A Critique of Pure Atheism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 25250
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Immanuel Can »

LuckyR wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:10 pm What you can say, in all fairness, is "I, personally, have no evidence for the existence of the metaphysical," or better, "I don't recognize that I have any evidence for the metaphysical." And if you stopped there, it would be fine. But can you really go on to add, "...therefore, nobody else can possibly have any evidence for the metaphysical," or even "it's impossible that I'm overlooking evidence I actually do have for the metaphysical"?

For I think you do have such evidence, whether you're prepared to recognize it or not. And I say that because human beings all have "spooky" stuff like cognition, self-awareness, aesthetic or moral judgments, rationality, personhood, or soul -- none of which can be confirmed by mere physical test, but all of which we actually depend on for doing things like the task you and I are performing right now...discussing.

I submit to you that the problem with physical tests is that they test only the physical. :shock: As such, they are completely incapable of telling us whether or not the physical is all there is. But other things can tell us that the physical is NOT all there is, such as our ability to question whether or not the physical is all there is, which employs our minds, our reasoning, our consciousness...all the spooky stuff you're currently supposing can't possibly exist: the metaphysical.
Ah, thanks for more detailed explanation. In that case we're in agreement. I just happen to use the label "beliefs" to describe what you call "spooky stuff".
Well, why? Everybody "believes" things. Don't you think that, say Determinists "believe in" Determinism? Or when I scientist is asked if he's found a solution to a problem, and he says, "I believe I have," do we suppose he's lying? Or is he just referring to the normal human practice of arriving at the best explanation of the phenomena in hand, and supposing the most likely conclusion?

If that's what "belief" means, in so many benign contexts, why would we imagine that "belief" had to mean something different in other contexts?
And I use the term "evidence" for what you call "physical tests".
That would be a problem. It would mean you'd have to think there was no "evidence" for anything that wasn't physical. And that's clearly not the case. You certainly have evidence of your selfhood and your own cognition, for example...but no physical proof. And you have evidence for me being another such entity, and writing back to you. Those are so obvious you probably don't even bother to question them...but they're not physical, and can't produce that sort of "evidence."
Thus I may or may not believe in, say an eternal soul. You may or may not feel some spooky stuff that convinces you that you possess an eternal soul. Regardless neither of us can concoct a physical test to answer once and for all whether an eternal soul exists.
And yet, you're already acting as if you do have some spooky thing called "personhood," or "intelligence," or "cognition," or "identity"...these are non-physical realities no reasonable person doubts -- rather like "reason" itself.
Historically humans could not explain bacterial illness and thus metaphysical explanations were created to help make sense of observations and to provide psychological comfort. Of course through time physical evidence of bacterial illness was uncovered and thus as an entity it passed from the metaphysical to the physical. That is, if physical evidence exists about something, it can't be (by definition) metaphysical. Who knows maybe in the future gods will pass from the metaphysical to the physical. Personally I doubt it.
The problem with that analogy is that it describes when human beings simply lacked the physical means to demonstrate what is a thoroughly physical phenomenon. But it doesn't imply all cases are like that.

Here's a different case: Aristotle believed in reason. In the thousands of years intervening, human beings have not come even one step closer to finding a physical explanation for reason. They know of entities that have cortexes and brains of various kinds, which seem to be the location of that operation; but no evidence of reason itself. They can detect it only from its manifestations, not at all from its substances. And yet, they don't have the slightest doubt that reason is a real thing.

So what gives us justification to believe that in the next thousand years, reason will be found to be a physical entity? Is that not nothing more than an imagining, or a wish? There's zero evidence that any such thing will ever happen. And if something as ordinary as reason is eluding our test tubes, our vernier calipers and our measuring sticks, what reason do we have to think that God should be a simpler matter?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15253
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

LuckyR wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:10 pm What you can say, in all fairness, is "I, personally, have no evidence for the existence of the metaphysical," or better, "I don't recognize that I have any evidence for the metaphysical." And if you stopped there, it would be fine. But can you really go on to add, "...therefore, nobody else can possibly have any evidence for the metaphysical," or even "it's impossible that I'm overlooking evidence I actually do have for the metaphysical"?

For I think you do have such evidence, whether you're prepared to recognize it or not. And I say that because human beings all have "spooky" stuff like cognition, self-awareness, aesthetic or moral judgments, rationality, personhood, or soul -- none of which can be confirmed by mere physical test, but all of which we actually depend on for doing things like the task you and I are performing right now...discussing.

I submit to you that the problem with physical tests is that they test only the physical. :shock: As such, they are completely incapable of telling us whether or not the physical is all there is. But other things can tell us that the physical is NOT all there is, such as our ability to question whether or not the physical is all there is, which employs our minds, our reasoning, our consciousness...all the spooky stuff you're currently supposing can't possibly exist: the metaphysical.
Ah, thanks for more detailed explanation. In that case we're in agreement. I just happen to use the label "beliefs" to describe what you call "spooky stuff". And I use the term "evidence" for what you call "physical tests". Thus I may or may not believe in, say an eternal soul. You may or may not feel some spooky stuff that convinces you that you possess an eternal soul. Regardless neither of us can concoct a physical test to answer once and for all whether an eternal soul exists.

Historically humans could not explain bacterial illness and thus metaphysical explanations were created to help make sense of observations and to provide psychological comfort. Of course through time physical evidence of bacterial illness was uncovered and thus as an entity it passed from the metaphysical to the physical. That is, if physical evidence exists about something, it can't be (by definition) metaphysical. Who knows maybe in the future gods will pass from the metaphysical to the physical. Personally I doubt it.
I see you were easily cornered by IC when you don't have a solid grounding.

There is no way IC can counter my FSER and FSK approach as the grounding of reality, i.e. all-there-is.

It is not a question of 'physical' rather it is whether whatever is claimed is real or unreal [false].

My main principle:
All-there-is, i.e. things, reality, facts, truth, knowledge, are conditioned upon a human-based [collective-of-humans] framework and system [FS] of emergence, reality and knowledge;
viewtopic.php?t=43232
the scientific FS is the most credible and objective as the gold standard.
viewtopic.php?t=43171
where empirical evidence carry a very significant weightage.

The theistic FS or FSK/FSERC main weightage is 'God exists' which cannot be verified via the scientific FS as the gold standard.
As such if the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FS is indexed at 100/100, then the credibility of the theistic FS has to be 1/100.

Despite that, the theistic FS which is grounded on an illusion [relatively unreality], is nevertheless critically useful to soothe the terribly painful existential angsts.
User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2023 11:56 pm
Location: The Great NW

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by LuckyR »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:26 am
LuckyR wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 3:10 pm What you can say, in all fairness, is "I, personally, have no evidence for the existence of the metaphysical," or better, "I don't recognize that I have any evidence for the metaphysical." And if you stopped there, it would be fine. But can you really go on to add, "...therefore, nobody else can possibly have any evidence for the metaphysical," or even "it's impossible that I'm overlooking evidence I actually do have for the metaphysical"?

For I think you do have such evidence, whether you're prepared to recognize it or not. And I say that because human beings all have "spooky" stuff like cognition, self-awareness, aesthetic or moral judgments, rationality, personhood, or soul -- none of which can be confirmed by mere physical test, but all of which we actually depend on for doing things like the task you and I are performing right now...discussing.

I submit to you that the problem with physical tests is that they test only the physical. :shock: As such, they are completely incapable of telling us whether or not the physical is all there is. But other things can tell us that the physical is NOT all there is, such as our ability to question whether or not the physical is all there is, which employs our minds, our reasoning, our consciousness...all the spooky stuff you're currently supposing can't possibly exist: the metaphysical.
Ah, thanks for more detailed explanation. In that case we're in agreement. I just happen to use the label "beliefs" to describe what you call "spooky stuff". And I use the term "evidence" for what you call "physical tests". Thus I may or may not believe in, say an eternal soul. You may or may not feel some spooky stuff that convinces you that you possess an eternal soul. Regardless neither of us can concoct a physical test to answer once and for all whether an eternal soul exists.

Historically humans could not explain bacterial illness and thus metaphysical explanations were created to help make sense of observations and to provide psychological comfort. Of course through time physical evidence of bacterial illness was uncovered and thus as an entity it passed from the metaphysical to the physical. That is, if physical evidence exists about something, it can't be (by definition) metaphysical. Who knows maybe in the future gods will pass from the metaphysical to the physical. Personally I doubt it.
I see you were easily cornered by IC when you don't have a solid grounding.

There is no way IC can counter my FSER and FSK approach as the grounding of reality, i.e. all-there-is.

It is not a question of 'physical' rather it is whether whatever is claimed is real or unreal [false].

My main principle:
All-there-is, i.e. things, reality, facts, truth, knowledge, are conditioned upon a human-based [collective-of-humans] framework and system [FS] of emergence, reality and knowledge;
viewtopic.php?t=43232
the scientific FS is the most credible and objective as the gold standard.
viewtopic.php?t=43171
where empirical evidence carry a very significant weightage.

The theistic FS or FSK/FSERC main weightage is 'God exists' which cannot be verified via the scientific FS as the gold standard.
As such if the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FS is indexed at 100/100, then the credibility of the theistic FS has to be 1/100.

Despite that, the theistic FS which is grounded on an illusion [relatively unreality], is nevertheless critically useful to soothe the terribly painful existential angsts.
Sure, basically you, I and IC agree with your blue statement. We're just using different labels and analogies to say it. No harm, no foul. As to his going on about "reason", that's obviously a lay term to describe an observation of human behavior, that has little to no real meaning to the neurobiological researchers who are in the best position to ponder the "physical" properties of the Black Box that "reason" currently is.

My main point to him was that some things defy being sorted into the real or unreal (to use your parlance). But to be honest that’s a pretty mundane topic. The dude just chooses the oddest “analogies” to attempt to represent another’s comment, it kind of kills any sort of meaningful communication. Oh well.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15253
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

LuckyR wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:26 am
LuckyR wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:14 pm

Ah, thanks for more detailed explanation. In that case we're in agreement. I just happen to use the label "beliefs" to describe what you call "spooky stuff". And I use the term "evidence" for what you call "physical tests". Thus I may or may not believe in, say an eternal soul. You may or may not feel some spooky stuff that convinces you that you possess an eternal soul. Regardless neither of us can concoct a physical test to answer once and for all whether an eternal soul exists.

Historically humans could not explain bacterial illness and thus metaphysical explanations were created to help make sense of observations and to provide psychological comfort. Of course through time physical evidence of bacterial illness was uncovered and thus as an entity it passed from the metaphysical to the physical. That is, if physical evidence exists about something, it can't be (by definition) metaphysical. Who knows maybe in the future gods will pass from the metaphysical to the physical. Personally I doubt it.
I see you were easily cornered by IC when you don't have a solid grounding.

There is no way IC can counter my FSER and FSK approach as the grounding of reality, i.e. all-there-is.

It is not a question of 'physical' rather it is whether whatever is claimed is real or unreal [false].

My main principle:
All-there-is, i.e. things, reality, facts, truth, knowledge, are conditioned upon a human-based [collective-of-humans] framework and system [FS] of emergence, reality and knowledge;
viewtopic.php?t=43232
the scientific FS is the most credible and objective as the gold standard.
viewtopic.php?t=43171
where empirical evidence carry a very significant weightage.

The theistic FS or FSK/FSERC main weightage is 'God exists' which cannot be verified via the scientific FS as the gold standard.
As such if the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FS is indexed at 100/100, then the credibility of the theistic FS has to be 1/100.

Despite that, the theistic FS which is grounded on an illusion [relatively unreality], is nevertheless critically useful to soothe the terribly painful existential angsts.
Sure, basically you, I and IC agree with your blue statement. We're just using different labels and analogies to say it. No harm, no foul. As to his going on about "reason", that's obviously a lay term to describe an observation of human behavior, that has little to no real meaning to the neurobiological researchers who are in the best position to ponder the "physical" properties of the Black Box that "reason" currently is.

My main point to him was that some things defy being sorted into the real or unreal (to use your parlance). But to be honest that’s a pretty mundane topic. The dude just chooses the oddest “analogies” to attempt to represent another’s comment, it kind of kills any sort of meaningful communication. Oh well.
If you and IC do not make what is intended in the blue statement formally with a well defined structure, you and IC are merely doing it perhaps intuitively which is very loose.
It must be made formal and structured else anything goes.

When we talk of 'reason' we have to formalize it within a 'reason' FSERK which is objective.
We then need to increase its credibility and objectivity by leverage it on science, e.g. empirical evidences from the neurosciences FSK, the psychological FSK, the philosophical FSK and whatever it takes to prop up its credibility and objectivity.
In addition, the faculty of reason come it is degree of competence from crude-primal reason to the highest refined rationality and critical thinking.

The idea of God is also reasoned but it is based on very crude-primal reasoning and it end up with negligible credibility and objectivity.

When I asserted anything of reality I will ground it on its specific FSERC or FSK thus establishing its degree of credibility and objectivity which is transparent and open to verification.
It you don't specify the conditions, how do we know whether what is proposed has credibility or objectivity?
Skepdick
Posts: 15253
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 8:59 am If you and IC do not make what is intended in the blue statement formally with a well defined structure, you and IC are merely doing it perhaps intuitively which is very loose.
It must be made formal and structured else anything goes.
Then I guess anything goes...

If you want to be a formalist, don't be shy. Talk to me in a formal language, not English.
Age
Posts: 24056
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am
LuckyR wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 6:54 pm OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.
Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.
AND, 'the view' that God is, LAUGHABLY, A 'male gendered person or being' is, OBVIOUSLY, NEVER EVER going to be even REMOTELY CLOSE TO BEING RIGHT, let alone BEING ACTUALLY Right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile.
'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.
Belinda
Posts: 8634
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 8:59 am If you and IC do not make what is intended in the blue statement formally with a well defined structure, you and IC are merely doing it perhaps intuitively which is very loose.
It must be made formal and structured else anything goes.
Then I guess anything goes...

If you want to be a formalist, don't be shy. Talk to me in a formal language, not English.
Skepdick, few English speakers also know the special computer languages that I think you know. I think what you mean is that Veritas A should be more explicit and more definitive, and the use of disciplined and explicit language would tighten up Veritas A's reasoning.
Skepdick
Posts: 15253
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 8:59 am If you and IC do not make what is intended in the blue statement formally with a well defined structure, you and IC are merely doing it perhaps intuitively which is very loose.
It must be made formal and structured else anything goes.
Then I guess anything goes...

If you want to be a formalist, don't be shy. Talk to me in a formal language, not English.
Skepdick, few English speakers also know the special computer languages that I think you know. I think what you mean is that Veritas A should be more explicit and more definitive, and the use of disciplined and explicit language would tighten up Veritas A's reasoning.
Sure, but from that lens formalizm becomes a game of minimising ambiguity for the reasoner themselves. Not maximizing content for the audience.

You can formalize anything with enough effort. It's just reductionism gone wild. The more formal - the more meaningless it becomes to a broad audience.

Let the universe be X!
Belinda
Posts: 8634
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am
LuckyR wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 6:54 pm OMG. This guy uses his own particular definition of what (or who) a "god" might be. Ignoring the other 9,999 gods.
Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.
AND, 'the view' that God is, LAUGHABLY, A 'male gendered person or being' is, OBVIOUSLY, NEVER EVER going to be even REMOTELY CLOSE TO BEING RIGHT, let alone BEING ACTUALLY Right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile.
'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.
Certainly Allah stands on his own merits same as Jehovah and Jehovah's successor Trinitarian God. Allah and Jehovah are identical except that Allah has more recently been interpreted by Muhammad and Muhammad's purportedly received wisdom. These Gods are real in the sense that goodness and truth are real.
In practice it does not matter a lot whether or not one believes Abrahamic Gods are supernatural beings or human ideas, as long as the moral codes are kept with as the best we know of goodness and truth.
Belinda
Posts: 8634
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:26 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:14 am
Then I guess anything goes...

If you want to be a formalist, don't be shy. Talk to me in a formal language, not English.
Skepdick, few English speakers also know the special computer languages that I think you know. I think what you mean is that Veritas A should be more explicit and more definitive, and the use of disciplined and explicit language would tighten up Veritas A's reasoning.
Sure, but from that lens formalizm becomes a game of minimising ambiguity for the reasoner themselves. Not maximizing content for the audience.

You can formalize anything with enough effort. It's just reductionism gone wild. The more formal - the more meaningless it becomes to a broad audience.

Let the universe be X!
Reductionism can't go wild, as all it does is ignore variables. Going wild in the sense of creativity is a Good Thing.
Certainly we try to synthesise ideas if only because ambiguity is uncomfortable to live with, and that process is hard mental work and not at all reductionist.
There is nothing dry and overly academic about the mental task of synthesising thesis and antithesis. As an everyday task I do it constantly when I am doing my chores.

Your other point concerns who Veritas A is talking to, himself or others

Even if Veritas A's transmission is in the form of flow of his consciousness with no receiver in view, then he may still not be rationalising; on the contrary he may factor in his own prejudices.
How then may we pursue truth without prejudice? Formal languages are only one of the media. There is also poetic language which also speaks truth if we are enabled by our teachers to read poetic language.
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 24056
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:39 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am
Well, only one view is going to be right. Truth works that way.
AND, 'the view' that God is, LAUGHABLY, A 'male gendered person or being' is, OBVIOUSLY, NEVER EVER going to be even REMOTELY CLOSE TO BEING RIGHT, let alone BEING ACTUALLY Right.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am I can't really understand the worry. That is, unless you're hoping to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Set, or Shiva, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, and think they're fragile.
'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:04 am But if you're worried about them, don't be too concerned: if they're real, they can stand on their own merits; and if not, they won't care anyway.
Certainly Allah stands on his own merits same as Jehovah and Jehovah's successor Trinitarian God. Allah and Jehovah are identical except that Allah has more recently been interpreted by Muhammad and Muhammad's purportedly received wisdom. These Gods are real in the sense that goodness and truth are real.
In practice it does not matter a lot whether or not one believes Abrahamic Gods are supernatural beings or human ideas, as long as the moral codes are kept with as the best we know of goodness and truth.
Did any of what you just said and wrote, here, have any thing at all to do with what you quoted me saying and writing, above?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?
Belinda
Posts: 8634
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:39 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:16 am

AND, 'the view' that God is, LAUGHABLY, A 'male gendered person or being' is, OBVIOUSLY, NEVER EVER going to be even REMOTELY CLOSE TO BEING RIGHT, let alone BEING ACTUALLY Right.


'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Certainly Allah stands on his own merits same as Jehovah and Jehovah's successor Trinitarian God. Allah and Jehovah are identical except that Allah has more recently been interpreted by Muhammad and Muhammad's purportedly received wisdom. These Gods are real in the sense that goodness and truth are real.
In practice it does not matter a lot whether or not one believes Abrahamic Gods are supernatural beings or human ideas, as long as the moral codes are kept with as the best we know of goodness and truth.
Did any of what you just said and wrote, here, have any thing at all to do with what you quoted me saying and writing, above?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?
Sorry, Age. I sometimes become confused as to the embedded quotation boxes, and so I did not want to quote anyone in particular. However your
'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.
is what I was addressing.
Age
Posts: 24056
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Critique of Pure Atheism

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 1:05 pm
Age wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 12:39 pm

Certainly Allah stands on his own merits same as Jehovah and Jehovah's successor Trinitarian God. Allah and Jehovah are identical except that Allah has more recently been interpreted by Muhammad and Muhammad's purportedly received wisdom. These Gods are real in the sense that goodness and truth are real.
In practice it does not matter a lot whether or not one believes Abrahamic Gods are supernatural beings or human ideas, as long as the moral codes are kept with as the best we know of goodness and truth.
Did any of what you just said and wrote, here, have any thing at all to do with what you quoted me saying and writing, above?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?
Sorry, Age. I sometimes become confused as to the embedded quotation boxes, and so I did not want to quote anyone in particular. However your
'This one' OF ALL the people, here, STILL, does NOT KNOW WHO and WHAT the word 'Allah' is ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.
is what I was addressing.
Okay, so if you were, REALLY, addressing what I said and wrote, there, then what part/s are you addressing, EXACTLY?

And, HOW, EXACTLY, does what you said and wrote apply to what I said and wrote?
Post Reply