Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Other religious discourse
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so?
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so? Can we ask him that, what would be his rationale to say that?
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so? Can we ask him that, what would be his rationale to say that? The moment we ask that then we'll be admitting that God is amenable to rational proof. That means that another qualification is that a person must be able to comprehend and articulate truth ... And that would entail a big contradiction on our side for not all humans are capable of that.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so? Can we ask him that, what would be his rationale to say that? The moment we ask that then we'll be admitting that God is amenable to rational proof. That means that another qualification is that a person must be able to comprehend and articulate truth ... And that would entail a big contradiction on our side for not all humans are capable of that. Any rational human being is capable of articulating truth. And I assume your friend is, this is why we should asked for his rationale.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so? Can we ask him that, what would be his rationale to say that? The moment we ask that then we'll be admitting that God is amenable to rational proof. That means that another qualification is that a person must be able to comprehend and articulate truth ... And that would entail a big contradiction on our side for not all humans are capable of that. Any rational human being is capable of articulating truth. And I assume your friend is, this is why we should asked for his rationale. Notice that you say 'any rational human'. My statement is that not all humans are rational or capable of rational thought. Do you dispute this?
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Therefore according to you the qualification is belief in the truth. Yes, the answer is just from the same book, Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 5 They (myself Alphdoti included) are on (true) guidance from their Lord, and they are successful. Like you said earlier, 'there's only one truth'. But some people don't believe in it, or are yet to believe in it. These people would automatically be disqualified from speaking about God. You were asking about me here, what qualifies me. I do not have the rights to disqualify anybody. To me, anybody can speak about God, after all it is truth. If Sartre says, 'God doesn't exist', is it truth? What has qualified him to say so? Can we ask him that, what would be his rationale to say that? The moment we ask that then we'll be admitting that God is amenable to rational proof. That means that another qualification is that a person must be able to comprehend and articulate truth ... And that would entail a big contradiction on our side for not all humans are capable of that. Any rational human being is capable of articulating truth. And I assume your friend is, this is why we should asked for his rationale. Notice that you say 'any rational human'. My statement is that not all humans are rational or capable of rational thought. Do you dispute this? Precisely. This is why I said "any"... not all humans are rational.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Great. So for example, Children are seldom rational. Or the uneducated may not be rational.
But they are qualified to speak about God.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:Great. So for example, Children are seldom rational. Or the uneducated may not be rational.
But they are qualified to speak about God. I am not child expert and I cannot assert regarding their rationality. But I know children are inconsistent decision makers. However, a child at early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing. We have discussed this with you before here that every child is born in a state Fitra. That means, every baby when born has recognition of God. As a part of their nature, a Creator imprinted in the soul. It is the parents who make that child a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist or Atheist. Naturally, a child submits to physical laws of universe, the soul submits naturally to the fact that God is his Lord and Creator. But, the parents try to make him follow their own way (read religion). And a child at that early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Great. So for example, Children are seldom rational. Or the uneducated may not be rational.
But they are qualified to speak about God. I am not child expert and I cannot assert regarding their rationality. But I know children are inconsistent decision makers. However, a child at early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing. We have discussed this with you before here that every child is born in a state Fitra. That means, every baby when born has recognition of God. As a part of their nature, a Creator imprinted in the soul. It is the parents who make that child a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist or Atheist. Naturally, a child submits to physical laws of universe, the soul submits naturally to the fact that God is his Lord and Creator. But, the parents try to make him follow their own way (read religion). And a child at that early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing. Opposition isn't what we mean by 'rational'. Evidence abounds about this assertion. Cats and goats seem to have an unconscious knowledge of physical laws, but that doesn't qualify as rationality at least as used in this context. Let me also add that even the connection between education and rationality is tenuous. There's no one to one relationship between the two.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Great. So for example, Children are seldom rational. Or the uneducated may not be rational.
But they are qualified to speak about God. I am not child expert and I cannot assert regarding their rationality. But I know children are inconsistent decision makers. However, a child at early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing. We have discussed this with you before here that every child is born in a state Fitra. That means, every baby when born has recognition of God. As a part of their nature, a Creator imprinted in the soul. It is the parents who make that child a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist or Atheist. Naturally, a child submits to physical laws of universe, the soul submits naturally to the fact that God is his Lord and Creator. But, the parents try to make him follow their own way (read religion). And a child at that early age is not strong enough to resist or oppose the will of his parents - customs and upbringing. Opposition isn't what we mean by 'rational'. Evidence abounds about this assertion. Cats and goats seem to have an unconscious knowledge of physical laws, but that doesn't qualify as rationality at least as used in this context. Let me also add that even the connection between education and rationality is tenuous. There's no one to one relationship between the two. I did not say rationality equates opposition. You asked about children. You see, every child is born in a state Fitra. It is the parents who make that child a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist or Atheist and a child gets brainwashed into the customs and upbringing of the environment. Now when you reach adulthood, you need to use your mind, INVESTIGATE, why should you be blind to something that might have impact on your life and come into your own conclusion. This applies to almost everything. From career, to matters of faith. As an adult you need to begin to rationalize your choices in life.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?"
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial. So what about his non trivial claim?
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial. So what about his non trivial claim? So far I know that it's probable that talk about God isn't amenable to reason as we tend to claim. The legitimacy of words is another puzzle we may need to figure out.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial. So what about his non trivial claim? So far I know that it's probable that talk about God isn't amenable to reason as we tend to claim. The legitimacy of words is another puzzle we may need to figure out. Believe in God is not blind faith. Talk for Islam, it calls us to reason and ponder about the signs and evidences. Surah Baqarah 2:21 says O mankind! Worship your Lord, Who created you and those who were before you... 22 Who has made the earth as a resting place for you, and the sky as canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do you not set up rivals to God (in worship) while you know.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial. So what about his non trivial claim? So far I know that it's probable that talk about God isn't amenable to reason as we tend to claim. The legitimacy of words is another puzzle we may need to figure out. Believe in God is not blind faith. Talk for Islam, it calls us to reason and ponder about the signs and evidences. Surah Baqarah 2:21 says O mankind! Worship your Lord, Who created you and those who were before you... 22 Who has made the earth as a resting place for you, and the sky as canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do you not set up rivals to God (in worship) while you know. That claim has no universal proof. It can only be particular for a faith, but no more. It appears to be a false claim.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:Very well. So this means that asking Sartre about the rationality of his claim that God doesn't exist is unnecessary and ineffective.
I suspect that rationality has a small role to play when talking about God. So why bother asking "what has qualified him to say so?" Because he has said something and speech is connected to action. Therefore it's non trivial. So what about his non trivial claim? So far I know that it's probable that talk about God isn't amenable to reason as we tend to claim. The legitimacy of words is another puzzle we may need to figure out. Believe in God is not blind faith. Talk for Islam, it calls us to reason and ponder about the signs and evidences. Surah Baqarah 2:21 says O mankind! Worship your Lord, Who created you and those who were before you... 22 Who has made the earth as a resting place for you, and the sky as canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do you not set up rivals to God (in worship) while you know. That claim has no universal proof. It can only be particular for a faith, but no more. It appears to be a false claim. Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alteration of night and day, and the ships which sail through the sea with that which is of use to mankind, and the water (rain) which God sends down from the sky and makes the earth alive therewith after its death, and the moving (living) creatures of all kinds that He has scattered therein, and in the veering winds and clouds which are held between the sky and the earth are indeed ayats ( universal proofs, evidences, signs, etc) for people of understanding Quran surah Baqarah chapter 2:164.
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
A statement that there are universal proofs isn't a universal proof by itself. It remains just as an assertion. It is not an accident that no religion has ever provided such proof especially to people of other religions using neutral terms.
But we can agree to disagree since I have no intention for showing your belief as false.
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/25/2008 Posts: 510
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI24GM28QLs
We could be ONE people.....Muslims and Christians, whether we believe it not, the noble Quran, Holy Bible seem to point to something... we need to read both books with an open mind before we choose sides out of ignorance of the other side.. I am on surah 3. Al_Imran, reading under the radar looking forward to what I can find I AM trust in GOD, I AM belief in THYSELF
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Other religious discourse
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|