, what about MLA then? Let us consider only geometrical relation between them (one could suggest that there could be exactly no relation between them. Even if there is no geometrical relation, there would be a relation, a common point: The special existence).

Where does the relation between M, L and A exist then? In M? In L? Or in A? Your answer is probably: No, it exists only in my mind. Well, what about real things then? Which do not exist in your mind and in none's mind? Where does the totality of numerous things exist? In space? What is space? Only a part of each one of the objects; and nearly a theoretical one. It has by no means the ability of being the source of such a unity. In other words, every object has its own frame, so each frame is itself different from other frames, therefore the objects of question must be conceived as including each its own frame.

Article 6. THE INTERNAL UNITY:In the article 5, we have taken M, L, A as different parts; there we saw the external unity. If you consider article 1, where we state that each object is in fact constituted of parts, which may be named and considered exactly as Mx, Lx and Ax; you will see that the external unity mentioned above is also true internally, for the same reasons.

Article 7. COMPARABILITY: At least some properties of the imaginative objects are comparable; as length, height, color, mass, ... This requires/is the result of similarity and difference(if they are identical in many properties, at least their identities are different)

-7.1 SIMILARITY: This property gains big importance when the 1st article is taken into account. Because, the infinite numbers of the parts make the probability of a random constitution of two (or three) similar (even not totally) things: P= x/infinite= 0. And therefore, we look for something that may serve as a common source between things that are comparable (including in the things are also frames).

One could say: In the big bang, everything was one, so the similarity comes from there. However, if we consider the relativity of the 8th article, the infinitesimality of the 1st article, the difference mentioned in the 7.2nd article, the dimension +1 of the 9th article; that the dimensions appeared at one time! becomes absurd; they are already relative, and dependent on the body, whatever it is.

-7.2 DIFFERENCE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

REALITY

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From the above judgments one may conclude that where nothing exists there will be no need for such a common source; so everything may be an illusion; well this is not the case, neither our imaginations, nor the real universe are illusions. Here the difference of things come on scene: We can test anything; if you want in a laboratory, or in the daily events. Everything has a quantity, everything has an identity, difference, marginality. Because/Therefore everything is REAL.

Article 8.RELATIVITY: How big is M that you created? Answer: It is bigger than L, or as big as A or something like this. How big is L? Smaller than M? Well, these answers are in fact no answers. Just tautologies. Do you argue against this? "Yes." You say perhaps, "Why anything should have an intrinsic value, relative values are quite sufficient; value is in fact something relative." OK. I would like that you concentrate your attention on the equation below:

lM (length of M)= 2*lA(lenth of A)

Here, is there something that saves us from tautology?

Yes. There is: It is the ratio: 2.

Now another question: Where is this "2"? Is it inside M or inside A or inside M and A, or outside all these? I do not know your answer; but mine is none of them. Because I do not want to fall in the same tautology by giving an answer that is comparable to M or A or their in/outside.

Article 9.DIMENSION "+1": In the latter article, you see also that for your M, L and A, that when two or more things are real, there is a need for a unifying continuous platform. This is true also for dimensions.

The fact that we can not even logically disprove the probable multiplicity of the frame where our spacetime exists and that another dimension "+1" besides our universe's does not exist, is a solid proof of the unabsoluteness of things. Therefore, we can not base any scientific explanation ultimately upon spacetime, nor upon anything measured according to any physical object. They are not absolute, they have no superiority or more central meaning. By contrast, the fact that everything is according to a measure, requires an ABSOLUTE.

Think of a two two dimensional planes: If they are real, there must be an at least three dimensional frame. Think of two three dimensional planes; if they are real, then there must be a four dimensional frame. If there are two four dimensional frames, then there must be a five dimensional frame. This is the result of comparability of different dimensioned bodies. So, if some things are comparable, we can not know at which step of the pyramide we are located, but we can know that there is an upper step. And we can conclude that there is an absolute single existence atop the pyramide; atop ALL. In this sense, this ALL is equal.

Dimension "+1" is the dimension wherefrom you have chosen the special shape of your universe (better I should say, of the simplest part of your universe.)

The "2" (it is merely a number, it is the real/special relation between LX and LY) , we mentioned above, is a special value; and I call the dimension where it exists, Dimension "+1". Wherefrom comes +1? It comes from the fact that, how many be the number of any real n dimensions set, this is a very special set, stemming from a larger frame; of n+1 dimensions.

EXAMPLE 1: Let the distance between M and A, be 3*lM. If our universe is three dimensional one (without time), then we will be unable to imagine this distance to be 2*lM for instance. But when we accept the dimension +1 frame, it becomes possible; because we have now taken into account the fact that 3, is a special value for that relation; and we changed our geometrical frame according to this fact.

EXAMPLE 2: If we conceive the universe we live in, as a four dimension -with the time- set, then there is a need for an at least 5 dimension frame; so that four dimensional units may be comparable without tautology. You can argue the dimension +1 concept to be only a mathematical one (in terms of probability); however, the relativity and the unabsoluteness of things, which we can not escape, constitute a sufficient and solid proof in favor of the reality of the "dimension +1".

EXAMPLE 3: The fall or motion of any body is related to other bodies movements: For instance a watch, or the movement of the earth or the moon: The pen, that falls from a given height, reaches earth (all conditions being same) in a given time, that is, while the earth rotates a determined angle, or the second hand moves to another determined position. The relation and its constituents that exist in the dimension +1, may be anything, and therefore, the relation we do see is a special one.

In the present conditions of our universe where time exists, your (timeless) LMA, becomes LMA(tx..tz); with all of its parts. As LMA (tx) is a special form of its dimension "+1", in the same way, the whole of LMA(tx..ty) is a special form of its dimension "+1"; as if LMA(tx) stands for M, LMA(ty) stands for L, and LMA(tz) stands for A. Because, the continuousness or the changing values of them according to this dimension, and the resulting set LMA(tx..tz) is a special one. (The relation you chose for Ltx and Lty, is a special one between its dimension "+1").

Where begins the dimension +1? It begins where real relations end; and makes these relations special/exceptional:

Think one of the current laws used as a relation for determining X(t1) and X(t2): the conservation of energy. Thanks to this law!, we can calculate the X(t2) (it may be speed, coordinates, acceleration, ...) if we know X(t1).

This law could be different; dE(total)/dt could be negative or positive, instead of being 0. As if I am hearing your protests: What Could Diminish The Speed of a Smoothly Moving Body??? A counter question: What can increase the space it traverses?

Do you ask: Did not you yourself say that space is a tautological concept? Yes, it is so according to your belief system, for me it has a sound base. But if you go a step further, you will see that my question holds reasonable, because, your or mine belief system effect both sides: Both the body and the space. Therefore, it is obvious that the conservation of energy is a special one, out of its relevant dimension +1.

Thus, all relations that serve as bridges between tx and ty; are special and relative ones, and it can not be said that they constitute any base for the difference of tx and ty; as the situations tx and ty can not be responsible for the relations.

Article 10.DYNAMIC UNITY:

Most people argue that no physical event has a purpose. Namely, the formation of the solar system; or the creation of species; or the industrial developments were neither foreseen nor programmed. Physical events occurring billions of years ago were not shaped as to produce us or any future thing. First a physical event occurs; then relevant results appear.

In other words, LMA(t2) is not shaped according to LMA(t3); but, is shaped according to LMA(t1); there is no relation between them except the physical causal one. The conditions prevailing respectively at t1 and t2 are the sole determinants of the situations at t2(=>t3) and t3.

However, a very simple fact shows that before these relations, there is a purposeful relation between [all these] [and] [a set of purposes]: This fact is that LMA(tx) we consider, which is defined by a time point, is an illusion and we can not have it in reality; but we can only have LMA(tx-ty). Namely, we can not take LMA and (tx-ty) as distinct things: Whatever small be the difference between tx and ty; there will be a tx and a ty that determine LMA altogether. Therefore, the real situation where y is not the result of x exists and such situations dominate and constitute our universe. Whatever is the case, LMA has a vector in relation with time (however is time's definition); and this means in the same time that whatever is the situation, LMA is determined by at least two time coordinates.

We may now conclude there is at the microscopic/theoretical level a situation where LMA(tx) is not the essential cause of situation LMA(ty); where LMA(ty) is not secondary as compared with LMA(tx). Both of them are the result of a purposeful process/existance under which they are united.

You may argue: Even if they are united, LMA(tx) is the cause of a LMA(ty'). Answer:This approach is useful only for practical purposes; and nobody can reach a REAL LMA which is defined solely by a time point (without an interval); without a time vector; without at least two (two here is used only for making the issue more understandable) different "Moments".

Now we must consider some other relevant facts which show that ALL is purposeful:

a. The relativeness of the size of time intervals

b. The relations LMA(tx-ty) and LMA(ty-tz) are identical and linked in this perspective.

Arguments in this article show clearly that an absolute superiority or inferiority assigned to causally first or second events have no sound base. And in this perspective, the absurdity of explaining all events only with the same level causes is obvious.

1. The existence of infinite similar things shows clearly a common source; and this common source can not be comparable to these things; otherwise, this thing also would be subject to such a common source. When the first article considered, the similarity is better understood; for, it is a similarity which comes up from infinitesimally law levels.

2.This similarity is not an illusion, because things are real, and are different in a control, and can be tested in or outside laboratories.

3.Things; and the frames wherein they exist are one and defined in the terms of each other. So, these frames are not the unifying things that can serve the ongoing relations, and reciprocal determination. Adding the first article, we may conclude that, everything in the formation step; and after it, is the result of this basic unity. Everything having a multiplicity, that is formed by the unities of the constituents, which constitute always a unity. For we can test whatever we see by each other.

4. What unifies/defines the things is not themselves, or what they are compared with, because, then there would be a tautology.

5. The identity of a set of numerous things is different from its constituents. And it exists. But not in the constituents. Nor in the frame where they exist: As told before, all parts have their own frames and can not be conceived without them; also, the frames must be unified somehow; they need at least an upper frame wherein they can exist and be related to this frame. Where do these things exist?

6. The overwhelming probability that covers everything and the issuing specialty of everything, in the dimensions +1 concept, shows another work of the unity and prettiness of things that are formed and sustained by this unity and that are gathered together being brought from irrelevant probable positions.

7. This unity exists, works, is not the existence or any part of it, is not comparable with the existence.

THANK YOU FOR READING.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in essence and unless I am mistaken, you are defining "God" as "everything that is unknown"?

If we can not explain the origins of life - then "God did it!"
If we can not explain the origins of the Universe - then "God did it!"
If we can not fully explain the workings of Gravity - "God does it!"
If we can not fully explain anything at all - "God does it!"

Helpful.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, read carefully what I am saying. You have just gone on something weird there. I have not stated this. This is what you have came up with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you have essentially no response to Sarkus? What then are you implying from your farcical cut-and-paste?

Geoff

 

Okay - if I have misunderstood - please explain more simply, and more carefully, What is GOD?.

And then please post your evidence for this.

 

There is only one God
God has no children, no parents, and no partners
God was not created by a being
There are no equal, superior, or lesser Gods.
God is without form, so:

God is neither male nor female
God can neither be seen nor heard.
God does not resemble anything that he created
God shares few, if any, characteristics with human beings.
God has never been incarnate in any human being.
God can neither be proved of disproved.

 

Ah - ok.
And the evidence for this God's existence is... ?

 

OK, can you show me evidence for something that you cannot prove or disprove?

 

I think that's the point I'm trying to make! You can't prove or disprove an infinite number of things - so why should any one of them exist more than any of the others.

You can also know nothing about that which does not exist, or that which offers no evidence of their existence.

So why claim certain attributes about "God" - when you can have no knowledge of them or their existence, and thus can not prove any of what you say / claim about them.

Your claims are as valid as someone who says they have an invisible yellow elephant sitting on their shoulder all day who speaks to them.

The simple matter is - if you want to claim something, especially in a science forum, then you must be able to support that claim.

 

The things we know about god are the ones he has told us through various scriptures.

Its your choice if you want to believe in it. If you want to believe in flying unicorns then that is your choice. Or if you want to believe their is no god then that is your choice - that loss is not mine or gods its your loss.

what if you're wrong and I am right and there is a god, and when you die you find out then your going to be buggerd. let me give you an analogy:

Say there are 3 cups and one of them cups has a check of 10 billion, and I here mate take a free guess if you get it you win 10billion, if you think I am lying you still lose nothing, but if I am telling the truth and then you have something to gain. It all might seem daft right now, but this is what happans when pepole are on thier death beds that is when they think of god, that is when all the fear hits you. I had an Athiest friend, and everyday we used to argue about god and what not, and he would go out and have sex with prostitutes and I would tell him what you're doing is all wrong, and one day he was sick he was really, sick. He had gotten HIV, and he died from it. You should think about that.

What I am saying is look at things for a logical point of view. I have no reason to peddle a belief if I knew it was wrong? I mean it wold be inconsequential to me.

 

This, in itself, suggests the unity of existence. Positing then a framework for existence ("dimensions +1") you have arbitrarily assigned sufficient cause to the framework without proper argument. Following the logic, we should either conclude that the initial unity is self-sufficient or we must continue positing additional frameworks on towards infinity. This is just a detailed examination (very nicely done, btw) of the 'first cause' argument and entails no more validity.

~Raithere

 

but these prove nothing

thats the whole point we dont believe in any of it, it's just irrational baseless assumption.

theres really no need.

oops you did it anyway (Pascal’s wager yet again) boring.

only if your religious.

absolute rubbish.

why, do only atheist die of aids.

we are it's you who cant possibly be.

then why mention it.

and thats an utter lie.

 

You need to provide evidence that these scriptures are anything other than fictional books.
There are plenty of books detailing the existence of Elves, Orcs, Wizards etc - but do we believe that any of them are anything other than fiction?

Ask yourself - what if the front page of the scriptures you refer to was missing - and this had said "Any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental"?

You need to provide evidence.

Scriptures are just writings that are being used to peddle a belief-system, deemed "scriptures" by those that follow the religion - so basically self-fulfilling: "It is scripture because those that say it is have deemed it to be".

Do we really have choice as to whether to act rationally or not? If so - I have chosen rationality and reason over whim.

Classic Pascal's Wager.

And just as flawed.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

"Hedging your bets" is an obvious thing to do when you are at death's door.
It neither provides evidence for nor against the existence or validity of a God.

Ah yes - as opposed to all the other religious and non-religious people alike who have died from HIV, or leukemia, or cancer, or being run over, or murdered, or... etc.
Religion does not give you immunity to death - in any of its forms.

That is what I am doing. I have no belief in either the existence or non-existence of something for which there is no evidence. This IS the logical point of view.

Instead, you choose to believe in something without evidence, whether through fear or through Pascal's Wager, both of which are illogical, or for some other reason, which is equally as illogical.

I'm sure you think it is right. Just as Catholics believe their religion and ideas of God, and just as other Christian sects believe theirs, and Jews theirs, and Mormons theirs, and Hindus theirs etc.

With all these various religions - all without one iota of evidence - how is one to choose?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With no evidence - why believe at all?

 

Muslim, you are correct in that there is a choice and it's not the one that is being presented. There is a choice to accept assertions as true without considering supportive / contradictory evidence. That choice is 'belief' and is nothing short of a mental handicap.

Sarkus, in this case, has not taken the path of self-inflicted mental handicap and is asking for one thing that no 'believer' can provide... evidence of their claim. Any attempts to persuade him without evidence will likely fail and any attempts to persuade him with evidence will likely succeed.

Realistically, this isn't even a consideration. Right when I read the statement "when you die, you find out..." it showed the flaw in the thinking. Conciousness is a function of the brain and if it's cellular / electrical activity is hindered, destroyed, or stops then conciousness is affected. Retardation, comas, AND death are clear evidence for this. The idea of conciousness persisting after death is nothing more than an attractive fantasy. What we want to be true and what actually is true are often quite different.

You're arguments about 'God' and your friends sexual escapades are unrelated. It's about as relevant as an atheist arguing with a priest whom is raping the alter boys.

Your friend consequently made a choice and unless he was severly uneducated probably knew the risks of killer STDs. Humans often value pleasure, their egos, their beliefs, etc. far about their life or the lives of others.

That would be incorrect. On a personal level, the 'belief' in question is giving you a deep relationship with your ego (perceived as 'God'). This not only feels good but is immensly healthy (emotionally). Anyone whom shares similar beliefs with you is a person whom can share resources with you and as a large group of influence and resources, you have an advantage over other groups.

 

Just thought I'd quickly point out a slight problem:

Hmm..

 

Muslim,

Why must the universe have been caused?

We have nothing to indicate that anything is ever created or destroyed and hence no need to suspect that a creator is needed.

 

God is an idol, no different from the idols that pagans worshipped, except that you have ruled out having a concrete representation of it, substituting the imagination, and thus making the idea all the more powerful.

 

Sarkus has this exactly right - you claim an absolutist position on this god, but don't have the foggiest if he's really there.

What's the point? Faith is one thing, but when you start talking specifics you have to have something more concrete.

Geoff

 

Isn't the kabaa a concrete focus of worship which muslims pray towards wherever they are.

 

But it's soooo superior to pagan idols. In fact, I heard that the rock that muslim pilgrims walk around was originally a pagan idol, possibly a meteorite.