The 'God of Gaps' Arguments

[Frazer]

This is a response to a common argument for the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument. I'm sharing this because I imagine a lot of Muslims (and other Theists) reading this are convinced (at least partly) by it and I'm interested to see what you think about it after reading this.

A God of the gaps argument is one that argues that since some phenomenon is unexplained, it must be due to God. It is also a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations.
Background

Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as scientists. Of course, evolution is not a theory of chance, and has well established mechanisms underlying it.
For Bill O'Reilly: The moon causes the tides, due to gravitational tidal effects as it revolves around the earth.^[1]
Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it". Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without evidence is simply begging the question.
There is a time where people need to understand that there are certain things that we currently do not possess the technology to know about. This is where the dreaded truth must come in - I don't know.
Examples

• "Scientists can't explain how life came to be. There must have been a god to create the first life form."
• "The Big Bang theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. There must have been a god to set the universe in motion."
• "The bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved through natural means. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been involved in its formation."
• "Even if the theory of evolution is correct, it doesn't explain how the first life form arose. Perhaps God's hand created life and set evolution in motion."
• "Scientists can't explain everything about how consciousness arises, therefore something divine must be at work in conscious beings."
• "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in." ^[2]

Counter-apologetics

Unstated premise

The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:

1. I don't understand how x could have happened.
2. Anything I don't understand is caused by God.
3. Therefore, God caused x.

(unstated premise highlighted.)
Gaps are shrinking

A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: it boils down to "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.
To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments could have been made at different points in human history:

• 2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
• 1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
• 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
• 200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
• 100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
• 60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."

As new explanations emerge, the gaps in our knowledge shrink, leaving less and less room in which to fit a god. Since human knowledge keeps growing all the time, it does not seem like a safe bet to assume that any given gap will remain one for very long.
An insufficient explanation

Another objection can be made to the argument's means of ignoring the question it originally intends to answer. For example, answering "What caused the big bang?" with "God did it" still does not answer the question of origins, as the god inserted into the gap still requires an explanation.
How, not What

Theists are frequently intolerant of scientific concepts that seek to provide naturalistic explanations. It is not difficult to reach a "compromise" where the theist adopts the full scientific explanation without challenge. By asking the theist "How did God do this?", the theist generally becomes receptive to the scientific explanation.
By presenting arguments in a manner that theists can accept, they gain knowledge, which is always poisonous to theistic belief.
Wrong Premise

The real question isn't "Is it possible that God exists in the unknown?" it's "Is it probable?" We should be concerned with whether or not a thing is actually true or likely true - not whether it's possibly true.
A Leap of Faith

Even if there is some supernatural being behind what science can't explain, what proof is there that it is the God of Classical Theism rather than Zeus, or Amun Ra, or Cthulhu?

[Good brother]

[Frazer]

Yes, having no scientific explanation doesn't mean we must therefore accept God did it, that's a classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

[ardianto]

Atheists : "Rather than you always say God made it happen, ... it's better you do scientific research to find rational explanation!"

Believers : "Hey! hey! don't you see that we are doing scientific research?. It's because we want to know how God made it happen!"

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

[Muhaba]

Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it".

Belief in God is a self-evident truth.

the following is from an article:

Whatever is stated has to have some evidence for it. Either it should be a self-evident truth which cannot be denied or it should have some observable evidence to prove that it is true.
An example of a self-evident truth is the belief in the existence of God. This is a self-evident truth that cannot be denied even without having seen or observed God. The evidence for God is all around us. The existence of the creation is the simplest and most obvious evidence of the Creator, not to mention the other proofs.
An example of observable evidence is the evidence for air. Although it can’t be seen, it can be observed.
“In science, Observation does not mean actually seeing something; it means only that the observer can measure it. For example, physicists do not see subatomic particles, but they can indirectly measure whether or not those particles exist.”

[Frazer]

Belief in God is a self-evident truth.

the following is from an article:

The premise of your argument is that if something exists it is therefore a creation therefore there must be a creator.
But it is not simply a matter of 'who' it is a matter of 'what' and 'how'. We cannot rule out things which occur naturally without the aid of an intelligent creator, the heat of the sun creating water vapour, the water vapour creating rain clouds, the rain creating rivers, the rivers eroding rock to create caves etc.
We cannot simply say;
A. God can create the universe
B. The universe was created
therefore
C. God exists
this is a simplistic use of terminology and again it is a common logic fallacy.

[Muhaba]

We cannot rule out things which occur naturally without the aid of an intelligent creator, the heat of the sun creating water vapour, the water vapour creating rain clouds, the rain creating rivers, the rivers eroding rock to create caves etc.

What evidence is there that these things occur without the aid of an intelligent Creator? Where did the heat of the sun come from? What made the sun so hot? Who made the sun? Who placed the Sun in space at a particular position? Why should water vapour turn into clouds? How come the water remains in the earth's atmosphere (after evaporating) and doesn't escape into space? Who made all these laws of nature that assist life on earth? If water didn't turn into clouds following evaporation and didn't return to earth as rain but instead disappeared into space, we would have no water on earth and life would not be possible.

[Frazer]

What evidence is there that these things occur without the aid of an intelligent Creator?

You can't disprove a negative, how would you prove a talking unicorn doesn't exist if it doesn't actually exist? You cant, that's why the burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion.

Where did the heat of the sun come from? What made the sun so hot? Who made the sun? Who placed the Sun in space at a particular position? Why should water vapour turn into clouds? How come the water remains in the earth's atmosphere (after evaporating) and doesn't escape into space? Who made all these laws of nature that assist life on earth? If water didn't turn into clouds following evaporation and didn't return to earth as rain but instead disappeared into space, we would have no water on earth and life would not be possible.

Again you are using the term 'who', as I said it doesn't have to be a 'who' until we can completely rule out natural occurrence.
Water vapour doesn't float off into space because it cools down and turns back into liquid form, all your questions can be answered with science but you will just persist in asking 'but who made it do that?', do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

[Scimitar]

logical fallacy?

wait, are you aware of the funny incident which took place between Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend?

An atheist friend of Sir Isaac came into his office after Sir Isaac had finished making his Solar System Machine.

"how wonderful" said his friend in delight at the machine, "who made it?" he asked.

Sir Isaac briefly looked up from his desk and replied "no one made it"

The atheist was confused and again asked "I don't think you heard me, I asked Who Made This Machine?"

Again Sir Isaac looked up and responded with "I told you, No One Made It"

"Now listen Isaac, this marvelous machine must have been made by somebody" he accused "Don't keep saying no one made it"

Sir Isaac looked up from his desk and into the eyes of his friend "Isn't it amazing, I tell you that no one made a simple toy like that and you don't believe me - yet you gaze out into the real solar system - the intricate and marvelous machine which is around you, and you dare to say to me that no one made it. By which logic do you come to such a conclusion?"

As the story goes, the atheist left the office and he was no longer an atheist. He was suddenly converted to the idea that God was behind the laws that were found in creation.

The logical fallacy is with you bud. You are in the same position as Isaac Newtons atheist friend.

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason. - Quran 2/164

Scimi

[MuslimInshallah]

Hello Frazer,


Welcome to the forum. I see you are very enthusiastic about discussing the fundamental questions in life.


You know, many years ago I heard a man giving a series of lectures. It was about Native Canadian experiences and ideas, and it was filled with many wisdoms. I remember one story in particular. It was asked:


Q: What supports the world?
A: The world is on the back of a turtle.
Q: And beneath the turtle?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And under that one?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And then...?
A: Well, it's turtles all the way down...


Now perhaps, Frazer, you are smiling indulgently. Ah! These primitive beliefs! But let me ask you: Before the Big Bang, what was there?


As it happens, I have had an interest in these things. And I have looked into various and fascinating ideas of How Everything Began. For instance, it has been posited that there are multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches. So that the answer to the question: what was before this universe? is: another universe. And before that...? Another...


Or there is the idea that matter and light that is sucked into black holes may perhaps manifest as white holes in another universe, thereby adding to the other universe.Which is all very interesting, but I can't but help asking myself:but where did all this matter/light/energy come from in the first place? Another universe...?


It seems to me that whatever stories we tell, we keep coming back to turtles all the way down...


The problem is, is that the infinite is not quantifiable. And science is about quantifying things. We parcel things up to look at them more carefully. We tease apart components to try to figure out what each particular part does. The scientific method is truly, a very useful tool. But that's all it is. A tool. One tool.


How do you tease apart the infinite?


Perhaps the scientific method is not the appropriate tool for such questions?


I remember reading a story many years ago by a science fiction writer. In it, an explorer comes across a remote, and very inaccessible, valley high in the mountains. All the inhabitants are blind. At first, the explorer is delighted. After all, as the saying goes:in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But is he king? (smile) Not at all! The locals think he's crazy.Every time he tries to tell them about things he can see, they gently tell him that he must have heard such-and-such, or felt such-and-such, or... really, they come up with many ways to explain away his sight. He then tries to tell them about colour.

Do they believe him? Of course not... they just deny the existence of such a thing. It becomes yet one more proof of his madness.


Finally,the kind-hearted inhabitants of the valley decide to cure this madman of his illness...to remove these “eyes” that he claims are “seeing” all these things...


In kindness, they want to cripple him.


In order to contemplate the infinite, the Divine, other tools are needed. Theists may talk about the Heart (or they may use other terms). (smile) It's not the organ that pumps nutrient-and cell-rich blood around the body. It's the “organ” that is our connection to the Divine. Through this connection we can sense God, tell right from wrong, and sense the sacred in all the rest of Creation.


Just because you can't sense the Divine, does not mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you are lacking the means to sense it.


But unlike the inhabitants of the mountain valley, our blindness is reversible. You see, you just have to ask God to uncover your Heart,to renew your connection with Him (you have to do it sincerely,though), and He Will Do it.


The one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind may be seen as crazy… but do you think that he wants to lose the beauty of colours?


Why try to blind him? Is it really kindness?

[Frazer]

logical fallacy?

wait, are you aware of the funny incident which took place between Sir Isaac Newton and his atheist friend?

An atheist friend of Sir Isaac came into his office after Sir Isaac had finished making his Solar System Machine.

"how wonderful" said his friend in delight at the machine, "who made it?" he asked.

Sir Isaac briefly looked up from his desk and replied "no one made it"

The atheist was confused and again asked "I don't think you heard me, I asked Who Made This Machine?"

Again Sir Isaac looked up and responded with "I told you, No One Made It"

"Now listen Isaac, this marvelous machine must have been made by somebody" he accused "Don't keep saying no one made it"

Sir Isaac looked up from his desk and into the eyes of his friend "Isn't it amazing, I tell you that no one made a simple toy like that and you don't believe me - yet you gaze out into the real solar system - the intricate and marvelous machine which is around you, and you dare to say to me that no one made it. By which logic do you come to such a conclusion?"

As the story goes, the atheist left the office and he was no longer an atheist. He was suddenly converted to the idea that God was behind the laws that were found in creation.

The logical fallacy is with you bud. You are in the same position as Isaac Newtons atheist friend.

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the [great] ships which sail through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the heavens of rain, giving life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth are signs for a people who use reason. - Quran 2/164

Scimi

We have no evidence to suggest a machine like that can occur naturally, they don't just grow out of the ground or appear out of the sky do they? We do have evidence to suggest machines like that are man-made but that doesn't therefore mean this is applies to the solar system just because it just a representation, a machine and a solar system are two very different things. I can only conclude that Newton wasn't talking literally but making a metaphorical/philosophic point.

This just another 'proof by logic' fallacy. It doesn't matter how many of them you have you can't make a valid logic become flawed or vice-versa.
You can believe what you like but you can't create your rules when it comes to logic.

[Frazer]

Hello Frazer,


Welcome to the forum. I see you are very enthusiastic about discussing the fundamental questions in life.


You know, many years ago I heard a man giving a series of lectures. It was about Native Canadian experiences and ideas, and it was filled with many wisdoms. I remember one story in particular. It was asked:


Q: What supports the world?
A: The world is on the back of a turtle.
Q: And beneath the turtle?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And under that one?
A: Another turtle.
Q: And then...?
A: Well, it's turtles all the way down...


Now perhaps, Frazer, you are smiling indulgently. Ah! These primitive beliefs! But let me ask you: Before the Big Bang, what was there?


As it happens, I have had an interest in these things. And I have looked into various and fascinating ideas of How Everything Began. For instance, it has been posited that there are multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches. So that the answer to the question: what was before this universe? is: another universe. And before that...? Another...


Or there is the idea that matter and light that is sucked into black holes may perhaps manifest as white holes in another universe, thereby adding to the other universe.Which is all very interesting, but I can't but help asking myself:but where did all this matter/light/energy come from in the first place? Another universe...?


It seems to me that whatever stories we tell, we keep coming back to turtles all the way down...


The problem is, is that the infinite is not quantifiable. And science is about quantifying things. We parcel things up to look at them more carefully. We tease apart components to try to figure out what each particular part does. The scientific method is truly, a very useful tool. But that's all it is. A tool. One tool.


How do you tease apart the infinite?


Perhaps the scientific method is not the appropriate tool for such questions?


I remember reading a story many years ago by a science fiction writer. In it, an explorer comes across a remote, and very inaccessible, valley high in the mountains. All the inhabitants are blind. At first, the explorer is delighted. After all, as the saying goes:in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But is he king? (smile) Not at all! The locals think he's crazy.Every time he tries to tell them about things he can see, they gently tell him that he must have heard such-and-such, or felt such-and-such, or... really, they come up with many ways to explain away his sight. He then tries to tell them about colour.

Do they believe him? Of course not... they just deny the existence of such a thing. It becomes yet one more proof of his madness.


Finally,the kind-hearted inhabitants of the valley decide to cure this madman of his illness...to remove these “eyes” that he claims are “seeing” all these things...


In kindness, they want to cripple him.


In order to contemplate the infinite, the Divine, other tools are needed. Theists may talk about the Heart (or they may use other terms). (smile) It's not the organ that pumps nutrient-and cell-rich blood around the body. It's the “organ” that is our connection to the Divine. Through this connection we can sense God, tell right from wrong, and sense the sacred in all the rest of Creation.


Just because you can't sense the Divine, does not mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you are lacking the means to sense it.


But unlike the inhabitants of the mountain valley, our blindness is reversible. You see, you just have to ask God to uncover your Heart,to renew your connection with Him (you have to do it sincerely,though), and He Will Do it.


The one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind may be seen as crazy… but do you think that he wants to lose the beauty of colours?


Why try to blind him? Is it really kindness?

The problem infinite regress applies as much to the believer as the non-believer.
What came before God?
If nothing then how is God capable of infinite regress?
He just is because he's God and has divine magic powers is not an explanation and it does not reflect the standard of evidence you are asking of me, which is called 'Special Pleading'.

The default position is not knowing, being neutral, until we have substantial evidence to answer these questions we cannot simply choose which ever explanation we like best and turn to others and say 'prove me wrong'. Sometimes the most truthful and ration answer is that we just don't know yet.

[Futuwwa]

Yes, having no scientific explanation doesn't mean we must therefore accept God did it, that's a classic example of the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.

[OmAbdullah]

This is in reply to the thread Common Argument for the Existence of God, which I cannot find.

In the Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Formal Argument

1. The argument runs like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

The conclusion is: “Therefore God exists”.
This Is a very common and normal conclusion of every human mind and is based on human wisdom. This is a conclusion that is derived from deep and wide spread observation of the universe, of all the creations and the extremely beautiful and excellent management of the universe. For e.g. observe the excellent management done by the Supreme Creator. The cycle of the sun and moon, the regular succession of the day and night, light of the day for work and darkness of the night for rest, the blessing of sleep which is so much essential for our complete rest, comfort and health. Sleep is an extra ordinary phenomenon that cannot be explained by medical or any scientific knowledge!!! So a wise human being can believe justly that an extremely WISE AND INTELLIGENT SUPREME BEING has created everything and is managing HIS worlds in excellent way. But human mind and wisdom cannot think beyond this conclusion. He needs some heavenly knowledge to know more about his Creator, about the purpose of his life and death etc. So an unbiased just and fair human being will search for true heavenly knowledge instead of jumping to the next step that “ who is the creator of God” and then claiming that there is no God!!! Strange is this unjust and unwise conclusion!!!
This conclusion of the atheist is extremely unjust and is very far from human wisdom. He fights against all wise men as well as he fights against his own wisdom and his inner self. Doesn’t he feel unrest inside his heart/ mind when he denies the existence of A Great Supreme Creator??? Can he sleep well or does he depend upon sleeping pills, or alcohol or drugs? So by the use of such things to get his inner comfort his health is ruined and he is ruined in this world and in the Hereafter, alas! Alas!
This is our duty that we sincerely try to protect mankind from getting ruined. Therefore I sincerely inform the atheist that The Supreme Creator who has provided us with every necessity of life like abundant, free supply of oxygen to breath with, huge stores of water to drink etc. etc. has not left us without precious knowledge to live a pious life with perfect peace of mind and comfort here and in the Hereafter.
If it was a light matter, I would have left it but the fact is that it is a very serious matter. Every person comes to know the reality at the time of death. Then an unbeliever will cry and regret, will request to be taken back to this life so that he lives with the belief in absolutely ONE GOD AND IN OBDIENCE TO HIS Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him). His request will not be accepted. He will also call for death but in vain! He will remain in terrible agonizing pain in the Hell Fire forever. A stubborn atheist will argue that he doesn’t believe in all this punishment that will start right at the time of death when he will see the angels beating him with iron sticks and pulling out his soul when the poor soul will try to hide in his body and the angels shall pull it harshly. As for death, no one can deny it. It is by itself a mystery. A body doesn’t get rotten and decomposed even after chronic disease for years but it starts decomposing within minutes after death even if the death happened suddenly in good health. This is by itself a proof to a wise person that something important separates from the body at the time of death after which this body must be buried before it decomposes. Then what is that important thing due to which it was alive??? The Heavenly knowledge tells us that it is the soul!
An atheist does not stand against a worldly king/ president etc. and does not lie on him because he knows about his power and forces. So the atheist fears his punishment. But he feels very brave against All Mighty God and says big lies on HIM only because he doesn’t see All Mighty God’s Forces to punish him. One may ask: Why don’t we see All Mighty God in HIS real Form? All Mighty God Allah has created us to believe in HIM and to obey HIM without seeing HIM. All Mighty God has created us to worship HIM and HIM ONLY. Allah all Mighty has put us in a test and the world is like an examination hall for us, the mankind. For this purpose Allah all Mighty gave us eyes to see and observe HIS GREATNESS from HIS creation and HIS excellent management, has given us ears to hear the Truth from HIS Heavenly Revelation (The Holy Quraan) and also has given us great mind and wisdom to think with. We must believe in the unseen God who is One Single and unique. The ONE Who has no son, no father, no relative and no helper and being the Supreme owner of all power, doesn’t need any helper or relative!! We must fear HIM and must obey HIM in every field of life. HE doesn’t catch a disobedient servant at once. Rather HE gives long time to the servant to think and reflect. But when HE catches, HIS catching is very painful and severe. And Once HE catches someone in punishment, HE never leaves him. Allah All Mighty is the only One GOD who is the Giver of numerous blessings, the Giver of sustenance, the Provider of all our needs, the Giver of life and death. HE has appointed a Day for passing Judgment. For that purpose Allah All Mighty God shall give us a new life, when HE shall set up HIS COURT and shall pass judgment on every person. Then those who believed in HIM and followed HIS Commands shall be in the blessings of Paradise because they passed the test successfully while those who disbelieved shall suffer the uniquely severe punishment in Hell forever.
Now an atheist who along with his eyes, ears and wisdom lies upon All Mighty God, he does so to his own loss and ruin. We hope that he becomes sincere and sympathetic for himself and chooses the Straight Path of belief in One, Single, Unique God and obedience to Him so that he/she is protected from the everlasting burning in the Hell Fire.
[The Holy Quraan was revealed to the Final Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him)].

[Scimitar]

We have no evidence to suggest a machine like that can occur naturally, they don't just grow out of the ground or appear out of the sky do they? We do have evidence to suggest machines like that are man-made but that doesn't therefore mean this is applies to the solar system just because it just a representation, a machine and a solar system are two very different things. I can only conclude that Newton wasn't talking literally but making a metaphorical/philosophic point.

This just another 'proof by logic' fallacy. It doesn't matter how many of them you have you can't make a valid logic become flawed or vice-versa.
You can believe what you like but you can't create your rules when it comes to logic.

So your argument hangs on a thread then?

Look, basically what you have said is "I did not witness the creation of the universe so I cannot say it was God" what beats me is, that you have failed to recognise the simple and undeniably truthful logic from this story abut Isaac's unbelieving friend.

At this point, I will have to say one thing only - God was right, HE has put a veil over the hearts of those who disbelieve in HIS signs, so they hear not, and see not.

You cannot answer why Isaac's friend became a believer - even though the answer is staring you in the face... now that my friend, is truly a logical fallacy.

And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.

oh leave it bro Futawwa, he can't see beyond his own shadow. :D

Scimi

[Frazer]

And yet, when the atheist who adheres to metaphysical naturalism is in such a situation, more often than not, his stance is "I don't know, but I will assume that there is an explanation that is consistent with my worldview". God is not the only thing that can, or has been, used to plug gaps.

I somewhat agree, I do not know because I lack sufficient knowledge but I make no empty assumptions. The reason I reject the God explanation is because there is insufficient evidence to back it up. Science isn't infallible and it doesn't claim to have all the answers, it offers the most rational explanation based on the info we have and it is constantly questioning, experimenting and searching for better explanations. The same cannot be said for religion.

So your argument hangs on a thread then?

Look, basically what you have said is "I did not witness the creation of the universe so I cannot say it was God" what beats me is, that you have failed to recognise the simple and undeniably truthful logic from this story abut Isaac's unbelieving friend.

At this point, I will have to say one thing only - God was right, HE has put a veil over the hearts of those who disbelieve in HIS signs, so they hear not, and see not.

You cannot answer why Isaac's friend became a believer - even though the answer is staring you in the face... now that my friend, is truly a logical fallacy.



oh leave it bro Futawwa, he can't see beyond his own shadow. :D

Scimi

The fact Isaac Newton convinced a friend to believe in God is not (by definition) an "undeniable truthful logic" nor is it evidence in anyway that God does exist. If I gave a similar story about a believer becoming an atheist would that be an undeniable truthful logic or evidence that God doesn't exist? No, exactly.

[Futuwwa]

I somewhat agree, I do not know because I lack sufficient knowledge but I make no empty assumptions. The reason I reject the God explanation is because there is insufficient evidence to back it up.

And what exactly would constitute "sufficient evidence"?

Science isn't infallible and it doesn't claim to have all the answers, it offers the most rational explanation based on the info we have and it is constantly questioning, experimenting and searching for better explanations. The same cannot be said for religion.

And why is this comparison even relevant? Science and religion are two categorically different things. It's not apples to oranges, it's apples to LEGO bricks.

[Frazer]

And what exactly would constitute "sufficient evidence"?

And why is this comparison even relevant? Science and religion are two categorically different things. It's not apples to oranges, it's apples to LEGO bricks.

Thats a good question, I think an experience alone wouldn't be enough, there would be a possibility that I was having some sort of hallucination or even some other sort of concious thought or intelligence was playing tricks with me, how would I know? I think I would also need some sort of explanation of how God and the universe really work, religion has failed to convince me of this.

When you said that God is not the only thing that has been used to plug gaps I was assuming you were referring to science.
Religion and Science are different subjects but they're almost unavoidable when it comes to debating the big questions.

[MuslimInshallah]

Hello again Frazer,


Thank you for noticing one of my points: your idea on the creation of the universe ends up pointing towards the infinite.


You say: ah, well, so does yours. You are correct. But then, I am very comfortable with this. God, by definition, is infinite. If all paths seem to end up pointing towards the infinite…(smile)


You then say: well, if I cannot sense “x”, the best thing to do is to posit that “x” is not real. This may not be a reasonable approach, however. Imagine you are anosmic (your sense of smell is not functioning). What if I were to tell you: I can smell a dangerous gas here. Would it be sensible to remain in the room and get poisoned? Or would it be more reasonable to decide: well, I can't smell it, but maybe MuslimInshallah can. She seems like a truthful sort. So, to be on the safe side, I'll leave this room.


But perhaps you might feel more comfortable thinking: if I can prove “x”,even if I can't sense it, then I'll believe in “x”. But if I can't prove it, then logically, it cannot exist (personally, I'd be cautious and leave the room, but to each his own).


The mathematician Gödel showed that it is not possible to prove everything that is true. He was talking about natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...) and the relations between them. Do they not exist then?


Logic is a useful tool, I agree. But it, too, has its limits. Actually, there is more than one method of logic, is there not?


I do see your conundrum, Frazer. You can't measure God, you can't prove His existence with our methods of logic, and you can't sense Him.


What can I say? I can sense Him.


Would it be rational of me to deny my perception because you can't?

[Karl]

@Frazer What is the point of attacking peoples belief in god/s? Is it for political purpose's? Are you one of those UN Marxists trying to make the world in your image? A godless world where there is nothing to worship but the State and the State funded scientists? Scientists that rave on about "global warming" when we are actually heading into an Ice Age. And now they call it "climate change" even though they need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make such claims, as data has only been monitored since the last hundred years or so.
People do not know what god/s actually is/are. All they know is that they are divine beings beyond their comprehension so how can they be scientifically denied?
The Creator or Creators cannot be scientifically denied.

[Ahmad H]

I agree the God of the gaps argument is flawed, Frazer. No one can prove God just by using the unknown to say, "There is a God!" It is flawed because Islam says God is One, but someone else can say, "This is God! This is God! Or this one is also!" So there could be either none, one, or many gods according to anyone's fancy. It is certainly flawed, and anyone here who is Muslim who thinks it works is severely flawed in their logic too. In fact, that kind of logic for faith is nimble and is really for the naive.

Religion, specifically Islam and any other revealed religion from Allah, are all based on the proof that God exists, because there is a Prophet who came that communicated with Allah. This communication could be claimed by anyone as well, so how do you know that the set of rules laid by that religion are true, that the God behind that Prophet is true, and that the Prophet in question is true as well?

To ascertain the truth of Islam, you have to ask yourself this:
-Is the Prophet a truthful man himself?
-If so, then how do we prove his claim is true?
Assuming he is true, which we will take history for its word, then we would know his claim is true because what he says can be verified from observation.
For example, the Prophet said such and such will happen in this much time, then it happens. Or the Prophet of God knew the state of a person's heart even though he can't actually know that unless God told him. Or the Prophet of God knew exactly what a man and his family did secretly with no one watching them, and he relates it to them. Or he prophesies exactly how an event transpires, even though it is impossible for him to control such an event and the likelihood of that occurrence is so small that the prediction of it could only have come from such an All-Knowing and All-Seeing Being.

In essence, Allah has attributes, and the Prophet of God demonstrated these attributes by showing that God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing. He knew who planned what, countered these plans, and acted accordingly. He predicted the outcome of events years before, even though no one could know the outcome. These instances are many and they require careful study and deliberation. To tell them all here is not in my place, since I am not yet knowledgeable enough to narrate them accurately without the proper sources. It would take me hours to compile something proper, and it would also require great insight regarding such events. Speak to one in person about it or research yourself sometime with our help if need be.

My point is, the faith of Islam is based on revelation. The Prophets of God received revelations which proved God is there. These signs can be witnessed today as well. For example, the Big Bang theory was discovered during the mid 20th century. Yet, the Holy Qur'an said 1400 years ago:

21:30 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?

This verse is speaking to people like you, Frazer. You, being a disbeliever, should observe that when the people of today, the scientists who are disbelievers in God, discovered that the universe came from the Big Bang, then Allah is addressing you saying, "Do not the Unbelievers see" meaning, by scientific observation and inferential knowledge, "that the heavens and the earth were joined together" there was some force locking the homogeneous matter which eventually made up the universe (the heavens and the earth), which is the so-called single point, which is infinitely dense and hot, "before we clove them asunder?", meaning, they, the disbelievers, see through their inferential knowledge that before this vast creation came to this state, that it was in a single point that then expanded outwards and went through an opposite motion. Rather than it clogging together like a sewed up mass, it was un-sewn, and it expanded outwards. "We made from water every living thing", meaning, every living thing in this universe, the heavens and the earth, is made out of water. This is the mantra that scientists keep saying in their search for life in this vast universe, "where there is water, there is life". So, Allah then says, "Will they not then believe?" This means, that after having heard this Ayah (sign, revelation) of Allah Himself, revealed to His Prophet 1400 years before it became scientific evidence that the universe started from a single point, and that it expanded, and that everything living is made out of water, will they not then take this to heart and have faith? Will the disbelievers not see that Allah could be the only One Who knew that all of this happened in the ancient past when no one could have ascertained this?

Furthermore, in the same breath, the statement here could only have been from Allah, since the creation of the universe and the knowledge required to spot life anywhere is given. This could not have been said with so much certainty from anyone, unless they heard this from the All-Knowing, All-Aware, the Creator. These are revelations from Allah Himself.

In this same Book, another miracle left for the modern world to witness is given when we see yet another discovery which is told already 1400 years ago:

51:47 With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

The verb used at the end is "la musi'oon", which means, "We are actively extending the vastness". This is speaking about the Heaven, which is the universe itself. The expansion of the universe was only discovered recently, again, in the 20th century. All of these miracles are for people such as yourself who doubt the existence of God, because they can only believe what they see with observation.

Therefore, Allah is telling you that despite your disbelieving in Him through observation, what you are actually observing is what He created. He has laid His claim to it a very long time ago.

This should remind you of a picture of art. When a person sees a picture of art and there is no indication of who drew it, then a person normally identifies it by an artist when they have a signature on it. So, Allah has put His signature forth to us by telling us, that He created this beautiful universe. He is the One Who did it, and here is what it is. The ancient Arabs did not have to fully grasp these meanings, but we see them now. The Qur'an is meant for all times. It's miracles are being witnessed even now. The revelation of the Qur'an is the miracle which keeps on giving. If you search through it and try to understand it, then you will see what I mean.

Earlier, you mentioned that the God of the gaps is that we do not know all the species on earth, so God must have made them. This is not how Muslims should look at it. Islam is investigative. Allah has told us many things for which we can have continual signs. The example here stems from the following verse:

51:49 And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

13:3 And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnain (two in pairs - may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two varieties, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big). He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidence, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect.

This does not mean that we know all of these pairs. How do we know that His creation has such pairs? By investigating. Because we cannot verify this until later:

36:36 Glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces, as well as of their own (human) kind (male and female), and of that which they know not.

"and of that which they know not" means that Muslims should endeavor to witness these signs. We must go out, search for these fruits, these animals, these insects, these birds, etc. Everything which has some sort of pair, identify it, and witness His miracle, and His signs that yes, He created all of these pairs. And every time we find more, then we are witness to the truth of this revelation. We also know even better with those observations, that it is only Allah Who could have stated this. How could an illiterate Prophet from Arabia who had no science education be aware of this? There is a reason why Allah chose him as a Prophet. He did not know as much as others did. That in itself is further proof.

These arguments are that: -God stated something, we cannot confirm the truth of this yet, we confirmed the truth of the statement, therefore God said it, therefore God exists.

We bridge that gap of knowledge of which God made a statement of 1400 years ago, and so we witness a miracle. It proves the truthfulness of the Qur'an. Besides scientific proofs, there are many prophecies fulfilled, but I will not get into that here.

[Futuwwa]

Thats a good question, I think an experience alone wouldn't be enough, there would be a possibility that I was having some sort of hallucination or even some other sort of concious thought or intelligence was playing tricks with me, how would I know? I think I would also need some sort of explanation of how God and the universe really work, religion has failed to convince me of this.

So you want evidence but haven't even decided what would constitute suffient evidence in the first place.

Well, here's evidence: the existence of the universe. It's consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is originated by an omnipotent deity that is the first cause of everything. Bam, there you have it, empirical evidence for the existence of God!

If you protest by stating that there are other possible explanations, well, you would be correct. But that is the case with all theories. There is no such thing as positive empirical evidence for a specific theory. There is only evidence that is consistent with a specific theory and evidence which is not consistent with it, and for each body of empirical evidence, there is (in principle) an infinite number of theories consistent with it.

When you said that God is not the only thing that has been used to plug gaps I was assuming you were referring to science.
Religion and Science are different subjects but they're almost unavoidable when it comes to debating the big questions.

The gap-plugging goes typically something like this: "I don't know, but I'm sure modern science will find an explanation that is consistent with my worldview sooner or later. And even if it doesn't, I'll just assume there is one anyway." That's very much this "faith" thing atheists often like to deride.

Religion and science are only unavoidable if one is clueless about the epistemology of either or both. The currently prevailing philosophical paradigm of science is to use philosophical naturalism as a working assumption. It has the advantage of keeping the theories testable and falsifiable, but also renders it incapable of, regardless of whatever scientific discoveries are made, providing any kind of indication of philosophical naturalism being true. That was the assumption from the start, and thus if you think you have proven it true, you have committed a circular argument.

[Frazer]

I agree the God of the gaps argument is flawed, Frazer. No one can prove God just by using the unknown to say, "There is a God!" It is flawed because Islam says God is One, but someone else can say, "This is God! This is God! Or this one is also!" So there could be either none, one, or many gods according to anyone's fancy. It is certainly flawed, and anyone here who is Muslim who thinks it works is severely flawed in their logic too. In fact, that kind of logic for faith is nimble and is really for the naive.

Religion, specifically Islam and any other revealed religion from Allah, are all based on the proof that God exists, because there is a Prophet who came that communicated with Allah. This communication could be claimed by anyone as well, so how do you know that the set of rules laid by that religion are true, that the God behind that Prophet is true, and that the Prophet in question is true as well?

To ascertain the truth of Islam, you have to ask yourself this:
-Is the Prophet a truthful man himself?
-If so, then how do we prove his claim is true?
Assuming he is true, which we will take history for its word, then we would know his claim is true because what he says can be verified from observation.
For example, the Prophet said such and such will happen in this much time, then it happens. Or the Prophet of God knew the state of a person's heart even though he can't actually know that unless God told him. Or the Prophet of God knew exactly what a man and his family did secretly with no one watching them, and he relates it to them. Or he prophesies exactly how an event transpires, even though it is impossible for him to control such an event and the likelihood of that occurrence is so small that the prediction of it could only have come from such an All-Knowing and All-Seeing Being.

In essence, Allah has attributes, and the Prophet of God demonstrated these attributes by showing that God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing. He knew who planned what, countered these plans, and acted accordingly. He predicted the outcome of events years before, even though no one could know the outcome. These instances are many and they require careful study and deliberation. To tell them all here is not in my place, since I am not yet knowledgeable enough to narrate them accurately without the proper sources. It would take me hours to compile something proper, and it would also require great insight regarding such events. Speak to one in person about it or research yourself sometime with our help if need be.

My point is, the faith of Islam is based on revelation. The Prophets of God received revelations which proved God is there. These signs can be witnessed today as well. For example, the Big Bang theory was discovered during the mid 20th century. Yet, the Holy Qur'an said 1400 years ago:

21:30 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?

This verse is speaking to people like you, Frazer. You, being a disbeliever, should observe that when the people of today, the scientists who are disbelievers in God, discovered that the universe came from the Big Bang, then Allah is addressing you saying, "Do not the Unbelievers see" meaning, by scientific observation and inferential knowledge, "that the heavens and the earth were joined together" there was some force locking the homogeneous matter which eventually made up the universe (the heavens and the earth), which is the so-called single point, which is infinitely dense and hot, "before we clove them asunder?", meaning, they, the disbelievers, see through their inferential knowledge that before this vast creation came to this state, that it was in a single point that then expanded outwards and went through an opposite motion. Rather than it clogging together like a sewed up mass, it was un-sewn, and it expanded outwards. "We made from water every living thing", meaning, every living thing in this universe, the heavens and the earth, is made out of water. This is the mantra that scientists keep saying in their search for life in this vast universe, "where there is water, there is life". So, Allah then says, "Will they not then believe?" This means, that after having heard this Ayah (sign, revelation) of Allah Himself, revealed to His Prophet 1400 years before it became scientific evidence that the universe started from a single point, and that it expanded, and that everything living is made out of water, will they not then take this to heart and have faith? Will the disbelievers not see that Allah could be the only One Who knew that all of this happened in the ancient past when no one could have ascertained this?

Furthermore, in the same breath, the statement here could only have been from Allah, since the creation of the universe and the knowledge required to spot life anywhere is given. This could not have been said with so much certainty from anyone, unless they heard this from the All-Knowing, All-Aware, the Creator. These are revelations from Allah Himself.

In this same Book, another miracle left for the modern world to witness is given when we see yet another discovery which is told already 1400 years ago:

51:47 With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

The verb used at the end is "la musi'oon", which means, "We are actively extending the vastness". This is speaking about the Heaven, which is the universe itself. The expansion of the universe was only discovered recently, again, in the 20th century. All of these miracles are for people such as yourself who doubt the existence of God, because they can only believe what they see with observation.

Therefore, Allah is telling you that despite your disbelieving in Him through observation, what you are actually observing is what He created. He has laid His claim to it a very long time ago.

This should remind you of a picture of art. When a person sees a picture of art and there is no indication of who drew it, then a person normally identifies it by an artist when they have a signature on it. So, Allah has put His signature forth to us by telling us, that He created this beautiful universe. He is the One Who did it, and here is what it is. The ancient Arabs did not have to fully grasp these meanings, but we see them now. The Qur'an is meant for all times. It's miracles are being witnessed even now. The revelation of the Qur'an is the miracle which keeps on giving. If you search through it and try to understand it, then you will see what I mean.

Earlier, you mentioned that the God of the gaps is that we do not know all the species on earth, so God must have made them. This is not how Muslims should look at it. Islam is investigative. Allah has told us many things for which we can have continual signs. The example here stems from the following verse:

51:49 And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

13:3 And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnain (two in pairs - may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two varieties, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big). He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidence, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect.

This does not mean that we know all of these pairs. How do we know that His creation has such pairs? By investigating. Because we cannot verify this until later:

36:36 Glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces, as well as of their own (human) kind (male and female), and of that which they know not.

"and of that which they know not" means that Muslims should endeavor to witness these signs. We must go out, search for these fruits, these animals, these insects, these birds, etc. Everything which has some sort of pair, identify it, and witness His miracle, and His signs that yes, He created all of these pairs. And every time we find more, then we are witness to the truth of this revelation. We also know even better with those observations, that it is only Allah Who could have stated this. How could an illiterate Prophet from Arabia who had no science education be aware of this? There is a reason why Allah chose him as a Prophet. He did not know as much as others did. That in itself is further proof.

These arguments are that: -God stated something, we cannot confirm the truth of this yet, we confirmed the truth of the statement, therefore God said it, therefore God exists.

We bridge that gap of knowledge of which God made a statement of 1400 years ago, and so we witness a miracle. It proves the truthfulness of the Qur'an. Besides scientific proofs, there are many prophecies fulfilled, but I will not get into that here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that the Quran (for you at least) has shown itself to be consistent with how you experience life. Self-evident.

Surely you must see the people of other religions, occultist, astrologers etc. making those same connections and question wether this is enough to justify belief.

There is a common saying, correlation doesn't equal causation. If an ancient text speaks of a great flood and we then either experience a great flood or find evidence of a great flood is this enough to conclude that the only explanation is the work of divine intervention?

We have to use the term 'proof' correctly it is not the same as 'reason'. If I came home and there was dinner on the table I would have reason to believe my wife cooked it but it wouldn't be 'proof'. Likewise I think you have reasons in which you believe in God I don't think we can call it proof.

So you want evidence but haven't even decided what would constitute suffient evidence in the first place.

Well, here's evidence: the existence of the universe. It's consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is originated by an omnipotent deity that is the first cause of everything. Bam, there you have it, empirical evidence for the existence of God!

If you protest by stating that there are other possible explanations, well, you would be correct. But that is the case with all theories. There is no such thing as positive empirical evidence for a specific theory. There is only evidence that is consistent with a specific theory and evidence which is not consistent with it, and for each body of empirical evidence, there is (in principle) an infinite number of theories consistent with it.



The gap-plugging goes typically something like this: "I don't know, but I'm sure modern science will find an explanation that is consistent with my worldview sooner or later. And even if it doesn't, I'll just assume there is one anyway." That's very much this "faith" thing atheists often like to deride.

Religion and science are only unavoidable if one is clueless about the epistemology of either or both. The currently prevailing philosophical paradigm of science is to use philosophical naturalism as a working assumption. It has the advantage of keeping the theories testable and falsifiable, but also renders it incapable of, regardless of whatever scientific discoveries are made, providing any kind of indication of philosophical naturalism being true. That was the assumption from the start, and thus if you think you have proven it true, you have committed a circular argument.

You haven't got empirical evidence for the existence of God, you are simply repeating the God of Gaps argument, you are explaining the existence of God with the existence of the universe and at the same time explaining the existence of the universe with the existence of God. A text book circular argument. If you are attempting to explain the universe with God you must first explain the existence of God in order for it to serve as an explanation and vice versa. You can't solve a mystery with another mystery.

If there is something I cannot explain I will use the knowledge of things I know to be possible and probable and come to a rational conclusion, that is not faith. Faith is basically hoping it is the explanation you want it to be despite lacking the evidence or reason to do so.

[ardianto]

Science and religion are two separate things. But they can 'walk together'.

When I was kid my dad gave me a book about ancient human that published by LIFE. Then I started learn about kind of human that lived long time ago, from those who walk like ape into those who walk like human and had primitive civilization. And I also visited geological museum and learned about basic geology.

Did ancient human really exist?. The evidence for it are too much and very strong to be denied. Yes, I can't deny that the ancient human did really exist.

So, is it mean I believe that I am descendant of ape-like creature and not descendant of prophet Adam (as)?. No!.

I did not make a conclusion that I am descendant of ancient human because I knew that science is not stuck at one point, but always expanded. There will be new discoveries day by day. So, rather than I believe one and reject the other, I chose to synchronize science and religion in one question "If I am a descendant of prophet Adam (as), then why there were ancient human that lived before his time?". And I believe, one day I will find the answer, at least in the hereafter.

Yes, science and religion can walk together without contradict each other. Even from science I can see the sign of greatness of Allah.

"And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth - all from Him. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought."
(Al-Jathiyah: 13)

Be open minded, and you will find the sign of greatness of Allah. :)

[Ahmad H]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that the Quran (for you at least) has shown itself to be consistent with how you experience life. Self-evident.

Surely you must see the people of other religions, occultist, astrologers etc. making those same connections and question wether this is enough to justify belief.

There is a common saying, correlation doesn't equal causation. If an ancient text speaks of a great flood and we then either experience a great flood or find evidence of a great flood is this enough to conclude that the only explanation is the work of divine intervention?

We have to use the term 'proof' correctly it is not the same as 'reason'. If I came home and there was dinner on the table I would have reason to believe my wife cooked it but it wouldn't be 'proof'. Likewise I think you have reasons in which you believe in God I don't think we can call it proof.

You didn't get the part about revelation. Revelation is the communication between God and man. It is not a connection or a "cooked up" proof.

Revelation is not reason. Reason does not lead to the belief in God. Reason can only surmise if there is a God or not. If reason lead to the belief in God, then people thousands of years ago would have inferred that God exists.

Religion is based on revelation. Islam is based on revelation. Unless you familiarize yourself with this phenomena, your reasoning discussion is only based on conjecture.

Your conjecture lies in that you think astrologers and occultists are in the same rank as people of religion. If that is the case, why don't we group alchemists in the same group as scientists? No difference to me. Both groups did experiments. Sounds ignorant right? It is just about as ignorant as your understanding of revelation.

Study the phenomenon of revelation first. That is the correct line of questioning. Religion is not based on reason. Pure and simple. Reason does not lead you to God, it is God Who leads you to Himself.

[Frazer]

Science and religion are two separate things. But they can 'walk together'.

When I was kid my dad gave me a book about ancient human that published by LIFE. Then I started learn about kind of human that lived long time ago, from those who walk like ape into those who walk like human and had primitive civilization. And I also visited geological museum and learned about basic geology.

Did ancient human really exist?. The evidence for it are too much and very strong to be denied. Yes, I can't deny that the ancient human did really exist.

So, is it mean I believe that I am descendant of ape-like creature and not descendant of prophet Adam (as)?. No!.

I did not make a conclusion that I am descendant of ancient human because I knew that science is not stuck at one point, but always expanded. There will be new discoveries day by day. So, rather than I believe one and reject the other, I chose to synchronize science and religion in one question "If I am a descendant of prophet Adam (as), then why there were ancient human that lived before his time?". And I believe, one day I will find the answer, at least in the hereafter.

Yes, science and religion can walk together without contradict each other. Even from science I can see the sign of greatness of Allah.

"And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth - all from Him. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought."
(Al-Jathiyah: 13)

Be open minded, and you will find the sign of greatness of Allah. :)

So you are overlooking the evidence in front of you and hoping evidence which fits in with your religion will surface one day?

You didn't get the part about revelation. Revelation is the communication between God and man. It is not a connection or a "cooked up" proof.

Revelation is not reason. Reason does not lead to the belief in God. Reason can only surmise if there is a God or not. If reason lead to the belief in God, then people thousands of years ago would have inferred that God exists.

Religion is based on revelation. Islam is based on revelation. Unless you familiarize yourself with this phenomena, your reasoning discussion is only based on conjecture.

Your conjecture lies in that you think astrologers and occultists are in the same rank as people of religion. If that is the case, why don't we group alchemists in the same group as scientists? No difference to me. Both groups did experiments. Sounds ignorant right? It is just about as ignorant as your understanding of revelation.

Study the phenomenon of revelation first. That is the correct line of questioning. Religion is not based on reason. Pure and simple. Reason does not lead you to God, it is God Who leads you to Himself.

These so called revelations are what I was talking about, the only way to test whether someone has received a revelation from God is to see whether there message correlates with what is happening, happened or about to happen. It may well correlate but this isn't 'proof' that the message came from God until we can a) eliminate all other possibilities and b) demonstrate that a God even exists, if you are using the revelation to prove God exists you are creating a circular argument whereby the alleged revelations prove there is a God and at the same time God explains the revelation.

[ardianto]

So you are overlooking the evidence in front of you and hoping evidence which fits in with your religion will surface one day?

I don't seek evidence, but I found evidence without I tried to find it. I don't look around and asking"where is the evidence of God existence?", but I often see something and suddenly realize, this is the evidence of the greatness of God.

In example. When I was young I learned to make fiberglass stuff. One thing that I've learned from this was, I need a good mold. One day when I would make a fiberglass stuff I held the mold, and suddenly I realize something when I saw that mold and my hand. I knew that I need a mold to make the fiberglass stuff get the form that I want, but how could I grew from cell into a human in perfect form without a mold?. That was the time when I realize, there is an "invisible power" that formed me.

God can't be found by someone who tries to find Him, but God will come to the heart of anyone who open the heart for Him.

[Frazer]

I don't seek evidence, but I found evidence without I tried to find it. I don't look around and asking"where is the evidence of God existence?", but I often see something and suddenly realize, this is the evidence of the greatness of God.

In example. When I was young I learned to make fiberglass stuff. One thing that I've learned from this was, I need a good mold. One day when I would make a fiberglass stuff I held the mold, and suddenly I realize something when I saw that mold and my hand. I knew that I need a mold to make the fiberglass stuff get the form that I want, but how could I grew from cell into a human in perfect form without a mold?. That was the time when I realize, there is an "invisible power" that formed me.

God can't be found by someone who tries to find Him, but God will come to the heart of anyone who open the heart for Him.

This is another example of the argument that the creation proves there is a creator. In the context of man-made items such as your molded fiberglass stuff, a car, television etc. this makes sense but in the context of life, planets, gravity etc. it doesn't.

[ardianto]

This is another example of the argument that the creation proves there is a creator. In the context of man-made items such as your molded fiberglass stuff, a car, television etc. this makes sense but in the context of life, planets, gravity etc. it doesn't.

It's because you don't open your heart for God. :)

[Scimitar]

Fraser, does love exist? How can we measure it? Scientific questions which cannot be answered by science - see what I am doing here Fraser?

Your whole premise of "God of the gaps" is quite possibly one of the most flawed scientific arguments ever to be regurgitated on this forum.

If we cannot even define love scientifically in this modern age - you should surely realise that the bigger question of "define God" is a fallacy in your understanding. Learn to walk before you run, yes?

When it comes to matters of spirituality and practicality, Muslims see the evidence of God all the time. For Muslims, being spiritual is not the westernised mumbo jumbo which theorises silly whimsical ideas like it's a game, no. In Islam, spirituality is coupled with practice of the laws which God has set out... it is in walking this path that the evidence of God's existence, manifests to the believer... taking faith little by little, to the championed ledge of conviction.

When asked to prove it to another, all we can say is "if you haven't walked in the way of God, you will never know HIM".

And really mate, that's the be all and end all.

Your arguments are coming from a position of ignorance - I just hope you can recognise it.

Scimi

[Frazer]

It's because you don't open your heart for God. :)

Whether or not I open my heart to God doesn't make your previous post valid.

[Scimitar]

it makes my previous post valid. Just read.

Scimi

[Frazer]

Fraser, does love exist? How can we measure it? Scientific questions which cannot be answered by science - see what I am doing here Fraser?

Your whole premise of "God of the gaps" is quite possibly one of the most flawed scientific arguments ever to be regurgitated on this forum.

If we cannot even define love scientifically in this modern age - you should surely realise that the bigger question of "define God" is a fallacy in your understanding. Learn to walk before you run, yes?

When it comes to matters of spirituality and practicality, Muslims see the evidence of God all the time. For Muslims, being spiritual is not the westernised mumbo jumbo which theorises silly whimsical ideas like it's a game, no. In Islam, spirituality is coupled with practice of the laws which God has set out... it is in walking this path that the evidence of God's existence, manifests to the believer... taking faith little by little, to the championed ledge of conviction.

When asked to prove it to another, all we can say is "if you haven't walked in the way of God, you will never know HIM".

And really mate, that's the be all and end all.

Your arguments are coming from a position of ignorance - I just hope you can recognise it.

Scimi

Yes love exists but no we do not have a unit of measurement for it.

If the God of Gaps arguments are valid then explain why, you can't you just keep giving more examples of God of Gaps arguments. When I try to explain to you there is a logical fallacy, you turn around and say I'm the one being illogical, your argument is going round in circles here, getting nowhere.

There are very concise explanations for why we feel love but they don't conclude that 'God did it' so its no surprise you are not familiar with it.
Regardless of this, you are trying to use an example of something we all really do feel but may fail to define as an analogy of how we should view God. They are not same, we shouldn't view them in the same way and they are not similar enough concepts to use as an analogy.

I recognise my own ignorance of how life and the universe began and therefore choose not to jump to rash conclusions such as magical beings.
You on the other hand choose an appealing conclusion over no conclusion despite your own ignorance. Which in itself is ignorant.

[OmAbdullah]

Frazer, What is the point of attacking peoples belief in god/s? Is it for political purpose's? Are you one of those UN Marxists trying to make the world in your image? A godless world where there is nothing to worship but the State and the State funded scientists? Scientists that rave on about "global warming" when we are actually heading into an Ice Age. And now they call it "climate change" even though they need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make such claims, as data has only been monitored since the last hundred years or so.
People do not know what god/s actually is/are. All they know is that they are divine beings beyond their comprehension so how can they be scientifically denied?
The Creator or Creators cannot be scientifically denied.

The Creator is the only ONE GOD. This is very important point about the Muslim belief which is called Tawheed. Tawheed means to believe in absolutely One God Who is Single and Unique. As a Muslim you shouldn't say: "creators", nor "gods."

[Ahmad H]

These so called revelations are what I was talking about, the only way to test whether someone has received a revelation from God is to see whether there message correlates with what is happening, happened or about to happen. It may well correlate but this isn't 'proof' that the message came from God until we can a) eliminate all other possibilities and b) demonstrate that a God even exists, if you are using the revelation to prove God exists you are creating a circular argument whereby the alleged revelations prove there is a God and at the same time God explains the revelation.

A) What do you mean by eliminating all other possibilities?
B) How is this circular reasoning?

How else do you know of a God Who is invisible to you unless He speaks to you? If He spoke with someone, then what ways do you propose that are better for Him to prove that He is there?

So if a man is behind a screen, we hear his voice, then we cannot claim there is a man there even though we hear his voice? We HAVE to see him? Is it circular reasoning to say that we want to know if a man is behind a screen, then we hear him and confirm who he is?

Again, tell me, when someone is invisible and All-Powerful, then how do you propose that they communicate with us that they are there when they don't show themselves to us? I'd really like to hear what you have to say on that. Because revelations from God is the only way for Him to communicate with us.

[Scimitar]

Yes love exists but no we do not have a unit of measurement for it.

This is where you trip up isn't it?

If the God of Gaps arguments are valid then explain why, you can't you just keep giving more examples of God of Gaps arguments. When I try to explain to you there is a logical fallacy, you turn around and say I'm the one being illogical, your argument is going round in circles here, getting nowhere.

so, because you fail to see the comparison between equating Love and equating God - it's somehow a circular argument... hmmm, Ok, I'll humour you this one time. Let's read on, shall we?

There are very concise explanations for why we feel love but they don't conclude that 'God did it' so its no surprise you are not familiar with it. Regardless of this, you are trying to use an example of something we all really do feel but may fail to define as an analogy of how we should view God. They are not same, we shouldn't view them in the same way and they are not similar enough concepts to use as an analogy.

So what you have said is: If one doesn't believe in love, he may be inclined to think love doesn't exist and therefore a delusional concept... interesting. :D

So if one feels love then love exists. Delusions? Look, how many billions of people today are atheist? Not many... its a relatively small figure, atheists live on the fringe of global society, in that sense - so you'd be the minority view here.

The majority view is that God exists.

I recognise my own ignorance of how life and the universe began and therefore choose not to jump to rash conclusions such as magical beings. You on the other hand choose an appealing conclusion over no conclusion despite your own ignorance. Which in itself is ignorant.

You don't know anything about me.

Though I am ashamed to say it, I apostated once - for years and years, and came back to Islam after investigating every faith i could get my hands on... didn't want to, but when faith enters the heart, ones internal vision expands and one is better able to see the signs of HIS magnificence in all creation.

But without that - we see nothing... you see nothing.

You'd prefer to quantify God in a very material way, which can never happen - that itself is atheist dogma.

Scimi

[Futuwwa]

You haven't got empirical evidence for the existence of God, you are simply repeating the God of Gaps argument, you are explaining the existence of God with the existence of the universe and at the same time explaining the existence of the universe with the existence of God. A text book circular argument. If you are attempting to explain the universe with God you must first explain the existence of God in order for it to serve as an explanation and vice versa. You can't solve a mystery with another mystery.

Please try to pay attention, this does in no way address anything of what I said. I have not committed a God of the Gaps. If you think I have, please quote the part where I say that there is no other explanation for the existence of the universe than God. In fact, I think I said the exact opposite, in order to demonstrate that there is no such thing as positive empirical proof.

And besides, for someone who attempts to refute the Cosmological argument, you are woefully unaware of how the argument even goes in the first place. In it, God is the ultimate cause, that which is fundamental and simply exists, and which everything else follows from.

If there is something I cannot explain I will use the knowledge of things I know to be possible and probable and come to a rational conclusion, that is not faith. Faith is basically hoping it is the explanation you want it to be despite lacking the evidence or reason to do so.

Rational. You keep using that word without providing any substantiation for why any particular position would be more rational than any other.

[Scimitar]

Fraser,

it beats me that you'd want "empirical evidence for God" when all believers know that God doesn't exist in our space time continuum - how can anyone quantify the unquantifiable?

Look bro Fraser, I'll say it again in the hope that it will sink in: God does not exist in our space time continuum... HE is outside of it. Scientists are limited to this planet and what little they know about space - they really don't know much at all - so before you go ask for "empirical evidence for God" - I'd ask you and your click to develop inter-dimensional travel that can take us outside of our own universe... when you and your click can do that, ask that question again - it will warrant a better response from us here.

Until then, don't ask questions which have already been answered - exactly the same way - over and over again.

It's really simple Fraser - if you were a goldfish, swimming in a goldfish bowl, and that's all you knew, you'd be quick to say "there's no such thing as a human being, my food just drops in on me every day at the same time" - not knowing that there is a human being who is feeding you dried shrimp every day...

... see my point? I really hope you can grasp this simple comparison. You don't have to make things complicated when they really aren't.

God hasn't made it hard for you to know HIM, bro Fraser, it is your own self that is making it hard for you to know HIM.

God bless,

Scimi