Why Do Muslims Praise Allah?

that statement demonstrates both anthropomorphism and circular logic.
God's attributes were and are determined by simple humans. God's actions are both identified and defined by simple humans.

Even attempting to know the unknowable is human. Some humans attempt to do this thru religion, others attempt to do this thru science. I am extremely thankful for the results of science, not so much for the results of religion.

In the absence of any supporting evidence of an "all wise god" causing an earthquake or any other NATURAL disaster, I think I'll stick to the more scientific explanations of causation rather than some supernatural human defined entity.

 

This is an opinion, and there is nothing anthropomorphic about it. God is all-wise, humans are not. God is most just, humans are not. His attributes are divine, ours are not.

It is the atheist who anthropomorphizes God.

Nonsense, one does not need religion to know God.

According to your standards of evidence.

Um, I don't see why believing in God precludes one from considering the scientific explanations behind natural events.

 

Oh? so your god doesn't get angry? he doesn't get jealous? he doesn't demand worship (ego gratification)? he doesn't demand obedience (dominance), he doesn't kill his creations (psychopathy) ? he doesn't condemn his creations to eternal suffering (sadism)?

Who exactly told you what god's attributes were? I'll bet it was written in your religions scriptures which of course were written by ....... humans.
How would us mere humans have a clue about what god is like in the first place? You think profoundly ignorant primitive humans had any kind of clue of the universe they lived in?
Simple facts and questions that faith can easily ignore or explain away.

Er, can't have a religion without both a god and some notion of worship. Unless one can "know" god and not worship him which would imply a rather different knowledge of its existence.

It doesn't.
OTOH, it does beg the question, why are the events described in the various religious scriptures considered to be of supernatural causation in the absence of ANY acceptable standard of evidence, and yet other events are merely natural? The only answer I can divine is faith in the absence of evidence.

 

And why do you readily assume that His "anger" or "jealousy" or "happiness" is the very same that humans "feel" and exhibit?

Again, you are projecting. He doesn't need our worship. We worship Him because He is worthy of worship, and it is good for us to do so.

What is inherently evil about death? Since when was this life meant to be eternal anyway?

He is most just, and everyone will deserve what they get, end of.

Who said anything about worship? Like I said, you don't need religion to logically deduce God's attributes and know Him.

Those are merely miracles. God is not subject to natural laws.

 

Why do you assume that its not, considering "In his own image" and all.

Perhaps wrath has a different meaning in the supernatural plane of your god's existence.

I am not projecting at all. Of course god needs our worship. In fact, if you don't worship him appropriately you are condemned to eternal suffering. Or did I completely misunderstand holy scripture and religious teachings?

Nothing is inherently evil about death. What can be evil are the methods and supposed reasons for that death. The Abrahamic god has directly killed innocents and apparently ordered the deaths of innocents by the hands of his minions. And your god, according to its defining source, has done that on more than one occasion.

Most just? Everyone gets what they deserve? tell me what the millions of children that have starved to death did to deserve their predicament. What could possibly be the god's rationale? To what purpose would god require the physical and mental suffering of innocent children?

that is nonsense. Of course you need religion to deduce god's attributes and "know" him despite his "unknowability (sic). Without religion, there is not scripture, without scripture there is no story, without a story, there is no information (regardless of veracity), without information there can be no logic.

Like I said, faith in the absence of evidence.

It is convenient that god is outside nature and imbued with unlimited power and knowledge, a fact that has been used by religious leaders to explain, influence and control their followers throughout history. Given its effectiveness, it is no doubt the most effective and pervasive human invention in all of our short history.

 

He did not create us in the image that you assume He did. He is divine, we are not. Our own attributes are an imperfect reflection of His. He is all-wise, we are imperfectly wise. He is most-just, we are imperfectly just. His love is eternal; ours is not. And so forth.

But of course; He is God, and there is nothing like Him.

No, God is self-sufficient, and is not in need of anything. If you know God exists and know how to worship Him; and believe in His warning, then your punishment (which is wholly just) is of your own doing.

It's your own view that the methods are inherently evil. I'd like an example of what exactly you're referring to in terms of "reason."

I was obviously referring to the afterlife and Judgment Day. Full justice is carried out on that day, regardless if some form of justice is carried out in this life.

No one is given more that what they can bear in this life. Some people may find the tribulations that you have personally went through completely unbearable, but that isn't the case, now is it?

Scripture is merely revelation. Are you suggesting that one needs religion to conclude that God exists?

A mere opinion. The fact of the matter is that you have your own standards of evidence, and no matter what sign God reveals, you will not believe in it. My signature is a good representation of how people like you think.

 

An imperfect reflection? so his wrath is perfect? his jealousy is perfect? his intolerance is perfect? As for justice, there is no justice in destroying innocents.

Eternal love? of course we cannot possess eternal love - we are temporal creatures. And frankly given the rules that regulate his love and the whole reward/punishment that comprises his love, I'll pass.

It is god, unless you think your god has an actual human gender, in which case logic dictates it would require some form of progenitor which would by necessity be like it.

god is self sufficient and not in need of anything? then why does it require a certain form of worship in order to gain reward and failure to do so results in punishment?

I guess all those starving children are getting the benefit of god's punishment. Its amazing how much you know about the agreed unknowable god.

Methods can be inherently evil. Things like torturing somebody to death or starving them to death or beating them to death or even feeding them to animals.

As for "reasons" - I lump such things as motivations and justifications together as "reasons" which can be inherently evil.

Ever starved to the point of being in critical condition? As for that kind of justice, who exactly told you the details of judgment day? Oh wait, it is in scripture and teachings - creations of humans. Funny how each religion has its own version of the end of days - supernatural judgment being an integral structural component of virtually all religions.

No, to come to an assumption that god exists requires no scripture. To arrive a conclusions regarding the nature of said god, its attributes, and its interactions with us requires scripture. You could not arrive at the the operating definition you have so faithfully represented, without scripture.
Ergo, religion defines itself by its own created source material.

Actually its not a mere opinion. It is fact that has been extensively documented by anthropologists, sociologist, historians etc.
The evolution of religion and religious thought and its role in the development of civilization is not some arcane weird atheistic subject of no import.

As for not recognizing the supposed signs of god's interaction with humans, without any knowledge of the how or the why required, theists seem to be content to simply attribute the outcome to god - iow their faith is self fulfilling, no more required.

 

I already explained to you how the emotions we feel are not like those ascribed to Him. God doesn't "feel" like we do. He doesn't have "emotions" like we do. Again, He is unlike anything He has created, whether you like it or not.

Given your myopic and simplistic views of God (and penchant to focus on the negative), I can understand how you can pass.

Again, God is unlike anything, and does not have a gender. You are just splitting hairs now.

Because He is worthy of it, and He is the Creator and Master of everything. Requiring something is not the same as needing it.

Sorry, but God wants us to know Him. I don't know where you get the idea that He is completely unknowable, but it is not an Islamic concept.

Yes, humans can be pretty evil. What's your point?

Why would it matter if I did or didn't? Why do the details matter? Since God is our Lord, we will eventually meet Him. And since He is most Just, He will mete out the final judgment that wasn't carried out in this life. This is what perfect justice entails.

I disagree. To understand anything, you first have to know the most basic and essential nature of this thing. The same applies to God.

Yes, documented by people who look at things from a purely secular perspective. Indeed, their own conclusions are self-fulfilling.

And the same is true for non-believers. Except for them, it's all a coincidence, or something science has yet to answer, etc.... The last thing they want to do is attribute it to God.

 

But Truth is the mediator between the God of the Bible and us.

Truth is not only available and possible for us to receive, but, also, for us to live within.

 

But Muslims deny that Reality is the almighty, and his son is Truth.
You deny this, don't you???

 

But Muslims have accepted the idea of some entity, other than Reality, is the god men need bow down before.

 

How do you know that god's emotions are different? Who ascribed such emotions to it? How do you know it doesn't "feel" like we do? You are so sure, yet you cannot produce a scrap of evidence to support such "feelings".

And where exactly did you obtain such a complete and complex view of god? As to focusing on the negative, it isn't too hard given the human condition and the believers tunnel vision. But of course you can explain why your god of eternal love kills so many innocents.

No, actually I am not. God has no gender? Then why did he create genders? Again, how do you know there is only one god floating around the supernatural universe? Did god not have a "creation story" itself? I find it rather convenient that logic is not necessary for the believer.

A requirement and a need can absolutely be the same thing. Might want to look up the definition.

You claim god is worthy of worship because it is the creator and master of everything and yet the ONLY source for such a belief are ancient writings of other humans. Humans painfully ignorant of their world around them, let alone the universe.

So how knowable is it? According to you it doesn't operate on the same emotions as humans, so there is no ability to comprehend emotional motivations and actions. It doesn't inhabit the same plane of existence as humans so understanding its environment and its position within such an environment is also unknowable. It does not have any of the primal motivations of humans that help shape our individual personalities, so how does one know a genderless, sexless, entity that according to believers is even more enormously superior to us as humans are to bacteria?

My original point was that both motivations and actions can be described as evil. Please tell me again why god killing innocent humans is not an inherently evil act?

Why do details matter - is that a serious question? Ever heard the saying "god is in the details"?

Where exactly did you learn your version of the end of days?

And what exactly is the source knowledge of this most basic and essential nature of your god?

Actually, their conclusions are not self fulfilling, they are based on scientific research and the data that such research yields. Surely you are familiar with the scientific method.

Its not at all the same with non-believers. Why attribute anything in the natural universe to anything other than natural forces? Ignorance is no excuse to attribute any event to a imagined being inhabiting an alternative plane of existence (universe?) who can magically interact with us.

 

Just for the record, 'feelings' like we have are also felt by God.
" Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

 

I don't even believe He has "feelings." I'm only using the word because human words are all we have to describe God.

Everyone dies. Death is not inherently evil, so I don't see why you keep bringing up this point.

He creates as He pleases. As to why there is one God; if something can't come from nothing, then God is eternal and the absolute, and He alone is in control of everything.

It can, but it doesn't have to. Might want to look up the definition.

Nonsense, God is the only logical alternative for the causation of the universe.

We know Him through His divine attributes.

Because this life was never meant to be permanent, and we are all going to eventually die.

But you are not religious, so why would you possible care about the details of Judgment Day?

Logic. If something can't come from nothing, then God is eternal.

What's your point. They look at things from a purely secular perspectives, and they arrive to purely secular conclusions.

Ignorance is no excuse? And yet you argue that you can't see the good in things you readily assume to be evil. That itself an argument from ignorance.

 

So, god doesn't have emotions. Didn't your god give us both emotions and words? You'd think it'd have supplied a sufficient vocabulary to worship it appropriately.

I keep bringing it up because your god has supposedly taken direct responsibility for killing "his" creations when they don't do what it wants. One could extend this to say that because it is omniscient and outwith of time, it knew that the result of "free will" would necessitate killing so many, in order to set them straight. That didn't work out so well for it or humans.

It can't be "pleased". It doesn't have emotions. If it is in control of everything, then its doing a pretty crappy job.

A need does is not necessarily a requirement but all requirements are needs.

No actually its the least logical alternative, since we have yet to discover anything supernatural, nor anything that exists outside of space and time. How one can claim that logic dictates a god creator is illogical.

What divine attributes? those ascribed to it by humans?

I'd like to see a murderer get away with it by claiming that killing somebody was excusable because they were going to die eventually anyway.

so you evade the question. As to why I could possibly care about the details, its simply because those motivated to helping bring about such an imagined scenario inflict serious damage on the rest of us. Is not the caliphate a necessary requirement, just like the return of Issa or perhaps the building of the third temple in Jerusalem?

No, that is not logic. Something can come from nothing - learn some quantum physics sometime. And even if something couldn't come from nothing, it has absolutely no connection to god being eternal. You are making a supposition in the form of a declaration, using and faulty if/then statement.

My point being that you were wrong. Yes scientists look at things from a purely secular perspective, that is why its called science and not theology.

Yes, ignorance is no excuse. There was a time when lightning, floods, earthquakes, etc were all attributed to one god or another. there are countless examples throughout documented history where perfectly natural events were attributed to a god's emotional reaction to some human triviality.

As for your characterization of my argument - strawman.

 

For the umpteenth time, the "emotions" and "feelings" are not like ours. His anger is not our anger. His joy is not our joy.

Huh? And yet there are countless of those who reject God, and God- out of His infinite mercy- keeps them healthy and alive, and continues to provide for them. You are speaking about revelation, and I'm talking about generalities.

God can certainly be pleased, just not the way way humans are pleased. As to a latter comment, this is just another case of the atheist focusing purely on the negative and being ungrateful. It is humans who commit acts of evil, not God.

And God won't gain or lose anything by your worship or lack thereof, respectively.

And you think that God is subservient to the will of man? That He would allow man to treat Him as some sort of science project? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

There is no other logical alternative to God, and I'd like you to give us just ONE alternative.

Divine attributes such as Him being the most wise, the all-good, the all-merciful, etc....

It's merely your opinion that it was ascribed to it by humans. On the contrary, it is God who created our own attributes from His image.

There you go again projecting humans onto God. Did humans create life itself? Did humans create the universe? If not, then they are not in control of life.

I evade the question because I know it is going to be met with derisive ridicule. I evade it because we are talking God, not religion.

I'd like you to prove this assertion- a simple link will do.

Sure it does. If something cannot come from nothing, then something always existed. It has no beginning has has not end.

How am I wrong, if you just agreed with me? Just because we know how the heart beats does not mean we can ultimately attribute its machinations to God.

So what? We can still attribute them to God, even though we know how they work scientifically.

 

How do you know this? You presume that this must be the case. It may just be me, but it sure as hell looks like almost stereotypical human rage, when god supposedly destroyed 99.9999% of humanity. Perhaps you can explain how its anger is different than human anger?

god keeps people healthy and alive? god provides for them? How about the couple of billion or so that god obviously doesn't provide for?

It is humans who determine what is evil and what isn't. God doesn't seem to be around much to identify the evildoers.

And neither do I gain or lose anything by rejecting god since I believe it to be a purely human construct in the first place.

Okay.
As human sapience evolved, humans did not understand the natural forces that effected their lives and like all humans they demanded answers. Since they had no understanding of the physical processes of their world, they used their imaginations to imbue the world with a supernatural entity(s) that could explain all those unexplained events and also confront human mortality. this manifested itself over the millennia as belief in a pantheon of different "gods", living and dying along with their believers.

Meanwhile, as our knowledge and understanding increased, it became readily apparent that all those things ignorantly attributed to god(s) were in fact simply natural events with well defined causes and processes. this natural accretion of knowledge resulted in religion(s) having to relegate much of what was once believed to be the absolute inerrant word of god, to the world of metaphor and fable.

It is far more logical to assume that god is a human construct, not the other way around.

Or so it says in your book.

No humans did not create life itself and they certainly didn't create the universe. And nobody has claimed that humans are "in control of life" anymore than they are in control of the universe.

I project human unto god because I believe god9s) to be a human construct. "in his own image" and all.

No, you evade it because you can't reasonably answer it. Seems you aren't much of a defender of the faith if you flee from unexpressed "derisive ridicule".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

But something can come from nothing.

Go back to the statement you originally made that I was directly responding to, before your deflection to state the obvious.

How convenient. Unsubstantiated attribution to a supernatural source is illogical.

 

No, I don't presume anything. Surely God is unlike anything His creation. He is eternal. He is perfect. And so forth. Nothing else in His creations fits this description.

They are content in being far closer to God than those who God has bestowed material things.

I'm aware of the secular perspective, and I'm perfectly fine with knowing that every single natural event in the universe has causes, as I am that ultimately, God is in control of it all. I see nothing wrong in having it both ways.

What more do you want to know? You will judged according to all your deeds, and belief in God. Since God is all-merciful, some will be forgiven. Some may have to be punished temporally. Some for eternity. The fact of the matter is that everyone will get what they deserve.

A vacuum is not a void.

Nonsense; absolute nothing stays absolute nothing, the same way absolute darkness stays absolute darkness. If something came out of nothing, then it was never absolute nothing in the first place.

Not if you believe in Him.

 

What is nonsense is you claiming to know things about God as "Fact" when you know darn well that you can not prove anything about God as fact.

Sure you can speculate but, there is a difference between speculation and Fact.

 

Prove that Heb 4:15 is an accurate representation of the way God feels ?

 

The proof is for me and other believers. Non-believers (or what is referred to as the "natural man") do not experience such belief therefore the proof is to them not a proof at all. My mind has been compelled by the force of the evidence (personal experience) and the arguments (presented by scripture) to accept the evidence and the arguments as true. We (you and I) have been over this subject before, so at this point I realize that you are merely looking for some way to start a pointless argument wherein I will not be able to convince you and likewise, you will not be able to sway my convictions. Your reputation has been shown quite abundantly on this forum, so you are wasting my time, your time and needless bandwidth attempting to carry this thread further off topic. Have a good day.

 

Actually you are expressing your presumptions about the nature of your god. I notice you deflect once again.

Huh? Starving children are closer to your god? If that isn't an outrageous presumption, I don't know what is.

So your short answer to everything is god is in control of everything. That leaves the question of the level of control. In creating a planet with a molten interior, which creates tectonic forces, does he also control when those tectonic forces create earthquakes or volcanic activity? does he wield these forces as punishment for not being pious enough, or is it merely that he created the conditions that arbitrarily destroy people and places?

So an atheist who has lived his life with morality, kindness, generosity, compassion and love, but doesn't believe in god would be forgiven?
In which case, belief in god in this life actually doesn't matter, but how one lives their life does.

there is no void in this universe and never has been. that does not mean that on the quantum level something can't instantaneously pop into and out of existence.

You are unfamiliar with the quantum level of existence its seems.

Faith has no requirement for logic.

 

why don't you believe in GOD, FSM is your creator, just look around, see all that is, that is proof FSM exists

 

I am a believer.... Where is your proof ?

You know as well as I that you can not prove that some text about God written by some dude over 2-3000 years ago is not proof of much !

A walking contradiction is not proof of much either - the fact that there are hundreds of religious texts from that time period - you can not prove that one is correct over the other.

Personal experience can not prove the some dude's writings from 3000 years ago depict God accurately. That is abject nonsense.

When I look at a sexy woman I have a "personal - quazi religious- experience !! " - what on earth does that have to do with some dude writing his thoughts down on paper 3000 years ago.

Circular arguments ? What kind of fallacious nonsense is this. A book saying " the words in this book are true" does not prove that the words are true.

Take into account that some accounts in the Bible have been proven false (sans some major divine intervention - Magic- which would turn God into a completely illogical and irrational fellow - "why would he kill all humans off in a flood to teach humans a lesson and then erase all traces of that lesson") and this makes further silliness of the " every word is true because the Bible says so circular fallacy"

 

And on that one is where I take on the attitude of a skeptic. Where is my proof of what? That you are a believer? I never said you were or were not.

Your grammar above is a little indistinguishable as to what you are attempting to say.

A walking contradiction? Where was that previously mentioned?

Then you claiming to be a believer is now even more desirable of scrutiny.

Who said anything about looking at a "sexy woman"? Your imagination is way out there today.

Who said anything about "a book saying "the words in this book are true""?

Specifically list each of those "accounts in the 'Bible'" which you are alleging have been proven false. Then provide the necessary evidence or argument that will compel my mind to accept your assertions as true. Your declarations are rather empty when they are not accompanied by compelling evidence or argument.... PROOF.