Thread: God's Name

I'm not taking them too serious. I just said it's an idea to ponder upon. All we know is that somewhat 13.7 billion years ago something hapenned that gave birth to our Universe and ultimately -- to us. What was before that -- nobody knows (well, the question is meaningless because time itself didn't exist then either). The fundamental law -- the law of conservation says that nothing can be spun out of nothingness. Nevertheless, we exist.

If a theory says that a present outcome is extremely unlikely unless things were just so to the nth decimal point, then that is a strong inkling that the theory itself is not refined enough. But that doesn't mean it can't be refined to fit the facts better. It definitely is no reason to chuck the whole theory and state something completely different which has no other argument going for it than "My brain can deal with that more easily".

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm not taking them too serious. I just said it's an idea to ponder upon. All we know is that somewhat 13.7 billion years ago something hapenned that gave birth to our Universe and ultimately -- to us. What was before that -- nobody knows (well, the question is meaningless because time itself didn't exist then either). The fundamental law -- the law of conservation says that nothing can be spun out of nothingness. Nevertheless, we exist.

Our internal time did not, but there's nothing which says that outside was nothing and had no time. We could be a bubble inside a brew inside a crucible inside some kid's chemistry set setup. Or not. But any religion always claims "Hey, we have no way to prove what's outside our bubble, but we know exactly who the kid outside is, who made his chemistry set and what color his shoelaces are by dint of faith alone. And only we know the truth, everyone else who claims to says he knows anything different about that which nobody can actually ever know is a liar and must be shown the truth / be killed / be damned."

Personal faith is a nice thing if it helps someone deal with life and does not make him a bad person towards others of a different mindset. But the moment a religion tells a believer to despise someone, to devalue someone or be in any other way bad to someone, then it should be re-evaluated and ultimately eradicated. And faith is no prerequisite for being a good person either. In fact, if fear of the divine is the only thing which makes someone a decent person, then that someone is no decent person.

Read what I said in Post #68 in this thread. My religion states that there is someone's conscious will behind the creation of our universe. Yours states that it was random chance.

No, in fact I'm simply content to assume that maybe we'll eventually figure it out. I don't see it as a matter of random chance vs. conscious will, although Occam's Razor tells me that if it's between these two then random chance wins hands down because random chance as a cause is less incredible than an uncaused sentient cause. But it's like with the theory of gravity. You open your hand, and it's neither the effect of random chance nor of your conscious will that what you held falls down. You can't, for example, make it fall up. Gravity is there, it works, it's not random at all but not the product of a will either (unless by extension you make it part of the Big Bold Concept underlying the universe, which then would make everything including other religions and atheists the product of the selfsame will).

Actually I do entertain certain metaphysical ideas and beliefs, but I never treat them as if they were more than that. I concede that they may be wrong. Belief is what you need if you don't have any evidence. More valuable to me are interpretations of evidence which yield a theory when rationally analysed, and even better are hard and incontrovertible facts.

People frequently mistake belief for facts. It's much like prejudice in that way. Many people here in Western Europe used to know all kinds of "facts" about Russians during the Cold War, like "they eat babies" and so on. Prejudice and stereotypes kick in where facts and evidence are missing, and that's never very useful. But looking at the evidence natural science and historical research present me with, I see no place where the gods of any known religions still find a nook to exist. Yes, the universe might turn out to be the product of something divine, maybe even a will and a plan, but all religions are purely man-made, and were usually incepted or at least quickly perverted to be tools to dominate and subjugate, to direct hate at others and to generally cause untold woe. It may be different for the individual believer, but organized religion is just a power game.

Divine will takes its place in a row of many other theories of creation of the Universe. If you're going to stick to scientific approach you won't go any further because I don't think we will even find out 'the truth'.

Gravity is there, it works, it's not random at all but not the product of a will either (unless by extension you make it part of the Big Bold Concept underlying the universe, which then would make everything including other religions and atheists the product of the selfsame will).

Well, gravity is a consequence rather than the cause of either spontaneous or deliberate 'tuning up of the Universe'.

I noticed some tendency when 'openminded' people bash the followers of the 'divine theory' denying even the possibility of it being true (well, why not until proven otherwise at least) and at the same time listen to pure gibberish of some raving lunatic pretending to be a scietist. All theories then should be considered with equal scepticizm (at least).

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's not a proof of God's existance (well, not for them, anyway) but still an idea to ponder upon. Also try to estimate the probability of our universe coming into existence if only random chance ruled the process.

Philosophically speaking, the worst thing about that 'fine-tuning' or 'random chance' claim is that it's taken out of context. There might be 10E100000 more 'universes' co-existing and never (time is a property of a universe too) cross lanes whilst each having all kinds of constants. It's only the universe of our own which is material to us (at this point, at least). In our universe we see only the constants that our universe has. The other constants might produce a different universe with a different conscious beings perceiving their universe with their different senses (which do not exist in our universe) and making conclusion that their consciousness can not be by chance, there must be a plan (or whatever is a substitute for plan in their universe) behind it. And the other 10E100000 - 2 universes had all different constants which were unable to sustain the universe in equilibrium for some long period of time and the matter disappeared there. Bottom line - it doesn't make sense to claim the uniqueness based on only one example.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

Actually I do entertain certain metaphysical ideas and beliefs, but I never treat them as if they were more than that. I concede that they may be wrong. Belief is what you need if you don't have any evidence. More valuable to me are interpretations of evidence which yield a theory when rationally analysed, and even better are hard and incontrovertible facts.

The problem is that any intellect needs some metaphysical basis to operate. On the one hand there are some a priori assumptions, like "there is an objective reality", "I can rely on my memory to some extent" etc. You should believe, otherwise you will be unable even to start thinking. On the other hand there are some high level generalizations which can never be proved. For example. Ramil says:

The fundamental law -- the law of conservation says that nothing can be spun out of nothingness.

This is pure metaphysics but this is used indeed in actual natural science as a first approach. Even natural science can not avoid metaphysical generalizations.

Metaphysics you say? Well then there's more:
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Ramil

Metaphysics you say? Well then there's more:
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ramil, you've chosen a wrong opponent. Never mess with the physicists. I can practically feel it-ogo holding himself not to lash out with the statements that no one else would understand.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Metaphysics you say? Well then there's more:
Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, that is what I was talked about. Those guys made a mathematical model, which works good in many cases. This is the result in science. But they came to it through some process including so called creativity which is not formalized. And their way of qualitative reasoning of the concepts is in many senses metaphysical. These concepts are considered to be related to science insofar as they help specialists to build working mathematical models and to make correct predictions. You can call them mnemonic rules. They have no sense separate from mathematics and experiment.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ramil, you've chosen a wrong opponent. Never mess with the physicists. I can practically feel it-ogo holding himself not to lash out with the statements that no one else would understand.

Never. Actually this err... discourse has nothing to do with physics, it is about philosophy. Scientific instruments like theories, terms etc. are designed for a specific purposes only. Using it in philosophical dispute is senseless.

For example there is a mnemonic rule to remember colors in a rainbow: "Roy G. Biv". It really helps to remember colors. Of course, someone can interpret it in a way that there is a God and His name is Roy G. Biv, but it hardly proves anything.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I hope we haven't scared off Misha Tal (who started the thread) with all this talk about Christianity.

Not in the least!

You see, there are such things as "mid-term exams". And one might happen to have to take four of them in a row. During these delightful days, I don't shave, eat, drink, sleep, nothing. I just study to death! That's the only reason I've been away.

Actually, I'm not a very good representative of Muslims, because I'm not an especially religious person. And I don't enjoy playing the devil's advocate in religious discussions (indeed, in any discussion). I find other forum members' opinions very interesting, and in many cases I feel obliged to modify my own beliefs.

The initial post of this thread had little to do with religion in the abstract sense. But I'm glad about the turn the discussion has taken. I'll throw in my own two cents in a later post. Just to answer your own question about the word "Allah":

I have a very modest knowledge of the Arabic language, but this much I know for certain: in Arabic "al" is a definite article, like the English "the". The word "Elah" means "god", so "Allah" is something like a proper noun [The God], used to indicate a God other than other gods. And yes, Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same God. All Abrahamic religions have the same origin. But that doesn't keep the believers from religious hatred.

Originally Posted by Hanna

1) Islam recognises Jesus as a major prophet, but not (I think?) as the son of God.
2) Islam is the religion of the decendants of Hagar in the Old testament. (The woman who got kicked out into the desert by Jacob, together with her son She gets treated in a terrible way, in my opinion! ).

Point 1: Absolutely correct, as bitpicker has noted. In fact, Jesus Christ is praised in the highest terms in all Islamic texts. And the first time I read about Saint Mary in Quran, I was almost moved to tears. True, that was long ago...

Point 2: I don't know about the Christian sources, but according to the Islamic sources, Hagar was left in the desert by Abraham (not Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson, I think). Mohammad was a descendant of Ismael, Hagar's son.

Allah is a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity. Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics I:326, T & T Clark, states:

'"Allah" is a proper name, applicable only to their [Arabs'] peculiar God. '

According to the Encyclopedia of Religion:

'"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name . . . corresponding to the Babylonian Bel' (Encyclopedia of Religion, I:117 Washington DC, Corpus Pub., 1979).

For those who find it hard to believe that Allah was a pagan name for a peculiar pagan Arabian deity in pre-Islamic times, the following quotations may be helpful:

"Allah is found . . . in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" (Encyclopedia Britannica, I:643).

"The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah" (Encyclopedia off Islam, I:302, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1913, Houtsma).

"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic . . . Arabs; he was one of the Meccan deities" (Encyclopedia off Islam, I:406, ed. Gibb).

Almost all of the Muslim ceremonies are the same as what the pagan Arabs already did. The circling of the Kaaba and throwing of stones. After all, this cult was invented by one single man in a few short years.
The Cult of the Moon God

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Point 1: Absolutely correct, as bitpicker has noted. In fact, Jesus Christ is praised in the highest terms in all Islamic texts. And the first time I read about Saint Mary in Quran, I was almost moved to tears. True, that was long ago...

Point 2: I don't know about the Christian sources, but according to the Islamic sources, Hagar was left in the desert by Abraham (not Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson, I think). Mohammad was a descendant of Ismael, Hagar's son.

Mohamed had very poor knowledge of Tora and Bible so there are numerous times in the Koran where he makes mistakes and gets confused about names and such. For example Mohamed claimed that Moses was raised by Egyptian king's wife instead of his daughter. This is why Mohamed had to cover his mistakes by saying the "Jews changed the Bible". However in your case Mohamed was right. Abraham kicked Ishmael and his mother out, not Jacob. But mohamed goes on the say the Ishmael received the "Birthright" when clearly, he did not. That's why he was kicked out, so that their would be no dispute over Isaac receiving the Birthright.

Also, Mohamed's praise for Jesus is in name only. Mohamed did not believe the things that Jesus preached as a matter fact Mohamed preached the exact opposite of Jesus and performed works contrary to Jesus. Jesus did not behead his enemies nor did he enslave their wives. Mohamed preached jihad, while Jesus told his disciples to "shake the dust from your coat and move on when people do not receive your gospel."

Originally Posted by Sgt. Cold

Mohamed had very poor knowledge of Tora and Bible...

In fact, Mohammad had no such knowledge whatsoever. The fact that he was illiterate is explicitly stated in Quran. According to the Islamic faith, neither Quran nor Tora were written by mere mortals. Moses, Jesus and Mohammad were not "writers". They didn't make things up. They were only "messengers".

As for your anti-Islam rhetoric, it only proves my point about religious hatred.

Ok, Sergeant Cold; it's clear that you don't like Islam or Mohammed -- but islam is a major monotheistic faith alongside Christianity: It has an amazing amount of similarities with Christianity and Judaism. Its holy texts interlap. The Allah of Islam and God of Christianity is most likely the same God.

The question is: Who is right or wrong about Mohammed and Jesus (prophet, son of God etc..)? I have chosen to believe that it is Christianity. But nobody can prove any of this with any degree of absolute certainty! That's why it's called faith! Moslems are just as passionate about their faith as we are about ours. (or in the case of some -- as uninterested!!) We should respect Muslims, just as they should respect us.

The ideal situation would be that God accepted anyone with sincere faith in him, who's tried to live a good life.
Some points in the Bible (and probably the Koran, although I haven't read it) would suggest not.. But then there is a lot of room for interpretation when reading the Bible.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

In fact, Mohammad had no such knowledge whatsoever. The fact that he was illiterate is explicitly stated in Quran. According to the Islamic faith, neither Quran nor Tora were written by mere mortals. Moses, Jesus and Mohammad were not "writers". They didn't make things up. They were only "messengers".

But it should be said that nothing in the New Testament is attributed to Jesus as a writer, it's more like a biography. And the books about Moses aren't written by the Moses person either, it would be very strange for him to say things like "he was born on..." and especially "he died then and there and afterwards...". In fact it has been established that the five Biblical books of Moses are themselves collections of texts spanning generations and which are even mutually exclusive and internally inconsistent. So the only factual writer (or rather illiterate narrator whose uttered words were written down directly or at a later date according to hearsay) among these is Mohammad. Whether such dictation is divinely influenced or not remains a matter of faith alone.

Historically speaking it is true that there was a separate "Allah" mythology before Islam and a separate YHVH (or El, Elohim, etc.) mythology or even several before Judaism and Christianity. All three monotheistic religions have roots in elements which existed long before the pertaining scriptures. And insofar as these elements are separate it is correct to say the gods are not the same. However, that's not very useful because Islam is a reinterpretation of the old pagan faith in the terms of the surrounding monotheistic religions, just as Christianity is a reinterpretation of Judaism, and insofar they focus on the same divine being. Myths get reinterpreted and transferred from one protagonist to another all the time. In pre-scripture times that was how it was done. Different peoples met, and when they got along they began exchanging stories about their gods. And they translated those gods just like they translated language. For example, all accounts of the Great Flood agree that there is a main protagonist as the sole survivor (sole plus his family at least, but the important one is just the partriarch), and this person is called variously Atrahasis, Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah, and the stories differ in almost all respect except the statement that this person built a vessel and survived the flood. Of course that's no god in either of the stories, but the same is true for all the various Els and Baals and whatnot.

And saying that "Allah" is purely Arabic and not Hebrew is about as useful as saying that "finger" is pure English and not German (which uses the same word for the same thing), forgetting that the common root for Allah and El and the other versions mentioned is a family of languages called Semitic. So the name is not a good argument for stating that different gods are referred to either.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

But it should be said that nothing in the New Testament is attributed to Jesus as a writer, it's more like a biography.

Your deduction is flawless, except for the fact that it doesn't disprove the Islamic interpretation. Islam holds that the text of the Bible has undergone various modifications by Christian clergies. Things have been added and deleted here and there. It's hardly any surprise that the remaining looks more like a biography.

Actually, there are many lines in the Quran that prove it wasn't written by Mohammad in person. There are prophecies and historical references and such. So a non-Muslim can question the validity of the claim that "the Quran is divinely dictated" in a similar way: it has been manipulated by others.

What remains unquestionable, is the fact that Muslims, from pagan Arabs all the way to our time, have always held Jesus and Moses in high esteem. Talking in disrespectful language about Jesus is considered as foul as doing so about Mohammad. In that regard, Muslims rarely receive mutual respect from Christians and Jews.