> Debate Is there a place for the skeptic if Islam is perfectly Logical?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

This seems to be an incoherent answer to a question no one has asked. The statement is in any case is complete nonsense if for the only reason that it renders the sayings of the the prophet and your noble scholars worthless.

I repeat my question again, what would your requirements be for a judge. What criteria would you set? It's a simple question and one supposes that it can be answered perfectly logically.

that is an irrelevant deduction

in normal case law, the society does not factor in how a criminal or one who is a "suspect' "views" a judge. No one is given a right to have some kind of "requisite" for a judge to fulfill in order for them to implement judgment.

By default o assuming the role of judge, it is by default common knowledge and common sense that the one who has assumed the position has ALREADY fulfilled all the attributes of being a judge.

LIKEWISE, Allah has already established Himself with all the perfect attributes along with the fact that these attributes are implemented in its most perfect form. IN other words, while there may be a slight form of injustice on part of human judges, there is absolutely not a shred of injustice in the case where Allah judges because He is all-perfect in all of His Attributes.

So naturally, if you deem this as an incoherent answer, then you have just rendered all societies of the earth as incoherent (including the precious land of the free) for not taking into account the views of the suspect in what they would require in a judge.

thus the conclusion is that expressing the "requirements" of a suspect about what a judge should be or what he needs to fulfill is irrelevant and is worthless for a discussion because it is a concept that is not even entertained in non muslim academics regarding human judges, much less a Divine Judge.

In essence, the analogy for a human to discuss how the Creator should be in the fulfillment of His role in being the Judge is synonymous with human civilization in how a society would entertain the allowance of a "suspect" discussing what he or she would want in a judge. Any society could care less about what a suspect would require from a judge because it is irrelevant to reality. the same is understood between the created and the Creator.

If this does not register with you, then there can no longer be any further discussion.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

I am sorry but again this is the problem! I had a reply written to the other thread, after a couple of days pondering I just left that discussion because it is not going to work!

This is like debating whether to paint a house blue or pink before you have even debated how many rooms you want or even explained what paint is.

In your first statement you had so many assumptions or meaning to words that it would make the following conversation too wierd. It is like me saying;

Guys, I am sure we will all agree that x is both a and e so if that is so then you must agree that x must punish sin.

Before anyone replies they would need to know what you mean by x and a and e and see if you both understood it the same.

The idea of being All Just and All Merciful is understood in totally different ways by Muslims and Christians! So please, I urge you to first get the neccesary part done (understanding what each party means by certain words or phrases) then you can have a discussion.

Br.al-Habeshi

[al-boriqee]

these are exactly my sentiments and the very views I hold to be crucil for any type of fruit to be had in a discussion. The reason why I deviated from my original view and on to this tangent in a direct counter argument rather than establishing the foundations first, is because I was a kaafir before and I know how people such as our own silver think, no pun intended.

I knew how to get straight to the point, but nevertheless your right. It is crucial to always establish the foundations FIRST, and this is the manhaj of imaam al-Albanee in any debate he had. And the reason why it is more crucial for us to establish a solid foundation first is because kaafirs are either

1. victims of the manipulations of words and history or
2. the direct diabolic innovators of such manipulations of words and history.

with most kaafirs, they fall under the first category, but people like Beat Yeor and other islamaphobic Neanderthals, they fall into the second category.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

In normal case law, the society does not factor in how a criminal or one who is a "suspect' "views" a judge. No one is given a right to have some kind of "requisite" for a judge to fulfill in order for them to implement judgment.

By default o assuming the role of judge, it is by default common knowledge and common sense that the one who has assumed the position has ALREADY fulfilled all the attributes of being a judge.

Silver - I agree, what I was asking is, what in your view are those attributes?

LIKEWISE, Allah has already established Himself with all the perfect attributes along with the fact that these attributes are implemented in its most perfect form. IN other words, while there may be a slight form of injustice on part of human judges, there is absolutely not a shred of injustice in the case where Allah judges because He is all-perfect in all of His Attributes.

thus the conclusion is that expressing the "requirements" of a suspect about what a judge should be or what he needs to fulfill is irrelevant and is worthless for a discussion because it is a concept that is not even entertained in non muslim academics regarding human judges, much less a Divine Judge.

Silver - I never asked about the requiretments of a suspect, I repeat, I asked about the requirements for a Judge. It is nonsense to suggest that human Judges have no standard to meet as you seem to imply here. [/COLOR]

In a post by Salmon he stated that Allah can do anything he pleases but that cannot be true and you seem to endorse that here. A God who does as he pleases might lie or cheat or mislead and in general sin. Now this may be the Islamic view but it is not a Christian or Jewish one, but such a God is not acting rationally who does anything he pleases and therefore cannot be trusted.

In the Qu'ran the word Holy is not often used and it is only used about God twice: Al-Hashr 59:23 and Al-Jumua 62:1. So its not a concept that is defined or discussed much. In Bukhari the word Holy is mentioned many times but never as far as I can find about Allah. It is also not one of the 99 names of God as far as I know. (In contrast it is used in the Bible almost 600 times and a large number of those speak of a holy God)

Holy means something special about God. It's like the glue that binds His character together. Because God is Holy for the Christian it means he has integrity and honesty and perfect justice and mercy and truth - a God who does as he pleases has none of these attributes.

Holiness is the attribute which frees God, not only from evil itself, but from all appearance or suspicion of evil. If God were not holy, many things which God does would look unlike him:

His justice and judgements would look not only like severity, but tyranny, were not it and they holy;

His love in its conduct and behaviour to some people would look like fondness and respect of persons, but that it is holy;

His patience would look like toleration, if not approbation of sin, but that it is holy patience.

Thus many acts of God, were it not for holiness, would appear as seemingly evil as they are really good, and would be as much suspected by all, as they are unjustly censured by some. God is hoIy, without spot or blemish, or any such thing. He is so holy, that he cannot sin himself, nor be the cause or author of sin in another. He does not command sin to be committed, for to do so would be to cross his nature and will. Nor does he approve of any man's sin when it is committed, but hates it with a perfect hatred. He is without iniquity, and of purer eyes than to behold (approve) Iniquity. Thus God is holy, all holy, only holy, altogether holy, so sin is sinful, all sinful, only sinful and always sinful. (Ralph Venning)

So if God is Holy, he cannot simply ignore sin and dispense mercy on a whim, he must act in concert with His character. So we seem to be back where we stated, Muslim have no way of explaining how God forgives sin without destroying his Holy character and so you can have no assurance of heaven or indeed forgiveness.

[salman]

^Can you please STOP attacking us with straw man? Brother habeshi brought up a good point and that is very much true. How can you argue about Islamic understanding of this issue when you show no shred of evidence that you even have basic knowledge about tawheed? What I said and what brother boriqee said doesn't contradict. Please explain me how does believing that Allah Ta'ala has perfect Attributes and He does whatever He Pleases contradict each other?

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

^Can you please STOP attacking us with straw man? Brother habeshi brought up a good point and that is very much true. How can you argue about Islamic understanding of this issue when you show no shred of evidence that you even have basic knowledge about tawheed? What I said and what brother boriqee said doesn't contradict. Please explain me how does believing that Allah Ta'ala has perfect Attributes and He does whatever He Pleases contradict each other?

I am not attacking you with anything. I have shown logically that without holiness God has no Character. Brother Habeshi states God's attributes but does not show what binds them together. I have NOT simplified the argument I have just shown that God cannot do what he pleases and have the oneness you claim. If you disagree then state your argument, I have made mine plain so can God lie or cheat and if not why not - can you explain it? If he can do those things then he is not Holy is he?

I have made a fair point and shown quite clearly why Holiness is central to faith and to a God we can trust. If you disagree with any of my points let us hear you argument.

[salman]

^let's not try a quick one, this is what you have said:

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

In a post by Salmon he stated that Allah can do anything he pleases but that cannot be true and you seem to endorse that here. A God who does as he pleases might lie or cheat or mislead and in general sin. Now this may be the Islamic view but it is not a Christian or Jewish one

1 - if this is not a straw man then please explain what it is? Here, you're twisting what I said using your corrupt flawed belief and then attributing that to Islam. I said He does whatever He pleases and I did NOT say that He can do anything. Your argument would only have any leg to stand if I said He can do anything - there is difference between these two statements like the difference between sky and earth. If I have uttered the latar statement then you could say that can God lie, cheat, die, etc, and hence such possibilties can be endoresed due to our beleife. However, too bad, we hold no such corrupt belief unlik you. In fact, it is you Christians who hold such belief and not us! You people attribute human attributes to God whereas we say there is nothing like Him, Praise to be Allah. You believe that your god can eat, get beaten up, die, tempted by satan, can order killing of innocent children and women, etc.

2 - So you worship a god who cannot do what he pleases? Are you telling me that this is the belief of Christians and Jews?

3 - Please explain how God having perfect Attributes and Him doing whatever He Pleases contradict each other? Why God can't do whatever He wants?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I am not attacking you with anything. I have shown logically that without holiness God has no Character. Brother Habeshi states God's attributes but does not show what binds them together. I have NOT simplified the argument I have just shown that God cannot do what he pleases and have the oneness you claim. If you disagree then state your argument, I have made mine plain so can God lie or cheat and if not why not - can you explain it? If he can do those things then he is not Holy is he?

I have made a fair point and shown quite clearly why Holiness is central to faith and to a God we can trust. If you disagree with any of my points let us hear you argument.

Hi,
If you ask me, this is nothing but a recycled version of the omnipotence paradox.

The paradox of omnipotence.
Some argue that omnipotence is flawed by definition. A common example question to point this out is:
Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so heavy the being cannot lift it?
If he cannot create it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?
If he can create it, but cannot lift it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?

The answer is very simple: "Yes he can create it; and no it's not a flaw that he cannot lift it.". The problem is choice again. An omnipotent being surely has the potential to lift any stone, but also the potential to wave his own potential by choice! So the reason he cannot lift the stone then is not because the being was never capable of lifting it, but because he chose to forfeit his ability to lift it while creating the stone.
Of course philosophers could make a variation to the question to bypass my counter-argument. A situation where the reason for not being able to lift it is better speculated. More precisely, so the characteristics of the stone is not linked directly to the creator, like: Can one omnipotent being create something that is to heavy for another omnipotent being to lift? Here the question is unreasonable, the characteristics of the stone are contradicting. He is asking if omnipotence can make the impossible possible. He might just as well have asked, can an omnipotent being create water that isn't wet, or squared circles. At best, the only thing this question could illustrate is that the existence of two different omnipotent beings is problematic since the omnipotence of one would include limiting the other's omnipotence and vice versa.

So for example, if God would be unable to be unjust, then that would not be a flaw in his omnipotence, but rather a reflection of his choice. He is not unable to be unjust, he just doesn't want to.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

^let's not try a quick one, this is what you have said:

1 - if this is not a straw man then please explain what it is? Here, you're twisting what I said using your corrupt flawed belief and then attributing that to Islam. I said He does whatever He pleases and I did NOT say that He can do anything. Your argument would only have any leg to stand if I said He can do anything - there is difference between these two statements like the difference between sky and earth. If I have uttered the later statement then you could say that can God lie, cheat, die, etc, and hence such possibilities can be endorsed due to our belief. However, too bad, we hold no such corrupt belief unlike you. In fact, it is you Christians who hold such belief and not us! You people attribute human attributes to God whereas we say there is nothing like Him, Praise to be Allah. You believe that your god can eat, get beaten up, die, tempted by Satan, can order killing of innocent children and women, etc.

2 - So you worship a god who cannot do what he pleases? Are you telling me that this is the belief of Christians and Jews?

3 - Please explain how God having perfect Attributes and Him doing whatever He Pleases contradict each other? Why God can't do whatever He wants?

If I misquoted you then I apologise and I had no intention of 'twisting' your words and such an ad Hominem attack is unjustified. It worries me that you claim this purity of thought and knowledge and I have shown in another post that this is unjustified and you might like to consider that someone who claims his thought is pure and he has all the facts has been defined as paranoid. It cannot have escaped your knowledge that such an idea of purity and having the answer were claimed by Pot Pol, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler and indeed almost all fascist regimes and dictatorships throughout the ages.

First of all I did not attribute anything to Islam, my point was the if one takes the view that "He (God) does whatever He pleases" then in my view it has implications for Islam. Now to your allegation; if we consider the word "whatever" then it means in normal use "one, some, every or all without specification, any whatsoever or indifference" so I cannot see that your charge of equivocation holds any water. Therefore 'whatever he pleases' might be to lie, because it pleases him. If one says God can do whatever he please within his own character then we might be able to agree and that facet of God's perfect character that holds it all together is Holiness. So YES I am telling you that God cannot do whatever He please because to do so would violate is holy character, God if you like can do anything but sin - if that is your view then we can agree.

Secondly, you appeal to your supposed and self-righteous superiority again not to any argument. We can only describe God in the language we have and you can do no more unless you have no way of describing God at all; in any case we are made in God's image. You have 99 names for God and one supposes that in some way they describe God and indeed unless you use everyday words to describe Him no one else would understand what they mean. In the Qu'ran we here that God 'sees' so does he have eyes? What is wrong with describing God as "father" or speaking of God "stretching out his hand to save" and similar expressions that are found all the way through the Bible, it is not my fault that you have such a limited view of an everlastinmg and infinite God that it can be fixed with 99 names.

Christians believe in the incarnation, God coming among men. If God can do whatever he pleases, why cannot he have done this? It is true that in the Bible men, women and children were slaughtered on God orders - how this can be or justified I cannot say and find it uncomfortable though we do not take it as something we should do. However, perhaps you should take a look in the Qu'ran and see the terrible punishments to be handed out in the hereafter and yopu might get perspective on the issues.

Now back to the main point. God cannot sin so how can his justice and mercy be satisfied? Biblically, we are taught right from the start the place of sacrifice for sin, that is something is needed to cleanse us from our sins. Christians would say that in some unfathomable way Jesus bore our sins, took the punishment that was rightfully ours and so the books are balanced so to speak and only repentance and belief in that sacrifice can bring us back to God.

So the questionn for you is that God cannot just decide to mercy on some kind of whim because to do so violates his justice and holiness. If He decide to have mercy on you and not me that is unfair and unjust and God cannot be either of those things and his Holinessgratess it. So far from you I have seen nothing that explains how God's justice is satisfied and that is the reason you have no assurance of heaven and never can.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Hi, If you ask me, this is nothing but a recycled version of the omnipotence paradox. [INDENT]The paradox of omnipotence.
Some argue that omnipotence is flawed by definition. A common example question to point this out is:
Can an omnipotent being create a stone that is so heavy the being cannot lift it?
If he cannot create it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?
If he can create it, but cannot lift it, then isn't that a flaw in his omnipotence?

So for example, if God would be unable to be unjust, then that would not be a flaw in his omnipotence, but rather a reflection of his choice. He is not unable to be unjust, he just doesn't want to.

You are missing the whole point and this last sentence shows it most clearly. IF God can choose to be unjust then by definition he cannot be holy and nether can he be just, His character is flawed, it cannot be trusted.

It is an absurdity to say on the one hand God has perfect attributes and one of them is Justice and then say he can choose to be unjust - its a fallacy because its an obvious contradiction. If what you say is true then you can take each of God's 99 names and negate them: The Most Perfect can choose to be imperfect, the Ever Forgiving the Never Forgiving, the Utterly Just the totally unjust and so on and all because he can do whatever pleases him. That may be your God but he is not mine and not the one who has created such an ordered universe. If you disagree then explain why God in your words "does not want to.."