• philosopher004
    77
    Disclaimer : I have nothing against Islam,Christianity or any other religion.
    Zakir Naik is an Islamic televangelist who owns the TV channel Peace TV where is gives speeches and answers to the questions posed by his audience on the topic of Quran,Islamic God etc.
    But this video caught my attention.I cannot wrap my head around his so called"proof".Dr Zakir Naik Scientifically & Logically Proves to an Atheist the Existence of Hell & Heaven
    Feel free to express your opinion.
    Thanks :smile:
  • Outlander
    1.6k
    I see what you did there. :D

    Anyhow, my understanding of the whole topic would rightfully be called either non-proof or circular logic of the same effect.

    So, let's just think about it. There's this guy right. Or gal or entity or several- whatever. Otherwise known as God. We're created as imperfect beings who are best at stealing, killing, lying, conniving... I could go on. Apparently there's a place (depending on your belief) where those who (again according to belief) manage to overcome this vile nature or otherwise "be righteous" get to go. It's pretty nice they say. Conversely, there's this other place (again depending on belief) where those who kinda don't "rise up above and beyond" or otherwise just treat others horribly and miserably, just constantly (again it all depends on belief) have to go. It's not that fun there.

    You can be the most vile, hateful, cruel, above all laziest person you can imagine... you still (or rather simply) would want something better. So. If you're a person like that. And if you're told the way to... get more of what you want to satisfy your own desires... is simple and irrefutable. You'd... obviously do so ie. "go through the motions" to get what you want.

    If there is this "afterlife place" that is good... you do NOT want those people there. Faith in what you know to be right, yet is difficult, while at the same time you can see with no real contradiction that being vile continues to consistently offer greater pleasures and riches, is what will separate the two. The only thing. Short of total and utter enslavement. So. Eh. You don't even have to be religious or metaphysical about it. It's common sense.

    Example I use often, say you're a dying, old, childless multi-millionaire who has always loved.... I don't know pick any hobby the metaphor is the same. Sailing, boats, the ocean, etc. You have a massive and pricey boatyard full of top of the line vessels and everything someone who is passionate about your interest would adore endlessly. Say you also bought a cheaper, somewhat crappy one that is decent enough to someone who again shares your passion... maybe has a few old ships and one that's just okay.

    What you do to find someone who shares in your interest and will keep the legacy going? Put out an ad saying "luxurious, exquisite yacht-keeper wanted. high pay." and see how he performs under perfect conditions? Or... put out an ad saying "run down boat yard keeper wanted. legacy of blood, sweat, and tears. must love the seas." and see how someone who must truly love the art (more than the monetary benefits it could bring) performs? The two would be rewarded with the same, that priceless lifetime of work. Only one would have truly earned it and would appreciate it the same.
  • philosopher004
    77
    Anyhow, my understanding of the whole topic would rightfully be called either non-proof or circular logic of the same effect.Outlander

    I think his whole "proof' is based on the presupposition that there is a separate existence of justice beyond our minds.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    That doesn't do much good for anyone trying to prove the existence of God. Heaven and Hell represent our heart-felt hopes and our deepest fears respectively and both are instantiated on this dear planet of ours - look at the horrendous ways some of our brethren have been tortured to death (heaven) and only remind yourselves of how many live in the lap of luxury (hell). Heaven and Hell are real, yesbut, does this mean there's a soul, a god, no. :chin:
  • philosopher004
    77
    That doesn't do much good for anyone trying to prove the existence of God. Heaven and Hell represent our heart-felt hopes and our deepest fears respectively and both are instantiated on this dear planet of ours - look at the horrendous ways some of our brethren have been tortured to death (hell) and only remind yourselves of how many live in the lap of luxury (hell). Heaven and Hell are real, yesbut, does this mean there's a soul, a god, no. :chin:TheMadFool

    He has got a huge fan base and the mistake in his argument is clearly stands out.Why can't nobody see it?
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    He has got a huge fan base and the mistake in his argument is clearly stands out.Why can't nobody see it?philosopher004

    Enlighten us. I'm all ears. :smile:
  • philosopher004
    77
    Enlighten us. I'm all ears. :smile:TheMadFool

    He says that hell should exist only to punish people like Hitler because no one punishes people like him on earth and they die a peaceful death whereas people affected by them become miserable.That is, to serve justice.Only on the assumption that there is justice somewhere in this universe beyond our minds and a benevolent deity is working hard to serve justice.I think the universe is not unjust or just towards us,"It is just indifferent"
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    He says that hell should exist only to punish people like Hitler because no one punishes people like him on earth and they die a peaceful death whereas people affected by them become miserable.That is, to serve justice.Only on the assumption that there is justice somewhere in this universe beyond our minds and a benevolent deity is working hard to serve justice.I think the universe is not unjust or just towards us,"It is just indifferent"philosopher004

    My two cents:

    I think the whole idea of justice comes apart at the seams when we give it some much required thought. Two wrongs don't make a right and no matter how you cut the justice cake, it's always, in some places, a watered down version of the pernicious idea of an eye for an eye or, in some regions of the world, lamentably, literally an eye for an eye.

    Allah, the merciful wouldn't do that, right? :chin:
  • philosopher004
    77
    God, the merciful wouldn't do that, right?TheMadFool

    Depends on which God you are talking about.I am a Hindu ,in Hindusim there is no clear description or evidence of hell(but hell is mentioned in Mahabharata).God in Hinduism will not grant you wishes or do you harm,it is your actions that will(the infamous Karma).Hinduism is polytheistic and and advocate of many-births theorem.You will just be trapped in 'Samsara'(The everyday world) unless you attain 'Moksha'(salvation).Hinduism considers the world an-adi(no beginning)and an-anta(no ending).

    But in Christianity and Islam there is a heaven and a hell .There is genesis and apocalypse.And finally there is the Judgement Day.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Depends on which God you are talking about.I am a Hindu ,in Hindusim there is no clear description or evidence of hell(but hell is mentioned in Mahabharata).God in Hinduism will not grant you wishes or do you harm,it is your actions that will(the infamous Karma).Hinduism is polytheistic and and advocate of many-births theorem.You will just be trapped in 'Samsara'(The everyday world) unless you attain 'Moksha'(salvation).Hinduism considers the world an-adi(no beginning)and an-anta(no ending).

    But in Christianity and Islam there is a heaven and a hell .There is genesis and apocalypse.And finally there is the Judgement Day
    philosopher004

    I'm going to stay within the Islamic context:

    Among the 99 names of God, the most familiar and frequent are "the All Merciful" (Ar-Raḥmān) and "the Especially Merciful" (Ar-Raḥīm) — Wikipedia

    In other words, people identify Allah with mercy in a very deep sense. This doesn't square with Mr. Zakir Naik's claim that Hell and Heaven should exist so that justice can be carried out and I have a feeling that by justice, Mr. Zakir Naik is referring to reward/punishment.
  • philosopher004
    77
    n other words, people identify Allah with mercy in a very deep sense. This doesn't square with Mr. Zakir Naik's claim that Hell and Heaven should exist so that justice can be carried out and I have a feeling that by justice, Mr. Zakir Naik is referring to reward/punishment.TheMadFool

    This is far from your question but resonates with it.This video seems most absurd to me.The analogy makes me laugh
    IF I'M DESTINED TO COMMIT A SIN WHY AM I PUNISHED FOR THAT? BY DR ZAKIR NAIK
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    This is far from your question but resonates with it.This video seems most absurd to me.The analogy makes me laugh
    IF I'M DESTINED TO COMMIT A SIN WHY AM I PUNISHED FOR THAT? BY DR ZAKIR NAIK
    philosopher004

    Why do we assume that punishment/reward is not part of a deterministic view of crime and morality? After all, moral/immoral acts cause in us a desire to reward/punish. If the effect of a moral act reward/punishment were not to occur then it would be a violation of determinism, no? This raises an intriguing issue viz. could indifference be an expression of free will and indifference is defined as not being affected by anything i.e. we're free of the web of causation. :chin:
  • philosopher004
    77
    could indifference be an expression of free will and indifference is defined as not being affected by anything i.e. we're free of the web of causation. :chin:TheMadFool

    Some people do heinous crimes but die a peaceful death and vice versa.I think that is free will but most people are disturbed by the idea that they are better off/worse off than us in spite of doing such crimes/virtue so they convince themselves that God is going to punish/reward them after they die.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Some people do heinous crimes but die a peaceful death and vice versa.I think that is free will but most people are disturbed by the idea that they are better off/worse off than us in spite of doing such crimes/virtue so they convince themselves that God is going to punish/reward them after they die.philosopher004

    You're a Hindu, right?

    There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds. A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning ground, men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not — Ajita Kesakambali

    Ajita Kesakambali
  • philosopher004
    77
    You're a Hindu, right?

    There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds. A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning ground, men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not
    — Ajita Kesakambali

    Ajita Kesakambali
    TheMadFool

    Thanks for sharing never knew about him or Indian materialism.But I think ajita was more inspired by Buddhist school of thought.
  • TheMadFool
    13.9k
    Thanks for sharing never knew about him or Indian materialism.But I think ajita was more inspired by Buddhist school of thoughtphilosopher004

    :up: :ok:
  • philosopher004
    77
    It was fun discussing it with you.Thank you:smile:
  • Outlander
    1.6k
    I think his whole "proof' is based on the presupposition that there is a separate existence of justice beyond our minds.philosopher004

    Now I didn't watch the video, feel free or rather please expand on the relevant points of it. But, from what I'm interpreting, this is largely what I believe in just not exclusive to justice or any lone concept.

    The human mind is powerful, but compared only to the lesser beings among us. Who knows perhaps there are other beings somewhere that dwarf even the most intelligent. Do you think he means in terms of ability to understand (like what I described) or simply ignorance ie. we're told someone did something bad therefore we believe said person is bad, when it's possible what we're told is a lie and said person is really innocent- we really wouldn't know other than what we choose to believe especially when it comes to past injustice- we weren't there. We really don't know.

    It's a common idea across many religions. "God is unknowable, unfathomable, works in ways that are a complete mystery to us" or "God works in mysterious ways," While I may personally believe this as a possibility in the most extreme terms, if I didn't think some concepts were "knowable" by us here and now I really wouldn't be talking about it.

    Which of course leads us, in a philosophical sense, back to square one. While I believe in more than this, it would simply not be a philosophical discussion at such a point.
  • philosopher004
    77
    Now I didn't watch the video, feel free or rather please expand on the relevant points of it. But, from what I'm interpreting, this is largely what I believe in just not exclusive to justice or any lone concept.Outlander

    The first one or the second one?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    There is no proof. His logical mistake is that he states "Because someone must or should be punished, he or she WILL be punished." That is simply not true. Lots of things that should be done do not get done. That's where the fallacy in his logical line of reasoning fails.
  • philosopher004
    77
    "Because someone must or should be punished, he or she WILL be punished." That is simply not true. Lots of things that should be done do not get done. That's where the fallacy in his logical line of reasoning fails.god must be atheist

    You can see his other videos where I find similar fallacies.
  • philosopher004
    77
    Video in OP, yes.Outlander

    He gives the example of a mafia don who had done bad things but he himself died a peaceful death.He goes on to ask the interlocutor that was it fair for him to die a peaceful death whereas the people affected by him become miserable.
    He concludes by saying that for justice to be served heaven and hell should exist.
  • Outlander
    1.6k


    Well... I don't want to disagree at all but under a logical, philosophical lens... just because something should be doesn't automatically mean it does. Think that would sum up any criticism nicely.

    Besides, even under religious pretext, there's other avenues. Reincarnation. Somewhere bad. Or very unfortunate.

    I agree dude just we're kind of not following explicit logic at this point. Which is a no-no here.
  • philosopher004
    77
    Besides, even under religious pretext, there's other avenues. Reincarnation. Somewhere bad. Or very unfortunate.

    I agree dude just we're kind of not following explicit logic at this point. Which is a no-no here
    Outlander

    I agree.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.