What makes beliefs true? Options

What makes beliefs true?

Here's a rough theory....

If truth is described as "what is", for instance, there IS a book on my table so the fact that a book is on my table is true. I can determine that there is a book on my table by trusting my senses, looking at it, touching it, etc., and comparing the sensorary information received with that contained in my memories. (I only know it is a book because I remember what a book looks like) In determining the past tense of this, "what was" we can no longer rely on direct sensorary information so we must compare memories to other memories. In applying this to beliefs such as God, memories become very far removed from any original sensorary information. We can trust the memories of other people (they are memories because even if writen down recently afterwards, after the exact present moment everything becomes a memory) but do we have anything to compare it to? With the instance of the book on the table, I was able to compare it to previous memories of books, but since I don't have any direct memories of God how do I know if my concept is correct or compatible? I am simply remembering an account of someone else's memory.

This isn't an argument against the existance of God or religion, but just a theory on the extreme difficultly of the task. It may be impossible to be absolutely certain of truth because everything we know depends on memories and sensorary information which may or may not be reliable.

Interesting thinking there Emily

Personal experience is indeed hard to verify, especially with regards to one-off expeirences, such as claimed revelations of God.

However, we can reason fairly that if X received a verbal revelation from God, then X would be true, as God cannot lie (premise). Paul talks about this in 1 Thessolonians 5 - "Test everything, hold on to the good".

Assuming that God cannot lie, wouldn't we first have to determine that X could relate this verbal revelation perfectly and in the way God intended, that nothing was added or subtracted, and that we are interpreting it correctly?

2 Thessalonians 2:11 "For this reason [refusal to love truth] God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,"

Jeremiah 8:12 "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

1 Kings 22:23 " So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours."

Assuming that God cannot lie, wouldn't we first have to determine that X could relate this verbal revelation perfectly and in the way God intended, that nothing was added or subtracted, and that we are interpreting it correctly?

2 Thessalonians 2:11 "For this reason [refusal to love truth] God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,"

Jeremiah 8:12 "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

1 Kings 22:23 " So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours."

Assuming that GOD cannot lie.

Humans can.

The Bible is a compilation of authors who wrote about things during their time. its not THE word of God, hence God cannot be attributed to it.

Would this apply to the Qur'an too, since it was also written down by humans?

Would this apply to the Qur'an too, since it was also written down by humans?

No, because Muslims believe the Quran is THE word of God, word for word, syllable for syllable. The Quran MUST be 100% correct or it is 0% correct. Unlike the Bible, the Quran provides an ultimatum for belief which makes believing it (or disbelieving it) a lot easier.

The Quran is THE word of God as sent down by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). People would memorize what Muhammad said WORD FOR WORD and it was written down WORD FOR WORD.

This aspect iis acually one of the things that attracted me to Islam

I like the directness of the Qur'an too. Yet it was still physically spoken and written down by humans. From a secular point of view, Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his scribes were not neccesarily free from human error. There is also the human element involved in interpretation. Muhammad (pbuh) and those who wrote down the Qur'an may have dictated it perfectly, but we could be interpretting it wrong.

Theoretically why do you think God chose to channel His truth through uncertain and limited means instead of directly speaking to each individual or creating a universal source of truth untouched and therefore untainted by humans?

Yet it was still physically spoken and written down by humans. From a secular point of view, Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his scribes were not neccesarily free from human error.

Muhammad was not an ordinary human. he was a prophet. its was spoken by him and he spoke it to the people. By definition if you believe that it was inspired by God you must believe that it was free of error. If you believe that he might have errored you are by definition making Muhammad a Non-prophet without even giving him a chance.

From a secular point of view it doesn't even matter because secularism removes God from the equation anyway.

Its not a matter of a few scribes writing it down. hundreds of thousands of people memorized the same exact Quran, and people in Africa would speak the same exact word as people in the Pacific Ocean.

"If you believe that he might have errored you are by definition making Muhammad a Non-prophet without even giving him a chance."

Not neccesarily. I simply have to prove he does not error before I base any beliefs on his inerrancy.


I am not questioning the Qur'an's or the Bible's legitimacy, but questioning our process of determining truth. Because of their questionable trueness, assumptions should be eliminated at first. This way before something is assumed, it is first proved true. The best way I know of to remove assumptions is by questioning and analyzing everything from every possible angle. If there is no clear answer to a question, then it must be an assumption. (Again the assumptions may or may not be true, but only removed in order to begin with a clean slate) This way there is a foundation of pure, undeniable truth in which to base a process of determining more truths. Is there any other way?

In my above posts I wasn't asking questions to debate the statements made, but acknowledging the assumptions made in order to believe in the statements.

So are some faith based beliefs actually assumption based beliefs?

Faith and Assumptions are two different things. They can not be the same. In islam you are not to Assume anything. You are to Belive. That is Why Iman (faith) is the first and the most important thing around which islam revolves. In Islam you are given guidance through quran and Sunnah and you are to belive that this guidance is the only thing which will guide you in the right path, not assume but believe. Islam does not require someone to blindly belive in Allah and his creations...Allah has made it possible for us to belive in him because it is natural for us to do so like it is natural for a Baby to suckle on its mothers breast. Islam is also very scientific and does not live any room for assumptions and it answers all the questions an inquiring mind may have. So there is no room for assumption in ISlam. You are to have faith on the Unseen and his powers but not to assume that there is an unseen.

"Faith and Assumptions are two different things. They can not be the same."

Isn't the definition of faith belief in something that cannot be proven?
Isn't assumption believing something that hasn't been proven?

How are they different?

Again I don't think that assumptions are wrong or bad. Only that it is important to acknowledge that assumptions exist in our beliefs.

I'm just trying to start from the beginning. Everytime I examine any belief I discover it is based on assumptions. Do any of you have a belief that isn't?

Example:

I believe that a superior non-material entity exists which we call God.

First of all I am assuming that my brain is trustworthy.
(This is not always true, we do not believe the same things consistantly at all times. The state of our mind depends on our experiences, chemical makeup, emotions, and health amoung other things.)

Since I have no direct experience of God, I assume that at least one of the various concepts of God is correct.
(Since we cannot compare these concepts of God to God in reality, it would be impossible to ascertain conclusively that any of the concepts correctly describe God accurately)

I would have to assume that even if the concept was correct in brain of the original person who directly experienced God, that my brain was capable of that same exact perception

I would have to assume that the concept was communicated perfectly and in keeping with the exact reality of God.( This might be similar to explaining a rainbow to a blind person. Then imagine a blind person trying to understand a rainbow that was seen hundreds of years ago with several conflicting descriptions and none of them even written by the original source)


If I assumed that one of the original concepts of God is correct, I would then have to assume that the entity of God is constant and is exactly the same as when the original concept was formed and that he still exists at all.

Then I would have to assume that each and every idea describing to God was correct and accurate to the original concept.

Gonna stop because I have to get to class =) I hope some of this makes sense hehe.

We are not to assume that Allah, his Oneness his creation and the prophets, angels, Jinns but we are to KNOW and Believe in their existance.

How do you know this? Can you show me how to believe this without using assumptions? What is your definition of assumption? I'm not trying to debate theology but logic.

How do you know this? Can you show me how to believe this without using assumptions? What is your definition of assumption? I'm not trying to debate theology but logic.

I am kind of confused...what assumptions?
If you want me to go and debate all the assumptions muslims/christians have ill be glad to but im kinda confused as to what those assumptions are.

Well for an example, in order to believe that the Bible or the Qur'an is inerrant, one must assume that the human writers do not make any mistakes, and that we are interpretting it correctly. If you believe that either of these books is the direct word of God and therefore must be without error then you are assuming that God cannot error or that God would not allow error to happen. Both of these assumptions are comments on the nature of God. We cannot know the nature of God since we do not have direct contact with him. If we look to the Bible or the Qur'an to know the nature of God, then we are using the very thing we were trying to prove in the first place to prove its own inerrancy. Even if you manage to prove that a book is the word of God and does not contain error, how can you be certain that you are interpreting it correctly? How would you go about proving something like that?

Oh, so you are saying that we assume that God is perfect and you are asking what the basis of that assumption is?


Oh ok, well then, let me ask you, define God.

God is a human concept which varies depending on the invidual's ideas and influences. Determining that one concept accurately reflects a real and living God would be impossible due to the inability to refer back to the original.