What are the attributes of God?+

[paarsurrey1]

+ And what attributes among them are neither physical nor spiritual?

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

All positive verities in absolute terms found and perceived by humans in nature are attributes of One-True-God, many of which are mentioned in Quran, please.

Paarsurrey, we know God is good, merciful, pious, powerful, amazing and anything else we want to say, but in discussion and debate is it possible to show HOW we know this? We can sit down quietly, have a cup of tea, and write a few things about God. What possible value has this? Some read the Quran and make conclusions based on their total belief that the words come from God. If we don't accept they are God's words then we have not the slightest idea of the attributes of God. So that is the situation: we do not know the attributes of God.

We know attributes of One-True-God through His Converse with the Prophets/Messengers of Him that are manifested in the Universe. I believe it is reasonable. The claim is there from the One-True-God in the First-Person and it is demonstrated by Him in the universe and is reasonable. While there is no other claimant whose Converse is pristine, secure, reasonable and His attributes are demonstrated in the universe.
So, we know One-True-God and His attributes. Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

We know attributes of One-True-God through His Converse with the Prophets/Messengers of Him that are manifested in the Universe. I believe it is reasonable. The claim is there from the One-True-God in the First-Person and it is demonstrated by Him in the universe and is reasonable. While there is no other claimant whose Converse is pristine, secure, reasonable and His attributes are demonstrated in the universe.
So, we know One-True-God and His attributes. Right, please?

Many people have claimed to have heard God speak and shown them signs. Muhammad is one of many. I don't for a moment think the Arab trader listened to God in the Middle East of the 7th century and accurately recorded God's words. When you say his "converse is pristine, secure and reasonable and his attributes are demonstrated" you are simply making a statement of the form: "I believe this." That is fine. I don't believe it. Joseph Smith made a similar claim but had no army to back his claim up, nor a falling Roman Empire to conquer. So Muhammad wins the word battle by pure circumstance, not from truth. Jesus beats Muhammad in the area of miracles.

So, we have no idea what God's attributes are. We can guess, but we might as well attach them to Jupiter or Thor.

[paarsurrey1]

We know attributes of One-True-God through His Converse with the Prophets/Messengers of Him that are manifested in the Universe. I believe it is reasonable. The claim is there from the One-True-God in the First-Person and it is demonstrated by Him in the universe and is reasonable. While there is no other claimant whose Converse is pristine, secure, reasonable and His attributes are demonstrated in the universe.
So, we know One-True-God and His attributes. Right, please?

Many people have claimed to have heard God speak and shown them signs. Muhammad is one of many. I don't for a moment think the Arab trader listened to God in the Middle East of the 7th century and accurately recorded God's words. When you say his "converse is pristine, secure and reasonable and his attributes are demonstrated" you are simply making a statement of the form: "I believe this." That is fine. I don't believe it. Joseph Smith made a similar claim but had no army to back his claim up, nor a falling Roman Empire to conquer. So Muhammad wins the word battle by pure circumstance, not from truth. Jesus beats Muhammad in the area of miracles.

So, we have no idea what God's attributes are. We can guess, but we might as well attach them to Jupiter or Thor.

None, other than God's Converse with Muhammad is available in pristine and secure form.
It was committed to heart as soon as it was revealed and also recorded in writing.
God's attributes are mentioned, illustrated in it and demonstrated in Quran and also in the universe.

Regards

[marco]

It was committed to heart as soon as it was revealed and also recorded in writing.
God's attributes are mentioned, illustrated in it and demonstrated in Quran and also in the universe.

I know what is claimed. As I said, Joseph Smith made similar claims, so why not believe him?

I do not for one second believe Muhammad heard God. He may have heard caravans rolling across the desert but he heard no angels. I think it was his wise and wealthy first wife, Khadija, who suggested the ploy to him. And it worked! Behind every successful man there's a clever lady - and Muhammad was no exception. Do you honestly think corpses will want to have intercourse with several virgin ladies on green couches in the sky? Is this not an obvious crowd puller rather than a divine promise?

[paarsurrey1]

It was committed to heart as soon as it was revealed and also recorded in writing.
God's attributes are mentioned, illustrated in it and demonstrated in Quran and also in the universe.

I know what is claimed. As I said, Joseph Smith made similar claims, so why not believe him?

I do not for one second believe Muhammad heard God. He may have heard caravans rolling across the desert but he heard no angels. I think it was his wise and wealthy first wife, Khadija, who suggested the ploy to him. And it worked! Behind every successful man there's a clever lady - and Muhammad was no exception. Do you honestly think corpses will want to have intercourse with several virgin ladies on green couches in the sky? Is this not an obvious crowd puller rather than a divine promise?

Within religions the discussion or debate in search of truth is different. Either one should believe in the truth of Joseph Smith then it will be meaningful to make comparison between both the claims; or one should be sure of oneself of one's position/no-position as a non-believer and describe its features that would be a different discussion/debate. One should have clarity of approach. Right, please?
No compulsion, however, please

Regards

[marco]

Within religions the discussion or debate in search of truth is different. Either one should believe in the truth of Joseph Smith then it will be meaningful to make comparison between both the claims; or one should be sure of oneself of one's position/no-position as a non-believer and describe its features that would be a different discussion/debate. One should have clarity of approach. Right, please?
No compulsion, however, please

I struggle to understand your point. It appears to be that I am entitled to present Joseph Smith only if I endorse what he says. I endorse neither Smith nor Muhammad but I point out that both people thought they heard God somewhere. They were deluded. Or they deliberately sought to delude. Fortunately for Muhammad, he was able to rise an army of natives with swords and his message was rather successful as a consequence.

There is absolutely NO proof that Muhammad spoke to an angel of any description. It is an absurdity that requires tons of evidence for it to be accepted as fact. We have no evidence except Muhammad's word. Not enough!

[paarsurrey1]

Within religions the discussion or debate in search of truth is different. Either one should believe in the truth of Joseph Smith then it will be meaningful to make comparison between both the claims; or one should be sure of oneself of one's position/no-position as a non-believer and describe its features that would be a different discussion/debate. One should have clarity of approach. Right, please?
No compulsion, however, please

I struggle to understand your point. It appears to be that I am entitled to present Joseph Smith only if I endorse what he says. I endorse neither Smith nor Muhammad but I point out that both people thought they heard God somewhere. They were deluded. Or they deliberately sought to delude. Fortunately for Muhammad, he was able to rise an army of natives with swords and his message was rather successful as a consequence.

There is absolutely NO proof that Muhammad spoke to an angel of any description. It is an absurdity that requires tons of evidence for it to be accepted as fact. We have no evidence except Muhammad's word. Not enough!

Why do the Atheism have to peg their viewpoint on one or the other religions putting one religion against the other?They have nothing in common with them. One's worldview is totally different from the religion whatever religion it is. If I am interested in other religion, I will discuss with them directly.
It doesn't interest me if one doesn't give one's argument from one's own worldview, in that case normally I don't participate.
I don't mind if one enjoys one's win over me. I discuss/debate only to find the truth.
Sorry, please don't mind. Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

I discuss/debate only to find the truth.
Sorry, please don't mind. Right, please?
Regards

If this were so, paarsurrey, we might expect you to see some faults in the Quran. However, since your truth solidly resides in that old book of remembered tales and invented divine edicts you are not going to be impressed by anything that does not accord with Quranic "truth".

I have read the Quran so as not to speak from ignorance or other folk's impressions; I find it resembles a war manual. You have failed to explain why you think it is a truthful text; you simple say it is. Somebody has said God dictated it and you happen to believe this incredible statement. Why not believe somebody else wen they say they spoke to God? What's the difference?

[paarsurrey1]

I discuss/debate only to find the truth.
Sorry, please don't mind. Right, please?
Regards

If this were so, paarsurrey, we might expect you to see some faults in the Quran. However, since your truth solidly resides in that old book of remembered tales and invented divine edicts you are not going to be impressed by anything that does not accord with Quranic "truth".

I have read the Quran so as not to speak from ignorance or other folk's impressions; I find it resembles a war manual. You have failed to explain why you think it is a truthful text; you simple say it is. Somebody has said God dictated it and you happen to believe this incredible statement. Why not believe somebody else wen they say they spoke to God? What's the difference?

It is just a wrong notion. Why to find fault when there is no reasonable ground to find fault with Quran. It is an amazing Recitation with the same profound system/s that we find in the nature and the expanding universe/s, with which the science verifies its all discoveries continuously. Why, please? Because the Recitation/Quran is authored by the same Being who created the expanding universe/s and everything in them, including the humans, while these never existed. His Absolute-Existence made possible, though temporarily, from non-existence:

[51:48] And We have built the heaven* with Our own hands, and verily We have vast powers**.
[51:49] And the earth We have spread out, and how excellently do We prepare things!
[51:50] And of everything have We created pairs, that you may reflect.
[51:51] Flee ye therefore unto Allah. Surely, I am a plain Warner unto you from Him.
[51:52] And do not set up another God along with Allah. Surely, I am a plain Warner unto you from Him.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 1&verse=47
*universe/s
**expanding
Right, please?
Regards

[JP Cusick]

It is just a wrong notion. Why to find fault when there is no reasonable ground to find fault with Quran.

The enemies find fault because they view through their prejudice and their own superiority complex, so they refuse to even look at the beauty and the value of the Holy Qur'an.

They look for any fault based on their own view, and seek out any criticism as like a dog digging for a new bone to chew.

It is not a discussion about truth or right from wrong - it is just their bigotry and hatred being passed off as their facts.