Either God is one, many, or not at all. But one doesn't need to choose between Yahweh, Elohim, theos, Allah, and Shang Di: the one only-existing Creator God is recognizable under many aliases. Link

I believe that Allah exists. Allah is the Arabic word for God, just as Dios is Spanish for God, and Dieu is French for God, and Gott is German for God. I am a theist, therefore, I believe that Allah exists. No problem.

Such a typical disingenuous reply that is Vic, unless you are a Muslim. Are you? Do you believe the Koran? Of course you don't.

No, Muslims are my fellow theists. You are conflating the question of Allah with the question of how Allah might have revealed himself. In point of fact, the word "Allah" was in place as the word for the high god of Arabia before Muhammad picked it up.



If you accept belief in God, then you have to decide whether some revelation is true, or if there was one. But this is no way detracts from the fact that neutrality on the question of God is de facto impossible. You either act as if God existed, or as if God did not exist. You act as if Christianity is true, or as if it was not.



C. S. Lewis accepted theism first, then he had to decide whether or not there was a revelation.

But Vic, you don't believe in Allah because Allah revealed himself in the Koran. He is a different god who did different things, has different characteristics, and denies ever doing some of the things your god claims to have done. You don't even believe in Yahweh, the tribal god of the Old Testament. As far as I can tell only a small number of people have ever believed in the god that you believe in. That you share a belief in a creator god with other theists is acknowledged. But when you claim to believe in their gods and they claim to believe in your god that is not in fact the case, since these gods are different, sometimes significantly different.



So to say you believe Allah exists is empty disingenuous rhetoric. What you should say instead is that both you and Muslims all believe in a creator god.

Actually, I think that they all believe in an "uncaused cause" and then assume that this cause was conscious and that it wants people to "believe in it." Then theists all convince themselves that they know all about this "conscious uncaused cause who wants people to believe in it" via some holy book, guru, or inner wisdom. So this god created the world in 7 days or didn't. "He" is male or immaterial or genderless, or humanoid or "impossible to describe". He may or may not be "the ground of all being" (whatever that means), omnipresent, outside time, eternal, perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, jealous, vengeful, something to fear, damning, forgiving, etc. He had a son or didn't, or is part of a trinity or not, or became his own son or didn't, or impregnated a virgin or not, or had a prophet named Mohammed or not, or a prophet named Joseph Smith, or not. He answers prayers except when tested scientifically. We are god; god is love; blah, blah--everyone just adds whatever they want to the hypothetical "uncaused cause" so that it meshes with the holy book and allows each believer to create god in his or her own image so that they can feel like they are showing this "uncaused cause who wants to be believed in" that they are good and worthy of living "happily ever after".



I think it eases Victor and other believer's minds to tell themselves that everyone believes in the same god... and in a way they are right-- they all believe in the gods they have created in their heads. But their gods didn't come from the same holy books nor do they have the same attributes. If there was any real god he apparently is fine with billions of people believing hugely different things all sure that they know the "real god".



Of course, a much more likely explanation is that there is no god-- there never was... in fact there may not even have been an "uncaused cause" that "began" our universe; the concept itself might be nonsense... like speaking of "the ends of earth."



From this outsider's perspective it looks like most gods are built on people's ignorance about the origins of the universe coupled with the fear of death, and mixed with lots of culture and wishful thinking. I sure don't see any logical means of pinning a personality on any hypothetical uncaused cause. Even if I imagined such a personality... I can't imagine this personality wanting people to "believe in him" while remaining indistinguishable from mythical gods, delusions, and such. It's preposterous.

I'd like to note a reoccurring theme among Christian apologists. David Marshall has said with regard to Judaism that it is a true religion . He also claims:So also claims Dr. Reppert about Allah:But all of this is simply empty rhetoric with no substance at all. Neither one of them are Orthodox Jews or Muslims so why would they say this? Here is this exchange with Vic so far. See what you think:Me:Vic:Me:Articulett (with typos fixed):Articulett probably means it's preposterous to believe in any god at all, but it's equally true that it's preposterous for Vic and David to say they believe in Allah.This exchange began here. Chime in at will.