Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[MohammadR]

The universe is a closed system. Therefore, Newton's second law, the law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of energy all apply to it.
Does God need a creator? No. Because he exists in timelessness, where none of the universe's laws apply.

Newton's second law

Objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by a net force. The atoms of our universe needed a force to start expanding.

Thermodynamics

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy is constant. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy only increases in a closed system. Eventually, the universe will flatten out at an omega state (the big crunch, mentioned in the Qur'an). What has an end must have a beginning.

The law of conservation of energy

The law of causality, that is, cause and effect, applies to our universe. Therefore, the energy of our universe must have a source.

[Pygoscelis]

How does that "answer atheism"? At best that is a statement that things used to be tighter and more organized than they now are. There are hundreds of reasons that could be. You would have to show why it requires a god (or better yet your particular God, Allah), and you have made no attempt to do that here. So no, this isn't answering atheism in one paragraph. This isn't even one paragraph actually lol

[جوري]

There are hundreds of reasons that could be

And they are?

You would have to show why it requires a god

Rather show how they can be without a God!

better yet your particular God, Allah)

What are the characteristics of the other 'gods' that are 'better yet' than the creator?

[Iceee]

Salaam.

Nice read. You're going to get some hate soon...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[~Zaria~]

Atheism

"The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense."




There, thats a paragraph.

[Ali_008]

Atheism

"The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense."




There, thats a paragraph.

enlightened for life :uuh:

[Independent]

The universe is a closed system.

At this time it’s simply not possible to state definitively that our universe is a closed system. There are many theories which involve the existence of other universes, with radically different physics than our own.

[جوري]

There are many theories

& this changes the outcome how?

[Independent]

& this changes the outcome how?

False premise

[جوري]

False premise

pls. elucidate the right premise!

best,

[Independent]

pls. elucidate the right premise!

Ask MohammadR - it's his argument, not mine.

His premise is that our universe is a closed system. But in fact we can't know this yet - it could be a multiverse.

Existing science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a divinity. Hopefully this may change in the future.

[جوري]

Ask MohammadR - it's his argument, not mine.

if you're the one who finds the premise faulty it is incumbent upon you to clarify in which way. Don't you think?- else why did you bother comment on the alleged faultiness if you can't articulate what it is?

best,

[Independent]

if you're the one who finds the premise faulty it is incumbent upon you to clarify in which way

Please, just google 'multiverse' and come back when you've finished.

[جوري]

Please, just google 'multiverse' and come back when you've finished.

It isn't my job to do your homework for you. Don't be dropping terms, making claims and/or accusations and then asking us to guess to your intended meaning by referencing us to some vague google search!

best,

[Abz2000]

Remember that atheist guy on this forum who said the universe came out of zero?
How zero exploded and everything came into being?
My stomach was aching from laughing when I heard about it.

[جوري]

Remember that atheist guy on this forum who said the universe came out of zero?
How zero exploded and everything came into being?
My stomach was aching from laughing when I heard about it.

Better yet he was trying to divide the Zero and yet on his calculator the results were defined.. Sadly not the case for the rest of us and hey I am open to change & valuable new info. as much as the next guy so long as it is done outside the corridors of Shepard Pratt.

:w:

[Pygoscelis]

Rather show how they can be without a God!

He claimed to be "answering atheism in one paragraph". He gave more than one paragraph and has not mentioned anything requiring Allah, or any other sort of Gods. Nothing is answered. This OP refutes itself.

[Pygoscelis]

Atheism

"The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense."

Who are you quoting here?

Why do religious folks always try to tell atheists that they believe the universe came from nothing? It could be cyclical. It could be split off from a multiverse. We don't have to pretend to know. We can admit we don't know. There is no need to invent magical God creatures and pretend they created the universe just so we can claim to have the answer.

[Futuwwa]

Atheism

"The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense."

Actually, that's metaphysical naturalism under the current understanding of physics. As for atheism, that doesn't even require a paragraph, just one sentence. Here it is:

There are no gods.

[TJ-alcapone]

The author of this thread MohammedR, has rather hastily and in an exceedingly incorrect way come to conclusions due to poor understanding of some rather basic scientific principles.

The universe is a closed system.

The very first line is a rudimentary failure. When anyone refers to the universe, they are usually referring to the observable universe. What is beyond this observable universe? It is essentially a lost cause, as due to the nature of photos and how physics works. Beyond a particular distance, we cease to be able to observe radiation. So to assume that the universe to be a closed system is incorrect.

The big bang is the best possible scientific explanation as of today as to how the universe as we know came to be. All we know is that the universe expanded to what it is today from an infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity. What happened before that, no one really knows. And in a philosophical sense, that question is meaningless as the time space continuum did not exist.

Trying to use Newtonian physics to explain the workings of the universe is perhaps your biggest mistake of all. Newtonian physics requires you to consider the constraints of absolute time and fixed 3 dimensional space (height, length and width) as being linear. That is why Eisenstein's contributions in relativity has been so monumental. Newtonian physics work very well on a day to day level to explain phenomenon related to earth. But as you hit the realm of space and time, the unravel rather easily.

This post exemplifies the dangerous nature of religious dogma. If you already have your conclusions drawn out from the start, objective pursuit of knowledge is impossible. You will scour through, filter and twist your extrapolations to fit your conclusions, rather than form hypotheses from data. Science is a bottom up approach, not a top-down one.

[جوري]

He claimed to be "answering atheism in one paragraph". He gave more than one paragraph and has not mentioned anything requiring Allah, or any other sort of Gods. Nothing is answered. This OP refutes itself.

That's not how science works - the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis. Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – simply to ‘refute’ or ‘nullify’ the atheist claim and whatever is left is what's probable within a certain confidence depending on how tight we've chosen to make it in the first place.

Atheist beliefs aren't so mysterious we've discussed them amply before- they've neither proven that God doesn't exist or isn't necessary nor have they provided a sound reasonable explanation to the world they find themselves in and what's in it keeping in mind that we and other things that exist in it weren't always here.
So that's where sis. Zaria's parody of the atheist manifesto rings hilariously true- all just appeared ex nihilo = your often repeated and always absurd 'God isn't needed or necessary'!
Hope that clarifies it!

Best,

[Independent]

the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis

I haven't made a hypothesis.

Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis)

What idea? What alternative hypothesis? I haven't made one.

they've neither proven that God doesn't exist

I didn't say they had - in fact i specifically said science can't prove it one way or the other.

Hope that clarifies it!

No, your use of English is as erratic and ambiguous as ever and you've also changed the subject.

To summarise: I haven’t made a hypothesis so I don’t need to support it. This thread is about Mohammad’s hypothesis - not mine, not Pygo’s, not anyone else’s.

Mohammad's hypothesis rests on the assumption that our universe is a closed system. He presents this as an established fact. It's not, so his 'proof' is not 'proven'.

If he wants to make a ‘something can’t come from nothing’ hypothesis based on an alternative premise, and construct a different proof, he is welcome. Hopefully he will rejoin this discussion at some point.

[Pygoscelis]

That's not how science works - the only way of supporting your hypothesis is to refute the null hypothesis. Rather than trying to prove your idea (the alternate hypothesis) right you must show that the null hypothesis is likely to be wrong – simply to ‘refute’ or ‘nullify’ the atheist claim and whatever is left is what's probable within a certain confidence depending on how tight we've chosen to make it in the first place.

No attempt to do that was made in the OP. No "atheist claim" is referred to, addressed, refuted or nullified. If the universe is a closed system (and it may not be), he has made no argument as to why that would require a God.

Atheist beliefs aren't so mysterious we've discussed that amply before- they've neither proven that God doesn't exist or isn't necessary nor have they provided a sound reasonable explanation to the world they find themselves in and what's in it

They don't have to. Nor could they. You can't disprove the unfalsifiable. If you really want to look at it scientifically, you would have to state a way in which your magic God could be falsified and then go and test it. If the universe wasn't thought to be a closed system, but an open system, or a static system I bet you the religious would claim that as evidence for their God. Oh, look at history, they did just that.

all just appeared ex nihilo = your often repeated and always absurd 'God isn't needed or necessary'!
Hope that clarifies it!

Logic Fail. Those two statements are not equal. You assume the closed system. Moreover, you special plead for your God to be "outside of time and space" so it could start the universe. If your God can be "outside of time and space", then I see no reason why other things or forces or entities couldn't also be.

Even if you were able to establish a first cause, you still wouldn't have shown any reason to think it is sentient, intelligent, a God, much less your particular God who wants X, Y, and Z from you.

[جوري]

I haven't made a hypothesis.

Are you Pyg, or simply confused as to what part you play since last night and wanted to piggy back ride on someone who has a more cohesive point of view?

What idea? What alternative hypothesis? I haven't made one.

Indeed.. which begs the Q of what you're doing insinuating yourself here? If you want to jump back in the thread then take care of post #14.

No, your use of English is as erratic and ambiguous as ever and you've also changed the subject.

My English isn't on trial! I suspect however, that you've never taken a science course in your life; one which you can integrate in a proper dialogue to make a useful point and when at a loss mostly sustained to your ego go about attacking my 'English'.
What should be on trial is your mental status but again this isn't the appropriate place for it. We've an advise and support section, along with the funnies section both are probably where you should concentrate your efforts!

best,

[جوري]

No attempt to do that was made in the OP. No "atheist claim" is referred to, addressed, refuted or nullified. If the universe is a closed system (and it may not be), he has made no argument as to why that would require a God.

See my previous post. You haven't made an argument at how a system open or closed can be without a God. I have already stated we weren't always in existence along with billions of other species. I'll be waiting for you to showcase how they magically appeared.. perhaps when a platypus mated with a donkey mankind came about... but I expect you to put those two together from scratch with a sprinkle of sun and water and sand & dispose of that first cause!

They don't have to. Nor could they. You can't disprove the unfalsifiable. If you really want to look at it scientifically, you would have to state a way in which your magic God could be falsified and then go and test it. If the universe wasn't thought to be a closed system, but an open system, or a static system I bet you the religious would claim that as evidence for their God. Oh, look at history, they did just that.

ha? what? see my first statement.. you're in fact starting with a double negative. You've neither given a concise scientific explanation to the world you find yourself in, nor conceded to the obvious default conclusion which by the way I find nothing at all magical about. The rest we're going to attribute to your inner child.

Logic Fail. Those two statements are not equal. You assume the closed system. Moreover, you special plead for your God to be "outside of time and space" so it could start the universe. If your God can be "outside of time and space", then I see no reason why other things or forces or entities couldn't also be.

I assumed neither-- I am merely commenting on what the atheists come up with from the original premise!
I don't use physics to believe in God or Bioengineering - we can all arrive to the same conclusions using different branches!

Even if you were able to establish a first cause, you still wouldn't have shown any reason to think it is sentient, intelligent, a God, much less your particular God who wants X, Y, and Z from you.

Again, no point discussing finite details if you don't agree with the premise itself. Then we'd be both wasting each others time!


best,

[Independent]

Are you Pyg, or simply confused as to what part you play since last night and wanted to piggy back ride on someone who has a more cohesive point of view?

For the last time, NO ONE has put a hypothesis forward except MohammadR, who seems to have disappeared. How many times do you have to be told this?

one which you can integrate in a proper dialogue to make a useful point and when at a loss mostly sustained to your ego go about attacking my 'English'

Utter gibberish. The only thing I can be sure of, is that there's bound to be some more gratuitous abuse hidden in there somewhere.

[جوري]

For the last time, NO ONE has put a hypothesis forward except MohammadR, who seems to have disappeared. How many times do you have to be told this?

This suggests otherwise:

There are hundreds of reasons that could be.

I am simply waiting for them.. and again neither of my posts were addressing you. Your portion of the events ended with post #14

Utter gibberish. The only thing I can be sure of, is that there's bound to be some more gratuitous abuse hidden in there somewhere.

and what do you call your statement above? If you dislike the reactions you receive, it is best you have a look at what part you played to merit it!

best,

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

Who are you quoting here?

The author is unknown. Ive retained the quotation marks to indicate that I do not lay claim to this gem - as simplistic as it may be, it surely does place things into perspective.

Why do religious folks always try to tell atheists that they believe the universe came from nothing? It could be cyclical. It could be split off from a multiverse. We don't have to pretend to know. We can admit we don't know. There is no need to invent magical God creatures and pretend they created the universe just so we can claim to have the answer.

The universe either came from 'something'.
Or from 'nothing'.

If it came from 'something'......then where did that 'something' come from? Something else? And where did that 'something else' come from? 'Something else'?.....And where did that 'Something else' come from?.....
We can continue ad lib on this course of thought, but at some point we have to end at a Source - the Creator.

If the universe came from 'nothing' - then......you keep trying to convince yourself of that!
Good luck!




Isn't it a great pity, that when the Creator of ALL that exists has openly DECLARED so, via means of His messengers (peace be upon them) and revelations over time - there are those who turn their faces away, in mock and denial?

Yet, this very group could not even create the wing of a fly - even if they put all of their efforts together!

The created ones.....who themselves can create nothing......but have the arrogance to deny the One who gave them life and continues to sustain them.
They have no adequate answers to their existence.
By their own admissions - they admit that they 'dont know'.

Yet, when messengers come to inform them of their existence - they claim magic!

SubhanAllah! (Glory is to Allah!)


Is this magic?
Such precision in all of creation.....has occurred by pure co-incidence/ chance? It can be seen over and over again, in all aspects of life......

You go on telling yourself this.

We'll go on preparing for our greater purpose in life - the meeting of our Lord, our Creator. All praises are due to Him alone.

[TJ-alcapone]

The universe either came from 'something'.
Or from 'nothing'.

If it came from 'something'......then where did that 'something' come from? Something else? And where did that 'something else' come from? 'Something else'?.....And where did that 'Something else' come from?.....
We can continue ad lib on this course of thought, but at some point we have to end at a Source - the Creator.

If the universe came from 'nothing' - then......you keep trying to convince yourself of that!
Good luck!

Firstly the notion of nothingness is ludicrous and something that philosophers have failed to define for centuries. But for the sake of argument, let's presume nothingness as a negation of something.

No one knows anything beyond the big bang. The big bang is a broad theory that has been accepted time and again through various branches of scientific study. All we can trace back to is a singularity that was immensely dense and hot. What caused the expansion (the bang) or what was before that (this question might even be invalid as the realm of time and space didn't come to be) there are no answers yet.

And when physicists like Lawrence Krauss use the term nothing, it is vastly different from what you are intending it to work as. So don't misconstrue words because of your religious dogma.

They have no adequate answers to their existence.
By their own admissions - they admit that they 'dont know'.

Yet, when messengers come to inform them of their existence - they claim magic!

The fact that there are no adequate scientific answers yet for certain questions doesn't mean that you should interject intermittently with ridiculous religious notions. Humans have done that for centuries and mistakenly so. Same was said of the diversity of live on earth, and then came Darwin who blew religious dogma away with strong evidence. Same will hopefully come of other intellectual pursuits such as cosmology and the inception of life. But for answers to come, mankind has to first acknowledge ignorance on some matters and secondly pursue the scientific method. Clasping hands in prayer and resorting to a ancient books written by desert people is not going to suffice.

[Independent]

Greetings Zaria. i had a quick look at your video - it covers a wide range of subjects.

Just to point out immediately however, the claims for the geographical significance of the location of Mecca are based on the use of the kilometre (a measurement introduced by Napoleon) and the Greenwich meridian (an imaginary line created by the British).

Neither of whom are generally credited with much divine insight.

Take these away and the 1618 number disappears.

Also, according to what i have looked at quickly, the figures are not accurate and the location he describes is actually 172 miles distant from Mecca.

[~Zaria~]

No one knows anything beyond the big bang. The big bang is a broad theory that has been accepted time and again through various branches of scientific study.

Yes indeed - as you say: ''THE BIG BANG IS A BROAD THEORY".

But as expected, the phrase that follows, has absolutely no substance: "that has been accepted time and again through various branches of scientific study."
Care to reveal to us the 'scientific study' that has proven the Big Bang? Go on, humour us!
A theory that can not be recreated......but has been 'accepted'?

Truly, one who falls for this, is one who will fall for anything.

What caused the expansion (the bang) or what was before that (this question might even be invalid as the realm of time and space didn't come to be) there are no answers yet.

Yes, yes - we understand.....theres lots of 'IFs', 'Buts', 'Maybe's', 'We dont know', 'there are no answers yet'.
Please, avoid wasting our times, and perhaps come back to us with something more definitive.

We wont be holding our breathes......its already been a couple hundred centuries.

And when physicists like Lawrence Krauss use the term nothing, it is vastly different from what you are intending it to work as. So don't misconstrue words because of your religious dogma.

Wow, do you mean there is ANOTHER meaning for the term 'NOTHING'?
Lol!
You guys certainly are a funny bunch.

The fact that there are no adequate scientific answers yet for certain questions doesn't mean that you should interject intermittently with ridiculous religious notions.

The only ridiculousness thus far are your own answers......or we should rather say, LACK thereof.

and then came Darwin who blew religious dogma away with strong evidence.

And then you end with this one-liner!
LOL!

For a bunch who have completely no evidences, just random hypotheses - that are held so fastly by, as though they were fact - your'll surely have alot to say.

Thanks for the comedy.

Regards

[Pygoscelis]

You've neither given a concise scientific explanation to the world you find yourself in, nor conceded to the obvious default conclusion which by the way I find nothing at all magical about. The rest we're going to attribute to your inner child.

I don't need to. I have admitted here and numerous times before that I don't pretend to know what I do not know. That should be the default conclusion for things we don't know.

God of the Gaps is NOT a valid default conclusion. We have erroneously invoked it over and over throughout history at the limits of human understanding. At one point thunder was said to be angry Gods, disease was said to be evil spirits or punishment from God for wrongdoing, etc.

Once we learned how these things really work empirical explanation replaced this erroneous "default conclusion", pushing the Gods of the Gaps further and further back, and believers have had to reform their claims and understandings of how exactly God is behind it all. Eventually we may wind up with no solid claims left for how God interferes in human affairs beyond something like "God is love" or "God is empathy", etc, something that atheists don't actually deny exists but have been calling by other names.

The rest of your post we will attribute to your inner child.

[~Zaria~]

Just to point out immediately however, the claims for the geographical significance of the location of Mecca are based on the use of the kilometre (a measurement introduced by Napoleon) and the Greenwich meridian (an imaginary line created by the British).

Neither of whom are generally credited with much divine insight.

Lets retrace our steps:

If we believe man was created by God......and man 'invented' a means of measurement......then, is that 'invention' not actually belonging to God himself?
The One who created man.
Is the One who created everything he (man) 'creates'.

It is not possible for man to 'create' anything.

Even the fire that he kindles.....comes from the wood that he cut.....that comes from the trees - that his own hands cannot, and will not be able to ever create.

So, perhaps re-thing the 'divine insight' behind the above.

Also, according to what i have looked at quickly, the figures are not accurate and the location he describes is actually 172 miles distant from Mecca.

Thanks for the insight.
I think I will go with the figures that are quoted in the video - that no doubt, the authors spent more than a 'quick' look to deduce.

[جوري]

I don't need to. I have admitted here and numerous times before that I don't pretend to know what I do not know. That should be the default conclusion for things we don't know.

God of the Gaps is NOT a valid default conclusion. We have erroneously invoked it over and over throughout history at the limits of human understanding. At one point thunder was said to be angry Gods, disease was said to be evil spirits or punishment from God for wrongdoing, etc.

You can't state that you don't need to present evidence and at the same time in the next statement speak of 'God of the Gaps' and then further meander the post with irrelevant comments about thunder gods and harvest gods. As I stated before, there's no point discussing finite details if you don't accept the premise, if you're going to find a flaw in the premise, then you must counter it with something more substantial than I don't have to, or catch all terms like 'God of the Gaps' otherwise what is the point of having what should be a fruitful discussion on the subject?

best,

[TJ-alcapone]

Yes indeed - as you say: ''THE BIG BANG IS A BROAD THEORY".

But as expected, the phrase that follows, has absolutely no substance: "that has been accepted time and again through various branches of scientific study."
Care to reveal to us the 'scientific study' that has proven the Big Bang? Go on, humour us!
A theory that can not be recreated......but has been 'accepted'?

Truly, one who falls for this, is one who will fall for anything.

Mathematics, Quantum Physics, Relativity and amongst other branches of science, all corroborate on the basic frame works of the big bang. And I hope you don't rehash the much repeated misconceived meaning of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is not speculation, not conjecture, but the highest title given to broad study of a phenomenon of the natural world that has been repeatedly confirmed through experiments, observation and predictions. I don't know what your level of education is, but you are showing an exceedingly lacking standard in understanding some elementary concepts of the natural world. Your teachers would be disappointed.

Wow, do you mean there is ANOTHER meaning for the term 'NOTHING'?
Lol!
You guys certainly are a funny bunch.

Yes, depending on your perspective, nothing would mean one of many things that are entirely different to one another. To a physicist like Lawrence Krauss Nothing to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum. To many including Einstein, quantum vacuum was not 'nothing'. The space time fabric to him was indeed 'something'. In mathematics nothing could refer to a null set. These are entirely different concepts. Your lack of philosophical rigor is pitiable.

[TJ-alcapone]

I wasn't entirely sure about the Islamic Creation story. But I knew that it was very similar to the one in Judaism and Christianity. I posted below an English translation I found. I am assuming it to be correct for all purposes.

In the time before time, God was. And when God wants to create something, all he needs to say is "Be", and it becomes. So it was that God created the world and the heavens. He made all the creatures, which walk, swim. Crawl and fly on the face of the earth. He made the angels, and the sun, moon and the stars to dwell in the universe. And consider, as the Qur'an says, how God poured down the rain in torrents, and broke up the soil to bring forth the corm, the grapes and other vegetation; the olive and the palm, the fruit trees and the grass. Then it was that God ordered the angels to go to the earth, and to bring seven handfuls of soil, all of different colours, from which he could model man. God took the seven kinds of earth and moulded them into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life. And this first man was called Adam. God took Adam to live in Paradise. In Paradise, God created Eve, the first woman, from out of Adam's side. God taught Adam the names of all the creatures, and then commanded the angel to bow down before Adam. But Iblis, one amongst the angels, refused to do this, and thus began to disobey God's will. God place the couple in a beautiful garden in Paradise, telling them that they could eat whatever they wanted except the fruit of on forbidden tree, But the evil one tempted them to disobey God, and eat the fruit. When God knew that Adam and Eve had disobeyed him, he cast them out of Paradise and sent them to earth. But God is merciful. The earth was created to give food, drink and shelter to the human race. The sun, moon and stars give light. It is a good world, where everything has been created to serve people. And people, the Qur'an teaches, should serve God and obey his will. For those who submit to the will of God will be saved, and taken to live for ever in Paradise.

And Islamic people hold this to be plausible, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence for the big bang? Laughable to say the very least. Even contemporary fiction writers could have come up with a more poetic story.

[Pygoscelis]

The universe either came from 'something'.
Or from 'nothing'.

Add "Or it has always been" and I think you've got it covered, yes.

If it came from 'something'......then where did that 'something' come from? Something else? And where did that 'something else' come from? 'Something else'?.....And where did that 'Something else' come from?.....
We can continue ad lib on this course of thought, but at some point we have to end at a Source - the Creator.

Why so? Perhaps it goes back infinitely. Perhaps not. I don't pretend to know.

If there is a first cause, then you have a creator, yes, or a creation force. I see no reason to assume it is a being, a sentient being, an intelligent being, a God being, or your particular God being.

Isn't it a great pity, that when the Creator of ALL that exists has openly DECLARED so, via means of His messengers (peace be upon them) and revelations over time - there are those who turn their faces away, in mock and denial?

You mean people claiming to be his messengers. Keep in mind that false prophets have claimed to be messengers of false Gods. False Gods have also had holy books written for them. That your God and those speaking for him operate in the same or a similar way, makes me skeptical. I see no reason to see yours as genuine. I also have to wonder why a real all powerful God would restrict the transmission of his message to books, prophets, and other such human limitations. It seems to me he could transmit the message in a unique way that only an all powerful being could, or that he could just make it simply appear in our heads as fact.

[جوري]

And Islamic people hold this to be plausible, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence for the big bang?

in what way does the story of creation contradict the big bang, perhaps you can enlighten us?

The Quran on the Expanding Universe and the Big Bang Theory

Description: This article delineates the correlation between the most accepted scientific explanation of the origin and expansion of the Universe, and the description of its origin and expansion in the Quran. By Sherif Alkassimi (© 2008 IslamReligion.com) Published on 16 Jun 2008 - Last modified on 01 Jul 2008 Viewed: 61348 (daily average: 37) - Rating: 4.4 out of 5 - Rated by: 86 Printed: 1321 - Emailed: 81 - Commented on: 1 Category: Articles > Evidence Islam is Truth > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran Category: Articles > The Holy Quran > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

Hubble’s Law For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions concerning the universe. Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the universe had always been in existence; also, that the size of the universe was fixed and not changing. However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe. Slipher, noticed that the galaxies were moving away from earth at huge velocities. These observations provided the first evidence supporting the expanding-universe theory.[1] Before the invention of the telescope in 1608, man could do little more than wonder about the origin of the universe. (Courtesy: NASA) In 1916, Albert Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity that indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Confirmation of the expanding-universe theory finally came in 1929 in the hands of the well known American astronomer Edwin Hubble. By observing redshifts[2] in the light wavelengths emitted by galaxies, Hubble found that galaxies were not fixed in their position; instead, they were actually moving away from us with speeds proportional to their distance from earth (Hubble's Law). The only explanation for this observation was that the universe had to be expanding. Hubble’s discovery is regarded as one of the greatest in the history of astronomy. In 1929, he published the velocity-time relation which is the basis of modern cosmology. In the years to come, with further observations, the expanding-universe theory was accepted by scientists and astronomers alike. With the Hooker Telescope, Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away us. Above are photos of known galaxies. (Courtesy: NASA) Yet, astonishingly well before telescopes were even invented and well before Hubble published his Law, Prophet Muhammad used to recite a verse of the Quran to his companions that ultimately stated that the universe is expanding. “And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47) At the time of the revelation of the Quran, the word “space” was not known, and people used the word “heaven” to refer to what lies above the Earth. In the above verse, the word “heaven” is referring to space and the known universe. The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states. That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope, at a time when there was primitive knowledge in science, is considered remarkable. This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself. Could it be that he had truly received divine revelation from the Creator and Originator of the universe? The Big Bang Theory Soon after Hubble published his theory, he went on to discover that not only were galaxies moving away from the Earth, but were also moving away from one another. This meant that the universe happened to be expanding in every direction, in the same way a balloon expands when filled with air. Hubble’s new findings placed the foundations for the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that around 12-15 billion years ago the universe came into existence from one single extremely hot and dense point, and that something triggered the explosion of this point that brought about the beginning of the universe. The universe, since then, has been expanding from this single point. Later, in 1965, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson made a Noble Prize winning discovery that confirmed the Bing Bang theory. Prior to their discovery, the theory implied that if the single point from which the universe came into existence was initially extremely hot, then remnants of this heat should be found. This remnant heat is exactly what Penzias and Wilson found. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that spreads through the universe. Thus, it was understood that the radiation found was a remnant of the initial stages of the Big Bang. Presently, the Big Bang theory is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers. A microwave map of the leftover from the Big Bang that gave birth to the universe. (Courtesy: NASA) It is mentioned in the Quran: “He (God) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…” (Quran 6:101) “Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes; and He is the Knowing Creator. His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Quran 36:81-82) The above verses prove that the universe had a beginning, that God was behind its creation, and all that God needs to do inorder to create is to say “Be,” and it is. Could this be an explanation as to what triggered off the explosion that brought about the beginning of the universe? The Quran also mentions: “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30) Muslim scholars who have explained the previous verse mention that the heavens and earth were once one, and then God caused them to separate and form into the seven heavens and Earth. Yet, due to the limitations of science and technology at the time of the revelation of the Quran (and for centuries to follow), no scholar was able to give much detail about how exactly the heavens and earth were created. What the scholars could explain was the precise meaning of each word in Arabic in the verse, as well as the overall meaning of the verse. In the previous verse, the Arabic words ratq and fataq are used. The word ratq can be translated into “entity” “sewn to” “joined together” or “closed up”. The meaning of these translations all circulate around something that is mixed and that has a separate and distinct existence. The verb fataq is translated into “We unstitched” “We clove them asunder” “We separated” or “We have opened them”. These meanings imply that something comes into being by an action of splitting or tearing apart. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is a good example of a similar illustration of the meaning of the verb fataq. With the introduction of the Big Bang theory, it soon became clear to Muslim scholars that the details mentioned with regards to the theory go identically hand in hand with the description of the creation of the universe in verse 30 of chapter 21 of the Quran. The theory states that all the matter in the universe came into existence from one single extremely hot and dense point; that exploded and brought about the beginning of the universe, matches what is mentioned in the verse that the heaven and Earth (thus the universe) where once joined together, and then split apart. Once again, the only possible explanation is that Prophet Muhammad had truly received divine revelation from God, The Creator and Originator of the universe. Footnotes: [1] The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg. [2] When the light an object emits is displaced toward the red end of the spectrum. (http://bjp.org.cn/apod/glossary.htm)

PoorBest Rate it			Back to top
Print	Save	E-mail	PDF Format

Add a comment	View comments(1 comment)	Site favorites	Explorer favorites
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on myspace Share on digg | More Sharing ServicesMore

Category: Articles > Evidence Islam is Truth > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

The Earth’s Atmosphere

The Quran on Human Embryonic Development

The Quran on Mountains

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe

The Quran on the Cerebrum

The Quran on Seas and Rivers

The Quran on Deep Seas and Internal Waves

The Quran on Clouds

Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

The Miracle of Iron

The Victory of the Romans and the Lowest Point on Earth

Some of the Scientific Miracles in Brief

The Amazing Quran (part 1 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 2 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 3 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 4 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 5 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 6 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 7 of 10)

Category: Articles > The Holy Quran > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

The Earth’s Atmosphere

The Quran on Human Embryonic Development

The Quran on Mountains

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe

The Quran on the Cerebrum

The Quran on Seas and Rivers

The Quran on Deep Seas and Internal Waves

The Quran on Clouds

Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

The Miracle of Iron

The Victory of the Romans and the Lowest Point on Earth

Some of the Scientific Miracles in Brief

The Amazing Quran (part 1 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 2 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 3 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 4 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 5 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 6 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 7 of 10)

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

btw do you feel that peppering your posts with a disdainful undertone to give your comments here more credence?

best,

[جوري]

And Islamic people hold this to be plausible, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence for the big bang?

in what way does the story of creation contradict the big bang, perhaps you can enlighten us?

The Quran on the Expanding Universe and the Big Bang Theory

Description: This article delineates the correlation between the most accepted scientific explanation of the origin and expansion of the Universe, and the description of its origin and expansion in the Quran. By Sherif Alkassimi (© 2008 IslamReligion.com) Published on 16 Jun 2008 - Last modified on 01 Jul 2008 Viewed: 61348 (daily average: 37) - Rating: 4.4 out of 5 - Rated by: 86 Printed: 1321 - Emailed: 81 - Commented on: 1 Category: Articles > Evidence Islam is Truth > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran Category: Articles > The Holy Quran > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

Hubble’s Law For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions concerning the universe. Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the universe had always been in existence; also, that the size of the universe was fixed and not changing. However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe. Slipher, noticed that the galaxies were moving away from earth at huge velocities. These observations provided the first evidence supporting the expanding-universe theory.[1] Before the invention of the telescope in 1608, man could do little more than wonder about the origin of the universe. (Courtesy: NASA) In 1916, Albert Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity that indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Confirmation of the expanding-universe theory finally came in 1929 in the hands of the well known American astronomer Edwin Hubble. By observing redshifts[2] in the light wavelengths emitted by galaxies, Hubble found that galaxies were not fixed in their position; instead, they were actually moving away from us with speeds proportional to their distance from earth (Hubble's Law). The only explanation for this observation was that the universe had to be expanding. Hubble’s discovery is regarded as one of the greatest in the history of astronomy. In 1929, he published the velocity-time relation which is the basis of modern cosmology. In the years to come, with further observations, the expanding-universe theory was accepted by scientists and astronomers alike. With the Hooker Telescope, Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away us. Above are photos of known galaxies. (Courtesy: NASA) Yet, astonishingly well before telescopes were even invented and well before Hubble published his Law, Prophet Muhammad used to recite a verse of the Quran to his companions that ultimately stated that the universe is expanding. “And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47) At the time of the revelation of the Quran, the word “space” was not known, and people used the word “heaven” to refer to what lies above the Earth. In the above verse, the word “heaven” is referring to space and the known universe. The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states. That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope, at a time when there was primitive knowledge in science, is considered remarkable. This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself. Could it be that he had truly received divine revelation from the Creator and Originator of the universe? The Big Bang Theory Soon after Hubble published his theory, he went on to discover that not only were galaxies moving away from the Earth, but were also moving away from one another. This meant that the universe happened to be expanding in every direction, in the same way a balloon expands when filled with air. Hubble’s new findings placed the foundations for the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that around 12-15 billion years ago the universe came into existence from one single extremely hot and dense point, and that something triggered the explosion of this point that brought about the beginning of the universe. The universe, since then, has been expanding from this single point. Later, in 1965, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson made a Noble Prize winning discovery that confirmed the Bing Bang theory. Prior to their discovery, the theory implied that if the single point from which the universe came into existence was initially extremely hot, then remnants of this heat should be found. This remnant heat is exactly what Penzias and Wilson found. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that spreads through the universe. Thus, it was understood that the radiation found was a remnant of the initial stages of the Big Bang. Presently, the Big Bang theory is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers. A microwave map of the leftover from the Big Bang that gave birth to the universe. (Courtesy: NASA) It is mentioned in the Quran: “He (God) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…” (Quran 6:101) “Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes; and He is the Knowing Creator. His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Quran 36:81-82) The above verses prove that the universe had a beginning, that God was behind its creation, and all that God needs to do inorder to create is to say “Be,” and it is. Could this be an explanation as to what triggered off the explosion that brought about the beginning of the universe? The Quran also mentions: “Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30) Muslim scholars who have explained the previous verse mention that the heavens and earth were once one, and then God caused them to separate and form into the seven heavens and Earth. Yet, due to the limitations of science and technology at the time of the revelation of the Quran (and for centuries to follow), no scholar was able to give much detail about how exactly the heavens and earth were created. What the scholars could explain was the precise meaning of each word in Arabic in the verse, as well as the overall meaning of the verse. In the previous verse, the Arabic words ratq and fataq are used. The word ratq can be translated into “entity” “sewn to” “joined together” or “closed up”. The meaning of these translations all circulate around something that is mixed and that has a separate and distinct existence. The verb fataq is translated into “We unstitched” “We clove them asunder” “We separated” or “We have opened them”. These meanings imply that something comes into being by an action of splitting or tearing apart. The sprouting of a seed from the soil is a good example of a similar illustration of the meaning of the verb fataq. With the introduction of the Big Bang theory, it soon became clear to Muslim scholars that the details mentioned with regards to the theory go identically hand in hand with the description of the creation of the universe in verse 30 of chapter 21 of the Quran. The theory states that all the matter in the universe came into existence from one single extremely hot and dense point; that exploded and brought about the beginning of the universe, matches what is mentioned in the verse that the heaven and Earth (thus the universe) where once joined together, and then split apart. Once again, the only possible explanation is that Prophet Muhammad had truly received divine revelation from God, The Creator and Originator of the universe. Footnotes: [1] The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg. [2] When the light an object emits is displaced toward the red end of the spectrum. (http://bjp.org.cn/apod/glossary.htm)

PoorBest Rate it			Back to top
Print	Save	E-mail	PDF Format

Add a comment	View comments(1 comment)	Site favorites	Explorer favorites
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on myspace Share on digg | More Sharing ServicesMore

Category: Articles > Evidence Islam is Truth > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

The Earth’s Atmosphere

The Quran on Human Embryonic Development

The Quran on Mountains

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe

The Quran on the Cerebrum

The Quran on Seas and Rivers

The Quran on Deep Seas and Internal Waves

The Quran on Clouds

Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

The Miracle of Iron

The Victory of the Romans and the Lowest Point on Earth

Some of the Scientific Miracles in Brief

The Amazing Quran (part 1 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 2 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 3 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 4 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 5 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 6 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 7 of 10)

Category: Articles > The Holy Quran > The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran

The Earth’s Atmosphere

The Quran on Human Embryonic Development

The Quran on Mountains

The Quran on the Origin of the Universe

The Quran on the Cerebrum

The Quran on Seas and Rivers

The Quran on Deep Seas and Internal Waves

The Quran on Clouds

Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran

The Miracle of Iron

The Victory of the Romans and the Lowest Point on Earth

Some of the Scientific Miracles in Brief

The Amazing Quran (part 1 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 2 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 3 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 4 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 5 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 6 of 10)

The Amazing Quran (part 7 of 10)

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

btw do you feel that peppering your posts with a disdainful undertone to give your comments here more credence?

best,

[~Zaria~]

A scientific theory is not speculation, not conjecture, but the highest title given to broad study of a phenomenon of the natural world that has been repeatedly confirmed through experiments, observation and predictions.

Forgive me, but your posts are amusing.

The 'Big Bang' has NOT been confirmed through EXPERIMENTS, NOR OBSERVATION (lol).

It is instead a speculation, laced with fancy scientific probabilities and very little facts.

I don't know what your level of education is, but you are showing an exceedingly lacking standard in understanding some elementary concepts of the natural world. Your teachers would be disappointed.

Lol.

Yes, depending on your perspective, nothing would mean one of many things that are entirely different to one another. To a physicist like Lawrence Krauss Nothing to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum. To many including Einstein, quantum vacuum was not 'nothing'. The space time fabric to him was indeed 'something'. In mathematics nothing could refer to a null set. These are entirely different concepts. Your lack of philosophical rigor is pitiable.

The fact that there are some who have chosen to provide alternatives to the definition of 'NOTHING', bears absolutely no weight with me.
If YOU have chosen to follow blindly in these meaningless definitions, then that is your choice.

As I said, the one who can fall for such baseless theories, is one who will fall for anything.

For the rest of mankind - 'NOTHING' means the 'absence of something'.

And so, if you wish to believe that creation arose from 'NOTHING' - then, you may continue to follow this illogical train of thought at your own peril.
In fact, the description of atheism provided in my first post can become your mantra.

Atheism

"The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and then nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes sense, huh?


As you chose.


Regards.

[~Zaria~]

in the face of overwhelming evidence for the big bang?

WHERE is this evidence?

We wait with baited breathes......

[Pygoscelis]

You can't state that you don't need to present evidence and at the same time in the next statement speak of 'God of the Gaps' and then further meander the post with irrelevant comments about thunder gods and harvest gods. As I stated before, there's no point discussing finite details if you don't accept the premise, if you're going to find a flaw in the premise, then you must counter it with something more substantial than I don't have to, or catch all terms like 'God of the Gaps' otherwise what is the point of having what should be a fruitful discussion on the subject?

best,

You just demanded that I provide an explanation of the universe that doesn't resort to God of the Gaps. I told you I don't have one, and that admitting that is the proper default position.

Find a flaw in what premise? That the universe is a closed system? That Gods exist? I have no idea what you are going on about now.

Perhaps you have misread my posts or perhaps I have not articulated them well?

[جوري]

You just demanded that I provide an explanation of the universe that doesn't resort to God of the Gaps. I told you I don't have one, and that admitting that is the proper default position.

Rather I asked you to make good on your original post.. the one with the -'endless possibilities' how do those reconcile that statement with your lack of putting any explanations forth? (which btw I could accept if the lot of you weren't so vehement & exasperated and down right militant about your convictions or lack thereof!)

best,

[~Zaria~]

Why so? Perhaps it goes back infinitely. Perhaps not. I don't pretend to know.

Are we supposed to follow a set of beliefs based on 'I dont know'?

If there is a first cause, then you have a creator, yes, or a creation force. I see no reason to assume it is a being, a sentient being, an intelligent being, a God being, or your particular God being.

So WHAT is it, that created everything?

You do not know?

Good.

Then, perhaps save us from your attempts at reasoning.

We are on a much more assured path. Alhamdulillah.

You mean people claiming to be his messengers. Keep in mind that false prophets have claimed to be messengers of false Gods. False Gods have also had holy books written for them. That your God and those speaking for him operate in the same or a similar way, makes me skeptical. I see no reason to see yours as genuine. I also have to wonder why a real all powerful God would restrict the transmission of his message to books, prophets, and other such human limitations. It seems to me he could transmit the message in a unique way that only an all powerful being could, or that he could just make it simply appear in our heads as fact.

No doubt, there is falsehood in this world. (Your posts as well as those of your friends are testimont to that.)

But, indeed the Creator of ALL that exists will not leave His creation to wander on blindly in confusion (lest they come up with theories such as the big bang, and then convince themselves to have evolved from apes).

He has indeed sent down messengers throughout time with the truth.
For those who wish to believe.

For those who wish to lay claim to their ape ancestory.....He has left them to their devices.

Soon enough, shall you know.


Imagine a car.
The MANUFACTURER has provided us with the MANUAL on its purpose and how to use it.

So, we chose to use the MANUAL.
And believe in the MANUFACTURER.

Rather than say, that the car appeared from nowhere.
And then, try to figure out how it is meant to be used.

So, I'll be driving along now...... : )
Thank God for the manual!

And you can stay behind and try to figure this out.

All the best!

(If you need a ride, its never too late to read the manual).


Regards

[Tyrion]

in what way does the story of creation contradict the big bang, perhaps you can enlighten us?

You might want to direct this to Zaria as well, since she was the one denying the big bangs credibility in Islam. If you're going to participate in a thread to (I assume) dispel ignorance, be fair about it.

Your lack of philosophical rigor is pitiable.

And Islamic people hold this to be plausible, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence for the big bang? Laughable to say the very least. Even contemporary fiction writers could have come up with a more poetic story.

First off, it's "Muslim", not "Islamic people". Second, you might wanna try sounding less condescending. You seem to be a student, so I'll just chalk it up to a freshman's over-inflated ego, but you won't win many people over if you continue to debate like this. (Assuming you're actually debating to inform and learn)

[Pygoscelis]

Are we supposed to follow a set of beliefs based on 'I dont know'?

Atheism is not a set of beliefs.

We are on a much more assured path. Alhamdulillah.

You think you are.

But, indeed the Creator of ALL that exists will not leave His creation to wander on blindly in confusion (lest they come up with theories such as the big bang, and then convince themselves to have evolved from apes).

He has indeed sent down messengers throughout time with the truth.
For those who wish to believe.

And yet, the world is full of millions of well meaning people, who very much wish to believe and know the true God, and most of them then find Gods and understandings of Gods that conflict with yours. Do you think the Christian, Jew, and Hindu are less genuine than the Muslim in their desire for spiritual truth and enlightenment? If your God exists, and if he is all powerful, then the only answer I can see is that he intends all of this confusion and the conflict and suffering that comes from it. Is that so?

[جوري]

You might want to direct this to Zaria as well, since she was the one denying the big bangs credibility in Islam. If you're going to participate in a thread to (I assume) dispel ignorance, be fair about it.

She has done no such thing. She's merely reduced it down to size for what it. There are many competing theories, string theories, oscillating universe, etc.
There's no point adhering to one or another as a form of religion. Theories are based on empiricism leaving room for many conjectures. Yet none of the conjectures prove or fail to disprove that a creator is needed for the entire process to go forth.
Science only works with observable phenomenon and surmises the rest.. many things come under that heading but none of them confute a first clause!

best,

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace upon you all,

"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happend to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?"

John Updike

[TJ-alcapone]

First off, it's "Muslim", not "Islamic people". Second, you might wanna try sounding less condescending. You seem to be a student, so I'll just chalk it up to a freshman's over-inflated ego, but you won't win many people over if you continue to debate like this. (Assuming you're actually debating to inform and learn)

That was a terminological error. I stand corrected. Ironic isn't it, you call me out on being condescending while you are clearly no different. I don't care to win over people. How people wish to extrapolate from what is written is not my choice. People with fundamental religious outlooks very rarely question it. It is not in my power or concern to sweet talk them. If one makes a factual error I will call them out. We are all entitled to our opinions. I'll give you a piece of my mind and you give me yours.

You can't state that you don't need to present evidence and at the same time in the next statement speak of 'God of the Gaps' and then further meander the post with irrelevant comments about thunder gods and harvest gods

Incorrect. If there is a certain proposition in question, there is no need to provide an alternative. Simply showing that the proposition as lacking evidence would suffice.

in what way does the story of creation contradict the big bang, perhaps you can enlighten us?

You are indulging in selective confirmation bias now. You are taking an existing scientific concept, and then cherry picking your words from an unrelated book, and claiming that the book has some 'truth value' to it as certain words are interpreted in coherence with the scientific statement. Where is data, where are the studies, where are the in depth predictions There are none. Also if you want the Islamic creation story to be falsified, take the story of Adam and Eve for example. Or the story of how 6 day (or time period) story of the creations of the heavens and the earth. These are entirely contradictory to scientific claims. And finally, if you so happen to find a sentence that is coherent with science, you will have to stop at that. You can't extrapolate anything else. Or else you would be indulging in a non-sequitur.

You might want to direct this to Zaria as well, since she was the one denying the big bangs credibility in Islam. If you're going to participate in a thread to (I assume) dispel ignorance, be fair about it.

Thank you for being one of the gracious few to not ignore that. Often I find people in this forum to be at opposing ends of a empirical position, but yet they purposefully overlook that as they don't wish to question one another's beliefs just because they are fellow muslims. This is intellectual dishonesty. And this only goes to prove my point which I made a long time back on this forum. However fundamental and literal your interpretation of your holy book, the way you extrapolate from that will differ. And if you take into consideration thousands of miles, hundreds of years and vast differences in socio-economic conditions into consideration, theological differences are inevitable. So arguing and claiming that your interpretation is so how more valid is ludicrous. That is why religion is abstract, and should be judged by its followers.

The question is if or not you would give your holy book more credence than empirical knowledge. If the former is what is you choose, that scientific pursuit is of no meaning to you. One can believe anything. And every belief is substantiated by reasons, both good and bad. I so happen to think that empiricism is the best way forward. I find little to no value in paying heed to the words of desert dwelling prophets. Your opinions and hence world view might differ in this basic yet most important way.

[جوري]

Incorrect. If there is a certain proposition in question, there is no need to provide an alternative. Simply showing that the proposition as lacking evidence would suffice.

and so far none of you have shown that the proposition in question is in error. Also refer to my earlier post citing the null hypothesis and reflect on it before you gauge in an allegedly scientific topic to lessen the blows you'll receive for your inadequate attempts!

You are indulging in selective confirmation bias now. You are taking an existing scientific concept, and then cherry picking your words from an unrelated book, and claiming that the book has some 'truth value' to it as certain words are interpreted in coherence with the scientific statement. Where is data, where are the studies, where are the in depth predictions There are none. Also if you want the Islamic creation story to be falsified, take the story of Adam and Eve for example. Or the story of how 6 day (or time period) story of the creations of the heavens and the earth. These are entirely contradictory to scientific claims. And finally, if you so happen to find a sentence that is coherent with science, you will have to stop at that. You can't extrapolate anything else. Or else you would be indulging in a non-sequitur.

this is a great deal of drivel from someone who hasn't the slightest or most basic knowledge of the scientific method- you're rather pedantic and schoolboy like in your writing but with a lot of moxie that's not backed up by either good manners, actual scientific research, nor a proper falsification of what the other parties are bringing to the table.
If you prefer insults then none of us seem to have reached your level of expertise indeed you'll find yourself alone and will be better suited for other equally under-educated hoodlums. If you want an honest exchange then start by addressing the subjects (do some research from both sides without so much cognitive conservatism)
Don't be so militant about your beliefs greenhorn it is as unattractive as you find it!


best,

[May Ayob]

Greetings,
"Atheism is not a set of beliefs" Pygoscelis.
Pardon me,if I may ask,how is Atheism not a set of beliefs? it kind of is I mean theres more to Atheism than just giving up faith in God all together or that deciding since there are so many different religions in the world then it makes it all a sham because no one can prove or disprove the other they're either all valid or invalid at all,I've figured Atheism does seem to have a sequence of beliefs that turns into a belief system.

Sorry I'm having trouble replying to you using qoutes but for your other question. She didn't create or invent "her" God so she doesn't possess him in any way God is God the one Creator that everyone refers to please don't mention polytheistic religion and say what about krishna and zeus ...etc this is not where I am getting at.I actually don't believe that any nonmuslim is any less genuine in their desire of finding truth but God does not intend confusion and suffering but He gave us a mind for a reason and a big universe to contemplate on. Also I can simply answer you in all honesty that I really don't know why God would or wouldn't do anything but what he does or doesn't do can not be used as evidence to prove or deny His existance, we must have faith and trust in Him, I hope you will one day fibd faith in Him.

Peace be to you.

[Independent]

I actually don't believe that any nonmuslim is any less genuine in their desire of finding truth

Well said, May Ayob.

I hope you will one day fibd faith in Him

It's amazing how rarely anyone says that here.

[TJ-alcapone]

and so far none of you have shown that the proposition in question is in error. Also refer to my earlier post citing the null hypothesis and reflect on it before you gauge in an allegedly scientific topic to lessen the blows you'll receive for your inadequate attempts!

I indeed have shown that to be the case. Below is my post again from before. The argument from incredulity is a very common one of the obtuse religious mind.

The author of this thread MohammedR, has rather hastily and in an exceedingly incorrect way come to conclusions due to poor understanding of some rather basic scientific principles.


Originally Posted by MohammadR
The universe is a closed system.


The very first line is a rudimentary failure. When anyone refers to the universe, they are usually referring to the observable universe. What is beyond this observable universe? It is essentially a lost cause, as due to the nature of photos and how physics works. Beyond a particular distance, we cease to be able to observe radiation. So to assume that the universe to be a closed system is incorrect.

The big bang is the best possible scientific explanation as of today as to how the universe as we know came to be. All we know is that the universe expanded to what it is today from an infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity. What happened before that, no one really knows. And in a philosophical sense, that question is meaningless as the time space continuum did not exist.

Trying to use Newtonian physics to explain the workings of the universe is perhaps your biggest mistake of all. Newtonian physics requires you to consider the constraints of absolute time and fixed 3 dimensional space (height, length and width) as being linear. That is why Eisenstein's contributions in relativity has been so monumental. Newtonian physics work very well on a day to day level to explain phenomenon related to earth. But as you hit the realm of space and time, the unravel rather easily.

This post exemplifies the dangerous nature of religious dogma. If you already have your conclusions drawn out from the start, objective pursuit of knowledge is impossible. You will scour through, filter and twist your extrapolations to fit your conclusions, rather than form hypotheses from data. Science is a bottom up approach, not a top-down one., has rather hastily and in an exceedingly incorrect way come to conclusions due to poor understanding of some rather basic scientific principles.

this is a great deal of drivel from someone who hasn't the slightest or most basic knowledge of the scientific method

You are the one spewing all the religious bunk and you accuse me of being the one lacking knowledge of the scientific method. Well done. You are free to delude yourself in any number of ways you want, but for once stop thinking that you understand science or its workings.

[جوري]

I indeed have shown that to be the case. Below is my post again from before. The argument from incredulity is a very common one of the obtuse religious mind.

yes I have had a look unfortunately twice. I am not seeing much substance to prove or disprove God in what you've written. Do you care to address that? I am not interested in third grade biology or physics or your ability to regurgitate information you've harnessed during your formative yrs.

You are the one spewing all the religious bunk and you accuse me of being the one lacking knowledge of the scientific method. Well done. You are free to delude yourself in any number of ways you want, but for once stop thinking that you understand science or its workings.

Where is the 'religious bunk' I have spewd? I can't imagine that anyone here cares enough as to what you choose to believe or disbelieve. Question is why do you make it so personal? Do you have something to prove? Do you need the members here to validate your fifth grade physics and or 5th grade biology?


best,

[Pygoscelis]

I've figured Atheism does seem to have a sequence of beliefs that turns into a belief system.

Atheists can have all sorts of different world views. Their atheism only states that they don't believe in Gods. She asked how can you base your life on atheism. You can't. Not on atheism alone. It's not like how people may base their life on Islam or Christianity or other systems of beliefs. Atheists have worldviews and systems of belief, but atheism isn't it. There is no holy book or doctrine or dogma or Imam or Pope. Not all atheists are humanists. Not all believe in evolution. Not all are materialists (some believe in life force or ESP or ghosts). Some are even culturally culturally adhered to religions (ie, Judaism) and follow dietary laws or rules of these religions without believing in the divinity of it.

God does not intend confusion and suffering but He gave us a mind for a reason and a big universe to contemplate on.

If he created the universe and has every power to change it at his whim, then clearly he desires it the way it is. You may argue that he sees value in the suffering and confusion, that maybe it is needed for some higher purpose or something, but I don't think you can really deny he wants it and yet maintain he is all powerful.

Peace be to you.

Unlike many who seem to say that out of tradition, I sense you actually mean it, and I appreciate the sentiment and wish peace upon you as well.

[Futuwwa]

In the time before time, God was. And when God wants to create something, all he needs to say is "Be", and it becomes. So it was that God created the world and the heavens. He made all the creatures, which walk, swim. Crawl and fly on the face of the earth. He made the angels, and the sun, moon and the stars to dwell in the universe. And consider, as the Qur'an says, how God poured down the rain in torrents, and broke up the soil to bring forth the corm, the grapes and other vegetation; the olive and the palm, the fruit trees and the grass. Then it was that God ordered the angels to go to the earth, and to bring seven handfuls of soil, all of different colours, from which he could model man. God took the seven kinds of earth and moulded them into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life. And this first man was called Adam. God took Adam to live in Paradise. In Paradise, God created Eve, the first woman, from out of Adam's side. God taught Adam the names of all the creatures, and then commanded the angel to bow down before Adam. But Iblis, one amongst the angels, refused to do this, and thus began to disobey God's will. God place the couple in a beautiful garden in Paradise, telling them that they could eat whatever they wanted except the fruit of on forbidden tree, But the evil one tempted them to disobey God, and eat the fruit. When God knew that Adam and Eve had disobeyed him, he cast them out of Paradise and sent them to earth. But God is merciful. The earth was created to give food, drink and shelter to the human race. The sun, moon and stars give light. It is a good world, where everything has been created to serve people. And people, the Qur'an teaches, should serve God and obey his will. For those who submit to the will of God will be saved, and taken to live for ever in Paradise.

Cool story, bro. Did you pull that out of a corn flakes box? Because if it came out of any actual Islamic scripture, I'm sure I would have seen it.

Seems like someone failed at basic rigour ;D

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

If he created the universe and has every power to change it at his whim, then clearly he desires it the way it is. You may argue that he sees value in the suffering and confusion, that maybe it is needed for some higher purpose or something, but I don't think you can really deny he wants it and yet maintain he is all powerful.

You may find the following post helpful in response to this:

Greetings,

I'm willing to deal with this question, but first we have to define evil. What do you percieve as evil? Is it possible that your perception is very limited?

If you saw a man cutting a child's arm off, you would probably say he was evil, right? But if you learned that that man was a doctor amputating the child's arm to prevent sickness that would leave him crippled for life or kill him - then that man is not evil, he is good.

As for the question of Epicurus, I would agree that God is certanly able to eradicate evil, but before I say that He is not willing, let me clarify the understanding of God's will according to Islamic theology. Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen writes the following:

We believe that Allah’s Will (iraadah) is of two types:

1. Universal will (kawniyyah): So whatever occurs, happens only by His Will. It is not necessary that what occurs is actually liked by Allah. Thus, it is similar in meaning to volition (mashee’ah); as in Allah’s statement:

And if Allah had so wished, they would not have fought eachother, but Allah does whatever He wills. [Al-Baqarah 2:253]
If Allah Wills to leave you astray, He is your Lord. [Hood 11:34]

2. Legislated Will (shar’iyyah): It is not necessary that this Will should occur. This Will does not happen, except in what He loves and desires, such as in Allah the Exalted’s statement:

Allah desires to forgive you [An-Nisaa 4:27]

So according to this, I would say that God desires (shar'iyyah) that there be no evil, but He is not willing (kawniyyah) to actually enforce this desire since He has already entrusted human beings with this task. Consider an analogy. You allow a volunteer to do some job in your office which you could easily do youself, but you want them to do the work so that it will look good on their resume. Now, that's their job, you want it to get done, and you are entirely capable of doing it yourself. But you want them to do it themselves so it will benefit them.

The same is true for this world. We are given the position of God's viceroy on earth, to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. Sure, God could do it Himself, but that's not His job, its ours. He is giving us the honor of serving Him, because He loves us and wants us to have this pleasure, as well as the pleasure of the hereafter. So if there's any evil in the world its our fault for not doing our job, not God's fault. It certainly is insolent for the employee to blame the employer when the employee doesn't finish his task!

So here I've explained the 'problem' without even getting into the idea of a test or a punishment.

Another useful post on the issue of suffering in this world: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1402052

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

To recap what we have learnt so far:

1. The universe either began from 'nothing' - the meaning of which, is 'the absence of something'.
We all know that this is not possible.
There is not an entity on earth that arises from nothing.
Let all the atheists of the world try to re-create a scenario where something arises out of complete nothingness - and then perhaps we can re-consider.

2. The universe had to begin from 'something'.
And that something has to have had a Source.
A creator.
When one looks at a table/ a car/ a building, etc - we all accept that there was a 'creator' behind it.
Even though he/ she may not be seen - we will find it implausable that these items could have created themselves.

3. There is NO evidence to prove the Big Bang theory.
We have requested from our atheist friends to bring proof - a re-creatable and reproducible (on a smaller scale) model whereby current mathematical data used to create the hypothesis of the Big Bang can be proven.
The fact is that the Big Bang is nothing more than a Hypothesis, or in the words of TJ-alcapone himself: "The big bang is the best possible scientific explanation".
It is an 'explanation' that has been palmed off innocent lay-people, who are unable to comprehend the volumes of scientific jargon used to get to this point, as though it is a proven fact.
It is nothing more than a means to try to deny the existence of the One Supreme Creator.

A Creator that exists, despite of His creations denial of Him.
The very creations who happily accept the existence of 'creators' to what is produced and is used in the world.
But chose to deny the Supreme Creator of ALL.

4. There is NO logical explanation to account for the precision that we see in every aspect of life-form - from the eyes of an atheist.
The video that has been provided in my earlier post is just one means to direct us towards appreciating the flawless nature of this universe.
To assume that any life form arises each and every time - in its exact manner of development, by itself - without a Higher Power or 'director' mocks the intelligence of human-kind as a whole.
Try to build a bridge without an engineer......and then try to reproduce this bridge again and again and again - without any form of directive whatsoever, and lets see what type of structure will ensue.
We can understand these very basic and simple concepts when it comes to our day-to-day life.
But when it comes to our very purpose of life - which entails the need to give recognition to a Creator - we turn to ridiculous propositions, and then cannot understand why, 'religious' folk cannot follow this bizarre train of thought.


The following video is from the beautiful chapter of the Holy Quraan: Surah Mulk. Please watch and God-willingly re-consider:

"Blessed is He in Whose Hand is the dominion,
and He is Able to do all things.

Who has created death and life,
that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct.

And He is the Mighty, the Forgiving;

Who has created the seven heavens one above another,

You will not see any flaw in what the Lord of Mercy creates.

Look again! Can you see any flaws?
Then look again! And yet again!

Your sight will return back to you, weak and made dim."

I sincerely pray that you ponder over the meaning of your life.
Look at the tree outside your window - it grows perfectly, without any help from mankind.
It did not re-arrange itself by chance. How could it?
Look at your hands.
How perfectly designed.
You did not create them - even of those of your children - you had no part in their actual formation.
Did your beautiful eyes place themselves exactly in their sockets by magic?

How do you look on this world and see no master director?
No Supreme Being who is keeping you alive?

Is your end to the earth, to dust - and thats it?
What a sad, purposeless existence.


The muslims on this forum stand to gain absolutely naught, in your belief in Allah - the Creator, Fashioner, Sustainer of all.

Those who chose to follow explanations that lack all forms of logic and reasoning, may do so.

Your denial of my God, and your God does not lessen His existence in the least.


Regards.

[Independent]

The universe either began from 'nothing'

As was said early on in response to MohammadR's first post, it's not possible to say with our current state of knowledge that the universe began from nothing. Our universe may be one of many which interact with each other infinitely, both in the past and into the future. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it may be that there there never was a beginning, and there will be no end.

This should not be an unimaginable concept - after all, Allah and Heaven are also described as existing infinitely.

There is NO evidence to prove the Big Bang theory.

As has been pointed out, this flatly contradicts the views of some others in this thread and elsewhere. The Bang Bang theory has been enthusiastically adopted by many Muslims and scholars and seen as compatible with scripture.

My personal reaction - and I hope I'm not expressing this in an offensive or disrespectful way, I'm just trying to describe my feelings - is that this demonstrates the risk of using science to support or verify scripture (Islamic or otherwise). On the one hand, that science may be revised or even completely replaced. On the other hand, the language of scripture is often beautiful, poetic and metaphorical - but not very scientific (no reason why it should be). If it were exact, we would have been making new scientific discoveries from the text, rather than trying to confirm discoveries made elsewhere.

In fact, if the Big Bang theory were indeed in the future to be definitively proven wrong and replaced, then the apparent 'confirmatory text' in the Qu'ran would be reinterpreted. The meaning of the Qu'ran should be for all time, not simply redefined as the next scientific theory comes along.

To summarise: there are many possible reasons for faith, but the 'something from nothing' argument can't be one of them unless/until we understand more about our universe.

['Abd-al Latif]

My perspnal reaction - and I hope I'm not expressing this in an offensive or disrespectful way, I'm just trying to describe my feelings - is that this demonstrates the risk of using science to support or verify scripture (Islamic or otherwise). On the one hand, that science may be revised or even completely replaced. On the other hand, the language of scripture is often beautiful, poetic and metaphorical - but not very scientific (no reason why it should be). If it were exact, we would have been making new scientific discoveries from the text, rather than trying to confirm discoveries made elsewhere.

In fact, if the Big Bang theory were indeed in the future to be definitively proven wrong and replaced, then the apparent 'confirmatory text' in the Qu'ran would be reinterpreted. The meaning of the Qu'ran should be for all time, not simply redefined as the next scientific theory comes along.

To summarise: there are many possible reasons for faith, but the 'something from nothing' argument can't be one of them unless/until we understand more about our universe.

I haven't been really following this thread but I feel the need to respond to the above. The Qur'an talks about a Creator who created everything and therefore what He says is going to be in accordance with facts, be they scientific or otherwise. Islam is not in need to be proven by science because by definition science is "the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms". Based on this definition science is human study, subject to the limitations, restrictions and constraints of a human being. Therefore, decisive answers can never be found in science alone because ultimately man played no part in bringing himself into this world and he will never find true direction until he is given divine guidance.

All scientific facts that are in agreement with Qur'an are correct and all else is, quite frankly, false. And this is how it will always remain regardless of widely accepted theories and guesses.

1400 years ago Allah revealed: "And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating." (Qur'an 21:32)

Under three layers of darkness (the skin, the blood and the womb) Allah revealed about the embryo: "We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an 'alaqah' (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the 'alaqah' into a 'mudghah' (chewed-like substance)..." (Quran 23:12-14)

And Allah also says about the sweet and salt water: "He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress." (Quran, 55:19-20)

Who could have known all of this 1400 years ago? A man who never left the deserts of Arabia, was illiterate and never once set foot on sea? The only one who knows all of this is the One who has created all that exists. The signs that point to a Creator are not limited to this: what makes your heart beat every second for up to 80 to a 100 years without the human ever once giving it that instruction? There is a cause which creates every affect, and the Creator makes the cause by way of divine decree and the affect is that you are able to perceive with your five sense, the insects are able to live and make their homes with the exact tools on their bodies that is needed for their survival and the four seasons change – all without human intervention. To this Allah revealed: "These are indeed signs for those who reflect" (Qur'an)

"He Who has created seven heavens in full harmony with one another: no incongruity will you see in the creation of the Most Gracious. And turn your vision (upon it) once more: can you see any flaw? Turn your vision (upon it) again and yet again: (and every time) your vision will fall back upon you, dazzled and truly defeated."[Al-Qur'an 67:3-4]

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

Atheists will never believe in God until they see God. This is just the purest form of arrogance towards God that you can imagine. Like an orphan being supported by a person he/she has never seen before and refusing to accept that this person exists just because he/she did not see that person. God has provided you with all that you have and all He asks is for you to be grateful, yet all you show is arrogance. The Qur'aan is not a book of science, it is a book of signs. All atheists do is speak about the "need" for a God. If you don't believe that God exists, surely you don't think you need a God, but it is impossible for someone who believes in God to think he/she doesn't need God. We human-beings need God, He doesn't need us. Before you jump to conclusions about whether God exists or not, first find out WHO God really is according to the scriptures.

When I wasn't practicing Islam, it was only because I didn't know who Allah Almighty was, you could say I was ignorant of Allah (s.w.t.) just like an atheist would be. I just knew he was the God that Muslims worshiped. Only after realizing who Allah (s.w.t.) is I started practicing the religion as much as I possibly can. So do yourself a favor, read the Qur'aan and find out who Allah (s.w.t.) is and THEN bring forth your arguments. Allah (s.w.t.) has challenged all the non-believers, including the most intelligent atheists:
And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.

And Allah (s.w.t.) knows best.

Salam 3laikum

[~Zaria~]

As was said early on in response to MohammadR's first post, it's not possible to say with our current state of knowledge that the universe began from nothing. Our universe may be one of many which interact with each other infinitely, both in the past and into the future. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it may be that there there never was a beginning, and there will be no end.

This should not be an unimaginable concept - after all, Allah and Heaven are also described as existing infinitely.

The reason why we use the 'did the universe arise from nothing?' approach is simply because - even an atheist will accept that this does not make sense.

Which would mean that the only alternative is that the universe arose from 'something'.......we do not need to speculate what it is - Allah knows best.
And so, in this instance - there HAS to be a SOURCE/ a CREATOR for whatever it is that gave rise to this 'something'......which then gave rise to the universe.

No atheist enjoys this approach because it would mean that he has no alternative but to accept the existence of a Creator.

As has been pointed out, this flatly contradicts the views of some others in this thread and elsewhere. The Bang Bang theory has been enthusiastically adopted by many Muslims and scholars and seen as compatible with scripture.

I have not said that the Big Bang cannot be possible. Allah knows best.

The fact is: there is no way of knowing what actually occurred billions of years ago.

Through the eyes of atheists, who do not have any scriptures to 'back' them up - it is THEIR prerogative to PROVE their claim of the Big Bang.
Why?
Because their ENTIRE basis of existence lies in the Big Bang - which in itself is a hypothesis - that can never be proven.

YET: they expect mankind to disregard the revelations and messengers that have come upon the ages.....for what? A Hypothesis!

The fact that the theory has been 'adopted' by some muslim scholars is not proof in itself.

As you mention, it is not for us to try to 'mould' the verses of the Quraan to align with current day beliefs.

For muslims, whether or not the Quraan makes (possible) reference towards creation arising from a scenario similiar to the big bang (depending on ones interpretation) - does not change anything within the framework of Islam.
In fact, it matters little to us - for we know, that there are many secrets of this universe that lie with Allah (subhanawataála) alone.


Regards

[~Zaria~]

Atheists will never believe in God until they see God.

SubhanAllah, sounds similiar to this:

[Independent]

Islam is not in need to be proven by science...decisive answers can never be found in science alone

I understand that and I completely agree with it. That's precisely why I don't understand attempts to 'prove' Islam by reference to scientific theories and discoveries (whether it be Big Bang or anything else). By trying to root a proof in science, particularly in cutting edge speculative science which is far from complete, people run the risk of finding it contradicted at a later date.

I also understand that this means the science (man) was wrong, not Allah/God. For that very reason, how does it make sense to try and read scientific ideas into the Qur'an?

[Independent]

The Qur'aan is not a book of science, it is a book of signs

I agree - but if you look back to the first post, which I have been endeavoring to stick to throughout this thread, you'll see an 'argument from science', not signs.

Through the eyes of atheists, who do not have any scriptures to 'back' them up - it is THEIR prerogative to PROVE their claim of the Big Bang.
Why?
Because their ENTIRE basis of existence lies in the Big Bang - which in itself is a hypothesis - that can never be proven.

This is not correct - atheists may or may not believe in the Big Bang. They may believe in another theory, or even have no view at all of this subject. Personally, I'm not completely convinced of the Big Bang myself (although I'm not necessarily strictly an atheist either).

The reason why we use the 'did the universe arise from nothing?' approach is simply because - even an atheist will accept that this does not make sense.

I understand that this is the reason for the argument. But as I have said, in a multiverse scenario, there may be no beginning and no end. So, there is never a moment when 'something has to come from nothing'. There is no 'beginning' to be explained.

By the way, i don't think any of this is a 'proof' for atheism or a 'disproof' of divinity. As I have said already, I believe science can neither prove nor disprove divinity. I do disagree with the first post which claimed to do exactly that.

This has turned into a general discussion of atheism, but I'm not trying to answer that. Only the first post.

['Abd-al Latif]

I understand that and I completely agree with it. That's precisely why I don't understand attempts to 'prove' Islam by reference to scientific theories and discoveries (whether it be Big Bang or anything else). By trying to root a proof in science, particularly in cutting edge speculative science which is far from complete, people run the risk of finding it contradicted at a later date.

I also understand that this means the science (man) was wrong, not Allah/God. For that very reason, how does it make sense to try and read scientific ideas into the Qur'an?

I didn't say science was wrong because that's not entirely the case. There are some things which are true and are proven by human experience. But it doesn't make sense to try and prove Islam using science when the opposite is the case. At most what is being done is showing the shortcomings of science using science itself.

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum all,

Science is something human-beings need to understand how the world works. Islam is not against science, and that is why you wont find a single verse in the Qur'aan that contradicts with a scientific fact. But this does not mean that we should all depend on what science tells us. The main difference between Islam and science is that what science tells us today, could be proven wrong tomorrow, this is not the case with the Qur'aan. Human-beings cannot solely depend upon science because human-beings are prone to error, God however isn't. I remember reading an article about the "scientific benefits of the way Muslims pray", okay that's all very nice and dandy, subhanAllah for this discovery, but tomorrow if science says that "the way Muslims pray can harm the body" does that mean we will stop praying? No. My point is, yes it's very nice that many verses in the Qur'aan support scientific facts of today and that is one of its miracles, but this does not mean we should blindly believe what science says because it has been proven before that science has been wrong at times, this has never been the case with the Qur'aan though, subhanAllah!

Salam 3laikum

[Pygoscelis]

The reason why we use the 'did the universe arise from nothing?' approach is simply because - even an atheist will accept that this does not make sense.

For the most part, yes, aside from Laurence Krauss and others like him.

Which would mean that the only alternative is that the universe arose from 'something'

It has already been noted in this thread a few times now that this isn't the only alternative. Why do you ignore that and repeat this again?

And so, in this instance - there HAS to be a SOURCE/ a CREATOR for whatever it is that gave rise to this 'something'......which then gave rise to the universe.

Again, as was said above, even if there was a first cause of everything, you have not shown that that requires a creator being, as opposed to a mere energy or force or whatever. You have not shown that it must be sentient, intelligent, much less be your God.

The fact is: there is no way of knowing what actually occurred billions of years ago.

Glad you are willing to admit that now. You don't know. So why pretend you do?

Through the eyes of atheists, who do not have any scriptures to 'back' them up - it is THEIR prerogative to PROVE their claim of the Big Bang.
Why?

Yes Why?

Because their ENTIRE basis of existence lies in the Big Bang

Who told you that? You don't have to accept the big bang theory to be an atheist. I personally find it unlikely as an ultimate starting point. I don't cease to exist or lose all basis of existence by holding that view.

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

@Pygoscelis, lets summarise what you have said so far in this thread:

Why so? Perhaps it goes back infinitely. Perhaps not. I don't pretend to know.

If there is a first cause, then you have a creator, yes, or a creation force.

I see no reason to assume it is a being, a sentient being, an intelligent being, a God being, or your particular God being.

You just demanded that I provide an explanation of the universe that doesn't resort to God of the Gaps. I told you I don't have one,

In summary, the sum total of your knowledge with regards to what YOU ascribe to is..... (#drum roll#)......YOU DONT KNOW!

So, please tell us, why are you still on this thread?
And more importantly, what makes you think that the rest of the world is so gullible and naive to base the only life that they have been bestowed with, on a theory mostly based on SPECULATION or worse, in your case - IGNORANCE?

Amazing.


Yet, you further go on to say:

It has already been noted in this thread a few times now that this isn't the only alternative. Why do you ignore that and repeat this again?.

An alternative to God has not been 'noted in this thread a few times now'.
In fact, you yourself, have not been able to provide an alternative to the Creator (as from the above quoted post) - but admit that: You do not know.

So, we will indeed continue to repeat the belief in ONE CREATOR - UNTIL, someone can actually provide us with some substance to his debate.

Again, as was said above, even if there was a first cause of everything, you have not shown that that requires a creator being, as opposed to a mere energy or force or whatever. You have not shown that it must be sentient, intelligent, much less be your God.

Have YOU ever seen anything in life being 'created' or invented by anything less than an intelligent being?

Have you witnessed lifeless objects go on to produce something else?
Can a table produce a chair?
Can a car produce a bicycle?

Do you think these examples sound ridiculous?

Well, thats how ridiculous your above notion sounds to everyone else.

That this entire universe, with its immense beauty and diverse creations - all arising with such precision - has come about from:
- ?? a less intelligent source
- ?? a lifeless source

Again, if you 'do not know' the answers, and it appears that you care less to find out the answers to your existence - then save us from the lengthy posts that have no substance. Please.

Glad you are willing to admit that now. You don't know. So why pretend you do?

Lol.
Muslims do not hold fast to the 'Big Bang' theory. We have never pretended to know what exactly happened at the point of creation.

What we DO say, is that ALLAH, the Creator of all things - created this universe......in a way, that truly only HE knows best.

If there are verses in the Quraan that can 'possibly' correlate with the big bang - then so be it.

Our basis of faith is not affected in either way.

Who told you that? You don't have to accept the big bang theory to be an atheist. I personally find it unlikely as an ultimate starting point. I don't cease to exist or lose all basis of existence by holding that view.

I have to admit, this is news to me.

I have always been under the impression that all atheists accept the big bang as their starting point.

So, if you find it 'an unlikely' possibility - I wonder what you presume to be the origins of your existence.

If your answer is 'I dont know', then perhaps do yourself a favour, and start searching for these answers.

Its only in YOUR best interests to know why you are here, what is your purpose and where are you headed to.


Regards

[Tyrion]

In summary, the sum total of your knowledge with regards to what YOU ascribe to is..... (#drum roll#)......YOU DONT KNOW!

So, please tell us, why are you still on this thread?

His point (as he's repeated for you multiple times) is that he doesn't know certain things about the world, and religious folks don't "know" either. Not with certainty. The claim is that religious people merely pretend to know, while others own up to our general ignorance and try to figure it out by studying the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pygo.

[Tyrion]

Since you ascribe to 'science' as the basis of what you lay claim to - we need evidence, backed up by science.

If you have none, and indeed there is NONE - then save us from the posts that contain a lot of words, but say very little.

I'm sorry, but you're one of the few religious people I've run into that vehemently rejects any notion of the Big Bang. Sure, we can't know for sure how things began, but (from what I understand, obviously) we have theories for a reason. You don't seem to have even attempted to study any of the science behind a lot of what you claim is bogus, so I think it might be wise to do so before getting into a debate online.

[Tyrion]

Lol.

You've closed the case even though you have nothing to support your position.

Ahh, atheists - what a funny bunch of characters : )


Regards

I'm always depressed when I see these "debates" and notice the Muslim/religious side has worse manners than the atheist side. Politeness and respect goes a long way, you know, even if it's one sided. I'll admit, this Tjalcapone guy doesn't seem like the most humble dude, but you use this tone even with pygo who is one of our more civil members.

EDIT: Sorry I split this response into 3 separate posts, I got lazy... :p:

[~Zaria~]

His point (as he's repeated for you multiple times) is that he doesn't know certain things about the world, and religious folks don't "know" either. Not with certainty. The claim is that religious people merely pretend to know, while others own up to our general ignorance and try to figure it out by studying the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pygo.

Yes, brother - that is exactly what I am confirming in my previous post.

Which is why it is astounding for one who is in ignorance about a matter, to try to convince others of their position.

'Religious folks' do not need to know the secrets of the universe - whether or not the universe began with a big bang, is immaterial to us.

Our faith lies in the belief in the Creator.

For the atheist who, does ascribe to the big bang, it is HIS duty to:

1. Provide us evidence.
2. Explain to us where the immense energy that was required, actually came from. What is its Source?


If they do not have the answers to this, then surely they cannot expect those who DO have the answers to discard them......and follow their ignorance instead.


Salaam

[~Zaria~]

I'm sorry, but you're one of the few religious people I've run into that vehemently rejects any notion of the Big Bang. Sure, we can't know for sure how things began, but (from what I understand, obviously) we have theories for a reason. You don't seem to have even attempted to study any of the science behind a lot of what you have an issue with, so I think it might be wise to do so before getting into a debate online.

I do not 'reject' the Big Bang.

Im cutting it down to size.

I do not need to provide scientific hypotheses for the big bang - and indeed there are many - and try to debate an atheist on this level.

In this case, their argument will never end.

They simply bring out one scientific explanation after another - which is in no way evidence for the non-existence of a Creator.

The fact is, they are not able to answer the simple questions put forth in this thread (by their own admission, 'they do not know'), yet they wish to get into the proposed science behind an event, the details of which will always remain unknown.

[Abz2000]

His point (as he's repeated for you multiple times) is that he doesn't know certain things about the world, and religious folks don't "know" either. Not with certainty. The claim is that religious people merely pretend to know, while others own up to our general ignorance and try to figure it out by studying the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pygo.

lol what are you? a defence attorney?

The term atheism originates from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

The foundation of atheism is based on the rejection of the existence of God,
so no matter how much one tells us "it may be possible" or "I'm not saying there is no God, but that we aren't sure", the brand they subscribe to is itself closed minded to honest research and reflection - because they have to start off by discarding the best explanation (which they themselves are unable to outright refute) - no matter how high the possibility or probability.
Which gives me an in long as to why the term "kufr" (usually translated as disbelief), actually means COVERING OR CONCEALING.

[~Zaria~]

I'm always depressed when I see these "debates" and notice the Muslim/religious side has worse manners than the atheist side. Politeness and respect goes a long way, you know, even if it's one sided. I'll admit, this Tjalcapone guy doesn't seem like the most humble dude, but you use this tone even with pygo who is one of our more civil members.

EDIT: Sorry I split this response into 3 separate posts, I got lazy... :p:

Theres no harm in finding some humour in irrational arguments. This is not a sign of disrespect - but an indication that we are now on post #~80, and still they continue to evade the questions that are critical for the basis of the non-existence of God. And then, go further to state that the 'case is closed'.

Perhaps, it may be best to re-evaluate your own stance with regards to this debate. As people of 'Laa illaha illala' - we should hold firmly to this, and not get side-tracked by theories that go against the foundations of our imaan.


A little more humour in this short clip illustrating the absurdity of the 'infinite regress' model:

[Independent]

I remember reading an article about the "scientific benefits of the way Muslims pray", okay that's all very nice and dandy, subhanAllah for this discovery, but tomorrow if science says that "the way Muslims pray can harm the body" does that mean we will stop praying? No.

Exactly - and that is one of the reasons I object to the first post from MohammadR (beside being untrue). By proclaiming that he has miraculously discovered a scientific 'proof' that a divine being exists, he leads Muslims (and believers in other faiths for that matter) into doubt when they discover that this 'proof' is contradicted.

On the other hand, if this proof doesn't really relate to the strength of his faith in Allah anyway, then why bother to say it in the first place?

it's very nice that many verses in the Qur'an support scientific facts of today and that is one of its miracles

I understand why you say this, but it's this sentiment that has led to the mistake of the first poster. What does it matter if any verse appears to match a scientific 'fact' if the only definition of a 'fact' is whether it matches the Qur'an?

Wouldn't it be better to leave science out of the Qur'an and faith altogether? For believers, a knowledge of some aspects of science can deepen and enhance their faith (as Zaria describes). But the modern day habit of trying to 'redefine' Qur'anic verses (and Biblical verses for that matter) to achieve questionable matches with scientific advances can only create confusion and conflict.

There is no 'war' between science and religion - they have nothing directly to do with each other.

[جوري]

beside being untrue

You and the rest keep expressing that vehemently, yet somehow exempt yourselves from presenting the 'truth'- is he not allowed to conjecture as much as the next guy using the same tools that we're all equipped to use?
We will all be anxiously awaiting the truth rather than long winded nonsensical sermons.

The noble book will never be reduced to a casual topic of conversation to be shared merely by the faithful nor are we redefining the verses. Let's see your degree in Uloom Al'Quran and hadith for you to drop such statements and so casually!

best,

[جوري]

"without god(s)".

Which brings us to the original double negative doesn't it. They've neither proved that God doesn't exist nor offered a scientific & demonstrable explanation to the world we find ourselves in given the obvious which is that we along with billions of other species weren't always in existence!

:w:

[M.I.A.]

this thread must have been made a hundred times already,

lets forget that there is a god for a moment...

the only way to approach an athiest is to prove or at least validate a counter argument.

and forgetting scripture i feel there must be another way.. to at least form the first stepping stones of belief or want for belief.


the easiest way is to look towards science which is more than proof for most athiests,

to look at the conformity of the universe..

which is becoming a buzzword in itself, the amount of people that are substituting god for universe is increasing..

or maybe im just in the circles which make me notice it more.


anyway back to the universe and its structure.

it is entirely ordered.

even to animals and insects it is ordered.

innate natures and behaviours that extend all the way up to humans.

i know athiests will say that a person has free will and so do animals but those innate natures that underly free will are a big un-noticed part of life for most.

(lets call it programming because its a very easily understood concept)

unless you claim that science is the only definative explanation of how and why.


the above arguments is no proof of anything in itself but it fits in very well with the thiest muslim belief of a god that is all controlling, knowing.. and yet allows for free will.

so why believe in a god that does not exist?


well i would hope it would make you notice things more.

the interactions and order would become more apparent.


but why make things more complicated your probably perfectly fine as you are.


well i guess if any of you is entirely happy with his interactions with the physical world then... you are entirely oblivious.


which makes me wonder just how you get by.


...not really because my personal belief is that we are all under god.


i mean as an athiest how do you approach people of belief in the real world?

what sort of environment do you create for them?


most people dont give it a second thaught.

and even if you did its not like you could do anything about it right?


and even if you tried some things.. most things are beyond changing. just sporadic random events that change lives.

well for some anyway.


anyway i guess the self sufficient amongst you are not worried by such things.


so at this point it really is just you trying to be who you want to be and achieve your goals. i mean like i said its you that creates your future right?


...but at some point you will have to look at the stragglers and those left by the wayside of your wake.


and then you will want to pray to a non existant god for something or other.

or you just carry on and be yourself, wherever that takes you and whoever that helps.


its random but i guess its better than spouting lines you would not believe.

sorry for spelling mistakes also.


the place is entirely a test of character.

and real life is literally a stage.


take an external look at yourself and then take heed... or not.


that last line is something that would make a person pray, because if you cant change you... then who can?

[May Ayob]

Do atheists believe in miracles? and if they do,how do they interpret their occurence?.

[Independent]

Do atheists believe in miracles? and if they do,how do they interpret their occurence?.

Literal miracles, no.

Metaphorical miracles (for instance, a 'miraculous victory against the odds') yes.

An atheist would assume that there must be a rational explanation for whatever occurred.

[May Ayob]

Literal miracles, no.

Metaphorical miracles (for instance, a 'miraculous victory against the odds') yes.

An atheist would assume that there must be a rational explanation for whatever occurred.

Thank you for the reply. But what if there is no rational explanation to be found? How does an atheist come about the matter?.

[Pygoscelis]

In summary, the sum total of your knowledge with regards to what YOU ascribe to is..... (#drum roll#)......YOU DONT KNOW!

So, please tell us, why are you still on this thread?

Why wouldn't I be? I entered this thread to address the OP, which claimed to "answer atheism in one paragraph" but wasn't one paragraph and made no comment on atheism, instead speaking only of first cause and asserting the universe to be a closed system. It made no attempt to show how that would denounce atheism it if is. It also made no attempt to prove that it is.

And more importantly, what makes you think that the rest of the world is so gullible and naive to base the only life that they have been bestowed with, on a theory mostly based on SPECULATION or worse, in your case - IGNORANCE?

Where are you getting this from? I didn't tell anybody to base their life on anything. I am not telling people to live their life according to some religious code to get some celestial reward or avoid some punishment.

An alternative to God has not been 'noted in this thread a few times now'.

Um.... You wrote.

Which would mean that the only alternative is that the universe arose from 'something'

No, that is not the only alternative. The universe may have always been, may be cyclical, may be a spin off from a mltiverse, etc. You have been told this multiple times in this very thread by multiple posters and you have ignored it because it does not suit your pre-made argument.

In fact, you yourself, have not been able to provide an alternative to the Creator (as from the above quoted post) - but admit that: You do not know.

So, we will indeed continue to repeat the belief in ONE CREATOR - UNTIL, someone can actually provide us with some substance to his debate.

Correct. I don't know. You don't know either. The difference is that I am willing to admit I don't know and I don't feel it necessary to adopt a God of the Gaps just to say I know what I don't.

I have always been under the impression that all atheists accept the big bang as their starting point.

So, if you find it 'an unlikely' possibility - I wonder what you presume to be the origins of your existence.

If your answer is 'I dont know', then perhaps do yourself a favour, and start searching for these answers.

We are. We call that search Science. And we know the search is imperfect and that we may never have the complete or perfect answer. We may never have a good answer at all. But we also know that if we started making answers up and say "god-did-it" and stopped looking beyond that, in some sort of dark age mentality, then we'd not get anywhere at all.

And no, not knowing for sure how the universe started, if it started at all, doesn't really keep me up at night, nor affect my day to day life. And no, I don't worry about going to some imaginary hell you may have dreamed up for me, any more than I fear Cerberus of Hades

[Pygoscelis]

Theres no harm in finding some humour in irrational arguments. This is not a sign of disrespect - but an indication that we are now on post #~80, and still they continue to evade the questions that are critical for the basis of the non-existence of God. And then, go further to state that the 'case is closed'.

Perhaps, it may be best to re-evaluate your own stance with regards to this debate. As people of 'Laa illaha illala' - we should hold firmly to this, and not get side-tracked by theories that go against the foundations of our imaan.


A little more humour in this short clip illustrating the absurdity of the 'infinite regress' model:

The true irony is that introducing a God does not in any way solve the infinite regress problem he speaks of. Infinity is not an easy concept to wrap your mind around, so I can see why it would be tempting to magic it away with an imagined God. But appealing to a God, even one with magic powers, doesn't fix that, especially not when you affix said God with having been around since infinity or having infinite power, etc. This complaint about infinity is really no different than the tired old "Can god make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" line. Infinity seems nonsensical when first thinking of it.

[Pygoscelis]

Thank you for the reply. But what if there is no rational explanation to be found? How does an atheist come about the matter?.

Most will simply admit they don't know how it happened.

[~Zaria~]

Where are you getting this from? I didn't tell anybody to base their life on anything. I am not the one that tries to tell people to live their life according to some religious code to get some celestial reward or avoid some punishment.

So, if you are not personally desirous of us following the views held by atheists...... you just chose to mock those who follow a way of life, that has more purpose and direction for its followres and for whom the followers find more surety.......just for no reason?

No, that is not the only alternative. The universe may have always been, may be cyclical, may be a spin off from a mltiverse, etc. You have been told this multiple times in this very thread by multiple posters and you have ignored it because it does not suit your pre-made argument.

Perhaps its because I cannot understand how one can remain on premises that are so illogical.
Have you watched the 2min vid that I posted above? If not, please do.

Can you not understand why the 'infinite regression' model makes absolutely no sense?

Even if the universe is a 'spin off from a multiverse' (as you imagine)......where did this multiverse come from?
Another multi-verse?
And where did this come from?
Another......? etc etc etc.....
Can you not understand, that for Everything in life - there has to be a starting point?

Is there Anything on earth that arises without a starting point? Name me one.

Correct. I don't know. You don't know either. The difference is that I am willing to admit I don't know and I don't feel it necessary to adopt a God of the Gaps just to say I know what I don't.

The difference is, that it doesnt make a difference for believers to know whether or not, we began with the Big bang.
We already have a Creator - who is our Source.

vs. the atheist - who doesnt know his source, and doesnt really understand the basis of his own existence.
And is quite content this way!

SubhanAllah!

We are. We call that search Science. And we know the search is imperfect and that we may never have the complete or perfect answer. We may never have a good answer at all. But we also know that if we make some answer up and say "god-did-it" and stop looking beyond that, then we'd still be living in caves.

And no, not knowing for sure how the universe started, if it started at all, doesn't really keep me up at night, nor affect my day to day life. And no, I don't worry about going to some imaginary hell you may have dreamed up for me, any more than I fear Cerberus of Hades

What you refer to as imaginery is indeed very real.

Just because you cant see the air around you doesnt mean you stop breathing.......and believing that it is there.

In the same manner, just because you cant see God/ Heaven and Hell, does not mean you stop believing.


Regards

[~Zaria~]

The true irony is that introducing a God does not in any way solve the infinite regress problem he speaks of. Infinity is not an easy concept to wrap your mind around, so I can see why it would be tempting to magic it away with an imagined God. But appealing to a God, even one with magic powers, doesn't fix that, especially not when you affix said God with having been around since infinity or having infinite power, etc. This complaint about infinity is really no different than the tired old "Can god make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" line. Infinity seems nonsensical when first thinking of it.

I have just seen your reply.

How does God 'not fix the infinite regress problem'?

He is the Source of All.


"Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally besought of all!
He begetteth not, nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him"

(Quraan 112, 1-4)

[Ali_008]

The "Can God create a rock which He can't lift Himself" argument has an answer in Islam. The question arises out of the assumption that Allah can do anything and everything. Many Christians struggle in answering this question because of the same reason. According to Islam, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala) cannot do anything and everything, because if that was possible it will mean that God can lie, cheat, be unjust and other negative traits as well.

Another theory put forward in response to the argument is that Allah does not have dimensions. The Qur'an says:

And there is none like unto Him.
Surah # 112: Surah Ikhlas - Verse 4

Thus, a rock has dimensions of weight, height, width, and others whereas Allah is unlike anything. If Allah has dimensions then it makes Him similar to creations with dimensions which conflicts with what Qur'an says, i.e., there is nothing like Allah.

[~Zaria~]

How does one look upon this amazingly beautiful earth and imagine that it has all arisen by chance, by co-incidence?

Please watch this video, and ask yourself 'How'?

You will agree that the very chair that you are sitting on - has a creator.
That the laptop that you are currently using - has a creator.
That EVERYTHING that is produced around you - has a creator.

BUT, you deny that on a greater scheme of things - the entire world, its people and creatures, the universe......came into being by itself, and miraculously placed itself together - without the need of a Creator?

How do you continue to lay claim to a Pseudo-science (and yes, for all intents and purposes, this is what it is) whose very premise is so flawed?

A pseudo-science that postulates that an unnamed force - arising from who-knows-where - caused a 'Big Bang', and then started a process of evolution.
All based on forgeries, half-truths and manipulation of data.

The truth will always prevail!

That there is only One God - who is the Creator of the whole universe.

You do not need to physically 'see' Him to believe in His existence.

In the same manner that you have not seen your great-great-great-great-great grand mother......but you do believe that she existed. Why? Because, even though you have not seen her, it makes sense to you that she had to exist for you to be present today.
As well as the fact that your parents/ grand-parents may have made mention of her.....so you believe them.

Do you take your parents word as true, that they are indeed your parents?
You were not present at your conception.
So why do you believe them?
Because you believe your parents to be honest and truthful in the matter.

You have to have FAITH to believe this.

In the same way,

Your Creator exists.
And He has sent down messengers to tell you of Him.
He has sent down books to teach you how to live (the manual that comes with every product).

So, how then do you deny His existence?

[May Ayob]

If atheists don't believe in God or a hereafter then what is their concept of justice? Also, I understood and correct me if I'm wrong, is that atheists don't necessarily have a problem with God's existance but with the confusion and suffering of the world, meaning that God is to be blamed for them because He 'intended' for them to happen. So if the world was a gracefull and pleasant place then an atheist wouldn't have an argument against God's existance, or is there something I'm missing here?. And also if there really was a God (from an atheists point of view), why doesn't He firmly seal faith in Him in our hearts and clears up the confusion all together, I don't know I grasped the feeling that atheists oppose to believe in God because ...they blame him for hjmanity's suffering? so instead of Hitler or Gh

[May Ayob]

Again I apologize profusely for the miscontinuation of my posts theres a technical problem or something. Anyway, back to what I was writing. So instead of Hitler of Genghis Khan being held responsible for their crimes God should be questioned instead? In Islam there is a difference of God's awareness of the things that are happening and Him allowing it to happen,He can intervene ofcourse but because of a greater wisdom only He knows of He permitted it to happen which does not make Him the one who actaully did it, it's like questioning the existance of a mother of a child because of his/her bad bahvior and dissmissing it as "if that child really had a mother he wouldn't have acted so badly", well certainly the child does have a mother, otherwise what would he be doing being alive on earth?. Or are there other reasons why atheists refuse to believe in God or gods in general?.

[Pygoscelis]

I have just seen your reply.

How does God 'not fix the infinite regress problem'?

He is the Source of All.

Because you are only introducing another infinity (more than one more if you want to get specific to all powerful Gods instead of just a vague first cause) to replace the one you want to get rid of. You create a bigger puzzle than you solve.

[Pygoscelis]

How does one look upon this amazingly beautiful earth and imagine that it has all arisen by chance, by co-incidence?

I'm not aware of anybody who does that. Those who support the theory of evolution don't do that, and if you think they do then you don't understand their theory.

As for the creator making all this beautiful stuff. If you want to go there, then you've got to take a close look at all the nasty and incompetent "designs", especially in biology. This isn't a thread about evolution, nor do I push for evolution so I'll leave that for anybody else here who wants to start that thread up again.

Your Creator exists.
And He has sent down messengers to tell you of Him.
He has sent down books to teach you how to live (the manual that comes with every product).

Already asked and answered. Your so-called messengers and books are amongst hundreds of others, which you and I both can see are probably made by men, which reflect the cultures that created them. I see no reason to put any more credence into your claim than into those which were made for Zeus, Thor, Osiris, or the hundreds of other Gods that now fill the pages of abandoned mythologies.

[Abz2000]

I am not telling people to live their life according to some religious code to get some celestial reward or avoid some punishment.

HOWEVER - you don't submit to a code made up by men lesser than yourself? you don't obey it's rules and "laws" , and meticulously ensure you don't fall foul of those people?
you ensure don't ensure your family and close ones don't fall foul of them and avoid "some punishment"?

anyways - I think this debate is a diversion from all the unexplainable miracles that stare us in the face, i may not be perfect but i'll acknowledge the facts for what they are, and i've seen enough to know for certainty that it is the truth.

YUSUFALI: But those who dispute concerning Allah after He has been accepted,- futile is their dispute in the Sight of their Lord: on them will be a Penalty terrible.
PICKTHAL: And those who argue concerning Allah after He hath been acknowledged, their argument hath no weight with their Lord, and wrath is upon them and theirs will be an awful doom.
SHAKIR: And (as for) those who dispute about Allah after that obedience has been rendered to Him, their plea is null with their Lord, and upon them is wrath, and for them is severe punishment.
Quran 42.016

everybody knows

[Pygoscelis]

The "Can God create a rock which He can't lift Himself" argument has an answer in Islam. The question arises out of the assumption that Allah can do anything and everything. Many Christians struggle in answering this question because of the same reason. According to Islam, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala) cannot do anything and everything, because if that was possible it will mean that God can lie, cheat, be unjust and other negative traits as well.

Another theory put forward in response to the argument is that Allah does not have dimensions. The Qur'an says:

And there is none like unto Him.
Surah # 112: Surah Ikhlas - Verse 4

Thus, a rock has dimensions of weight, height, width, and others whereas Allah is unlike anything. If Allah has dimensions then it makes Him similar to creations with dimensions which conflicts with what Qur'an says, i.e., there is nothing like Allah.

That didn't actually answer the question. Can he or can he not create a rock he can't lift?

I don't actually stand by the "Can god build a rock big enough that even he can't lift it question" by the way. I was just using it as another example of infinity looking nonsensical. I don't think inifinity can actually be so easily dismissed just because it is hard to conceive of. I have seen some pretty interesting discussions on infinity and it left my head spinning.

[Pygoscelis]

If atheists don't believe in God or a hereafter then what is their concept of justice?

That depends on the atheist. They won't all agree on every aspect of it. Most will work with basic empathy along with cultural influence, same as the religious people. Note that religious people tend to select what dogma to follow based on empathy and cultural influence as well. What troubles some of us atheists is that some (not all) of the religious also seem to blindly follow some of the dogma based on obedience, and seemingly without regard to their own moral compass. When obedience trumps morality, that's a great recipe for atrocity. As one prominent atheist writer put it "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion". It actually isn't just religion that will do it of course. Any blind obedience to authority, power, or ideology will.

Also, I understood and correct me if I'm wrong, is that atheists don't necessarily have a problem with God's existance but with the confusion and suffering of the world, meaning that God is to be blamed for them because He 'intended' for them to happen.

No. Atheists don't "have a problem with God's existence" at all, because in our view, Gods don't exist. I have no more problem with God's existence than you have with Robin Hood's existence, or any other fictional character's existence. We don't think God exists, so we are not troubled by God. What troubles some of us is what believers believe about God and how that leads them to behave.

And also if there really was a God (from an atheists point of view), why doesn't He firmly seal faith in Him in our hearts and clears up the confusion all together

That is a good question. I would imagine an all powerful God, if one existed, could do that. So why would he not? Only thing I can think of is that he'd have to intend some confusion. An all powerful God would not be limited by written word or middle man messengers. He could just make you know what he wants you to. So either he doesn't exist (atheist position), or he intends the confusion, conflict, and suffering that results from the confusion resulting from all the competing claims by humans about who he is and what he wants.

I don't know I grasped the feeling that atheists oppose to believe in God because ...they blame him for hjmanity's suffering?

God would only be responsible if he existed, so no, atheists don't blame God for anything. God being to blame is just a logical conclusion if we assume for the sake of argument that an all powerful God does exist.

So instead of Hitler of Genghis Khan being held responsible for their crimes God should be questioned instead? In Islam there is a difference of God's awareness of the things that are happening and Him allowing it to happen,He can intervene ofcourse but because of a greater wisdom only He knows of He permitted it to happen which does not make Him the one who actaully did it, it's like questioning the existance of a mother of a child because of his/her bad bahvior and dissmissing it as "if that child really had a mother he wouldn't have acted so badly", well certainly the child does have a mother, otherwise what would he be doing being alive on earth?. [/QUOTE]

Sure, you can try to explain away suffering caused by the evil behaviour of humans, by pointing to free will. There are problems with that, but it does make some sense. But how do you explain the suffering not caused by humans at all, such as natural disasters, disease, etc? You can say, as some here have, that God has a higher purpose we can't see, or that God gave them life so has the right to take it away, or whatever, but you can't really say God isn't responsible if he set everything up and is all powerful.

[Pygoscelis]

I think this debate is a diversion from all the unexplainable miracles that stare us in the face, i may not be perfect but i'll acknowledge the facts for what they are, and i've seen enough to know for certainty that it is the truth.

You see unexplainable phenomenon and call them miracles by God (presumably your particular God). I see unexplained phenomenon and call them unexplained phenomenon.

[May Ayob]

@Pygoscelis- Thanks for replying.
What I meant by the concept of justice is not concerned with atheists indivual beliefs or opinions but I meant for all the atrocities and all the uncountable injustice that has happened and is still happening in the world,how does an atheist rest assure that someday the tyrant will get theirs? assuming they don't really care,no? since in an atheist's point of view there is no higher supreme controlling entity thus no one to bring about justice and the resort to human law is just as bad as the atorcities commited themselves since humans are fallible impartial and biased in many ways.Or because people are dying and being born everyday human soul is bound to be unvaluable since theres always replacement?. Also from observation of human behavior whenever people are faced with a crisis they always turn to God for help when in despair isn't that a good enough reason to believe there must be a powerfull being-God almighty.



Why should God be questioned for what the wrong doing of humanbeings when someone decides to take a gun and shoot at someone ,it is their abd only their responsiblity, he/she will be arrested for the offence and noone will investigate with the store from which he/she bought the gun.If my brother,for example, attacked me or started beating me I would hold him responsible for his action and not my parents because they brought him into this world.Besides suffering ,confusion are exclusively human experiences that are not continously existant,have you never considered that maybe confusion is another form of emotiobs bottled up inside that maybe very delusional?.


I wont pretend to know why or what exactly brings about natural disaster or wether or not they are necessary or not-probably because you heard the same answer repeatedly and obviously werent satisgied but all I can say this is where faith and trust in God are most positioned infact most believers experience more strength and conviction in their faith in times of crisis and sufferring that at times of 'stability'.

Peace be upon you.

[~Zaria~]

@ Pygoscelis,

I have to admit - you truly are a unique 'atheist' : D

You dont believe in a 'Big Bang' preceding your existence.

You dont hold to the theory of evolution (so, what is your current alternative theory to this?)

And you do not believe that creation has come about by a process of 'chance' - you say that you are not aware of 'anyone' who does this.
[I can assure you, that there are many atheists who when asked about the orderly design of the universe, will say either: 'I dont know' or......that it just 'happened' this way (i.e. as a matter of randomness).]


And, as expected - you have convenietly evaded the questions and analogies posed to you in the previous post.

I call it: 'The evade and proceed' strategy : D
Questions remain unanswered (generally, because there are no logical alternatives that can be provided), whilst moving along merrily.

Because you are only introducing another infinity (more than one more if you want to get specific to all powerful Gods instead of just a vague first cause) to replace the one you want to get rid of. You create a bigger puzzle than you solve.

How are we introducing 'another' infinity?
The ONLY thing that is infinite (as described by God Himself) - is God.
The universe itself is not infinite.
How can it possibly be?
Even many astrophysicists believe that our own solar system will cease to exist one day! (#shaking my head in utter despair#)

As you know, we only believe in ONE Creator. So, theres no need to mention the possibility of 'powerful Gods'.

Already asked and answered. Your so-called messengers and books are amongst hundreds of others, which you and I both can see are probably made by men, which reflect the cultures that created them. I see no reason to put any more credence into your claim than into those which were made for Zeus, Thor, Osiris, or the hundreds of other Gods that now fill the pages of abandoned mythologies.

The actual belief system that one eventually choses - be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Greek mythology, etc - is another discussion- i.e.how does one actually reach the point of realising truth from falsehood.

The point being currently made is - Acknowledging that there IS indeed a Creator for everything.

As I have mentioned, you will agree that there is a creator for everything else that is produced in this world. But for some undefinable reason - you continue to deny the Creator of the entire universe itself.

Logical discussion is obviously very difficult with an atheist :'D



With regards to the rest of your comments:

As you know, Islam teaches us that we will be resurrected on the Day of Judgement, and will answer for all of our actions in this world.
For every good that is done, we will be rewarded.
For every bad that is done, we will be held responsible.
The concept of punishment for our deeds cannot be so hard to conceive.

Why?

Because, we know that punishment is a strong deterrent for committing crimes.
Even an atheist will see the need for law enforcement by way of fines, penalties and jail sentences - here on earth.

Yet, we see the 'priests' of atheism deny these very concepts when they are mentioned in relation to moral issues, and on a greater scale.

[~Zaria~]

Post #101:

By now, we should look back and ask ourselves WHY is it so difficult for one (in this case, atheists) to let go of their claims (we wont use the word 'beliefs' again, lol) - despite the fact that:

- Their arguments lack logic (clear for all who really wish to ponder over these issues, to see)
- They have no reasonable answers for the rest.

There are a few reasons for this:

"#1 From a psychological viewpoint, this information may not be easy to swallow, one can not accept this info and go on with their lives in the same way.
The brain recognizes that this info will force it to re-arrange and re-program several pieces of information it has accumulated over the years. And the brain will fight, because this requires a high amount of mental effort, and the best way to avoid such effort, is to reject the info.

#2 The second reason deals with the problem of ego. Due to a person’s ego he will fight you and your information, because he/she values their words over yours.
They can’t accept that you (or the rest of the world) might of stumbled upon such valuable truths, that they did not realize before, and in defense of their ego, they disclaim your truths.

#3 In many occasions, the person is so comfortable living the fast life, that they simply don’t want to change their way of life, and couldn’t care less about what’s happening in the world. They are too focused on themselves.

#4 Many people are not ready to be 'unplugged', and many of them are so innert, so hopelessly dependant on the system that they will fight to protect it.

#5 They believe and value the voice of the system - it has become the prime decider of their reality."

Adapted from 'The Arrivals'

We can only direct you to the truth.
It is up to you to make the effort of opening your eyes, heart and mind to it.

And when, there are more holes to ones theories than actual substance, we should ask ourselves - what is the actual reason that we cannot let go?


Regards

[Ahmad H]

I completely agree that the only source of this universe is Allah. However, Atheists are so blind that they refuse to believe this, and they will still reject the concept of God altogether. They simply do not want to believe in Allah, and they want to live a life free of responsibility for their actions. They will still argue that the source is not God but everything just happened, and out of nowhere for no reason things came into place.

Atheism can be answered in so many ways, but at the end of the day, even though the existence of God is clear as day, they will still disbelieve in Him. I know this now after observing their behavior here in the West. They just want complete and unrestricted freedom to do whatever they want, just as long as nobody is hurt in the process. They have no concept of spirituality. They are blind in their hearts, so they cannot see the path. I sometimes feel as if that is the effect of the seal of Allah. Those who do not want to believe, Allah makes it happen for them, and those who want to believe, Allah makes the path to Him easy for them.

Just pray for Atheists to turn to Islam. They think themselves above people of religion because apparently they are rational and we are not. They disbelieve in revelation from Allah. Therefore, they reject all Prophets of Allah. Let's just hope the world's move towards Atheism doesn't bring Divine punishment upon them. Every prophet that was mocked in the past became the cause of those people's downfall due to their mockery of them. So please, just pray that Allah make them see the light of truth.

[M.I.A.]

I'm not aware of anybody who does that. Those who support the theory of evolution don't do that, and if you think they do then you don't understand their theory.

As for the creator making all this beautiful stuff. If you want to go there, then you've got to take a close look at all the nasty and incompetent "designs", especially in biology. This isn't a thread about evolution, nor do I push for evolution so I'll leave that for anybody else here who wants to start that thread up again.



Already asked and answered. Your so-called messengers and books are amongst hundreds of others, which you and I both can see are probably made by men, which reflect the cultures that created them. I see no reason to put any more credence into your claim than into those which were made for Zeus, Thor, Osiris, or the hundreds of other Gods that now fill the pages of abandoned mythologies.

well i dont subscribe to evolution.

at its base its more than a theory of evolution.

it is a theory of persecution... for rhyming sake.

i mean does it not originally lead onto views of lesser intellegence in certain ethnicities? by its author.

i mean you would have to define "intellegence" within that theory also.

it literally was a "world view" for its originator.


as for incompetent "designs"

god does work in mysterious ways.

maybe inferiority complexes are missing the point of equality and rights?


anyway its an organised sort of chaos.. messy yes.

but thats why its a personal god.

and religion makes that distinction very well.

That didn't actually answer the question. Can he or can he not create a rock he can't lift?

I don't actually stand by the "Can god build a rock big enough that even he can't lift it question" by the way. I was just using it as another example of infinity looking nonsensical. I don't think inifinity can actually be so easily dismissed just because it is hard to conceive of. I have seen some pretty interesting discussions on infinity and it left my head spinning.

first time im answering yay.

why does god need to lift rocks? surely he has people to do that for him.

anyway joking aside.


the very idea of the question is absurd!


can god create something that he cannot uncreate?

well, look to the earth.

how long have we got left?

bet science can give you a ball park figure dependant of the life expectancy of the sun.

but then you have global warming.

nuclear war.

famine.

disease.

and god knows what else to worry about.

so i doubt that the rock needs moving.


those able to do so of there own accord may need to think twice.


but can god actually move rocks of infinite mass?

ask a physicist.

[Muhaba]

That didn't actually answer the question. Can he or can he not create a rock he can't lift?

That question is stupid. Fact is that God is the Almighty. He is the Greatest. and nothing can ever be greater than Him. He is also all-powerful. So there will never be a rock that God can't lift. It doesn't mean God can't do this or that. But We human beings simply cannot comprehend His power. Just consider the whole universe and everything in it and how vast and great it is. God is greater than all of it. In a hadith (saying of the final Prophet Muhammad -God's peace be upon him - it is written that everything created from the beginning of time to the end of the world fits on the palm of God's Hand. Then consider how great God is and how small we are, tinier than a speck of dust. that is how tiny we are.

God says in Chapter 57 verse one of th Holy Quran:


All that is in the heavens and the earth extols the glory of Allah. He is the Most Mighty, the Most Wise.

The commentary of this verse is as follows:
That is, not only is He All-Mighty and All-Wise, but the truth is that He alone is All-Mighty and All-Wise. The word 'Aziz signifies a mighty and powerful Being Whose decrees cannot be prevented by any power in the world from being enforced, Whom no one can oppose and resist, Who has to be obeyed by everyone whether one likes it or not, Whose rebel cannot escape His accountability and punishment in any way; and Hakim signifies that whatever He does He does it wisely. His creation, His administration and rule, His commands and guidance, all are based on wisdom. None of His works is tarnished by any tract of folly or ignorance.

There is another fine point here, which one should fully understand. Seldom in the Qur'an has Allah's attribute of `Aziz (All-Mighty) been accompanied by His attributes of being Qawi (Strong), Mugtadir(Powerful), Jabber (Omnipotent), Dhuntiqam (Avenger) and the like, which only signify His absolute power, and this has been so only in places where the context demanded that the wicked and disobedient be warned of Allah's relentless punishment. Apart from such few places, wherever the word 'Aziz has been used for Allah, it has everywhere been accompanied by one Or other of His attributes of being Hakim (Wise), Alim (Knower), Rahim (Merciful), Ghafur (Forgiving), Wahhab (Generous) and Hamid (Praiseworthy). The reason is that if a being who wields un-limited power is at the same time foolish, ignorant, un-forgiving as well as stingy and devoid of character, its power and authority cannot but lead to injustice and wickedness Thus, wherever injustice and wickedness is being committed in the world, it is only because the one who wields authority over others, is either using his power un-wisely and foolishly, or he is merciless and hardhearted, or evil-minded and wicked. Wherever power is coupled with these evil traits of character, no good can be expected to result. That is why in the Holy Qur'an Allah's attribute of `Aziz has necessarily been accompanied by His attributes of being All-Wise and Knowing, Compassionate and Forgiving, Praiseworthy and Generous, so that man may know that the God Who is ruling this universe has, on the' one hand, such absolute power that no one, from the earth to the heavens, can prevent His decrees from being enforced, but, on the other, He is also AlI-Wise: His each decision is based on perfect wisdom; He is also AII-Knowing whatever decision He makes, it precisely according to knowledge; He is also Compassionate: He does not use infinite power mercilessly; He is Forgiving as well: He does not punish His creatures for trifling faults, but overlooks their errors; He is also Generous: He does not treat His subjects stingily, but liberally and benevolently; and He is also Praiseworthy: He combines in Himself all praiseworthy virtues and excellences.

The full importance of this statement of the Qur'an can be better understood by those people who are aware of the discussions of the philosophy of politics and law on the question of sovereignty. Sovereignty connotes that the one who possesses it should wield unlimited power: there should be no internal and external power to change or modify his decision or prevent it from being enforced, and none should have any alternative but to obey him. At the mere concept of this infinite and unlimited power, man's common-sense necessarily demands that whoever attains to such power, should be faultless and perfect in knowledge and wisdom, for if the one holding this power is ignorant, merciless and evil, his sovereignty will inevitably lead to wickedness and corruption. That is why the philosophers who regarded a single man, or a man-made institution, or an assembly of men as the holder of this power, have had to presume that he or it would be infallible. But obviously, neither can unlimited sovereignty be actually attained by a human power, nor is it possible for a king, or a parliament, or a nation, or a party that it may use the sovereignty attained by it in a limited circle faultlessly and harmlessly. The reason is that the wisdom that is wholly free of every trace of folly, and the knowledge that fully comprehends all the related truths, is not at all possessed even by entire mankind, not to speak of its being attained by an individual, or an institution, or a nation. Likewise, as long as man is man, his being wholly free of and above selfishness, sensuality, fear, greed, desires, prejudice and sentimental love, anger and hate is also not possible. If a person ponders over these truths, he will realize that the Qur'an is indeed presenting here a correct and perfect view of sovereignty. It says that no one except Allah in this universe is possessor of absolute power, and with this unlimited power He alone is faultless, All-Wise and All-Knowing, Compassionate and Forgiving, and Praiseworthy and Generous in His dealings with His subjects.

Commentary from Tafheemul-Quran English translation http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem.html

[Independent]

How are we introducing 'another' infinity?
The ONLY thing that is infinite (as described by God Himself) - is God.
The universe itself is not infinite.
How can it possibly be?
Even many astrophysicists believe that our own solar system will cease to exist one day! (#shaking my head in utter despair#)

Not sure where you get this from. Most astrophysicists believe the universe is indeed infinite, and time may be infinite too (so that's two things besides God). The death of our tiny, irrelevant little solar system (which all astrophysicists expect) is not important in the grand scale of things (although it's rather bad news for us).

The Big Bang theory has become popular with many Christians and Muslims because it appears to offer a definite beginning and an end to the universe. Also, many people believe they can see a match with some of the textual description of Creation in the Bible and the Qur’an.

But in reality the Big Bang theory is not even attempting to describe the whole of existence. It’s just trying to explain the observable phenomena we have so far. Maybe we should distinguish between ‘the universe’ (ie our particular universe) and ‘existence’ (all possible universes and/or the state of our universe either preceding or following the Big Bang-to-entropy phase which includes us).

The energy that was concentrated in the centre of our universe may have existed infinitely prior to the Big Bang. And even if our universe tends towards total entropy and the elimination of all life, the universe itself may still continue – it’s just that won’t be around to philosophise about it. And finally, as has been said many times, if this universe is just one part of a multiverse, then the birth and death of this universe could be just one part of an eternal energy exchange across dimensional boundaries.

Therefore, as far as astrophysics is concerned there is no beginning or end to be explained. There is no necessary place in the logic for a first mover or Creator at the dawn of time – simply because time has no dawn. If existence is infinite in time and space, it doesn’t make sense to ask who or what started it.

There is no point in continually making the ‘everything that has been created has to have a Creator’ argument until these other possibilities are eliminated, which science is in no position to do right now. You can find other reasons for faith, but arguments based on astrophysics, infinite regression and a first mover cannot provide a logical ‘proof’ because we don’t even know if existence has anything that could be described as a ‘beginning’.

Please don't interpret this as an argument that God doesn’t exist. Science can't prove that. But nor can it prove that he does.

Astrophysics does not yet provide a logical or factual proof of a Creator and it is wrong for MohammadR or any other person to pretend that it does. If he posited it as a theory, not as incontrovertible fact, then it would be fine.

It could be true. It’s just that we can’t tell right now.

[Indian Bro]

Please don't interpret this as an argument that God doesn’t exist. Science can't prove that. But nor can it prove that he does.

I agree with you that science cannot prove that God doesn't exist, however, science can most definitely prove that God does exist. What science is discovering very recently only because of the development of technologies was written in a book more than 1,400 years ago. To me it just looks like you're very ignorant about Islam and the fact that you compare the Qur'aan to the Bible or the Vedas just shows your lack of knowledge about religion. Scientific inaccuracies have been found in ALL religious scriptures - except for the Qur'aan. The Bible has been proved to be corrupted and so have every other religious scripture, except the Qur'aan. This is the only book without scientific inaccuracies, without any errors, without any contradictions or corruptions. Any person who reads the Qur'aan with an open-mind will conclude that it is a word of God. I quote the Qur'aan, 28:49-50
Say, "Then bring a scripture from Allah which is more guiding than either of them that I may follow it, if you should be truthful."
But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their [own] desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah ? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

[~Zaria~]

Not sure where you get this from. Most astrophysicists believe the universe is indeed infinite, and time may be infinite too (so that's two things besides God)

Most definitely, not so!

(It is quite interesting to note that most atheists dont actually understand the basis of what they, themselves ascribe to. Ask any atheist that you may meet, and it is likely that they will not be able to explain their own existence, in their own words.

Which is sad - because, this is our LIFE that we are discussing, not a recipe for a cake :P
And if an atheist cannot understand their own 'recipe' (or what they have interpreted it to be), it means that they have chosen to blindly follow the latest
'pseudoscientific' theory of the day......without much understanding.

We only have one life, one chance at this. There is no coming back, to undo our mistakes. So lets make sure that we are certain in what we are ascribing our entire lives to.)

The following article is a worth-while read:

**************************************

The Quranic Argument for God's Existence

No question is more sublime than why there is a universe: why there is anything rather than nothing.”[1]

When we reflect upon our own existence we will come to the realisation, that at some point in time, we began to exist.

Since we were once non-existent and are now in existence, it follows that we must have had a beginning. In light of this, the Qur’an raises some profound questions: were we created by nothing? Did we create ourselves? Or did we create the universe?

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain.” Quran 52:35-36 (<--SubhanAllah, just look at this - Allah even describes you guys in the Quraan! Allahu Akbar!!)

These questions can be addressed to the existence of everything temporal, in other words the entire universe. Therefore, the exegetical implications of these verses can be logically formulated in the following way:

Things that began to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Before we proceed, the first presupposition has to be subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur’an’s argument for the existence of God. This first assumption is that the universe began to exist.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the universe began to exist we can bring into our discussion a plethora of philosophical and inductive arguments:

1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). Take the following illustration of a container with gas,


when the partition is removed, the gas in one end of the container will spread to the whole of the container, going from a state of low entropy (higher temperature or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist.

Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead.

However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death?

This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.


2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end.

However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[2]


2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite.

Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

3. Astrophysical evidence

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing theory in cosmology.

It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity.

For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[4]

Although our understanding of what happened 10-43 seconds after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

“…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.”[5]

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago.

As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite universe, for instance P.C.W. Davies questions,

“What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the physical world…or…an event without a cause.”[7]

These models include the oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models.

These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the universe, in other words they are non-infinitely extendable into the past.

Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be changed into a cosmic contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and then into a new expansion, with the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

1. Firstly there is nothing available in modern physics that would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a new expanding universe.

2. Secondly the mean mass density of the universe, derived from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required gravitational force to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe.

3. Thirdly, the second law of thermodynamics (as discussed above) implies the finitude of the universe. According to the oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of the various oscillations of expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

Since we have presented good evidence that the universe began to exist. We can now address the logically possible explanations the Qur’an presents as rationalisations of the origins of the universe.

Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes!

This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

“If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”[8]

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about.

The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity.”[9]

So, in context of some of the physicists’ definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!

Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…”[10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum, which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t explain anything.

Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”[11]

Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Since something cannot come from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the aforementioned explanation,

then the universe being created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity is the best explanation.

This concept is intuitive but also agrees with reality: whatever begins to exist has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place (something we have already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur’an confirms the uncreatedness of the creator, God,

“He neither begets nor is born.” Qur’an 112:3

The cause or creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam’s razor. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.” Qur’an 112:1

However some philosophers and scientists claim: why doesn’t the cause be the universe itself? Why can’t the cause stop at the universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would imply that the universe created itself, which we have already discussed, is absurd. Additionally, we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. If it were contingent it would be one more effect in the chain of causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all) creatures.” Qur’an 3:97

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” Qur’an 42:11

This cause must have the power to create the universe, without this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” Qur’an 2:20

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. The Qur’an refers to God as having a will in many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills to a straight path.” Qur’an 2:213

In summary, we have concluded what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one, has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption – whatever begins to exist has a cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”[13]

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects.

However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would be tantamount of denying our own experience!


Source

[Independent]

Since the universe is a closed system

Once again you repeat this assumption, as did MohammadR at the start of this thread. We just can't say if this is true or not yet.

If the universe isn't a closed system, none of the rest of the argument matters (even if scientists/philosophers accepted it in all other aspects, which they do not).

There is no point in trying to prove a 'first mover' if it's not yet clear there is a 'first move'.

[~Zaria~]

Once again you repeat this assumption, as did MohammadR at the start of this thread. We just can't say if this is true or not yet.

If the universe isn't a closed system, none of the rest of the argument matters (even if scientists/philosophers accepted it in all other aspects, which they do not).

There is no point in trying to prove a 'first mover' if it's not yet clear there is a 'first move'.

Is this your only disclaimer in this entire discussion? :P

Even if you wish to ignore this assumption (for whatever reason), we have discussed other options that are available as well.

Can you not appreciate that the universe itself is finite? The big bang model itself (which most atheists are comfortable with), supports the notion that the universe is finite.

And so, if the universe is finite - it had to have been created.

The article discusses all the possibilities really well, so Im not going to repeat these.


Perhaps read it again - you may gain more insight on the second round. (#sigh#)

[Independent]

I constantly feel you think I am trying to disprove God by science, which I am not.

Even if you wish to ignore this assumption (for whatever reason), we have discussed other options that are available as well.

You can't continue with the argument if the first premise is unproven, and it isn't. There are many alternative explanations under debate.

The universe we see may not be the only one, and we can't even see this one properly (either its limits or most of what's in it). Therefore, no one can definitively say 'the universe is finite'. (The Big Bang model can sit with a finite universe or with an infinite reality extending across multiple universes).

if you offer your above philosophical description as a theory, as one possibility, that's fine. But if you say it's the only possible explanation, that's not true.

You have to start your account with an "If...' .

[~Zaria~]

In the interests of all atheists, who ascribe to the Big Bang Theory, but who may not really understand its core principles.

This comes off the 'Big Bang Philosophy' Website.

SUMMARY OF THE BIG BANG PHILOSOPHY

1st hypothesis:
THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE.

• The universe, finite and intelligible in all its parts, cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its whole. It cannot have two completely different natures simultaneously. The infinite is a philosophical concept of the absolute that does not apply to the universe.
• If the universe came into being around 12.000.000.000 years ago, it has not had the time to become infinite. Limited in time, it is also necessarily limited in space.
• If the universe were infinite, it would present particularities so strange as to be absurd. For example, a human being having a finite number of atoms, in an infinite universe every one of us would have an infinite number of doubles living in exactly the same conditions as ourselves.

1st observation:
OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE, DIMENSIONS DO NOT EXIST.

Since the universe is finite, the first question that occurs to the mind is this: What is there beyond? Indeed, the finite universe cannot be explained by itself, it needs an external cause. Let us wonder what stops at the limits of the universe. The Big Bang theory teaches us that space is a component of the universe and that it this which has been expanding during 12.000.000.000 years. Outside the universe there is no space, therefore there are no dimensions.



.......


While we agree that it cannot be absolutely proven, that the universe is a closed system (which is why I had originally kept away from this side of the discussion) - surely, the fact that the universe is finite (in terms of time), lends a hand to the fact that it is also finite in terms of space (i.e. a closed system),

Would make sense, right?


Regards

[Independent]

This comes off the 'Big Bang Philosophy' Website.

You certainly have a collection of weird and wonderful websites. I don't know anything about this one without hunting but plainly, it is not primarily scientific in purpose.

There are many other possible theories that do not involve a closed system universe - wikipedia lists the following popular theories:

• Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.^[88]

• Big Bang lattice model states that the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang consists of an infinite lattice of fermions which is smeared over the fundamental domain so it has both rotational, translational, and gauge symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symmetry possible and hence the lowest entropy of any state.^[89]

• Brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.^{[90][91][92][93]}

• Eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.^[94][95]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older Universe, or in a multiverse.

[Ali_008]

Actually, this is my nth time I'm countering atheists, and I can say it from experience that even when things are proven completely right to some, they just want to believe what was just proven right, but they don't want to believe in a creator. I've used science on multiple occasions, but science isn't the language which these people speak. Ultimately, their disbelief does not have a solid foundation.

I will try something new for now. What do atheists have to say about the way of life presented by our beloved Prophet Muhammad :saws:. No matter what the news channel and western media tries to portray Islam as, but all members of this forum just can't deny that Islam is a peaceful religion; especially the atheist who get special explanations of each commandment of Islam. How can one man alone put forward a way of life that guarantees justice, freedom, safety, and welfare of all citizens irrespective of their faith. No matter what people say about this, but let me tell you very clearly that in an Islamic society, non-Muslims are not treated like outcasts.

It is impossible for the human mind to put together a set of rules as perfect as laid out in Islam. If any person believes that men can create a constitution that can make the world "a better place" then all the failing governments and legislatures prove otherwise.

[Pygoscelis]

Ultimately, their disbelief does not have a solid foundation.

It has as much solid foundation as their disbelief in any other fantastic unfalsifiable claim.

Are invisible undedectable space aliens sitting beside you right now, watching you and taking notes? You can't disprove it. You have no solid foundation for disbelief in it. But do you worry about such a thing?

I will try something new for now. What do atheists have to say about the way of life presented by our beloved Prophet Muhammad :saws:. No matter what the news channel and western media tries to portray Islam as, but all members of this forum just can't deny that Islam is a peaceful religion; especially the atheist who get special explanations of each commandment of Islam. How can one man alone put forward a way of life that guarantees justice, freedom, safety, and welfare of all citizens irrespective of their faith. No matter what people say about this, but let me tell you very clearly that in an Islamic society, non-Muslims are not treated like outcasts.

I have no wish to live under somebody else's theocracy with rules based on their religion instead of sound secular reasoning. And you may view it as granting justice, freedom, safety and welfare for all, but that doesn't mean we'll all see it that way. Each of those terms are pretty subjective.

[Independent]

I've used science on multiple occasions, but science isn't the language which these people speak.

Then this is a perfect chance for you to show your skills again. If you, or Zaria, want to build a final proof starting with the premise that this universe is a closed system, you have to first refute all the Brane Cosmology and Eternal Inflation models.

Best of luck.

[May Ayob]

No one gave me an answer about justice in atheism.....why? I would really appreciate an answer.

[Independent]

No one gave me an answer about justice in atheism.....why? I would really appreciate an answer.

One of the things that tends to happen with threads like this is that they go too broad and diverge wildly off the original topic (which is a supposed proof of religion based in astrophysics). Your question, although interesting, could take us that way.

Also, there was a recent thread in Comparitive Religion called 'I don't understand this about the atheists' that did focus more on morality. Why not have a look at that, and then see if you still have questions?

[M.I.A.]

It has as much solid foundation as their disbelief in any other fantastic unfalsifiable claim.

Are invisible undedectable space aliens sitting beside you right now, watching you and taking notes? You can't disprove it. You have no solid foundation for disbelief in it. But do you worry about such a thing?



I have no wish to live under somebody else's theocracy with rules based on their religion instead of sound secular reasoning. And you may view it as granting justice, freedom, safety and welfare for all, but that doesn't mean we'll all see it that way. Each of those terms are pretty subjective.

i would guess you already live by the laws of the land.

the rest you carry and represent the best you can.. or not.

sure it may not be laws based on religion, even though your country may be predominantly of a single religion.

...but even then, if it actually represents, is comparable to or resembles what it claims to be... is another question.


my own example is a christian country as defined to the outside world.

but the laws of it seem fairly constructed and secular.

and the people all differ.

One of the things that tends to happen with threads like this is that they go too broad and diverge wildly off the original topic (which is a supposed proof of religion based in astrophysics). Your question, although interesting, could take us that way.

Also, there was a recent thread in Comparitive Religion called 'I don't understand this about the atheists' that did focus more on morality. Why not have a look at that, and then see if you still have questions?

i think thats the problem,

many things overlap and are connected.

ideas built upon ideas that link together and explain each other.


to have a narrow perspective is disrespect..

to the complexity of things. ignorance.


i mean we are talking about religion here.

and although none have the knowledge or understanding of the people that first knew the religion.

there is more than enough to guide people by (the quran in particular)


its purpose.

how can you have a book and not a teacher?



lol thats the whole god argument again isnt it?

and it leads to many differing perspectives.



i mean just generally speaking, i saw an athiests vs thiests debate on tv and i just thought how much can you get from a minute or two of questions and answers?

but these threads crop up often and we should get better at them with time.

Actually, this is my nth time I'm countering atheists, and I can say it from experience that even when things are proven completely right to some, they just want to believe what was just proven right, but they don't want to believe in a creator. I've used science on multiple occasions, but science isn't the language which these people speak. Ultimately, their disbelief does not have a solid foundation.

I will try something new for now. What do atheists have to say about the way of life presented by our beloved Prophet Muhammad :saws:. No matter what the news channel and western media tries to portray Islam as, but all members of this forum just can't deny that Islam is a peaceful religion; especially the atheist who get special explanations of each commandment of Islam. How can one man alone put forward a way of life that guarantees justice, freedom, safety, and welfare of all citizens irrespective of their faith. No matter what people say about this, but let me tell you very clearly that in an Islamic society, non-Muslims are not treated like outcasts.

It is impossible for the human mind to put together a set of rules as perfect as laid out in Islam. If any person believes that men can create a constitution that can make the world "a better place" then all the failing governments and legislatures prove otherwise.

thats the thing, you can have the best and most competent government in the world.

its the people that you have to worry about.



....but irl its mostly the government...or not.

[Pygoscelis]

i would guess you already live by the laws of the land.

Indeed, but I see an important difference between a theocracy and a secular democracy. Most of the laws in my jurisdiction are fair, based on some sound reasoning, and I agree with them and support them. The few that are not fair or not to my liking I can work to change. The power, at least theoretically sits in the hands of the people, instead of sitting in the hands of those few claiming to speak for the divine.

[M.I.A.]

Indeed, but I see an important difference between a theocracy and a secular democracy. Most of the laws in my jurisdiction are fair, based on some sound reasoning, and I agree with them and support them. The few that are not fair or not to my liking I can work to change. The power, at least theoretically sits in the hands of the people, instead of sitting in the hands of those few claiming to speak for the divine.

well it depends on the importance of the laws (that you would want to change).

i mean take the current example of gun control in america.

its role and function at conception and its changing role throughout its(america's) history.


its not a "god law" but you may well think it is, the way americans think/speak about it.



if you mean that islamic law is unfair..

as an argument based on current implementation of it. yes it is.

i mean not much is set in stone, so it really is up to those that claim to speak for the divine, how they interpret it and put it into practice.



i mean i am perfectly fine living under current government, the irony is the west allows for more personal freedom that any islamic country.
and is fairer in approach.

its not even an opinion.

i would not call for an islamic state where i live, just an muslim community that is best representing of its religion.

[May Ayob]

@Independent. Thank you, I read the thread but I'm afraid I still have some concerns but just not sure wether I can point them out here in this thread or members will consider it off topic?.

[Independent]

Thank you, I read the thread but I'm afraid I still have some concerns but just not sure wether I can point them out here in this thread or members will consider it off topic?.

I'm not a Mod, but I would say start another.

[Al-Mufarridun]

:sl:

That didn't actually answer the question. Can he or can he not create a rock he can't lift?

Greetings Pygoscelis. To rephrase your question, correct me if i'm wrong but you are asking;

"Can God do something which will, in doing it, make Him no longer God?"

This question and similar ones are basically asking whether God can do unGodly things. I'm sure you'll agree such questions can't generate a reasonable discussion.

[May Ayob]

I'm not a Mod, but I would say start another.

I did I'm waiting for it to be approved of.

[~Zaria~]

You certainly have a collection of weird and wonderful websites. I don't know anything about this one without hunting but plainly, it is not primarily scientific in purpose.

There are many other possible theories that do not involve a closed system universe - wikipedia lists the following popular theories:

• Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.^[88]

• Big Bang lattice model states that the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang consists of an infinite lattice of fermions which is smeared over the fundamental domain so it has both rotational, translational, and gauge symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symmetry possible and hence the lowest entropy of any state.^[89]

• Brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.^{[90][91][92][93]}

• Eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.^[94][95]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older Universe, or in a multiverse.

What does an atheist do when he is caught between a rock and a hard place?

Bring along other theories.....to try to disprove the theory that they, themselves ascribe to.
As expected.

Which is the very reason why I did not engage this discussion on a 'theory' level from the start.

Can you not realise that these are just Theories, Hypotheses, Assumptions, Estimations?
It means nothing more than this.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'? Innocent people even lost their lives for believing otherwise.
Until it was convincingly proven that the earth is indeed round.

However, there still are some groups who continue to hold firmly to the theory that the earth is flat: The Flat Earth Society
(are you guys, by any chance members of this society? They provide convincing theories as well :P )


In this regard, I have asked on multiple occasions for someone to bring some reproducible evidence (on a smaller scale) - as proof for what these theories propose.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....then how do you base your LIFE on these?

There is SO much more proof for the existence of a Creator......than what ANY of these theories propose.

Even IF you want to take this discussion down a 'scientific' road, you have conveniently evaded the rational, logical arguments put forward throughout this thread, as well as in the previously posted article.

Why?

Because to acknowledge that the universe is FINITE (which even the Big Bang model agrees with - and which is the MOST prevailing model at present), would mean that one would have to acknowledge a starting point to the universe.......which would lead to a Creator.
(Even, under the so-called 'multi-universe' proposal, this would be true).


So, ask yourselves why is it so hard to accept logical arguments, and so easy to continue to delude yourself into believing that you arose from a huge 'bang'.....the particles of which miraculously combined, to form diverse and complex life forms.....and that your final destination is to dust and nothing more.

Why?

Perhaps refer back to post #101, and consider the possibilities for wishing to remain in this state:

This system has done an incredible job in 'brain-washing' its 'followers' (even in the face of absurdities, they still chant the same mantra.)

Its time to wake up.

The choice is yours.


Regards

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings Pygoscelis. To rephrase your question, correct me if i'm wrong but you are asking;

"Can God do something which will, in doing it, make Him no longer God?"

No, I am not asking. I was using that question as an additional example of people having difficulty wrapping their minds around the concept of infinity.

[Independent]

I have asked on multiple occasions for someone to bring some reproducible evidence (on a smaller scale) - as proof for what these theories propose.

You are consistently answering a different question from the one posed at the start of this thread. MohammadR states the 'closed system' theory of the universe is the one and only theory. All I have to do is to show that there are others, I don't have to prove them. On the contrary - you are obliged to disprove them if you want to say there is only one theory. I'm simply making an incontrovertible statement of fact - that there are many other theories currently accepted as credible.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....then how do you base your LIFE on these?

Again, you are persisting with a misunderstanding. I am not trying to base my life on astrophysics or any other explanation of the origin of the universe. I am interested in hearing about the latest discoveries. But I'm not particularly expecting to change my understanding of morality as a result.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'?

One of many misconceptions that gets repeated on Islamic websites is that the idea of a round world originated in the Qur'an. That's not true, it was propagated in 6th century BC Greece and perhaps other places. The idea never entirely disappeared in the Greco/Middle East, although it's not clear how much it survived in western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. (By the way, it's also not true that Columbus didn't know the Earth was round. He did - he just seriously under-estimated its circumference.)

To summarise: the Bible and the Qur'an give metaphorical descriptions of origins that are beautiful in themselves, but have no scientific significance today and at no point in history helped scientists come to an understanding of the universe. It's interesting that whereas an older translator like Pickthall gives Qur'an 21.30 as: 'We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)', modern translators prefer to substitute something like 'expander' for 'vast extent'. Sometimes the word 'universe' is substituted for 'heaven'. It's impossible to believe that these translators are not influenced by trying to make it more compatible with the new Big Bang theory.

If a new theory were to replace Big Bang, will they then re-translate all over again?

[Pygoscelis]

Can you not realise that these are just Theories, Hypotheses, Assumptions, Estimations?
It means nothing more than this.

Yes, we know.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'? Innocent people even lost their lives for believing otherwise.
Until it was convincingly proven that the earth is indeed round.

I was not aware of this. Who killed over the earth being flat or round? Galileo got in hot water over saying the earth went around the sun. Who attacked him for that? Religious people naturally.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....t[U]hen how do you base your LIFE on these?

Who is basing their lives on these? People have just noted that these theories exist and that we don't know which may be accurate.

There is SO much more proof for the existence of a Creator......than what ANY of these theories propose.

No, there isn't. That is precisely your problem.

Even IF you want to take this discussion down a 'scientific' road, you have [U]conveniently evaded the rational, logical arguments put forward throughout this thread, as well as in the previously posted article.

No, we haven't. You have consistently and repeatedly ignored responses to your posts, and you have repeated the same bold assertions without evidence. Then you so rudely accuse others of evasion, which is mind boggling.

Because to acknowledge that the universe is FINITE (which even the Big Bang model agrees with - and which is the MOST prevailing model at present), would mean that one would have to acknowledge a starting point to the universe.......which would lead to a Creator.

No, as has been pointed out to you many times now, that is not necessarily so. You have yet to prove that it is. You showed us your difficulty understanding the concept of inifity, and you pronounced that infinity is impossible and laughable, to which I presented another case of infinity that you accept and endorse.

So, ask yourselves why is it so hard to accept logical arguments, and so easy to continue to delude yourself into believing that you arose from a huge 'bang'.....

Nobody here has said they believe that to be for sure how it all started. One guy just said that is the prevailing theory. Others of us have told you we don't even think it is how it all started, that there may have been no start, and that we simply don't know, and neither do you.

This system has done an incredible job in 'brain-washing' its 'followers' (even in the face of absurdities, they still chant the same mantra.)

Its time to wake up.

Are you talking about Islam?

[Ali_008]

Are invisible undedectable space aliens sitting beside you right now, watching you and taking notes? You can't disprove it. You have no solid foundation for disbelief in it. But do you worry about such a thing?

Don't even get started about the things that are invisible to the naked eye. If that was the case then subjects like microbiology, nanotechnology, astrophysics, and all of chemistry would be the biggest prank pulled on humanity. Have a look at the image below, do you think all these heavenly bodies have been detected or felt by human touch?

I have no wish to live under somebody else's theocracy with rules based on their religion instead of sound secular reasoning.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for such a government/constitution as well. Why bother picking a particular religion's rules when we ourselves can make something equally good? At the same time, we've had the most elite minds in history join and create constitutions for their countries. Yet, we find loopholes in all of them. There's not a single country that can claim that it has the perfect law & order.

And you may view it as granting justice, freedom, safety and welfare for all, but that doesn't mean we'll all see it that way. Each of those terms are pretty subjective.

I'm not pointing fingers particularly at you, Pygo; but that is what the problem of the west is. What is considered a civilized environment in the Middle East is considered "oppressive" by the west, and they even go as far as taking the initiative in turning the whole world against it. If you look at the example of Saudi Arabia, alcohol is illegal over there, so are drugs, dating is also a crime, women can't drive, women can't be seen outdoors without an abaya on, the section for men and women in a lot of areas are distinct, and other such laws. Muslims, on the whole, don't find any of those laws bad, although the ban on female drivers is something which even we dislike, but inshaAllah it seems that ban is also nearing its end. A majority of Muslims would find those laws to be perfect, and would love to raise their children in such an environment. But for the people of the west, it is oppression. Even if you ask not just the citizens, but also the immigrants of Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure even they'd agree that the law helps in fostering a healthy and disciplined society.

I agree that the terms are subjective, but again if you don't want to abide by the rules of a particular society, you have all the liberty to migrate. But you cannot deny that the laws implemented by Saudi Arabia almost guarantee that there won't be any illegitimate children born to alcoholics or drug addicts and such.

Saudi Arabia claims to be the only Islamic country on earth (which it isn't), but it is the closest resemblance of shariah we have in the world today, and thus also has a seat among countries with the least crime rate.

Then this is a perfect chance for you to show your skills again. If you, or Zaria, want to build a final proof starting with the premise that this universe is a closed system, you have to first refute all the Brane Cosmology and Eternal Inflation models.

Best of luck.

This is what I find funny about atheists. When you start talking to them even a little about science, they respond as if they are researchers or scientists working for NASA. I'd say Sister Zaria is providing enough evidence and material for you. Once you've proven her wrong, come to me then.

Indeed, but I see an important difference between a theocracy and a secular democracy. Most of the laws in my jurisdiction are fair, based on some sound reasoning, and I agree with them and support them. The few that are not fair or not to my liking I can work to change. The power, at least theoretically sits in the hands of the people, instead of sitting in the hands of those few claiming to speak for the divine.

Pygo, again, the laws of most countries are fair. But again those constitutions mostly provide reactive solutions to problems. You can blame it on the corrupt politicians, but do you really think that if every law of Canada was strictly followed by every citizen then poverty could be eradicated and crime would take a nosedive? The governments we have today are only creating laws, they are not creating the environment where application of those laws won't be darn hard.

The sharia dictates rules which create a society in which committing a crime becomes totally unnecessary, and when one still commits any crime, he/she deserves a terrible punishment.

Also the power lies in the hands of the people part. When the people don't seem to agree with the most intelligent minds of their country then that country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[Independent]

This is what I find funny about atheists. When you start talking to them even a little about science, they respond as if they are researchers or scientists working for NASA. I'd say Sister Zaria is providing enough evidence and material for you. Once you've proven her wrong, come to me then.

You've got to be kidding, string theory has to be some of the toughest science out there for a non-specialist to get their heads round. But somehow Zaria and Mohammad have managed to dispose of it!

[Independent]

Don't even get started about the things that are invisible to the naked eye. If that was the case then subjects like microbiology, nanotechnology, astrophysics, and all of chemistry would be the biggest prank pulled on humanity. Have a look at the image below, do you think all these heavenly bodies have been detected or felt by human touch?

The crucial word that Pygo used which you have omitted is 'undetectable'. All the things you list are 'detectable' - but not necessarily by human eyesight. It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

[Ali_008]

The crucial word that Pygo used which you have omitted is 'undetectable'. All the things you list are 'detectable' - but not necessarily by human eyesight. It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

The things I listed out are detectable with visual aid. Similarly, angels may require sensory and olfactory aids as well for their detection. Plus, you can't detect electron, neutrons, or protons with any aid either. You just have to believe in them, because they contribute to theories and make them sound logical.

[~Zaria~]

You are consistently answering a different question from the one posed at the start of this thread. MohammadR states the 'closed system' theory of the universe is the one and only theory. All I have to do is to show that there are others, I don't have to prove them. On the contrary - you are obliged to disprove them if you want to say there is only one theory. I'm simply making an incontrovertible statement of fact - that there are many other theories currently accepted as credible.

Why the Universe Cannot be Open:

Closed universe

If Ω > 1, then the geometry of space is closed like the surface of a sphere. The sum of the angles of a triangle exceeds 180 degrees and there are no parallel lines; all lines eventually meet. The geometry of the universe is, at least on a very large scale, elliptic.

In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch", by analogy with Big Bang. However, if the universe has a significant amount of dark energy that will be used as an infinite force, then the expansion of the universe can continue forever—even if Ω > 1.


Open universe

If Ω < 1, the geometry of space is open, i.e., negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. The angles of a triangle sum to less than 180 degrees, and lines that do not meet are never equidistant; they have a point of least distance and otherwise grow apart. The geometry of such a universe is hyperbolic.

Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe expands forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates.

The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

Conversely, a negative cosmological constant, which would correspond to a negative energy density and positive pressure, would cause even an open universe to recollapse to a big crunch.

This option has been ruled out by observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

One of many misconceptions that gets repeated on Islamic websites is that the idea of a round world originated in the Qur'an. That's not true, it was propagated in 6th century BC Greece and perhaps other places. The idea never entirely disappeared in the Greco/Middle East, although it's not clear how much it survived in western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. (By the way, it's also not true that Columbus didn't know the Earth was round. He did - he just seriously under-estimated its circumference.)

To summarise: the Bible and the Qur'an give metaphorical descriptions of origins that are beautiful in themselves, but have no scientific significance today and at no point in history helped scientists come to an understanding of the universe. It's interesting that whereas an older translator like Pickthall gives Qur'an 21.30 as: 'We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)', modern translators prefer to substitute something like 'expander' for 'vast extent'. Sometimes the word 'universe' is substituted for 'heaven'. It's impossible to believe that these translators are not influenced by trying to make it more compatible with the new Big Bang theory.
If a new theory were to replace Big Bang, will they then re-translate all over again?

I have not mentioned the islamic view-point with regards to the world being flat/ round (so, Im not sure why you are referring to this).

The point that was being made is:
Man is always in a state of making new 'discoveries'.....which oftentimes results in the original theory that was held, to be completely negated.
As in the case of the world being flat.

I think you will find the website: The Flat Earth Society , listed above also quite interesting.
If you browse through their 'proofs' for the earth being flat, it is apparent that anyone can make a case (in a convincing manner) for just about anything.

I am merely trying to highlight the fallibility of man, and why our reasons for our existence does not lie behind the telescope/ in a laboratory.

Imagine wasting ones life holding fast to a 'scientific explanantion' for our existence (as is the case for many atheists), which is later found to be complete nonsense.

The Creator of all has not left us to wander blindly by ourselves.

He has sent His message to us - to enable us to see past these types of falsehoods.

I am not against science - I am in a category of this field myself.
But, I do not allow 'scientific discoveries' to direct my understanding of life (as is the case for many atheists).

The meaning of life does not change - irrespective of what has already been discovered.....and what is to be discovered.

No, as has been pointed out to you many times now, that is not necessarily so. You have yet to prove that it is. You showed us your difficulty understanding the concept of inifity, and you pronounced that infinity is impossible and laughable, to which I presented another case of infinity that you accept and endorse.

Another case for infinity being??

The only one that I have 'endorsed' as being infinite is God.

Nobody here has said they believe that to be for sure how it all started. One guy just said that is the prevailing theory. Others of us have told you we don't even think it is how it all started, that there may have been no start, and that we simply don't know, and neither do you.

?? There may have been 'no start' ??

Lol. Im not going to even reply to this confusion.

It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

DNA tests do not tell you who your parents/ grand-parents are.

They merely confirm or reject the claims of parents with regards to parenthood, and that too, only on the basis of probability.

So, it is indeed a matter of trust and faith that one is telling the truth with regards to ones great great great grandparents, as an example.

[جوري]

I haven't been following this thread for a while now I've lost interest- going to comment quickly on the 'flat earth' thing- it was the Muslim scholar and geographer Al'Idrisi that gave Roger the II of Sicily a globe of the earth- which he crushed of course citing the world is flat - :alhumdil Muslims have always been very progressive when it comes to science!

[~Zaria~]

^Shukran.

Ukthi, dont get the atheists confused by discussing too many things at once (they already have enough confusion to last them many lifetimes it appears :P ).

Let them absorb the concept of the 'closed universe' first insha Allah :P

[Independent]

Zaria - the extract you have posted from wikipedia does not change the argument mainly because it is just that - an extract. You've simply deleted all the other theories you didn't want, including the multiverse theories. I can't think of any more ways to say that, in order for Mohammad's proof to be a proof, these theories have to not exist - and for that reason I'm not going to respond to any more posts here.

Even if a closed system universe were correct, that still doesn't necessarily lead to God - although it does require more explaining.

Secondly, I am not sure that the extract you have quoted says what you think it does. The terms 'open' and 'closed' here seem to refer to the shape of the universe, not whether it is a closed system, or whether it is cyclical etc. Also you seem to have added your own headline to the picture? At least, it's not on the page with the link you provide. In addition, by adding your highlighting to some text you have obscured the meaning. Either way, unless you can eliminate the multiverse theories, the proof is unproven.

I think you will find the website: The Flat Earth Society , listed above also quite interesting.

Funnily enough I came across The Flat Earth Society myself many years ago, when I happened to walk past their office in London. I have to say, I was delighted at the eccentricity of anyone maintaining such a philosophy in the modern age. I felt like joining - not because I agree with it, but because I admire their audacity. I love it that Britain has things like this.

Ok, if you want to be hard on them, you could take it as a demonstration of how people are capable of believing anything they like, no matter what the evidence. But then, you yourself believe in a crazy society of people beginning with a capital 'I'...

Signing off from this thread.

[~Zaria~]

^ I have provided the reference to the above extract, for those who wish to read the rest of the article.

And as I do with all my posts - I highlight important points, esp. when the article is of a technical nature, to assist with easier reading.

The extract is not referring to the shape of the universe.

But rather whether it is infinite in terms of space.

The following phrase, should be enough reasoning as to why all other theories (which you speak of so often), do not really matter:

The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

as well as the fact that:

Conversely, a negative cosmological constant, which would correspond to a negative energy density and positive pressure, would cause even an open universe to recollapse to a big crunch.

This option has been ruled out by observations.

Signing off from this thread.

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

SubhanAllah, your presence has enabled me to learn new things as well.


********

So, now that we have multiple reasons for why the universe is a closed system,
this would mean it is Finite,
which would imply that it had to have had a starting point.

And because nothing arises out of nothing,

We can conclude that the universe indeed has a Creator.

We refer to Him as Allah.

However, if one is not convinced that Allah is the Creator, Fashioner and Sustainer of all that surrounds them, then insha Allah, we continue take this discussion into another thread.....


Regards

[Ali_008]

^^ Another atheist falls prey to the truth. When they are proven wrong, they release this statement "this doesn't necessarily lead to God."

Another regular practice of theirs is exiting from threads when they can't take the argument any further.

In fact, I'm baffled at these recent posts. Independent, you were on this thread for so long just discussing theories talking about creation of the universe other than Big Bang? You are so desperate to prove Islam wrong that you are putting forward "theories" against an actual proven FACT.

In case you don't know, Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking, and universally accepted to be a fact. Anything you put forward against it will only be a "theory." A theory, after all, is an idea/belief still requiring factual backing. Big Bang is as true as gravity. If someday someone comes along, and starts saying gravity is a myth, will you joining their bandwagon as well?

[~Zaria~]

In case you don't know, Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking,

Shukran for this input.

Can you provide this information for us?

I have been asking this, from our atheist friends for so long, and they have not brought forth anything thus far.

As far as I am aware, the Big Bang remains a theory.

But I am more than happy to learn more, insha Allah.

[Independent]

Another regular practice of theirs is exiting from threads when they can't take the argument any further.

5 minutes out the door and i get an insult. Fantastic. This, I will respond to.

You are so desperate to prove Islam wrong that you are putting forward "theories" against an actual proven FACT.

Wrong and offensive. Does Islam depend on the veracity or otherwise of the Big Bang theory? If i or anyone else disproves Big Bang, does that disprove Islam? No? Then why say this.

Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking, and universally accepted to be a fact.

Stephen Hawking is a scientist i admire greatly, but that doesn't mean he has the last word. And before you start claiming his endorsement for your position, you should read this quote from his latest book:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory held by most astrophysicists - just as evolution is the prevailing theory held by most biologists. Do you think evolution is a fact?

Anything you put forward against it will only be a "theory."

What you don't seem to have realised is that the Big Bang and the multiverse are not mutually exclusive theories. Both can be true. The importance of the multiverse, in respect of this thread, is that it means our universe is not a closed system and that its beginning, and its end, is not the end or the beginning of everything.

[Ali_008]

Sister Zaria, it was quite difficult to find anything about Big Bang Theory online, because all whenever you'd search for it, 99% of the results would be about the CBS sitcom. Earlier, at least, if you made the search for "Stephen Hawking Big Bang", you'd find some relevant data, but even that is not possible since Stephen Hawking did a guest appearance on the sitcom. :heated:

Hawking did postulate that there was no concept of time before Big Bang. I don't know what logic he gave behind it, but what I think it ought to be that way. I mean, how would you measure time without the sun, no sunrise, no sunset, no days, no months, so on and so forth.

[Ali_008]

Independent, I know Stephen Hawking is an atheist, but mostly the God he refers to disbelieve in is the Christian God, i.e., Jesus Christ. On multiple occasions, he has said that it is foolish to believe a "MAN" has supernatural powers so big that they control the universe.

I believe in spontaneous creation too. In fact, it is most compatible with theist beliefs. If you recall the law of conservation of energy, it states that "energy is neither created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred from one form to another." All it does is prove God's existence. Universe cannot be said to have been in existence since forever, I mean even it came into existence only after Big bang. So it obviously means that there was something even before Big Bang happened to transfer the energy for the explosion. Newton's first law states "An object at rest will stay at rest unless an unbalanced force acts on it." It only means that there was some trigger that lead to the Big Bang as well.

[Abz2000]

Ok, so could an atheist please tell me what explanation he gives himself when things that men claiming to be sent by God prophesied thousands of years ago - happen exactly as described and we see them develop before our very eyes?
I know the explanation the atheist lamestream media give is "magic" - despite they themselves refusing to accept they believe in magic!

Something that God fitted us with when he made us is INTELLECT, and it doesn't take loads and loads of intellect to put two and two together and realise that they were speaking is the truth.

They're something called trustworthy witnesses who came with credentials,
The only trustworthy witnesses atheists seem to have is stuff like fox news and the bbc, and people like George bush and tony Blair etc and the schools and colleges they control.

[Pygoscelis]

Are invisible undedectable space aliens sitting beside you right now, watching you and taking notes? You can't disprove it. You have no solid foundation for disbelief in it. But do you worry about such a thing?

Don't even get started about the things that are invisible to the naked eye. If that was the case then subjects like microbiology, nanotechnology, astrophysics, and all of chemistry would be the biggest prank pulled on humanity. Have a look at the image below, do you think all these heavenly bodies have been detected or felt by human touch?

I don't understand this response to the text you quoted. You do worry about undetectable space aliens sitting beside you and taking notes? Do you worry about an unknown undetectable being that will strike you dead tomorrow morning if you don't eat a ham sandwich this afternoon?

My point is not that we should dismiss something as impossible because we can not directly observe it or have no evidence for it. My point is that unless and until we find convincing evidence that it exists it makes no sense to claim it does. I would also point out that those examples you give are all things we have theorized and detected indirectly, forming falsifiable theories and trying to prove them wrong. That is very different from how you guys address the God idea.

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, so could an atheist please tell me what explanation he gives himself when things that men claiming to be sent by God prophesied thousands of years ago - happen exactly as described and we see them develop before our very eyes?

The same kinds of explanations that are given when Nostradamus is claimed to have done it, or when the ancient Egyptians are. Only the believers in each of the foregoing manage to convince themselves that their books have prophecies that all come true.

Something that God fitted us with when he made us is INTELLECT, and it doesn't take loads and loads of intellect to put two and two together and realise that they were speaking is the truth.

It is pretty ironic that we have so many muslims in this thread speaking rudely and trying to insult the intelligence.... of people who do not see their imaginary friend.

The only trustworthy witnesses atheists seem to have is stuff like fox news and the bbc, and people like George bush and tony Blair etc and the schools and colleges they control.

Fox News and George Bush are atheists???

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum

I guess we could accept that no one will really know how the universe came into being SCIENTIFICALLY. Some will say it just began while some will say God created it. With that said, anyone who solely depends upon science AND only decides his/her faith on God based on how the universe began will never conclude that there is a God. I'd like to conclude by saying, it wont make a difference if science proves the Big Bang Theory to be false or true because at the end of the day science is not reliable at all compared to Islam, science has been wrong a MILLION times before, whereas Islam has never been wrong, ever. This is something no atheist can deny and is a sign of God Almighty in itself.

Salam 3laikum

[Pygoscelis]

Islam has never been wrong, ever. This is something no atheist can deny and is a sign of God Almighty in itself.

It says absolutely nothing if Islam is not falsifiable. Is Islam falsifiable? If it is, then we could actually investigate it scientifically, and maybe find convincing evidence for it and end atheism once and for all.

[~Zaria~]

You do worry about undetectable space aliens sitting beside you and taking notes?

It is called having Faith - belief in the unseen.

We believe in jinn and angels, heaven and hell not because we are crazy - but because we have Faith.

One can only reach this point of faith, after acknowledging that there is no other possibility available, with regards to our existence, but for A Supreme Being - One who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, All-knowing, and upon whom we owe our very existence to.

If we cannot reach this point of acknowledgement, then there is no point in speaking of the actual beliefs held within ones faith - and mocking them in the manner above.

As clearly demonstrated in this thread, despite defying logical reasoning and argument - some atheists will continue to clutch tightly onto theories that exist, simply because it verifies for them, a world where a creator is not required.

An atheist may argue that theories that attribute the universe as being 'open' ( i.e. infinite in terms of time and space ) has not been refuted.

We are merely saying the following:

There is no need to try to refute each and every theory that rears its head - in the face of overwhelming logic and evidence supporting the contrary.

(For example, I do not need to try to refute the claims made by the Flat Earth Society - because we are all aware of overwhelming evidence (both scientifically and otherwise) supporting the fact that the earth is round.

For those who are still not convinced with all of the explanations already provided in this thread, they can also refer here:

http://www.emjc3.com/OriginOfTheUniverseEastman.htm

http://www.oocities.org/bourbonstreet/7978/pillars.html


And if you still not satisfied with these arguments - then, as I have mentioned, you need to ask yourself why you are fighting so hard to deny the existence of a Creator. (We are not mentioning WHO the Creator is at the moment, we are simply trying to get to the point of a Creator actually existing!)

What do you have to lose by acknowledging that there is a Creator behind this wondrous universe?
You are content in accepting that there is a creator behind everything else that is produced.
Does that make sense?


From a muslim perspective, we will never accept an infinite universe model, simply because:

1. We already believe in the Creator.
2. We believe that everything He says is TRUE.
3. So, everything that goes against His truth - is undeniably, unquestionably and without doubt false.


Allah says in the Quraan (Ch 112 - V1-4)

"Say: He is Allah, the One!

meaning,- He is the One, the Singular,
- Who has no peer,
- no assistant, no rival,
- no equal and none comparable to Him.

Allah, the ETERNALLY Besought of ALL!

This means the One Who all of the creation depends upon for their needs and their requests.

"الصَّمَدُ As-Samad is One Who does not give birth, nor was He born, because there is nothing that is born except that it will die, and there is nothing that dies except that it leaves behind inheritance, and indeed Allah does not die and He does not leave behind any inheritance

He begetteth not, nor was begotten

meaning, He does not have any child, parent or spouse.

And there is NONE comparable unto Him."

This means that there is none similar to Him, none equal to Him and there is nothing at all like Him.

(Commentary from Ibn Kathir)

In other words, all of these descriptions, that have been given to Allah (by Himself) - belong ONLY to Allah.
There is nothing else that will ever fit these meanings.


Hence, we do not need any further 'experiments' or 'deductions' to prove to us that the universe is indeed finite.
Because, from the above, infinity belongs to Allah (subhanawataála) alone.



Regards

[Ali_008]

My point is not that we should dismiss something as impossible because we can not directly observe it or have no evidence for it. My point is that unless and until we find convincing evidence that it exists it makes no sense to claim it does. I would also point out that those examples you give are all things we have theorized and detected indirectly, forming falsifiable theories and trying to prove them wrong. That is very different from how you guys address the God idea.

That's the whole point of faith, dear brother. Allah has given sufficient evidence for people to believe in Him. He does not need to prove anything to anyone, yet he keeps sending reminders from time to time for people to return to him. Faith also seeks that you have belief in the unseen, and angels fall under the same category.

I don't need any "convincing evidence" to believe in angels, because science itself has not reached its peak yet. We all know that there are a plethora of questions that science has still not been able to answer. I'm not against science in anyway, rather the advancement of science has exhibited the magnificent architecture of not just earth, but the entire universe; solidifying my imaan even more, alhamdulillah. I don't rely on science to make decisions for me. It is one thing today, and will be an altogether different thing tomorrow.

Also, it doesn't necessarily mean that "invisible alien" is sitting right next to me. We all know how surveillance works. Who knows this surveillance also works in similar forms as hidden cams and stuff??

[Pygoscelis]

That's the whole point of faith, dear brother. Allah has given sufficient evidence for people to believe in Him.

Evidently not. Not evidence that is convincing to many non-muslims anyway.

We all know that there are a plethora of questions that science has still not been able to answer.

And there probably always will be. The difference between you and I is what we do with that lack of knowledge. You see Faith as a virtue, and use it to fill in your ignorance with answers you have convinced yourself are from on high. I see Faith as a vice, and try to avoid it as best I can, avoid such illusions, and tolerate the discomfort of not knowing. I seek as best I can to find empirical knowledge through science, but I know full well that my knowledge will never be as complete or as certain or as re-assuring as your "knowledge". That is a price I am willing to pay.

[Pygoscelis]

It is called having Faith - belief in the unseen.

We believe in jinn and angels, heaven and hell not because we are crazy - but because we have Faith.

How do you tell the difference? Crazy seems a harsh word, but how do you know you are not self deluded? Why should I prefer your faith over the faith of people you would apparently call crazy?

One can only reach this point of faith, after acknowledging that there is no other possibility available, with regards to our existence, but for A Supreme Being - One who is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, All-knowing, and upon whom we owe our very existence to.

You haven't even attempted to prove that. You've made some attempt to prove the universe is a closed system, that is all. You'd have a very very long way to go to get from that (if we accepted it as certain, which nobody should) to the rest of what you now claim here.

As clearly demonstrated in this thread, despite defying logical reasoning and argument - some atheists will continue to clutch tightly onto theories that exist, simply because it verifies for them, a world where a creator is not required.

You seem to think that atheists have an agenda to believe there is no God, instead of simply not being convinced that there is one. I've seen this claimed a few times on this forum. The claim seems to be that atheists know God exists but rebel against him and don't want to believe he is there, so they can engage in all sorts of evil. This claim is made repeatedly in forums such as this despite actual atheists assuring people that it isn't so. It is pretty insulting when folks here rant on about what and how atheists think, in the face of actual atheists saying otherwise. It is tantamount to calling the atheists liars... and yet somehow civil discussion is expected from the atheists in response?

It would be like if a non-Muslim went on and on claiming that Muslims are all terrorists and that they all want to kill us and stifle our freedoms, etc, in the face of actual Muslims writing responses dispelling such myths.

What do you have to lose by acknowledging that there is a Creator behind this wondrous universe?

Nothing. I would acknowledge that if I thought it true.

From a muslim perspective, we will never accept an infinite universe model, simply because:

1. We already believe in the Creator.
2. We believe that everything He says is TRUE.
3. So, everything that goes against His truth - is undeniably, unquestionably and without doubt false.

So, you rail against atheists and accuse them of being closed minded, and then you express pride in your own closed mindedness?

[Ali_008]

Evidently not. Not evidence that is convincing to many non-muslims anyway.

Muslims aren't the only theists in this world, dear friend. Polytheists, as well, worship the Almighty God along with whatever partners they've chosen to join with Him. Total disbelief can be accredited only to atheists. Somehow, I feel atheists are better than polytheists because of what Dr. Zakir Naik says about them. According to him, half of the job of a Muslim is already done in the case of an atheist, because the atheist would have already attested half of the shahadah La Ilaaha (which means "there is no God"), and a Muslim only needs to prove the other half, i.e., Illa Allah (but Allah); whereas with a polytheist, you first need to prove it to him that the God he's worshiping isn't God, and then lead him to Allah.

The difference between you and I is what we do with that lack of knowledge. You see Faith as a virtue, and use it to fill in your ignorance with answers you have convinced yourself are from on high. I see Faith as a vice, and try to avoid it as best I can, avoid such illusions, and tolerate the discomfort of not knowing. I seek as best I can to find empirical knowledge through science, but I know full well that my knowledge will never be as complete or as certain or as re-assuring as your "knowledge". That is a price I am willing to pay.

I understand what you're saying. Most atheists assume pious people to be fools because of the same reason. Religious folks are looked upon as dumb, because they've chosen to settle with something that may or may not completely make sense. For you, it is the gap of knowledge that separates you from theists. For others, it can be some article of faith such as modesty, abstinence from premarital intercourse, alcohol, pork that draws the line.

I totally respect what you just said, but I can't really say that I agree with it. Don't get me wrong, I say that because I didn't embrace Islam because it talked about Big Bang, or earth's geo-spherical shape, or moon's borrowed light, or the barrier between sweet and salty waters. Islam came to me with such a force that I was overwhelmed with it. The entire cycle of being risen after death to account for all the deeds that one does throughout his life started making so much sense to me that turning away from Islam seemed like the worst decision of my life. I'm a born Muslim, but I learnt about Islam only in 2006. I was as good as a non-Muslim before that.

I turned to Allah. In 2007, I started practicing Islam, and sought more knowledge. As I would go forward, I learned how beautiful each principle of Islam really was, because not only did it prohibit sinful deeds, but it also gave instructions about creating an environment where sinning would become close to impossible. Further down the line, I learned about how scientific facts are present in the Qur'an, and it was just icing to the cake for me.

Science was never the yardstick for me. It was the entire philosophy behind Islam that gravitated me towards it. Science never was, nor ever can be the measuring stone for any religion, because scientific theories are never constant, and keep changing from time to time except for concrete facts such as gravity, earth's shape, respiration, and others. Do I care whether the Qur'an agrees with Big Bang? Absolutely not. However, I always rejoice when I come to know about scientific discoveries that concur with the Qur'an. Compatibility between religion and science is used so widely in today's age, because it is the age of technology.

Even right now, evolution is one subject which is in conflict with Islam. If evolution is solidified as a fact tomorrow, will I drop Islam? No. That's because I didn't pick Islam as a science text book. I picked it because it felt the right thing for me, and everybody around me.

P.s. - Secretly, I'd also be waiting for the day when evolution is proven wrong. ;D

[Pygoscelis]

Ali_008, you write elequently and I respect your view. We just seem to come at it from different perspectives :)

Even right now, evolution is one subject which is in conflict with Islam. If evolution is solidified as a fact tomorrow, will I drop Islam? No. That's because I didn't pick Islam as a science text book. I picked it because it felt the right thing for me, and everybody around me.

That is something that has always confused me a little. Are you sure evolution conflicts with Islam? Could Allah not be an invisible hand that set it up or something like that?

P.s. - Secretly, I'd also be waiting for the day when evolution is proven wrong. ;D

lol me too! I love when the prevailing scientific theory is proven wrong. It gives us an opportunity to shift paradigms and learn so much more than we knew before.

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

How do you tell the difference? Crazy seems a harsh word, but how do you know you are not self deluded?

Being self-deluded would entail believing in something that goes against rational, logical thinking.

Having 'faith'- is believing something, that is unseen - because it makes sense as well as the fact that it appeals to our natural inclination.

If Islam permitted actions that went completely against logic, (as an example - if it permitted the use of intoxicants that is known to be harmful to mankind and which makes him lose his senses) - then, most certainly, I would question this......and even be inclined towards disbelief.

This is not blinded faith.
As described by brother Ali008, it has taken most of us, a certain level of study and comprehension of the religion - before we fully embraced it.

And once we reach this point, then we also realise, that there are some things in life that we will not be able to fully comprehend.
For example: there will be some women, who question the permissibility of polygamy in islam.
There will be others who wonder why men are entitled to greater inheritence than women.
etc.

The difference is: that once we have believed in the One Creator, who is All-Powerful and All-Knowing, and once we have submitted to Him - out of Love (as well as some fear), then we realise that this is His decree.
That He is our Creator, our Lord. We are His servants.
We are not even capable of producing the very air that we require for our survival, nor the rain that falls onto earth.......we owe our entire existence to Him.
And we also realise that our intellect is limited. The Creator knows more than His Creation.
So, in humility - we accept, that He knows best - in all matters. And that it is ONLY for our benefit (never for our harm), because He dearly loves us.

Why should I prefer your faith over the faith of people you would apparently call crazy?

As mentioned, this is a discussion in itself, that requires another thread.
For now, God-willingly, we are only trying to bring to realisation, that there is without any shadow of doubt, irrespective of what some 'scientific models' hold - a Creator.

You seem to think that atheists have an agenda to believe there is no God, instead of simply not being convinced that there is one. I've seen this claimed a few times on this forum. The claim seems to be that atheists know God exists but rebel against him and don't want to believe he is there, so they can engage in all sorts of evil. This claim is made repeatedly in forums such as this despite actual atheists assuring people that it isn't so. It is pretty insulting when folks here rant on about what and how atheists think, in the face of actual atheists saying otherwise. It is tantamount to calling the atheists liars... and yet somehow civil discussion is expected from the atheists in response?

I truly do not believe, that the reason for disbelief is so that atheists can engage in evil.
As we know, even those who do believe, commit evil actions.

What we cannot understand, is when atheists are provided good, sound, logical arguments - yet continue to deny them, for reasons that remain unknown.
If you have read through the 2 links provided in my previous post as well as the article earlier on - and still, claim that the universe is 'open' - despite this, then there is not much more that we can do.

We can only take one to the water. We cannot (and it is not our intention to) force him to drink.

So, you rail against atheists and accuse them of being closed minded, and then you express pride in your own closed mindedness?

I think I have addressed this point above.



Regards

[Pygoscelis]

What we cannot understand, is when atheists are provided good, sound, logical arguments - yet continue to deny them, for reasons that remain unknown.

The reasons are simple. We are not convinced that your arguments are good, sound, or logical. There is no secret atheist need to not believe in Gods. We just don't see any good reason to believe in them. I know you all get insulted when I compare God to other mythical beings like Santa, faeries, vampires, loch ness, big foot, etc, but I do so to try to drive the point home, the point that you don't seem to want to accept, that we simply see the God claim as having no good convincing evidence for it. We see no more evidence for it than for these other mythical beings.

If you have read through the 2 links provided in my previous post as well as the article earlier on - and still, claim that the universe is 'open' - despite this, then there is not much more that we can do.

I am not certain one way or the other. Nobody in this thread has actually claimed that the universe is open by the way, people have merely noted the possibility. You keep trying to put words in our mouths.

We are now many pages deep into this thread and atheism has not been much addressed, nevermind "answered". It wasn't done in one paragraph, as claimed in the OP, and nor has it been done since. All we've had is an attempt to show the universe is a closed system, with an off the cuff dismissal of the concept of infinity (while simultaneously endorsing the concept of infinity for your God), and a shrugging off the alternate theories that Independent presented.

No reason or evidence has been given for why a closed system requires a creator. No reason or evidence has been given for why that creator must be a sentient all powerful being we should call a God.

I think I have addressed this point above.

You were accusing atheists of being closed minded, and then you proudly declared your own inflexibility. Where did you address this hypocrisy?

[~Zaria~]

You keep trying to put words in our mouths.

I should have said: "If you have read through the 2 links provided in my previous post as well as the article earlier on - and still, claim [the possibility] that the universe is 'open' - despite this, then there is not much more that we can do.
Still comes down to the same point that is being made.

No reason or evidence has been given for why a closed system requires a creator.

Perhaps you can explain to us - How does something that is finite (i.e. have a beginnning) originate on its own - i.e. without a creator?
Is there a scientific model that demonstrates this?

Where did you address this hypocrisy?

Was there a need for this insult?

I have addressed it in the beginning of the post 153.
If you do not agree with whats been said - this does not make the person a hypocrite.
What you call 'close-mindedness', we call faith - the meaning of which has already been provided.

[Al-Mufarridun]

The difference between you and I is what we do with that lack of knowledge. You see Faith as a virtue, and use it to fill in your ignorance with answers you have convinced yourself are from on high. I see Faith as a vice, and try to avoid it as best I can, avoid such illusions, and tolerate the discomfort of not knowing. I seek as best I can to find empirical knowledge through science, but I know full well that my knowledge will never be as complete or as certain or as re-assuring as your "knowledge". That is a price I am willing to pay.

This sentence is very revealing and helps me understand were you are coming from.

I was wondering if you read the Qur'an, or any books on Islamic Monotheism?

[tearose]

I know you all get insulted when I compare God to other mythical beings like Santa, faeries, vampires, loch ness, big foot, etc, ... We see no more evidence for it than for these other mythical beings.

Only young children believe in Santa and only a tiny minority of people believe in the other things you mentioned, whereas billions of people around the world have some sort of theistic belief. This in itself isn't necessarily evidence for the existence of God, but in my opinion it means that belief in God should be considered more seriously than the other things you mentioned.

[Pygoscelis]

I should have said: "If you have read through the 2 links provided in my previous post as well as the article earlier on - and still, claim [the possibility] that the universe is 'open' - despite this, then there is not much more that we can do.

Independent addressed this and said all that really can be said. There are other theories, which allow for an open universe, and these theories are not crack pot theories with no rationales. They are put forth by leading scientists. I don't adopt any particular theory, open or closed, and I am not confident that it is possible, given our human limitations, even with endless vigorous scientific investigation to ever truly know.

Was there a need for this insult?

Given your double standard presented and your rudeness upthread, yes there really was.

If you do not agree with whats been said - this does not make the person a hypocrite.

No, but it does make a person a hypocrite to demand flexibility and open mindedness from others while proclaiming faith, certainty, inflexibility, and closed mindedness herself. If you are inflexible, then why would you mock others by accusing them of being inflexible? Is this a case of projection? My mind is open to change should really good evidence and argument proving the gods come along. Is your mind open to change as well? Do you seek to falsify your religious view or only to confirm it?

[Pygoscelis]

This sentence is very revealing and helps me understand were you are coming from.

I was wondering if you read the Qur'an, or any books on Islamic Monotheism?

I grew up in Canada, which has religious people, but isn't as die hard as say the bible belt or Saudi Arabia. I did not meet a fundamentalist in any form until I started interacting on the internet many years ago. I came in with the false belief that there were no true theists, or at least very very few of them. I thought that people went along with God ideas as part of their culture, for social cohesion. It was shocking to me to meet people (Christians at the time) who truly, strongly, and completely believed these stories, literally. It was difficult for me to believe that was possible, and yet here were people in front of me who did exactly that, and they were not crazies, but intelligent and otherwise rational people.

I was fascinated by the phenomenon of religious belief, and I started looking into why people believe it. I looked at the effects of upbringing and culture, and the rise and fall of different religions throughout history and how they spread. I looked at how they evolved, borrowing ideas from each other, and shifting and shaping themselves over time, splitting off into various sects, etc. For example, the origin of the Catholic Church and how the bible books were selected and assembled is interesting and surprising to many.

I was especially fascinated by the psychology of religious belief and how it worked in both individuals and groups, why people would adopt such beliefs, how it benefited or harmed them, etc. I was fascinated by conversion and apostacy, social confirmity, authoritarianism, group think, tribalism, etc.

These social and psychological phenomena then all became interesting to me in their own right, outside of religious context. Patriotism and nationalism are interesting to look at, as are sports fans, etc. This all let me to my undergraduate studies in psychology and social cognition. This stuff still interests me, even though I have moved on to a different career focus now.

Although I had spent a lot of time back then reading various religious texts and listening to many religious views and experiences through this paradigm, I had not spent much time reading or thinking about Islam, having had no real exposure to it. That changed with 9/11. After 9/11 there were a lot of claims made by the media and people I spoke to and read online, and I wanted to investigate that and see what was true and what was islamophobia. That is what led me to this forum, and others which have muslim views represented on them. I have read some books, including the Quran, but I am more interested in what people actually believe and how they act on those beliefs, which is better gleamed from themselves (as they may read the books differently than I do)

Interacting with Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, brought me right back into my fascination with religious psychology. That people will protest violently over a cartoon, or pray so many times per day, or pride themselves on being "slaves" to a perceived authority figure (Allah) is pretty amazing to me.

Hmm, that's a bit long winded lol. To answer your question, yes I have read some on Islamic Monotheism. ;D

[Pygoscelis]

Only young children believe in Santa and only a tiny minority of people believe in the other things you mentioned, whereas billions of people around the world have some sort of theistic belief. This in itself isn't necessarily evidence for the existence of God, but in my opinion it means that belief in God should be considered more seriously than the other things you mentioned.

I think it means that we should treat it with more tact and respect for those who hold religious views, not that we should give it any more credence or consider it any more likely to be true. As I think you are also saying, let's not fall prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

@ Pygoscelis, I have been through this entire thread, and what is apparent is that apart from mentioning that 1) you do not have the answers to many questions (and this is fine, even though it makes a conversation very difficult, to impossible), you have indeed evaded the posts that have proposed sound arguments in this discussion.

Yet, when this evasion is mentioned, you describe the person as being 'rude' 0_0


Your very first post in this thread:

How does that "answer atheism"? At best that is a statement that things used to be tighter and more organized than they now are. There are hundreds of reasons that could be.

You would have to show why it requires a god (or better yet your particular God, Allah), and you have made no attempt to do that here. So no, this isn't answering atheism in one paragraph. This isn't even one paragraph actually lol

When asked by sister Shadin:

And they are?

we still wait for a sound answer (mentioning that there are 'many other theories', but not actually elaborating on them, is of no benefit to this thread unfortunately.


You then later mention, that you cannot provide an explanation to the universe, that does not resort to a Creator:

You just demanded that I provide an explanation of the universe that doesn't resort to God of the Gaps. I told you I don't have one, and that admitting that is the proper default position.

The following statements/ questions have also been ignored along the way:

If it came from 'something'......then where did that 'something' come from? Something else? And where did that 'something else' come from? 'Something else'?.....And where did that 'Something else' come from?.....
We can continue ad lib on this course of thought, but at some point we have to end at a Source - the Creator.

Is this magic?
Such precision in all of creation.....has occurred by pure co-incidence/ chance? It can be seen over and over again, in all aspects of life......

Greetings,


Have YOU ever seen anything in life being 'created' or invented by anything less than an intelligent being?

Have you witnessed lifeless objects go on to produce something else?
Can a table produce a chair?
Can a car produce a bicycle?

Do you think these examples sound ridiculous?

Well, thats how ridiculous your above notion sounds to everyone else.

That this entire universe, with its immense beauty and diverse creations - all arising with such precision - has come about from:
- ?? a less intelligent source
- ?? a lifeless source

Even if the universe is a 'spin off from a multiverse' (as you imagine)......where did this multiverse come from?
Another multi-verse?
And where did this come from?
Another......? etc etc etc.....
Can you not understand, that for Everything in life - there has to be a starting point?

Is there Anything on earth that arises without a starting point? Name me one.

HOWEVER - you don't submit to a code made up by men lesser than yourself? you don't obey it's rules and "laws" , and meticulously ensure you don't fall foul of those people?
you ensure don't ensure your family and close ones don't fall foul of them and avoid "some punishment"?

Post 107 provided enough logical discussion, with regards to the possibilities for our existence, which you have also chosen to remain silent on:

The following article is a worth-while read:

**************************************

The Quranic Argument for God's Existence

.......

Things that began to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Before we proceed, the first presupposition has to be subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur’an’s argument for the existence of God. This first assumption is that the universe began to exist.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the universe began to exist we can bring into our discussion a plethora of philosophical and inductive arguments:

1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). Take the following illustration of a container with gas,


when the partition is removed, the gas in one end of the container will spread to the whole of the container, going from a state of low entropy (higher temperature or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist.

Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead.

However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death?

This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.


2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end.

However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[2]


2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite.

Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

3. Astrophysical evidence

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing theory in cosmology.

It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity.

For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[4]

Although our understanding of what happened 10-43 seconds after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

“…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.”[5]

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago.

As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite universe, for instance P.C.W. Davies questions,

“What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the physical world…or…an event without a cause.”[7]

These models include the oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models.

These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the universe, in other words they are non-infinitely extendable into the past.

Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be changed into a cosmic contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and then into a new expansion, with the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

1. Firstly there is nothing available in modern physics that would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a new expanding universe.

2. Secondly the mean mass density of the universe, derived from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required gravitational force to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe.

3. Thirdly, the second law of thermodynamics (as discussed above) implies the finitude of the universe. According to the oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of the various oscillations of expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

Since we have presented good evidence that the universe began to exist. We can now address the logically possible explanations the Qur’an presents as rationalisations of the origins of the universe.

Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes!

This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

“If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”[8]

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about.

The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity.”[9]

So, in context of some of the physicists’ definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!

Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…”[10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum, which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t explain anything.

Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”[11]

Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Since something cannot come from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the aforementioned explanation,

then the universe being created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity is the best explanation.

This concept is intuitive but also agrees with reality: whatever begins to exist has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place (something we have already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur’an confirms the uncreatedness of the creator, God,

“He neither begets nor is born.” Qur’an 112:3

The cause or creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam’s razor. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.” Qur’an 112:1

However some philosophers and scientists claim: why doesn’t the cause be the universe itself? Why can’t the cause stop at the universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would imply that the universe created itself, which we have already discussed, is absurd. Additionally, we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. If it were contingent it would be one more effect in the chain of causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all) creatures.” Qur’an 3:97

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” Qur’an 42:11

This cause must have the power to create the universe, without this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” Qur’an 2:20

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. The Qur’an refers to God as having a will in many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills to a straight path.” Qur’an 2:213

In summary, we have concluded what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one, has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption – whatever begins to exist has a cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”[13]

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects.

However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would be tantamount of denying our own experience!


Source

^If you have a sound, logical argument in refutation to what has been mentioned above, we still await to hear of it.


You mention that atheism has:

as much solid foundation as their disbelief in any other fantastic unfalsifiable claim.

.....even though you have not been able to provide us with any indication of this.



You mention that we are:

shrugging off the alternate theories that Independent presented.

,

even though he hasnt explained how any other theories can dispute the arguments against them (as shown above)

Throughout this thread, similiar sentiments have been repeated:

No reason or evidence has been given for why a closed system requires a creator. No reason or evidence has been given for why that creator must be a sentient all powerful being we should call a God.

Yet, when evidence has been provided (as above, and including the links previously provided), it has been ignored and no attempts have been directly made to refute them.

No, but it does make a person a hypocrite to demand flexibility and open mindedness from others while proclaiming faith, certainty, inflexibility, and closed mindedness herself. If you are inflexible, then why would you mock others by accusing them of being inflexible? Is this a case of projection? My mind is open to change should really good evidence and argument proving the gods come along. Is your mind open to change as well? Do you seek to falsify your religious view or only to confirm it?

The most 'inflexibility' I have seen thus far, is from the atheists - although not possessing most answers, continue to reject/ ignore any discussion that is contrary to their notions (without even attempting to substantiate it).....or, they simply leave the discussion altogether.

To conclude, as sister Shadin rightfully mentioned very early on in this thread:

You can't state that you don't need to present evidence and at the same time in the next statement speak of 'God of the Gaps' and then further meander the post with irrelevant comments about thunder gods and harvest gods. As I stated before, there's no point discussing finite details if you don't accept the premise,

if you're going to find a flaw in the premise, then you must counter it with something more substantial than I don't have to, or catch all terms like 'God of the Gaps'

otherwise what is the point of having what should be a fruitful discussion on the subject?

best,

^ Exactly.

As demonstrated in this thread, it is not possible to have a fruitful discussion on this/ any subject if the other party is not able to provide meaningful counter-arguments.


If you/ anyone is able to provide refutations to what has already been mentioned in this thread, then God-willingly there may be benefit in proceeding this discussion further.

Regards

[May Ayob]

I grew up in Canada, which has religious people, but isn't as die hard as say the bible belt or Saudi Arabia. I did not meet a fundamentalist in any form until I started interacting on the internet many years ago. I came in with the false belief that there were no true theists, or at least very very few of them. I thought that people went along with God ideas as part of their culture, for social cohesion. It was shocking to me to meet people (Christians at the time) who truly, strongly, and completely believed these stories, literally. It was difficult for me to believe that was possible, and yet here were people in front of me who did exactly that, and they were not crazies, but intelligent and otherwise rational people.

I was fascinated by the phenomenon of religious belief, and I started looking into why people believe it. I looked at the effects of upbringing and culture, and the rise and fall of different religions throughout history and how they spread. I looked at how they evolved, borrowing ideas from each other, and shifting and shaping themselves over time, splitting off into various sects, etc. For example, the origin of the Catholic Church and how the bible books were selected and assembled is interesting and surprising to many.

I was especially fascinated by the psychology of religious belief and how it worked in both individuals and groups, why people would adopt such beliefs, how it benefited or harmed them, etc. I was fascinated by conversion and apostacy, social confirmity, authoritarianism, group think, tribalism, etc.

These social and psychological phenomena then all became interesting to me in their own right, outside of religious context. Patriotism and nationalism are interesting to look at, as are sports fans, etc. This all let me to my undergraduate studies in psychology and social cognition. This stuff still interests me, even though I have moved on to a different career focus now.

Although I had spent a lot of time back then reading various religious texts and listening to many religious views and experiences through this paradigm, I had not spent much time reading or thinking about Islam, having had no real exposure to it. That changed with 9/11. After 9/11 there were a lot of claims made by the media and people I spoke to and read online, and I wanted to investigate that and see what was true and what was islamophobia. That is what led me to this forum, and others which have muslim views represented on them. I have read some books, including the Quran, but I am more interested in what people actually believe and how they act on those beliefs, which is better gleamed from themselves (as they may read the books differently than I do)

Interacting with Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, brought me right back into my fascination with religious psychology. That people will protest violently over a cartoon, or pray so many times per day, or pride themselves on being "slaves" to a perceived authority figure (Allah) is pretty amazing to me.

Hmm, that's a bit long winded lol. To answer your question, yes I have read some on Islamic Monotheism. ;D

Were you raised in a religious household? or were your parents atheists as well?

[Al-Mufarridun]

I grew up in Canada, which has religious people, but isn't as die hard as say the bible belt or Saudi Arabia. I did not meet a fundamentalist in any form until I started interacting on the internet many years ago. I came in with the false belief that there were no true theists, or at least very very few of them. I thought that people went along with God ideas as part of their culture, for social cohesion. It was shocking to me to meet people (Christians at the time) who truly, strongly, and completely believed these stories, literally. It was difficult for me to believe that was possible, and yet here were people in front of me who did exactly that, and they were not crazies, but intelligent and otherwise rational people.

I was fascinated by the phenomenon of religious belief, and I started looking into why people believe it. I looked at the effects of upbringing and culture, and the rise and fall of different religions throughout history and how they spread. I looked at how they evolved, borrowing ideas from each other, and shifting and shaping themselves over time, splitting off into various sects, etc. For example, the origin of the Catholic Church and how the bible books were selected and assembled is interesting and surprising to many.

I was especially fascinated by the psychology of religious belief and how it worked in both individuals and groups, why people would adopt such beliefs, how it benefited or harmed them, etc. I was fascinated by conversion and apostacy, social confirmity, authoritarianism, group think, tribalism, etc.

These social and psychological phenomena then all became interesting to me in their own right, outside of religious context. Patriotism and nationalism are interesting to look at, as are sports fans, etc. This all let me to my undergraduate studies in psychology and social cognition. This stuff still interests me, even though I have moved on to a different career focus now.

Although I had spent a lot of time back then reading various religious texts and listening to many religious views and experiences through this paradigm, I had not spent much time reading or thinking about Islam, having had no real exposure to it. That changed with 9/11. After 9/11 there were a lot of claims made by the media and people I spoke to and read online, and I wanted to investigate that and see what was true and what was islamophobia. That is what led me to this forum, and others which have muslim views represented on them. I have read some books, including the Quran, but I am more interested in what people actually believe and how they act on those beliefs, which is better gleamed from themselves (as they may read the books differently than I do)

Interacting with Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, brought me right back into my fascination with religious psychology. That people will protest violently over a cartoon, or pray so many times per day, or pride themselves on being "slaves" to a perceived authority figure (Allah) is pretty amazing to me.

Hmm, that's a bit long winded lol. To answer your question, yes I have read some on Islamic Monotheism. ;D

Thanks for the lengthy reply. :D

The same way you are fascinated about those who believe in a Supreme Being, I, myself and those who believe in a 'Higher Power' can't fully comprehend that there are people who don't believe in any type of Supreme Being. You have studied this more than I, so i'm sure you are aware of the fact that you are, as an Atheist is in this case the anomaly. Atheism by numbers in today's North-Western Europe and it's offshoots is a new phenomenon that needs to be studied more. What are the ingredients and events that gave rise to this new phenomenon, the role the Church played, how the conflicts between Science and the Church in this part of the world shaped this. The role of colonization, nationalism, evolution, socialism, communism, ext..

If I were to guess, you are in the longest reach a 3rd Generation Atheist. Would that be a close guess?

Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
[At-Tur, 35-36]

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. :D

The same way you are fascinated about those who believe in a Supreme Being, I, myself and those who believe in a 'Higher Power' can't fully comprehend that there are people who don't believe in any type of Supreme Being. You have studied this more than I, so i'm sure you are aware of the fact that you are, as an Atheist is in this case the anomaly. Atheism by numbers in today's North-Western Europe and it's offshoots is a new phenomenon that needs to be studied more. What are the ingredients and events that gave rise to this new phenomenon, the role the Church played, how the conflicts between Science and the Church in this part of the world shaped this. The role of colonization, nationalism, evolution, socialism, communism, ext..

If I were to guess, you are in the longest reach a 3rd Generation Atheist. Would that be a close guess?

Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
[At-Tur, 35-36]

I think that has mostly to do with cultural norms. I am pretty sure my father is an atheist, but he wouldn't admit it. He goes along with my mom, who is Anglican. He occasionally, but very rarely, goes to church. He basically will go when she asks him to. She goes regularly. I am not even certain that she believes it very strongly though. She calims to but I get the sense from her that she is more into the social aspect of her church friends, etc. I very rarely hear her talking about the religious beliefs themselves and I'm not entirely clear what they are for her.

Only in the past hundred years or so has it been ok to be honest about not believing in God. Even today in many places such as the US bible belt atheists are forced to hide it. They are often very shocked to meet so many other atheists. The common response is "I thought I was the only one". This is the drive behind many atheist "groups" (which is otherwise pointless), to get the message out that you can be outwardly atheist and don't have to subject yourself to religious zealots anymore.

In less fundamentalist areas of the west, well pretty much anywhere but the bible belt, you can now be outwardly atheist, and so many people are seemingly religious in name only that you have to wonder if they are closet cases. A lot of people seem to go along with religion to please what they perceive others as wanting. The fundamentalists and extremists really hate atheists so they figure the rest of religious people won't react well either, and they'd rather avoid conflict. Atheism to an atheist isn't anywhere near as near or dear as a truly religious person's religious belief, as we saw earlier in this thread. I bet that for each of you reading this there is an atheist in your immediate family or circle of friends, who will never admit it because they feel they'd have too much to lose and little to gain if they did.

I think a lot of the new norm in much of the west for atheists being ok calling themselves atheists is an unravelling of that perceived social pressure, and its really just taking a critical mass of us to admit the emperor has no clothes. Groupthink also plays a major role, and it also unravels as more people leave the group. Also, I think a major force is the drive for individual freedom, and for democracy. The more we think as individuals the less we will bow to the group norm. Eventually we dull it and then more people are comfortable leaving it. You often see for religion, as you have right here, people arguing from argumentum ad populum, the idea that if everybody else believes something you should too.

Another major contributor is the social programming of parents and families. There are exceptions, but most members of a religion grow up with that religion and pass it on to their children. And when you look at some religious beliefs, the eucharist for example, from outside the religious programming of that religion, it looks truly bizarre and it is almost certain that you would never believe it to be what they claim it is.

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

[Indian Bro]

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ

Proof that atheists are really ignorant (Even those that worship science)

[Pygoscelis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ

Proof that atheists are really ignorant (Even those that worship science)

Proof that muslims ---- no strike that, proof that Indian Bro has no interest in discussion and only wants to attack atheists, with links completely unrelated to the text he quotes.

The correlations between education, intelligence, and religion are actually pretty complicated. My point isn't that religion is for stupid people, there are a lot of very intelligent people who believe, they just tend to believe in more personal and nuanced ways. They also justify their belief better and are harder to sway because they have invented better reasons to hang on.

This is interesting:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/...e-or-less.html

As is this: (for smart people)
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/0...-weird-things/

[Indian Bro]

Proof that muslims ---- no strike that, proof that Indian Bro has no interest in discussion and only wants to attack atheists, with links completely unrelated to the text he quotes.

The correlations between education, intelligence, and religion are actually pretty complicated. My point isn't that religion is for stupid people, there are a lot of very intelligent people who believe, they just tend to believe in more personal and nuanced ways. They also justify their belief better and are harder to sway because they have invented better reasons to hang on.

This is interesting:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/...e-or-less.html

As is this: (for smart people)
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/0...-weird-things/

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant, but from what I understood you said "atheism increases as education increases", I disagree. And I used the link to point out that Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist who is a firm believer of science, exposes his own ignorance whilst at the same time attempts to deface Islam. It goes to show that atheists just claim to be more educated than religious folk when in fact, they just say so to satisfy themselves even if it's not true.

[May Ayob]

I think it means that we should treat it with more tact and respect for those who hold religious views, not that we should give it any more credence or consider it any more likely to be true. As I think you are also saying, let's not fall prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Pardon me, I have another question,do you consider atheism to be a religion? I have a hint from your previous posts that the answer is no but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some clarification.

Another thing, areyou willing to admit that in the same way as you put it that religious views should not hold any credibility and 'should not be consider any more likely true' that the same can be applied with atheism; the mere lack of fsith in God or god(s) should also not hold any credibility nor be considered any more likely tobe true as well?.

[Al-Mufarridun]

I think that has mostly to do with cultural norms. I am pretty sure my father is an atheist, but he wouldn't admit it. He goes along with my mom, who is Anglican. He occasionally, but very rarely, goes to church. He basically will go when she asks him to. She goes regularly. I am not even certain that she believes it very strongly though. She calims to but I get the sense from her that she is more into the social aspect of her church friends, etc. I very rarely hear her talking about the religious beliefs themselves and I'm not entirely clear what they are for her.

Only in the past hundred years or so has it been ok to be honest about not believing in God. Even today in many places such as the US bible belt atheists are forced to hide it. They are often very shocked to meet so many other atheists. The common response is "I thought I was the only one". This is the drive behind many atheist "groups" (which is otherwise pointless), to get the message out that you can be outwardly atheist and don't have to subject yourself to religious zealots anymore.

In less fundamentalist areas of the west, well pretty much anywhere but the bible belt, you can now be outwardly atheist, and so many people are seemingly religious in name only that you have to wonder if they are closet cases. A lot of people seem to go along with religion to please what they perceive others as wanting. The fundamentalists and extremists really hate atheists so they figure the rest of religious people won't react well either, and they'd rather avoid conflict. Atheism to an atheist isn't anywhere near as near or dear as a truly religious person's religious belief, as we saw earlier in this thread. I bet that for each of you reading this there is an atheist in your immediate family or circle of friends, who will never admit it because they feel they'd have too much to lose and little to gain if they did.

I think a lot of the new norm in much of the west for atheists being ok calling themselves atheists is an unravelling of that perceived social pressure, and its really just taking a critical mass of us to admit the emperor has no clothes. Groupthink also plays a major role, and it also unravels as more people leave the group. Also, I think a major force is the drive for individual freedom, and for democracy. The more we think as individuals the less we will bow to the group norm. Eventually we dull it and then more people are comfortable leaving it. You often see for religion, as you have right here, people arguing from argumentum ad populum, the idea that if everybody else believes something you should too.

Another major contributor is the social programming of parents and families. There are exceptions, but most members of a religion grow up with that religion and pass it on to their children. And when you look at some religious beliefs, the eucharist for example, from outside the religious programming of that religion, it looks truly bizarre and it is almost certain that you would never believe it to be what they claim it is.

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

There is a lot of truth to what you have said. I took a course on World/European History, and the cultural norms of the west certainly played a role. The concepts of individualism, self-sufficiency is something you mentioned that i didn't consider earlier.

With regard to the role Education plays, I am slightly not so sure. I think it has a lot more to do with economical conditions, but that to some extent is related to Education. The United States as you mentioned is an example of that. We could also go back and look at the 'Golden Era' of Islamic Civilization. It was actually Islam, the values of knowledge stressed in the Quran and Ahadeeth, that ignited one of the greatest, if not the greatest quest of Knowledge in human history. This didn't in the least effect the convictions of the Muslims, for Science and Religion were not at odds but rather complimentary. This is a difference between the West's experiences with religion and science than that of the Muslim World. For the Muslims it was Islam that encouraged them to search for knowledge, assemble it, share it, to benefit humanity and be rewarded by Allah swt for it. It may be very difficult for a Western individual to understand when some Muslims today call for a return to Islam in-order to improve the conditions of the Muslim world, they say these people want to go back to the 7th century. This is entirely based on their understanding and experiences with religion and how it to some extent prevented scientific enlightenment.

you said; "When people need less comforting, religion can slip away."

It is very interesting you mentioned that, for this is the Qur'anic view. It is those who believe they have it all, mainly wealth and power, that seem to reject faith more. If you read the Qur'an you'll notice that the ones who rejected the Prophets were often the chiefs, the wealthy of the those societies. As someone who studied psychology, why do you think this is the case. Is it due to pride, some level of arrogance, believe that one is self-sufficient, the master of his destiny, how is the ego involved?

Here is a fascinating story that is mentioned in the Qur'an. Chapter 18.

“…Tell them as an example the story of two men: for one of them We made two vineyards and surrounded both with date-palms, and placed a field of grain in-between. Both of the vineyards (including the date-palms and grain) yielded its produce, without failing in the least therein. We had also caused a stream to gush forth in their midst. So both of the vineyards including the date-palms and grain) yielded its produce, without failing in the least therein. We had also caused a stream to gush forth in their midst.

The man had fruit in abundance, and one day he said to his friend, bandying words with him: “I am more than you in wealth, and more esteemed and stronger in respect of men.” He went into his vineyard in self-wronging (puffed up by worldly successes which had led him to conceit and unbelief). He said: “I deem not that all this will ever perish. Nor do I deem that the Last Hour will ever come. Even if (it should come, and) I am brought back to my Lord, I shall surely find (there by virtue of my own abilities and as my deserts) something even better than this as a resort.” His friend said to him, in the course of the argument with him: “Do you blaspheme (in such ingratitude as this) against He Who has created you out of dust, then out of a sperm-drop, then fashioned you into a complete man? But I believe for my part that He is God, my Lord, and none can I associate with my Lord as partner (in His Lordship-His bringing up, providing, sustaining and protecting). Alas, if you had but said, on entering your vineyard, “Whatever God wills will surely come to pass. How perfectly He creates and how mercifully He provides! There is no strength save with God.” Though you see me as less than you in wealth and children, (this is no problem at all, for it is God Who does what He will, and He is All-Compassionate toward His servants). Yet it may well be that my Lord will give me something better than your vineyard, just as He may send a calamity upon your vineyard from Heaven, so that it becomes a barren waste. Or its water sinks deep into the ground, so that you will never be able search for and find it again.”

So eventually all his produce was encompassed by ruin, and there he was, wringing his hands with grief over all that he had spent on it, when now it was all ruined on its trellises, and he could but say, “Oh, would that I had never associated anyone with my Lord as partner (in His Lordship).” And he had, apart from God, none, no troop of men to help him, nor could he be of any help to himself. For thus it is: all protective power and authority essentially belongs to God alone, the True One. He is the best to reward, and the best to determine the end of things." (Kahf 18:32-44)


Allah swt knows Best.

[Pygoscelis]

Pardon me, I have another question,do you consider atheism to be a religion? I have a hint from your previous posts that the answer is no but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some clarification.

Atheism, by itself, is not a religion, no.

Another thing, areyou willing to admit that in the same way as you put it that religious views should not hold any credibility and 'should not be consider any more likely true' that the same can be applied with atheism; the mere lack of fsith in God or god(s) should also not hold any credibility nor be considered any more likely tobe true as well?.

I'm sure exactly what you mean, but I think the answer is that you are correct :) We certainly can't prove there are no Gods.

[Pygoscelis]

With regard to the role Education plays, I am slightly not so sure. I think it has a lot more to do with economical conditions, but that to some extent is related to Education. The United States as you mentioned is an example of that. We could also go back and look at the 'Golden Era' of Islamic Civilization.

As you'll see in the link I posted, it gets very complicated. Yes, science did very well under the Islamic Golden Age. Science actually also did ok in some Christian times. Mendel was a priest if I am not mistaken. I think science was actually in some sense born from religion, initially meant to investigate how God works, etc, and that only later did it grow too big for the church and become a monster for them, and come up with findings that conflict with church dogma. Science and Religion can co-exist sometimes, but I think conflict between the two is inevitable if religion makes any concrete claims that are subject to empirical investigation and testing.

you said; "When people need less comforting, religion can slip away."

It is very interesting you mentioned that, for this is the Qur'anic view. It is those who believe they have it all, mainly wealth and power, that seem to reject faith more. If you read the Qur'an you'll notice that the ones who rejected the Prophets were often the chiefs, the wealthy of the those societies. As someone who studied psychology, why do you think this is the case. Is it due to pride, some level of arrogance, believe that one is self-sufficient, the master of his destiny, how is the ego involved?

Religion has a lot to offer the downtrodden, struggling, and uncomfortable. It promises you that the world was designed with you in mind, that there is some cosmic plan in all the chaos around you, and that though your life may suck now, you will be have bliss in the afterlife. Desperate people need these kinds of assurances more than comfortable people do.

You may have heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes", referring to people fearing for their lives turning to God. You may also have heard stories claiming death bed confessions of famous atheists. Of course, there are atheists in foxholes and most of those famous people death bed confession stories are false, but the underlaying idea is valid. Desperate people do more often turn to religion. But before you try to use that as proof of diety, consider that desperate people are also more likely to turn to irrational things like psychics, states of denial, etc.

[Pygoscelis]

Speaking of interesting apostates and closet cases, check this out: Priests who lose their faith but yet stay in the job. A very particular moral predicament as he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmHW0OX-GUs

[ajazz]

Assalamualykum!


Does our universe require a creator?

“ So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator . But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then for a creator?
-Stephen W. Hawking (A Brief History of Time)


But Mr. Hawking in his latest book The Grand Design himself today acknowledges that our universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing!

We also know that our universe is expanding at a tremendous pace and for anything to expand it needs boundary!!!

Well then there is a place for creator, isn't there?

Let’s begin with the axiomatic truth that anything that is created cannot be responsible for its own creation.
Your actions are not responsible for your own birth; the car you drive is not responsible for its own creation.

Not long ago scientist told us that our universe is static implying that it always existed and therefore not created.

This made atheists grin from one molar to another

But Mr. Hubble spoiled the party and presented empirical evidence that our universe is expanding and that too at a tremendous speed and we had big bang theory which states that our universe at the very beginning was just a tiny speck

Now the question was from where did this speck known as singularity came from? Because the entire natural laws that we know today breaks down at singularity.

Stephen Hawking the celebrity wheelchair genius in his book the grand design tells us that our universe was created out of nothing!

In fact scientists in an experiment have created light out of almost nothing.

We still need something to create things out of nothing , the point is our universe was indeed created and was nonexistent and therefore something created our universe.

So what must have created our universe? Let’s apply some intelligence and logic.

Let’s assume ABC created our universe now there are only two possibilities (if you now of third let me know) one is that ABC itself was created by something else and that something else was created by another something else if we go on like this we will be in an infinite regression which is illogical and impossible.

Think about Dominoes effect without the first or initial push the sequence will never start.

The other possibility is that ABC always existed which is more logical and rational conclusion.

We have to go a step further and define some characteristic, attributes and capabilities of ABC to make more sense.

1] Since ABC always existed it is truly infinite i.e. it has no beginning and no end

Our universe is finite it had a beginning and will end; therefore ABC cannot be part of our universe nothing that exist in our universe can be part of ABC. Everything that exists in our universe is subject to the laws of the nature therefore it cannot be creator of the law to which it is subservient.

2] ABC should have ability or capability to create things out of nothing.

3] Since creating things require information and knowledge, ABC Possess intelligence.

4] There can only be one ABC

You may ask where God fits in this. For that we have to define God, its attributes and characteristics.

And that God is God of Islam “Allah (s)”

In the Noble Quran Allah (swt) describes himself in chapter 112

1) Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
(Remember there can only be one “ABC”)

2) Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
(No beginning and no end i.e. always existing)

3) He begetteth not, nor is He begotten
(Un-created, always existing)

4) And there is none like unto Him
(There is nothing that exists in our universe that can be compared with Allah (swt) which makes sense because as already stated creator of the laws cannot be subjected to it)

Besides this there are at least 99 attributes known as names of Allah (swt) which describe him.

Some relevant ones are…

Allah(swt) is also known as…

Al-'Awwal-The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.

Al-'Akhir-The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.

Al-Baaqi-The Everlasting, The One that the state of non-existence is impossible for Him. (infinite)

Al-Badi-The Incomparable, The One who created the creation and formed it without any preceding example.

Beside this Allah (swt) has the ability to create things out of nothing.

“Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is.”
Noble Quran (2:117)

"To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is."
Noble Quran( 16:40)

Now all you have to do is replace ABC with Allah (swt) and you have a very logical and rational God that you can believe in.




"something from nothing, physicists are finding, may be the ultimate secret of the universe."The surprising fact is that we live in a universe that has all the characteristics of being created from nothing,"

http://tinyurl.com/6n7rwa3

The Big Bang...?
"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?"

Noble Qur'an(21:30)


Now your turn prove that God does not exist.

[Pygoscelis]

But Mr. Hawking in his latest book The Grand Design himself today acknowledges that our universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing!

I don't think you read and understood the book you seem to want to quote here. Am I wrong about that? We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread.

Well then there is a place for creator, isn't there?

Yes there certainly is that possibility. Since we don't really know how this all came to be, there are lots of possibilities. It could be something we'll never even think of.

ABC itself was created by something else and that something else was created by another something else if we go on like this we will be in an infinite regression which is illogical and impossible.

Why is that impossible? We looked at this earlier in this thread. People can't wrap their minds around the concept of infinity so they laugh at it and declare it impossible. At the same time the same people seem to want to endorse a creator who is all wrapped up in infinities.

1] Since ABC always existed it is truly infinite i.e. it has no beginning and no end

Yes. Like that. You first say infinity is impossible and then you say ABC is infinite. Also, why would you imply that something with no beginning would necessarily have no end?

Our universe is finite it had a beginning and will end; therefore ABC cannot be part of our universe nothing that exist in our universe can be part of ABC. Everything that exists in our universe is subject to the laws of the nature therefore it cannot be creator of the law to which it is subservient.

If it is not manifest in our universe then how does it affect, manipulate, or interact with our universe?

Since creating things require information and knowledge

Does it?

ABC Possess intelligence.

How much intelligence? Infinite Intelligence?

4] There can only be one ABC

You said this 1 creator exists outside our universe. Why can't 2? Or 200?

It boggles me that people refuse to admit they simply don't know what they clearly don't know, have no way of knowing, and will likely never know. They've done this throughout history, inventing magical Gods to answer the unanswered with a simple God-Did-It, which of course answers nothing. People used to say God made it rain, and did rain dances, before we knew of meteorology. People blamed disease on evil spirits. People blamed earthquakes on homosexuals. Some folks just don't seem too comfortable with not knowing. Having an answer, any answer, even a completely wrong answer, is preferable to admitting ignorance eh? You gotta have faith, and believe what you want and need to be true.

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum

I love how atheists will argue that there was something infinite before the creation of the universe but won't accept that "something" is God, why? They don't have the answer to that, they just DON'T want to believe in a God. Their hearts have been sealed.

Salam 3laikum

[ajazz]

I don't think you read and understood the book you seem to want to quote here. Am I wrong about that? We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread.

Its not only Mr hawking other scientist also believe so. do some research.

Yes there certainly is that possibility.

The moment you admit the possibility you contradict yourself!
An Atheist denies the possibility of god... Remove the tag of atheism, you are no longer an atheist you are an agnostic

A truly intelligent person can be agnostic but he cannot be an atheist.


Intelligence without wisdom breeds Atheism.

Why is that impossible? We looked at this earlier in this thread. People can't wrap their minds around the concept of infinity so they laugh at it and declare it impossible. At the same time the same people seem to want to endorse a creator who is all wrapped up in infinities.

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

It is impossible because it is like running around in circle and to be in a circle you still need a starting point.

just try drawing a circle without a starting point!

Yes. Like that. You first say infinity is impossible and then you say ABC is infinite. Also, why would you imply that something with no beginning would necessarily have no end?

you have not been paying attention...

infinity cannot exist in our universe because if you add or subtract from infinity it still remains infinite.

if i have a box full of infinite oranges and another box with five oranges (finite) now if i mix both the boxes the five oranges loose their finite status only infinite amount of oranges are left on the other hand if i take out five oranges from infinite oranges box and mix them with finite box the then infinite box will still remain infinite but the oranges taken out of infinite box loose their status of infinity and become five oranges making it total of box of ten finite oranges.

Absolute infinity can only exist outside of our universe and ABC is outside of our universe.

Is this too hard for you?

The moment anything has a beginning it can no longer be classified as infinite therefore it has to be classified as finite the end is irrelevant.

anything that has had a beginning means it depends on the source that created it everything in our universe is finite and depends on something else for its existence.
we as humans depends upon food as a source the food itself depends upon soil and trees and many other factors.
therefore the existence of an finite thing for how long it can exist depends upon the source that it depends upon.

from this it is logically and rationally concluded that all things that are finite needs an originating source and this source has to be infinite.

"Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Say, "Bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!"
Noble Quran (27-64)

If it is not manifest in our universe then how does it affect, manipulate, or interact with our universe?

you need to polish your logic it has become rusty.

A manufacturer of a car does not have to be part of the car.. does he?

our universe is governed by physical and natural laws and these laws are created by Allah(s).

Do they see nothing in the government of the heavens and the earth and all that Allah hath created? (Do they not see) that it may well be that their terms is nigh drawing to an end? In what message after this will they then believe?
Noble Quran (7-185)

Does it?

This is too unintelligent question to be answered.

How much intelligence? Infinite Intelligence?

Beyond your comprehension !

You said this 1 creator exists outside our universe. Why can't 2? Or 200?

The moment you say 2 or 200 your are quantifying and anything that is quantified ceases to be infinite.

and as has been logically and rationally argued our universe can only come from something that has no end and no beginning.

[Pygoscelis]

I love how atheists will argue that there was something infinite before the creation of the universe

That is a possibility. I have not argued it is certain, and nor has any other atheist in this thread.

but won't accept that "something" is God, why?

I see no reason to. If there was such a something, I don't see why it would have to be your God. That is a whole additonal series of assumptions. And that no argument was made to fill that gap is one glaring omission in the OP.

They don't have the answer to that

Atheists in this thread are not the ones claiming certain knowledge.

They just DON'T want to believe in a God. Their hearts have been sealed.

I addressed that misconception earlier in this thread. I would be quite ok with believing in Gods, faries, space alien visitors, loch ness, and many other things I don't now believe in, if there was good evidence and pursuasive logical argument for them. That some theists need to assign my position as otherwise, despite what I tell them my position is, says far more about them than me. Does it threaten one's faith to acknowledge that others can openly look at the facts we have at hand and not agree with the assumptions and claims they draw?

[Independent]

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

The only thing you’ve really demonstrated here is how hard it is to talk about infinity. But let's have a go anyway. Taking your oranges analogy:

If the oranges are infinite, how can they be ‘inside’ a box? It doesn’t matter how infinitely big the box is, the oranges are every bit as infinite too. You can’t have both an infinite box and infinite oranges in the same universe.

You certainly can’t then add 5 more oranges to your collection because there would be no room for another box of oranges in the universe – which is already filled infinitely with oranges from the first box.

The apparent contradiction is caused because you’re using a single word – infinity – but sometimes you’re referring to an infinity of space, then time, and also mathematics. You’re jumping from one to the other as if they’re all the same. And you are treating infinity as if it sometimes has a definite number – but this can never be.

Infinity is a concept that denies quantification. As soon as you try to pin it down it is - by definition - more than that. The concept of infinity is simply the human conception of something that is 'greater' or 'more' or 'a bigger number' than whatever it is that is being imagined or thought of. Therefore it is not a number and you can't apply simple addition or subtraction operations on it (or if you do you drain the meaning from the whole equation.)

Your proof isn't mathematical, or logical - it's semantic.

[Pygoscelis]

Its not only Mr hawking other scientist also believe so. do some research.

It doesn't help your case to point at theoretical physicists you haven't read and understood, or to use what they say to claim certainty in theories and ideas they put forward tentatively. Hawking will be the first to admit that he is not certain, and that he is creating theory based on the evidence he has. And if you wish to claim him as an authority, then you should consider that he does not draw your further conclusions about Gods existing. He is not a theist, and certainly not a Muslim.

The moment you admit the possibility you contradict yourself!
An Atheist denies the possibility of god... Remove the tag of atheism, you are no longer an atheist you are an agnostic

I do not contradict myself. I define myself as both atheist (lacking god belief) and agnostic (believing it is impossible to know for certain).

A truly intelligent person can be agnostic but he cannot be an atheist.

If you define agnostic as one who does not know for sure, then any sane person is agnostic.

Intelligence without wisdom breeds Atheism.

How so? How do you define Intelligence and Widsom? And why would one without the other breed atheism?

And if what you say is true, then does Wisdom without Intelligence breed theism?

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

Agreed

infinity cannot exist in our universe because if you add or subtract from infinity it still remains infinite.

I don't see how that premise forces that conclusion. As Independent noted, there are different dimensions that could be infinite.

Absolute infinity can only exist outside of our universe and ABC is outside of our universe.

Is this too hard for you?

Yes it is too hard for me. I don't claim to understand infinity very well. I don't think you understand it either.

The moment anything has a beginning it can no longer be classified as infinite therefore it has to be classified as finite the end is irrelevant.

That seems to depend on how you define a starting point. Numbers start at zero and count up to infinity for example.

anything that has had a beginning means it depends on the source that created it everything in our universe is finite and depends on something else for its existence.

You don't know that.

This is too unintelligent question to be answered.

If you can't answer a question then admit you can't answer it. There is no reason to protect your ego and label what you can't handle "unintelligent".

The moment you say 2 or 200 your are quantifying and anything that is quantified ceases to be infinite.

How can you say that and then say there is no god but Allah? Is 1 not a number?

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.

[mjbenker]

It doesn't help your case to point at theoretical physicists you haven't read and understood, or to use what they say to claim certainty in theories and ideas they put forward tentatively. Hawking will be the first to admit that he is not certain, and that he is creating theory based on the evidence he has. And if you wish to claim him as an authority, then you should consider that he does not draw your further conclusions about Gods existing. He is not a theist, and certainly not a Muslim.



I do not contradict myself. I define myself as both atheist (lacking god belief) and agnostic (believing it is impossible to know for certain).



If you define agnostic as one who does not know for sure, then any sane person is agnostic.



How so? How do you define Intelligence and Widsom? And why would one without the other breed atheism?

And if what you say is true, then does Wisdom without Intelligence breed theism?



Agreed



I don't see how that premise forces that conclusion. As Independent noted, there are different dimensions that could be infinite.



Yes it is too hard for me. I don't claim to understand infinity very well. I don't think you understand it either.



That seems to depend on how you define a starting point. Numbers start at zero and count up to infinity for example.



You don't know that.




If you can't answer a question then admit you can't answer it. There is no reason to protect your ego and label what you can't handle "unintelligent".



How can you say that and then say there is no god but Allah? Is 1 not a number?

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.

Hi there my friend,

Reading your posts, I understand where your thoughts are coming from. I called myself atheist not too long ago, but after learning more about the true nature of god, I felt this even more natural for me. I suggest reading the quran if you haven't and trying to understand what us muslims define as our version of God.

I strongly recommend looking up a Mr. Hamza Tzortiz. He engages in a lot of debates with athiests and is a quite well known islamic scholar.

And also, your curiosity is great.. Thanks and good luck.

[haroonqureshi89]

I think atheism is irrational. You would need to believe the world just popped into existence for no reason.

[titus]

I think religion is irrational. You would need to believe that God just popped into existence for no reason.

[NjmYqlb]

:sl:

Just to give a heads up on a new research paper done

Quote from an article on naturalnews.com;

A new scientific paper published in arXiv (arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf) and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.


Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.


Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.


Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?


Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."


The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

[Independent]

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

No it doesn't! Quite the opposite. This is a very good example of how scientific research gets misread by people looking for confirmation of religious beliefs.

What Silas Bean is doing is, firstly, to try and simulate our universe by computer modelling.

Because the universe is enormously complex, he can only simulate an area a few centimetres across. He estimates that if our computing power continues to increase at the same rate as currently, he should be able to simulate the whole thing about 500 years from now. (He really said this.)

Nevertheless this is an exercise worth doing because you can still make theoretical deductions based on a small sample area.

The interesting part is that, in building any simulation, you have to use certain constraints and build it within a repeating gridlike structure. Silas then realised that if you could find similar constraints and structures in the real universe then that would imply it too is a 'simulation'.

In other words, because his attempt to build a computer simulation requires certain techniques and limitations, Silas has noticed that the universe appears to show evidence of similar techniques and limitations.

More detail given here: (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ter-simulation)

What we do know, though, is that when we create such a simulator, there's some kind of underlying lattice that holds everything together like a kind of framework. Think of it as the smallest scale at which a simulator runs -- like the way a grid divides up the playable space in a chess game. You can't move a piece less than one grid space.


If we were living in a simulator, we'd expect to find evidence of that lattice if we looked close enough to the edges of the observable universe -- and that's what Silas Beane from the University of Bonn and colleagues have calculated, in a paper published in arXiv. As cosmic particles fly through the universe, they lose energy and change direction and spread out across a spectrum of energy values. There's a known limit to how much energy those particles have, though, and Beane and his colleagues have calculated that this seemingly arbitrary cliff in the spectrum is consistent with the kind of boundary that you'd find if there was an underlying lattice governing the limits of a simulator. It should also, if present, scatter the particles in a certain way as they come up against it, and we should be able to investigate whether that's the case.

If such an investigation does look consistent with a simulator lattice, then that could mean several things. It could show us that there's a boundary out there consistent with Beane et al's hypothesis, and it works a bit like the one we'd expect if we were living inside a simulator based on the same principles as one we would also build. It could be, though, that we're incorrectly interpreting evidence of certain fundamental laws we are as yet unfamiliar with. It could even be that this isn't evidence at all for a simulator, as a real lattice might work in a different way to how we would envision it.


As this extract says, this is highly theoretical at this point. Even if it turns out that our universe is a computer simulation, this most certainly does not imply a divine being. It implies that we ourselves might be able to simulate such universes in the future, and that we may therefore be living in a simulation of our own creation.

If you've never seen the film Tfe Matrix, now's the time.

[IAmZamzam]

I think atheism is irrational. You would need to believe the world just popped into existence for no reason.

From roughly the age of ancient Greece there has almost never been a single atheistic counter-argument in all of history that did not sound like a child going, "I know you are but what am I?" They never have an actual answer, just an evasion miserably attempting to ricochet things back onto God. For once in my life, surprise me.

The world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal. Try again. Or rather I should say *actually* try for real.

[Independent]

They never have an actual answer, just an evasion miserably attempting to ricochet things back onto God. For once in my life, surprise me.

I've read your post a few times but I can't work out what it is you want an answer for?

[IAmZamzam]

I was merely pointing how how titus was engaging in the invariable and inevitable practice of deflecting the issue back onto God instead of actually rebutting it, and specifically why this doesn't work. As sure as he was born the atheist always, always, always does that. An atheist in an argument is as predictable and circle-bound as a clockwork dancer. Logic dictates, on the other hand, that when two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either. The atheist calls their little trick “trying to get us to understand that we’re not following our own logic” or something stupid like that. I call it “refusing to sit down and address the issue”. Of course on the rare occasion that they *do* address it that just means I’m about to hear the equally inevitable and groan-inducing “I’m using the phrase ‘quantum flucation’ like it’s some kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card” argument, so why I am complaining really? I can’t win. Actually, as long as they're not ridiculing us with talk of fairy tales or flying spaghetti monsters I *am* winning, so I *shouldn't* complain.

[Pygoscelis]

How would you have us respond to unfalsifiable claims without convincing evidence? The "who made the creator " line is just an attempt to underscore the faulty logic of saying everything needs a creator or that everything complicated or advanced does. Addressing the logic fails of theists is really all atheists can do, given unfalsifiable claims.

[IAmZamzam]

---

I may as well explain, though, that, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a common metaphor for unfairly loaded questions. I thought it was well known enough so as not to need explaining, but I realize now that this was itself an unfair assumption which did produce something cryptic and I apologize for that.

"Falsifiable" is such a convenient term. By it atheists usually mean "empirically falsifiable", which makes their argument handily "heads I win, tails you lose" when you're talking about spiritual entities and other such metaphysical matters. Then again, when the occasion suits them the same people will usually turn right around and use the fact that Science (you can hear the capital S in their voice) doesn't claim real and final verification or falsification of anything. Whatever the case, in actual fact outside of mathematics nothing is really provable in this world. You just have to do the best you can.

[NjmYqlb]

:sl:

For the brothers and sisters here, our duty is to relay the message. We do the best we can and all results are up to Allah so there is no cause for stress or disappointment. Allah evaluates our actions, not results

It is God, and God alone, who can guide the people and truly explain the message of the book to the ones who deserve the guidance.The Quranic verses which confirm this truth are numerous, such as:“.... God is the only One who guides in accordance with His will, and in accordance with His knowledge of those who deserve the guidance.” 28:56
And in 72:21 the messenger is commanded to proclaim to all people:“I possess no power to harm you nor to guide you” 72:21
The messenger is a tool and a medium between God and the people, but the messenger cannot change what is in the heart nor can he implant belief into any heart nor can he guide anyone, he can only pass the message:"The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message (Quran)" 5:92
This duty does not only apply to the messenger, it applies to any Imam or teacher or preacher

The entire human scientific knowledge is based on what is observed by 5 human senses from Earth and it's immediate surroundings (part of the sol system) as a vantage point, which is smaller than a speck of dust compared to the size of the universe. This means that human scientific knowledge is very very little. To prove the existence or non-existence of god 100% scientifically is not possible at the current level of scientific knowledge.

From the scientific perspective there are 2 possibilities, god either exists or doesn't exist. What are the implications of believing or disbelieving? Believers in god have a chance of being guided to do what is commanded by god and therefore being rewarded with something better than what is on Earth in the afterlife for all eternity, because god, afterlife, heaven and hell are tied with the belief of god in many religions. They are however restricted in their conduct and must perform extra spiritual duties in their lives. Disbelievers of god have a chance to be burned in fire for all eternity. They are still restricted in their conduct due to man made laws, but can enjoy a little more of Earthly life. So as a believer of god, you sacrifice a little of Earthly enjoyment for a chance of heaven, as a disbeliever, you gain a bit of extra Earthly enjoyment but risks hellfire. If there is a god, true believers get heaven, disbelievers get hellfire. If there isn't, believers lose out a little on the Earthly things and nothing else happens. Disbelievers risks eternal hellfire, believers risk a little of Earth.

What I am trying to say is this, I cannot convince people to believe as i do but my duties are to relay it. I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

Any atheist stranded on a raft in the middle of the ocean would ask God for help before he breathes his last breath when he feels there is no hope left. Why? Human beings are programmed by default to pray to the Almighty. It's default in everyone's brain, it's just that atheists do all they can to fight this inner-conscience by grasping on any straws that even sway the the tiniest bit towards their inclinations. So even if the atheist stranded on the raft doesn't pray to God, no atheist can deny that the thought of "Ask God for help" wont pop up inside their head before they breathe their last gasp of life.

And when adversity touches you at sea, lost are [all] those you invoke except for Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away [from Him]. And ever is man ungrateful. [17:67]


Salam 3laikum

[IAmZamzam]

Indian Bro, I'm just as suprised as you here but I'm going to take their side for a moment. I'm not the least bit interested in whether there are any atheists in the foxholes and you shouldn't be either. Some believers end up giving up their piety in a crisis too, developing a lifelong hatred of God or even giving up their belief in His existence: what is that supposed to prove?

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

The atheist just don`t believe Allah/God exists. If Allah/God wants they believe, then ok. If not, ok.

I was the atheist before too but Allah wanted me to be muslim... Maybe those atheists in this forum are muslims tomorrow.

Only Allah knows.

:nervous:

[Pygoscelis]

In regard to Gods being falsifiable, specifically Allah since this is a muslim board, I have yet to meet a muslim who would ever indicate otherwise, empirically or otherwise. Is Allah falsifiable? What could be discovered, found, felt, sensed or whatever that would disprove Allah? Is there anything? Is there anything we could find that must be evidence against Allah existing, and that wouldn't simply be interpreted to suppurt that he is there? If not, then how could you ever expect a satisfactory argument from atheists beyond them not being convinced by you or pointing at holes in your logic? You can't expect evidence against Allah if you define Allah as unfalsifiable

In regard to people turning to desperate and irrational measures in desperate times, such as atheists looking for Gods, or people going to psychics, or whatever, this is not surprising at all. Some people in desperate times will even go full on delusional and think they are somewhere or talking to people who are not there.

[Pygoscelis]

"Falsifiable" is such a convenient term. By it atheists usually mean "empirically falsifiable", which makes their argument handily "heads I win, tails you lose" when you're talking about spiritual entities and other such metaphysical matters. Then again, when the occasion suits them the same people will usually turn right around and use the fact that Science (you can hear the capital S in their voice) doesn't claim real and final verification or falsification of anything. Whatever the case, in actual fact outside of mathematics nothing is really provable in this world. You just have to do the best you can.

The huge difference is that in science you can find evidence against a theory. The whole idea is to do so. With enough evidence, you move to a new theory. You try not to cling to bad theories, even though I suppose you can't completely 100% disprove anything with absolute certainty. In religion the opposite approach appears to be taken. What would be evidence against your God? Is there anything?

In science you start with admitting you don't know, and you ask questions and seek answers. In religion you start with pretending to know the answers, and you declare "revelation" and "faith". The two approaches are not comparable.

[IAmZamzam]

We've had this conversation before, at least four times or so. I'm not having it again. It's no use. You're a lost cause.

[May Ayob]

Indian Bro, I'm just as suprised as you here but I'm going to take their side for a moment. I'm not the least bit interested in whether there are any atheists in the foxholes and you shouldn't be either. Some believers end up giving up their piety in a crisis too, developing a lifelong hatred of God or even giving up their belief in His existence: what is that supposed to prove?

Nothing,really, I mean it doesn't go to prove that God doesn't actually exist, it's just a human's reaction towards unappealing life events. But if does prove anything it may tell more about the person themselves and how they choose to react to those events, it can prove that they are easily distrustful at the first thing that goes wrong and they didn't have profound trust in their faith. I think your point is very clear though and it's a good one too. The atheists in foxholes thing troubled me for sometime but I guess in the end it really shouldn't matter because infact it is irrelevant.

[Pygoscelis]

We've had this conversation before, at least four times or so. I'm not having it again. It's no use. You're a lost cause.

How delightfully passive aggressive of you. You entered a thread directly addressed at atheists, a thread in which I have been participating since the first page, and then you whine about me and other atheists posting and failing to say what you want us to say, without telling us what that is, we address it as best we can, and then you mouth off a bunch of personal attacks, get moderated, and now you run away. You're an odd one.

[Pygoscelis]

Nothing,really, I mean it doesn't go to prove that God doesn't actually exist, it's just a human's reaction towards unappealing life events. But if does prove anything it may tell more about the person themselves and how they choose to react to those events, it can prove that they are easily distrustful at the first thing that goes wrong and they didn't have profound trust in their faith. I think your point is very clear though and it's a good one too. The atheists in foxholes thing troubled me for sometime but I guess in the end it really shouldn't matter because infact it is irrelevant.

Plus there actually were and are atheists in foxholes. There are plenty of combat soldiers who do not believe in Gods. So the desperation turning to Gods thing is not universal.

[May Ayob]

Plus there actually were and are atheists in foxholes. There are plenty of combat soldiers who do not believe in Gods. So the desperation turning to Gods thing is not universal.

Maybe because they believe that death is the end? or maybe they aren't satisfied with their lives but because commiting suicide would probably embark alot of dismay they rather choose to become soldiers secretly hoping they will die in their military cruise?. I don't know or maybe they at the brightest side of it are truly selfless people who put their lives in line for others but in that case they would be offering it for their countries own political agendas, even though I maybe wrong...

[M.I.A.]

The huge difference is that in science you can find evidence against a theory. The whole idea is to do so. With enough evidence, you move to a new theory. You try not to cling to bad theories, even though I suppose you can't completely 100% disprove anything with absolute certainty. In religion the opposite approach appears to be taken. What would be evidence against your God? Is there anything?

In science you start with admitting you don't know, and you ask questions and seek answers. In religion you start with pretending to know the answers, and you declare "revelation" and "faith". The two approaches are not comparable.

religion is much like science, unfortunately the difference between knowing the official line.. and having any understanding of it is miles apart.
and that is where they differ.

science can be taught and is taught.

if religion of understanding were taught then it would pretty much be judgement day.

i hope you understand.



i mean its very hard to picture a world that is in front of your eyes and yet does not exist for most people. like science again.


if you want me to prove god exists.. i cannot.

i mean the quran is not the expanded word of god, it is a pretext to the understanding of an expanded word.

thats how true it is.

and thats how deliberately it was written.

its like the preface of a book... no disrespect intended.


its aimed at people that dont know.

and people that already do.


the difference between belief and non belief.


its been said before that the quran is a 100% accurate.

its just in its interpretation that people bring doubt.

(its actually said in the quran itself also.. *paraphrased* something like and they did not differ until guidance had come to them.)


i mean if you ask me certain questions i would be stumped. but i guess you wouldnt know what exactly i dont know about.. so im safe.



the evidence against god is in the differing of religions.


the answer is the same always.

as time progresses and people change, culture and language change.

knowledge is lost.


even if you still have the words.


i mean i can look at most things and draw similarities in concepts. that repeat like a pattern.

if you actually had something concrete to begin with, it just makes more and more sense. like science and progressive theory again.


but you actually have to know what your talking about to begin with. and everybody does convince themselves of something.




everybody knows the official line, its in its implementation and understanding that they differ.

and each and every time, the people move forward and slowly leave behind what they had.


but its still there,
it hasnt been taken from you.

its written into the fabric of the universe as constant as science.



what you really have to ask yourself is that if you did understand and did see.

and yet were not able to change things.


what would you write?

its just a case of perspective.


its literally like learning to feel again.

[Independent]

Maybe because they believe that death is the end? or maybe they aren't satisfied with their lives but because commiting suicide would probably embark alot of dismay they rather choose to become soldiers secretly hoping they will die in their military cruise?. I don't know or maybe they at the brightest side of it are truly selfless people who put their lives in line for others but in that case they would be offering it for their countries own political agendas, even though I maybe wrong...

Atheists are soldiers for exactly the same reasons as anyone else - either out of necessity, or to protect people they care about, or because they were conscripted and didn't have any choice - same as anyone. The only thing they never become soldiers for, is in the hope of eternal reward in heaven.

[Independent]

I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

I'm glad you still rank atheists as 'brothers in humanity' - some people don't.

With regard to being 'prudent' and not risking hell - I don't understand how anyone can truly say they believe, simply based on a risk-benefit calculation. Isn't belief in the end an emotional thing? You feel it or you don't?

[IAmZamzam]

I asked no one for any information at all. Here’s exactly what happened—and I urge everyone to scroll back a page and check for themselves. First titus made the old “respond to ‘without God the universe came out of nothing’ with ‘where did God come from?’” ploy. Then I pointed out that this is the equivalent of a child going, "I know you are but what am I?" I said, “The world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal. Try again. Or rather I should say *actually* try for real.” This last part seems to be what Pygoscelis is interpreting too literally as a bafflingly cryptic invitation to do some incomprehensible something-or-other that I’m flat out refusing to identify. It isn’t. Rather, it’s just my way of saying, “You failed to refute haroon’s point, better luck next time.” There’s nothing cryptic there, nor was there anything cryptic about my next post, although Pygoscelis claimed that there was:

titus was…deflecting the issue back onto God instead of actually rebutting it…Logic dictates…that when two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either. The atheist calls their little trick “trying to get us to understand that we’re not following our own logic” or something stupid like that. I call it “refusing to sit down and address the issue”. Of course on the rare occasion that they *do* address it that just means I’m about to hear the equally inevitable and groan-inducing “I’m using the phrase ‘quantum flucation’ like it’s some kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card” argument

What on earth is so mysterious about that?? Even if it were difficult to understand, did Pygoscelis never think of asking a specific question regarding what the confusing part of it meant?

Now can we please drop it?

[titus]

I don't believe that atheists are the ones "refusing to sit down and address the issue". You make a circular argument when you declare that there has to be a creator, yet nothing created the creator. Your argument presupposes a god in order to prove a god. That makes no sense.

How can one claim that the world is too beautiful to not have a creator, yet claim that something as complex and beautiful as a god does not need one? It is completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.

I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

Isn't all religion really a crap shoot? After all the number one factor in what religion everyone chooses (by far) is whatever religion their parents are. The vast majority of the followers of any religion (including Islam) are not followers of that religion because of any special insight they have or studying they have done. It is because their parents raised them that way.

And choose which god? Christianity? If so then Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon or.... or Muslim? Then Sunni or Shia or.... or Jewish? Then orthodox, Kabala or.... Buddhist? Hindu? Scientology? No matter which one I pick don't the odds say I am still going to Hell?

I have yet to see any unbiased information that would make me believe one religion over another even if I was in fear of imminent death.

[NjmYqlb]

I don't understand how anyone can truly say they believe, simply based on a risk-benefit calculation. Isn't belief in the end an emotional thing? You feel it or you don't?

Belief is a psychological state, it is not an emotion. Emotion is always a response to a stimuli. The risk and benefit calculation i mentioned was to appeal to the intellect part of our inner self to take caution, as scientific people generally put intellect above all other inner self components. The way to truly believe is by asking for it from God, so disbelievers who consider the possibility of God could perhaps start a prayer with "If theres a Creator/God/Supreme being, please guide me to the truth" or something like that

And choose which god? Christianity? If so then Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon or.... or Muslim? Then Sunni or Shia or.... or Jewish? Then orthodox, Kabala or.... Buddhist? Hindu? Scientology? No matter which one I pick don't the odds say I am still going to Hell?

Please don't ask me for guidance, i have no power to give it, ask for it straight from the ultimate being/power/creator, so as in my reply to Independent, you too could try praying to the unseen Creator/God/Supreme being for guidance. It will be up to Him to decide

The vast majority of the followers of any religion (including Islam) are not followers of that religion because of any special insight they have or studying they have done. It is because their parents raised them that way

In Islam God told us God doesn't need us at all and is free to do with us as He pleases, fortunately for us His Mercy outweighs His Wrath, but we will have to ask and work for it. Muslims are only asked to relay the message, to worship Him and Him alone, which is what i try to do. A zillion or zero muslims makes no difference to God. That is why, God doesn't ask muslims to force others to convert. It is we who need Him whether we realize it yet or not, unfortunately many muslims have forgotten this and forgot to remind others of this :(

[IAmZamzam]

I’ve been in this situation before—so many times, in fact, that I’m thinking about filling out change of address cards. You refute their point:

[You cannot respond to the subject of “what made the world?” with “what made God?” because unlike God] the world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal…When two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either.

And since they have no other recourse left, they just repeat themselves instead of doing anything about it:

You make a circular argument when you declare that there has to be a creator, yet nothing created the creator. Your argument presupposes a god in order to prove a god. That makes no sense.

I’m done here because obviously titus is too. This thread has become a broken record.

[Pygoscelis]

[You cannot respond to the subject of “what made the world?” with “what made God?” because unlike God] the world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal

Did you come up with this yourself or cut and paste it from somewhere? Because this special pleading doesn't make any sense. You are just trying to make your God unfalsifiable by doing this, which is exactly what I said before. And having done that what exactly do you want atheists to say to you? You complained that we are all saying the wrong thing, which implies you wanting to hear something else from us. Try again, actually try, as you say. Try to refute the empty unfalsifiable claim you make?

“You failed to refute haroon’s point, better luck next time.”

That is what you meant buried behind all the childish "I know you are but what am I" and "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetoric?

Haroon established no point, so there is nothing to refute.

This thread has become a broken record.

This thread is only a broken record when you keep spouting the same rhetoric and more atheists respond to it in the only way it can be responded to.

[M.I.A.]

Isn't all religion really a crap shoot?

well i guess in terms of heaven and hell, no not really.

i mean the way i think about it is a central line.. that i will call the unadulterated truth.

and branching lines of differing length that i will call religions, made up of scripture, ritual, cultures and customs.


the truth remains constant as time flows.

and religions branch off as time goes on.

as long as they are based on the truth then there is some hope.


but the further they get from the truth, the less likely that becomes.


tracing your way back can lead you anywhere, but at least you tried with intent.. which an all knowing, all encompassing god.. would know about.


if it is simply a case of following the religion or way of life you were born into without question, then life is more heavily reliant on your own deeds and actions. it does not make you any lesser not knowing, it just changes your role amongst the people you encounter.


i mean the odds of going to hell are not even in our own hands most of the time. but the saying "give em hell" is pretty apt for an athiest..

the opposition leads to some great answers.



the unbiased information you are looking for is that central truth, that is constant throughout the passage of time.

finding it, is hard work.


but athiests should have had some great answers by now.


i dont know about a creatorless creator.

but i do know that in this world you will always be a cog in the machine.

religion makes you more aware of it,

and quite rightly puts the fear of god into men with any kind of humanity.


thats just the irrelavent truth.
the way the world actually works is very much different.

[IAmZamzam]

If at first you don't succeed just accuse the other guy of ulterior motives. If his argument can't be refuted, that must mean he's only trying to make his God unfalsifiable, for instance. Flounder and speak in vague rhetoric about how he's being cryptic and not making any sense, but be extremely careful never to say why. For good measure, treat him like he's being so irrational that he may as well be some specimen of lab rat the like of which you've never studied before. "You're an odd one."

The only thing I was trying to do is exactly what I was succeeding at doing (and the same thing titus was trying and failing to do), which is show why the rationale in question does not work. To “falsify” a theoretical matter that doesn’t involve the empirical you do exactly what I just did and show how the logic is faulty. That’s the only thing you ever can do.

"Haroon established no point?" You see what kind of self-inflicted blindness we're up against here? This will go on for another three pages, won't it?

[IAmZamzam]

What am I saying? It takes two to argue. It won't go on if I don't let it. So I'm cutting it off right here. Let Pygoscelis have any last word he likes. I've said what I have to say already.

[sambhunath]

According to Surah 2:25 -Al- Baqarah-of Holy Quran read as under-

" And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens(in Paradise) beneth which river flow. when ever they are provided with a provision of fruity therefrom, they will say,"This is what we are provided with before" And it is given to them in likeness. And they will abide therein eternally."
Hence paradise is the creation of Allah- not in the earth but according to his will. In addition to this holy Quran-2:35, 2:82, 2:221, 3:15, 3:133, 3:136, 3:142, 3:185, 3:195, 3:198, 4:13, 4:57, 4:95, 4:122, 4:124, 5:12, 5:65, 5:72, 5:85, 5:119, 7:42-47, 7:49-50, 9:72, 9:89, 9:100, 9:111, 10:26, 11:23, 11:108 and in many other chapters last being chapter 98:7-8. Chapter 98 verse 8( Surah-98:8) of holy quran says as under-
"There reward with their Lord will be gardens of perpetual residence beneath which rivers flow, where in they will abide forever, Allah(God) being pleased with them and they with Him. That is for whoever has feared his Lord.
So Paradise in Islam is not located in the earth. Hence, One will know better, if he positively go through the 114 Surahs and 6236 verses of holy quarn.

[sambhunath]

When there are creations, there most be a creator. Even in Big Bang Theory, if there was explosion some one explored it. The explorer is also the creator. He is invisible, and no one except Allah. The atheists should read the holy book of Quran first to know the truth.

[Karl]

How can you not believe in something that is beyond everyones understanding. If you don't even know what God really is. Then if you have no faith it would make more sense to sit on the fence and say "It's 50 50 that God exits, either life the universe and everything was created by God or it created itself". That would be the scientific perspective, not enough data 1+q=a.

[Independent]

The risk and benefit calculation i mentioned was to appeal to the intellect part of our inner self to take caution, as scientific people generally put intellect above all other inner self components

For me, there was one book in particular that turned me away from faith in Christianity. Not a science book, but a history book called 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagel. She was part of a team working on the Nag Hammadi gospels, a collection of gnostic texts miraculously discovered intact in a cave in Egypt in 1945.

Essentially the author uses the texts to show how the new religion was affected by the need to construct an organised Church that could survive into the future. Also, it was influenced by the need to grow the religion in culture dominated by a Greek philosophical world view.

Whether or not her views are correct, it introduced me to the whole issue of how a religion changes through the ages.

[Pygoscelis]

If his argument can't be refuted

You made no coherent point. You whined about atheists not giving you evidence and arguments against your unfalsifiable claim, which by nature of it being unfalsifiable they couldn't possibly do. And you posted a bunch of childish insults. What did you expect?

What am I saying? It takes two to argue. It won't go on if I don't let it. So I'm cutting it off right here. Let Pygoscelis have any last word he likes. I've said what I have to say already.

Happy to see you on your way. We were having a civil conversation here before you decided to rudely interject. Perhaps we can get back to that civil discussion now.

[Pygoscelis]

How can you not believe in something that is beyond everyones understanding. If you don't even know what God really is. Then if you have no faith it would make more sense to sit on the fence and say "It's 50 50 that God exits, either life the universe and everything was created by God or it created itself". That would be the scientific perspective, not enough data 1+q=a.

We certainly can't disprove Gods existing. But I don't see why you would say we should see 50 / 50 odds. Just because you can't prove or disprove something doesn't make it equally likely as not to exist. I don't lose much sleep worrying over the possible existence of space alien visitors to our planet. With sufficient technology they could be coming and going unnoticed and unnoticeable. But I wouldn't say the odds are 50 /50. Same with Gods. I see no reason to believe they exist, so I don't take on that belief. If actual evidence ever comes up for the claim, then I am more than happy to reconsider. My mind is open to the idea of Gods. I think it would actually be pretty cool. But I just don't see any reason to think it so.

[Pygoscelis]

For me, there was one book in particular that turned me away from faith in Christianity. Not a science book, but a history book called 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagel. She was part of a team working on the Nag Hammadi gospels, a collection of gnostic texts miraculously discovered intact in a cave in Egypt in 1945.

Essentially the author uses the texts to show how the new religion was affected by the need to construct an organised Church that could survive into the future. Also, it was influenced by the need to grow the religion in culture dominated by a Greek philosophical world view.

Whether or not her views are correct, it introduced me to the whole issue of how a religion changes through the ages.

I remember reading "History of God" by Karen Armstrong, It was a similar read. It traced back Judaism, Christianity, and Islam through the various incarnations and interpretations that have been popular throughout time. It is pretty interesting to see how the concept of the God changes over time.

[Pygoscelis]

i mean the odds of going to hell are not even in our own hands most of the time. but the saying "give em hell" is pretty apt for an athiest..

the opposition leads to some great answers.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to explain further?

the unbiased information you are looking for is that central truth, that is constant throughout the passage of time.

finding it, is hard work.


but athiests should have had some great answers by now.

Science?

[sambhunath]

Once I asked a doctor Post Graduate in Medicine about the utility of a specific medicines for fever. He advised me to take some crocin tablet. I again asked him that how did he know that this tablet will cure me. He told that he is a doctor and he knows if from his study from pharmacology I again asked him from which book he studied it and who was the writer? Was the writer. I again asked him from which sources the writer gained his knowledge about the raw material of the medicine. He answered that through research the medicine was produced. I asked him questions after questions to know the root of invention of medicines and the first inventor. Lastly I asked his where the inventor was either a medicine doctor of Phd holder. In reply he told me that there was not certificate during that time. Then I asked him who is the creator raw materials...in reply he told that there is top most doctor or head doctor or creator- and he does not know about him. He admitted that there most be a creator, are there are creations. If one atheist does not believe the existence of almighty,then he is a learner in this stage.

[Independent]

Once I asked a doctor Post Graduate in Medicine about the utility of a specific medicines for fever.

I don't think this is the best analogy out there. A doctor could legitimately prescribe a drug based on empirical evidence alone (ie 'it works') without being able to scientifically prove how or why. There are still drugs in use today that applies to.

He admitted that there most be a creator, are there are creations.

The word 'creator' leads to confusion because it implies a person. We end up with these tautologous arguments that 'if something is created, then there must be a creator'. This isn't logic, it's linguistics and it doesn't tell us anything.

If you change 'created and creator' for 'cause and effect' then it's much more accurate and can be applied usefully in science - ie 'every effect must have a cause'.

Now we can ask the same question about the origin of the universe without pre-supposing the answer. Maybe the cause is in the realm of physics, maybe religion. At least it's a fairly put question.

[M.I.A.]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to explain further?



Science?

i meant that athiests in general provide questions which make muslims uncomfortable..

well some of the time, other times the line of questioning and answers is of little use or just tail chasing.

for me i think its benefiting because it raises questions in my own head, sometimes not even directly related to athiest questions but in things they have said unwittingly.. which are harder to answer then the actual questions.

i dont mind being uncomfortable for a short time, if it leads to any sort of understanding.


the main troubles i have with science are mirrored by many other scientists.

i often frequent a science board and its mentioned sometimes by those that have noticed it.

mainly that science seems all encompassing and yet is made of distinct topics, which may be pieced together but one gets the idea that there may be several missing pieces in between.

its like missing the complexity of things.. the number of factors not taken into account because the scientific method of observable and reproducible results is used.

science is still complex and difficult to grasp but it does neglect things that it does not need.


iv been involved in research so its my own firsthand experience.


unfortunately my own findings were ridiculed.

i mean the machine trudges on and one day they will find an explanation for it and sort it.

but dont expect me to tell you they had the right idea all along.


but who on earth would expose there own failings?

too many people behind it already.


but the above statement is hardly empirical, its just how things work. imo.


i mean if your ever in a position to question something like that then you can figure out where you stand by the answers your given.


and choosing your own hell seems counter intuitive.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think this is the best analogy out there. A doctor could legitimately prescribe a drug based on empirical evidence alone (ie 'it works') without being able to scientifically prove how or why. There are still drugs in use today that applies to.


The word 'creator' leads to confusion because it implies a person. We end up with these tautologous arguments that 'if something is created, then there must be a creator'. This isn't logic, it's linguistics and it doesn't tell us anything.

If you change 'created and creator' for 'cause and effect' then it's much more accurate and can be applied usefully in science - ie 'every effect must have a cause'.

Now we can ask the same question about the origin of the universe without pre-supposing the answer. Maybe the cause is in the realm of physics, maybe religion. At least it's a fairly put question.

Yes. A "created" obviously requires a "creator" by the name alone. You presuppose something was created if you call it "created". You presuppose something was caused by something else if you call it "caused". It doesn't really say anything. It is just playing with language.

[Pygoscelis]

i meant that athiests in general provide questions which make muslims uncomfortable..

well some of the time, other times the line of questioning and answers is of little use or just tail chasing.

for me i think its benefiting because it raises questions in my own head, sometimes not even directly related to athiest questions but in things they have said unwittingly.. which are harder to answer then the actual questions.

i dont mind being uncomfortable for a short time, if it leads to any sort of understanding.

This approach is so refreshing to see! Good on you.

mainly that science seems all encompassing and yet is made of distinct topics, which may be pieced together but one gets the idea that there may be several missing pieces in between.

its like missing the complexity of things.. the number of factors not taken into account because the scientific method of observable and reproducible results is used.

science is still complex and difficult to grasp but it does neglect things that it does not need.

Yes I agree with that. We will always have missing variables we fail to control for.

but who on earth would expose there own failings?

too many people behind it already.

This too is an unfortunate truth. Scientists are human and have human failings, and too often they get attached to their theories. It sometimes seems that science advances only as the old generation dies out and is replaced by the new generation with a more open mind and less attachment to the old predominant theory. Maybe in the future science will be done more by computers and robots without human ego and emotion to cloud it so much.

[M.I.A.]

Maybe in the future science will be done more by computers and robots without human ego and emotion to cloud it so much.

thats the irony.... really the biggest irony.



if man could make the perfect machine...


it would be human.


self repairing.

self replicating.

self learning.

able to adapt thaught and body to suit the needs of the job.


...i guess its still no proof of god.


unfortunately what is it that programs us?

its not something that is a one paragraph answer.



something that should make you smirk is the idea that humans are lesser than angels, in terms of adherance to god.


that ego and emotion.

that idea of freedom of choice.

that soul.


no offence intended to angels...

i have no idea what they really feel.




but going back to the idea of machines, if you had the perfect machine.. what would be the next step.

giving it character?

[haroonqureshi89]

Atheism does not make sense because it requires us to believe the universe cam from nothing for no reason. Also if God does not exist there is no objective Moriarty. And if there is no objective morality then anything is permitted which makes life absurd.

[Pygoscelis]

Atheism does not make sense because it requires us to believe the universe cam from nothing for no reason.

This has been addressed numerous times in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read and/or respond to it, then I really can't help you.

Also if God does not exist there is no objective Moriarty.

How does God existing make morality any more objective than God not existing?

[Scimitar]

Moriarty? :D

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,


Atheists (disbelievers) have existed for ages. Verily, no one understands atheists more than Allah (swt) Himself.

They deny the meeting with Allah (swt) as mentioned in the Qur'an.
Rather, they are, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, disbelievers.[32:10]

Allah (swt) has sealed their hearts and they cannot see.
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil.[2:7]

Can anyone give direction to one who is deaf and blind?
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.[2:6]

Surely no one can guide a disbeliever except Allah (swt) Himself.

May Allah (swt) guide us all to the straight path

[iRock]

Our world have too many religions :heated:

[Muhaba]

I love this verse of this very beautiful Surah (Surah Tur) of the Quran:
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
(52: 35-36)

I think it says it all.

[Independent]

An interesting new theory has just been published in relation to this thread. Some people have latched onto Big Bang because they think it provides the universe with a definite beginning, and a definite end, that needs to be explained by a divine being. But a new theory derived from the latest information about the Higgs Boson particle suggests that the fate of our universe may not be indefinite expansion and entropy, but destruction and renewal in a potentially endless (and beginningless) cycle. In addition, it holds out the prospect that we may be able to confirm that an endless cycle of repeating universes is scientifically verifiable:

(Passages in bold highlighted by me):

Scientists say they may be able to determine the eventual fate of the cosmos as they probe the properties of the Higgs boson. A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it.


It all depends on some precise numbers related to the Higgs that researchers are currently trying to pin down. A "Higgs-like" particle was first seen at the Large Hadron Collider last year. Associated with an energy field that pervades all space, the boson helps explain the existence of mass in the cosmos. In other words, it underpins the workings of all the matter we see around us.


Since detecting the particle in their accelerator experiments, researchers at the Geneva lab and at related institutions around the world have begun to theorise on the Higgs' implications for physics. One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed.


"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," explained Dr Joseph Lykken. "This bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it. If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news."


"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.


(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765)

Once again, this is cutting edge physics and may or may not turn out to be correct. No one who isn't an expert in astrophysics has any chance of knowing how plausible this is.

The point is that it is unwise to grab hold of particular scientific theories which, in some people's views, appear to substantiate their reading of the Qur'an or other holy texts. We have to keep an open mind to the origin of the universe for now. And any argument based on the 'something cannot come from nothing' line of logic is premature.

There are other reasons for faith, but science does not offer any proof as yet.

[Indian Bro]

Peace be with you Independant,

There will always be people theorizing on the origins of the universe, truth be told, no one will ever find out the exact details of how the universe was formed, even Muslims. The Qur'an doesn't give such immense details on how the universe started, but whatever is mentioned in the Qur'an about how the universe began, we believe. And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever. This is the miracle of the Qur'an, a miracle that was revealed to the last and final Messenger of this world and other unknown worlds, a miracle that will remain to exist till the Last Day.

[Independent]

The Qur'an doesn't give such immense details on how the universe started, but whatever is mentioned in the Qur'an about how the universe began, we believe. And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever.

I understand this and wholly respect your point of view.

What I do object to, is people telling me (as in the start of this thread) that science proves the existence of a divine being - because it does not. Maybe it will one day, but right now that's not the case.

[Hulk]

Not science per se but rather reason. My faith is not based on fallible scientific study. Though I might be open to someone who might correlate a scientific study with a verse from religious text in no way is that the basis upon my belief.

[Pygoscelis]

And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever.

\

That is because science makes itself falsifiable. The whole point is to make better and better guesses as we investigate the world, so it is going to be wrong over and over as we get a better and better understanding, backed by an ever growing body of evidence. It is useful for technology (medical, industrial, military, etc).

Religion takes the opposite approach, and declares itself unfalsifiable. It declares "facts" by "revelation" and then fits everything to them. If anything looks wrong in the Quran it will be declared allegory or metaphor. It is useless for technology, but more useful for culture, cohesion, and stability.

Both can be used for good or ill, both can bring comfort or pain, and I think it is a matter of opinion which is more important to the world.

[Hulk]

Thor the god of war

please just stop

[Muhaba]

An interesting new theory has just been published in relation to this thread. Some people have latched onto Big Bang because they think it provides the universe with a definite beginning, and a definite end, that needs to be explained by a divine being. But a new theory derived from the latest information about the Higgs Boson particle suggests that the fate of our universe may not be indefinite expansion and entropy, but destruction and renewal in a potentially endless (and beginningless) cycle. In addition, it holds out the prospect that we may be able to confirm that an endless cycle of repeating universes is scientifically verifiable:

(Passages in bold highlighted by me):

Scientists say they may be able to determine the eventual fate of the cosmos as they probe the properties of the Higgs boson. A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it.


It all depends on some precise numbers related to the Higgs that researchers are currently trying to pin down. A "Higgs-like" particle was first seen at the Large Hadron Collider last year. Associated with an energy field that pervades all space, the boson helps explain the existence of mass in the cosmos. In other words, it underpins the workings of all the matter we see around us.


Since detecting the particle in their accelerator experiments, researchers at the Geneva lab and at related institutions around the world have begun to theorise on the Higgs' implications for physics. One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed.


"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," explained Dr Joseph Lykken. "This bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it. If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news."


"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.


(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765)

Once again, this is cutting edge physics and may or may not turn out to be correct. No one who isn't an expert in astrophysics has any chance of knowing how plausible this is.

The point is that it is unwise to grab hold of particular scientific theories which, in some people's views, appear to substantiate their reading of the Qur'an or other holy texts. We have to keep an open mind to the origin of the universe for now. And any argument based on the 'something cannot come from nothing' line of logic is premature.

There are other reasons for faith, but science does not offer any proof as yet.

They will believe everything except God. To athiests, every farfetched theory is acceptable except the theory (fact) that God exists and created everything.

[Pygoscelis]

They will believe everything except God. To athiests, every farfetched theory is acceptable except the theory (fact) that God exists and created everything.

No, there are plenty of other farfetched theories most atheists don't subscribe to, lots of other mythical creatures for that matter, from vampires to faeries to the loch ness monster. Most (but not all) atheists are skeptics, and criticism of religion is just one small segment of that. There are in fact entire skeptic magazines and podcasts, often those running them are atheists, that never even mention Gods.

[sur]

The universe is a closed system. Therefore, Newton's second law, ....

=
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...ml#post1518985
=
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...ml#post1517601
=

[Hulk]

No, there are plenty of other farfetched theories most atheists don't subscribe to, lots of other mythical creatures for that matter, from vampires to faeries to the loch ness monster. Most (but not all) atheists are skeptics, and criticism of religion is just one small segment of that. There are in fact entire skeptic magazines and podcasts, often those running them are atheists, that never even mention Gods.

On the same token, there are many who believe in God who don't believe in superstition/mythical creatures. The mistake I see a lot of atheists making is putting God in the same category as these things to the point where they say that God is as believable as a "flying spaghetti monster". It's a silly idea that thinks of God more as a "worldly character" instead of the Creator. It's like finding a book and instead of deducing that there must have been a writer you go into the idea that to believe that an author exist is as believable as a "flying spaghetti monster". It's absolutely ridiculous and flawed.

When you base your conclusions based on "scientific observation" alone and ignore your reason/logic then you are being illogical/unreasonable for you are limiting your own ability of understanding.