Some Basic Islamic Beliefs

Can God create another God that is equal to God? One free of God?


No God cannot create another God also because omnipotence cannot be created, omnipotence must be attributed to God who exists without a beginning. God is not merely intrinsically possible in existence that He could be created rather He's intrinsically necessary which means that He didn't need to be created by anyone rather He must exist. How can God be created when the prerequisite of creation is to have a beginning or not exist.

It sounds like God can not create creatures with freewill then. It it can't make a future that isn't predetermined then this really is, under that paradigm, like living out a movie written, directed and produced by God.

How utterly boring. One wonders why God wrote scenes with such sicking child-abuse and murder when such wasn't necessary. Why predestine a child to have her face ripped off by a Lion? That's just sick.


Boring? Lol. So do you know everything that will ever happen?
 
Last edited:
Why would an all knowing Deity have to learn?
I didn't ask if it had to learn, but if it was possible that it could learn. Obviously learning is not possible for God.

As It is in a State of "Know-ALL", It also can not THINK and come to a conclusion. It can "KNOW-ALL" and knows all conclusions, but it can not THINK about something, have an epiphany, and come to a new thought. ALL THOUGHTS are stored in your "KNOW-ALL" creepy God-Thing.

Thinking is a rational process. As It doesn't THINK, It is also by definition an irrational being.

It is a very strange thing you venerate.
Very creepy indeed.
Very inhuman.
It like a hard-drive with everything (all information) stored in It.

No thinking means no emotion (which is a change in mental state). ALL-KNOWING things don't have emotion. They exist in a State of ALL KNOWING all of the time. Of course no emotion means it is therefor uncaring, unloving... as there is no mental state for It, it only exists in one mental state that of: ALL KNOWING. Like a bigger version of my hard-drive.

That explains a lot.


One wonders why anyone would want to venerate an ALL-KNOWING irrational, unloving, uncaring hard-drive Thing? Oh, yeah, It's going to either send you to eternal Hell or give you a candy... but as It already knows where you're going, which may be Hell, there nothing you can do about it anyway ... yeah, keep praying to the Great Hard-Drive in the Sky.... THAT'S all really worth it. Much better in a superstitious paradigm than a rational one :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
No God cannot create another God also because omnipotence cannot be created, omnipotence must be attributed to God who exists without a beginning. God is not merely intrinsically possible in existence that He could be created rather He's intrinsically necessary which means that He didn't need to be created by anyone rather He must exist. How can God be created when the prerequisite of creation is to have a beginning or not exist.
There's a lot of things your ALL POWERFUL God can NOT do isn't there? That's quite interesting to me.

Boring? Lol. So do you know everything that will ever happen?
I think "Knowing-ALL" would be a very very very very VERY VERY boring existence.
 
There's a lot of things your ALL POWERFUL God can NOT do isn't there? That's quite interesting to me.

To give you a hint you can find infinite amount of absurdities that do not refer to anything but only because there are infinite possibilities and of course God Himself is infinite.
 
Putting Deity into human terms is precisely why your argument fails.
Firstly, the Qur'an puts God into "human terms". Saying "all knowing" is human terms. Saying "all powerful" is human terms. I'm pretty sure the Qur'an starts out describing God with adjectives like the most graceful and whatnot - those are human terms. If not there'd be no concept of God at all.

Secondly, how many times do we hear monotheists refer to God as "He". That's a human term. I'm being more accurate by saying "It".

Thirdly, you're post is non sequitur and you don't even make an attempt to logically demonstrate there was a logical inconsistency. Which suggests you're being intellectually lazy and in reality you just don't want to think about the issues and implications of what being "all knowing" means.

All knowing creatures wouldn't think because there'd be no new information to arrive at. Even in a state of remembering you go from not having the information to recall. That first state wouldn't exist for a God that is always in a state of "all knowing".

IMO retaining superstitions like this act to reduce the number of creative individuals in a given population who would otherwise progress society by thinking outside of the box. By memetically shutting down new avenues of thought, superstitions act to stagnate social development and instead maintain the status quo - which is exactly what conservative theists like (as well as the meme's they're infected with). This is why highly religious societies are often the least developed societies and the most stagnate.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, the Qur'an puts God into "human terms". Saying "all knowing" is human terms. Saying "all powerful" is human terms. I'm pretty sure the Qur'an starts out describing God with adjectives like the most graceful and whatnot - those are human terms. If not there'd be no concept of God at all.

You're taking a literal interpretation of al-Qur'an and anthropomorphizing God and that is why you're arguments fail. I am taking a metaphorical interpretation of the Divine attributes of Allah (saw) and viewing them within context much in the same way the Mu'tazli scholars did in the 8th-10th centuries CE. For example, Allah (saw) is omniscient but He knows through His essence rather than by having seperate knowledge apart from him.

Secondly, how many times do we hear monotheists refer to God as "He". That's a human term. I'm being more accurate by saying "It".

You're not taking into account the definition of Deity and what that term full implies and the limits of human language to conceptualize the Transcedent.

It's a historical term that is used out of convienance even if not being accurate in it's description which is why I don't necessarily have a problem with doing so, it's easier. I assume, the reader would take into account the definition of Deity in that God would be beyond such classifications.

Thirdly, you're post is non sequitur and you don't even make an attempt to logically demonstrate there was a logical inconsistency. Which suggests you're being intellectually lazy and in reality you just don't want to think about the issues and implications of what being "all knowing" means.

As usual you assume to much. By taking a literal interpretation of the Divine attributes of Allah (saw) in al-Qur'an you anthropomorphize God and thus it's based upon this interpretation where and why your arguments fails. If your arguments are based upon this premise, I don't really see why a fuller explaination is necessary aside from clarification. My objections to your arguments were clear and to the point, they fail because you're putting Deity in mortal terms.

IMO retaining superstitions like this act to reduce the number of creative individuals in a given population who would otherwise progress society by thinking outside of the box. By memetically shutting down new avenues of thought, superstitions act to stagnate social development and instead maintain the status quo - which is exactly what conservative theists like (as well as the meme's they're infected with). This is why highly religious societies are often the least developed societies and the most stagnate.

So, according to you, the socio-economic material conditions, class, gender, culture, and political aspects and so forth of history are of no importance to you? By trying to assert the superiority of Atheism you're in effect basing the creative capabilities of a nation based solely upon their ir/religious make up without taking into account any other factors that would and could contribute to the creative capabilities of a given state. This is of course absurd. Not only this, you're stripping any context away from historical events by making everything about whether or not they are or were religious. I also think it's highly ironic that an avowed and quite devout Atheist would view history in such a manner. Not to mention this argumentum ad hominem.
 
You're taking a literal interpretation of al-Qur'an and anthropomorphizing God and that is why you're arguments fail. I am taking a metaphorical interpretation of the Divine attributes of Allah (saw) and viewing them within context much in the same way the Mu'tazli scholars did in the 8th-10th centuries CE. For example, Allah (saw) is omniscient but He knows through His essence rather than by having seperate knowledge apart from him.
Strawman fallacy and red herring, as well as non sequitur logic.

Firstly, my post doesn't say anything about HOW gods are omniscient - while this is all hypothetical, I'd like you to prove why the means by which Gods acquire knowledge matters (in short: why would it matter relative to my argument how god came to be all knowing?). If a God knows all THEN It doesn't think (how would it think, thinking is a process) and It can not learn (learning is also a cognitive process) - via It's "essence" or otherwise.

So, if anything you should seemingly be in agreement. I just don't think you like the obvious conclusions we must arrive at.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you mention the 8-10th century "scholars"? It seems like argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad verecundiam. Although, maybe you were just mentioning it, if so that is fine. The point still stands, HOW a God comes in possession of all knowledge it not the point. We're talking about NOW, a God that has omniscience.

Let me rephrase it: It doesn't matter HOW the Great Hard-Drive (saw) in the sky came to hold all knowledge, at this point, It exists as a Hard-Drive (saw) with all knowledge.

You're not taking into account the definition of Deity and what that term full implies and the limits of human language to conceptualize the Transcedent.

It's a historical term that is used out of convienance even if not being accurate in it's description which is why I don't necessarily have a problem with doing so, it's easier. I assume, the reader would take into account the definition of Deity in that God would be beyond such classifications.
Ok, if it doesn't matter and is ONLY being used out of convenience then use the words She and Her as well as the occasional It. But, I don't think you can do that. Because you are trapped in your own superstition in this regards. By your own logic you should be able to say She... or Her.... or It.... because these words do not describe anything that matters about God... not in the least. I'd go further and say this: IF they don't matter, then you must use She... or Her.... because that proves you're not ideologically bound to misconceptions such as He or His.

Agreed?

As usual you assume to much. By taking a literal interpretation of the Divine attributes of Allah (saw) in al-Qur'an you anthropomorphize God and thus it's based upon this interpretation where and why your arguments fails. If your arguments are based upon this premise, I don't really see why a fuller explaination is necessary aside from clarification. My objections to your arguments were clear and to the point, they fail because you're putting Deity in mortal terms.
How am I anthropomorphizing anything? If you say God "cares" or "feels" or "thinks" THAT is anthropomorphism.

I could be talking about anything that "knows all". By stating something "knows all" or is omniscience you are saying it doens't ever NOT have omniscience. So, with this in mind, we can discuss this thing.

So, according to you, the socio-economic material conditions, class, gender, culture, and political aspects and so forth of history are of no importance to you? By trying to assert the superiority of Atheism you're in effect basing the creative capabilities of a nation based solely upon their ir/religious make up without taking into account any other factors that would and could contribute to the creative capabilities of a given state. This is of course absurd. Not only this, you're stripping any context away from historical events by making everything about whether or not they are or were religious. I also think it's highly ironic that an avowed and quite devout Atheist would view history in such a manner. Not to mention this argumentum ad hominem.
Superstitions appear to have an effect on all of these aspects of civilizations. I mean, these are core-belief ideas here. They're pretty influential.

When you imagine how much superstition can be piled into a person's mind, I sometimes wonder if their personality is simply an aspect of this all-encompassing paradigm. As if the "person" really doesn't make up that much of the individual.


Anyway, as an example of Islamic superstition's effect on society, just take a look at the marble sculptures of the human form before and after the advent of Islam in the middle east. Middle Eastern people were the world's foremost sculptors in this regard. This magnificence art-form was lost - due to something as minor as single aspect of that particular superstition. What else was could have developed we'll never know. Perhaps if not for that single event, Arabs may be leading the world technologically. They were applying the Scientific Method, but, refused to cross superstitious lines due to the "Perfect Qur'an" meme. THAT hindered their progress. Why do Muslims have to claim some glory by saying the European Enlightenment happened because Muslims preserved Greek Philosophy :bugeye: Well, if THAT'S all it took, then WHY didn't it happen in the ME - where they held all this philosophy!?!?!

IMO the reason Europeans took the next step, and kept taking it, was because when they found evidence against the Bible, they didn't ignore it, but were intrigued by it. Finding out that the Bible was wrong on many accounts, drove those couple of people to push further and they did so in a society that allowed them to.




Well, anyway, I'm not advocating an atheistic society. IMO atheism is the default position human beings take when their security is met and they have the legal freedom to question faith. I agree that this may not be the case, and we can't really run such experiments, but, I feel that this is the case.
 
Last edited:
Poisoning the Well fallacy.

Nonsense if absurdities can be in existence then nothing should be stopping everyone from becoming omnipotent and then what isn't omnipotence can be the same as omnipotence. Also things like what has a beginning should be able to 'become' beginningless.
 
Firstly, the Qur'an puts God into "human terms". Saying "all knowing" is human terms. Saying "all powerful" is human terms. I'm pretty sure the Qur'an starts out describing God with adjectives like the most graceful and whatnot - those are human terms. If not there'd be no concept of God at all.


You should at least understand that Arabic is a human language any human judgement will be in human terms. Any judgement made by an organism will be on the organism's term.


Ok, if it doesn't matter and is ONLY being used out of convenience then use the words She and Her as well as the occasional It. But, I don't think you can do that. Because you are trapped in your own superstition in this regards. By your own logic you should be able to say She... or Her.... or It.... because these words do not describe anything that matters about God... not in the least. I'd go further and say this: IF they don't matter, then you must use She... or Her.... because that proves you're not ideologically bound to misconceptions such as He or His.


By logic of course we should be able to address God however we want but that doesn't mean we should. God shouldn't be addressed as she or it due to human characteristics. You don't just address the one who must be highest in status in such terms.
 
Last edited:
By logic of course we should be able to address God however we want but that doesn't mean we should. God shouldn't be addressed as she or it due to human characteristics. You don't just address the one who must be highest in status in such terms.
How do you know God likes to be addressed as "He"? And you seem to suggest that addressing God as "He" is somehow a higher status than "She"?!? :confused: Is THAT true???

To avoid such confusion I used the neutral pronoun "It". Not only does it better describe God, it doesn't lead to ethical quagmires about "sexism" and which gender has a "higher status" in human society.
 
How do you know God likes to be addressed as "He"? And you seem to suggest that addressing God as "He" is somehow a higher status than "She"?!? :confused: Is THAT true???

To avoid such confusion I used the neutral pronoun "It". Not only does it better describe God, it doesn't lead to ethical quagmires about "sexism" and which gender has a "higher status" in human society.


No, He really is the best that can be done in human terms because addressing Him as she would apply sexuality to Him, that's just the way it is with humans. It is used to refer to lower lifeforms or an inanimate object and I don't know if their is Arabic for it.
 
No, He really is the best that can be done in human terms because addressing Him as she would apply sexuality to Him, that's just the way it is with humans. It is used to refer to lower lifeforms or an inanimate object and I don't know if their is Arabic for it.
I disagree. Anyone hearing the word "He" instantaneously sexualizes God as being male - which is not true. The word "It" is more appropriate as it is gender neutral and more accurate.

If feel a need to give God a meaningless gender, perhaps you should say She in equal proportion as He to be fair?
 
Strawman fallacy and red herring, as well as non sequitur logic.

Argumentum ad logicam. :rolleyes:

How about you stop 'name dropping' fallacies that don't apply to my posts. Why do you always try to resort to this type of argumentation? You're wrong because "insert latin phrase," and "insert latin phrase," and so on and so on. It's not a strawman fallacy nor is it a red herring nor is it following non-sequiter logic. But nice try. But you are indeed anthropomorphizing God which is evident by your "questions."

If a God knows all THEN It doesn't think (how would it think, thinking is a process) and It can not learn (learning is also a cognitive process) - via It's "essence" or otherwise.

Thinking is a human characteristic, following the definition of Deity, Allah (saw) would be beyond thinking-nonthinking, this thinking and processing information apart from ones' self or the nonthinking and nonprocessing information apart from ones' self is putting things purely in mortal terms. When you ascribe human characteristics to God then you anthropomorphize God which is what you're doing which is why I am continuing to assert that it's because you put things into such terms is why your argument fails.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you mention the 8-10th century "scholars"? It seems like argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad verecundiam.

Again, argumentum ad logicam.

It's niether, actually. I merely am giving reference to my interpretation of al-Qur'an which is Mu'tazli. I mentioned this also because I didn't want to run the possibility of someone claiming "this is just you Ja'far, blah, blah, blah," thus by giving reference to this philosophical school, you can see that no, it isn't just me and you could gain an understanding of my theological perspective. I am not offering this as argumentive proof on the appeal to tradition and the past, thus it's no argumentum ad antiquitatem. I am also not appealing to the authority of the Mu'tzali school and so forth thus it's not argumentum ad verecundiam.

Let me rephrase it: It doesn't matter HOW the Great Hard-Drive (saw) in the sky came to hold all knowledge, at this point, It exists as a Hard-Drive (saw) with all knowledge.

Do you even know what "(saw)," means? Do you know what the translation would be? Do you know when its to be used? Do you also know that it's insulting to use it within this context and in this manner? Why then would choose to be openly insulting?

Ok, if it doesn't matter and is ONLY being used out of convenience then use the words She and Her as well as the occasional It. But, I don't think you can do that. Because you are trapped in your own superstition in this regards. By your own logic you should be able to say She... or Her.... or It.... because these words do not describe anything that matters about God... not in the least. I'd go further and say this: IF they don't matter, then you must use She... or Her.... because that proves you're not ideologically bound to misconceptions such as He or His.

Or I could continue to use He and His out of spite. I do understand the argument you're trying to make here but considering I said this:

It's a historical term that is used out of convienance even

I could call God by 'She' or 'It' but was that how it was done in the past? No and since it doesn't matter I should be able to say He or His. ;)

How am I anthropomorphizing anything?

By ascribing human characteristics to God and putting things into human terms such as thinking-nonthinking for example.

Superstitions appear to have an effect on all of these aspects of civilizations. I mean, these are core-belief ideas here. They're pretty influential.

I would take a more historical materialist view. While religions and ideaologies do play a signficant role in any society to deny the socio-economic conditions, class antagonisms, politico-historical conditions and so forth of any given nation/state is absurd, why you ignore this is beyond me.

Anyway, as an example of Islamic superstition's effect on society, just take a look at the marble sculptures of the human form before and after the advent of Islam in the middle east. Middle Eastern people were the world's foremost sculptors in this regard. This magnificence art-form was lost - due to something as minor as single aspect of that particular superstition. What else was could have developed we'll never know. Perhaps if not for that single event, Arabs may be leading the world technologically. They were applying the Scientific Method, but, refused to cross superstitious lines due to the "Perfect Qur'an" meme. THAT hindered their progress. Why do Muslims have to claim some glory by saying the European Enlightenment happened because Muslims preserved Greek Philosophy :bugeye: Well, if THAT'S all it took, then WHY didn't it happen in the ME - where they held all this philosophy!?!?!

So you've never heard of the Islamic Golden Age? When the Europeans were in their dark ages the Islamic world was flourishing in all areas. You're arguments seem to suggest that (as I have mentioned before) that you're not only ignorant of Islamic history but of Middle-Eastern history in general.

Well, anyway, I'm not advocating an atheistic society.

Well, why not? It seems that religious belief is such a yoke around humanities neck thus according to your logic if humanity removed such yoke then it would progress and societies that do, thrive and excel while those that don't fail, stagnate and would of course, then perish. Seems sort of argumentum ad consequentiam.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Anyone hearing the word "He" instantaneously sexualizes God as being male - which is not true. The word "It" is more appropriate as it is gender neutral and more accurate.

If feel a need to give God a meaningless gender, perhaps you should say She in equal proportion as He to be fair?

if one likes his computer much he can refer to it as "he", some people name their guitars and tennis rackets. even though they are of no gender.

in some languages like arabic, any noun has to be either male or female, because there are only "he" and "she", the language doesn't have an it, so arabs can't call himit even if they want to, but nice try michael.

of course in your genetic habit of relentlessly repeating fully answered half assed arguments, and running away from embarrassing follow up questions directed at you after answering questions you thought would be embarrassing for others, i have answered this particular "argument" of you to call god it before, i told you simply[maybe too simply]; that god relates to himself as a "he" in his books he sent down to earth, pure, simple, and straight forward. bringing it back up here shows what a troll you are.


ja'far, you're gooood... keep it up..well at least till you run out of patience.
 
SAM, Christians are "everywhere". Scientologists are "everywhere". What's your point? You seem to be making one logical fallacy after another.
michael got his hands on a philosophy 101 book
:facepalm:
just when i thought he couldn't get any more annoying.
 
I disagree. Anyone hearing the word "He" instantaneously sexualizes God as being male - which is not true. The word "It" is more appropriate as it is gender neutral and more accurate.

If feel a need to give God a meaningless gender, perhaps you should say She in equal proportion as He to be fair?


It's far better to address God as He than she when it comes to sexualizing while keeping in mind that God is neither male, nor female, nor a body. It is used to refer to inanimate objects and that's not the case with God! To add to that God isn't something that can be pointed at because He isn't in any location or direction so He can't be an object.

Again the goal isn't to give God a meaningless gender but to address Him.
 
Last edited:
All My Friends

Hi everyone...

It is nice to read all the debates here. Very inspiring with so many ideas.
Good for you.Keep it up.:D

Just wanna add something to our common understanding.

We are HUMAN. No one deny that. And we really realise this fact.
We have the BRAIN & the FEELing. That is almost everyone can agree with.
So every Ethist, JEws, Christian & ISLAM devotees have this common understanding.:cool:

Why do we have belief&faith? Do we need it?
We got BRAIN, we can think the way we feel.It is a FREEDOM we are born with. Why we need one after all.

But at the end of the day you will keep asking yourself. WHY WE ARE HERE.
THIS BEAUTIFUL WORLD IS A BEAUTIFUL CREATION.Then there must be created.Either by chance or intentionally created.
Then we must really into details at each and every corner of knowledge and daily infos. You coming to conclusion, what ever it is it is SO COMPLEX that this world can not come into materialised by chance and so it MUST be created.

This CREATOR either ONE or MANY, for common people will make a sense,
that indeed some POWER is behind all this.In this case the atheist have to admit CREATOR is exist... Will be continued...PT 2
 
Back
Top