What if God doesn't care about the actions of humans, there wouldn't be any need in sending a source of guidance in that case.

Only if that god were to care about his creation. I happen to believe that to be true of God, and therefore believe he has given us a manual to guide us, but that is a product of my belief, not proof that my belief is true.

The Greeks you will recall (and many others as well: the Inca, Maya, Vikings, Zulu, Maori, Korowai, Dani, native Hawaiians, Amayran, Mapuche, Apache, Anuit, Celts, Saxons) have believed in gods with entirely different natures; ones who didn't provide manuals and some who didn't even provide revelations. In fact the opposite of what you suggest seems to be common among animistic religions and those which emphasize the importance of shamans. Yet those groups still accomplish what you propose, that is they avoid the problems of everyone and anyone doing as they wished without being taken to account of thier actions -- given the moral decay I see present in so much of both the Christian and Isalmic worlds, perhaps they do so even better than those places where it is accepted that manuals from some sort of God have been revealed.

Implying Bill Gates lacks intelligence is mean.

God has sent prophets and His guidance, even though everybody won't agree on them. Nonetheless, prophets and guidance that God sent through them is there.

Assalamualykum



It is perfectly relevant, it is lack of understand on your part to think so.

The point is…

Whenever god is mentioned people like you jump and say there is no empirical evidence for existence of god.

Dark matter is completely undetectable by any instrument known to man it existence is based simply on logical conclusion and yet it is unanimously accepted by majority of scientists.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention DARK ENERGY …..

19:40 23 May 2008

“Some had hoped it might be just an illusion. But it looks like dark energy is real and here to stay”

AND THE EVEDENCE FOR IT IS BASED ON?????

“In 1998, astronomers found that distant supernovae were dimmer, and thus farther away, than expected. This suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating – and "dark energy" was named as the culprit.”
“Since then, astronomers have struggled to explain what dark energy actually is”
http://tinyurl.com/6h49hl



Now is this what is called testable, empirical evidence?

Double standards?



.

Where did I make a statement that there was nothing before big bang?
Either it’s your wrong assumption or it is deliberate attempt to mislead.



Just because if I agree with him on some of his belief does not mean that I have to subscribe to his whole belief.

But no evidence.

What was there before big bang?

Multiverse, megaverse, bouncing universe, parallel universe?

The only theory that has empirical evidence to support is big bang and you can go only as far as singularity which is supported by the holy Quran.
Before that no evidence will be forth coming because of cosmic amnesia

All the other theory that exist other than big bang are mere conjuncture and speculation and even science fiction, there is no evidence for their support.

What scientists are doing is inventing the equations to suit their assumptions.

You see…

4 dimensions are not enough to know what was there before big bang so let’s add 6 more dimensions…the answer is not what is expected. Ok let make it 26 dimensions…..
The answer is still not what is expected, never mind.
You see the fundamental particle from which our universe is made is not spherical or point like but rather made of very very tiny tiny strings… just like guitar strings (Long live Rolling Stones)..
Yes you have heard it right! And there is more to it.
And these strings vibrate (may be to one of their favorite song of Rolling Stones)
Just like guitar string but are full of energy and so they sometime curl and form atoms or join together and may create extra dimensions and then universes are created not one two or three but many many many (this was actual result predicted by this theory)

You have just been introduced to string theory the latest and greatest theory which is supposed to be single unifying all, theory to explain everything yes everything.

Evidence be dammed, at least it will give the answer that we want!


“Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University, has challenged the entire string-theory”
“String theory, he avers, has become a form of science fiction.”

http://tinyurl.com/5kuol6



Regarding evidence you will have to wait for my next post.
Believing in god does not mean intellectual dead- end, at least not in Islam
You only have to look at history when Europe was in dark ages Islam was having its golden period and science was thriving.
Today the situation is different because I think we Muslims are not practicing Islam as we should.



Well go ahead describe me a pink unicorn, tell me its power, its ability, give me references
And why it should be logically be responsible for our creation.
Go ahead tickle my neurons.


And you have not read my post without prejudice.
Well, you have infinite amount of time to come up with infinite number of theories with infinite numbers of results
Good luck.

you deny his existence and ridicule him yet no bolt of lightening has struck you down i think this is merciful enough.

Dark matter is not comparable to the existence of God.

Moreover, there is observational evidence behind Dark Matter.

Your analysis of Dark Matter and dark energy is far too short to account for the complexities and research that those who study it might go into.

Read it again, ajazz.

I said that you didn't believe there was anything before the Big Bang. I quote: "you do not even believe that there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang "

Arguably, we do have evidence.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Moreover if such does not constitute as evidence, it does not necessitate nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The Qu'ran only supports the Big Bang if you interpret it in a specific way. It is no surprise that both Muslims and Christians claim their faith supports science. This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said that religion adapts to scientific understanding.

You did not hear anyone claim the specifics of the origin of the universe prior to our understanding of the Big Bang.

Would an Islamic state accept a scientific proposition which undermined the Qu'ran's validity?

I don't need to.

You describing a 'God' irrespective of details and specifics still has exactly the same effect for humanity as me describing the pink unicorn. Your irrelevant conjecture on God's attributes is not scientific, does not enhance our understanding of the universe and has no value for humanity whatsoever.

I find Theology a tired and utterly uninteresting subject.

Your standard of 'merciful' is very suspect. Are you implying that God not being completely intolerant to all criticism somehow ensures his merciful nature?

I know I'm being pedantic, but that's exactly the same type of reasoning theists use in reference to their own beliefs.

Und hence, the cycle of debate continues.

I know.

Regrettably, the assertion 'something does not come from nothing' does not demonstrate God. And 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' also does not demonstrate God.

Well, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' does not demonstrate anything that the idiom is used for. Semantics... they should save it for advertising.

That’s right nothing is comparable to Allah (swt)

Go read my post carefully again you are getting confused and also contradicting your self.

From your earlier post you said

And now you say

Wow!


Most scientists agree that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Dark matter, which is undetectable through direct observation, can only be inferred because of its effects on the matter that we can see

http://www.physorg.com/news110795864.html

The key word is inferred and not observational evidence, get it?



Where it is? Invisible like dark matter


Yusuf Ali Translation

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?


Translation Pickthal

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?


Translation M. Khan


Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?




No interpretation is needed the meaning is crystal clear.





There is not a single statement in the holy Quran which goes against ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT





Well you don’t need to or you can’t?



You don’t get things right do you? The first time or the second time

It’s not my description, it is Allah (swt) himself describing in the holy Quran

Don’t know about you but has effect on lots of people that why we are more than 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world and still growing, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.




“A significant number of stars in the sky, such as Aldebaran and Altair, and astronomical terms such as alhidade, azimuth, and almucantar, are still today recognized with their Arabic names.[5]”

Islam and astronomy

Islam has affected astronomy directly and indirectly. A major impetus for the flowering of astronomy in Islam came from religious observances, which presented an assortment of problems in mathematical astronomy, specifically in spherical geometry.[1]

Islamic attitude towards astronomy

Islam advised Muslims to find ways of using the stars. The Qur'an says: "And it is He who ordained the stars for you that you may be guided thereby in the darkness of the land and the sea."[7] On the basis of this advice Muslim began to find better observational and navigational instruments, thus most navigational stars today have Arabic names.[1]

In the 9th century, the eldest Banū Mūsā brother, Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir, made significant contributions to astrophysics and celestial mechanics. He was the first to hypothesize that the heavenly bodies and celestial spheres are subject to the same laws of physics as Earth, unlike the ancients who believed that the celestial spheres followed their own set of physical laws different from that of Earth.[42] In his Astral Motion and The Force of Attraction, Muhammad ibn Musa also proposed that there is a force of attraction between heavenly bodies,[43] foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation.[44]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_astronomy