Ibn Rushd vs Ghazali: Did the Muslim world take a wrong turn?

[Vitamin_C]

May be or maybe not. It's again your claim which can be debated. We still don't possess enough knowledge to deny either.

Well we have significantly more knowledge its pointless to even bring up 17th century scientists. They were alot less knowledgable than scientists today.

Whoever made this argument set the bar low on purpose because their argument was so weak. Its almost like they are trying desperately to reach for something that is not there for them.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Does that make me present a case for believing in God based on emotional wellbeing and experiences?

No it does not. It just presents a case that religious people are happier which is probably true.

And maybe there is a case that there must be some form of benefit in being religious but it makes no case for whether or not religion is true.

I remember when my Grandmother died at 96 after falling from her hospital bed and I was very close to her since infancy, I was physically and mentally sick for atleast a week and couldnt walk or leave my room and Im a pretty strong guy physically.

I remember when we gave her the Islamic burrial and my cousin standing next to me asked me "So is that it? Is it over after a person dies, what happens when someone dies?" I told him thats pretty much it.

An atheists knows that he will never see his loved one again after they die because they do not believe in an afterlife. But a religious person would be effected by death much less because they believe (whether it is false or not) that they will see their loved ones again in heaven.

 

[hammy_lucky]

It’s not an assumption, it’s an observation.
1. Everything complex comes from something less complex.
2. Supernatural has never been observed or detected

Therefore the universe cannot have come from a supernatural intelligent God who thinks and behaves like a human and shows anger, pride, ego and other human emotions. He pays special attention to one species of primates on a piece of rock in an infinitely large universe and punishes them if they do not stroke his ego. It seems more like the imagination of superstitious ancient people rather than reality.

The God argument is an argument from ignorance. Ancient people made up superstitious stories like this like the big turtle under the earth shaking its back when they couldn’t explain natural phenomena such as Earth Quake and where universe comes from.

From our discussion to me it seems like you are not searching for the truth but trying to justify your irrational beliefs, when there is no evidence, you run to philosophy, when that doesn’t work you try to question philosophy, when that doesn’t work you try to question human senses, when that doesn’t work you want to talk about intuition and consciousness. It’s like you are trying to force a rope through a needle.

The reason why your quest For truth is poisoned from the start is because you are starting with a conclusion that God exists and then trying to find ways to prove that conclusion.

Intelligent people on the other hand study the evidence first and then find the conclusion last. Whether or not God exists shouldn’t even be the starting question.

The discussion on God is not confined to your assumptions, methodoligies or faculties. You can call your beliefs rational and other’s irrational but as I told you 100 of times that Objective Reality is impossible through these faculties. You can easily say I Don't know or you can present your case in support of your belief.
I haven't yet brought human pcyche, morality & concept of Good & evil in the discussion.
You are failing to understand that I was trying to have discussion on Creator and not God or Allah.
You seems to be more frustrated of religion than in a quest of truth.

 

[Vitamin_C]

The discussion on God is not confined to your assumptions, methodoligies or faculties.

Yes it is. God is a claim just like any other and if you want people to worship a God, first you have to prove your claim like any other claims are proved. I am also talking about Creator and not a specific God like Allah.

And if you are trying to convince a human of a claim then you are bound by human faculties and methodologies that work the best to verify if a claim is true or if it is a fraud.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I agree regarding other claims but I would rather use the word ‘SCRUTINY’ instead of ‘evidence’ in God’s case.
I started the thread in support of the use of reason.
At the end it's a personal call or judgement based on intuition to believe in God or not.
In this case ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating.’

Your argument is a logical fallacy known as special pleading fallacy.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Your argument is a logical fallacy known as special pleading fallacy.

Again it's your judgement.
I can only say that
'A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing'

 

[Vitamin_C]

Again it's your judgement.
I can only say that
'A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing'

It’s not my judgement. Special pleading is a logical fallacy agreed by every expert of logic and reason.

And you asking the God claim to be treated differently than other claims is special pleading fallacy.

Other people have tried the exact same fallacious argument and got called out for their dishonesty.

So are you going to be honest and admit it’s special pleading fallacy to ask for special treatment for God claim?

 

[hammy_lucky]

It’s not my judgement. Special pleading is a logical fallacy agreed by every expert of logic and reason.

And you asking the God claim to be treated differently than other claims is special pleading fallacy.

Other people have tried the exact same fallacious argument and got called out for their dishonesty.

So are you going to be honest and admit it’s special pleading fallacy to ask for special treatment for God claim?

As I told you earlier you don't have pre-big bang knowledge and you are ASSUMING that the substances of the universe (matter/energy) have existed eternally as oppose to a theist who believes in the eternal creator, not creation.
Because of this disagreement its impossible to agree on the very nature of Truth & Reality outside the box of materialism.
You will deny the spiritual existence in humans too.
Following that, you will reject any source of knowledge coming from elsewhere, other than your mind and material experiences.
So my friend you see the problem here is that you are not accepting ignorance by just saying I don't know maybe I am wrong but rather instead you have already taken the position of assumption as Truth & Reality.
Your fallacy is that you are applying the principals of a material world to understand the unknown entity i-e The creator.
I tell you why religious people are happier because God is a basic need & a soul feels happier connecting with him.
May you find peace my brother.

Here is just a simple video to ponder upon.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Well we have significantly more knowledge its pointless to even bring up 17th century scientists. They were alot less knowledgable than scientists today.

Whoever made this argument set the bar low on purpose because their argument was so weak. Its almost like they are trying desperately to reach for something that is not there for them.

Professor of Philosophy Emeritus argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century because ‘they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.’ In other words, “it was a belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.

 

[Vitamin_C]

As I told you earlier you don't have pre-big bang knowledge and you are ASSUMING that the substances of the universe (matter/energy) have existed eternally

Im not assuming it. It’s the 1st law of thermodynamics dynamics. No one has ever created or destroyed energy.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism

He is a Christian apologist, of course he is going to think atheism is inferior LOL.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Professor of Philosophy Emeritus argues that a failure of theistic arguments might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism; and points to the observation of an apparently "fine-tuned universe" as more likely to be explained by theism than atheism. Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox holds that atheism is an inferior world view to that of theism and attributes to C.S. Lewis the best formulation of Merton's thesis that science sits more comfortably with theistic notions on the basis that Men became scientific in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th century because ‘they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.’ In other words, “it was a belief in God that was the motor that drove modern science". American geneticist Francis Collins also cites Lewis as persuasive in convincing him that theism is the more rational world view than atheism.

And what’s your point? Just because someone has an opinion therefore it must mean it is true?

These Christian Apologists are less than 10% of the scientific community for every one you quote I can find 9 that disagree with their world view so what?

Why are you running from one fallacious argument to another?

 

[Vitamin_C]

I tell you why religious people are happier because God is a basic need & a soul feels happier connecting with him.
May you find peace my brother.

Ignorance really is bliss. Why worry about the actual truthful answers to our origins let’s just make up arguments like earthquakes caused by turtle shifting under the earth.

Yes ignorance will give us short term happiness but the quest for actual truth has made our lives better in last 300 years. Life spans have increased dramatically and so has quality of life.

So ignorance is bliss in the short term and may make people happier but that’s not the reason to not look for answers increasing our knowledge.

Id rather know the truth than have happiness based on falsehood and agree to demonstrably fallacious argument for a superstitious explanation.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Your fallacy is that you are applying the principals of a material world to understand the unknown entity i-e The creator.

And can you point out the name of that fallacy or did you just make that up your self? There is no such fallacy in philosophy and you are just being dishonest right now.

Do you agree or disagree that Special Pleading is a logical fallacy?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Your fallacy is that you are applying the principals of a material world to understand the unknown entity i-e The creator.

And if this entity is unknown, how do you know it exists?

How do you know a world outside the material world exists?

 

[hammy_lucky]

Ignorance really is bliss. Why worry about the actual truthful answers to our origins let’s just make up arguments like earthquakes caused by turtle shifting under the earth.

Yes ignorance will give us short term happiness but the quest for actual truth has made our lives better in last 300 years. Life spans have increased dramatically and so has quality of life.

So ignorance is bliss in the short term and may make people happier but that’s not the reason to not look for answers increasing our knowledge.

Id rather know the truth than have happiness based on falsehood and agree to demonstrably fallacious argument for a superstitious explanation.

Again, science and Religion have two separate realms. It's a bit tiring for me to repeat my arguments now.

The quest for knowledge has yielded benefits throughout history. The whole of humanity regardless of culture and religion has contributed towards knowledge and development. You can assert that certain beliefs in all the religions are irrational (that's a different debate) but how can you implicate being a theist is an obstacle in scientific progression? If you are referring to the mindset than I can give you lots of examples of theistic scientists. Dr Abdus Salam is one more example. If you are employing an example of that 96% of atheists to rationalize your claim than I would say they have chosen Atheism based on their knowledge and experiences. Let I tell you, several specialists in their field of research have obsessed/preoccupied mindsets. Their views become tunnel views. I don't know why some people are so smitten with the success and ambitions that they overlook other aspects of the world and life.

You are overlooking so many other factors involved in the progression of mankind in the last few centuries such as Socioeconomic factors, the rise of capitalism etc.

In the general world, a considerable number of the population doesn't seem to question their beliefs and have rather settled in with their superstitions and false traditions, and I agree with you on that.

I would advise you to be open-minded, humble and non-methodological in your approach in the search for THIS TRUTH. Try to be selfless, compassionate, kind and empathetic (I am sure you already are) towards others. It will help in bringing positive emotions, thoughts and feelings.

I live & work in London and I am an occupied person. I would love to continue but I am afraid I am finding myself time restraint.

It has been a pleasure indulging in the discussion with you.

I wish you all the best.
Take care

 

[Vitamin_C]

If you are employing an example of that 96% of atheists to rationalize your claim than I would say they have chosen Atheism based on their knowledge and experiences. Let I tell you, several specialists in their field of research have obsessed/preoccupied mindsets.

It was never my argument. You brought up 17th century scientist as a fallacious argument from authority to support your irrational claims. I just pointed out that not only is your argument is factually incorrect, it’s also fallacious.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Again, science and Religion have two separate realms. It's a bit tiring for me to repeat my arguments now.

Regardless of how many times you repeat a fallacious argument, it’s still a fallacious argument.

Your argument is committing a special pleading fallacy. You still haven’t addressed that.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Regardless of how many times you repeat a fallacious argument, it’s still a fallacious argument.

Your argument is committing a special pleading fallacy. You still haven’t addressed that.

“And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
Surah Ikhlas. Verse 4.

 

[Vitamin_C]

“And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
Surah Ikhlas. Verse 4.

So just because a book says something, we should believe it as a fact without question?