How do muslims (all theists) justify their belief?

Oh shit, nigger, this convinced me that Allah is real! Glory be to Him and His creation.

So if we couldn't exist we couldn't exist. Wow made me think

if i throw a fist full of shit at your face, that of which hit you would have been guided by devine retribution

This argument shoots itself in the foot. The creation of a higher power has all the same problems as creation of your own existence. For this argument to work, you need an infinite chain of higher powers creating lower higher powers.

Also see this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Counter_arguments

>proof
I don't think this word means what you think it means.

> thinks Jerusalem has looked exactly the same and had the same kind of people in it for the entirety of it's existence
> making up an imaginary trading of cultures when no such trade is mentioned in any historical text

No it's not, it's considered evidence. Why don't you give me an example of one of these different religions? I'm telling you, they really aren't that different at all.

I found the scientific, physical evidence of "god", so I don't believe in God. I know that "he" exists.
1.biological neural network.
>It has been suggested that a bacterial colony loosely mimics a biological neural network. The bacteria can take inputs in form of chemical signals, process them and then produce output chemicals to signal other bacteria in the colony.
Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacob research group at Tel Aviv University which developed a fractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle see moar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
2.the impact on the consciousness. 2 articles with scientific research for example:
The Tantalizing Links between Gut Microbes and the Brain
Neuroscientists are probing the idea that intestinal microbiota might influence brain development and behavior
scientificamerican.com/article/the-tantalizing-links-between-gut-microbes-and-the-brain/
Microbes can play games with the mind
sciencenews.org/article/microbes-can-play-games-mind
3.interrelation
God is an ancient intelligent colony of bacteria that affect people through the microflora of body and environment. People are tools to interact with the material world. Colonia evokes thoughts, desires, emotions, etc. If desired, voice and hallucinations (Personality changes, apathy, poor judgment. About 10% to 20% of people with neurosyphilis general paresis experience psychotic symptoms that include hallucinations and paranoia. Some people display what we think of as the classic symptoms of grandiose delusions. I have met people who thought they were kings, presidents and prime ministers.
verywell.com/neurosyphilis-98756) This synthetic biology. People are controlled by bacterial immortal neural network through self-replicating nanomachines (microflora)

Science doesn't claim that we have 12 dimensions, Michio Kaku does, who is a known for his wacky theories. The scientific community doesn't take him seriously, he is a pop scientist, just cause he's a professor too doesn't mean everything he spouts is true.

Appea to ignorance and faith. Next!

But can you explain what got the universe "started" without a higher power? Can you explain what was happening before it and what started whatever that was?

Theists already understand the concept you just explained but from our perspective that conundrum is the very essence of God himself- he seems to have a beginning yet he's always been there- every time you think you've hit the final wall of the building you realize that something must be on the other side and at a certain point you're not going to be able to answer it. It's not just because it's difficult to see or something, it's because it's something that exists in a reality and a dimension that we can't even comprehend. That incomprehensible infinite nature of the universe is God. Think about it- you can abstractly say that you understand that the universe could reach infinitely, but you can't actually fathom that concept your mind is not physically capable of imagining infinity. What is infinity?!

All you are basically saying is that we are the cells that we are composed of, in a fancy way. That doesn't show proof of god.

>Eshel Ben-Jacob
yeccchhh get out of here kike!

>when there is no legitimate evidence (really, show me one "paranormal", godly or holy thing happening)

I would suggest that your own existence, the existence of a complex, balanced array of life on Earth, the existence of a vast and mysterious universe which we have barely begun to explore and understand, are evidence of some kind of creator.

Religious people aren't constantly looking for some EXTRA miracle, they just believe that God created us and everything around us

>hehehe the world works therefore god

You need to go back to Sunday school. I respect faith more than this bullshit.

>The fact that I'm a skeptic
Aaaaaaahahaha

Ok, them believing that is fine with me, them believing a Bible or any other holy text or religion is just nuts

Everything can be explaned by math, now even biological sciences are being broken down and explained through math, we are living in a matrix and life in the simulation is good.

>Everything can be explaned by math
What a surprise. The numbers we slap on things to be able to describe amounts are able to describe amounts!

Or it could be an infinite amount of other things. Please elaborate how this is proof for some sort of creator instead of magical ogre energy.

I think it's pretty easy. We as humans project ourselves onto the universe with our finite lives and think that it has to have a beginning and an end just like us. Has it ever been proven that existence has to have had a beginning and an end? Why can't things just have existed and eventually have fallen into place because that's just how things worked?

But the integers exist even if you never count them. You don't need a computer if everything functions as if there were one.

>about how it's possible to believe in all these stories without questioning their validity.

I question it all daily, and yes I am a Christian. But I'm also a logical human being, that knows that to understand our heavenly father I have to relate in terms of defining our relationship.

I do this for everything, especially those that I care about. I'm soul searching, and I want to better understand things including God.

don't be an idiot, OP.
you still have to explain the ability of your mind to think and meditate about itself.
Also I don't know any scientist capable to do something close related with a living cell, already having carbon life based substances and other chemical compounds which form a living cel.Or at least, to revive a dead cell.
The ability of a computer to ask itself questions or to "hope", or to "dream" it's inexistent.Same with your logic.

>reduction to jews
>Abrahamic religions
>that we are the cells that we are composed of, in a fancy way.
>That doesn't show proof of god.
It's the material, physical nature of that, what is drives people and called "god". + The mechanism of its work.

>But the difference with us is that we don't believe in something. They do.
Atheists absolutely believe in many things. They believe that "logic" and "reason" are on their side. They believe they are intellectually superior to theists just for not believing. They all believe that they are scientists.

Atheism is a religion and a meme

Ironically, this theory has been suggested by a kike named Brian Koberlein.

I don't think that you're right about your perception of it, that just seems to come off of the top of your head, but you're already basically correct anyways. God is an infinite essence, he wasn't created, he's just always been.

In your secular idea of this, don't you get confused as to why it all came about? Why would the universe just always exist instead of nothing existing at all? How could it be that way? How could something always exist with no beginning?

> "thinks" that kikes are the same as the Hebrews/descendants of Abraham

LOL

You don't even know what cells are, you retard. Like all "skepticts" you just selectively blindly accept things at some arbitrary point.

Fix'd

But I'm also a logical human being that wants to be able to relate better towards God our Heavenly Father. Helping to try and define exactly how our relationship works and where I come in.

I do this for everything, especially those that I care for. I'm soul searching, and I want to better understand things like God myself included.

Had to make it more cohesive.

Very true, just because we don't have a clear understand of how thinks work. Doesn't mean the possibility of there being a God or ever being one is somehow a illogical view to hold.

One says they have a belief that God exists and don't have any proof to back it up. The other they have a belief he doesn't exist and doesn't have any proof to back it up. Ironically seem to share very similar qualities.

Fucking typo's man (Didn't notice them in time to correct them), my computer is drastically slowing too for some reason.

I just have not seen any evidence otherwise. Everything around me has always existed from my very limited perspective. Applying conservation of energy to this as well as some rudimentary physics and biology just lets me make sense of my existence.

I feel an immense gratitude for my ancestry, as well as an immense luck. At some point the molecules in the sperm that became my zygote was something else entirely. Hell, it wasn't even sperm before my father ate the proteins that became it. If things had been just a little different someone else could have been born instead of me, and that's okay.

I'm in awe at the complexity that lead to my being, but that doesn't mean I was ever intended to exist beyond my parents desires.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname)

"agnostic atheist" you say?
That's an oxymoron you moronic child.
Learn to dictionary.

Believing that there is a higher power is okay.

Believing in a specific religion like Christianity or Islam makes you a retard.

If "God" exists, you can bet your ass he doesn't give a shit whether you rest on Sundays or don't eat pigs.

You can also bet your ass he doesn't care more about individual humans than we care about individual ants. There's no happy ever after waiting for you when you die, just like there's none for ants.

> just trusts whatever info the kikes give him

good goy

>If "God" exists, you can bet your ass he doesn't give a shit whether you rest on Sundays or don't eat pigs.
>You can also bet your ass he doesn't care more about individual humans than we care about individual ants. There's no happy ever after waiting for you when you die, just like there's none for ants.

Proof?

>agnostic atheist
google.com/search?q=agnostic atheist&oq=agnostic atheist&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Retarded inhabitant of Britanostan.-

You're the one who needs to provide proof. He didn't claim something exists, you claimed something does, he simply said he doesn't believe it does cause there is no proof of it.

You're all retards who don't know the anthropic principle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

The reason the universe exists and is so perfectly aligned for us to inhabit it, is simply the fact that we're here observing it, so it MUST be that way.

The consensus is that there's likely millions of other universes in existence that DON'T have the correct properties to harbor life. We just got lucky, and because of confirmation bias we think that it was destined to be.

As for why existence itself is a thing, that's not even a question worth asking. Existence has always been here and just is. Even before our universe started. No god is needed to explain it, and any god brought into the picture has the same paradox of existence applied to him.

Also, if a god existed, I'd expect his design of the universe to be a lot less arbitrary and redundant. What's the point of all that endless empty space, all those quadrillions of stars that don't affect life anywhere in any way? Wouldn't he design the universe a lot smaller, with more life and more stability?

You need to differentiate between proof and evidence. Yes there is no proof of God, but there is a lot of evidence.

If you're so extremely skeptical that you require proof and not just evidence, and you have a 100% materialistic view on life in which only the tangible can be believed, then you literally cannot discuss philosophy or the meta physical. You cannot even enter a discussion of philosophy from that standpoint.

The problem with most "agnostic skeptics" is that they are discriminantly selective to which topic they apply the skepticism. If they applied the same degree of skepticism to every other aspect of life, they would not be able to believe in any form of written history, and they would not be able to discuss philosophy or any abstract concept at all. But they do not do this, they openly discuss philosophy and history but once Religion comes up they apply a degree of skepticism they do not apply anywhere else.

Consider this: The atom was proven philosophically thousands of years before it was ever observed. Ancient Greeks came up with the word, and debated the concept, and knew it was there because they could prove it philosophically with argument. They had no physical proof, but they knew it was there by argument alone. In hindsight, it was not more intelligent to be supremely skeptical and ignore every argument they had based on the fact they had no physical evidence, because they're philosophy was so solid it turned out to be true.

> I can't wrap my head about how it's possible to believe in all these stories without questioning their validity.

This is such a tired old atheist trope. To assume Religious people accept everything with no evidence and they've never questioned anything. People aren't Religious because they have no evidence, the contrary is true. People believe in God because something made them believe, they all have some reason. They didn't start believing out of nothing,

Nice try retard, but he did make a claim about how God would feel "if he existed" which is such a stupid cop out by the way, denying the existence of God and then acting like a stuck up little brat and being like "but even if there was then it would be this way!" Don't you idiots realize that this is bullshit? You can't deny somethings existence while also asserting that it would behave a certain way.

Swear to god you americans come up with the shittiest arguments baka...

How does the God have the "paradox of existence" applied to him but the universe doesn't?

How is it that you can somehow fathom the possibility that the universe would have no beginning or end, but God can't possibly exist that way? They're the same thing anyways.

And it's not as if you've actually seen all of those "arbitrary redundant stars" for yourself, so who knows what God has really done and what's really going on where.

>just trusts whatever pic on pol, that kikes post him for liquidation of traces

no u

is it a kikes falsification too?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

As usual, yes it is.

>Proof?

You are retarded for even asking for it for reasons stated by but I'll indulge you.

There's no fundamental difference between a human and a rat. We have all the same functions, just tuned differently. Hence, it would be retarded to assume that we have the special privilege of an afterlife, especially since we and the rats were the same species just a few tens of millions of years ago - a drop in the ocean compared to how long life has existed on Earth.

So, if we have an afterlife, so must the rat. But you can keep going from there. There's no fundamental difference between us and a flea either. Or a flower. Or a bacteria. We simply have more cells than them, which have adapted to give us more advanced functions. But at our core, we are the same - as seen with a single-cell fetus, a human no different from said bacteria.

So, the only way to justify an afterlife is to assert that every single living cell gets dibs on it. Which sounds kind of asinine - you're sending millions of souls to heaven every time you take a shit.

The only way an afterlife might exist is if ours is not actually the real world and we're just in a simulation. Which is not all that unlikely given we're just a few centuries from being able to hook up our brains to lifelike virtual reality even in our own world. Who's to say it didn't already happen. But in that case, God is us.

>There's no fundamental difference between a human and a rat.
>he says as he philosophizes on his own mortality

You sound more like an agnostic theist, m8.

But concerning your questions: Muslims believe they are muslims because their parents are muslims. They won't admit that of course, but you see it all the times: Shitskins who drink, don't pray 5 times a day, fuck around and maybe even eat pork, and when you ask them if they are still muslims after all of this, they will say yeah of course.

>I found the scientific, physical evidence of "god"
You're obviously not smart enough to realize you've fallen for lies.

I didn't say any of that, you're making shit up because you're in denial of the truth here, or, more likely, you're just too stupid to understand what I'm saying.

I didn't say God can't exist. I said he's not needed to explain existence. God is like adding an arbitrary extra variable to an equation that is already complete.

Universe without God: 2+2=4
Universe with God: 2+2+2-2=4

And we have seen thousands of stars up close enough to know that there's no intelligent life on par with our own there, and millions more indirectly via listening for radio waves. There might be a lot of life in the universe, but it's still pointlessly rare. If you play Civilization, you don't play on a million-by-million tile map and only place 2 or 3 civilizations on it, each in their own corner, right? Any God would find that boring and pointless.

ALLAHU ACKBAR!

"Boom".

>Universe without God: 2+2=4
>Universe with God: 2+2+2-2=4
this just proves how flawed your logic is. A universe with God and a universe without aren't compatible. One has to be true and the other has to be false, yet both your equations are true. All you've done here is prove how incapable you are of logic.

And the rat can hear supersonic frequencies that we don't. Each animal has its own strengths, it doesn't mean we, with our strength of intelligence, are fundamentally different. Asserting that much is called having a superiority complex, and it's one of the most common flaws of stupid conservatives, and religious people, all thinking they, out of all species and races, are the master race or God's chosen people.

>And the rat can hear supersonic frequencies that we don't. Each animal has its own strengths,
exactly, so we are fundamentally different.

Human beings are the only living thing on the planet capable of higher thought. That is a fundamental difference by definition.

>But can you explain what got the universe "started" without a higher power?
Atheists don't need to explain astrophysics and cosmology to the ignorant and feeble-minded.

Non-belief in your made-up gods does not require any explanations of math, science, language, art or anything else.

>ogre

WEW LAD

Haha I can't believe you wasted your time typing that out.

You literally didn't prove anything, you just claimed that we are the same as all life forms and therefore Heaven cannot be real, showing that you have no understanding of Christianity or spirituality.

You cannot prove that there is no Heaven or that God doesn't care about what we do. It's beyond your capability as a human.

I don't think you understand the difference between hypotheses and facts, friend. That's a pretty bad oversight of you.

Newton could explain gravity pretty well with his theories, and they're still taught at schools today, because they're not inconsistent with what we observe in most cases. That doesn't mean his theories were true - as Einstein proved, they weren't.

God either exists or he doesn't, but we can't prove it either way, so the best we can do is state that either way, the universe is what it is, and by applying occam's razor it makes more sense for there not to be a god, since god is a complicating and unnecessary factor to the equation.

I have the links to scientific studies on the particular material object and its mechanism of work. Unlike everyone itt who is only limited by philosophy or demagoguery.
I thought as much.

if
>Universe without God: 2+2=4
and
>Universe with God: 2+2+2-2=4

then Universe without God = Universe with God, which is obviously untrue because it's logically inconsistent.

Your logic is literally incorrect, simple as that, don't move the goal posts now that it's been pointed out

More typical idiocy from someone who feels unjustifiably superior. Humans have zero cognitive abilities that aren't shared by other primates, cetaceans and corvids, as well as possibly elephants.

read Plato

>Atheists absolutely believe in many things.
Not deities, demons, ghouls, gods or any other imaginary entities.

>They believe that "logic" and "reason" are on their side.
We know it is. The theists have hallucinations, delusions, wishful thinking, magical realism and other mental illness on their side.

>They believe they are intellectually superior to theists just for not believing.
Far superior.

>They all believe that they are scientists.
No, only theists believe all atheists are scientists. That's precisely why theists are constantly challenging atheists to prove the big bang, evolution, etc.

>Atheism is a religion and a meme
Only the stupidest people on the planet believe that. Everyone with at least a double-digit IQ knows better.

>r. Humans have zero cognitive abilities that aren't shared by other primates, cetaceans and corvids, as well as possibly elephants.

more typical idiocy from someone who is objectively incorrect. No other animal can philosophize or speak or have thought on the level of human beings. I can't believe how retardedly low your argument has sunk. You're an idiot

>Humans have zero cognitive abilities that aren't shared by other primates, cetaceans and corvids, as well as possibly elephants.

The non-rational animals do not have the power of abstraction. They cannot abstract universal concepts from sense impressions, e.g. they cannot get the concept "chair" from a four-legged wooden object in their visual faculty.

This is called attempting to deflect an argument by changing the subject to focus on semantics, because you have no counterargument.

You lose the argument.

>Yes there is no proof of God,
That is a fact.

>but there is a lot of evidence.
That is a smile on a dog.

No, it's called pointing out the logical inconsistency of someone who is being logical inconsitent. This entire post is literally

>it doesn't matter that I'm logically inconsistent, stop pointing it out.

you're admitting losing the argument in this post

>They believe that "logic" and "reason" are on their side.
>We know it is.

How can an atheist have logic and reason on his side? Logic and reason are immaterial/spiritual activities. Matter has no logic or reason in itself.

Except they can. The animals I mentioned are capable of abstract thought, which any look into studies of chimpanzees would have told you. Your arguments boil down to "I know nothing about these things, therefore I can ignore them so that my viewpoints are true".

Humans are smarter than all the other animals, so what? Do cheetahs go to heaven because they're the fastest animal? Our brains function exactly the same way as the cheetah's, just that ours is more efficient.

>Human beings are the only living thing on the planet capable of higher thought.

Except for Koko the gorilla. His IQ is 70.

>agnostic atheist
stopped reading there
Go back to /r/atheism

>The animals I mentioned are capable of abstract thought
You're literally wrong. There's not even anything to argue, you're just black and white incorrect

> The animals I mentioned are capable of abstract thought

No they aren't. Being able to solve simple puzzles or respond to certain basic communications through reinforcement conditioning has nothing to do with abstract thought.

>Patterson has reported that Koko has made several complex uses of signs that suggest a more developed degree of cognition than is usually attributed to non-human primates and their use of communication. For example, Koko has been reported to use displacement (the ability to communicate about objects not currently present), signing the sign for "baby" the day after her baby was removed from her.[20] At age 19, Koko was also able to pass the mirror test of self recognition, which most other gorillas fail.[21][22] She has also been reported to relay personal memories.[23]

>Koko has also been reported to use meta-language, being able to use language reflexively to speak about language itself, signing "good sign" to another gorilla who successfully used signing.[24] Koko has also been reported to use language deceptively, and to use counterfactual statements for humorous effects, suggesting an underlying theory of other minds.[18]

Sounds like this gorilla is smarter than you two.

The fact that you posted the Flying Spaghetti Monster already shows that you have no idea what the overall gist of God is.

Santa Claus, FSM, tooth fairies, etc. are strawmans, and are assumptions that something physical exists that isn't "disprovable" (although, they are since you can utilize currently known information to make a solid conclusion, i.e. Santa Claus = St. Nicholas, FSM has no probability of existing since spaghetti was invented by another species and is an inanimate object without any tissue, organs, etc.).

I am personally a theist (used to be an agnostic-atheist before college, ironically) and decided to apply the same logic that I did for the existence of extraterrestrial life (Organisms exist on this planet, therefore other organisms could exist on other planets)

My logic for theism is derrived from networks that exist on Earth (i.e. ecosystems, foodchains, etc.). Humans are typically on top of hierarchical structures because we are an intelligent species and are able to manipulate our environment without changing the laws that govern such (Although we typically exclude ourselves from many of these networks, since human interference is usually deemed as unnatural)

Anyways my logic is that if networks exist on this part of the universe, and humans are able to manipulate their environment, then other networks can exist on a larger scale where whatever is at the top (and is responsible for setting laws in place, and starting naturalism) is God.

Just a random question. If you are autistic, then you might have a difficult time understanding the concept of God. Depending on what type you have, some autistic individuals are incapable of wrapping their minds over philosophy, morals, ethics, religion, etc.

One more thing, I abandoned my nihilistic view (in college) when I was an idiot, and didn't realize that the networks that exist on Earth consist of a variety of species having purposes that they serve (even if they are involuntary)

>I have the links to scientific studies
You have only desperate efforts at rationalizing the opinions of scientist in a last ditch attempt to try to make your irrational beliefs seem rational.

You never ever see science work so hard at fabricating the supernatural.

Nope, all this demonstrates is that she has what philosophers call the imaginative or sense memory. For example, that she uses the sign for "baby" appropriately does not indicate that she has an intellectual understanding of what a baby is, but that she has been trained to apply this particular sign to a certain object in her sense memory.

No. Nothing can be "explained" by math. We can only make mathematical models that coincide with reality (just as we can make models that have nothing to do with reality whatsoever). They're useful tools to predict things, but math itself is merely an abstract construct created by man.
Physics does explain everything, as it is the study of the laws of nature. Which can be summarized in mathematical models.

>Physics does explain everything

This would be true if only matter exists. That matter is not the only thing that exists means that metaphysics is needed as well as physics. In fact, metaphysics is a higher and more fundamental science than physics. Metaphysics investigates the very premises of thought by which we reason about physics/matter, making it prior to physics.

>Logic and reason are immaterial/spiritual activities.
Your beliefs are illogical and unreasonable.

Once again theists are constantly challenging atheists to prove the big bang, evolution, etc.

You're making the irrational claim that anything that cannot be currently explained by science must somehow be "immaterial/spiritual".

Science and technology are rapidly reducing what we don't know, and supernatural beliefs are shrinking at the same rapid rate.

Death

This is not beliefs. This interpretation of the facts in a prism of the theory (see Falsifiability) Do not correlated with the irrational on a foundation of beliefs.

>You never ever see science work so hard at fabricating the supernatural.

Here , for example,
>Midichlorians - the biomeme hypothesis: is there a microbial component to religious rituals?
biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-9-14

>You're making the irrational claim that anything that cannot be currently explained by science must somehow be "immaterial/spiritual".

That's not the claim I'm making. I'm not claiming that material science has yet to explain the power of abstract thought/reasoning. The claim I'm making is that material science is in PRINCIPLE incapable of explaining thought/reasoning, because thought/reasoning is immaterial and is therefore beyond the purview of material science, and so requires a different form of science called metaphysics to investigate it. Read Plato/Aristotle.

>God is the bacteria in my gut
Wew lads, I guess we solved the mystery.
Who's God Here?

>Science and technology are rapidly reducing what we don't know, and supernatural beliefs are shrinking at the same rapid rate.

Science and technology may help to purge out crude superstitions, but they do not refute the metaphysical notions of and arguments for God that have been around for thousands of years.

And despite what the secularist media would have you believe, religion is growing around the world. I expect religion to make a revival in the West soon as well, given the absolute despair/nihilism the collapse of religion has caused over the last half-century.

>spaghetti was invented by another species and is an inanimate object without any tissue, organs, etc.).
The FSM is beyond time and human comprehension. He has no need for organs or tissue. He only appears in pasta form for humans to be able to receive and digest his divine marinara message.

read spinoza, hegel, kant, etc.
read about mystical traditions like advaita vedanta, zen buddhism, contemplative christianity, etc.
read about the mathematics of infinity.

look into the philosophy of God, rather than thinking yourself superior from watching Richard Dawkins make fun of some southern baptist preacher on youtube.

also kierkegaard if you want to understand the belief in literalist fundamentalist religion.

>arguments for God that have been around for thousands of years.
Now that we realize how weak and fallacious those arguments really are, many are throwing off their mind manacles and choosing to be free from your religion's control.

>I expect religion to make a revival in the West
How could anybody not know Islam is taking over the world?

The thing is, the Abrahamic religions have been fighting each other for millennia with only worse results to show for it.

Religion is the cancer of humanity. Atheism is the only cure.

>kant,
Kant made the ethical imperative argument that self-determination supersedes anything outside the self. That would include gods, deities, ghost and whatnot.

>I've read about this topic a lot, and being an agnostic atheist I can't wrap my head about how it's possible to believe in all these stories without questioning their validity.

I suppose it'd be easy to just look into neoscholastic thought, yes?

>also kierkegaard

ABSOLUTLY BASED

>Now that we realize how weak and fallacious those arguments really are, many are throwing off their mind manacles and choosing to be free from your religion's control.

user, please. The vast majority of people fuck up understanding it properly because of anti-theistic rhetoric. This is why you never see Divine Conservation never mentioned despite it having history as the most prevalent argument for theism.

>Everything is ridiculous the way it is perfectly balanced.

Realize that your argument devolves to "the fact I exist proves that X prophet is right" which is one hell of a non sequitur.

First: yeah no shit the necessary conditions for our existence are there.

Second: from this it does not follow that any one religion is actually correct.

>Anyways my logic is that if networks exist on this part of the universe, and humans are able to manipulate their environment, then other networks can exist
>other networks can exist
>can exist
>therefore exist

Spot the mistake.

>The claim I'm making is that material science is in PRINCIPLE incapable of explaining thought/reasoning,
Right. Man will never fly, they'll never put a man on the moon, computers are a waste of time, etc. Naysayers are dime a dozen.

>because thought/reasoning is immaterial and is therefore beyond the purview of material science,
Can't explain scientifically yet, it so it MUST be supernatural/divine/God's design, right?

>and so requires a different form of science called metaphysics to investigate it.

"In the 'weak' sense, metaphysics is used loosely to refer to New Age and non-empirical notions such as 'energy' (chi, prana) being balanced, harmonized, tuned, aligned, unblocked, etc. Although 'metaphysics' in the weak sense is the most common in the Skeptic's Dictionary, here we are concerned with 'metaphysics' in the strong sense."
skepdic.com/metaphysics.html

>"In the 'weak' sense, metaphysics is used loosely to refer to New Age and non-empirical notions such as 'energy' (chi, prana) being balanced, harmonized, tuned, aligned, unblocked, etc. Although 'metaphysics' in the weak sense is the most common in the Skeptic's Dictionary, here we are concerned with 'metaphysics' in the strong sense."

I must ask: What were you looking to prove with that line? The person you're speaking to is talking about metaphysics in the "strong sense" and so parsing forms in which metaphysics is used doesn't effect your argument at all.

Claiming that there is an immaterial realm does not prove any single one religion. They may all be false in their particular.

There is also no guarantee that we actually have any method which can give us accurate information about the non material world, so that the positing of its existence does not lead us to any knowledge about it.

>The vast majority of people fuck up understanding it properly because of anti-theistic rhetoric

People aren't slaves to religious control only because they don't properly understand it?

You might be that gullible but we are certainly not.

>What were you looking to prove with that line?
That metaphysics is indistinguishable from pseudoscience.

>People aren't slaves to religious control only because they don't properly understand it?

No, I'm criticizing the claim of those arguments being weak, not your childish anti-theist rhetoric. Please read better.

>Claiming that there is an immaterial realm does not prove any single one religion. They may all be false in their particular.

Exactly right, but your comment here also doesn't prove that Misato is the best girl from Neon Genesis Evangelion either. Maybe we should focus on what the arguments attempt to say and not try to assume more than is given, yes?

And the definition you quote mentions two ways in which metaphysics is understood. One being it as a core aspect of the philosophy of science, which it calls the "strong sense", and one being pseudo-science which it calls "weak sense". The person you sent the link to is speaking about metaphysics in the strong sense, hence him referencing the personal to formalized metaphysics in the first place.

Here is the backbone of Islam:

The biography of Muhammad shows you that he is the perfect human, he can't lie, his teachings are true, Koran is true because he said it is and he can't lie.

The biography is true because a hugs branch of theology is about authenticating the sources about him, and all scholars say it's true, the number of scholars is too high for it to be a conspiracy, the argument is the analog for NASA, NASA has too much employees who were involved in the moon landing for it to be fake.

This is the ultimate answer.

>hence him referencing the personal to formalized metaphysics in the first place.

"person who formalized metaphysics in the first place", rather.

So you're saying they're both liars.

Please tell me this post is a joke.

Islam is supposed to define what is perfect and Muhammad is declared by fiat to perfect and therefore nothing has been "shown". It has rather been declared.

It is then immaterial to say that the biography is true as it doesn't show anything.

>Exactly right

So you posit the existence of a non material realm and don't derive anything from it? I'm fine with that.

>Please tell me this post is a joke.
This post is a joke.

>So you posit the existence of a non material realm and don't derive anything from it? I'm fine with that.

I posit we can discern the non-material generally (maybe not a "realm" in a platonic sense but generally speaking) through deduction and with it also discern basic attributes but I don't believe we can do much beyond that.

>I posit we can discern the non-material generally (maybe not a "realm" in a platonic sense but generally speaking) through deduction and with it also discern basic attributes but I don't believe we can do much beyond that.

That's not the worst.

The problem is always this:

(1) Some philosopher or "prophet" "deduces" or "learn" something about another realm that nobody else but him can see
(2) Start to make political claims on that basis

That's fucking annoying.

>That's fucking annoying.

Why yes it is, but regardless that's not what I nor are getting into. You're worried about unrelated things and chasing phantasms not there.