Islam is very misunderstood by people in my opinion

Yeah Bro that totally makes sense. I also believe that for many religion can be great motivation for good in life which I respect for sure!

Good example can be even with NoFap itself, it is great help for many and at the end of the day no one knows what future will bring-even our character changes so its hard to say “that way is right for sure” yet know that 7years ago we were thinking something else and in next 7years good chances that it will evolve again. As long as we give something positive to the world it is totally fine and I truly believe that there is for sure ton of good hearted and peaceful muslims, as it is also case for other religions. Peace!

 

You shouldn't believe something because it is motivating. You should believe something because you think it's true. For example, I do NoFap because many studies say pornography is harmful. I am asking to evaluate each religion and to see which one is right.

 

Hope you find what you're looking for, as you age you'll see new paradigms and change your mind again and again.

 

I'll only change my mind if I've been given good reasons to do so. Why do you believe what you believe?

 

Because I can witness it happening in and around me.

 

What do you witness happening around you? What do you believe exactly?

 

I follow philosophy and science, then fill in the blanks with intuition and my own psychic forces so I don't know what to call it, but when I need help I lean on Hermetic Principals.

 

You follow philosophy? Well here are some philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
The first argument is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
If this was not true, then things would pop into existence all the time. The idea that things that begin to exist have a reason for their existence is at the very heart of science.
2. The Universe began to exist.
The Big Bang Theory supports this. There is overwhelming evidence for it, like the expansion of the Universe and the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem says that any universe that has been, on average, expanding throughout its existence must have an absolute beginning. A past infinite universe is impossible anyway. Hilbert's Hotel, which is a hotel with infinite people, says that if everybody above the third room checks out, then an infinite number of people have left the hotel, and you have three people left in the hotel. If only the odd-numbered guests checked out, then an infinite number of people would have left the hotel, and an infinite number of people would remain. These absurdities show that an infinite amount of things cannot exist in reality. Also, if an infinite amount of time existed before now, then how could we ever get to this point? It makes no sense.
3. The Universe has a cause.
In order to cause the Universe, you must be outside of it. This means that you must be outside of space and time. The cause of the Universe must also be powerful enough to create the Universe, and be able to perform an action on its own, which requires personal agency. So we have a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal cause of the Universe.

The second argument is the Argument from Reason or Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
If God does not exist, then we do not have free will, and everything we do would be explained by evolution. If you accept determinism, then you must accept that your decision to accept determinism was pre-determined. You did not have the choice to weigh the options because everything you believed was pre-determined. Why would you accept random atoms moving around according to the laws of physics, which have no concern for whether you believe in the truth? Determinism could be a model selected by the brain to promote survival. In fact, a belief in reality would be too complex and put too much strain on the brain compared to a false, simpler model. Determinism and naturalism defeat themselves.

The third argument is the Teleological Argument.
The constants of the Universe are tuned to a very specific, life-permitting range. The Cosmological Constant has a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 probability of being in a life-permitting range. If the Cosmological Constant was different, then planets, stars, and life could not exist. There are many other examples of things like this. This is too unlikely to be simple chance, and the Universe didn't have to be this way. Some people suggest that there is a Multiverse, with an infinite amount of universes. As I stated in the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an infinite amount of things cannot exist in reality. Why would our extremely improbable universe exist in the Multiverse? The Multiverse must have some fine-tuning as well to explain our existence. The solution is that our Universe was intentionally created with these constants to allow planets, stars, and life to exist.

The conclusion is that an intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal designer of the Universe.

 

I agree the Universe has a cause, though the creepy thing about this is that it could have always been here, no big bang, nothing, it was here because that's all there was, here, nowhere else, not nothing, just here, no start no end, that's what makes it god, all powerful, it could have created itself as the big bang, we don't know anything outside of the hazy micro thin layer between theory and fact, hell we are still figuring out healthcare for individuals.

We can come up with as many theories as we can as humans, but all of our knowledge comes from each others life experiences, lets look at the micro and macro to scratch at how insane contemplating god is, zoom in on your hand keep going till you see every level till you reach the atoms comprising your being, ponder in awe of this concept now zoom out past your body past your home on the planet we call earth, past the stars in our galaxy and then past neighboring universes and beyond that and beyond that and beyond that so on till who even knows.

If someone asks me if god exists, I just say look around you.

 

Two problems with that:
1)I didn't say that "you should believe something because it is motivating"-I merely pointed out objective (objectivity in this context means not depending on observers religion or lack of it) value behind religion from NoFap point of view or/and general encouragement for positive change. That does not mean that religion can impact someones life only in constructive/positive way, it is always motivating (if that was the case only nonbelievers and/or subset of "false" religions would struggle with things like NoFap lol) or even that it can be treated as perfect source of morality-i.e. here can go even quotes which you've already threw.

2)Believing does not equal thinking that something is logical truth. God itself is illogical concept (even preachers say that it is "above logic" lol). I would say that case of believing or not is more related to emotions (need to be part of certain community, feel of duty, looking for some comfort or oversimplified explanation for some struggle/issues which one is unable to easily get rid of, or sometimes like "I feel that he is watching me" or something). We as humans can pretend that we are like 100% logical but this is not the case, even psychopaths have their own twisted nuances which are not always compatible with logic.

Forgive me but I now have limited time still will try later on/tomorrow debunk/response to those three arguments which you've threw (should be interesting for sure ^^)-yet notice that as entry point you are now using general layer of defense "There is issue X which is either hard or impossible to fully address so that means that there needs to exist some infinitely more complex abstract being(/s)", with next layer probably being "this book has perfect insights of that infinitely complex abstract being-not all the other. All 666 (pun intended ) other religions/sects are false and man made, including couple very close to that one which I happen to believe in right now".

 

Well, I think that it is the logical truth. I did not say that any particular religion was true yet. I am only saying that God exists. God is not an infinitely abstract or complex being. Why would say that God is an illogical concept? I am only saying that there must be a cause to the Universe, and that the cause must be outside of the Universe, including space, time, and matter. These attributes line up with the attributes of God. I am also saying that the constants of the Universe appear to be designed. I am saying that you cannot say you rationally accept determinism. The way I am coming to the conclusion of God is by observing the Universe around me. Hamlet cannot look in the book for evidence of Shakespeare, but he can notice how the world seems to follow a plot to come to that conclusion.

 

So you're saying God exists, but we cannot know anything about him?

 

exactly, we know as much about god as your clipped toenail knows about you, it's of you but not you.

 

Okay, I see. I want everyone on the same page, so I'll answer devsMind's objections before moving on to yours. You are at least a theist.

 

Looks like we’ve gained momentum in our discussion!

Ok-so lets revert question-how complex is God?
To make question more reasonable-I am assuming that God is more complex than total sum of humans, living beings etc but would be good to know it from you:

Is God more powerful & complex than universe/multiverse itself?

Assuming that you will answer “yep” next question would be:
so is it truly beneficial to swap effort related to looking for origin of universe into just saying that it was done by something beyond understanding? Notice that theists gladly say things like “God did it” yet dodge next logical question “what/who created God?”

Saying that God is eternal is certainly not enough as there are already some theories which will fall back to concept of eternity-yet are not requiring additional massively abstract being. Example of that would be i.e. multiverse theory which at least does not require sentient invisible entity.

Wishing you great Wednesday!

 

All means all, it is itself experiencing itself, think of a Mandelbrot art that moves into and out of the micro and macro, vibrates at every known and unknown frequency, unlimited power, a vast system that has no beginning or end, time is but a construct, it consumes itself from itself, chaos and order, unstoppable in its movement and unmovable in it wake, it is all, even saying all that it's a far cry from its true full description if it even has one.

 

Yeah totally forgot about that
To clarify and ensure that we are on the same page-before we have even started discussion about existence of something like God we should have first understood if we are using same definition for that God in question.

I mean if by God we kinda assume everything which exists (so like energy, all atoms in universe and/or all possible events/timelines etc) then as long as we can associate it with all stuff around us we could just conclude “stuff exists therefore God which is also that stuff exists”-but that approach would take away any traces of Gods personality contradicting that way many most popular holy books plus not sure what we are gaining here-we could probably just use word “universe” instead that “passive/background” God.

What I next say is not meant to hurt anyone-it is just my personal opinion.

Personally when I hear word God I associate it with sky daddy from old testament-sometimes nice & loving, sometimes angry & full of envy, throwing people to eternal hell and stuff-and this is something which I am not buying at all.

 

yeah it's a paradox

 

How is God more complex than all humans? God is not even more complex than a single human. God does not have body parts, cells, organelles, proteins, etc. God is simply a spaceless, timeless, ultra-powerful, being that created the Universe. That's it. That's not really something that complex. Now I see you are asking, "Who created God?" The first premise of the first argument says, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." God did not begin to exist, so he doesn't need a creator. He is a necessary being. I address the multiverse theory later in the post with the Hilbert's Hotel example. A multiverse cannot exist because an infinite amount of things cannot exist. If there were an infinite number of universes, and a new universe popped into being, then there would still be an infinite number of universes, so ∞=∞+1. This is absurd, so an infinite number of things cannot exist in reality. Assuming an infinite amount of things exist is way more complicated than assuming one thing exists, anyway. It's also Thursday where I live.

 

Can you elaborate more? how can an all encompassing being not be more complex than its creations? we don't know or contemplate everything, I'm using shorthand to even conceptualize this thought, for example what is a thought, the imagery and context that come to you as if out of nowhere. Many a Nobel prize are waiting for you if you can do it.