Existence of God

[Zak1983]

I'm sure I've seen Hamza Andreas around my 'hood

[Razaul]

That was a very stimulating debate! Thanks for sharing this with us.

[Omar]

I don't know if this has been done before and I know it should be in Religion but ive chosen to put it here as I would like to know other ways people rationalise (besides religion) that God does exist. I have many reasons to agree with his existence because of religion but personally im a rational thinker, I put i t down to probability 50/50 he either does or doesnt.

It's ironic that whilst you claim to be a rational thinker in the same breath you show lack thereof!    Rational thought is (or should) be governed by or showing evidence of clear sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice.

You're asking for ways people 'rationalise' existence in God in ways other than Religion.  A contradiction, since religion itself is defined as a system of belief/faith.  Whatever you say about your thoughts on God is a 'religious' opinion, could be a personal religious opinion rather than one from an organised religion, nevertheless it is a religious opinion based on faith.  Even your '50/50 theory' was conceived by a Christian mathematician, some Muslim scholars of Kalam also posited this.

Let's just say you meant to separate between opinions from an established religion and other.  What is the logic in doing that?  What "rational" significance is there in dichotomizing betweeen opinions held by a large group of people (which is effectively all what an established religion is) and opinions held by relatively smaller numbers?

The second fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you asked for ways to rationalise the existence of God, then offered your reason which does not and is not intended for rationalising the existence of God!  Your assertion that you fear God and you cannot fear something that doesn't exist - is incorrect.  You can have an irrational fear of something.  Some people fear the 'boogyman', that does not necessarily increase the likelyhood of his existence.

Thing is by believing its a win/win situation, if he does exist and if you believe in him and lead a good life, you get to go to heaven If he doesnt exist, well you lead a good life thinking you will be going to heaven and therefore die happy However if you don't believe and he does exist, I dont think he would be mighty pleased with you

Pascals wager does not give reason for the existence of God, it is a reason why you choose to believe in a God.  In my opinion a very weak reason to believe in God at that.  The great saint Rabia al-Adawiyya once made the du'a "Oh Allah if I worship you in fear of hell, burn me in hell.  If I worship you hoping for paradise then exclude me from it, if I worship You for Your own sake then grudge me not Your Everlasting Beauty".  Her iman was on another level but just to illustrate, experientially iman can differ vastly between people, so much so what one person calls iman would be cosidered kufr by another.

Proving the existence of God is a logical fallacy, depending on your definition of God.  Allah exists beyond time, space and matter.  He is not a part of creation, so how do you suppose to prove His existence using creation? It's like asking bacteria in a dish to prove the existence of man.  People who ask for proof of existence of God have missed the point completely, even the Muslims who attempt to prove the existence of God using Aristetolian logic (causality etc) are kind of missing the point.  None of that proves the existence of God, they just show it is not irrational to believe in a God.

Any belief in God derived by the physical senses or by a mind is founded on precarious ground.  To know God first you must know what you are.  If you believe you are just body and mind then those are the only instruments you have to know Him, if you believe you have a soul then you have a whole other dimension to your perception of reality.  The soul is the most God-like thing in creation, it is everlasting (not independent of God though), is in the world but not from it.  Elusive to our senses but we know it exists.

Allah put signs in the world - ayat, that point to Him.  The signs are everywhere, but why do some see the signs and some don't?  Why do some see the signs and it actually confirms their disbelief while for many it is just an undeniable fact that there is a God?  It means one thing, its not about the signs, they are the same, it is our perception of them.  The senses see the signs, the mind processes the information (like a computer) but its the soul that either accepts or rejects.  If we can have weak senses, and some people have weak minds, there is no doubt there are weak souls out there, many comatose.  Allah describes them as deaf, dumb and blind - not an issue of intelligence, it is arrogance that is the root of kufr.

Atheism is as much a 'faith' as any other religion because the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved empirically.  Asking 'prove to me God exists' carries as much rational weight as asking 'prove to me God doesn't exist'.  But by asking the former you are beginning by intimating the non-existence of God, whilst belief in God is innate, from our primordial nature (fitra).  It is disbelief that is "unnatural".

[AK]

^^

You've echoed some of my deep held thoughts about the fallacy of proving Gods existence, but which I never voiced because I always felt that trying to prove the existence of God (though somewhat flawed) was still a noble effort! lol. However I do think that the majority of the arguments do add weight to your belief and can help you appreciate the signs of God, as is evident from the Qur'an which instructs us to look for his signs, though they may not necessarily be regarded as "proofs" in any intellectual debate.

I think to a large extent, people have already decided what they believe, and merely listen to the camp which adheres to their "belief". Christians will gather around the priest, Muslims to the Imam and Atheists to the likes of Richard Dawkins.

Atheism is an ideology (or faith) as much as any other, though it is less prescriptive or instructional as organised religion. Although funnily enough, atheism seems to have gathered pace over the last decade with the advent of science (or at least the science and logic that is propounded by atheists, though not necessarily the one of absolute truth) and by individuals such as Richard Dawkins, etc.

A truly objective thinker will be happy to test his own faith/belief, by thinking deeply about his beliefs and the implications that they bring. It takes alot of effort to reconcile what we believe in our hearts and what we see/hear in the world. Sometimes its a dangerous path to tread, but for those who sincerely make the effort to seek truth in its fairest light, without prejudice and without bias - God will, as I "believe", make himself known to the seeker in one way or another.

[Omar]

Atheism is an ideology (or faith) as much as any other, though it is less prescriptive or instructional as organised religion. Although funnily enough, atheism seems to have gathered pace over the last decade with the advent of science (or at least the science and logic that is propounded by atheists, though not necessarily the one of absolute truth) and by individuals such as Richard Dawkins, etc.

The comedian Frank Skinner wrote about the new fad of atheism/agnosticism, he also agrees there are whole bunch of people just jumped on the atheist band wagon, for various reasons, because its the "in thing".  Most of them don't know jack about atheism, see to be a true atheist you have to be quite learned, you need to know the theistic philosophies before you can reject them.  People like Dawkins, Harris etc are populists, they don't write academically (on theology), they write for the dumb "atheist" masses.  It's evident in Dawkins' works, he doesn't have a clue on the normative understandings of religion, either that or he intentionally plays ignorant, which means he is nothing more than a propagandist.

That's why most of these amateur atheists you come across on forums etc dont have much of substance to say with regards to serious critique of religion.  All they do is post about scare stories of Muslims doing this or that, the gutter press tactic of rags like the Daily Mail, people with no lives I imagine.

 

[Another_shade_of_brown]

Most of them don't know jack about atheism, see to be a true atheist you have to be quite learned, you need to know the theistic philosophies before you can reject them.  People like Dawkins, Harris etc are populists, they don't write academically (on theology), they write for the dumb "atheist" masses.  It's evident in Dawkins' works, he doesn't have a clue on the normative understandings of religion, either that or he intentionally plays ignorant, which means he is nothing more than a propagandist.

 

Atheism means “A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”. It’s as simple as that! You don’t have to be ‘quite learned’ to be an atheist in the same way you don’t need to be ‘quite learned’ to be a Muslim. If stupid people can be Muslims, and not know the first thing about Islam, then why can’t these people be atheist as well? 

[AK]

Atheism means “A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”. It’s as simple as that! You don’t have to be ‘quite learned’ to be an atheist in the same way you don’t need to be ‘quite learned’ to be a Muslim. If stupid people can be Muslims, and not know the first thing about Islam, then why can’t these people be atheist as well? 

There is a difference between a Muslim and a true Muslim. Much in the same way, there is a difference between an atheist and a true atheist.

By Omars post, I'm guessing that he's saying that a true Muslim or a true atheist is one who understands and appreciates the opposing view, and after much reflection and study - he thereby adopts a certain belief (or lack of belief) in God. Most atheists merely adopt the "disbelief in God" because they FAIL to understand what BELIEF actually entails, and they FAIL to understand that belief. They pick out random arguments which are not as true as they might hold them to be (aka Daily Mail articles, the usual crude criticisms against religion/Islam, etc), and therefore they are merely defaulting to "disbelief" rather than adopting it out of full confidence. In the same way there are believers who do not understand atheism completely or their own faith, and they merely default to the faith of their parents/family. Basic Muslims and atheists would rarely stand up to strong scrutiny or fierce intellectual debate. On the other hand, a true believer would face little problem in such a situation.

Neither of these are true in the absolute sense, but they are Muslims or Atheists according to the most basic definition, nonetheless.

[Omar]

Atheism means “A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”. It’s as simple as that! You don’t have to be ‘quite learned’ to be an atheist in the same way you don’t need to be ‘quite learned’ to be a Muslim. If stupid people can be Muslims, and not know the first thing about Islam, then why can’t these people be atheist as well? 

Nope it’s not as simple as that.  One is an affirmation and the other a negation.  The one affirming only needs to know what he is affirming, it’s not necessary for them to know every other conceivable ‘affirmation’.  A true atheist is a rejecter/doubter of every conceivable argument for the existence of God.  The term atheist was first used to apply to a group of people who specifically rejected the Greek gods, in the modern context it is usually referred to people who reject the monotheistic religions and deity based religions.  If the basis of your belief is rejection, then it follows you must know specifically what you reject. 

An atheist should not be stupid; my point was many who do claim to be atheist are usually quite stupid.  You inadvertently proved my point by comparing stupid Muslims with stupid atheists.
It is more accurate to label these 'dumb' atheists as agnostics, who doubt the existence of God but are not sure either way because they don’t know or are ignorant.  That would be more humble for them, but it is a weaker position.

[Hussna]

I don't know if this has been done before and I know it should be in Religion but ive chosen to put it here as I would like to know other ways people rationalise (besides religion) that God does exist. I have many reasons to agree with his existence because of religion but personally im a rational thinker, I put i t down to probability 50/50 he either does or doesnt.

Thing is by believing its a win/win situation, if he does exist and if you believe in him and lead a good life, you get to go to heaven If he doesnt exist, well you lead a good life thinking you will be going to heaven and therefore die happy However if you don't believe and he does exist, I dont think he would be mighty pleased with you

Any other thoughts?

I was not asking for a critique of my reasons. Faith varies from person to person, sometimes if one cannot look to religion to re-instill their faith in God, they may rationalise by other means, fear/chance etc. Somebody who sees flaws in either their religion or even maybe their understanding of their religion does not necessarily want to lose their faith completly so they can think outside of the box if they want to. I am not strictly referring to Muslims but individuals from any faith.

I never stated that the Wager proves Gods existence, I was simply implying that believing in him in my eyes is the more beneficial choice. I can go on and on defending myself, but there isn't any point. The whole point of not putting this in religion was so it doesn't become some kind of attack on ones faith or views. Maybe some cannot think of reasons beyond what religion gives them but what I wanted to know was how people come to the conclusion that God exists besides it, not whether or not he does.

[Omar]

^I don’t think you’ve not understood why your initial post was erroneous to start off with. 
Religion itself is a set of beliefs or philosophy on metaphysical aspects.  Even if you were referring specifically to organised religions it is still a no brainer why you would do that.  For one, none of the organised religions make it part of their creed to know arguments for the existence of God.  Theologians go into speculative arguments over it, and most if not all of the “proofs” stem from what these scholars produced (from various religious traditions). 

So what you describe does not sound like ‘thinking out of the box’ at all.