Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Frank

If I Was A Malaevolent/mischievious God

Recommended Posts

There you have it. They are opinions, not fact. As different as you claim it is to know if a human being is telling the truth or if God is, you will NEVER know whether or not a human being could be playing a trick on you. You will simply form opinions.

 

Yes? So what? They are opinions based on experience and experiment. I repeat (again!) that I haven't claimed to know with certainty what humans are thinking, and the fact that humans can fool humans tends to support my contention that a god could fool humans. You are on a futile side-track here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Yes? So what? They are opinions based on experience and experiment. I repeat (again!) that I haven't claimed to know with certainty what humans are thinking, and the fact that humans can fool humans tends to support my contention that a god could fool humans. You are on a futile side-track here.

 

You, on the other hand, keep trying to dodge the point, which is that you could never know whether or not a human being is lying to you. Do experience and experiments make up for hard-core fact? Uh, no.

 

Therefore, whatever conclusions you arrive at are based on your own opinions and beliefs. And finally, you are being untruthful by start a thread that mocks others for "not having evidence" while you yourself have no evidence and yet feel perfectly okay with loving/believing in human beings such as your mother.

 

Now, please do proceed in trying to come up with excuses as to why that's perfectly fine, as you've been doing for the past God knows how many posts.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You, on the other hand, keep trying to dodge the point, which is that you could never know whether or not a human being is lying to you. Do experience and experiments make up for hard-core fact? Uh, no.

 

Therefore, whatever conclusions you arrive at are based on your own opinions and beliefs. And finally, you are being untruthful by start a thread that mocks others for "not having evidence" while you yourself have no evidence and yet feel perfectly okay with loving/believing in human beings such as your mother.

 

1. "Hard-core facts" are quite rare. We didn't have "hard-core facts" that the moon wasn't made of green cheese until we landed on it. But we did have a good working hypothesis that it wasn't. Likewise, we might not have "hard-core facts" about what a person is thinking, but we can have good working hypotheses, which can be modified when experiments produce results that don't fit the hypotheses. You can't do this with a god.

 

2. However, even if you are correct - that no human can know (using 'know' is an unrealistically strong sense) if another human is lying to them - so what? I have several times agreed that when I was a young child my mother no doubt fooled me.

 

 

3. All you are saying is that you don't believe that a god could fool humans, without actually advancing any arguments for this. Fine, but why do you stay in the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. All you are saying is that you don't believe that a god could fool humans, without actually advancing any arguments for this. Fine, but why do you stay in the thread?

 

You missed the entire point; no surprise there. You seem to do a lot of that.

 

My argument was against your claim that evidence is a requirement for determining true nature. Why do I stay in this thread? For that very reason, a valid point that you yourself believe. And by the way, for someone who claims I'm not advancing any arguments, you sure do reply a lot, don't you?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the entire point; no surprise there. You seem to do a lot of that.

 

Rather than petulantly throwing around insults, why don't you tell me the point? To use your sort of language, you do a lot of dancing around but precious little honest argument.

 

My argument was against your claim that evidence is a requirement for determining true nature.

 

OK (ignoring the fact that I have agreed with you that "true nature" - whatever that is - cannot be known with certainty) so can I take from this that you believe that you can know the "true nature" of a god based on faith? You think that your faith is proof against a god fooling you? But you aren't going to give any reasons for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than petulantly throwing around insults, why don't you tell me the point? To use your sort of language, you do a lot of dancing around but precious little honest argument.

 

Your subtle insults were never lost on me, m'dear. You really should practice what you preach.

 

OK (ignoring the fact that I have agreed with you that "true nature" - whatever that is - cannot be known with certainty) so can I take from this that you believe that you can know the "true nature" of a god based on faith? You think that your faith is proof against a god fooling you? But you aren't going to give any reasons for this?

 

I'm having this odd sense of deja vu...

 

Oh, that's right. It's what I've been asking YOU all along. You think faith is proof against your mother fooling you? And yet, you don't believe she raised you with malevolence and mischief in mind, do you? This is a rhetorical question, because you already said you don't and have tried vainly to come up with excuses as to why your faith, even with your lack of evidence, is good enough "proof" for you while you continue to berate others for lacking what you consider evidence.

 

In this scenario, you use nothing more than faith. Until every aspect of your life revolves around indisputable evidence, you are guilty of what you charge others with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, that's right. It's what I've been asking YOU all along. You think faith is proof against your mother fooling you?

 

Umm, no, YOU do, apparently.

 

And yet, you don't believe she raised you with malevolence and mischief in mind, do you? This is a rhetorical question, because you already said you don't and have tried vainly to come up with excuses as to why your faith, even with your lack of evidence, is good enough "proof" for you while you continue to berate others for lacking what you consider evidence.

 

I have never said that I lack evidence. I keep saying that our understanding of other humans is based on experience and experiment, including our understanding of mommies. You've started this "true nature" red herring, which I've gone along with, but I've never agreed that my undertanding of other humans (including mommies) is not dependent on experience and experiment.

 

In this scenario, you use nothing more than faith. Until every aspect of your life revolves around indisputable evidence, you are guilty of what you charge others with.

 

I've never called for indisputable evidence. I have constantly talked about empirical evidence and modifying hypotheses as new evidence becomes available. I perhaps DID use "nothing more than faith" in my relationship with my mommy when I was an infant (although I bet that even infants are able to learn if their faith is misplaced) but progressively it has been replaced by hypotheses based on experience and experiment. I certainly don't have mere evidence-free faith in my mother now.

 

Your entire argument seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that I am hypocritical for having faith in mommies but criticising others' faith in gods. I disagree that I have evidence-free faith in mommies, but even if that was the case, so what? You'd get to call me a hypocrite but that gets you absolutely no farther with the problem of knowing if a god is fooling you. This is not a call for 'absolute' evidence (although if you're basing your chances in the afterlife on it you'd think that you'd want a bit of intellectual rigour) it's a call for a method by which evidence - even empirical evidence - might be obtained.

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, no, YOU do, apparently.

 

I never gave my opinion on the whole mother thing, YOU did. In fact, you claimed that your mother has "deceived" you at some point in your life, even though you don't have proof that she's done so. Then you pulled out the entire "experience and experiment" argument, which continues to lack proof.

 

Do you believe your mother is a liar? Or that she is malevolent or mischievous? If not, then who are you to mock other people for believing that their creator is not a liar?

 

I have never said that I lack evidence. I keep saying that our understanding of other humans is based on experience and experiment, including our understanding of mommies. You've started this "true nature" red herring, which I've gone along with, but I've never agreed that my undertanding of other humans (including mommies) is not dependent on experience and experiment.

 

A red herring is a distraction from the topic at hand with the intention of overriding and burying the relevant topic. Have I introduced a new topic? Nope. One of your main points is "How do you know you are not being fooled if you lack proof?" How do YOU know you are not being fooled if YOU lack proof?

 

My point is so relevant that at least 2 other people have said the same thing to you (refer back to previous pages). I'm sure that when a conversation doesn't go the way you want it to, when you expect people to fall into one trap after another that you neatly lay out but they don't, then they MUST be making a logical fallacy, right?

 

Factual evidence is not based on intuition and opinion, regardless of how much "experience and experiments" you have. The only way you could know for certain is if you were a mind-reader, which you are not.

 

It is ironic that you are trying to argue that the human psyche or intellect is so powerful that it can easily determine another human being's true nature (WITHOUT concrete evidence), but that it totally fails at connecting with our creator.

 

I've never called for indisputable evidence. I have constantly talked about empirical evidence and modifying hypotheses as new evidence becomes available.

 

Empirical evidence is a phrase that you've only started throwing around in the past 2 or 3 posts. Every other post of yours uses the words "proof" "truth" "fact". Are you trying to backpeddle?

 

Secondly, "empirical evidence" is a type of "evidence" invented by the west. Allow me to coin one on the spot.

 

We will call it "the evidence of the soul". This type of evidence deals with the soul and its God-given ability to discover "the truth". How does the soul discover the truth? Firstly, the soul has a connection with its creator that only diminishes over time but is never broken. Anyone who has the intention of discovering his or her creator will be able to use this connection to find their way back to God.

 

If you expect me to settle for "empirical evidence", then you can very well settle for this. You can continue to make up your own rules in this little game of yours, but I always did like playing games.

 

And lastly, where is your proof that a woman can raise a child, teach him good values, and do so without the intention of "playing a nasty tricK" on him? Your experiences with your mother are based on what she allows you to hear, see, or experience. If she is a malevolent or mischievous being who only seeks to fool you, she can do a very good job of it, and you will spend your entire life thinking that your mother is kind and loving (which she appears to be on the outside) while you couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I understand how the ontological argument works, and I also know that (but only dimly understand why - I'm not a professional philospher) most current philosphers (and many philosphers through history) reject it.

I’m sure you will find that this kind of arguments doesn’t suit you; you only have to substitute the ontological argument by God.

As for the rest , this thread became loose , I’m pretty sure that you know where you arguments fail , so I see no necessity to continue this discussion any further , the answers are in my previous post , so I wish you the best of luck , peace and love .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe your mother is a liar? Or that she is malevolent or mischievous? If not, then who are you to mock other people for believing that their creator is not a liar?

 

For the last time:

 

1. whether or not I have faith in my mother is not relevant to the topic of this thread.

2. I repeat for the nth time, I do not have blind faith in my mother or anyone or anything else. Nor do I have "indisputable proof" about anything. I have testable hypotheses which are constantly being refined and challenged.

 

One of your main points is "How do you know you are not being fooled if you lack proof?" How do YOU know you are not being fooled if YOU lack proof?

 

Yes! You've got it! I don't know that I'm not being fooled. I can form workable hypotheses, though. How do you do that about a god?

 

Factual evidence is not based on intuition and opinion, regardless of how much "experience and experiments" you have. The only way you could know for certain is if you were a mind-reader, which you are not.

 

When did I say I used intuition? I didn't. And I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A MIND READER. Why do you keep bringing it up? I have never claimed to know anything for certain and have said this many times/. Why do you keep bringing it up? Yiou really don't give the impression of having very good reading comprehension.

 

It is ironic that you are trying to argue that the human psyche or intellect is so powerful that it can easily determine another human being's true nature (WITHOUT concrete evidence), but that it totally fails at connecting with our creator.

 

I have never claimed to know another human's "true nature"! Why do you keep saying I do? This is bordering on lies, tut tut. Also, if you'd READ what I wrote, you would see that I KEEP SAYING that we can learn things about other humans by experience and experiement. I keep saying that you can't do this with a god.

 

Empirical evidence is a phrase that you've only started throwing around in the past 2 or 3 posts. Every other post of yours uses the words "proof" "truth" "fact". Are you trying to backpeddle?

No? You're being untruthful here.

 

Secondly, "empirical evidence" is a type of "evidence" invented by the west. Allow me to coin one on the spot. ['quote]

 

Well, I'm glad you finally looked-up something. But you need to use something a bit more sophisticated than an internet dictionary. Your example isn't an example of empirical evidence. It's an evidence-free statement of fantasy, exactly equivalent to "The invisible Pink Unicorn is a friend of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and they meet under the Magic Mango tree for a party every 2000 years. Humans know this in their soul because they have the FSM-given ability to know it."

 

Empirical evidence (I have already given this example, you apparently didn't read it) would be a way of determining how individuals A and B are likely to react to loud noises. You test them. You have empirical evidence. You can form a theory. Or using a whole lot of empirical evidence you can fly to the moon or build pyramids or discover the nature of eclipses.

 

It's arguable that there is no other sort of evidence than empirical evidence. Deductive evidence (most famously used by Classical geometricians and mathematicians) relies on accepted first principles. Since Einstein and later physics, some of these are looking shaky.

 

As a matter of interest, what do you think is an example of a "hard-core fact" that isn't merely a statement of belief?

 

Mommies. *sigh* I understand that your culture and/or religion places mommies on pedestals (and puts 'bad girls in the grave), but surely you can see that this isn't necessarily a good idea. "Paradise is at the feet of your mother" would look good on a trite greeting card, I agree, but as a useful aphorism - no.

 

Try to follow this.

 

1. It would not be Paradise to be at the feet of some mothers. Manic-depresives, drug addicts, mothers too poor to look after children properly, and so on. Also, some children would not find it paradisical to be at the feet of even the best mother - those with chronic pain, mental illness, starvation, and so on.

 

2. Therefore the expression "Paradise is at the feet of your mother" does not mean ALL mothers, it means SOME mothers; it does not mean ALL 'your' it means SOME.

 

3. What it is in fact saying is, "Paradise is at the feet of mothers whom it happens to be paradise to be at the feet of, and for children able to experience paradise".

 

This is in fact so broad as to be meaningless. You could substiture "Sabre-tooth tiger" or "rabbi" for "mother" and it would be exactly as true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't bother replying to regurgitated arguments, so let's skip at least half of your post:

 

Well, I'm glad you finally looked-up something. But you need to use something a bit more sophisticated than an internet dictionary. Your example isn't an example of empirical evidence. It's an evidence-free statement of fantasy, exactly equivalent to "The invisible Pink Unicorn is a friend of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and they meet under the Magic Mango tree for a party every 2000 years. Humans know this in their soul because they have the FSM-given ability to know it."

 

It is unbelievably pitiful of you to:

 

1) Try to dismiss my education as nothing more than "an internet dictionary". But wait, this seems to be a trend of yours, because I remember you INSISTING before that I had never "heard of" a certain book in another discussion a few months ago simply because you were losing the argument. I wouldn't be surprised if this was your special move; accusing others of lacking an education when you are starting to feel pressured. How disgustingly simple-minded.

 

2) Assume that what I said had anything to do with empirical evidence. Read my post again.

 

Empirical evidence is a type of evidence invented by the west. All of its rules, steps and methods were invented by the west. Is it legitimate throughout the rest of the world? Uhhh, no. Can any person come up with their own theory of evidence? Uhhh, yes.

 

"Evidence of the soul" is NOT an example of empirical evidence. It is a TYPE of evidence all on its own. How in the world could you not understand that?

 

In case you didn't get it, I created it to mock you and the fact that you expect me to accept theories and opinions (based on a faulty system of observation and experience) that you yourself decided is acceptable after arguing forever for "facts" and "proof". "Oh, I will only accept empirical evidence because it will support my theory, nothing else". What you fail to realize is that empirical evidence is not a substitute for factual evidence that does not need to be tested or theorized about, because it is already established.

 

Empirical evidence (I have already given this example, you apparently didn't read it) would be a way of determining how individuals A and B are likely to react to loud noises. You test them. You have empirical evidence. You can form a theory. Or using a whole lot of empirical evidence you can fly to the moon or build pyramids or discover the nature of eclipses.

 

Evidence of the soul (I have already mentioned, but you no doubt didn't understand) would be a way of determining the truth about one's creator by using the soul as a connection between God and the individual. You would simply have to seek the truth and be sincere in your quest and you would find it.

 

As a matter of interest, what do you think is an example of a "hard-core fact" that isn't merely a statement of belief?

 

Anything that is already established and indisputable. For example, if you were a mind-reader, you would actually know what I was thinking. But because you aren't, you can simply theorize and play a guessing game.

 

Or more simply, hard-core fact would be that grass is green, human beings walk on two feet, life exists on planet Earth.

 

Mommies. *sigh* I understand that your culture and/or religion places mommies on pedestals (and puts 'bad girls in the grave), but surely you can see that this isn't necessarily a good idea. "Paradise is at the feet of your mother" would look good on a trite greeting card, I agree, but as a useful aphorism - no.

 

Someone sound the alarm! We've detected a red herring!

 

Our religion knows the value of mothers and fathers. Just because you have no such understanding and appreciation for the parental unit does not make you right. In fact, I'd hate to be under whatever ideology you grew up with.

 

And...please tell me that's a typo. Put bad girls in the grave? If you mean that we bury bad girls who die, then yes, yes we do. We also bury good ones.

 

I see you continue to go off-topic, but I'm always game as I said.

 

Manic-depresives, drug addicts, mothers too poor to look after children properly, and so on. Also, some children would not find it paradisical to be at the feet of even the best mother - those with chronic pain, mental illness, starvation, and so on.

 

Even though your intention isn't to understand anything but only to nitpick at Islam and continue to act like your theories and opinions are bigger and better than anything Islam has taught, I'll explain it for the benefit of any other non-Muslim who happens to peruse this thread.

 

It's a proverb, firstly. It means that in order to please God, one must be dutiful to his or her mother. How? By obeying her when she commands what is good, and refusing, in a gentle way, to do what isn't.

 

It simply means to get TO paradise, one requirement is being dutiful to the parents, specifically the mother. If a person's mother is mean-spirited and horrible, that is no excuse to be mean-spirited and horrible to her. Two wrongs never make a right. One must treat his mother (and father) kindly until and after they reach old age.

 

Can one be dutiful to a mother with psychological troubles? Yes. Drug addict? Yes. Poor mothers? Yes. Sick mothers? Yes. Ones with mental illness? Yes. Starving ones? Check.

 

You're funny.

 

What it is in fact saying is, "Paradise is at the feet of mothers whom it happens to be paradise to be at the feet of, and for children able to experience paradise".

 

You do not know what you're talking about.

 

This is in fact so broad as to be meaningless. You could substiture "Sabre-tooth tiger" or "rabbi" for "mother" and it would be exactly as true.

 

I'm PRETTY sure that being dutiful to a saber-tooth tiger or a rabbi won't take you to paradise.

 

By the way, Frank, where IS your proof and where are your facts? You seem to think that doing empirical research (which is built on hypothesis for or against an occurence based on sensory data) will ultimately tell you the truth-value of a theory. Empiricism is based on what CAN be observed and experienced, and another human being's thoughts and intentions cannot be experienced unless you are a mind reader.

 

Therefore, no evidence exists for what a human being's thoughts and intentions are/aren't.

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that empiricism is a mean old Western innovation is silly. For example, if two teaspoons of salt in the water used for boiling rice makes it too salty (a cook tasting food is making an empirical enquiry), and one teaspoon makes it not salty enough (another empirical discovery), how do you decide what to do next? Do you add 6 teaspoons? No teaspoons? Do you consult the Unchangeable Hard-Core Facts of the Universe? of course not. You apply simple logic to your empirical evidence and try something between one and two. You use empiricism every time you modify a recipe.

 

But, anyway, just how do you know that a malaevolent or mischievious god isn't fooling you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say the basic concept behind empiricism belongs to the west. I said the laws, methods, steps, etc are governed by western philosophers and/or scientists. The way that a man in Africa uses empiricism is not the same way that scientists would use it to build a rocket ship.

 

And I know you've no interest in hearing why I believe in God, so let's not go there.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men and women in Russia, China, India and Japan (and probably one day South Africa and Nigeria) are building 'rocket ships'. Do they use this non-western empiricism you have just invented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that a bedouin herding sheep somewhere in Somalia was building a rocket ship. Or are you of the false assumption that a majority of the world, especially the 3rd world countries such as my own, spend most of their time secretly building rocket ships?

 

Do they use this non-western empiricism you have just invented?

 

Do bedouins in Somalia use western empiricism in their everyday lives?

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank, if you believe that God might be malevolent/mischievous, you can't trust anything in this world and you would become a paranoid instable man. Someone should have told you that life is a choice. It's one way or another. You choose how you want to live you life and bear the consequence bravely.

 

The answer to your question is simply "what if He is not malaevolent/mischievous"?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

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


×