In which case, this is not the non-believers fault. Theists created a hypothesis, we gave reasons why we think it's incorrect.
Right, I didn't mean to imply that atheists were at fault for that.
This is possible, BUT conversely, he cannot be the creator of all that exists. This is a contradiction because if he exists, existence already exists, so he cannot create what already exists.
Yeah at this point we'll have to delve into a more philosophical (and far more speculative) discussion, in which we'd have to be willing to consider all possibilities.
(and, I'm gonna have to speak out of my own personal perspective to address your points)
I just can't come to accept the idea of ex nihilo. I cannot bring myself to believe we spawned from nothing. That being said, if everything needs to have been created by something (whatever it may be), then that means that what we call our Universe was not the beginning of existence, right? There must've been another sort of Universe, reality, dimension, or whatever you want to call it, before our own, out of which our Universe, and by extension, life as we know it came to be. But because we don't know what lies beyond our own Universe, nor is it realistically possible for us to ever find out, there's no way to come to an absolute conclusion on this.
What you're saying is possible, but there must be some parameters.
1. This God must be logically possible, it cannot be omnipotent, etc.
2. This God must exist, and be observable in the Universe.
3. This God must be secondary to the primary existence.
1. Would you agree that when it comes to discussing the origins of the Universe, there's the possibility that the truth is something we as humans are incapable of logically comprehending?
2. (Sort of continuation of the first point) Humans exist on a microscopic level in the Universe, and whether we truly have a purpose for being here or not is entirely unknown. What we do know is that we're here, we're aware, and perfectly bound to our place in the Universe. So we'll go about life, questioning our existence as much as we want, but never fully understanding it.
The comparison I like to make is how the cells and bacteria in our bodies commute throughout it unaware of what exists in the world outside, yet they exist almost perfectly inside of us (perfectly enough to give us life). They too are bound to their place in the "universe" of our bodies, unable to escape it by their own will. In fact in the grand scheme of things, we have about as much free will as the cells inside of us. Regardless, just because the organisms inside of us can't see us or the world around us, doesn't mean we don't exist.
3. Agreed
Now, if there is any solid evidence that this being exists, all atheists would become theists.
Out of curiosity, don't you think it would be too late for conversion at that point? What I mean is, supposing this God was one who expected faithful devotion, don't you think someone who converted only after witnessing the truth firsthand would be condemned to some sort of punishment? This isn't directed just at you malak, but at any atheist who'd like to answer.
I'd probably be condemned as a non-believer, seeing as I don't have a firm theological stance, even though I do acknowledge the existence of a higher power.
Sorry if I'm rambling or if I'm not getting my points across clearly. I don't usually have the opportunity to discuss these sorts of things (though I think about them frequently), so I'm still trying to organize my thoughts coherently in writing.
