atheist logic

[BilalKid]

;D ;D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I love the way the Comparative Religion section has been re-opened, and within a matter of minutes it's turned into the "Let's bash atheism" forum. Brilliant!

Keep it going if you like - atheism is a strong enough idea to withstand any attack you feel like bringing. We won't get offended. And if you have any serious criticisms of the atheist position, or if you feel that there are any questions about it that we can't answer, then feel free to bring those up too.

Peace

[ardianto]

I love the way the Comparative Religion section has been re-opened, and within a matter of minutes it's turned into the "Let's bash atheism" forum. Brilliant!

That's why I suggest admin to change the section name (and concept) into "Interfaith Understanding". The term "comparative", indeed, can lead people into bashing other beliefs.

:)

[~ Sabr ~]

atheism is a strong enough idea to withstand any attack you feel like bringing.

:Emoji7::Emoji7::Emoji7:

The best joke I've heard in my life!!!

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

[sister herb]

I love the way the Comparative Religion section has been re-opened, and within a matter of minutes it's turned into the "Let's bash atheism" forum. Brilliant!

I agree with this. It´s not good way to discuss if we start to make jokes about other ways of thinking. If we wish that discussions here stay clean and respectful, we too have to respect others and their ways to believe (or not to believe). Equal and respected treatment of all members, sisters and brothers, keeps this section in harmony.

Also, how do you think that your dawah would success if you try to get someones to look like fools with their ways of believe (or not to believe).

[greenhill]

:Emoji7::Emoji7::Emoji7:

The best joke I've heard in my life!!!

I don't know, but I feel uneasy with these types of statements.

We ought to be treating these subjects with a bit more respect than to consider it like a joke.

Ridiculing is not comparison, neither is it reasoning. It merely provokes animosity, esoecially when dealing with sensitive subjects such as this.

Brother Ardianto said exactly that.

I'm not normally like this, but you threw a remark, and asked him nothing?

Please, sis... your call sign is Sabr. But those words may make it hard for people to be that.

:peace:

[~ Sabr ~]

I don't know, but I feel uneasy with these types of statements.

We ought to be treating these subjects with a bit more respect than to consider it like a joke.

To be honest, Atheists are the dumbest people I've come across. To think that everything came about by chance - you cannot get ANY DUMBER?! :facepalm::slap:

[greenhill]

@czgibson I do have a question for you..

But atheism is could be for a hugely different reasons. What would be your reasons again?

:peace:

[sister herb]

To be honest, Atheists are the dumbest people I've come across. To think that everything came about by chance - you cannot get ANY DUMBER?! :facepalm::slap:

And now this is generalization. Thanks a lot sis, I was an atheist before I found Islam. I might never have gave any interest to looking for more information about Islam if Muslims would told me that I am a dumb because I didn´t know Islam. :uuh:

[ardianto]

To be honest, Atheists are the dumbest people I've come across. To think that everything came about by chance - you cannot get ANY DUMBER?! :facepalm::slap:

Fish believe that water does exist because they can see water. But how can you believe that God does exist if you have never seen God?.

Can you answer this question?.

:)

[~ Sabr ~]

Fish believe that water does exist because they can see water. But how can you believe that God does exist if you have never seen God?.

Can you answer this question?.

:)

Common Sense?!

[~ Sabr ~]

And now this is generalization. Thanks a lot sis, I was an atheist before I found Islam. I might never have gave any interest to looking for more information about Islam if Muslims would told me that I am a dumb because I didn´t know Islam. :uuh:

I'm not saying because they don't know about religions - I'm saying this because Atheists believe everything came about by chance - it's common sense to thin there is "something else out there."

[sister herb]

I'm not saying because they don't know about religions - I'm saying this because Atheists believe everything came about by chance - it's common sense to thin there is "something else out there."

And some atheists call it as a common sense when they believe that everything came about by chance. I believe there might be a huge difference about what different people understand about "common sense". This difference might sometimes makes discussions a quite difficult. Any easier they don´t become if we also call people as a dumb, whose interpretation about the common sense is different than our´s.

Anyways, calling other people as dumb isn´t a good manner too. ;)

[~ Sabr ~]

And some atheists call it as a common sense when they believe that everything came about by chance. I believe there might be a huge difference about what different people understand about "common sense". This difference might sometimes makes discussions a quite difficult. Any easier they don´t become if we also call people as a dumb, whose interpretation about the common sense is different than our´s.

Anyways, calling other people as dumb isn´t a good manner too. ;)

You are a Muslim and are defending Atheists, really?! :heated:

[sister herb]

You are a Muslim and are defending Atheists, really?! :heated:

I don´t defending atheism. I tried to explain how other people might understand this expression as "a common sense" by different ways and hoped you notice also how this different understanding can has influencies to the discussions in here.

Also I wish that we always would remember to treat all members equal and with all respect. Atheist member I might defend if I see that someone treats them unequal than others.

[Umm Abed]

I think we should respect everyone whoever they may be. If you have a valid argument then put it across with beauty and wisdom, not in a way that puts them down, as mockery is not allowed in Islam.

May Allah swt guide us to say what is right and to be an example of the beautiful ways of our beloved and most noble Rasul:saws: ameen.

[~ Sabr ~]

. If you have a valid argument then put it across with beauty and wisdom,

Ok then here we go...

Robots - Have a creator
Humans - Created by chance

Computers - Have a creator
Human Brains - Created by chance

Operating Systems, Android Systems, IOS Systems - Have a creator
Digestive Systems, Muscular Systems, Nervous Systems,
Reproductive Systems, Urinary Systems, Skeletal Systems,
Cardiovascular Systems, Respiratory Systems, Endocrine Systems, etc. - CREATED BY CHANCE

What more arguments do you need to define the dumbness of Atheists?!

[Umm Abed]

Im not saying our argument as muslims cannot be put forward. You are right, but what Im saying is no personal digs should be made. It is a good thing to dissect and show the invalidity of atheism no problem.

[ardianto]

Common Sense?!

Common sense require us to believe only what we can see. This is why atheist see religious people like us as dumb, because we believe something that we cannot see.

Sister, you cannot judge other people by your own logic and understanding because other people have their own logic and understanding that different than yours. This is what you have to know before you start a dialog with other people.

:)

[Serinity]

Ok then here we go...

Robots - Have a creator
Humans - Created by chance

Computers - Have a creator
Human Brains - Created by chance

Operating Systems, Android Systems, IOS Systems - Have a creator
Digestive Systems, Muscular Systems, Nervous Systems,
Reproductive Systems, Urinary Systems, Skeletal Systems,
Cardiovascular Systems, Respiratory Systems, Endocrine Systems, etc. - CREATED BY CHANCE

What more arguments do you need to define the dumbness of Atheists?!

I find it quite intellectually insulting when they claim such things while they themselves know that the brain, the human body, is far more complex than anything we have ever built.

They themselves bear witness to the fact that our brain is way beyond any computer machine, our body, way beyond any robot.

Yet the Robot could never have been made, if we as humans never intended to. The Robot had a beginning.

I call it the disease of the heart. Materialism can turn to a disease, a disease that blinds them from thinking straight - from the signs of Allah. They refuse to think, cuz they think that they don't need to. They follow not except assumption, blind faith.

The way things are soo intellectually created, and with reason too, just makes it more obvious, and I find it a disease to reject the signs of Allah.

May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

[noraina]

There are many 'diseases' of the heart, disbelief is one, as well as pride, arrogance, anger, which can afflict anyone, even a Muslim. And each of these diseases of the heart have solutions, yes even not believing in God or religion does. I don't think any of these solutions though involve making fun of them or turning them away. And I see no harm in respectful debate with those of other faiths - I find the non-Muslims on here are very respectful.

I wasn't a very practising Muslim before, and once someone decided to blank me because I didn't know how to pray and I wasn't a 'proper' Muslim - I suppose they would be surprised to know that now I do pray, and not too claim superiority but probably more than they do.

Wa Alaykum Assalam.

[BilalKid]

"Let's bash atheism" forum.

did not make to bash :phew

:peace:

[sister herb]

did not make to bash :phew

:peace:

Maybe it wasn´t your intention. Anyways, thank you about giving us an opportunity to have interesting little discussion about how to understand the common sense and which way we should treat here others than Muslim members.

:thumbsup:

[Serinity]

The robots would never have been made, if we never started making them - why? Because something with a beginning can NEVER come by itself, or from nothing. Cause from nothing comes nothing, nothing can happen from nothing.

you claim there was nothing before this universe - then how come you claim it was by chance? Any 'chance' requires possibilities..

And nothing can start, without something else causing it, not a single homework of mine would be made if I did nothing.

And as I said, chance requires possiblities. Ie. There is NO chance from 'nothing' I find it paradoxal to say this universe came from nothing, and I find it paradoxal that it came by chance - it is impossible.

Cause by saying it came by 'chance' would imply possibilities before. Yet you claim that this universe came from nothing.

so you claim:

A) this came from nothing.
B) by chance.

They both contradict eachother.

Besides it is too complex to have come by itself!

Tell me, if I said "Windows 7 came by chance" would you believe me? "The internet came by chance" it did not, then how come you can say the designer of these things came by chance?

We can hardly replicate nature, and whatever we make, falls pale in comparison to nature, and we'd say it is ridiculous to claim Windows 7 came by chance, then how can we claim that something way more complex came by chance?

It is like saying a BMW E92 M3 spawned by chance!

Or I wrote this by chance:

"The sky is blue"

Oh Allah, please guide the blind! guide us me, and all of us. Ameen.

[Serinity]

Maybe it wasn´t your intention. Anyways, thank you about giving us an opportunity to have interesting little discussion about how to understand the common sense and which way we should treat here others than Muslim members.

:thumbsup:

You said you were an atheist before? Perhaps sharing your story would be a great thing. May Allah bless us with continuous guidance. Ameen.

What made you go from Atheism to Islam?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To be honest, Atheists are the dumbest people I've come across. To think that everything came about by chance - you cannot get ANY DUMBER?! :facepalm::slap:

I don't recall saying that everything came about by chance, nor do I actually believe this.

Do you have any substantial question you'd like to ask?

@czgibson I do have a question for you..

But atheism is could be for a hugely different reasons. What would be your reasons again?

Reasons I am an atheist include:

• Lack of evidence for any gods
• Problem of evil
• Ockham's Razor
• Incoherence of all religious texts that I have read
• Obvious man-made nature of all religious texts that I have read
• The fact that so many phenomena that used to be explained by reference to religion now have better (usually scientific) explanations
• The lack of miracles in the modern age
• Weakness of all philosophical "proofs" of God's existence
• Sociological and psychological explanations of the function of religion by Feuerbach, Durkheim, Nietzsche and, to some extent, Freud
• Philosophical considerations of religious belief by Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Russell and Mackie

Peace

[sister herb]

I have posted my story:

http://www.islamicboard.com/new-musl...s-post-33.html

[anatolian]

This made me remember a saying of a turkish sufi poet Hayali

"The Designer of the world is within the world, they don't know how to look,
Those fish are living under the sea, they don't know the sea"

[anatolian]

Reasons I am an atheist include:

• Lack of evidence for any gods
  

Peace

Peace friend. You say that you have looked evidence for any god and you couldnt find. But have you looked for evidence for Allah? Because Allah says that He is closer to you than your life vein.

"And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him, and We are nearer to him than his life-vein" Quran 50:16

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Peace friend. You say that you have looked evidence for any god and you couldnt find. But have you looked for evidence for Allah? Because Allah says that He is closer to you than your life vein.

"And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him, and We are nearer to him than his life-vein" Quran 50:16

Peace to you also.

I include Allah in the long list of gods that I can find no evidence for. If you're going to propose the existence of a supernatural being with perfect intelligence that nobody has ever seen and who has no discernible, measurable influence on our world, then you're going to need much stronger evidence than "Allah says that He is closer to you than your life vein". It would be an extraordinary thing to discover proof that such a being existed, and if the evidence was convincing I would have no choice but to change my mind. As it is, there is no such evidence that I'm aware of.

Peace

[Serinity]

Greetings,


Peace to you also.

I include Allah in the long list of gods that I can find no evidence for. If you're going to propose the existence of a supernatural being with perfect intelligence that nobody has ever seen and who has no discernible, measurable influence on our world, then you're going to need much stronger evidence than "Allah says that He is closer to you than your life vein". It would be an extraordinary thing to discover proof that such a being existed, and if the evidence was convincing I would have no choice but to change my mind. As it is, there is no such evidence that I'm aware of.

Peace

But there is plenty of signs of the existence of One God. Making up one's own God is wrong, no doubt. But seeing as how this whole thing came to existence - the complexities, the grass, the weather etc..

The signs are all around us. Try to contemplate over the creation of the universe.

If someone came and said "I believe in x and y, worship x and y" you wouldn't. Why? No proof of such a being..

But you see. The existence of ONE GOD, ie. The One Who created everything, is not based on mere claims. It is based on the sheer fact that this whole thing had a beginning etc.

God won't come to you and say "I am God", the signs of God are already there. Anyways, I probably didn't help much.

The problem is when people claim that the truth comes from THEM. The Prophet SAW delivered the message of truth FROM Allah.

Anyways, read, think, reflect, and contemplate. :)

May Allah guide you in your journey. Ameen.

[anatolian]

Greetings,


Peace to you also.

I include Allah in the long list of gods that I can find no evidence for. If you're going to propose the existence of a supernatural being with perfect intelligence that nobody has ever seen and who has no discernible, measurable influence on our world, then you're going to need much stronger evidence than "Allah says that He is closer to you than your life vein". It would be an extraordinary thing to discover proof that such a being existed, and if the evidence was convincing I would have no choice but to change my mind. As it is, there is no such evidence that I'm aware of.

Peace

Peace friend. So what do you think it means Allah is closer to you than your life-vein?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But there is plenty of signs of the existence of One God. Making up one's own God is wrong, no doubt. But seeing as how this whole thing came to existence - the complexities, the grass, the weather etc..

The signs are all around us. Try to contemplate over the creation of the universe.

The fact that the universe is here tells us nothing about its origin. True, physicists believe they can make observations about the very early moments of our universe, but there is no evidence (yet) about what happened at the very start of it.

If someone came and said "I believe in x and y, worship x and y" you wouldn't. Why? No proof of such a being..

This is pretty much exactly the experience I have when someone tells me about the god that they believe in.

But you see. The existence of ONE GOD, ie. The One Who created everything, is not based on mere claims. It is based on the sheer fact that this whole thing had a beginning etc.

Yes, it does seem highly probable that the whole thing had a beginning. And you deduce from this, what? A supernatural, timeless intelligence that knows everything you will ever do, forbids you from eating pork and cares about who you go to bed with? Why?

I conclude that we simply don't know what happened at the very start of the universe. Nobody does. Maybe one day we will know more about it, but for the moment we have to be content with admitting that we don't know. Postulating the existence of a creator is just an easy answer with nothing to back it up except wishful thinking.

Anyways, read, think, reflect, and contemplate. :)

I certainly intend to carry on doing so.

Peace friend. So what do you think it means Allah is closer to you than your life-vein?

It's a poetic phrase, and I expect you could read multiple meanings into it. Perhaps my life-vein is my aorta or my jugular vein? Perhaps it's a term referring to a more general life force, used in a similar figurative way to a word like "heartbeat"? Perhaps the whole phrase means that Allah is so much closer to me than I realise, that I just can't see it; yet he has been sustaining me every moment of my life.

Maybe you would like to tell me what you think it means?

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

To be honest, Atheists are the dumbest people I've come across. To think that everything came about by chance - you cannot get ANY DUMBER?! :facepalm::slap:

... can you imagine how temping it is after reading that to say some pretty nasty things about the delusion that is Islam and the minds of the people that hold it? How can you expect to be treated with any measure of respect if you don't show any respect to others?

I agree that at the end of the day there is no super polite way to tell us atheists you see us as spiritually blind etc, just as there is no super polite way for us to tell you we see you as delusional, but neither of us is stupid and there is no need to resort to name calling etc.

And you don't need to read in a book or be commanded by any authority that you should treat your fellow human beings with kindness and respect. That should come straight from who you are. You know, that basic human decency that you have inside you, God or no God.

[Serinity]

I am not asking you to be hasty.

But this is how I see it, although I do understand where you're coming from.

I am not going to wait for humans to deduce for me or discover for me or to think for me whether God exists.

I simply won't risk it. I don't trust science to the point I'd rely my hereafter on it.

you can't see the hereafter, nor can I. But I believe in it. Why? Cuz I find it too risky to not do it, however, I by that am not saying to believe whatever blindly.

The reason why I believe in a hereafter is simple - This world existed before we were born, we were unaware of it, similar I think of the current situation.

May Allah grant you guidance, and may He SWT make you able to see His signs. Ameen.

I do understand your situation - and I ask you to keep contemplating, and I ask Allah to guide you. Think and reason, and may Allah guide you thereby. Ameen.

[Serinity]

... can you imagine how temping it is after reading that to say some pretty nasty things about the delusion that is Islam and the minds of the people that hold it? How can you expect to be treated with any measure of respect if you don't show any respect to others?

I agree that at the end of the day there is no super polite way to tell us atheists you see us as spiritually blind etc, just as there is no super polite way for us to tell you we see you as delusional, but neither of us is stupid and there is no need to resort to name calling etc.

And you don't need to read in a book or be commanded by any authority that you should treat your fellow human beings with kindness and respect. That should come straight from who you are. You know, that basic human decency that you have inside you, God or no God.

I think the bigger problem is the prejudice behind our writings. I sense a sense of prejudice from you. A narcasstic -egoistic sense.

I find it offensive that you call us delusional etc. we have reasons, it isn't like we just said "I believe in Allah, cuz I can" there are reasons etc.

The same I could say with you guys, but I won't start with insulting. Lets just stay logical.

There is the individual, the argument, and the feelings. If you attack the individual in order to win a debate - that is not winning.

And the word 'debate' sends a bad vibe, doesn't it?

Lets just be nice.

[Pygoscelis]

I find it offensive that you call us delusional etc. we have reasons, it isn't like we just said "I believe in Allah, cuz I can" there are reasons etc.

The problem there is that whether you find it offensive or not, I do find you delusional when it comes to your belief in God; without rational basis or reason for your belief in an imaginary being. If you can tell me a more polite way to say that, I'll use your words, but I can't change the fact. I know that you think you have good reasons, but I do not believe that you do, as all such reasons that I have yet heard I have found to be not based on logic and reason, but on emotion and faith, or logical fallacy.

Usually, such as in your own case, it doesn't lead you to destructive or hateful actions or speech, so I don't have to point it out, just as you don't have to point out seeing me as spiritually blind, spiritually lacking, lost, or being hellbound, etc. But as you can see, God belief does lead some other people such destructive ends as the post I was responding to, so for them it needs to be said.

And I think you have to admit, that if I dished out even a fraction of what is being directed in this forum at atheists back at Muslims, I would be very quickly banned from the forum.

[Muhaba]

Ok then here we go...

Robots - Have a creator
Humans - Created by chance

Computers - Have a creator
Human Brains - Created by chance

Operating Systems, Android Systems, IOS Systems - Have a creator
Digestive Systems, Muscular Systems, Nervous Systems,
Reproductive Systems, Urinary Systems, Skeletal Systems,
Cardiovascular Systems, Respiratory Systems, Endocrine Systems, etc. - CREATED BY CHANCE

What more arguments do you need to define the dumbness of Atheists?!

Ys i agree. How can one think that the human body with its multitude systems and organs came into place all by itself?

There are things that we don't even know about the body but the Creator has made them perfectly based on their functioning. For example the hands / arms normally hang in the air while the feet normally rest on the ground. Your hamds don't get tired ever from hanging in the air. You don't need to rest them on any thing. On the other hand, let your legs hang for a bit (from the wdge of the bed) and in few moments your feet will start feeling tired. Now could this come into being by chance. Not to mention all the more complex functions like mentioned above.

Denying the existence of a Creator is indeed the most senseless thing one can do and if you need proof that atheism is wrong, all you need to do is study the human anatomy.

[Zafran]

but I do not believe that you do, as all such reasons that I have yet heard I have found to be not based on logic and reason, but on emotion and faith, or logical fallacy

I find this Odd - You have clearly heard of the philosophers and philosophical arguments for God that are based on Logic and reason. So you cant say its just "faith" and "emotion". Logical fallacy can be chucked at pretty much any argument.

We also know "evidence" itself that atheists claim to want can be pretty far fetched - especially when they believe in many things with out the same "evidence".

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I hope I will be forgiven for this small interruption.

I find this Odd - You have clearly heard of the philosophers and philosophical arguments for God that are based on Logic and reason. So you cant say its just "faith" and "emotion".

Perhaps you would like to mention which philosophers you have in mind here, and which arguments.

Logical fallacy can be chucked at pretty much any argument.

Except those arguments which are logically valid.

We also know "evidence" itself that atheists claim to want can be pretty far fetched - especially when they believe in many things with out the same "evidence".

More far-fetched than a journey to heaven on winged horse?

Peace

[Zafran]

Perhaps you would like to mention which philosophers you have in mind here, and which arguments.

You named some of them and actually pointed at there arguments. No mention of emotion.

More far-fetched than a journey to heaven on winged horse?

I was thinking about our ancestors 2000 years ago, that you or me have no record of or have never seen and yet some how we believe they existed with absolute certainty. Unless you believe its as far fetched as the winged horse?

[greenhill]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


:peace:

[greenhill]

@czgibson

Reasons I am an atheist include

Lack of evidence for any gods
Problem of evil
Ockham's Razor
Incoherence of all religious texts that I have read
Obvious man-made nature of all religious texts that I have read
The fact that so many phenomena that used to be explained by reference to religion now have better (usually scientific) explanations
The lack of miracles in the modern age
Weakness of all philosophical "proofs" of God's existence
Sociological and psychological explanations of the function of religion by Feuerbach, Durkheim, Nietzsche and, to some extent, Freud
Philosophical considerations of religious belief by Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Russell and Mackie

Thank you.

There is quite a wide area of reasons you gave. There are not individual building blocks that are mutually exclusive but a mixture of beliefs that incrementally builds and solidify into what we view as consistencies and 'truths'.

As much I have been a believer all my life (even though I had a lot less knowledge then) I have found (and I repeat again and again) the fairly in depth explanation by Jeffrey Lang in the YouTube video 'the Purpose of Life'. The Purpose of Life!

The purpose of life, our eternal question. In my life, all 49 years of it I have yet to find anything like it. The fact that it was a personal journey made it all the more intetesting and incredible. Something that I myself as a born muslim missed.

With that as a starting, the purpose of life, then we open ourselves for the possibilities to find our Creator.

Without that as a basis, it will be like trying to find something that is so convoluted and confusing especially with all information available that is already at the peak of arguments...

:peace:

[Zafran]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


:peace:

salaam

Because a l lot of atheists are philosophical materialists.

[Pygoscelis]

I find this Odd - You have clearly heard of the philosophers and philosophical arguments for God that are based on Logic and reason. So you cant say its just "faith" and "emotion". Logical fallacy can be chucked at pretty much any argument.

What do you have in mind? The best "logical" arguments I have heard are the Kalam Argument and Pascal's Wager, both of which are deeply flawed (and I can take you through why if you like). Did you have something else in mind? Perhaps something I haven't heard?

We also know "evidence" itself that atheists claim to want can be pretty far fetched - especially when they believe in many things with out the same "evidence".

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. I don't need much evidence from you to believe that you are the gender you say that you are and that you live where you say that you do, so long as the gender and place exist. If you told me that you were from Middle Earth and were a Hobbit... then I'd be far less likely to believe it, as I doubt either is possible. Also not much is riding on the claim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt absent anything outlandish. If I have reason to question it later, I will. God isn't like that. God is a much more outlandish and fantastic claim.

I would actually settle for some very basic and simple evidence though, and if a God actually exists and wants to be known, it wouldn't be so hard to find. Fact is that whether or not you believe in a God, the world looks pretty much how we'd expect it to look if there wasn't one. This so-called God purportedly communicates to us not through making us know things, not through writing in the clouds or something, but by some humans long ago writing in a book... indistinguishable from some humans just writing in a book with no such divine guidance or command. Meanwhile we have "god's creation" claimed to be for our benefit and perfect, and including everything from botflies and wasps that eat their prey from the inside out to children with cancer.

[Pygoscelis]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


:peace:

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

[greenhill]

I don't know for sure, but I am off the opinion that the major points would be the creation story offered by the people of the Books that is countered by the Big Bang and evolution theories.

Would you agree with that? Everything else will be the philosophies provided by various thinkers?

Would that be a fair general classification?


:peace:

[Serinity]

While I do believe in Allah, and have my reasons. I do understand where you guys are coming from..

So questions are basically like this:

Belief in God, why believe in God when there is no proof? (There is: The creation - our existence)

But you want to like see God 100% with your own eyes right? Not gonna happen. The signs are plenty - what signs? Everything that has been created.

All I can say is that to continue to be curious and sceptic - and search for God anyway. There isn't much in saying "Oh God, help me" and not trying to do anything.

Why waste out on using your brain, and searching for truth? Just like in a math's equation, there is only one answer. 2+2=4 and never 2+2=5

The Pascal's wager thing requires one to turn off their brains - we are not saying that. Think and reason.

Be sceptic, the Truth is out there. Just like we feel there might be other life out there, though we may see them not. But I find it quite arrogant to assume, Whatever you see- exists. Whatever you don't - doesn't.

We are not the one's to choose what exists and what doesn't. And as much as you'd like to think that we Believe in Allah on blind faith - there is reason. And the fact that we've been created, by the fact we exist.

Haven't you guys pondered the possibility of a herafter, and the Existence of One God? Explore.

The Brain is God's creation, as such, the religion of God, must coincide with the nature of the brain....... Tho there may be things that are beyond your capability. Like you don't see the Akhira, but it exists.

It is like a child questioning the doctor "Why are you cutting that leg?!" but it was all to remove cancer. my point is, there are things that you don't know, that are out of your capability of thought.

Try ask God: "Oh God, if you are there, then guide me, guide me to You" And start using your brain while keep saying "Guide me," anything that'd satisfy you to believe.

you guys seem to rely on logic - tho relying solely on your senses is quite, how do I put it? The fact that you(that is the vibe I get) are like "whatever I can see exists, whatever I can't doesn't" is pretty arrogant. There was a time when we didn't know about the respiratory system, or much about nature. yet it existed.


May Allah guide you. Ameen.

[greenhill]

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

I was just drawing your attention to a simple cross reference. I was not giving an all in one answer.

The prophet claimed that he went on a night journey to a certain place. Hardly believable.

To show sincerity he recalled seeing a caravan and cited it. Nobody knew of this and subsequently found to be true when that caravan arrived.

That is all. So the scrutiny is about the winged horse. Not about the message or the fact the the caravan did arrive..

So we are not really looking at the proof that was given. Those people did arrive. Then go on to question how he got the answer? Ignoring the point that he did most likely travelled that night in a way incomprehensible to us.. after all, he only wanted to convey a message.

Got to remember that he was married to a wealthy widow and was a up amd coming successful merchant but chose to live the hardship life as was commanded by Allah and was charitable with his possession and died with zero wealth.

:peace:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You named some of them and actually pointed at there arguments. No mention of emotion.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The philosophers I mentioned heavily criticised standard arguments supporting God's existence, yet you apparently wish to bring them in to support the believer's position. How?

Please be specific with what you are talking about.

I was thinking about our ancestors 2000 years ago, that you or me have no record of or have never seen and yet some how we believe they existed with absolute certainty. Unless you believe its as far fetched as the winged horse?

Again, you've lost me. Are you saying that believing people existed 2000 years ago is somehow comparable to believing in God?

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Winged horses do not exist and never have. It may have been a remarkable thing that he arrvied in a particular place at a particular time, but there will be a simpler explanation that doesn't rely on positing the existence of a magical flying horse.

Be sceptic, the Truth is out there. Just like we feel there might be other life out there, though we may see them not. But I find it quite arrogant to assume, Whatever you see- exists. Whatever you don't - doesn't.

Being sceptical leads to disbelief in God almost by definition, so it's surprising to see you recommend it.

Perhaps it is arrogant of you to assume that atheists do in fact believe that whatever they see exists and whatever they can't doesn't. I believe in plenty of things that I can't see with my own eyes.

For instance:

• Oxygen
• Australia
• The planet Neptune
• My own brain
• The fact that dinosaurs existed
• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

There is strong evidence for all of these things, and some of them can be measured, observed and tested very precisely. The fact that I can't see them now doesn't mean they don't exist. None of them is comparable to belief in God, who cannot be measured or observed in any way.

There was a time when we didn't know about the respiratory system, or much about nature. yet it existed.

Well, as soon as convincing evidence for God arrives, then I will have to change my mind. Until then, I'm going to follow your advice and remain sceptical.

Peace

[sister herb]

• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

The fact that God loves you.

I see those two things comparable. But of course you can easily see that your girlfriend exists, I don´t deny this. Imagine the existence of God of course demands a lot of more.

;D

[Serinity]

Greetings,


There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The philosophers I mentioned heavily criticised standard arguments supporting God's existence, yet you apparently wish to bring them in to support the believer's position. How?

Please be specific with what you are talking about.



Again, you've lost me. Are you saying that believing people existed 2000 years ago is somehow comparable to believing in God?



Winged horses do not exist and never have. It may have been a remarkable thing that he arrvied in a particular place at a particular time, but there will be a simpler explanation that doesn't rely on positing the existence of a magical flying horse.



Being sceptical leads to disbelief in God almost by definition, so it's surprising to see you recommend it.

Perhaps it is arrogant of you to assume that atheists do in fact believe that whatever they see exists and whatever they can't doesn't. I believe in plenty of things that I can't see with my own eyes.

For instance:

• Oxygen
• Australia
• The planet Neptune
• My own brain
• The fact that dinosaurs existed
• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

There is strong evidence for all of these things, and some of them can be measured, observed and tested very precisely. The fact that I can't see them now doesn't mean they don't exist. None of them is comparable to belief in God, who cannot be measured or observed in any way.



Well, as soon as convincing evidence for God arrives, then I will have to change my mind. Until then, I'm going to follow your advice and remain sceptical.

Peace

But what do you want of proof to believe in God? Have you ever questioned whether it is you that is the problem?

I remember once my relative said "God will always wait for you, you just have to make the move"

I find it, although I can't put it in words that, "Whatever I see, exists, whatever I can't, doesn't" - flawed. It gives off the vibe that you rely on your senses 100% or on science 100%. Take science, 100 years ago, they thought the sky was hold up by mountains (or whatever) would you believe that?

Or if a radio said "2 miles a head there is an accident, take the nearest exit" would you say "meh, I can't see it! I won't believe it till I see it!" and then you drive.. And then you say "oh!! How I wish I should have taken that exit!"

You seek concrete PHYSICAL or any convincing evidence, right?

it has to be reliable, but when has science ever been reliable? I see science as a tool - a good one, but it may also be a bad one. What they say of today, may be wrong tomorrow, because of more knowledge.

I find this mindset, wishy washy.

May Allah guide you and all of us. Ameen.

[greenhill]

My point is not about the winged horse.

It was a description of his transport. It would, I presume, be the nearest analogy.

The question is not about the existence or non existence of the winged horse.

The point is about his message. The ordering of stuff that had been sent down piece meal up to then. The place of the 'disclosure' of information has a different story leading up to it hence it required for the prophet to go and meet his maker (similar to when Moses went for 40 days).

So when they asked he explained, and he spoke of the caravan. It appeared to be true. Then, how did he know?

The winged horse is irrelevant already. He saw the caravan. They arrived. Whether it was a winged horse or anything else for that matter, it had no bearing in the development of the deen. It was the message, not the vessel that should be pondered on.

:peace:

[Bhabha]

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

If you are a skeptic and need actual "proof" just visit Mecca itself and see the water that springs in the middle of the desert and how it has not stopped running, this water came out as a means to quench the thirst of Haggar who was left with her son Ishmael. This is a miracle, still running through the lands of Saudi. Imagine, water in the middle of a supposed barren and dry land, still continues to run today.

[sister herb]

^^ I afraid kind of proof wouldn´t make an atheist any assured as he only would tells you about the groundwater beds under the deserts which sometimes pierce the shell of the ground...

Where we see a miracle, they see only "the natural phenomenons".

[Pygoscelis]

It isn't like the writers of these stories didn't know what could be convincing. They added such things to the stories (to which nobody else on earth who should have seen it recorded it). Split the moon in two or part the Red Sea by sheer willpower, and I'll have to seriously reconsider my position.

[sister herb]

Nah, you just would wait that scientists will find the explanation for the splitted moon or shared Red Sea (what about the radical change in the magnetic field for example?). That´s how those skeptics do for every miracles already. ;)

[M.I.A.]

Ok then here we go...

Robots - Have a creator
Humans - Created by chance

Computers - Have a creator
Human Brains - Created by chance

Operating Systems, Android Systems, IOS Systems - Have a creator
Digestive Systems, Muscular Systems, Nervous Systems,
Reproductive Systems, Urinary Systems, Skeletal Systems,
Cardiovascular Systems, Respiratory Systems, Endocrine Systems, etc. - CREATED BY CHANCE

What more arguments do you need to define the dumbness of Atheists?!

Well I agree and then some..

Technological advances are exactly that.. Improvement and development of previous ideas and technology..

And so, even evolution is guided.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I find it, although I can't put it in words that, "Whatever I see, exists, whatever I can't, doesn't" - flawed.

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote in my previous post. This is not what I believe, and if you continue to assume that it is then we may as well finish the discussion.

It gives off the vibe that you rely on your senses 100% or on science 100%. Take science, 100 years ago, they thought the sky was hold up by mountains (or whatever) would you believe that?

First of all, scientists did not believe the sky was held up by mountains a hundred years ago. Secondly, science evolves, and in deciding what my beliefs are I would follow the evidence available at the time.

There used to be a scientific theory to do with combustion, which stated that an element called phlogiston was contained inside burning objects and released as they burned. We now know that this isn't true, but, based on the available evidence, many intelligent people believed this theory. Had I lived then, there is every chance I would have believed it too.

In fact, I have often thought that if I had been alive in the Middle Ages, I would have been a monk. Monasteries used to be intellectual centres in Europe, and certain monks would be among the relatively few people in their societies who could read and write. I also think that, given the evidence available at the time, I might well have believed in God as well. Imagine that! :nervous:

Or if a radio said "2 miles a head there is an accident, take the nearest exit" would you say "meh, I can't see it! I won't believe it till I see it!" and then you drive.. And then you say "oh!! How I wish I should have taken that exit!"

Can you not see that the radio announcement counts as evidence here? There is no compelling reason for the traffic announcer to lie, is there? If they routinely lied about traffic events, people would not trust their information and the station would suffer as a result.

You seek concrete PHYSICAL or any convincing evidence, right?

I seek convincing evidence, yes. It doesn't have to be physical.

it has to be reliable, but when has science ever been reliable?

The fact that we are having this conversation now is a demonstration that science is reliable. Scientists designed and built the machines and networks we are using, and they will continue to refine and improve them as time goes on. The fact that science makes discoveries and evolves makes it a growing body of knowledge, it doesn't mean it's unreliable. It gets results.

My point is not about the winged horse.

It was a description of his transport. It would, I presume, be the nearest analogy.

The question is not about the existence or non existence of the winged horse.

My point definitely is about the winged horse. Your religion asks you to believe things which are not true, and this is one of them. It's no good saying "that's not the important part of the story" or "it must be an analogy" - why believe it when you know it isn't true?

Peace

[Serinity]

That seals it for me. you may believe whatever the scientists come up with, but I don't base my trust on science 100%.

I mean the credibility of science is as such I'd never base my reality on it, or more accurately, I would not base my beliefs on it. I'd rather think for myself.

Yeah, of course if science said "the wind comes from [location]" it might be wrong, but given the evidence, I believe that. But when given the unreliability of science, or more accurately, the limitations of science, I don't base my reality off of it, solely.

Man don't know everything, and science is limited. What may have been true, according to science, may be false today. So by that, I don't trust science.

Science is a tool - it doesn't show everything, nor do I put my trust in it 100% cuz I know, that it is limited. Every man-made instrument has its limitations, cause we are ourselves limited.
I see science as a tool to discover God's creation. :) we both study the same universe but the conclusions we reach are worlds apart. wr


edit: I am sorry for assuming wrong of you. (regarding the "whatever I see exist.." thing.
May Allah grant you insight to see His signs. Ameen.

[Serinity]

My point definitely is about the winged horse. Your religion asks you to believe things which are not true, and this is one of them. It's no good saying "that's not the important part of the story" or "it must be an analogy" - why believe it when you know it isn't true?

Peace

you see, Allah can create anything, just like He SWT created the moon, the stars, the horse. he created the winged horse.

If Allah willed, He could create us with wings. The problem is not the winged horse, cuz Allah can create anything, we believe in Angels tho we see them not.

It is not outside Allah's power to create a horse with wings just as much as it isn't creating humans with wings.

What is now normal, may have been in the past science fiction. you seem to be limited by science. By that I mean, if someone said "building a floating Island is possible" you'd say "that isn't possible" but how do you know? Perhaps 40 or 100 years from now, there may be floating cars.

[Pygoscelis]

That seals it for me. you may believe whatever the scientists come up with, but I don't base my trust on science 100%.

Science is all we have for explaining how the world world. It is the only tool we've got to develop and test new knowledge and create technology. No amount of navel gazing philosophy or praying to imaginary being will do that. I don't accept the prevailing scientific understanding 100% either. That is part of what science is. It is never 100% and is always subject to being tested, revised and improved. It demands that we always keep an open mind. That is what makes is so much better than dogma, which does demand 100% adherence (without any evidence).

[Pygoscelis]

What is now normal, may have been in the past science fiction. you seem to be limited by science. By that I mean, if someone said "building a floating Island is possible" you'd say "that isn't possible" but how do you know? Perhaps 40 or 100 years from now, there may be floating cars.

The difference is that the scientific person will get there through science and actual understanding, whereas the religious person pretends we were there with magic and woo. I will take the former, the actual getting there and understanding it, every time.

[Serinity]

Science is all we have for explaining how the world world. It is the only tool we've got to develop and test new knowledge and create technology. No amount of navel gazing philosophy or praying to imaginary being will do that. I don't accept the prevailing scientific understanding 100% either. That is part of what science is. It is never 100% and is always subject to being tested, revised and improved. It demands that we always keep an open mind. That is what makes is so much better than dogma, which does demand 100% adherence (without any evidence).

I'd rather think for myself, and science does not answer everything, it can not.

It may answer the hows, but it can never answer "why was it created? why did it start?" the why and who.

and you can keep believing that we believe blindly, except that we don't. Or at least I don't.

[sister herb]

My point definitely is about the winged horse. Your religion asks you to believe things which are not true, and this is one of them. It's no good saying "that's not the important part of the story" or "it must be an analogy" - why believe it when you know it isn't true?

Peace

I don´t know where you got the winged horses to this discussion but how you can say they aren´t true or that "we know it isn´t true"? As Allah has all the power, He can easily create a winged horse which has existed only at once (if it is what Allah wants). As we believe: “His command, when He wants anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.” [36:82]

[Pygoscelis]

I'd rather think for myself, and science does not answer everything, it can not.

Thinking for yourself is the whole point of science. You don't have to take anything a scientist tells you on faith. You can go and do the same research yourself, or carefully analyze the data and research methodology yourself, criticize it, and improve on it. That is what makes it so beautiful. Critical thinking and science goes hand in hand. If you can disprove the prevailing scientific theory with better evidence and research, then you have made a scientific breakthrough and your new research becomes the new prevailing scientific theory. Science strives to eliminate the authoritarianism, "faith", tribalism, and wishful thinking found in the alternative. Physics is physics. Chemistry is Chemistry. There is no "Italian Physics" or "Hindu Chemistry".

[Serinity]

Thinking for yourself is the whole point of science. You don't have to take anything a scientist tells you on faith. You can go and do the same research yourself, or carefully analyze the data and research methodology yourself, criticize it, and improve on it. That is what makes it so beautiful. Critical thinking and science goes hand in hand. If you can disprove the prevailing scientific theory with better evidence and research, then you have made a scientific breakthrough and your new research becomes the new prevailing scientific theory. Science strives to eliminate the authoritarianism, "faith", tribalism, and wishful thinking found in the alternative. Physics is physics. Chemistry is Chemistry. There is no "Italian Physics" or "Hindu Chemistry".

Except that limiting yourself to science isn't wise. or my thing.

you seem to view the world in a materialistic sense. Anyways, faith can be many things, how you apply it is what matters. Believing whatever you are fed, is blind following, which is wrong.

if 80% of it is proven correct, then the rest 20% of which is in the unseen, is based on faith.
May Allah guide you. Ameen.

[anatolian]

It's a poetic phrase, and I expect you could read multiple meanings into it. Perhaps my life-vein is my aorta or my jugular vein? Perhaps it's a term referring to a more general life force, used in a similar figurative way to a word like "heartbeat"? Perhaps the whole phrase means that Allah is so much closer to me than I realise, that I just can't see it; yet he has been sustaining me every moment of my life.

Maybe you would like to tell me what you think it means?

Peace

Peace friend. Yes life-vein is your jugular vein. I dont know what it really means. I just wanted to know your opinion. Perhaps It means Allah is within you. If something is nearer to you than your jugular vein, that thing is indeed within you. Have you ever looked for Allah within yourself?

[Serinity]

Peace friend. Yes life-vein is your jugular vein. I dont know what it really means. I just wanted to know your opinion. Perhaps It means Allah is within you. If something is nearer to you than your jugular vein, that thing is indeed within you. Have you ever looked for Allah within yourself?

:salam:

Idk really what you mean, but Allah is above the heavens, above the Throne, afaik.

Allahu alam. but He SWT is not inside us...... Afaik.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...730&Itemid=106 Try to take a read here. It is Allah's angels that are near us, afaik.

[M.I.A.]

Greetings,



Perhaps you did not read what I wrote in my previous post. This is not what I believe, and if you continue to assume that it is then we may as well finish the discussion.



First of all, scientists did not believe the sky was held up by mountains a hundred years ago. Secondly, science evolves, and in deciding what my beliefs are I would follow the evidence available at the time.

There used to be a scientific theory to do with combustion, which stated that an element called phlogiston was contained inside burning objects and released as they burned. We now know that this isn't true, but, based on the available evidence, many intelligent people believed this theory. Had I lived then, there is every chance I would have believed it too.

In fact, I have often thought that if I had been alive in the Middle Ages, I would have been a monk. Monasteries used to be intellectual centres in Europe, and certain monks would be among the relatively few people in their societies who could read and write. I also think that, given the evidence available at the time, I might well have believed in God as well. Imagine that! :nervous:



Can you not see that the radio announcement counts as evidence here? There is no compelling reason for the traffic announcer to lie, is there? If they routinely lied about traffic events, people would not trust their information and the station would suffer as a result.



I seek convincing evidence, yes. It doesn't have to be physical.



The fact that we are having this conversation now is a demonstration that science is reliable. Scientists designed and built the machines and networks we are using, and they will continue to refine and improve them as time goes on. The fact that science makes discoveries and evolves makes it a growing body of knowledge, it doesn't mean it's unreliable. It gets results.



My point definitely is about the winged horse. Your religion asks you to believe things which are not true, and this is one of them. It's no good saying "that's not the important part of the story" or "it must be an analogy" - why believe it when you know it isn't true?

Peace

...ay yes phlogiston was widely blamed for spontaneously combusting monks..

So aangry I could jus.. And that's why ignorance is bliss.

On the subject of radio announcements.. Isn't it wierd how the entire internet floats through the air..

Seriously talk about traffic. Luckily can't see it so nothing to worry bout.

[Bhabha]

As the brother above me said, Science is not 100% factual. The scientific discoveries, the theories, the ones which have been "legitimized" go through a massive power dynamic of which information is presented, which is validated and often times which is disregarded because it is too much for people to know. If we are to decide that science is 100% factual, we disregard the things which have been promoted in the name of science, such as scientific racism... which was used to legitimate the colonization, eradication and subjugation of so many people and continues to exist within the generational minds of people who were colonized. The Quran contains knowledge that did not make sense in the minds of people more than 1,000 years ago. It contains information that is literally just beginning to make sense now.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

[Bhabha]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

We are not dismissing science, we are saying science is not 100% factual because of its nature it is (as you state) incomplete. It is by God (Allah) that human beings are guided to make these discoveries in science and to unleash their intellectual faculties. There is no impermeable barrier between science and Islam, for there are scientific items inscribed within the Qu'ran that were provided before their human discoveries were made. Everything in nature is so perfect, the way the cell works, the way a child is made. In the Qur'an there are even verses that describe in detail the formation of a child in uterus, before there were machines that could see the formation of a baby. The sight, the brain, all of the things that marvel scientists are perfect in their formation.

[MuslimInshallah]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

Hello CZ,

Mmm... I studied in the sciences. The way many people talk about science bothers me. It is invoked like a god (you can almost hear the capital S many people use when talking of it). Generally, we can talk of the scientific method of inquiry. This is just a way of trying to analyze the world around us. It's a tool. And like other tools, it can be used by different people, including theists. (twinkle) Like myself.

When people say : Science tells us X, they are often making an appeal to an authority, in a rather similar way as theists do when they refer to God. But it would be more accurate to say: humans have studied phenomenon X, and we believe that we can explain it this way... we try testing our ideas in different ways, and if the results are generally as we predicted with our explanation, we feel we are on the right track. (mildly) And our explanation can be very useful (even if it is not wholly correct all the time). But I think that one always has to keep a little corner of our mind open to seeing where our explanations don't quite work out... for these can yield even more fascinating ideas about the ways things work, that may be of use to us.

There is no problem for a Muslim to use the scientific method to try to understand the world. Indeed, there have been, and continue to be, many Muslim scientists. (smile) Personally, I like exploring this beautiful Creation with my mind. I see it as a form of worship to study and appreciate His Work. (smile) And yes, it can yield some useful things for my daily life. But it is also enjoyable to explore Creation for the sheer beauty and wonder of it.


May God Bless you, CZ.

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed there need not be any conflict between science and religion. Some of the first scientists were priests. But sometime the two do conflict.

[sister herb]

Indeed there need not be any conflict between science and religion. Some of the first scientists were priests. But sometime the two do conflict.

Also, we know the Islamic scientists. I too wonder sometimes why, when we are talking about faith and atheism, it goes so often to some kind of depate between religion and science. Why don´t we just stay on topic and talk differencies (and similarities) of faith and atheism/belief and disbelief.

[anatolian]

:salam:

Idk really what you mean, but Allah is above the heavens, above the Throne, afaik.

Allahu alam. but He SWT is not inside us...... Afaik.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...730&Itemid=106 Try to take a read here. It is Allah's angels that are near us, afaik.

Salam bro. I am gonna make another thread on that

[Serinity]

Science is a tool, and we are not saying NOT to use it, you should use it. Studying God's creation is a good thing. But taking everything as 100% factual in science is wrong.

It is a tool, like any other tool, albeit useful. The problem is when people take it as god, no difference from what the polytheists did years ago. I hate it when people can't see that. People in class take it as 100% fact some times.

I know tho, that you guys don't.
@anatolian ok,

[Pygoscelis]

Anyway, going back to the OP...

No.. Atheism is not like a fish denying the existence of water. A fish denying the existence of water would be like a human denying the existence of air (and oxygen). These things can be tested for and measured, unlike Gods.

[Serinity]

Anyway, going back to the OP...

No.. Atheism is not like a fish denying the existence of water. A fish denying the existence of water would be like a human denying the existence of air (and oxygen). These things can be tested for and measured, unlike Gods.

Before talking about religion, we talk about God, before we talk about God, we talk about proof of His existence.

To make up 'gods' is delusional, I get that.

What matters is 'how' did you come to believe in the existence of God.

If I carved a face on a huge wall of stone, and I hid the items without you knowing, and I took you to a trip and we saw the mountain, carved. Would you believe me if I said "this occured through thousands and millions of years of wind, and corrosion"

no. Why? Cause wind, etc. has not a mind of its own, to be able to make such a thing.

So my point is, we come to the conclusion of a designer, from what we have of remaints / signs.

[Pygoscelis]

If I carved a face on a huge wall of stone, and I hid the items without you knowing, and I took you to a trip and we saw the mountain, carved. Would you believe me if I said "this occured through thousands and millions of years of wind, and corrosion"

I may, especially if it was a face and if I trusted you to be honest. Paradolia of faces is especially strong in the human mind. We see faces everywhere. Remember the "face on mars"?

Now, lets say I concluded that it wasn't made by mere erosion. Why would I then skip to the conclusion that you did it? Just as why should I skip to the conclusion that a "God" created our universe? It could be space aliens from another universe. Or it could be natural forces such as evolution. Or it could have always existed. I don't pretend to know.

If we posit that there must be a beginning to all existence (which I don't know one way or the other), and if we posit a chain of sentient creators, then there had to be a first sentient creator and that sentient creator had to come to be somehow through a non-sentient creation (natural forces). And if that happens, then why posit a sentient creator, or chain of them, at all? That would only seem to overly complicate, making it less likely.

Moreover, if we had an active God that actually interacts and interfered with current human affairs, judges us, etc, then I would expect way more evidence than what I see around me in nature. And if a creator God did design all I see around me in nature, I would have to question the morality of that God, as he/she/it would have designed everything from cancer to hurricanes to insects that eat their prey from the inside out. I would also have to question the morality and sense of God that would judge me for not believing in him when he could so easily convince me. He could just make me know he's there if he's all powerful.... When I think through this I run into problem after problem for your God idea.

[Serinity]

I may, especially if it was a face and if I trusted you to be honest. Paradolia of faces is especially strong in the human mind. We see faces everywhere. Remember the "face on mars"?

Now, lets say I concluded that it wasn't made by mere erosion. Why would I then skip to the conclusion that you did it? Just as why should I skip to the conclusion that a "God" created our universe? It could be space aliens from another universe. Or it could be natural forces such as evolution. Or it could have always existed. I don't pretend to know.

If we posit that there must be a beginning to all existence (which I don't know one way or the other), and if we posit a chain of sentient creators, then there had to be a first sentient creator and that sentient creator had to come to be somehow through a non-sentient creation (natural forces). And if that happens, then why posit a sentient creator, or chain of them, at all? That would only seem to overly complicate, making it less likely.

The Creator is uncreated and uncaused, cause an endless chain of creators would result in the universe never being created. Thus it can't be. And since we're created means there is only one creator. And a creator can't be created.

[Pygoscelis]

The Creator is uncreated and uncaused, cause an endless chain of creators would result in the universe never being created. Thus it can't be. And since we're created means there is only one creator. And a creator can't be created.

Who said an endless chain? Perhaps there is one creator, perhaps there are two (the one who created us and the one who created him). Perhaps there are 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 and on and on. We don't know. But at the end of the day, if you insist that everything must be created (as opposed to always having existed) then you need a way that everything came to be, and that would include any particular creator. So at the very start, your proposed creator had to be created, and natural forces would have to be the way it happened. Maybe it turns out that WE are one of the creators (once technology is advanced enough) and this is all a time loop.

Or to put it more succinctly, if something can't come from nothing, and nothing can have existed forever, then that would include your creator God. To say otherwise is the special pleading fallacy.

[Serinity]

Who said an endless chain? Perhaps there is one creator, perhaps there are two (the one who created us and the one who created him). Perhaps there are 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 and on and on. We don't know. But at the end of the day, if you insist that everything must be created (as opposed to always having existed) then you need a way that everything came to be, and that would include any particular creator. So at the very start, your proposed creator had to be created, and natural forces would have to be the way it happened. Maybe it turns out that WE are one of the creators (once technology is advanced enough) and this is all a time loop.

Or to put it more succinctly, if something can't come from nothing, and nothing can have existed forever, then that would include your creator God. To say otherwise is the special pleading fallacy.

Once something is created, it can't be God, cause God is the Creator of everything created. God is whom we refer to as the One who created everything. He is the initiator, the originator of everything.

And you assume about God that which you've no proof. God has no beginning nor end.

My proof for God's existence is the creation. As for WHO God is, and WHAT God is, one can't assume without proof. From what I've of evidence, I can say that God created everything, and is all-knowing - all-powerful etc. Evident in creation.

you come up with all those what ifs and buts, but these are all assumptions. An assumption without evidence or proof is a lie. Cause if I say "I can fly" and I don't show you it, then I am lying.

'nothing' is by definition 'nothing'. And don't jump to conclusions so hastily. We work from what we have and can see - to deduce.

From what I can see - someone had to have created this - why? Cause everything with a beginning must have a cause. Too complex to have come without a cause, or an unconscious being.

Don't you agree that someone has to have made this universe? If so who is that 'someone' who we call God? That is the question you've to ask yourself. Don't jump to conclusions so rapidly.

Anyways, reflect and contemplate, and keep asking yourself "how did this come?" etc.

[Pygoscelis]

Don't you agree that someone has to have made this universe?

No. I don't agree. I don't pretend to know one way or the other, and the data I have been able to review doesn't point in that direction.

If so who is that 'someone' who we call God? That is the question you've to ask yourself. Don't jump to conclusions so rapidly.

The irony in this statement in incredibly thick. You are the one claiming a magical spiritual being that created all and claiming specific things about what it is and what it wants, etc. I make no such claims. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I am merely taking your own unproved claims and applying some analysis to them.

Anyways, reflect and contemplate, and keep asking yourself "how did this come?" etc.

I do so with Science. And I know I will never have a perfect and complete answer, always changing my understanding as better data comes in. This is the difference between science/reason and "revelation"/faith.

[IrfanUllahKhan]

Dawah to all non-Muslims (including athiests) should be made in a very ahsan (beautiful) manner!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread.

Science seems to be blowing in the wind, when we talk about God. How the universe came to be is history, can science prove beyond a doubt, how the universe and life came into being without God?

Evolution sounds like a very convincing theory, but with the complexities of life we see, how could evolution happen without the guiding hand of God?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Science seems to be blowing in the wind, when we talk about God. How the universe came to be is history, can science prove beyond a doubt, how the universe and life came into being without God?

Not necessarily, no. What we do know however is that all of our scientific understanding at present works perfectly well without needing to assume the existence of God.

Evolution sounds like a very convincing theory, but with the complexities of life we see, how could evolution happen without the guiding hand of God?

The simple answer is with the provision of lots of time. The four and a half billion year period that our planet has existed has enabled a huge number of species to arise, evolve and become extinct.

If you do want to credit God with all of this, since an estimated 99% of all the species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct, you have to conclude that he is either an incompetent designer or simply very wasteful indeed.

Peace

[Serinity]

No. I don't agree. I don't pretend to know one way or the other, and the data I have been able to review doesn't point in that direction.



The irony in this statement in incredibly thick. You are the one claiming a magical spiritual being that created all and claiming specific things about what it is and what it wants, etc. I make no such claims. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I am merely taking your own unproved claims and applying some analysis to them.



I do so with Science. And I know I will never have a perfect and complete answer, always changing my understanding as better data comes in. This is the difference between science/reason and "revelation"/faith.

my claims are based on reflection of our existence etc. It isn't something I just made up. If anything, you are the one coming with all the ifs and buts, etc.
what I know of Allah is from the Quran. I do not speak from myself. I know Allah is all-powerful, because so He said in the Quran. and also seeing around me etc.

Whatever comes from us - can't be truth. Ie. we are not the determiner of truth.

I find it more likely for there to be a God, especially from seeing around me.

I've ran out of interest to talk about this. Perhaps someone else may continue.
May Allah guide you. Ameen.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don´t know where you got the winged horses to this discussion but how you can say they aren´t true or that "we know it isn´t true"? As Allah has all the power, He can easily create a winged horse which has existed only at once (if it is what Allah wants). As we believe: “His command, when He wants anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.” [36:82]

The winged horse entered the discussion because it is one of the things your religion asks you to believe which is not true.

If you're going to claim that it is true, then you are claiming something extraordinary, and you will need equally extraordinary evidence to defend your claim. If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence.

You may as well say that Superman exists because you saw him in a movie. In fact, that would be better evidence for the existence of Superman than what you have here. At least we would be able to see moving images of him.

Given that a winged horse is genetically impossible, and given that you have no good evidence for it, then why believe it?

Peace

[ardianto]

Greetings,



The winged horse entered the discussion because it is one of the things your religion asks you to believe which is not true.

If you're going to claim that it is true, then you are claiming something extraordinary, and you will need equally extraordinary evidence to defend your claim. If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence.

You may as well say that Superman exists because you saw him in a movie. In fact, that would be better evidence for the existence of Superman than what you have here. At least we would be able to see moving images of him.

Given that a winged horse is genetically impossible, and given that you have no good evidence for it, then why believe it?

Peace

Greetings.

Allah can create a creature that look like a horse with wings. But He decided to not create it. That's why winged horse never exist. The image of winged horse with woman face that you can see in classical Islamic art is purely based on human creativity. There's no evidence from Islamic religious scripture that prophet Muhammad rode this creature in Isra Miraj journey. That's why many Muslim scholars in Indonesia forbid people draw winged horse like this in depicting Isra Miraj.

Peace too.

[Serinity]

Greetings,



The winged horse entered the discussion because it is one of the things your religion asks you to believe which is not true.

If you're going to claim that it is true, then you are claiming something extraordinary, and you will need equally extraordinary evidence to defend your claim. If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence.

You may as well say that Superman exists because you saw him in a movie. In fact, that would be better evidence for the existence of Superman than what you have here. At least we would be able to see moving images of him.

Given that a winged horse is genetically impossible, and given that you have no good evidence for it, then why believe it?

Peace

Nothing is impossible for Allah. What you deem as impossible, may infact be possible. In this case, yes, if Allah wills, a horse with wings, is possible. Allah created the genetics.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Nothing is impossible for Allah. What you deem as impossible, may infact be possible. In this case, yes, if Allah wills, a horse with wings, is possible. Allah created the genetics.

As I said before: If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence. Unless you can come up with better evidence, then there is no reason for any sensible person to believe it. I am glad to see that ardianto doesn't believe it.

Peace

[sister herb]

Greetings,



As I said before: If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence. Unless you can come up with better evidence, then there is no reason for any sensible person to believe it. I am glad to see that ardianto doesn't believe it.

Peace

Actually, we have an evidence about this "another supernatural creature which can create anything He likes". We call it as the Quran.

;)

[Pygoscelis]

^ And czgibson has evidence that Superman is real. He calls it D.C. Comics.

[ardianto]

Allah can create anything, but He create His creation with the way and form that can be understood by human mind. Allah did not create winged horse because horse bone structure is not designed to have wings and then fly. If Allah created horse-like creature with wings, then this creature must be look odd. With horse head, four footed, but had bird body.

About bouraq, the winged horse with woman face in classical Islamic art. There's no any hadith that describe bouraq like this. This depiction actually created by Muslim artist in the Golden Age which they were inspired by Pegasus. The Golden Age itself was the age of open-mindedness which Muslims opened their mind to receive knowledge and thought from other societies then develop it to be more advanced.

[Serinity]

^ And czgibson has evidence that Superman is real. He calls it D.C. Comics.

The ignorance in this is thick. This is the example of someone who discards reason or refuse to reason/think.

[ardianto]

Greetings,



As I said before: If the best evidence you have is that another supernatural creature (which you have no evidence for) can create anything he likes, then that is some pretty weak evidence. Unless you can come up with better evidence, then there is no reason for any sensible person to believe it. I am glad to see that ardianto doesn't believe it.

Peace

Greetings czgibson.

Maybe you are wonder how can a sensible person like me believe in God although I don't find material evidence for this belief?. ..... It's because He answered my prayer.

I have ever experienced few events that "too perfect for a coincidence", and made me got what I requested in my prayer. It made me realize that there is a divine power that arrange something and make it happen.

The only way to find God is through prayer. If you cannot find God, it's because you never pray.

No, no, I do not mean to urge you to become religious. There is no compulsion to embrace religion. But I hope this explanation can make you understand what makes religious people believe in God.

Peace. :)

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

The comparative religion section is on a 15 day trial, this thread could be doomed to self destruct shortly, but life carries on:)

Not necessarily, no. What we do know however is that all of our scientific understanding at present works perfectly well without needing to assume the existence of God.

We are here today, so something must have had no beginning or something came from nothing, is there a third option? Whether that first cause was God or a carbon particle, science has no answer, science may be working perfectly well, but it seems woefully inadequate.

The simple answer is with the provision of lots of time. The four and a half billion year period that our planet has existed has enabled a huge number of species to arise, evolve and become extinct.

I have followed such arguments, but the detail of how the eye evolved is not convincing, but the greater challenge for blind nature, is how did the skeletal system evolve without a guiding hand?

If you do want to credit God with all of this, since an estimated 99% of all the species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct, you have to conclude that he is either an incompetent designer or simply very wasteful indeed.

Not really, both you and I will be extinct within the next hundred years, what is the difference?

I think God set mankind a challenge, how do we get on with each other despite all our differences. How should we be fair and just to each other?

When we mess it all up, God can put all things right in a greater good life after death.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Maybe you are wonder how can a sensible person like me believe in God although I don't find material evidence for this belief?. ..... It's because He answered my prayer.

I have ever experienced few events that "too perfect for a coincidence", and made me got what I requested in my prayer. It made me realize that there is a divine power that arrange something and make it happen.

I still call it coincidence, and I think it would be even more extraordinary if surprising coincidences like this never happened.

I also still believe you are a sensible person, as well as kind. When you offered to pay Eric H's jizya the other day I was on the verge of standing up next to my computer to give you a round of applause.

The only way to find God is through prayer. If you cannot find God, it's because you never pray.

During my time at Catholic school I had plenty of opportunities to try out prayer, with plenty of advice from monks and priests (I have known many). No results.

No, no, I do not mean to urge you to become religious. There is no compulsion to embrace religion. But I hope this explanation can make you understand what makes religious people believe in God.

I'm glad you feel your belief gives you meaning in your life. I have just never seen any evidence that is remotely compelling.

Peace

[anatolian]

Love requires the Lover...Existence requires the Exister.

[M.I.A.]

Where did the universe come from?
Vs.
Where did God come from?

..the ultimate two sided checkmate.. Probably

[anatolian]

If God came from somewhere He would not be God...

[Bhabha]

Question. If the atheist does not believe in God or the afterlife and as such would not believe in heaven or hell. How does the atheist derive morality, if by virtue of his belief he would not require morality since he does not believe in heaven or hell and as such no punishments that would construct his moral choice.

[Pygoscelis]

Question. If the atheist does not believe in God or the afterlife and as such would not believe in heaven or hell. How does the atheist derive morality, if by virtue of his belief he would not require morality since he does not believe in heaven or hell and as such no punishments that would construct his moral choice.

Is the threat of hell and bribe of heaven really what compels you to be good to your fellow humans? Is obedience to power (God) really what brings out kindness from you? If you realized God doesn't exist, would you suddenly start robbing, raping, killing and stealing? If God demanded that you kill your son or fly a plane into a building, would you do it? I doubt it, but if so... I have to be weary of you... and asking the question of "how can atheists be moral without obedience to God" is a bad sign.

If you are being nice to me just because God tells you to, that isn't anywhere near as moral as being nice to me because you are just a nice person, and being nice feels good. Good for goodness sake, not for God's sake. Obedience is not morality.

I suspect that you area actually kind and do good for mostly the same reasons that I do, with or without a God belief. Human beings evolved an innate sense of empathy (seeing yourselves in others and feeling their pain and suffering, so wanting it to end) and an innate sense of fairness. It isn't unique to humans either. You can see it in dolphins, chimps, dogs, and most other social animals. We've even seen it in lab rats, giving up rewards to instead save a rat in another chamber.

Our empathic sense and sense of fairness is needed to keep the pack/pod/tribe functioning well. It forms the base level of what we call morality. People knew it wasn't cool to kill their families and friends before religion became a thing. We didn't wander around for milenia before suddenly being told "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" and suddenly realizing killing people was bad.

One of my biggest concerns about religion, and especially Abrahamic religion such as Christianity and Islam, is this confusion of obedience to power for morality. That along with the tribalism religion fosters can lead to all sorts of nasty mindsets and behaviours, from denying homosexuals equal rights to murdering apostates.

Finally, the lack of an afterlife makes THIS life that much more important. This life is not a waiting room or testing chamber. This life is not a temporary shell to be discarded. This life is all that we get, so we need to make the very best of it. There is no heaven after death, so we have to make this life as heavenly as we can for one another.

[M.I.A.]

...the court of law says "thou shalt not muder"

...once in prison you can debate forced morality and obedience..

:|

...although thinking it a test is probably self deluding..

Ssshhh here come the skrews.. To teach us about morality.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The comparative religion section is on a 15 day trial, this thread could be doomed to self destruct shortly, but life carries on:)

Thanks for the reminder. I think it's going well enough, don't you?

We are here today, so something must have had no beginning or something came from nothing, is there a third option?

We simply don't know.

Whether that first cause was God or a carbon particle, science has no answer, science may be working perfectly well, but it seems woefully inadequate.

I agree. The fact that science is incomplete is unsatisfactory, but that doesn't mean we should denigrate or ignore it. That is what compels scientists to continue with research - the hope that they will keep discovering more.

The fact that religion offers an answer to this question might satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy those of us who are non-believers, because, to us, although we have no answer, a wrong answer isn't somehow automatically better.

I have followed such arguments, but the detail of how the eye evolved is not convincing, but the greater challenge for blind nature, is how did the skeletal system evolve without a guiding hand?

What problems do you have with the evolution of the eye or skeleton? Nature presents a wide variety of both. Surely it is easy to comprehend the gradual advance in species from simple examples to increasing complexity? Both of these aspects of anatomy have been widely studied.

Not really, both you and I will be extinct within the next hundred years, what is the difference?

You and I do not constitute an entire species. That's a very big difference.

Peace

[Bhabha]

Is the threat of hell and bribe of heaven really what compels you to be good to your fellow humans? Is obedience to power (God) really what brings out kindness from you? If you realized God doesn't exist, would you suddenly start robbing, raping, killing and stealing? If God demanded that you kill your son or fly a plane into a building, would you do it? I doubt it, but if so... I have to be weary of you... and asking the question of "how can atheists be moral without obedience to God" is a bad sign.

If you are being nice to me just because God tells you to, that isn't anywhere near as moral as being nice to me because you are just a nice person, and being nice feels good. Good for goodness sake, not for God's sake. Obedience is not morality.

I suspect that you area actually kind and do good for mostly the same reasons that I do, with or without a God belief. Human beings evolved an innate sense of empathy (seeing yourselves in others and feeling their pain and suffering, so wanting it to end) and an innate sense of fairness. It isn't unique to humans either. You can see it in dolphins, chimps, dogs, and most other social animals. We've even seen it in lab rats, giving up rewards to instead save a rat in another chamber.

Our empathic sense and sense of fairness is needed to keep the pack/pod/tribe functioning well. It forms the base level of what we call morality. People knew it wasn't cool to kill their families and friends before religion became a thing. We didn't wander around for milenia before suddenly being told "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" and suddenly realizing killing people was bad.

One of my biggest concerns about religion, and especially Abrahamic religion such as Christianity and Islam, is this confusion of obedience to power for morality. That along with the tribalism religion fosters can lead to all sorts of nasty mindsets and behaviours, from denying homosexuals equal rights to murdering apostates.

Finally, the lack of an afterlife makes THIS life that much more important. This life is not a waiting room or testing chamber. This life is not a temporary shell to be discarded. This life is all that we get, so we need to make the very best of it. There is no heaven after death, so we have to make this life as heavenly as we can for one another.

Have you ever read Dostoevsky? Morality as derived from Socrates if we take the philosophical approach is what humans, and as such would consider good or evil. Correct? If a human being, considers the killing of another as a means to redress injustices, they have assured that their moral position is that which considers killing for justice is good and as such is morally sound. If the person perceives that killing another who has committed wrong to them is good, this is according to the conception of morality (derived from a philosophical standpoint) that it is morally acceptable and thus permissible to kill.

There seems to be the assumption that tribes / pods existed without some sort of boundaries that would structure their cohabitation and relationships. However, this is a disregard for the historical account of many civilizations, who have all existed with the understanding that there is either a God, or gods (as deities) which act as their overseer. From the Mayans, to the Aztecs, to indigenous communities in North America, to tribes spanning across the bulk of Africa, to Asia, to the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. There has always existed a relationship that establishes the understanding that there is a superior deity to whom we have to give an explanation regarding our behavior on earth. God, the afterlife and as such the punishments for misbehaving in on earth have been present throughout historical analysis of the major and to some extent the minor civilizations expressing this connection.

Civilizations, people would not exist and would not be able to co-exist without structures and laws that dictate their limits. Why? "For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like. - Thomas Hobbes

Our natural inclinations are not to do good, our natural inclinations of pride, vanity, greed, lust, gluttony are seen all around. We have laws that emulate the relationship between God and his/her servant, the fact that we cannot take "justice into our hands" but leave it to the law, is an emulation of this kind of relationship. It is not up to the citizen to judge and thus cast punishment to the person who commits a crime, because they will be judged by the person in power, the state or the leader. Where do you think this kind of design came from? If not from the evolution of systems that initially established a relationship between God and his/her servants?

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions. Perhaps it could be argued that "God" was taken out of the equation of morality with the inscription of laws into legal doctrines and the division of the religion from politics. You might be a good person, (good is a religious term b.t.w), but if we are dealing with finance, if I am allowing you to talk to my family, trusting you with something, how can I measure your intentions since you do not believe you will be judged or punished were you commit wrong in the transactions? There is nothing from limiting you to transgress my trust, because morality for you in this case is thin as opposed to a thicker concept of morality.

[ardianto]

Greetings,



I still call it coincidence, and I think it would be even more extraordinary if surprising coincidences like this never happened.

I also still believe you are a sensible person, as well as kind. When you offered to pay Eric H's jizya the other day I was on the verge of standing up next to my computer to give you a round of applause.



During my time at Catholic school I had plenty of opportunities to try out prayer, with plenty of advice from monks and priests (I have known many). No results.



I'm glad you feel your belief gives you meaning in your life. I have just never seen any evidence that is remotely compelling.

Peace

Greetings,

there was a question that came into my mind, why there are many conflicts that backed by religion, between people from different religions, or between people from same religion but have different understanding. However, different than Atheists who concluded that religion is the cause of these conflicts, I concluded, not the religion itself that become the cause, but the religious people wrong understanding on religion that become the cause.

I always believe that religion teaches love and care, and I hope every religious person realize it. So, there will be no violence that backed by religion.

Frankly, I see Pygoscelis signature is interesting "Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right. Never confuse the two.". Yes, there are religious people who oppress other people as form of obedience. But obedience to who?. To God?. No, no, they just obey some religious leaders, but the do not realize it. That's why in one thread I remind Muslims to not attached only to one or few scholars, but must learn Islam from many more scholars. So they will easily know if some scholars actually twist Islam only to justify their own agenda.

I can understand if you cannot find God although you pray when you studied in Catholic school. I myself studied in Catholic elementary school, and I still Muslim.

Peace.

[Pygoscelis]

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions. Perhaps it could be argued that "God" was taken out of the equation of morality with the inscription of laws into legal doctrines and the division of the religion from politics. You might be a good person, (good is a religious term b.t.w), but if we are dealing with finance, if I am allowing you to talk to my family, trusting you with something, how can I measure your intentions since you do not believe you will be judged or punished were you commit wrong in the transactions? There is nothing from limiting you to transgress my trust, because morality for you in this case is thin as opposed to a thicker concept of morality.

First, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, though I did answer yours.

You say that you could not trust me and be weary of me, because I do not fear a supreme being. I say that I could not trust you and would be weary of you because you confuse obedience and fear of a supreme being with morality. What is to stop you from doing a horrible thing if you become convinced that your supreme being demands it? Would you kill your son for God? Would you fly a plane into a building for God?

[Bhabha]

First, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, though I did answer yours.

You say that you could not trust me and be weary of me, because I do not fear a supreme being. I say that I could not trust you and would be weary of you because you confuse obedience and fear of a supreme being with morality. What is to stop you from doing a horrible thing if you become convinced that your supreme being demands it? Would you kill your son for God? Would you fly a plane into a building for God?

Fly a plane into a building for God, I see some hinting here at something. ^o)

Your same assumption about me is the same assumption I have of you, as someone whose morality is not guided and thus is random. However, mine is within limits you would be able to reconcile and see. Like the law that stipulates the punishment for homicide, it is not a random law, but it is reasonable. If there was no law that would stipulate the punishment for homicide, how would people who transgress be dealt with?

If you do not believe in God, what do you believe in? How can I know what your limitations and boundaries are?

[Pygoscelis]

If there was no law that would stipulate the punishment for homicide, how would people who transgress be dealt with?

If you do not believe in God, what do you believe in? How can I know what your limitations and boundaries are?

There are laws against homocide because we want to live in a safe society, and we work as a group to keep each other safe. Most of us don't need such laws, and will not go killing each other though even without such laws, because we have an empathic sense and recoil at the idea. You can know what my limitations and boundaries are by talking to me and getting to know me, the same way I can do with you. It is no different. You can't tell just by knowing I have no God belief that I am a good person, and I can not tell just by knowing that you have a God belief that you are a good person. God belief is not a marker of human decency. Believers can be very kind and gentle and caring. But God belief has inspired plenty of people to do plenty of horrific things as well.

Again, when people ask how can we have good without God, I am immediately put on guard. I see it as a warning of socipathy. How can I trust or let my guard down around somebody with no sense of empathy or right and wrong outside of obedience to power? Again, would you kill your son if God ordered it? Would you drink poisoned cool-aid and feed it to your children if God said to? Would you fly a plane into a building if God said to? Would you strap a bomb to your chest? Kill an apostate? Become bigoted against homosexuals? Burn a witch? Rip a still beating heart out of a virgin (going way back to the Aztecs for that one)? What would stop you from doing these things if you came to believe that God demanded it of you? If you have a strong sense of empathy, independent of your obedience to power, you may be able to resist.

I believe that we all have this evolved sense of empathy and fairness, and that religion (as well as nationalism and some other methods) is used to bury it deep down where some folks can no longer see it. If you take your sense of right and wrong from a book or from an order, instead of from yourself, you potentially become a very dangerous tool.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Have you ever read Dostoevsky?

I've read Crime and Punishment, Notes from the Underground and The Brothers Karamazov and enjoyed them very much. Thank you for asking. :)

Morality as derived from Socrates if we take the philosophical approach is what humans, and as such would consider good or evil. Correct?

I've also read much of Plato, but I don't really understand this question. Is there a word missing?

There seems to be the assumption that tribes / pods existed without some sort of boundaries that would structure their cohabitation and relationships.

Tribes without rules and boundaries would die out relatively quickly. This is one reason why (according to Émile Durkheim and others) religion was invented.

I don't know who you think is making the wrong assumption that you mention.

It is not up to the citizen to judge and thus cast punishment to the person who commits a crime, because they will be judged by the person in power, the state or the leader. Where do you think this kind of design came from? If not from the evolution of systems that initially established a relationship between God and his/her servants?

I have no doubt that you are right. Religion was absolutely necessary in the early stages of our species, and we would probably all have died out without it. None of this means that religion is true, however.

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions.

There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science" New York Times Magazine, 1930

Peace

[Bhabha]

Greetings,



I've read Crime and Punishment, Notes from the Underground and The Brothers Karamazov and enjoyed them very much. Thank you for asking. :)



I've also read much of Plato, but I don't really understand this question. Is there a word missing?



Tribes without rules and boundaries would die out relatively quickly. This is one reason why (according to Émile Durkheim and others) religion was invented.

I don't know who you think is making the wrong assumption that you mention.



I have no doubt that you are right. Religion was absolutely necessary in the early stages of our species, and we would probably all have died out without it. None of this means that religion is true, however.



There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930

Peace

Albert Einstein, the man who unleashed the atomic bomb on the world and then regretted it after it had been used to destroy civilians. ^o)

[keiv]

:Emoji7::Emoji7::Emoji7:

The best joke I've heard in my life!!!

Putting "atheist" and "logic" together is even better.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Albert Einstein, the man who unleashed the atomic bomb on the world and then regretted it after it had been used to destroy civilians. ^o)

If you have any substantial response to my post, that would be welcome.

Peace

[ardianto]

There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science" New York Times Magazine, 1930

Greetings,

my anthropology teacher in highschool always quoted Einstein in his teaching, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". He always reminded students that religion should not become a reason to reject science, and science should not become a reason to reject religion. My teacher himself was a devout Muslim, and he taught evolution which considered as forbidden knowledge by ultra-conservative religious people.

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

Peace.
@Pygoscelis ..... you can share your view too.

[Pygoscelis]

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

Peace.
@Pygoscelis ..... you can share your view too.

I don't think it is any particular religion that does it the most, so much as it is the fundamentalists within each religion. And it isn't necessarily religion doing it to the religious either. It could be that the same thing that leads them to be religious (seeking easy and certain answers) leads them to deny complicated and malleable scientific understanding ("Its JUST a theory!" "I'm not an animal" "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??" :facepalm:). We see the same that we see in evolution denial in climate change denial (which doesn't seem to have a religious component but runs most strongly in the religious political right).

[M.I.A.]

^ And czgibson has evidence that Superman is real. He calls it D.C. Comics.

...well, put winged horses alongside walking on water..or suliman phub..

Strange days where you won't believe in them and yet air Jordan's have a couple decades on them.

The hilarity of superman wishing to remain anonymous is not lost on me..

No mention of caves... For fear of plagiarism

No mention of the ark of the covenant... No winning without it?


...and...back to morality..

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

It could be that the same thing that leads them to be religious (seeking easy and certain answers) leads them to deny complicated and malleable scientific understanding

But you say yourself, science has no answers as to how the universe came about, and you say science has no need for God to be a part of that explanation. You seem to be asking us to accept inconclusive evidence, that there is no God. To my way of thinking, religious people can still believe in God, and not go against science.

("Its JUST a theory!" "I'm not an animal" "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??" :facepalm:). We see the same that we see in evolution denial in climate change denial (which doesn't seem to have a religious component but runs most strongly in the religious political right).

Because of the complexities of life, I firmly believe that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without the guiding hand of God.

Nature needs mechanisms to cause mutations. If I moved to Kenya, my skin would become darker, if I had a child with a black Kenyan woman, some changes would come from a mixture of black and white parents. I understand the principle of the roughest toughest male in the flock, gets to pick the girls, so the best is passed onto a next generation.

Less than a billion years ago, what would cause bones to form in early species? More importantly, what forces of nature what would cause these bones to mutate and take the shape of vertebra, skulls, limbs, ribs etc?

From the time the first bones appeared in living species, to the formation of a full skeletal system, probably happened in less than 500 million years, or about 500 million generations. But what forces of nature would cause ligaments, tendons and muscles to link bones together to create movement?

Just some little details that lead me to doubt the creative powers of the ToE.

[The-Deist]

;D ;D

I am not an atheist but that comparison does not relate to it in any way.

You are literally stating atheists disbelieve in the universe.

[Pygoscelis]

But you say yourself, science has no answers as to how the universe came about, and you say science has no need for God to be a part of that explanation. You seem to be asking us to accept inconclusive evidence, that there is no God.

You have this exactly backwards. I lack belief in God(s) because I lack any evidence for God(s). It is you who accept a conclusion with certainty without any evidence that I find convincing. I go with the best science available, and my mind is always open to change, and the best science available does not require or point to God(s).

To my way of thinking, religious people can still believe in God, and not go against science.

Only by selectively ignoring any part of doctrine that conflicts. Science does not conflict with a mere deist creator God, but as soon as you add those outlandish claims such as Noah's flood, splitting the moon in half, etc, you've got a problem. Religion also gives you a strong bias against evolution theory.

Because of the complexities of life, I firmly believe that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without the guiding hand of God.

How would that still be evolution then? That would be some sort of twisted long painful version of creation, and why would God do it that way? With all of the nasty creatures evolution has led to from the botfly to the wasp larvae that eat their prey from the inside out?

Nature needs mechanisms to cause mutations. If I moved to Kenya, my skin would become darker, if I had a child with a black Kenyan woman, some changes would come from a mixture of black and white parents. I understand the principle of the roughest toughest male in the flock, gets to pick the girls, so the best is passed onto a next generation.

That isn't mutation. Mutation is a change in your genes. It happens more often than you may think. I myself was born with a mutation. I had a tiny extra bone in my feet, that had to be taken out via surgery when I was a child. It wasn't seen as remarkable.

Less than a billion years ago, what would cause bones to form in early species? More importantly, what forces of nature what would cause these bones to mutate and take the shape of vertebra, skulls, limbs, ribs etc?

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.

From the time the first bones appeared in living species, to the formation of a full skeletal system, probably happened in less than 500 million years, or about 500 million generations.

Citation needed.

But what forces of nature would cause ligaments, tendons and muscles to link bones together to create movement?

Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

[czgibson]

Greetings ardianto,

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

I don't really know how to answer this. I can't classify people's beliefs about science solely based on their religion. I've known Muslims who accept the theory of evolution and Muslims who reject it. The same with Christians. I know some conservative Christians oppose stem cell research, and I know some Muslims who have no objection to it. I'm not sure it's a very meaningful way of understanding people's beliefs.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.


Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

I have looked into this and am fully aware of this research. While it may be fascinating, the conclusions are all apriori.

For all our interested readers who are new to this term, a layman's definition can be relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation.

In other words, no one was there to observe what happened. These scientists are interpreting this evidence according to what they already believe. They weren't there to observe it happen.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have looked into this and am fully aware of this research. While it may be fascinating, the conclusions are all apriori.

For all our interested readers who are new to this term, a layman's definition can be relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation

What's wrong with a priori knowledge? All of our knowledge of mathematics is a priori too, but you're not about to cast doubt on that too, are you?

In other words, no one was there to observe what happened. These scientists are interpreting this evidence according to what they already believe. They weren't there to observe it happen.

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

Peace

It's the best explanatory theory according to those who already hold those beliefs. Your explanation of All we can do is interpret the evidence isn't convincing to me.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's the best explanatory theory according to those who already hold those beliefs. Your explanation of All we can do is interpret the evidence isn't convincing to me.

You seem very confused. "All we can do is interpret the evidence" isn't an explanation.

Complaining that nobody has yet made multi-million year observations is definitely one of the more bizarre objections to evolution that I've heard. Do you have any others?

Perhaps you would also like to explain what your objection to a priori knowledge is?

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Greetings,

You seem very confused. "All we can do is interpret the evidence" isn't an explanation.

Complaining that nobody has yet made multi-million year observations is definitely one of the more bizarre objections to evolution that I've heard. Do you have any others?

Perhaps you would also like to explain what your objection to a priori knowledge is?

Peace

You are the one that's confused. I didn't object to a priori knowledge. I mentioned it in the context of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is a set of beliefs. It is not definitive.

Since none of them were there, these findings are all interpreted according to the beliefs of these researchers. I don't believe they're explanations are fully credible.

Muslims have the Prophet Muhammad :saws: for these explanations. His :saws: truthfulness is impeccable.

[Serinity]

The time arguement doesn't sound convincing in the least. The "given enough time" argument sounds like a belief to me. not convincing. So there randomly appeared a snake through time? Yet time has no mind of its own, so impossible.

I find it quite ridiculous. To believe time can 'create' etc. That is the most superstitious belief........ No matter how much time I wait, my homework won't make it itself. No matter how many years I go to school, without doing homework, the homework won't do it itself. And I won't get a A+......... And this creation, and our brain is excellent.

So time doesn't play a part in creation, so the time arguement is therefore invalid. So no matter how much time goes by, it did not play a part. And it isn't a factor, or a 'cause'.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You are the one that's confused. I didn't object to a priori knowledge. I mentioned it in the context of evolutionary theory.

Yes, you mentioned it in the service of a bizarre objection to evolution.

Evolutionary theory is a set of beliefs. It is not definitive.

Like everything in science, it is subject to continuous revision. What is the problem here?

Since none of them were there, these findings are all interpreted according to the beliefs of these researchers. I don't believe they're explanations are fully credible.

I wonder how much longer are you going to keep us waiting for you to spell out your objections to evolution?

Muslims have the Prophet Muhammad :saws: for these explanations. His :saws: truthfulness is impeccable.

Does he have an explanation for the diversity of life that is more enlightening than "God did it"?

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Greetings,

Yes, you mentioned it in the service of a bizarre objection to evolution.

I did not. I believe that’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said.

Like everything in science, it is subject to continuous revision. What is the problem here?

I wonder how much longer are you going to keep us waiting for you to spell out your objections to evolution?

My responses are not guided by your principles. Anyone is free to review my posts to see my answers.

Does he have an explanation for the diversity of life that is more enlightening than "God did it"?

Peace

Islamic belief in the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad :saws: is not contingent to your logic. You’ve been here since 2005.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

You have this exactly backwards. I lack belief in God(s) because I lack any evidence for God(s).

Agreed, but I call it faith and trust, rather than science and evidence.

I go with the best science available, and my mind is always open to change, and the best science available does not require or point to God(s).

But the best science does not have an answer as to how the universe came into being, you have said as much yourself.

How would that still be evolution then? That would be some sort of twisted long painful version of creation, and why would God do it that way? With all of the nasty creatures evolution has led to from the botfly to the wasp larvae that eat their prey from the inside out?

You seem to use evolution as a means of proving there is no God.

Have you actually looked into this, or are you just looking for excuses not to consider evolution theory? I found this link with a 5 second google search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

There are entire scientific journals dedicated to researching the questions you pose here.

Thanks for the link, it does explain how shells and spines may have come about, and I can understand and accept the following explanation from your link.

So, how did mineralized tissues develop in the first place? What factors forced the first organisms to develop protective shields?

Following the violent moves of tectonic plates about 1.5 billion (1.5 × 109) years ago, huge amounts of minerals, including CaCO3, were washed into the oceans. This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines

But it gives no detail that once these mineralized tissues developed, how they then formed the shapes of skulls, hips limbs ribs, etc.

Again from your link

Given that most primitive examples of mineralization belong to extinct lineages, for a long time our understanding of bone evolution was entirely based on the available fossil evidence. Only paleontology studies offered the possibility of gaining some insight into the ancient processes that led to mineralized skeleton; from the evidence available, it was surmised that the vertebrates were most likely descended from amphioxus-like forms with a notochord. These were followed by jawless creatures with a cartilage-like endoskeleton, reminiscent of the modern hagfish or lamprey

This is the frustrating thing I find about evolution papers, they mention that vertebrate evolved from notochord, they just seem to float these words by, but they do not give any clues as to what formed the specific shapes of these bones. They do not give any clues as to how ligaments, muscles and tendons came to be either, where is the detail?

Now if you are claiming all this happened without God, where is the real science and evidence. I am sure if there were convincing evidence with detail, then more people would come to accept it.

Again, this is being researched and the papers are fascinating. If you are truly curious, I suggest you do some reading.

It may be fascinating, but do they give detail.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

We are talking about processes that have occurred over millions of years. It is hardly surprising that nobody has been able to observe them over that timescale. All we can do is interpret the evidence. Evolution by natural selection happens to be the best explanatory theory we currently have to conduct that interpretation.

And we actually CAN observe some evolution in progress. Superbugs, pesticide resistant crops starting to fail, etc. We can also observe it in bacteria under microscopes. There's a reason why we can't develop one forever cure for the flu and such viruses. Evolution.

[Pygoscelis]

But the best science does not have an answer as to how the universe came into being, you have said as much yourself.

There are multiple theories that are consistent with our data, but no, we are not anywhere close to a definitive answer. That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

You seem to use evolution as a means of proving there is no God.

God is set up to be unfalsifiable, so there can be no way to prove that there is no God. Just like you can't disprove any other non-falsifiable claim. That doesn't make it true, or even reasonable to believe, especially if you add additional claims that conflict with themselves and lose logical coherency.

But it gives no detail that once these mineralized tissues developed, how they then formed the shapes of skulls, hips limbs ribs, etc.

It was literally the result of a 5 second google search. I think you can find better if you really make an effort to look. I suspect that you feel a religious incentive not to do so.

I have no such bias. I don't base my personal identity, world view, or approach to data on any such bias. If we discover an alien base on Pluto, with good evidence showing that these beings are so powerful as to be called "gods" by us, and good evidence that the earth was created by them... I have no reason not to conclude that. Just as I have no reason not to conclude that God and Jesus exist if they appear before me and others and provide actual evidence, something beyond a dusty old book and a warm feeling.

There is no positive proof in favour of atheism. Atheism rests entirely on the lack of evidence for theism.

[M.I.A.]

..the plants did it!.. Far from an obscure reference to the happening..

Most wildlife has in part or fully adapted to take advantage of and live alongside plant life..

As I'm sure you know.

Evolution much as any other set of data can be represented in any number of ways.. Depending on the agenda.

For instance take as an example the simulated universe theory that has been popular of recent,

For all intents and purposes it points towards a creator and yet none is given credit for it..

To find or believe something similar is not the case with a biological, chemical system is simply not connecting the dots.

As for mathematics, one literally would assume that everything is run by numbers.. From the very building blocks of our foundations..

Although iv not seem 23..

As the post above yours suggests, time is not the implied creator..

The creator is timeless.. To understand every interaction within life.. Would still lead you to the question why?

What difference does belief make?

[Serinity]

Allah can create whatever He wills, who is to say that He isn't continously creating new things by the minute? New creatures etc.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I did not. I believe that’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said.

Well, OK. As you say, everyone can see what you've written.

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

There are multiple theories that are consistent with our data, but no, we are not anywhere close to a definitive answer. That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

There seems an endless trail of inconclusive data on the internet, but where is the truth?

That is no reason to leap to a God of the gaps though. Our data does not point towards any such thing.

You seem to be confirming again that science has no answer to creation. Hand on heart, can you truthfully say that your bias has not ruled out God.

God is set up to be unfalsifiable, so there can be no way to prove that there is no God. Just like you can't disprove any other non-falsifiable claim. That doesn't make it true, or even reasonable to believe, especially if you add additional claims that conflict with themselves and lose logical coherency.

For creation to be possible, something had to have no beginning, or something did not come from anything, both of these are beyond logic and reason.

It was literally the result of a 5 second google search. I think you can find better if you really make an effort to look.

I have trawled through a lot of sites; they just describe fossils, and say why one is an advantage over another. They do not give any indication of how shapes and sizes are formed, only that they are. There can be around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and a 1000 tendons. They are each a size and shape that serve a purpose and work together as a whole.

I suspect that you feel a religious incentive not to do so.

Nilsson and Pelger's claim for a complete model for eye evolution, comes close to the detail that I would look for. However, it seems to go against the principle of no goals in evolution, so I am not convinced an eye could evolve in this way.

There is no positive proof in favour of atheism. Atheism rests entirely on the lack of evidence for theism.

The truthful stance would be agnostic, but you seem to rule that out.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Serinity]

There is plenty of proof for God's existence - the creation - our existence. But little do you reflect! Tell me, who created this? How did this come? How did the snake know to be a snake and not a cow?

How does the cells know what to do, in such a complex manner, with reason too? And WHERE does that KNOWLEDGE come from? Putting God in the picture is quite rational. Not irrational. The more you reflect, the more you will know.

Only a creator could create a snake, a cow, a human! The cells have no intelligence or thought. Or do you think that the cells are the creators?! Astaghfirgullah.

Where did reason come from? Where did rationality, thought, logic, come from? Do you really think from chaos and disorder, there can be order and stability?

And to think that you yourself made this, or came like this, is like saying this computer made itself over a course of a billion years.

To think that you got reason by yourself etc. Is quite arrogant.

Only a God could from an explosion make something like this. The more I study Biology, the more I see the absurdity in Atheistic beliefs. It is shirk of the highest form.

Tell me, will a human being automatically form if you acitvate a C4 Bomb?! Or will a cow spawn if you bomb as much as you can, and wait for time? Time is not a factor in creation. It isn't a creator.

do you really think that from unconsciousness there can be consciousness? Then how come the robots never came to existence / were never made, until we started making them? They didn't pop into existence, why? Could a course of a billion years make a robot?

No, cause, if nothing comes, nothing happens Nothing creates nothing. If someone never initiated / caused Universe to exist, then the universe would never have existed. So our existence requires a creator, with no beginning or end.

And I am not asking for a response, I am asking for you to reflect.

[Pygoscelis]

Evolution is guided. It is not random. It is guided by natural selection. Gene replication isn't perfect, and sometimes when DNA is copied there is a glitch and the copy fails and produces a mutation. Often these mutations immediately kill the organism (prior to birth). Sometimes they result in birth defects. Sometimes they lead to quirks such as myself being born with an extra tiny bone in my feet that had to be surgically removed, and sometimes they are beneficial. Sometimes the change resulting from the misfire of copying the DNA is small and sometimes it is drastic. If the change is beneficial to the point that the organism has greater success in surviving and reproducing, it passes that new DNA to the next generation. That is natural selection. And that is evolution at the most basic level. It explains why muscles became shaped the way that they did.

I see no need for a God in that. You do? Where does God fit into it? Is he, rather than radiation or mishap, creating the mutations, and creating all those horrible and deadly birth defects? Did he create all of those historic creatures just to have them go extinct? Does he create via a slow and gradual process indistinguishable from mutation and natural selection? Why? Couldn't he just create man fully formed, from say a clump of mud, and make woman out of one of his ribs or something fancy like that? Why are we finding all of this evidence of evolution rather than of that sort of creation?

The truthful stance would be agnostic, but you seem to rule that out.

Are you saying that Christianity is untruthful unless it is agnostic?

I myself am an agnostic atheist. I do not know for sure that creator Gods don't exist, deist ones that is, but I have no reason to believe that they do.

--------------------------------------------

Evolution is not analogous to a bunch of metal in a tornado turning into an airplane or a bunch of atoms turning into a computer due to being shaken around a whole lot. That analogy doesn't take any of reproduction, mutation, or natural selection into account. And that would be incredibly, astronomically, unlikely, to the point that we would dismiss it out of hand.... but it wouldn't be completely impossible. It doesn't involve logical or factual contradictions or paradoxes the way that omni-everything Gods do.

Could a course of a billion years make a robot?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if robots could self-reproduce and had instruction code that glitched every now and then making errors in its copying, coding for different structures within the robots. But to answer your question, the best science we currently have points at humans evolving over a long period of time from a simple single celled organism, and we then made robots, so yes. It could potentially do exactly that.

No, cause, if nothing comes, nothing happens Nothing creates nothing. If someone never initiated / caused Universe to exist, then the universe would never have existed. So our existence requires a creator, with no beginning or end.

But of course you will then say that the creator didn't need a creator, right? Hello special pleading. I agree that it is difficult to fathom how something could come from nothing, but your introduction of a God doesn't help with that. And indeed we can not be sure that there wasn't always something.

[The-Deist]

Evolution is guided. It is not random. It is guided by natural selection. Gene replication isn't perfect, and sometimes when DNA is copied there is a glitch and the copy fails and produces a mutation. Often these mutations immediately kill the organism (prior to birth). Sometimes they result in birth defects. Sometimes they lead to quirks such as myself being born with an extra tiny bone in my feet that had to be surgically removed, and sometimes they are beneficial. Sometimes the change resulting from the misfire of copying the DNA is small and sometimes it is drastic. If the change is beneficial to the point that the organism has greater success in surviving and reproducing, it passes that new DNA to the next generation. That is natural selection. And that is evolution at the most basic level. It explains why muscles became shaped the way that they did.

This is not analogous to a bunch of metal in a tornado turning into an airplane or a bunch of atoms turning into a computer due to being shaken around a whole lot. That analogy doesn't take any of reproduction, mutation, or natural selection into account. And that would be incredibly, astronomically, unlikely, to the point that we would dismiss it out of hand.... but it wouldn't be completely impossible. It doesn't involve logical or factual contradictions or paradoxes the way that omni-everything Gods do.



Are you saying that Christianity is untruthful unless it is agnostic?

I myself am an agnostic atheist. I do not know for sure that creator Gods don't exist, deist ones that is, but I have no reason to believe that they do.



It would be interesting to see what would happen if robots could self-reproduce and had instruction code that glitched every now and then making errors in its copying, coding for different structures within the robots. But to answer your question, the best science we currently have points at humans evolving over a long period of time from a simple single celled organism, and we then made robots, so yes. It could potentially do exactly that.



But of course you will then say that the creator didn't need a creator, right? Hello special pleading. I agree that it is difficult to fathom how something could come from nothing, but your introduction of a God doesn't help with that. And indeed we can not be sure that there wasn't always something.

You are an agnostic.

[Pygoscelis]

You are an agnostic.

I am as agnostic about Gods as I am about faeries or about a billion dollar inheritance landing in my bank account tonight. I don't have any reason to believe in these things, so I am not a believer in these things. A theist is a believer in Gods. I am not a theist. I am an a-theist.

[The-Deist]

I am as agnostic about Gods as I am about faeries or about a billion dollar inheritance landing in my bank account tonight. I don't have any reason to believe in these things, so I am not a believer in these things. A theist is a believer in Gods. I am not a theist. I am an a-theist.

You said you are an agnostic, atheist in your previous post.

Which one are you?

[anatolian]

But of course you will then say that the creator didn't need a creator, right? Hello special pleading. I agree that it is difficult to fathom how something could come from nothing, but your introduction of a God doesn't help with that. And indeed we can not be sure that there wasn't always something.

Peace Pygoscelis. This is something atheists generally dont understand considering the Abrahamic faiths. I dont know why..If we believed in a God which needs to come from somewhere or needs to be caused by another power you would be right in asking "so where God came from or who created God...etc."..However, we believe in The God/Allah (the God of Abraham) who doesnt need anything..any source, any cause..etc. Believing in other kind of a God is meaningless, we are both agree on that. But The God/Allah neither begets nor He is begotten..But we are right in asking where this existence come from at first because it always needs a cause. Going back to big-bang doesnt solve the problem because then I ask where did big-bang come from? If it came from something where did that thing come from? This goes on like that and you cant find an absolute cause for the existence.

[Pygoscelis]

You said you are an agnostic, atheist in your previous post.

Which one are you?

I am both. Agnostic means you don't know. Atheist means you don't believe.

[The-Deist]

I am both. Agnostic means you don't know. Atheist means you don't believe.

So you have 50/200 in belief in God?

[anatolian]

A Muslim is a kind of "a-theist" too. Just look at the beginning of our testimony "There is no God" but ALLAH...We firstly reject all of the false gods then declare our faith in Allah...

[Pygoscelis]

Peace Pygoscelis. This is something atheists generally dont understand considering the Abrahamic faiths. I dont know why..If we believed in a God which needs to come from somewhere or needs to be caused by another power you would be right in asking "so where God came from or who created God...etc."..However, we believe in The God/Allah (the God of Abraham) who doesnt need anything..any source, any cause..etc. Believing in other kind of a God is meaningless, we are both agree on that. But The God/Allah neither begets nor He is begotten..But we are right in asking where this existence come from at first because it always needs a cause. Going back to big-bang doesnt solve the problem because then I ask where did big-bang come from? If it came from something where did that thing come from? This goes on like that and you cant find an absolute cause for the existence.

The "then who made God?" response is to the "everything that exists needs a creator" and "something can't come from nothing" claims. It demonstrates a special pleading contradiction. If God always existed, then everything that exists doesn't need a creator. If everything that exists doesn't need a creator, then why can't the universe, the multiverse, or something else along the causal line have always existed? Perhaps before the big bang there was a big crunch, and it has pulsed like that for all time. We don't know. So lets not pretend that we do and make up answers just so we can claim to have them.

If God came from nothing, then something can come from nothing. And if something complicated and wonderful is especially in need of a creator, then that must apply to God, since God is complicated and wonderful. If you argue that "a computer can't make itself so a human can't make itself" .... the next line to add would be "so God can't make itself".

And on and on it goes. This is just holding a mirror up to the creationist's claims and following them through.

[Serinity]

Our existence had a beginning, and thus a cause.

God, had no beginning, thus uncaused. God is the source of all power.

[Serinity]

Our existence had a beginning, and thus a cause.

God, had no beginning, thus uncaused. God is the source of all power.

The computer had a beginning, thus a cause. Something without a beginning, has no cause to its existence.

[The-Deist]

I say the title and OP should be changed.

It sounds more like a degrading thread, than of curiosity and question.

[anatolian]

The "then who made God?" response is to the "everything that exists needs a creator" and "something can't come from nothing" claims. It demonstrates a special pleading contradiction. If God always existed, then everything that exists doesn't need a creator. If everything that exists doesn't need a creator, then why can't the universe, the multiverse, or something else along the causal line have always existed? Perhaps before the big bang there was a big crunch, and it has pulsed like that for all time. We don't know. So lets not pretend that we do and make up answers just so we can claim to have them.

But we dont say "everything that exists needs a creator" and "something can't come from nothing". We say "everything that exists needs a creator who doesnt need a creator" and "something which needs a creator can't come from nothing". There is not a contradiction in this. We exclude Allah when we say everything that exists needs a creator. Because this creator needs not to be created. Ad it is Allah. So Allah is excluded from this chain. The universe can't have always existed because everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come to existence. Maybe there was a big crunch before big bang, maybe not. We dont know as you say but what we know is it needs to come from something. Do think this cause-and-effect chain goes back to eternity in past?

If God came from nothing, then something can come from nothing.

Again you fall in the same wrong logic. We dont say Allah came from nothing. Allah did not come from nothing. Allah did not come from something, He has always been there.

And if something complicated and wonderful is especially in need of a creator, then that must apply to God, since God is complicated and wonderful. If you argue that "a computer can't make itself so a human can't make itself" .... the next line to add would be "so God can't make itself".

And on and on it goes. This is just holding a mirror up to the creationist's claims and following them through.

Complicated or simple it is not important. Something being complicated or simple depends on how you look at it. Do you think a stone is complicated? Maybe, maybe not..But It is also created. Everything-except the creator himself who needs not to be created- needs a creator.

[Pygoscelis]

The universe can't have always existed because everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come to existence.

Why?

Maybe there was a big crunch before big bang, maybe not. We dont know as you say but what we know is it needs to come from something. Do think this cause-and-effect chain goes back to eternity in past?

Again, special pleading for what you call God. If you are talking against infinite regress and against something always existing, but you make an exception for and only for God.... that is just special pleading and does not compute.

Everything-except the creator himself who needs not to be created- needs a creator.

So you are pre-defining your God as the only thing that does not need to be created. So this is entirely circular and devoid of logic. It is just a bare assertion of a claim with nothing to back it up. God did it because God did it.

[anatolian]

Why?

You are asking why but my friend I am giving you the answer in the same sentence "because everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come to existence". Once there was a sperm and an egg cell and after millions of cause-and-effect chain "you" are here now. Do you think the universe has always existed? I mean do you think this cause-and-effect chain goes back to eternity in past? I still did not understand whether you believe it or not..

Again, special pleading for what you call God. If you are talking against infinite regress and against something always existing, but you make an exception for and only for God.... that is just special pleading and does not compute.

I am not doing it out of my own imagination. The logic requires it. The logic says that if there is a God, He needs not to be created.

So you are pre-defining your God as the only thing that does not need to be created. So this is entirely circular and devoid of logic. It is just a bare assertion of a claim with nothing to back it up. God did it because God did it.

I am not pre-defining my God. I am telling you the logic behind the belief of Allah. Are you at least agree on this? If there is a God, He needs not to be created.

[Pygoscelis]

You are asking why but my friend I am giving you the answer in the same sentence "because everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come to existence".

Why do you presume or conclude that everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come into existence?

I mean do you think this cause-and-effect chain goes back to eternity in past? I still did not understand whether you believe it or not..

I don't pretend to know one way or the other. Maybe. Maybe not. Could even be some kind of time loop. I don't know. You don't either. Can we not both admit that much?

I am not pre-defining my God. I am telling you the logic behind the belief of Allah. Are you at least agree on this? If there is a God, He needs not to be created.

If that is how you choose to define God, then sure, of course. But I can also conceive of something we may call "God" that was somehow created. Perhaps by another God or something like that. This has been the belief of many religious beliefs. Even Zeus, king of the Gods according to ancient Greek religion, was born (created): http://historylink101.com/2/greece2/creation.htm

[Serinity]

It is pretty simply. We believe everything is created by Allah, from every bacteria to every human, everything. and atheists believe it is 'guided' by natural selection. They just 'substituted' god with natural selection.

We say it is all made by Allah, willed etc. they say it is natural selection.

Every genetic mutation, etc. Is willed by Allah. Every disease is created by Allah. Everything is created by Allah.

It is completely logical and rational to believe in God. But your problem, Pygo, is you assume about Allah, a lie, you assume without knowledge. you then makeup falsehood, etc. But fact is, truth can not come from us. Only from God. If you don't see that, then it is time you make some dua to Allah for guidance. Sincere dua.

Our existence is proof for the existence of a creator. Now if you are going to respond with the same thing like above, don't bother.

and as @The-Deist said, you sound more of an agnostic, than an atheist. to say you are both sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[maxmed]

Salam,
This is the first time that I have ever posted on this forum. I am a Muslim but there are some points that need to be addressed. Even for those of us who aren't that into science we comprehend the magnitude of the advances that are happening all the time from quantum physics to organic chemistry to molecular biology. Plus be mature in analyzing the information I have put forth, make sure your answer appeals to logic and reasoning and not emotions. So I begin, the theory of evolution gets a bad rep because of the use "theory" it is dismissed as simply a "theory". However, what most people don't understand is that in the scientific community a theory is a fact. To refute the theory of evolution is equivalent to refuting the theory of gravity, theory of heliocentricism (earth goes around sun) or cellular theory (we are composed of cells). The theory of evolution has reached a point where it is considered a fact and absolutely cannot be disproven. This is the case and how should we accept this reality?
I have three specific examples that support evolution since as human beings it is easier for us to comprehend specific ideas as opposed to some ideological propositions that are put forth.
1) Fish have something called a laryngeal nerve that travels a short distance and is effective. However us mammals also have the same nerve but since we have necks it takes a very long path to travel a very short distance, therefore very inefficient. Scientists use this example to disprove intelligent design and that we share a same ancestor with fishes.
2) There is absolutely no reason as to why we should get goosebumps, it serves absolutely no purpose since we don't have a fur coat. Scientist will simply say that our non-human ancestors had a fur coat and the goosebumps are contractions that raises this coat of fur and creates insulation. This keeps heat trapped and therefore keeps the specimen warm.
3) This one is truly astounding, We have 46 chromosomes but our ape cousins have 48. If we share a same ancestor than there is a problem because you can't just lose a pair of chromosomes. So scientists hypothesized that one pair of our chromosomes used to be in fact 2 pairs. If they couldn't prove this than evolution would be an invalid theory. The published research shows that our 2nd pair of chromosomes used to be 2 pair but they fused together just like they hypothesized. In fact they calculated exactly where the fusion happened on the chromosome.
So those are points I wanted to mention. They are quite troubling for a sunni muslim who appeals to logic and rationality. Please before commenting just look up some of the points and judge for yourself with a critical eye if you think there may be any conflict of some sort. Also it is important that this kind of intellectual discourse takes place especially with all the research that is going on and some of the research fundamentally goes against all abrahamic faiths.
Jazakallah,

[anatolian]

Why do you presume or conclude that everything in the universe which makes up the whole universe needs a cause to come into existence?

Hello again. Because I observe that with my own eyes. Once there were a couple of cells and then I came to existence. You too. Everything came into existence with at least one or one billion causes.

I don't pretend to know one way or the other. Maybe. Maybe not. Could even be some kind of time loop. I don't know. You don't either. Can we not both admit that much?

I admit it. This is what I want you to admit indeed. We dont know and can never know what was the first cause. Today we know until big-bang. Tomorrow we may know what was before big-bang. But this will never end. We cannot find the first cause by science.

If that is how you choose to define God, then sure, of course. But I can also conceive of something we may call "God" that was somehow created. Perhaps by another God or something like that. This has been the belief of many religious beliefs. Even Zeus, king of the Gods according to ancient Greek religion, was born (created): http://historylink101.com/2/greece2/creation.htm

Yes I know this is what I mean with "A Muslim is a kind of "atheist". Believing in that kind of a creator is meaningless because we can ask what created zeus? If another god created zeus how that god came into existence? This is a false God because this is a false "God idea". When we say "There is no God" but Allah we dont just reject all those false Gods, idols made of stones, or mere human beings or aliens or some powers etc. worshipped as Gods in other religions or philosophies but also we reject all the false "God ideas" human mind creates. Then we declare our faith in only ALLAH, who is superior to all of the false God imaginations.

[Pygoscelis]

Hello again. Because I observe that with my own eyes. Once there were a couple of cells and then I came to existence. You too. Everything came into existence with at least one or one billion causes.

Just because A, B, and C were caused by X, doesn't mean that D was caused by X. And likewise, just because A, B, and C were caused at all does not mean that D was caused as well. You yourself make an exception to your own rule when you demand that there must be at least one exception to it, at the start of it, that has always been and was not caused; The First Cause. I admit that I do not know if there was a first cause (and certainly don't know anything about it if there was one - and wouldn't attribute a religion around it or even assume it to be sentient or self aware). I don't see why you can't do the same. Perhaps that is why you are theist and I am atheist.

[Serinity]

Just because A, B, and C were caused by X, doesn't mean that D was caused by X. And likewise, just because A, B, and C were caused at all does not mean that D was caused as well. You yourself make an exception to your own rule when you demand that there must be at least one exception to it, at the start of it, that has always been and was not caused; The First Cause. I admit that I do not know if there was a first cause (and certainly don't know anything about it if there was one - and wouldn't attribute a religion around it or even assume it to be sentient or self aware). I don't see why you can't do the same. Perhaps that is why you are theist and I am atheist.

Because you're assuming that God has a beginning, which God has not.

The criteria for something to have a Creator is:

It must have a beginning.

Logic says that something must've come from somewhere, that everything that came to existence - whatever we see must've come to existence by someone - who doesn't need anyone to exist.

It is pretty logical to me. To me it is innate to believe in a God. you require tangible proof, if you can't see that. Then it is time you open the Quran and ask God to guide you.

There is 3 types of proof for God's existence:

Instinctive proof:

That which we are born with, we are born with the innate belief in God. We recognize our Lord, Allah. But many has been mislead by the Devil.

Tangible proof:

Things around you. Everything that has been created, etc.

There are 3 possibilites:

1. It came from nothing.
2. Made itself.
3. From someone.

1. and 2. is impossible. Cause from nothing, nothing comes. Which leaves the 3. that it must've come from someone.

Shariah Proof:

Revelation from Allah. The Quran.


To assume beforehand that there is no God, just because you can't see Him with your eyes, is arrogance to me.

In the end it is Allah that guides.

Why don't you attempt to search for God? If you say you don't need to, then what will you do when you die and find out that God exists? Allah knows best your heart. Why do you refuse to search? Read the Quran?

[Pygoscelis]

Logic says that something must've come from somewhere, that everything that came to existence - whatever we see must've come to existence by someone - who doesn't need anyone to exist.

No. Logic doesn't say that. You say that. You make a lot of unsupported assumptions in doing so, and you contradict yourself when you make an exception for God.

To me it is innate to believe in a God.

And I think that is the key. It isn't logic or reason that leads you to believe. It is innate in you. It is your evolved sense of looking to a higher power. For most species that is parents and alpha or tribe, to humans it has been king and emperor, and God. There is good reason that we are born looking for an authority to obey and believe in without much doubt or question. In the wild it could mean the difference between surviving and not. So natural selection applied a strong pressure in favour of this innate belief that you have. Same for hypersensitivity to pattern recognition and agency detection. Mistaking the wind for a predator may embarass you, but mistaking a predator for the wind may make you lunch.

There are 3 possibilites:

1. It came from nothing.
2. Made itself.
3. From someone.

4. Made from natural process without a guiding mind.
5. Has always been.

1. and 2. is impossible. Cause from nothing, nothing comes.

And yet you make an exception for your God....

Shariah Proof:

Revelation from Allah. The Quran.

Stories and Legends and so-called "holy books" do not convince me. The Quran, The Bible, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the native american story of how the eagle got its wings, Aztec cave drawings of Quetzalcoatl, etc, are no more convincing to me than each other or than Homer's Odyssey, etc.

To assume beforehand that there is no God, just because you can't see Him with your eyes, is arrogance to me.

But I am not the one assuming. You are. You are relying on faith and remain steadfast by your beliefs.
That is the difference between scientific inquiry and religious dogma.

I am open to evidence and open to changing my mind. I recognize that a God COULD exist. So could a billion dollar inheritance for me from an unknown relative, a cloaked space alien in my living room, Russel's tea pot, or faeries. Just because such things COULD exist, does not mean I have any reason to believe that they DO exist. I would need evidence to convince me that these things are more than creations of our imagination, and the more fantastic the claim (and God is a pretty fantastic claim), the more evidence I would need. Stories and Legends, so called "holy books", some unexplained mysteries, and some unsupported and self contradicting claims (ie, that everything must have a cause - but not this one thing we call God), just are not enough.

Why don't you attempt to search for God?

Which one? There are billions of possible Gods. And why should I search for an all powerful being that wants to talk to me? I see no reason why such a being would have to be searched for. If it is there, and it is all powerful, it could effortlessly reveal itself to me, and it has chosen not to.

If you say you don't need to, then what will you do when you die and find out that God exists?

Be surprised, and say hello I suppose. If that God would then be upset and judge me for not believing in him without evidence, and without having made me believe..... I would have to judge him as an evil God.

But in asking me this question, you make me curious. What will YOU say when you die and meet Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Shiva, or another God that isn't Allah, and learn that Allah doesn't exist and you have spent your life worshiping the wrong God? You're pretty much in the same place as I am at that point right? I fear Allah the same amount that you fear Quetzalcoatl, and I consider them equally likely to exist.

[Serinity]

Be surprised, and say hello I suppose. If that God would then be upset and judge me for not believing in him without evidence, and without having made me believe..... I would have to judge him as an evil God.

But aren't you yourself setting yourself up for that? and God would never be unfair with you. Aren't you, yourself blameworthy, when you yourself refused to reason, think and search? you don't even care to read the Quran.

But you are also assuming about God, but you know, God is All-just, He put that 'justice feeling' inside you.

But in asking me this question, you make me curious. What will YOU say when you die and meet Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Shiva, or another God that isn't Allah, and learn that Allah doesn't exist and you have spent your life worshiping the wrong God? You're pretty much in the same place as I am at that point right?

I won't meet them, cuz I know they don't exist. Those false dieties are all man made. I came to believe in Allah, by looking around me. and the Quran speaks to you. It corrects you.

And I go with logic, Allah created us, so the correct religion should be in conformity with the sound mind. It has always gone like this

People believe in One God, and then add false gods /partners to Him. Every scripture, in its pure form preaches the Oneness of God.

Which one? There are billions of possible Gods. And why should I search for an all powerful being that wants to talk to me? I see no reason why such a being would have to be searched for. If it is there, and it is all powerful, it could effortlessly reveal itself to me, and it has chosen not to.

That is your assumption. Allah is always there, YOU do not try to call unto Him. There is only proof for 1 God. There is no proof or evidence for billion of Gods. It is mostly people that add false gods. we've seen no scriptures, and mostly those who preach polytheism is by the corruption of man.

Our natural preposition is the belief in One God.

I ask you to read the Quran, ask questions, and ask Allah / God. Falsehood shall perish before Truth. So why do you not read? The criteria for truth is that it should have no contradictions, should answer the basic questions, and should come with convincing arguements and reasoning.

Will you then not reason or think? Read the Quran, ask Allah. Do not idolize, or whatever. Just ask "God, guide me"

you want Allah to make you believe? But you know, YOU have to put in effort. Ask Allah and search for proof. you may not see evidence now, but read.

If you disbelieve, then read. If you still disbelieve, then continue reading.

Do not believe blindly, do not believe and then think.

Try to listen / watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hezcb2YRasM

[The-Deist]

No. Logic doesn't say that. You say that. You make a lot of unsupported assumptions in doing so, and you contradict yourself when you make an exception for God.



And I think that is the key. It isn't logic or reason that leads you to believe. It is innate in you. It is your evolved sense of looking to a higher power. For most species that is parents and alpha or tribe, to humans it has been king and emperor, and God. There is good reason that we are born looking for an authority to obey and believe in without much doubt or question. In the wild it could mean the difference between surviving and not. So natural selection applied a strong pressure in favour of this innate belief that you have. Same for hypersensitivity to pattern recognition and agency detection. Mistaking the wind for a predator may embarass you, but mistaking a predator for the wind may make you lunch.



4. Made from natural process without a guiding mind.
5. Has always been.



And yet you make an exception for your God....




Stories and Legends and so-called "holy books" do not convince me. The Quran, The Bible, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, the native american story of how the eagle got its wings, Aztec cave drawings of Quetzalcoatl, etc, are no more convincing to me than each other or than Homer's Odyssey, etc.



But I am not the one assuming. You are. You are relying on faith and remain steadfast by your beliefs.
That is the difference between scientific inquiry and religious dogma.

I am open to evidence and open to changing my mind. I recognize that a God COULD exist. So could a billion dollar inheritance for me from an unknown relative, a cloaked space alien in my living room, Russel's tea pot, or faeries. Just because such things COULD exist, does not mean I have any reason to believe that they DO exist. I would need evidence to convince me that these things are more than creations of our imagination, and the more fantastic the claim (and God is a pretty fantastic claim), the more evidence I would need. Stories and Legends, so called "holy books", some unexplained mysteries, and some unsupported and self contradicting claims (ie, that everything must have a cause - but not this one thing we call God), just are not enough.



Which one? There are billions of possible Gods. And why should I search for an all powerful being that wants to talk to me? I see no reason why such a being would have to be searched for. If it is there, and it is all powerful, it could effortlessly reveal itself to me, and it has chosen not to.



Be surprised, and say hello I suppose. If that God would then be upset and judge me for not believing in him without evidence, and without having made me believe..... I would have to judge him as an evil God.

But in asking me this question, you make me curious. What will YOU say when you die and meet Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Shiva, or another God that isn't Allah, and learn that Allah doesn't exist and you have spent your life worshiping the wrong God? You're pretty much in the same place as I am at that point right? I fear Allah the same amount that you fear Quetzalcoatl, and I consider them equally likely to exist.

I agree, belief in God is not logic, it is a belief, usually acquired from tradition.

I am sure if I was not raised upon belief in God(s) , and someone came up to me saying there is one who rulers overs you. I would ask him many questions.

"Show him"

"Where is he"

"Is he arrogant to believe he has power over me"

If these questions are not answered, I would not see a reason to believe.

Shows that belief in God is not by logic, rather by heart.

[Pygoscelis]

But aren't you yourself setting yourself up for that?

No more than you are setting yourself up to be judged by Odin.

But you are also assuming about God, but you know, God is All-just, He put that 'justice feeling' inside you.

No, I don't know that. You believe that. I have no reason to accept your belief as truth. The Gods could be cruel and unjust for all I know. And I see no reason to believe that such beings exist at all.

I won't meet them, cuz I know they don't exist. Those false dieties are all man made.

You seem even more certain of that than I, the atheist, am. Do you appreciate the irony in that? And yet all that you accuse me of, assuming your God doesn't exist, not looking into your holy book, etc.... can be said even moreso of you in regard to these other Gods.

I came to believe in Allah, by looking around me. and the Quran speaks to you. It corrects you.

Christians say the same about the Bible. Greeks thought the same of Zeus. Hindus say the same about their religion. As does every other religious believer about their holy texts, etc.

Allah is always there, YOU do not try to call unto Him.

How do you know I haven't tried to call unto him?

There is only proof for 1 God. There is no proof or evidence for billion of Gods.

There is exactly as much proof for one God as there is for another, or another Group of them.

Our natural preposition is the belief in One God.

No it isn't. And even if it was, that isn't evidence that any one God exists, much less that it is yours. I explained in my last post how such an instinct came about in us by natural selection. It isn't unique to humans, and it makes sense for survival in the wild, to look up to a higher power, usually called "mommy" but that human intelligence has transformed into calling "God".

I ask you to read the Quran, ask questions, and ask Allah / God.

Why the Quran? Why not the Egyptian book of the Dead, the Vedas, or the Talmud? Why not converse with native americans about ancestor spirits and with shintos about their spirits? Do you realize how much time I would have to invest in reading all of these possible holy books and looking into all of these myths, in the vain possibility that one of them somewhere could contain some nugget of truth? Have you invested in all of this, or have you merely assumed that your particular God (Allah) it the only one worth considering?

Why should I not dismiss your God as quickly as you dismiss all of the others?

Falsehood shall perish before Truth. So why do you not read?

Why do you not read?

The criteria for truth is that it should have no contradictions, should answer the basic questions, and should come with convincing arguements and reasoning.

And you've done none of that with either your Quran or your posts here. This conversation started with a rather stark contradiction (that all that exists must have been created, and yet not this God being) that you still refuse to acknowledge. It may surprise you to learn that i actually have read much of the Quran (a number of years ago). I recall it was full of cryptic language, stories, some calls for kindness and generosity, and some calls for division and violence. It isn't the magical book of mind-changing that you claim it to be.

Will you then not reason or think? Read the Quran, ask Allah. Do not idolize, or whatever. Just ask "God, guide me"

Such presumption, such accusations and such hypocrisy in this statement. You don't know what I have and haven't done. You don't appear to be thinking very much yourself. You don't appear to be reading or considering that the Gods you see as false may be true, as you are demanding of me in regard to your own false God.

[Serinity]

but you've belief in natural selection? Isn't natural selection a belief? you talk as if it is conscious. to me that is just "substituting" god for natural selection.

[Pygoscelis]

but you've belief in natural selection? Isn't natural selection a belief? you talk as if it is conscious. to me that is just "substituting" god for natural selection.

Natural Selection is not conscious. I suggest you read up on it. A simple google should suffice. Or do you refuse to read as you accuse of me? Natural selection is nothing but what mutations and traits are more likely to survive and be passed to the next generation. There is no thinking or conscious guidance involved.

[The-Deist]

Natural Selection is not conscious. I suggest you read up on it. A simple google should suffice. Or do you refuse to read as you accuse of me? Natural selection is nothing but what mutations and traits are more likely to survive and be passed to the next generation. There is no thinking or conscious guidance involved.

I am not here to offend anyone, but I really feel like Muslims make everything they agree on natural.

[piXie]

And I think that is the key. It isn't logic or reason that leads you to believe. It is innate in you. It is your evolved sense of looking to a higher power.

What happened to your senses ? Was there a glitch in the evolutionary process somewhere :D

• You believe this perfection in the design of the world evolved and was randomly selected. But if someone tells you just one chair evolved perfectly over the years you think he was crazy.
• You are convinced you are an animal and then you speak of right and wrong as though you are a human.
• You believe an animal can evolve into a human being like a man can evolve into a God.
• You speak of an evolved sense of fairness and morality but you cannot even agree on what these terms are or what they mean.
• You believe in accountability but cannot explain how that is practically implemented.
• You believe you are fair but you equal the Quran to a story book and equal other gods with The One True God Allah.
• You cannot claim certainty for anything but seem convinced you are an animal with no guaranteed sense of accountability rather than a human who would one day stand before His Creator.
• You believe Thee Creator doesn't exist but the Creation somehow does.
• You condemn the laws in the Quran but you cannot bring a single solution for the problems humanity is suffering from today.
• You believe religions add to the problems in the world but you cannot differentiate between man made religions and the Quran - proven to be unchanged by man.
  

Peace,

[Serinity]

Natural Selection is not conscious. I suggest you read up on it. A simple google should suffice. Or do you refuse to read as you accuse of me? Natural selection is nothing but what mutations and traits are more likely to survive and be passed to the next generation. There is no thinking or conscious guidance involved.

I've read up on natural selection, and it doesn't sound convincing in the least. It is like trying to convince that a car came out of thin air to which you've no proof, randomly.

This Natural selection seems like an excuse to disbelieve in Allah. Quite frankly, it is quite a ridiculous belief.

You think unconscious guidance can bring about a human being that can think? Might as well believe a car came out of thin air, without anyone doing anything.

Natural selection is non sense. If you truly think about it, it is pure non sense.

Look around you, the Earth, the moon, the Sun, is set in a course. Who set it in that course? How does the Earth know how to move? How does the spider know how to make the web, to which the scientists today can't make?

If the Earth would move a bit away from the sun it'd be too cold, if a bit closer to the sun, it'd be too hot. If the Earth wasn't tilted a bit, we'd have no seasons.

To say this was made randomly is like saying a car was made randomly. Pure conjecture. But then when we say Allah made everything, you fall into doubt whether it is actually Allah. Continually in doubt eh? Then you equate false gods to Allah SWT.

False gods, you or some other made up. By equating false gods to the One True God, Allah. You confuse yourself further.

I don't need to go through thousands of book to reach Allah. Cause Alhamdulillah, Allah guided me. May Allah guide you, too. Ameen.

[MuslimInshallah]

Assalaamu alaikum, Peace to all,


All this talk of logic is missing a couple of points, it seems to me:

1) You have to start with certain assumptions. Then you logically deduce certain things from those assumptions. But the initial assumptions themselves are not the fruit of logic. Atheists are taking as an assumption that there is no Creator. Theists are taking as an assumption that there is. Working with these assumptions (and certain others, such as: the universe makes sense), both atheists and theists order their thought in logical ways.

It is a rather like the debate about Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. Using Euclid's postulates (basic assumptions), you could then deduce things about the shape of space. For instance, it is flat. But if you discarded the fifth postulate, space became more interesting; it could be curved. When mathematicians considered Euclidean space, they were being very logical. So were those that considered non-Euclidean space. But because of a difference in their underlying assumptions, they came up with some startling differences in what could be deduced.

2) It is possible for a proposition to be true, but to not be able to logically prove it from within a system (see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for more information). In other words, there are limits to what we can logically deduce.

Pygoscelis and CZ are arguing from the assumption that there is no Creator. This is their starting point. And they will look around for ways to support this belief (and it is a belief). (twinkle) Human beings are not so much rational creatures, as rationalizing creatures.

By their system of beliefs, we theists are, indeed, illogical. Because we do not follow their logic. (mildly) But for us theists, atheists seem illogical. Because they do not follow ours.

(mildly) We can debate till the cows come home, but we cannot convince one another. But we can respect one another. This section, "Comparative Religion" (which is due to be re-named... soon, I hope), is supposed to be about us trying to understand one another. Not about subtly (or not-so-subtly) insulting one another's intelligence or level of education.

Atheists have their logic. Let us respect that, though we disagree with their fundamental beliefs. But atheists also need to respect that theists are also rational and knowledgeable.

(mildly) I do not see that this thread is going anywhere constructive; it started with a lack or respect, and has woven in and out of respectful discussion since... I would suggest that it be closed. If an atheist wishes to express his or her beliefs so that we can better understand them, then I would suggest that a new thread could be started by him or her, with this intention.


May God, the Knowledgeable, the Wise, Help us to behave in ways that are Pleasing to Him.

[czgibson]

Greetings MuslimInshallah,

Thank you for making the most intelligent contribution to this discussion for some time.

Pygoscelis and CZ are arguing from the assumption that there is no Creator. This is their starting point. And they will look around for ways to support this belief (and it is a belief).

My starting point was my mother telling me about God after she'd taken me to church for the first time. I was aged about four, and I asked her (using four-year-old language) to show me the evidence. I've been waiting ever since.

I certainly don't assume there's no creator. I am open to changing my mind. Just show me some convincing evidence.

If an atheist wishes to express his or her beliefs so that we can better understand them, then I would suggest that a new thread could be started by him or her, with this intention.

I tried this earlier when I posted a list of reasons why I don't believe in God. I don't think anybody has even attempted to interrogate any of the items on that list.

Peace

[MuslimInshallah]

I tried this earlier when I posted a list of reasons why I don't believe in God. I don't think anybody has even attempted to interrogate any of the items on that list.

Peace

Greetings CZ,


I did see this list. However, I found it too brief. For instance, what do you mean by "the problem of evil"? Perhaps if you stated your idea more fully, it would be easier to explore? Or when talking of Occam's Razor, you could explain in more depth. (twinkle) I mean, it seems to me that accepting God as Creator "shaves away" a lot of complexity... but perhaps you see it differently?

If you did one post per point, then each point could be explored more fully, don't you think?

(smile) If you truly want to find God, I can suggest things you can do. (mildly) But I am not sure that this is really what you wish to do. (gently) Some atheists can be rather evangelical about their beliefs, and seem to need to prove theists to be fools in order to feel better about themselves, it sometimes seems to me. (pensively) But some atheists truly wish to find some meaning in life and are truly searching for God. If you are of the latter, then I am willing to listen to your points of view and try to answer in a way that could be useful to you. (mildly) But if you are of the first group, then please realize that we have only a limited time on this earth, and I would like to maximize my use of this precious resource.


May God, the Manifest, the Hidden, Guide us.

[Pygoscelis]

Hi MuslimInshallah,

For the sake of argument, consider for a moment that perhaps a God did create this universe and this planet. Now look at this universe and this planet. Notice that 99.99% of this universe is immediately deadly to life. Consider that much life on this planet can only survive by hunting and killing other animals, causing great pain. Consider how natural disasters, cancer in young children, etc are routine. Consider how some creatures can only reproduce by laying eggs INSIDE other creatures that then eat their victims from the inside. Consider all of this. Consider that this creator God is all powerful and could have created life any way that he wanted. Consider that he must have wanted all of these horrible things.

Now consider that he punishes people for not believing in him on little to no evidence, for eternity. Consider how he has not been clear enough to humanity to avoid hundreds of other competing false religions, all with believers who earnestly believe that they are right, and who for this reason come to hate and war with one another.

Now ask yourself: Is this a good and loving God, or is this a monster?

That is the problem of evil as I see it. It does not rule out a monstrous or ambivalent God. But it does rule out a kind God that holds human beings as important and loves them.

[Pygoscelis]

I've read up on natural selection, and it doesn't sound convincing in the least. It is like trying to convince that a car came out of thin air to which you've no proof, randomly.

I don't mean to offend you, but I don't think you have read up on it as you claim. If you had, you would not compare it to a car coming out of thin air, and you would not speak of random chance popping into existence of anything. Evolution requires changing of DNA (by mutation, lateral gene transfer or whatever else), replication, and natural selection, all of which are lacking in your magic car comparison.

Consider the modern dog. Look at a chihuahua and look at a great dane. Notice how very different they are from one another! Both come originally from feral wolves. Do you follow that far?

The feral wolves included some that were aggressive and some that were more tame and more able to co-exist with humans. They likely came to feed on human refuse, an those that didn't attack the humans were taken in by the humans and lived to breed and make babies. Those babies had the same DNA as their more tame parents. Of the dogs in the next generations, some had mutated traits (sometimes DNA copying makes an error and creates a new trait) that the humans liked more than others, so the humans intentionally bred those dogs together, and by this selective breeding, over many years, created the chihuahua and great dane that we see today.

That is selective breeding. You may call it "intelligent selection". Consider mutation and replication (breeding) with it, and you have the basics of DNA, with just one more step to be added; natural selection. Natural selection is when you take the intentional selective breeding out of it, and just let the animals (or plants) replicate on their own. The environment may be such that some traits lead some animals to breed more than others, and those who breed more and have more babies, pass those genes down.

Do that over a long enough time period, and you can have very drastic changes in the DNA and the creature. Once it gets to the point that the one line can no longer breed with the other, you have seen a new species come about by natural selection. Do that over an even longer time period and the whole myriad of life on earth came to be. That is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

It isn't that difficult to understand, if you make the effort. It may be difficult to wrap your mind around and seem ridiculous to you at first glance. But think it through. Show us that it doesn't work like that, and you could win yourself a Nobel Prize for your effort.

[Pygoscelis]

Salam,
This is the first time that I have ever posted on this forum. I am a Muslim but there are some points that need to be addressed. Even for those of us who aren't that into science we comprehend the magnitude of the advances that are happening all the time from quantum physics to organic chemistry to molecular biology. Plus be mature in analyzing the information I have put forth, make sure your answer appeals to logic and reasoning and not emotions. So I begin, the theory of evolution gets a bad rep because of the use "theory" it is dismissed as simply a "theory". However, what most people don't understand is that in the scientific community a theory is a fact. To refute the theory of evolution is equivalent to refuting the theory of gravity, theory of heliocentricism (earth goes around sun) or cellular theory (we are composed of cells). The theory of evolution has reached a point where it is considered a fact and absolutely cannot be disproven. This is the case and how should we accept this reality?
I have three specific examples that support evolution since as human beings it is easier for us to comprehend specific ideas as opposed to some ideological propositions that are put forth.
1) Fish have something called a laryngeal nerve that travels a short distance and is effective. However us mammals also have the same nerve but since we have necks it takes a very long path to travel a very short distance, therefore very inefficient. Scientists use this example to disprove intelligent design and that we share a same ancestor with fishes.
2) There is absolutely no reason as to why we should get goosebumps, it serves absolutely no purpose since we don't have a fur coat. Scientist will simply say that our non-human ancestors had a fur coat and the goosebumps are contractions that raises this coat of fur and creates insulation. This keeps heat trapped and therefore keeps the specimen warm.
3) This one is truly astounding, We have 46 chromosomes but our ape cousins have 48. If we share a same ancestor than there is a problem because you can't just lose a pair of chromosomes. So scientists hypothesized that one pair of our chromosomes used to be in fact 2 pairs. If they couldn't prove this than evolution would be an invalid theory. The published research shows that our 2nd pair of chromosomes used to be 2 pair but they fused together just like they hypothesized. In fact they calculated exactly where the fusion happened on the chromosome.
So those are points I wanted to mention. They are quite troubling for a sunni muslim who appeals to logic and rationality. Please before commenting just look up some of the points and judge for yourself with a critical eye if you think there may be any conflict of some sort. Also it is important that this kind of intellectual discourse takes place especially with all the research that is going on and some of the research fundamentally goes against all abrahamic faiths.
Jazakallah,

Why have none of you creationists who dismiss evolution as ridiculous addressed this excellent post? Maxmed has outlined 3 very convincing examples of evolution that I don't see how you could possibly explain away.

[Serinity]

One can take it another way, and see that linguistically, one always has to attribute a creator or that which is Ultimately responsible, which is the definition of Allah anyway. So they are simply calling Allah by the name "Chance" which isn't necessarily an inappropriate name either. It is worse to say that "Allah looks to Chance for answers" which is what many people do when they say "I can do this or I can do that, and if I do this then Allah will respond in such and such way, and if I do that, then Allah will respond in such and such way" because it is saying that you are the decider, who can go this way or that way, and that Chance is the determiner and that Allah waits and looks to Chance to give the answers of what happens. Rather, that Allah is the decider, who decides if one goes this way or that way, and there is no Chance but Allah.

Allah has completely unconditioned freedom of will, freedom of choice, being able to do anything at all freely and instantly and accomplishes it without resistance from anything as there is nothing to resist. The existence of kaffirs, disbelievers, and whatever else is all by the will of Allah who made it so, that doesn't mean it is good or good for them, Allah simply does whatever Allah wills, completely freely, thus what they call Chance or "this happened by Chance" is simply saying "this happened by Allah", for us, the two words are synonymous, Allah is the only Chance, Allah is the Free Will, Allah is the Randomness, the Chaos, the Determiner of what happens or does not happen, if it goes this way or that way, or how the dice rolls and where it stops, there is no power but Allah, the Ultimate in every case.

So if they say "Nature decides" then they are simply calling Allah by the name "Nature". If they say "this is because of how Reality made it", then they are calling Allah "Reality" (Al-Haqq).

So even the atheists know Allah, except by different names. Whatever they say is the Ultimate Power, the Ultimately Responsible, the Ultimate Determiner, be it called Chance, Luck, Randomness, Chaos, Nature, Science, or whatever name, if they are referring to "that which is necessarily the Ultimate, that which is Ultimately responsible, the First and Overall cause" that is Allah they are speaking of.

And they seem to call Allah by "Natural selection"

The Atheist: "The mutation happening because of natural selection"
The Theist "the mutation happened because Allah willed it"

[Serinity]

I don't mean to offend you, but I don't think you have read up on it as you claim. If you had, you would not compare it to a car coming out of thin air, and you would not speak of random chance popping into existence of anything. Evolution requires changing of DNA (by mutation, lateral gene transfer or whatever else), replication, and natural selection, all of which are lacking in your magic car comparison.

Consider the modern dog. Look at a chihuahua and look at a great dane. Notice how very different they are from one another! Both come originally from feral wolves. Do you follow that far?

The feral wolves included some that were aggressive and some that were more tame and more able to co-exist with humans. They likely came to feed on human refuse, an those that didn't attack the humans were taken in by the humans and lived to breed and make babies. Those babies had the same DNA as their more tame parents. Of the dogs in the next generations, some had mutated traits (sometimes DNA copying makes an error and creates a new trait) that the humans liked more than others, so the humans intentionally bred those dogs together, and by this selective breeding, over many years, created the chihuahua and great dane that we see today.

That is selective breeding. You may call it "intelligent selection". Consider mutation and replication (breeding) with it, and you have the basics of DNA, with just one more step to be added; natural selection. Natural selection is when you take the intentional selective breeding out of it, and just let the animals (or plants) replicate on their own. The environment may be such that some traits lead some animals to breed more than others, and those who breed more and have more babies, pass those genes down.

Do that over a long enough time period, and you can have very drastic changes in the DNA and the creature. Once it gets to the point that the one line can no longer breed with the other, you have seen a new species come about by natural selection. Do that over an even longer time period and the whole myriad of life on earth came to be. That is the theory of evolution by natural selection.

It isn't that difficult to understand, if you make the effort. It may be difficult to wrap your mind around and seem ridiculous to you at first glance. But think it through. Show us that it doesn't work like that, and you could win yourself a Nobel Prize for your effort.

you believe it is natural selection. I believe it is the will of Allah. Simples.

If Allah willed, today, if you wanted to breed a dog, and Allah willed it to not work, it wouldn't.

This world is "cause and effect" kinda.

And what you may percieve as an error in mutation, is not. You just don't see the whole picture, nor do I. I wouldn't call it a mistake whether the breeding benefited us or not. Cause I know that everything runs according to Allah's will.

This is where it cuts for me, you see everything by chance / natural selection, which per definition is same as chance. I do not.

you see it as guided by chance / natural selection, I say guided by Allah. :)

[Serinity]

Haha yeah, little do they know, in reality, it is the same thing. Allah created the ships that sail on the sea, but they stop short and say that such and such was the inventor and engineer. They get closer if they realize everything technological is part of Nature or the world or the universe, and that the Ultimate Reality is responsible for it. We know that if this bird or that bird is killed by a predator, and it ends up that some mutation occurs or a generational lineage is continued or stopped, they say "it is because of Nature and Chance" or "Luck", and we say it is because of Allah, that such a bird was there and such a bird was killed at such a moment, and from the beginning, that from the very first moment, that this or that happened because of an apparent chain of events, which even the scientists believe in Hard Determinism, so what they are saying Determined from the beginning, is being called Nature or Reality or "The Way Things Are", and we call it by the name Allah, who determined whatever they see, and whatever chain of causation they imagine or perceive, which leads them to eat what they eat, and do what they do and say what they say from the day they are born, dominoes so complex and intricate, if they go back even in their view of causation, they will have to conclude that there is an Ultimate Cause, and for us Ultimate Cause and Allah are synonymous.

Yeah, and like lets say, I was born with an extra finger, they will see that as an error in the DNA. We see it as Allah willed it.

If Allah made a baby cat or dog better than the last, they'll say it is because of a error in DNA. We say it is because Allah willed it..

Whether the mutation benefits or not, they'll say it is an error. A mutation to the is basically an error.

[Serinity]

Though we know Allah is all-aware, All-seeing, All-knowing, All-wise, etc. Because of what we see around..

The way things are composed, etc. shows that is only Allah that could create this. If you object, try to blindfoldedly build a car, without any knowledge of it, in 1 day.

And look at the "seed" emitted by the man into the black vortex, and how from a seed-drop (In shaa' Allah you know what I mean) Allah creates from a single seed, a human being. SubhanAllah.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes, that is true, though their notion of "error" is funny, as if they are the ones who decide what is an error or not?

DNA copies itself during cell division. Sometimes the copy that results at the end of the process differs from the original. These copying errors are called mutations. Simple as that.

Peace

[noraina]

I have not read through this whole thread, but it is fair to say Muslims and atheists view science and its implications through a completely different lens. For us, science is an affirmation of the fact that everything has been designed by a Creator as it is impossible that such complexities could have been borne from 'chance'. Islam and science in no way conflict with one another, science is a way of understanding the beauty of Allah SWT - I think the split between science and faith, is purely ideological and very recent. Atheists say that science does not prove the existence of God, but neither does it disprove it. There is a certain level of certainty in science - but it has a limit, you can never be 100% sure.

Science has a sensory limit - it cannot prove that God doesn't exist because questions like Does God exist? Or, do we have a soul? Are all beyond the scope of scientific method simply because science is only based on observation and physical evidence.

Elliot Sober mentions this limitation in his essay Empiricism,'At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.'

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the philosophy of science, but it is a very refreshing alternative to solely focusing on scientific method and it results. Mind you, I am not bashing science here :), far from it, I highly respect it as a valuable way to understand ourselves and the environment around us - but it is not perfect and has many limitations, this would make this post way too long but in brief induction for example, it leaves many unanswered questions which are answered by the Qur'an, and these answers only complement and further my appreciation for knowledge.

BTW, I hope we are able to, maybe if not quite understand, respect one another's views and opinions. I haven't actually had any experience with atheists beyond this forum because I live in a very Christian town - I'm more used to the very different approach needed with Christians when discussing religion.

[Pygoscelis]

And they seem to call Allah by "Natural selection"

The Atheist: "The mutation happening because of natural selection"
The Theist "the mutation happened because Allah willed it"

You again show that you have not understood what natural selection is. Mutation is not caused by natural selection. For someone that accused me of not thinking and not reading, you are showing a distinct lack of both here. Please read my previous post above again, or maxmed's which you have continued to ignore.

One can take it another way, and see that linguistically, one always has to attribute a creator or that which is Ultimately responsible, which is the definition of Allah anyway.

If you define God as merely cause and effect, natural selection, or chance, you are calling God mindless, because none of these things require thought or design.

Islam and science in no way conflict with one another, science is a way of understanding the beauty of Allah SWT - I think the split between science and faith, is purely ideological and very recent. Atheists say that science does not prove the existence of God, but neither does it disprove it. There is a certain level of certainty in science - but it has a limit, you can never be 100% sure.

This is true. Science can not disprove the existence of God so long as you define God as unfalsifiable. That is true by definition. But if you start adding fantastic claims about how the universe is, or how it came to be, science can make some progress towards disproving that.

Everything from spirits rather than bacteria and viruses causing infection to the earth being flat to the sun going around the earth to the moon having been split in two on a particular date, can be studied scientifically and shown to be in error. Science has often come along and shrunk the domain of religious belief, and will continue to do so. It can not eradicate it because at the end of the day God(s) himself/itself/herself/themselves remain unfalsifiable.

It is true that science is never 100%, but it is our best and most objective way at determining truth, and it prioritizes logic, reason and critical thinking, instead of faith.

[Serinity]

you say creating a human doesn't require thought or design? Tell me, can you build a robot mindlessly?

Everything around us is built with thought and design.

The human brain is too complex to replicate, yet you say it was made mindlessly?

you can't create a robot, or whatever, mindlessly. But if that is what you believe. Then, khalas.

[Pygoscelis]

you say creating a human doesn't require thought or design? Tell me, can you build a robot mindlessly?

Everything around us is built with thought and design.

The human brain is too complex to replicate, yet you say it was made mindlessly?

you can't create a robot, or whatever, mindlessly. But if that is what you believe. Then, khalas.

Not what I said, but sure go with that. What does that have to do with a robot exactly? Near as I can tell robots don't self replicate or mutate their building instructions. I suppose you could say that they have natural selection applied to them, as some break down faster than others and stop operations. Once we do have robots that self replicate and there are glitches in their coding... we could have evolution of robots over time. I wonder what that would turn into over a few million years.

What I actually said was that cause and effect, natural selection, and chance do not require thought or design. Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Pygoscelis]

Check this out. it is a little dated now, but right on target:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgG_VSP7f8

This video shows results from a research project involving simulated Darwinian evolutions of virtual block creatures. A population of several hundred creatures is created within a supercomputer, and each creature is tested for their ability to perform a given task, such the ability to swim in a simulated water environment. Those that are most successful survive, and their virtual genes containing coded instructions for their growth, are copied, combined, and mutated to make offspring for a new population. The new creatures are again tested, and some may be improvements on their parents. As this cycle of variation and selection continues, creatures with more and more successful behaviors can emerge.

[Serinity]

Check this out. it is a little dated now, but right on target:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgG_VSP7f8

I don't believe in natural selection, or Darwinian evolution, or the survival of the fittest. It doesn't sound convincing.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't believe in natural selection, or Darwinian evolution, or the survival of the fittest. It doesn't sound convincing.

If you don't find evolution convincing, you can disprove it, and be rewarded with a Nobel prize for your efforts. Short of that, you can explain what you find difficult to understand or where you feel the theory goes wrong and we can explore that, and maybe correct your misconceptions or maybe find flaws in evolution itself. You can start by addressing the many points raised above that you have so far skipped over, including an entire post by a fellow Muslim. But you won't do that, right?

Note the irony here. This thread started with the charge that Atheists refuse to see what is around them, and you yourself went on to accuse me personally of not thinking or considering what others believe, and the evidence they put forth. I have answered that charge. I have considered and responded to what folks here have written and put forth, as has czgibson. Now I am getting the strong sense that you were projecting, and that it is in fact yourself who refuses to think or read up on what other people think and the evidence they have put forth. This isn't a theist or muslim thing, as we have had both Eric H and some Muslims here give considered and thoughtful responses.

Also, the only answer to the problem of evil that I have seen here was to say that "God does what he wants, because he is all powerful". Sure. ok. An all powerful god would do whatever it wants. No debate there. But if you then try to go on and say that God is good, just, kind, and benevolent towards humanity, you've still got a serious problem.

[Pygoscelis]

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim". It sounds much more like a Taoist or believer in Gaia. Where does Mohammad come in? Where do all of these directives of how we must live our lives come in? Where is hell in that? Where is all the tribalism and demands Muslims not be yoked with kafirs? Where are the dietary laws? How does that lead to people killing people for drawing cartoons? How does it lead to people praying so many times per day and in a particular way and direction? How is it a God of agency that does miracles and listens to prayers etc?

I don't have a whole lot to criticize in what you wrote, other than to say that you are basing the whole thing on an assumption - that there must be a first cause. Logic doesn't conclude that. You conclude that because it just seems right to you. You have no way of knowing that there hasn't always been something (perhaps in a series of big bangs and big crunches). Infinite regression may be something you can't wrap your head around, but that doesn't make it impossible or wrong. Just as Serenity's failure to understand evolution doesn't make it impossible or wrong.

And ultimately you are requiring the existence of a "nothing" that makes a decision to get the ball rolling on everything. Why is that not just as hard to wrap your head around as something always having existed? If something can't come from nothing, how can something come from "nothing"'s decision to make something come from nothing? How can this "nothing" (which seems to be actually something at least in a sense that it makes decisions) always have existed?

You appear to be pulling a bit of a Deepak Chopra on us, throwing out deepities and navel gazing with philosophy going in circles etc. To be fair, I'm not certain I completely follow what you are saying, but I strongly suspect that you don't either. But even if what you are saying is coherent, and I am just not following it, where is the evidence for it? Or do you admit that it is just a theory based on your assumption that there must be a first cause, and nothing more?

[ardianto]

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim". It sounds much more like a Taoist or believer in Gaia. Where does Mohammad come in? Where do all of these directives of how we must live our lives come in? Where is hell in that? Where is all the tribalism and demands Muslims not be yoked with kafirs? Where are the dietary laws? How does that lead to people killing people for drawing cartoons? How does it lead to people praying so many times per day and in a particular way and direction? How is it a God of agency that does miracles and listens to prayers etc?

Dear Pygoscelis. In exactly what you expect from Muslims?.

Seem like you often questioning why Muslims are like this?, why Muslims are like that?, why there's no Muslims who have different stance?. But when you meet a Muslim with different stance, you are questioning again with "Why this Muslim is different?. Why doesn't he become like other Muslims?".

:)

[Pygoscelis]

Dear Pygoscelis. In exactly what you expect from Muslims?.

Seem like you often questioning why Muslims are like this?, why Muslims are like that?, why there's no Muslims who have different stance?. But when you meet a Muslim with different stance, you are questioning again with "Why this Muslim is different?. Why doesn't he become like other Muslims?".

:)

Because I want to put you all in boxes and keep you under the Christmas tree, to be opened by the little children in the morning. :p

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Note the irony here. This thread started with the charge that Atheists refuse to see what is around them, and you yourself went on to accuse me personally of not thinking or considering what others believe, and the evidence they put forth. I have answered that charge. I have considered and responded to what folks here have written and put forth, as has czgibson. Now I am getting the strong sense that you were projecting, and that it is in fact yourself who refuses to think or read up on what other people think and the evidence they have put forth. This isn't a theist or muslim thing, as we have had both Eric H and some Muslims here give considered and thoughtful responses.

I don't think anybody has brought up any especially difficult questions for atheists to answer so far. Much of what we've seen is based on misunderstandings; for example, the word "chance" keeps coming up for no good reason that I can see.

Serinity has clearly been having trouble following much of what we've been saying. All we can do is keep encouraging him to read and learn more about evolution, otherwise it's likely he will just carry on missing all the points that answer his questions.

I recommend the following sites for anyone looking to learn more about evolution:

TalkOrigins Archive
Understanding Evolution
NCSE - Evolution

"A" is the same thing that Science and Philosophy understands as the Ultimate Necessary Logical Cause.

Where do you get the idea that "Science" and "Philosophy" assume this thing you describe?

Ultimate means at the very top, the very first.

If you're using the word in relation to a series, it actually means the very last. (Dictionary.com entry)

As for the rest of your enormous post, I agree with Pygoscelis' comparison to Deepak Chopra.

Peace

[Search]

:bism:

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim".

Actually, if you read up on Sufism, you'd need find much of the same theme in broad-brush. And Prophet Muhammad :saws: still figures in this broader theme, but as my sheikh (may Allah bless him) once said, that when you look at the picture holistically the differences between the "you" and "me" disappear and there is no tribalism but just wonder at the Oneness of Allah, Tawheed.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Also, the only answer to the problem of evil that I have seen here was to say that "God does what he wants, because he is all powerful". Sure. ok. An all powerful god would do whatever it wants. No debate there.

When you look at the 99 names of Allah, it seems he wants compassion, mercy, justice and forgiveness.

But if you then try to go on and say that God is good, just, kind, and benevolent towards humanity, you've still got a serious problem.

I believe the problem is more our doing, rather than that of God. We are commanded not to kill, yet mankind has raced towards building weapons of apocalyptic mass destruction.

We are commanded to help the poor and oppressed, but mankind allows twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day of grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease. We have the resources to feed these children, but choose not to.

God, logic and reason tells us it is better to feed the world; rather than build bombs, but we go against God, logic and reason.

If you want to blame God for cancer, tsunami and heart attacks, then there is also the need to recognise that God can restore us to a greater good life after death.

If there is no God, then the twenty thousand children, who died needlessly yesterday, will never find justice.

I believe you have a keen sense of justice, but wonder how you live with the thought of children dying needlessly and unjustly every day?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

If there is no God, then the twenty thousand children, who died needlessly yesterday, will never find justice.

Correct. Life is not fair. Wishing it was or wishing that there is an afterlife that will make it all good, doesn't make it so. We have to do our best to make it so on earth. This calls us to not merely accept injustice, but to fight it.

[~ Sabr ~]

Greetings,


I don't recall saying that everything came about by chance, nor do I actually believe this.

Do you have any substantial question you'd like to ask?

What do you believe then?

[Serinity]

There is no such thing as luck, chance, or natural selection. Our shortsightedness make us view it like that.

Natural selection is just a blind, empty belief, for the excuse to disbelieve in God. That is how I see it. If you say it is not guided or conscious, it is as if u say it is all random.

[Pygoscelis]

There is no such thing as luck, chance, or natural selection. Our shortsightedness make us view it like that.

Natural selection is just a blind, empty belief, for the excuse to disbelieve in God. That is how I see it. If you say it is not guided or conscious, it is as if u say it is all random.

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

[~ Sabr ~]

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

You will weep tears of blood on the Day of Judgement, wishing you made Him YOUR God.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You're having trouble following what I'm saying too? That is unfortunate.
If the word "Ultimate" is not the one you prefer as synonymous with "Greatest" or "Hypsistos" then choose whatever other word you may wish, is it really so difficult to comprehend what is being referred to here?

If you are looking to convince people of the truth of your argument, it might be worth using words with their correct meanings. It's not up to your readers to correct your mistakes.

What does Deepak Chopra have to do with anything?

The fact that he bases his positions on meaningless assertions in the same way you appear to do?

If you won't even deal with what I'm writing, why even provide half-hearted non-responses to it.

I've asked you a direct question that gets to the heart of your entire argument. You have chosen to ignore it. If that is an indication of your approach, then I'm sorry to say that at this stage, it doesn't look very likely that you'll be able to engage in a productive discussion here. You could carry on like this if you wish, but you will very quickly find yourself being ignored. Alternatively, if you would like your argument to be examined and responded to with the thoroughness you think it deserves, then perhaps you'd like to have another go at answering my question:

Where do you get the idea that "Science" and "Philosophy" assume this thing you describe?

Peace

[Serinity]

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

And shaped "by environment"? What determines whether it should have fur or not in cold? This can't happen mindlessly. But if you think so, then ok.

How do you know it is shaped by the environment? you said that natural selection is random/unconscious.

A. you believe in God.
B. you somehow believe that cells/environment can 'determine' or shape.. Mindlessly...... That is just like saying "given enough time I can make a human spawn by blowing up territory on sand! - It will mindlessly know how to assemble!"

No offence, but this sounds like non sense. you might as well believe by blowing up stuff, the things you blow up shape how things are made into - complex organisms.

your belief in natural selection, etc. defies logic.

The only way that it could be shaped by environment or animals having fur etc. when winter etc. is with a conscious God behind it all.

There is plenty of evidence towards God's existence. But you:

A. choose to ignore.
B. are blind to them.
C. never searched / thought it through.

In either case, Allah knows best. I see tremendous proof for God's existence, tbh.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What do you believe then?

I believe lots of things. If you are specifically referring to what I believe as opposed to the universe and life coming about by chance, then I would point to three things:

• The Big Bang
• Evolution by natural selection
• The merits of admitting when we don't know something

Peace

[ardianto]

There is no such thing as luck, chance, or natural selection. Our shortsightedness make us view it like that.

Natural selection is just a blind, empty belief, for the excuse to disbelieve in God. That is how I see it. If you say it is not guided or conscious, it is as if u say it is all random.

Extinction of some species is the evidence of natural selection. The difference between fossils and living creatures nowadays is the evidence of evolution.

Evolution and natural selection do really happen. And Allah arranged it to be happen to make new species get place in nature. Imagine if dinosaurs did not extinct. Could human survive if lived together with dinosaurs?.

[Pygoscelis]

And shaped "by environment"? What determines whether it should have fur or not in cold?

Mutation and natural selection. The ones that have fun live to make babies, so the next generation has more fur than the last did. Some from this 2nd generation have more fur than others, and they more often survive to have babies, so the 3rd generation has even more fur than the 2nd did, and so on. And every now and then the DNA is copied in such a way that it is changed, enabling something like more fur or more blubber insulation, etc, and those with that trait survive better and have more babies, so those traits over time become prominent int he population. Why is this so hard to understand or accept?

This can't happen mindlessly. But if you think so, then ok.

What I described above does not require a conscious mind directing it. Why would it? All you need is mutation and natural selection.

That is just like saying "given enough time I can make a human spawn by blowing up territory on sand! - It will mindlessly know how to assemble!"

This statement displays complete ignorance on what evolution theory is. You clearly don't understand what you claim to be dismissing, and after all of the explanation that has been given to you, including the pointing out of the flaws in the false analogy above (no replication, mutation or natural selection), I have to conclude that this ignorance is willful. Why do you refuse to at least learn what the theory says? Only then could you fairly dismiss it or try to explain it away. You could understand why what your muslim brother above pointed out is good evidence for evolution theory, and you could then try to poke holes in it and disprove it.

your belief in natural selection, etc. defies logic.

No. You refuse to engage in logic. You are showing all of the signs of fundamentalist dogmatism.

[Serinity]

Extinction of some species is the evidence of natural selection. The difference between fossils and living creatures nowadays is the evidence of evolution.

Evolution and natural selection do really happen. And Allah arranged it to be happen to make new species get place in nature. Imagine if dinosaurs did not extinct. Could human survive if lived together with dinosaurs?.

But I believe it is Allah that does it - not natural selection.

To me, they've just "substituted" god for natural selection. I know there is microevolution, but how it is done, ie. via natural selection, I disagree.
@Pygoscelis I do understand, but I disagree that it is natural selection. Who do you think that goes in and changes the genes? How does the gene know to do what it does, where did it get the instructions information from originally, where did the information come from, the coding? I believe it is Allah that does the whole thing.

Yes, I know there is microevolution, but I believe it is Allah that does the changing, not natural selection.

[Serinity]

In other words, it can be said that "Action" is another word for "Allah" or the "function of Allah". No matter how they respond to the question, they are simply substituting one word for another because of their disliking the word.

By what means does this occur? "Reality" "Nature" "It is how it is" "Action" "Power" "Energy" "Luck" "Chance" "Random" "Nothing", no matter what they say, whatever has the definition of ultimately doing it all or being responsible for it all, is synonymous to the definition we are giving to the term Allah.

In the end, its being fussy about word preferences and not trying to understand each other.

Yeah, cuz not a single gene can be changed except by Allah's will. We believe Allah did it, they believe whatever they believe. Khalas.

I'm not denying microevolution, cuz there are mutations, etc. I'm just saying it is Allah SWT, that changes the genes etc.:D

There is no macroevolution tho. And even if there was, it'd require a creator, imo.

I'd say our brain is one of the greatest evidences for God's existence. However, Allahu alam.

[ardianto]

But I believe it is Allah that does it - not natural selection.

Allah set the lives. But Allah set it through process and mechanism. In example, Allah make dry soil get water from rain. However, Allah does not make rain fall from nothing, but Allah make rain happen through process and mechanism. Water evaporate and turn into cloud, then cloud turn into water again, and rain happen.

Not different than natural selection that make some species extinct and the others adjust themselves with purpose to survive. Natural selection is a process and mechanism that created by Allah.

Should we reject science just because few things in science look contradictory with Islam?. No. But we must see it as sign that Allah want us to think and find the answer of mysteries in the universe.

:)

[Pygoscelis]

I do understand

Then why do you keep saying it is like a tornado and some sand knocking about and turning into a car? The use of this analogy is a clear and blatant display of ignorance (it lacks replication, mutation, AND natural selection)... If you are not ignorant, why use it to make it look like you are? It is right up there with people who say "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" lol... in case anybody doesn't know, we didn't come from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor.

but I disagree that it is natural selection. Who do you think that goes in and changes the genes?

Do a little research and you can learn. It can be a point mutation caused by radiation, or it can be lateral gene transfer, etc. And if you are saying that God steps in and makes all of these mutations happen, the obvious question is why, since most of them are in no way helpful to the species, and are often fatal. They certainly do not look like a conscious mind choosing between them, in favour of ones that are beneficial or looking to shape the future path of the species in one way or another. It is only the interaction with natural selection that does that. Natural selection being nothing more than which of these the environment allows to thrive and reproduce to fill one niche or another.

where did it get the instructions information from originally, where did the information come from, the coding?

That has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps you could take the position that Eric H and ardianto appear to be taking, taking no issue with evolution, but claiming their respective Gods set the wheels in motion so that it happens. Your argument would then be with abiogenesis (how the organic arose from the inorganic), not evolution. Science has not explained abiogenesis as well as it has evolution, so there is a bit of a gap for your God to fill there, until of course we do explain it. God of the gaps reasoning isn't going to convince many who don't already believe as you do though.

Yes, I know there is microevolution, but I believe it is Allah that does the changing, not natural selection.

What is "micro" evolution supposed to mean? Evolution is evolution.

[Serinity]

Do a little research and you can learn. It can be a point mutation caused by radiation, or it can be lateral gene transfer, etc. And if you are saying that God steps in and makes all of these mutations happen, the obvious question is why, since most of them are in no way helpful to the species, and are often fatal. They certainly do not look like a conscious mind choosing between them, in favour of ones that are beneficial or looking to shape the future path of the species in one way or another. It is only the interaction with natural selection that does that. Natural selection being nothing more than which of these the environment allows to thrive and reproduce to fill one niche or another.

You do know that Allah creates everything indirectly? Ie. He conceals His powers. No matter how much mankind try to find out how things are made, they'll just come closer to the means of how Allah created it.
May Allah forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.
Take fire.

As kids we thought fire burns because it is hot.. As we get more knowledge we come to know that it is because of z or y.

Point being, the more knowledge we get, the more we get to know how Allah made it.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Perhaps you could take the position that Eric H and ardianto appear to be taking, taking no issue with evolution, but claiming their respective Gods set the wheels in motion so that it happens. Your argument would then be with abiogenesis (how the organic arose from the inorganic), not evolution. Science has not explained abiogenesis as well as it has evolution, so there is a bit of a gap for your God to fill there, until of course we do explain it. God of the gaps reasoning isn't going to convince many who don't already believe as you do though.

Well, as I said in the previous quote, we are just getting to know more how Allah does things.

In elementary school we may have thought that something like the sun shined, just because (without any reasoning) ... but as we gain more knowledge we get to know more how Allah created things.

you are simply discovering deeper how Allah made things.. :)

[Pygoscelis]

you are simply discovering deeper how Allah made things.. :)

So atheist scientists know Allah better than pious Muslims?

[Serinity]

So atheist scientists know Allah better than pious Muslims?

No, that is not what I am saying, you know how Allah made things, not who Allah is. you'll only know that by reading the Quran.

[Pygoscelis]

lol I'm too stupid for them to talk to apparently. :heated:

You're not stupid. You are just posting content that doesn't particularly draw much of a response from me. I engaged your train of thought as far as it took me on the previous pages.

What is it that you're calling "Life"?

I think you know what I meant. But questions like this seem to be material for an entire separate thread if you want to get philosophical (is fire alive?) or pedantic about it.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

What I described above does not require a conscious mind directing it. Why would it? All you need is mutation and natural selection.

It almost seems that the ToE is not that important, it just seems a means to try and prove there is no God.

No. You refuse to engage in logic. You are showing all of the signs of fundamentalist dogmatism.

You are using logic to prove atheism, so we are not convinced that atheism is correct. I think this now places the burden of proof on you, we need more evidence that evolution happened purely through natural causes.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

It almost seems that the ToE is not that important, it just seems a means to try and prove there is no God.

It doesn't disprove God. Nothing can disprove something that is unfalsifiable. It can only disprove particular claims about creation (ie, the biblical account), and never a deist conception of God.

You are using logic to prove atheism

I am doing no such thing.

we need more evidence that evolution happened purely through natural causes.

No. What you need is evidence that a God is required for or somehow fits into evolution, or in the case of an Abrahabic sort of omni-benevolent and omni-powerful God with a plan for humanity etc, at least some consistency with it. All science so far hasn't found that, so I am left with no reason to believe it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry if I missed your question. I got that idea from books and websites?

Books and websites? That's your response? :hmm:

I didn't understand that your question was more than rhetorical.

I can't see how it could be a rhetorical question, but never mind. We obviously disagree about that.

Also, I didn't use the words incorrectly. Ultimate does mean what I said it means as one of its definitions and I clearly defined what I meant by what I was saying.

Do you not think so?

How silly of me. I now see that when you said "first", I should have immediately interpreted what you meant as "last".

Now what are you doing on a Muslim website?

I have been lucky enough to be a member of this board for nearly eleven years. In that time I have been made to feel welcome by most of the members here. There have been some occasional unpleasant moments, but they have been outweighed by some of the more productive discussions that I've been involved with here.

I'm here because I think dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims is very important. Where I live, in Dorset in the UK, it is difficult to find opportunities to talk with Muslims on a day-to-day basis, and this forum makes it possible for me. I think it would be terrible if Muslims and non-Muslims did not talk to each other at all, and for as long as I'm welcome here I hope to continue developing my understanding of Islam and acquaintance with some of the people who practise it.

Sorry that you felt your question was important enough to notice, I didn't realize you couldn't figure out an answer for that. So my answer is books and websites. I thought maybe you had heard of the idea of there being causation, things being determined by something else and something else etc. Perhaps not.

I have indeed heard of causation, but I'm afraid that simply saying "books and websites" in support of what is a deeply contentious claim is not a sufficient basis for the vast edifice of ideas that you intend to construct upon it.

Claiming that "Philosophy" as a whole is agreed that there is a first cause is deeply strange. For one thing, philosophy is a subject studied by many people from many different cultures with many different ideas. To assume that they are all agreed on an issue like causality is simply fanciful. Notable philosophers who would disagree with your assertion about there being a necessary first cause include David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell.

It doesn't seem like an Atheist coming to a place called Islamicboard really has the intention of comprehending anything.

You are free to make whatever assumptions you like about me.

Your opinions or responses can be used to refine what and how I say what I say. On the other hand, you may not gain anything from what I say, because you don't seem to understand the most simple statements such as "It depends on what you call God".

I don't know what grounds you have for assuming this, but again, never mind. I am not at all offended by your insults.

Perhaps your idea is that words all have the same meaning in everyone's minds?

Unless there is broad agreement on the meanings of words, then communicating ideas is difficult. The more complex the idea, the more the difficulty increases.

If you find it difficult and are complaining about reading my posts due to their length, you can simply ignore me as you've suggested above,

It's beginning to look like the most sensible option.

Anyone who is understands philosophy will be able to go through the steps of what I am saying carefully.

I have a Master's degree in Philosophy. While I grant that that doesn't automatically and necessarily make me someone who understands philosophy, I believe I'm more acquainted with the subject than many people are, including you.

Peace

[ardianto]

There is no dispute between science and Islam, science is a creation of Allah.

Allah makes the rain drop, and can change the mechanism or our interpretation of it is in an instant. Allah can make it appear that the rain is falling upwards rather than downwards and make everyone say "of course, that is how it always happens, what, did you think it falls down rather than up? How ridiculous! Look at it!" That is because Allah creates all these delusions freely and can change them freely and we may not even be aware if such a change has occurred or not if Allah does not inform us. So to become too absorbed in a "system" can be folly, except as far as it pragmatically can help us now.

It is Allah that makes the fire hot, and Allah can make the fire cold. The fire is not "automatically hot", but it is Allah who is responsible for the image and the impression and interaction in every detail. That is to say "what we call Allah, is that which is responsible for every detail of experience and phenomenon".

Science is created by human as the way to understand the things that happen in the universe. What Allah created is the human ability of thinking that makes them can create science.

Allah can make something impossible happen. It's called miracle. But if Allah made rainfall upward rather than downward, then there must be a natural mechanism that make it happened.

Allah make the nature run by system is to make human can understand how the nature works, and then human can 'use' the nature to support their live.

[Pygoscelis]

^ You are quoting text that was not directed towards you, and then demanding a response to something not whatsoever related?

I think I can sum up what you've written to the following: There must be a first cause, because you choose to see it that way, can't wrap your mind around it not being that way, and want to pretend that all philosophers agree it is so. And even if there isn't a first cause, then the chain of events going back into infinity is what you decide to label as "first cause", so then there is a first cause *facepalm*. It is a nice tautology void of any logic, reason, or evidence of any sort. And then you decide to call yourself a Muslim as opposed to any other religion that believes in a creator God for no stated additional reason. I don't know why you think this would elicit much response or discussion.

See how I fit that all into one concise and clear paragraph for you? If you mean something else in your walls of Deepak Chopra level word salad, you have utterly failed to communicate it. And I see little reason to continue further with you.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

And even if there isn't a first cause, then the chain of events going back into infinity is what you decide to label as "first cause", so then there is a first cause *facepalm*. It is a nice tautology void of any logic, reason, or evidence of any sort.

It is a nice tautology void of any logic, reason, or evidence of any sort, because none seems to exist, all we have are arguments. An infinite regress of causes, something with no beginning, or something coming from nothing all seem to defy science, logic and reason.

We are here, I just have faith and trust that God created the universe and life, but there is no convincing evidence to back up my beliefs.

Despite all our diverse beliefs, we are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for God’s creation that has to mean caring for each other despite our differences.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Serinity]

It doesn't disprove God. Nothing can disprove something that is unfalsifiable. It can only disprove particular claims about creation (ie, the biblical account), and never a deist conception of God.



I am doing no such thing.



No. What you need is evidence that a God is required for or somehow fits into evolution, or in the case of an Abrahabic sort of omni-benevolent and omni-powerful God with a plan for humanity etc, at least some consistency with it. All science so far hasn't found that, so I am left with no reason to believe it.

I see where you are coming from.

May Allah guide you and inspire in you proof. Ameen. We know what God wants from His revelations, we know God exists because of the creation. We know that there is only One God, cause there is only evidence for 1 God. saying otherwise, and I'd require proof, a miracle or a sign. Otherwise it is conjecture.

Whatever comes from us, of our imagination, can't be true. If I think of a fish with wings and a sword. It is a mythical fish, cause we don't see evidence for such.

I do understand where you come from, and I ask Allah to guide you. Ameen.

I believe in Allah cause of the evidence I see around. you may not see it, perhaps the problem is you?
Why do you limit yourself to science? Do you believe science can answer everything? I don't think so. Science is limited, since it is observation based on our senses, which are limited. The equipment we use, are limited.

We have to think with the evidence we have in front of us. I don't know about Allah, except for what He revealed in the Quran.

But there is a fine line of being a materialist and arrogant, and delusional and arrogant.

Become too materialistic, and you become narrowminded.

And whenever you are in doubt about Allah know that whatever comes from you of assumptions - it is false.

Allah knows best.

[Pygoscelis]

Did you even comprehend any of it, I tried to keep it very simple. Do you have a PhD? I just wondered since the last guy had a Master's and you seem to understand even less.

Yes, call the readers idiots. That will get you far. Or perhaps it has something to do with your giant walls of text nobody will want to read, your cryptic word salad, or your new insistence of writing like you think you are a monkey....

Whatever it is, you are coming across as none of interesting, illuminating or entertaining, so there is no reason to read you any further.

[Pygoscelis]

I believe in Allah cause of the evidence I see around. you may not see it, perhaps the problem is you?

That is possible. Maybe I am spiritually blind; born without a sensory capacity for Gods and ghosts. If so, you should be able to show it with some evidence, or at least some coherent argument beyond bare faith, wishful thinking, and god of the gaps assumptions.

Do you believe science can answer everything?

No. It can't. But it is all we have to get at truth. "Revelation", "Faith" and other forms of fantasy and wishful thinking may be comforting but are useless for finding truth.

But there is a fine line of being a materialist and arrogant, and delusional and arrogant.

It is arrogant to presume that you are the key concern, or even a small concern, of the all powerful creator of the universe, and that he has a special relationship with you and a special message for you.

Become too materialistic, and you become narrowminded.

I am not the one that has been refusing to address the posts above on evolution, including one by a fellow muslim who brought up some very good evidence. Nor am I the one that claims to be perfectly certain of anything. Science is always open to change and revision. Religion is dogmatic and inflexible. Which one is narrowminded again?

Allah knows best

Unless Allah knows nothing, because Allah is imaginary. I see no evidence otherwise.

[Serinity]

That is possible. Maybe I am spiritually blind; born without a sensory capacity for Gods and ghosts. If so, you should be able to show it with some evidence, or at least some coherent argument beyond bare faith, wishful thinking, and god of the gaps assumptions.

Even if science came to know how our cells were build, I'd still believe in Allah. Cause then the question is "How could this whole thing assemble and who controlled it?" if I ask you "How did B do X" you'd say "B did X because of T which did V" overall, science only gets closer to how, not who.

and I find it delusional and arrogant to think this could come from none.

Islam answers all questions, it is Allah that created everything, and that is evident in creation. We've all been born with the ability to believe in Allah, to recognize Him. Many have been mislead,tho.

It is arrogant to presume that you are the key concern, or even a small concern, of the all powerful creator of the universe, and that he has a special relationship with you and a special message for you.

Islam is a message to all mankind. Whether you accept it or not, is upto you.

No. It can't. But it is all we have to get at truth. "Revelation", "Faith" and other forms of fantasy and wishful thinking may be comforting but are useless for finding truth.

I presume you haven't even cared to look into whether it can be from God? Islam does not call for wishful thinking, or fantasy.

Those who think that "we live and die and become nothnig - there is no ressurection" are wishful thinkers, and fantasisers.

No, science isn't the only thing we have to get at truth - we have our brains.

Unless Allah knows nothing, because Allah is imaginary. I see no evidence otherwise.

That is your assumption. There is evidence, but you refuse to think.

Do you think if I bomb earth that a human being will spawn? No, then how do you think that this whole thing could come to be without a guiding hand? and if you say it is guided by natural selection, then tell me, is it conscious? you say no. Guided by the environment? so you say natural selection is guided by the environment, but how can that be when you say that it is unconscious?

Allah does exist, but you are but wishfully thinking. How regretful you will be on the Day of Judgment, being passive about finding the truth.

Science doesn't show anything except how it was created. Overall, it is Allah that created it.

The ignorance, presumptions in this comment of yours is cancerous, and unintelligent.

am not the one that has been refusing to address the posts above on evolution, including one by a fellow muslim who brought up some very good evidence. Nor am I the one that claims to be perfectly certain of anything. Science is always open to change and revision. Religion is dogmatic and inflexible. Which one is narrowminded again?

Religion, dogmatic and inflexible? Ha, perhaps for false religions, but Islam is timeless, and flexible.

[M.I.A.]

Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah Give guidance to a people unjust.

Lol, posted this in the wrong thread before.. Anyway, science.

[Moderator]

(mildly) I do not see that this thread is going anywhere constructive; it started with a lack or respect, and has woven in and out of respectful discussion since... I would suggest that it be closed. If an atheist wishes to express his or her beliefs so that we can better understand them, then I would suggest that a new thread could be started by him or her, with this intention.

:threadclo