Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Being Muslim

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yusufu)
    I didn't say that. i said God is aware of all events. There's a whole load of thinking that's gone into this and I'm not qualified to explain, but it boils down to: You make the choice but God knows what choices you will make.
    Could someone please explain this in some detail, because I'm not understanding the logic here. I always thought the one premise common among the major religions is that we have free will. What is being posted here contradicts this entirely; firstly how can everything already be decided, yet at the same time we have free will? Secondly if we don't have free will, and God makes our decisions for us (i.e. "controls everything" like someone above said), then why has he made people choose different belief systems, and why has he produced atheists?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

    That's (I think) one of Leibniz's main ideas. Even if the "choice" is made by the human, God knows exactly what the choice is. BUT God made the human and gave the human free will, but by doing so God knew the choices the human would make from the start. So that was pretty pointless: why would God create something he knew would be bad, even if God didn't make the choice of the bad person?!

    It's just so flawed and contrived, to evade that problem. To me that reasoning inveigles and smarmily dodges away from the problem, rather than facing it with full force.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yusufu)
    I didn't say that. i said God is aware of all events. There's a whole load of thinking that's gone into this and I'm not qualified to explain, but it boils down to: You make the choice but God knows what choices you will make.
    The problem I'm having is the stuff posted about praying so far, doesn't make any sense. Kshahin said that God doesn't change events. Now, regardless of whether or not he knows we're going to pray, if he doesn't change anything, then the praying is useless. Regardless of whether or not he is all knowing and outside of time like you said, he would have to change events in order for any prayer to be answered. If this is the case, then it contradicts one major basis of religion - that we have free will, especially in the examples people gave earlier, where they were saying their praying resulted in certain topics coming up in the exam. Unless of course the only prayers he answers are those which are outside of human control entirely (such as the weather), in which case the examples given earlier, weren't examples at all.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aster100)
    Well hopefully I could carry this debate on further in real life, next year (hopefully)

    These laws aren't definitely objective obviously because they're built up from the scientific method and all that... But it definitely serves as a good approximation to those "laws" of the universe. But I really don't see how and why a God would need to come into that. If it's superfluous it's most probably wrong, and even if it is right, it gives you no right to have 100% faith in it. Why would you have 100% faith in something that only has a [low] probability of being true.

    Oh I'm sorry faith doesn't require evidence does it!!!!
    lol. If you get in, come along to the I-Soc freshers' squash. We'll have a good ole chat! (So you can recognise me, I'm the VP ) Which subject are you doing?

    As I see it, it's either 0% or 100% faith in the existence of a Creator. Care to explain how one would have 50% faith in something?

    Well, I think faith requires some sort of reasonable basis, even if it could be argued to be circumstantial. But one person's reasonable could well be unreasonable to another.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aster100)
    Could someone please explain this in some detail, because I'm not understanding the logic here. I always thought the one premise common among the major religions is that we have free will. What is being posted here contradicts this entirely; firstly how can everything already be decided, yet at the same time we have free will? Secondly if we don't have free will, and God makes our decisions for us (i.e. "controls everything" like someone above said), then why has he made people choose different belief systems, and why has he produced atheists?

    That's (I think) one of Leibniz's main ideas. Even if the "choice" is made by the human, God knows exactly what the choice is. BUT God made the human and gave the human free will, but by doing so God knew the choices the human would make from the start. So that was pretty pointless: why would God create something he knew would be bad, even if God didn't make the choice of the bad person?!

    It's just so flawed and contrived, to evade that problem. To me that reasoning inveigles and smarmily dodges away from the problem, rather than facing it with full force.
    You'll have to go a scholar to get a proper treatment of it! It's not an easy topic by any means.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wenzel)
    The problem I'm having is the stuff posted about praying so far, doesn't make any sense. Kshahin said that God doesn't change events. Now, regardless of whether or not he knows we're going to pray, if he doesn't change anything, then the praying is useless. Regardless of whether or not he is all knowing and outside of time like you said, he would have to change events in order for any prayer to be answered. If this is the case, then it contradicts one major basis of religion - that we have free will, especially in the examples people gave earlier, where they were saying their praying resulted in certain topics coming up in the exam. Unless of course the only prayers he answers are those which are outside of human control entirely (such as the weather), in which case the examples given earlier, weren't examples at all.
    I think I see what you mean. That's a tricky point and I'm afraid I myself don't know enough about this to give you a reasonable answer. I'm also a little too sleepy to think about it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wenzel)
    So if he doesn't change events, why pray? Surely, if he isn't going to change anything, then the praying is rendered pointless? If he doesn't change anything, then that means your result is already decided and any praying you do won't change that.

    I just don't understand the logic. Kind of reminds me of this george carlin stand up, he talks about this (in a way) at around 6:20.
    As muslims we don't pray just to ask something from God, we pray to Allah, worship him, that's where you've been confused, you can ask for forgivness for any sins you may have committed, but essentially you pray to worship God and show appreciation to he who has created you. Ofcourse you have Free Will, God doesn't set what you are going to do, but he is your creator he knows every person better than they know themsleves therefore YOU CHOOSE what to do but he knows what YOU will choose. It's like having a choice between two paths because God knows you so well he already knows which path you will take but he doesn't intervene to change your deicison(in which case free will would not exist).
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There are some deep philosophical questions being asked here, and frankly, I don't know why anyone would expect anything more than random musings from people who have not spent a long time studying these issues. If anyone is expecting that the average muslim goes through some rigourous training in Islamic philosiphy, they are optimisitic, to say the least.

    Also, it's quite arrogant to assume we can know all the answers. Why should we, in our limited capacity and experience, demand that we know everything?

    This is a collection of philosophical works written primarily for the the layman. It is probably best to start with Our Philosophy by Sadr, before moving on to more specific topics.

    http://www.al-islam.org/alpha.php?si...id=144&t=alpha
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wenzel)
    I think you're missing the context. This part of the forum is for religious discussion and this thread was made specifically to discuss it, that is all Aster is doing. Now if Aster runs out into the street confronting every religious person they meet, you may have a point.:p:
    Wannabe moderator :p:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by urbandervish)
    Wannabe moderator :p:
    Hardly. I didn't warn him, tell him to stick to the thread subject etc. Merely explained to him that he was missing the context entirely and hence [implied] his posts were rather silly.

    ...why did you bump this week old thread to say that?:p:
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by urbandervish)
    Wannabe moderator :p:
    And really...who doesn't want to b:p:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wenzel)
    Hardly. I didn't warn him, tell him to stick to the thread subject etc. Merely explained to him that he was missing the context entirely and hence [implied] his posts were rather silly.

    ...why did you bump this week old thread to say that?:p:
    :blush: am bein norty
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yusufu)
    You'll have to go a scholar to get a proper treatment of it! It's not an easy topic by any means.
    If this needs a scholar's treatment, then I'm assuming that it's too labyrinthine for a layperson to understand it. According to Occam's razor, in that case, God is superfluous. The notion of God wouldn't be required by the system to make sense. If the logic is so complex and thorny that it requires webbed, mazy reasoning, then unfortunately it is unlikely to be true (see Occam's razor etc.) It's a key guiding principle in all academic principles, including philosophy, theology and science.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aster100)
    If this needs a scholar's treatment, then I'm assuming that it's too labyrinthine for a layperson to understand it. According to Occam's razor, in that case, God is superfluous. The notion of God wouldn't be required by the system to make sense. If the logic is so complex and thorny that it requires webbed, mazy reasoning, then unfortunately it is unlikely to be true (see Occam's razor etc.) It's a key guiding principle in all academic principles, including philosophy, theology and science.
    Your jump to Occam's razor needs more work. A layperson wouldn't understand the mathematics that you hope to study either.
    That said, Occam's Razor is a silly tool.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yusufu)
    Your jump to Occam's razor needs more work. A layperson wouldn't understand the mathematics that you hope to study either.
    Medicine lol

    But all of mathematics is true by definition (I know, I know, using a set of axioms etc. etc.) and has a set of rules which govern manipulation. It's simple to, say, a perfect logical machine, where the logic is flawless. However the same cannot be said for the logic and reasoning behind God.

    God is a different story; some contradictions e.g. the usual infinite paradoxes (can God create something he cannot lift etc.) and problem of evil etc. must be contravened with theodicies so convoluted that one cannot say it is governed by a set of rules. I would even go so far as to say the people who come up with solutions to bypass these common, simple problems create such strange solutions to them, which are so counterintuitive and seem so contrived and artificial (where they seem to just create solutions to maintain their position on theism, without being openminded) that they cannot be said to be governed by the same set of laws that mathematics has, or any other science really. They (in general) just seem so artificial and desperate (sorry, no offence is intended here).

    The logic is patchy to say the least, and since there has been no flawless argument for the existence of God, or the justification of Islam, I really don't know how people can believe in it 100%. It's like having a scientific theory, which has not been corroborated to a very strong degree, where scientists believe in it 100% without having any flexibility or openmindedness whatsoever (e.g. Dawkins said that if empirical evidence in favour of God / against evolution was brought up, he would change his stance). Theists attack scientists for that vice, so I don't know why they can be hypocritical about it. It should work both ways.

    [I have realised that my argument may be quite incisive, and may offend some people. I mean no offence at all. At all! I just want a debate lol]
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aster100)
    Medicine lol

    But all of mathematics is true by definition (I know, I know, using a set of axioms etc. etc.) and has a set of rules which govern manipulation. It's simple to, say, a perfect logical machine, where the logic is flawless. However the same cannot be said for the logic and reasoning behind God.

    God is a different story; some contradictions e.g. the usual infinite paradoxes (can God create something he cannot lift etc.) and problem of evil etc. must be contravened with theodicies so convoluted that one cannot say it is governed by a set of rules. I would even go so far as to say the people who come up with solutions to bypass these common, simple problems create such strange solutions to them, which are so counterintuitive and seem so contrived and artificial (where they seem to just create solutions to maintain their position on theism, without being openminded) that they cannot be said to be governed by the same set of laws that mathematics has, or any other science really. They (in general) just seem so artificial and desperate (sorry, no offence is intended here).

    The logic is patchy to say the least, and since there has been no flawless argument for the existence of God, or the justification of Islam, I really don't know how people can believe in it 100%. It's like having a scientific theory, which has not been corroborated to a very strong degree, where scientists believe in it 100% without having any flexibility or openmindedness whatsoever (e.g. Dawkins said that if empirical evidence in favour of God / against evolution was brought up, he would change his stance). Theists attack scientists for that vice, so I don't know why they can be hypocritical about it. It should work both ways.

    [I have realised that my argument may be quite incisive, and may offend some people. I mean no offence at all. At all! I just want a debate lol]
    A medic?!
    I think "contradictions" is entirely the wrong word. There's tricky points for which most people will need to consult with a scholar. It's the same in mathematics or any subject. Proving something as obvious as 1+1 = 2 requires a fairly lengthy proof. There's plenty of instances where the tools we have fail us. (Try asking for the integral of e^(x^2) in the maths forum!) Have you heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Essentially, it proves that given a set of axioms, there will be things that cannot be proven using those axioms. A real headache for mathematicians!

    In choosing to go purely down the logic route you've forgotten that we are not machines!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yusufu)
    A medic?!
    I think "contradictions" is entirely the wrong word. There's tricky points for which most people will need to consult with a scholar. It's the same in mathematics or any subject. Proving something as obvious as 1+1 = 2 requires a fairly lengthy proof. There's plenty of instances where the tools we have fail us. (Try asking for the integral of e^(x^2) in the maths forum!) Have you heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Essentially, it proves that given a set of axioms, there will be things that cannot be proven using those axioms. A real headache for mathematicians!

    In choosing to go purely down the logic route you've forgotten that we are not machines!
    Ok I think you're right in that this is most definitely the wrong place to discuss these kinds of topics. I guess this was for general questions which could be answered by someone who was not necessarily a scholar, but who knew quite a bit about Islamic principles etc.

    But yes I have heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem and I know what it proves, it's just that I found it impossible to follow it!
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aster100)
    Ok I think you're right in that this is most definitely the wrong place to discuss these kinds of topics. I guess this was for general questions which could be answered by someone who was not necessarily a scholar, but who knew quite a bit about Islamic principles etc.

    But yes I have heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem and I know what it proves, it's just that I found it impossible to follow it!
    . Good stuff. Hopefully the responses in the thread helped somewhat. A carrot for you: there's quite a few knowledgeable people at Cambridge!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppety_Kid)
    Out of interest, are you a Muslim? Admittedly I haven't read the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that Muhammed is a prophet of God.

    My understanding of how Judaism/Christianity/Islam interlink comes from one of my old RE teachers. He said that the Jews came first and wrote the Old Testament. The Christians believe the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible, but also that Jesus was the Son of God (which Jews don't believe). Apparently the Muslims are like the "third part" - you believe everything us Christians believe, but some additional things that we don't.

    I don't really understand what you're asking in the last part of your question, but if you're asking why people can still be religious and believe in the Big Bang, it's because some feel God started the Big Bang that created the universe.

    what a silly silly teacher, islam came FIRSTTT it got distorted hence judaism and got distorted again hence acahristianity and the only non distorted Islam, the reason why they are similar is becasue they are all the same book from god except it has been distorted by the jews,

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 31, 2012
New on TSR

What is sixth form like?

Share your story!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.