Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Frank

If I Was A Malaevolent/mischievious God

Recommended Posts

When you said your mother is mischievous, what do you base it on? And if you think your mother is not mischievous, what do you base it on?

 

The same things I base any observations of other humans on - knowledge and experience. In the same way cats know about the personality traits of other cats and so on. Social animals (such as cats and humans) have been drawing conclusions (not always correct) about the personalities of their kind for millions of years. It's nothing special.

 

However I deny the possibility of a human being able to know something that a god wnted to hide from them. Your idea of drawing conclusions about the behaviour of gods by studying the behaviour of humans is fundamentally flawed (and I would have thought it was blasphemous for Muslims).

 

But generally, lying and murder are considered bad things according our established ethical system. Do you agree with this or not?

 

Yes, with the reservation that I don't necessarily share your ethical system beyond a broad tenedency which seems common to most humans.

 

EDIT - By the way, "murder" is by definition against the law. The word means killing someone without a legal excuse. So I maintain that murder is ALWAYS wrong. So should you.

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
The same things I base any observations of other humans on - knowledge and experience.

What knowledge? What experience?

 

Your idea of drawing conclusions about the behaviour of gods by studying the behaviour of humans is fundamentally flawed (and I would have thought it was blasphemous for Muslims).

The comparison is between emotional quotion and spiritual quotient. If you can accept emotional quotion argument, why not spiritual quotion argument?

 

EDIT - By the way, "murder" is by definition against the law. The word means killing someone without a legal excuse. So I maintain that murder is ALWAYS wrong. So should you.

Who told you that it is wrong?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comparison is between emotional quotion and spiritual quotient. If you can accept emotional quotion argument, why not spiritual quotion argument?

 

Sorry, no idea what you mean here. And no, I don't base my decisions about people's persopnalities purely on emotion, That would be silly.

 

Who told you that it is wrong?

 

Pretty much everyone, obviously. Human societies depend on this sort of thing. So do rabbit societies, bee societies, and so on. It isn't hard to see how this evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Layna, read my posts. I am NOT arguing that my mother couldn't fool me. She definitely IS mischievious (I won't say malaevolent); when I was a young child I'm sure she DID fool me. Many mothers fool their children, most not for malicious reasons, agreed, but nonetheless a young child could not know.

 

However the relationships between humans are not analogous to the relationships between humans and a god, unless you are thinking of a feeble, flawed, fallible (that is, human) god. I don't accept the analogy.

 

For you to know (other than through blind faith) that a god was not fooling you, you would have to be able to defeat the will of the god. Is this possible? I doubt it.

 

EDIT - Mods, please don't ban Layna for her insults. They don't bother me at all.

 

Firstly, what "insults" are these? You mean the same kinds of insults you said to brother Student about how his reading skills are too poor? Oh, wow.

 

Secondly, if anyone were to be banned for anything, it would be you for insulting Islam with your absurdity that a mischievous "god" would play a nasty trick on us by enforcing Islam's laws.

 

Thirdly, definition of hypocrite:

A person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

You keep saying "how do you know God is neither mischievous nor malevolent if you can't prove it?" and at the same time, have no solid proof that your mother is neither of those. You are being, by the English definition of the word, a hypocrite.

 

Fourthly, don't try to sneak your way out of this with your feeble attempt to claim that "she fooled you sometimes". I wasn't asking has she ever been mischievous and malevolent at one point in your life, as YOU are not asking if God has ever been mischievous and malevolent at one point in our lives. I'm asking (as you very well know), what if she was, is, and will always be entirely and mischievous? Therefore, HOW can you respect, admire, love, a being who could very well have been playing a nasty trick on you your entire life? Especially if that being is mischievous and malevolent?

 

And lastly, reread your own words: She definitely IS mischievious (I won't say malaevolent); when I was a young child I'm sure she DID fool me. Many mothers fool their children, most not for malicious reasons, agreed, but nonetheless a young child could not know.

 

In this comment, you are now guessing, based on your opinion, that she MIGHT have been mischievous at some point in your life. Why do you assume that she might have been, if you have no concrete proof? If you have no fact? If you want facts to form an opinion of God, you should do the same about your mother, and every single being on this planet.

 

However the relationships between humans are not analogous to the relationships between humans and a god, unless you are thinking of a feeble, flawed, fallible (that is, human) god. I don't accept the analogy.

 

Once again, hogwash. We are discussing the characteristics of malevolence and mischief, and if YOU believe that they can exist in "a god", then you should have no doubt whatsoever that they can exist in a human being.

 

The only reason you don't accept the analogy is because I have you stumped. You have tried, very feebly, to come up with an answer. You have claimed anything and everything you could come up with, and it still falls short.

 

I could compare an apple and an orange, two very different fruits, on the grounds that they both ARE fruit. I could compare "a god" and your mother, two very different beings, on the grounds that to you they can both have the characteristics of malevolence and mischief.

 

We are not talking about the nature of "a god" and the nature of your mother. We are not talking about existance of one over the other. Just as we wouldn't be discussing the colors and textures of apples and oranges, when the subject is "types of fruit", the subject in this situation is those two characteristics; malevolence and mischief.

 

Explain to me why your mother, who you respect, love, admire, and believe in, is not malevolent or mischievous in her nature. Or will you argue next that you don't love, respect, admire or believe in her?

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you are to concern yourself with epistemology entirely, Frank, then you couldn't really believe in anything. In this case, you are playing with Descartes method of doubt. Surely then, if everything is to be doubted, you can't be sure of anything.

This is to apply to everything, if you accuse belief then you must accuse non-belief, in which case you lack the right to come here and insult believers by labelling God mischevious or malevolent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not doubting everything (which would lead to solipsism, which I've said several times that I'm not arguing for). I'm willing to admit, without overwhelming evidence, the existence of just about anything except supernatural beings. However that isn't actually what I'm talking about in this thread.

 

In this thread I'm admitting supernatural beings - I'm arguing that humans could not possibly know the motives of a god if the god chose to hide them. If that is correct (and no-one has attempted to argue that it isn't) if follows that humans could not know the real nature of a god if the god chose to hide it. There is no way that humans could know whether a god was what it said it was, or if it was fooling.

 

you lack the right to come here and insult believers by labelling God mischevious or malevolent.

 

You haven't been understanding what you have been reading. I said that humans could not know if a god was being untruthful if the god chose not to let them know. Do you disagree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep saying "how do you know God is neither mischievous nor malevolent if you can't prove it?" and at the same time, have no solid proof that your mother is neither of those. You are being, by the English definition of the word, a hypocrite.

 

Umm, this is nonsense. Yes (for the sake of argument) I have no solid proof that my mother is/isn't mischievious or malaevolent. Nor do I have solid proof that a putative god isn't. Where's the hypocrisy?

 

But I still don't accept the analogy. My mother is a human being, as am I. The relationships between more-or-less equal members of the same species and the relationship between a mammal and the Lord of the Universe are hardly the same thing.

 

 

EDIT - typos

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jasmine, your words are very eloquent and right to the point. I enjoyed the opportunity to read them.

 

You haven't been understanding what you have been reading. I said that humans could not know if a god was being untruthful if the god chose not to let them know. Do you disagree with that?

 

You missed the point. If "a god" could be untruthful, then so can your mother. As I've stated, the debate is not about whether one exists and the other doesn't, it is about what one chooses to do, which the latter could also very well do.

 

Umm, this is nonsense. Yes (for the sake of argument) I have no solid proof that my mother is/isn't mischievious or malaevolent. Nor do I have solid proof that a putative god isn't. Where's the hypocrisy?

 

Hardly. Do you trust and believe your mother if she tells you something? In the same way that you would trust her, we trust God and believe in Him when He tells us what we know. And you might know your mother all of your life, but we DO have the Qur'an, which brings us as close, if not more, to our creator as you are to your mother.

 

Now, it is odd that you accuse us of being blind, so to speak, to the possibility that we might be pawns in some wicked "god's" game, when YOU yourself could be just as blinded when it comes to your mother. If you can love and have faith in your mother, why do you frown upon those who love and put their faith in their creator? You have no facts concerning your mother, so you really shouldn't be asking for any.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If "a god" could be untruthful, then so can your mother.

 

Yes? Did I deny that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't deny it, but your life, just like mine, is not always based on facts. Right?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Layna, I think you are making a mistake by insisting that if a human can know that his/her mother is truthful, she/he can therefore trust his/her insticts about a god's attributes.

 

For a start, believers in other religions 'know' their gods' attributes just as much you you do yours. Believers of religions with mischeivious/malaevolent gods 'know' that they exist. They can't all be right. So your analogy os no closer to solving the dilemma.

 

But it's worse than that - the analogy proves my argument more than it does yours. There are bad mothers. But the young children of bad mothers don't believe them to be bad. There are 'mothers' who are really adoptive mothers - but the child thinks that they are his/her 'real' mother and would not recognise (and perhaps might even dislike) their 'real' mother if they saw her. Children are easily foolable by maternal figures. So are humans by supernatural figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Frank. Anything could be a lie, anything could be a trick, in your opinion.

But that thought places belief and non belief equally, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't deny it, but your life, just like mine, is not always based on facts. Right?

 

It is to the extent I can make it so. And I certainly wouldn't let myself follow a set of strict laws without considering facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, Frank. Anything could be a lie, anything could be a trick, in your opinion.

But that thought places belief and non belief equally, no?

 

I specifically said that that was not what I was arguing. Please READ my posts rather than assuming that you know what I amm arguing a priori.

 

My argument is solely that a human being could not know the motives of a supernatural being if the supernatural being chose not to allow the human to know them.

 

Do you have an argument against that proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Layna, I think you are making a mistake by insisting that if a human can know that his/her mother is truthful, she/he can therefore trust his/her insticts about a god's attributes.

 

Once again, you are missing the point. It was to call you out on your claim that we could be following the wrong instructions of "a god" and that our belief that he is all-good could be a fascade created by him.

 

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot accuse us of being too dependant on faith when you yourself could very well arrive at many conclusions using your own intuitions and intellect.

 

For a start, believers in other religions 'know' their gods' attributes just as much you you do yours. Believers of religions with mischeivious/malaevolent gods 'know' that they exist. They can't all be right. So your analogy os no closer to solving the dilemma.

 

Uh, no. My analogy was not to "solve anything". It was to show you that your theory is absurd.

 

But it's worse than that - the analogy proves my argument more than it does yours. There are bad mothers. But the young children of bad mothers don't believe them to be bad. There are 'mothers' who are really adoptive mothers - but the child thinks that they are his/her 'real' mother and would not recognise (and perhaps might even dislike) their 'real' mother if they saw her. Children are easily foolable by maternal figures. So are humans by supernatural figures.

 

Actually, you are blind to the fact that this further proves MY argument. If you believe that human beings are easily fooled by "supernatural figures", so can YOU be fooled by your own mother. Even now, as an adult, she could very well be fooling you. I'm pretty sure you are not a child at the moment, so what is your excuse for loving or believing in a mother who could very well be malevolent and mischievous?

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Frank.

I think you studied Philosophy.

You are right we could not know, I read your post to quickly and jumped to offence.

But it is beyond reasonable doubt to those who believe that this is not the case :sl:

Interesting point though, we always know that in this life we will have nothing to disprove this claim except what we know.

For those who love God, what is in our hearts is enough proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for double posting, I can't edit posts.

When I say we could not know, I mean that we could not know in the definition of proved belief, but many people DO know that God, a benevolent God , one God exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even now, as an adult, she could very well be fooling you. I'm pretty sure you are not a child at the moment, so what is your excuse for loving or believing in a mother who could very well be malevolent and mischievous?

 

Look, if you'd read my posts you would know that I have NOT claimed that my mother cannot fool me. I also never said that I 'believed in' (I'm assuming that you don't mean physical existence here) my mother. The sickly "momism" you're implying is like American sentimentality at its worst.

 

However, the analogy is not valid. Rather than consider the relationship between members of the same species, which have evolved maternal instrincts and the necessary psychology to be social animals (for example, being able to tell if another member of the species is dangerous - no this instinct is not infallible), the relationship between a supernatural being an a human is more like the relationship between a small grass seed and a whale. Analogies are good fun, but can we start another thread to talk about them?

 

My argument is solely that a human being could not know the motives of a supernatural being if the supernatural being chose not to allow the human to know them.

 

Do you have an argument against that proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is beyond reasonable doubt to those who believe that this is not the case

Interesting point though, we always know that in this life we will have nothing to disprove this claim except what we know.

For those who love God, what is in our hearts is enough proof.

 

And good luck to believers. Just remember that the 'proof' you use is exactly the same as the proof that believers in other religions use and that it is not possible to consider one religion 'truer' than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw... God is not defined by malevolence or mischief. That would not be God.

 

Uh oh. You've already forgotten your own conclusion.

 

People who sincerely believed "in their hearts" that the Greek gods were true knew that the gods could be mischievious and sometimes malaevolent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, if you'd read my posts you would know that I have NOT claimed that my mother cannot fool me. I also never said that I 'believed in' (I'm assuming that you don't mean physical existence here) my mother. The sickly "momism" you're implying is like American sentimentality at its worst.

 

Oh? So are you now going to claim that you don't trust your mother? That you don't believe she is either malevolent or good? That you are entirely neutral on her? Make sense more, please.

 

However, the analogy is not valid. Rather than consider the relationship between members of the same species, which have evolved maternal instrincts and the necessary psychology to be social animals (for example, being able to tell if another member of the species is dangerous - no this instinct is not infallible), the relationship between a supernatural being an a human is more like the relationship between a small grass seed and a whale. Analogies are good fun, but can we start another thread to talk about them?

 

Ahahah. So now you are trying to justify your pathetic words by throwing in psychology, which has no basis in this argument.

 

This is not, I repeat, is NOT about the true nature of your mother, or the true nature of "a god". So don't try all of that "evolved maternal instincts" crap. This is about YOUR and MY beliefs (not fact) about the nature of mothers and "gods". Understand, Franky?

 

My argument is solely that a human being could not know the motives of a supernatural being if the supernatural being chose not to allow the human to know them.

 

And my argument is solely that a human being could not know the motives of their mothers if their mothers chose not to allow them to know. And yet, you really aren't neutral when it comes to what type of person you think your mother really is, are you now?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Frank, you are confusing the issue. "gods" are known in cultures to have the characteristics of human beings, but GOD in monotheistic religions is neither malevolent nor mischievous.

 

Therefore, you are wrong.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, saying that the relationship between a child and its mother is the same as the relationship between a human and a god does not work.

 

And I have already said that young children could not know the motives of their mothers if they chose not to allow them to. Some mothers may be able to fool their adult children - why not?

 

My mother is a human being. I am a human being. Humans are good at understanding other humans. You can't extrapolate from this that humans can defy gods who want to hide their motives. The Greek concept of hubris applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×