Does God Lie 2?
Hmmm. That makes it clear. That seems to ruin and finish my argument. إن شاء الله I’ll contemplate on it further. جزاكم الله خيرا for your help so far
We’re not searching for God’s motives. Based on evidence we know that God is all powerful, that He has created us, and that He could have molded our perception as well as faculties of reason and rationality differently if He had so willed rather than lying to us. It’s very straightforward. Those who raise this kind of doubts are not raising any doubts on God, but are in fact contradicting their own knowledge and behavior – in fact even their own existence. Knowledge is not based on speculative ideas or contradictions. When someone has any evidence to their argument, we’ll evaluate it then. Until such time the burden of proof lies squarely on their shoulders.
He HAS molded our rationality though. He created it. Why did he create apples red rather than blue? No one has the answer except him. So for us to say ‘it doesn’t make sense that he didn’t choose the straightforward path’ is arbitrary since we don’t have the right to ask this questions. What evidence is that he tells the truth? From what I have thought of from other discussions would be that we find justice in ourselves. And a bit of injustice means full injustice. So God has to be fully just. Then the question arises if then why is there injustice? The answer would be the principle that this creation and life is a test. It answers all the questions. Unless we had revelation to tell us this we could not know I guess. Because you can’t be just and unjust at the same time
The point that I’m trying to drive across is that if we doubt God then even our definition of justice is questionable. The very logic and reason that we’re using to make our arguments is questionable. Even our awareness of our own existence is in the line of fire. If it works for you then so be it, but I find no value in arguing from this angle. The problem must be approached from the most fundamental level – epistemology. There must be some static basis of our argument, and I’m convinced that it’s the definition and the sources of our knowledge.
But by your own definition you cannot prove anything 😂 😂 😂 That’s the premise of everything you’ve been saying throughout this thread 😂
I totally agree with everyone, but Shoaib. Shoaib has the liberty to imagine anything, but others have to prove. Using the same rules now, I can prove that Shoaib can’t prove to me that he is real. If he could prove it to me, I will give him a everything I own. He can never prove it, because there are no rules, no moderator and I can keep assuming and putting burden on Shoaib to prove till eternity. 🤣