/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Proof of God



Pages : [1] 2

Protected_Diamond
02-23-2006, 07:37 PM
The Islamic belief and subsequently the Islamic way of life are premised on an intellectual basis. Therefore, Islam is neither a religion nor a set of values and rituals that arise from blind faith. Rather, Islam is an intellectual belief from which emanates a comprehensive socio-political and economic system. To understand the unique system that Islam offers necessitates the explanation of the Islamic belief i.e. the belief in God, Allah (swt) and the word of God, and the Qur'aan.


God: The arguments



Today if you mention God then you'll probably get a negative reaction. It has become the trend to get on with life and not bother to ask the question whether there is a God or not. In fact this question was not even asked much in the days of old, when you simply had to believe in God or be persecuted. Therefore, it is not surprising that people find it easy to believe that the existence of God is a myth, simply because they have never thought deeply about the idea.



It is because people continued to believe in God blindly i.e. blind faith, rather than use ration, that science and its attempted explanations of universal phenomena was hailed as the 'new (false) God'.



But let us deal with both arguments - for and against the existence of a Creator - from a rational perspective. A common argument by many Christians and some other religions is that God is the God of many abstract attributes such as Love, Peace, Mercy which indeed are admirable qualities for human beings to aspire to. This characterisation of God is based upon an implicit assumption that God can be likened to human beings thus the attempt to understand God in a human framework. Accordingly, we find in some societies, such as early Greek, that individual gods were used to represent single human attributes, and in other cultures gods have the quality to reproduce.



The question this begs is whether the essence of an unlimited Creator is understandable through a limited, imperfect human mind when God lies beyond our perception? Rational thought would dictate that if God exists then knowledge of God's attributes can only come from itself. Therefore, famine in the world leading to the deaths of millions would not deny the Justice, Mercy or Love of a supposed God, but would only if one attributed the human essence to God. Similarly, if one understands God as the Governor and Controller of the universe then the notion of God dying is nonsensical. This is the failure of Christianity and indeed all religions, as their belief becomes a matter of blind faith. Consequently, they allow themselves to be plagued by rational contradictions, which inevitably lead to intellectual rise to disprove the existence of God. Are these arguments valid? To understand the validity of any proposed argument the premise should be examined. Science is concerned with the methodology of processes in the physical world, i.e. it deals with 'how' and not 'why'. Thus scientists are not concerned with why gravity exists but how gravity influences bodies to shape this universe.



The scientific method is limited in that it can only deduce rules by repeated observation of physical phenomena. Thus the question of the existence of God does not and cannot fall into the realm of scientific thought because science deals with the mechanisms of events and phenomena within the universe i.e. the tangible and not the intangible. To test the hypothesis to apply scientific proof for or against God, one would effectively have said that God is "testable'. Therefore, logically one would conclude God to be within the universe since God must be physically tangible in order to test. Since God is tangible and contained within the universe, God must be limited and therefore cannot be God.



Thus scientists are falling into the same trap as the blind followers of religion that is they are implicitly defining a role to God as the 'one who makes things work'. Since scientists have explained how things work the question of God does not arise. Those who argue from this angle have falsely assumed an attribute/essence of God in the same way Christians say God has a son or is Love.



To prove or disprove the existence of a Creator we need to go beyond the limitations of the scientific method and proceed rationally for it is only the rational thought which has the ability to deal with an issue like this.


The rational thought



Man progresses as a result of his thoughts concerning everything around him. Thoughts are what distinguish man from other animals and without them man would be lost. Thought occurs when man receives information about something through his five senses. He then distinguishes it by linking it to previous information and experiences he has encountered. For example, a person comes across a plant. He knows that it is a plant due to previous knowledge of what a plant looks like. But only when he links it with previous information on the various types of plants will he be able to tell if it is edible or poisonous.



Hence, just receiving information is not enough. It will remain only as information that we cannot appreciate or understand. However the process of linking it to previous information and distinguishing the information is the process of thought and is the key of understanding and progressing.



Consequently, when man becomes convinced of the correctness of a thought, it becomes a concept, which he carries, thus, affecting his behaviour. For example, if we carry a concept of dislike of someone, it will affect our behaviour towards that person. So we see that carrying false ideas has serious implications for a person and if such false ideas are carried widely it has serious implications for society.



Thus the idea and question of God has serious implications because the answer obtained becomes the very basis by which we understand the creation and purpose of man, life and the universe. Therefore, the method used should not merely be the rational thought but be comprehensive and agree with reality. Anything hypothetical or emotional should be rejected since their basis disagrees with ration and reality.


The rational proof



When we look around at everything we can sense one factor is shared by these things, they are all limited. By limited we mean that they have restrictions, a starting point and an ending point, and they all have definable attributes, i.e. they are finite.



Man is born and he dies. There is no one alive who will not die. During his life span, he will grow to a certain shape, height and volume. The universe is defined as all the celestial bodies and planets. All these objects have a certain mass, shape, volume and so on. The life span of a star may be very long, but a point in time will come when it will cease to exist.



The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. No scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. In fact when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! There is nothing in reality, which is unlimited. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything unlimited around him. All he can perceive is the finite and limited.



A further attribute of everything around us is that they are all needy and dependent in order to continue existing. They are not self-sustaining or independent. Man has needs. He has to satisfy in order to survive. He has organic needs. Man must eat and drink if he is to survive. If he does not he will die. We see need and dependency in plants and animals. They depend on other parts of the food chain for their existence. The water cycle is dependent on the sun, which is dependent on the laws of the galaxies and of burning mass, and so on... Nothing man can perceive is self-subsistent. So things exist, but do not have the power of existence. They cannot control when they die or when other bodies die.



There is one fact that emerges from all this. If something is limited and finite, and does not have the power to be self-subsistent then it must have been created. Applying this to everything we see will bring us to a conclusion. If everything in the universe is created because it has not the power of being in existence on its own, and is finite and limited, then there must be a Creator. This Creator by contrast has to be unlimited and not needy and dependent on anything to bring it into, or sustain its existence.



The universe; the sum of finite and dependent objects is finite and dependent - but dependent on what? It is dependent on something to start and sustain life; and something to plan and develop life.



The only rational and intellectual solution to the question of creation is that there is a Creator, which has accounted for all that we see and perceive. Ration tells us that nothing can be created without a creator. Ultimately there must be a Creator who is unlimited in every aspect.



Some scientists challenge this with a theory that everything depends on something for existence, which in turn depends upon something for existence, and so on ad infinitum. This theory is irrational, as it does not explain how anything came into existence in the first place. It uses an idea of ' Infinity’, which we know does not exist in reality. It does not, or even make an attempt, to explain-the very first step in the sequence. It is illogical and incomplete in its theory, and far from being scientific. If at its basis the theory is weak, how is it possible to trust the proceeding theoretical argument for the creation of the universe?


Conclusion




Hence, looking at any planet in the universe, contemplating on any phase of life, or comprehending any aspect of man provides a conclusive evidence for the existence of a Creator, what Muslims call Allah (swt).



This intellectual proof of the existence of Allah (swt) is an understanding open for everyone and obligatory for all Muslims to be convinced of. Each person must explore to the limit of his understanding. Blind belief has no place in Islam. Believing through instinctive emotions is unreliable and dangerous as emotions can change and add error to ones belief and actions. And if the basis of the belief is irrational and weak, how can a system of life be built upon it?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Kittygyal
02-23-2006, 07:38 PM
omg! wow so much to read
Reply

czgibson
02-23-2006, 07:55 PM
Greetings,

There is no such thing as a proof that god exists; if there were then everyone would believe in god. The article claims its arguments to be "intellectual" and "rational"; they are nothing of the sort.

Peace
Reply

Eric H
02-23-2006, 09:53 PM
Greetings and peace czgibson;
There is no such thing as a proof that god exists; if there were then everyone would believe in god.
I have to agree with you, and not only would everyone believe, they would probably all believe in the same way through the same religion.

It seems that God is not interested in rearanging the stars to spell out a convincing message in the night sky, he seems to convince us as individuals and we need to find him ourselves.

Things have happened in my life that convince me God exists, but this proof would not convince others, faith is a strange thing.

Take care and have a nice day,

Eric
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
czgibson
02-23-2006, 10:10 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Things have happened in my life that convince me God exists, but this proof would not convince others, faith is a strange thing.
I agree with you. Faith is definitely a personal thing.

Peace
Reply

azim
02-23-2006, 10:16 PM
There is no such thing as a proof that god exists; if there were then everyone would believe in god. The article claims its arguments to be "intellectual" and "rational"; they are nothing of the sort.
I agree with you in some respects. I believe there is conclusive evidence that there is a God, however, as bro Eric put it, it's not God "rearanging the stars to spell out a convincing message", rather it's something more indirect but nonetheless still convincing.
Reply

sweetangel16
02-24-2006, 02:08 AM
i believe that this wrld with all of its complex things etc could not have just come by luck....
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 09:15 PM
rather it's something more indirect but nonetheless still convincing.
Is that statement not a contradiction, since you believe that "God" seperated the moon to just a few. Could you get anymore "indirect" than that?
Reply

muslimahh
02-24-2006, 09:20 PM
:D

Lets go through an exercise, shalll we? :)

(for anyone who wants to participate)

Q1 - If there was no God, how did everything we have in nature and non-nature come to be?

(one word answers are welcome....i know the answer most of you will give, but for fun's sake, entertain me :) )
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 09:24 PM
Is that statement not a contradiction, since you believe that "God" seperated the moon to just a few. Could you get anymore "indirect" than that?
Yes, and it is the same with someone who is blind and deaf.....If someone is trying to give the person direction to somewhere, the deaf and blind person will think that the guide's help is indirect, but really, the guide's help is direct, but he percieve's it not.

I hope these words of mine have some effect on your concepts.
Reply

azim
02-24-2006, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Is that statement not a contradiction, since you believe that "God" seperated the moon to just a few. Could you get anymore "indirect" than that?
When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) split the moon by the leave of Allah, it was a miracle for those present. I would never present you with such facts as evidence because it is not proof in any sense of the word.

Rather I turn to the Quran for proof - and I'm sure you've had this explained to you before.

The Quran is imitable nature of the Quran.

The agreement of the Quran with modern scientific facts.

A nice one which is no one has even tried to explain so far is the word count repititions in the Quran: -

http://www.islamicboard.com/172587-post14.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/171261-post12.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/170015-post7.html

There are without doubt more of those in the Quran, but those are the ones which members of this forum have verified.

To present conclusive proof doesnt however mean everyone will believe - just like the pagans who witnessed the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad - not everyone believes even if conclusive proof is given.

Peace.
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 09:34 PM
Q1 - If there was no God, how did everything we have in nature and non-nature come to be?
Well, who said anything has come to be. Perhaps you are the only one true living thing and everything you percieve around you is all generated from your deep coma, your brain is pulling off the best mind trick ever. Would love you to try and prove me wrong!
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 09:37 PM
Well, who said anything has come to be. Perhaps you are the only one true living thing and everything you percieve around you is all generated from your deep coma, your brain is pulling off the best mind trick ever. Would love you to try and prove me wrong!
Urm......the mind cannot create images of people it hasn't seen seen before, therefore, all these people we see are real, if this was a mind trick then there wouldn't be any people in our lives.....

Also......prove to me that this life is a deep coma..........
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 09:39 PM
the mind cannot create images of people it hasn't seen seen before
I can't believe you are taking the bait. can you prove your statement? and if you can and I doubt it then how do you knoiw the face you see is being fed to you by a "nueron plams beamer" that sends undetectable fdw's ("face depiction waves") direct to your brain? Go on prove me wrong
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
I can't believe you are taking the bait. can you prove your statement?
It is scientific fact....

WHY SHOULD I PROVE MY STATEMENT? It's your statement of being in a coma that needs proof.....Mine is logical, your's is just a theory, like darwinism....
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 09:45 PM
It is scientific fact....
Good, the source will be easy to find. can I have the source please & your evidence also that fdw's don't exist
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Good, the source will be easy to find. can I have the source please & your evidence also that fdw's don't exist
I learnt it from my science teacher...

I dunno which book, i'll ask him what book it was on monday, make sure you are here on Monday after 8pm (UK time)...

Also, i tried it myself, it just doesn't work, try it yourself mate....try and make out soemone who you have never met......
Reply

muslimahh
02-24-2006, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Well, who said anything has come to be. Perhaps you are the only one true living thing and everything you percieve around you is all generated from your deep coma, your brain is pulling off the best mind trick ever. Would love you to try and prove me wrong!
hehe actually this is something to work with.

Descartes was thinking along the same lines no?

Q2. Now even if you're just a brain, how did that brain come to be. At the very least we're saying you exist, no?

format_quote Originally Posted by root
I can't believe you are taking the bait. can you prove your statement? and if you can and I doubt it then how do you knoiw the face you see is being fed to you by a "nueron plams beamer" that sends undetectable fdw's ("face depiction waves") direct to your brain? Go on prove me wrong
LOL! Okadd the neuron palms beamer to something that must have had to be created :)
Reply

azim
02-24-2006, 10:03 PM
Root - could you possibly reply to me. I would like to participate in this debate.
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 10:42 PM
AZIM - When the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) split the moon by the leave of Allah, it was a miracle for those present. I would never present you with such facts as evidence because it is not proof in any sense of the word.
Root - could you possibly reply to me. I would like to participate in this debate.
Thier was no need to respond since your post said everything that needed to be said. I would never present you with such facts as evidence because it is not proof in any sense of the word.
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 10:47 PM
Do you believe in human rights root?
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 10:52 PM
Do you believe in human rights root?
I think that is a very open ended question, do I think a cultural society should afford rights to it's subjects then yes. Do I believe in human rights? I can't say that I do! What is the point to your question.
Reply

afriend
02-24-2006, 10:56 PM
......Expected that type of answer.........

Just wanted to know, that's all, sory for goin off topic.
Reply

muslimahh
02-24-2006, 11:03 PM
*sigh* still waiting for the answer to Q2... this is going somwhere, i promise
Reply

azim
02-24-2006, 11:24 PM
Rather I turn to the Quran for proof - and I'm sure you've had this explained to you before.

The Quran is imitable nature of the Quran.

The agreement of the Quran with modern scientific facts.

A nice one which is no one has even tried to explain so far is the word count repititions in the Quran: -

http://www.islamicboard.com/172587-post14.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/171261-post12.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/170015-post7.html

There are without doubt more of those in the Quran, but those are the ones which members of this forum have verified.

To present conclusive proof doesnt however mean everyone will believe - just like the pagans who witnessed the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad - not everyone believes even if conclusive proof is given.
Could you get anymore "indirect" than that?
You missed out half of my post.
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 11:26 PM
Q2. Now even if you're just a brain, how did that brain come to be. At the very least we're saying you exist, no?
Aliens created the brain, advanced knowledge beings have created my brain. They are my creator, my intelligent designer. They are my god. Before "them" I was nothingness. ("Perhaps")
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 11:31 PM
To present conclusive proof doesnt however mean everyone will believe - just like the pagans who witnessed the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad - not everyone believes even if conclusive proof is given.
Conclusive proof for the proof of god has never been shown on this forum or anywhere else, even the parting of the moon in absence of scientific support by any means requires faith.
Reply

azim
02-24-2006, 11:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Conclusive proof for the proof of god has never been shown on this forum or anywhere else, even the parting of the moon in absence of scientific support by any means requires faith.
Like I said - I would not present the parting of the moon as proof to you.

Rather I presented the Quran and three aspects of it that proved it to be beyond human creation - thus true - thus divine.

Pay attention to the three links I provided - thanks to Ansar who collected them - put that in balance with everything else provided. It's conclusive proof.
Reply

root
02-24-2006, 11:46 PM
put that in balance with everything else provided. It's conclusive proof.
It's far from conclusive my friend.
Reply

muslimahh
02-25-2006, 12:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Aliens created the brain, advanced knowledge beings have created my brain. They are my creator, my intelligent designer. They are my god. Before "them" I was nothingness. ("Perhaps")
umm *Scratches head* ok I'd like to see you back that one up.

Anyone sincerely wanting to discuss this based on their actual beliefs? :S
Reply

muslimahh
02-25-2006, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Aliens created the brain, advanced knowledge beings have created my brain. They are my creator, my intelligent designer. They are my god. Before "them" I was nothingness. ("Perhaps")
umm *Scratches head* ok I'd like to see you back that one up. hehe again, just for the sake of discussion, who created them? (I'm kinda losing hope in you Root, its obvious you're not here to discuss....)

Anyone sincerely wanting to discuss this based on their actual beliefs? :S
Reply

hamzaa
02-25-2006, 04:23 AM
Peace Root,

"Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?" "
Reply

czgibson
02-25-2006, 05:08 PM
Greetings hamzaa,
format_quote Originally Posted by hamzaa
"Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence.
This is not true. Surprising as it may sound, it's not actually possible to prove your own existence. Using your senses doesn't help at all in this question, because you're making the assumption that your senses exist before using that to "prove" that the rest of you exists.

On a very similar subject, check this out - it's the famous brain in a vat thought experiment.

But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.
This is no proof of god's existence, since you start with the assumption that god exists and has created things. You look around the world and apply a particular interpretation of the origins of the objects within it, even though there is no justification for that interpretation.

Peace
Reply

azim
02-25-2006, 07:16 PM
On a very similar subject, check this out - it's the famous brain in a vat thought experiment.
Things getting a bit off topic, lol.

My own personal opinion about that line of philosophy is that if were are 'a brain in a vat', then we have no real way to distinguish between simulated life and real life.

Thus, theres no point in doubting what we hav know way evidence or argument to even suggest one way or another - so we assume that we are real and we do exist and that we're not a 'brain in a vat'.

As a final note - what an inconsequential and pointless life it would be if you were the only person who ever really existed and you had a boring life simulated where you go to school, study and learn fake knowledge, have fake exams, earn fake money... that kind of thinking leads to suicide. :p.
Reply

root
02-25-2006, 09:44 PM
Thus, theres no point in doubting what we hav know way evidence or argument to even suggest one way or another
I agree, and to me that is in essence a great description as to the "proof of god" or even a kettle orbiting the earth.
Reply

muslimahh
02-25-2006, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
On a very similar subject, check this out - it's the famous brain in a vat thought experiment.

I'm going to argue that Descartes himself, Mr. Brain in a vat experimentor, "I think therefore I am" actually logically proved the existance of a higher being (i.e. God)....be it the "scientist" playing with the brain in a vat or some other higher being :)
Reply

czgibson
02-25-2006, 11:58 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by azim
My own personal opinion about that line of philosophy is that if were are 'a brain in a vat', then we have no real way to distinguish between simulated life and real life.
That's precisely the point of the thought experiment. You have just as much reason to believe one way or the other.

Thus, theres no point in doubting what we hav know way evidence or argument to even suggest one way or another - so we assume that we are real and we do exist and that we're not a 'brain in a vat'.
So you're making an assumption, and therefore you cannot prove that what you say is true.

format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
I'm going to argue that Descartes himself, Mr. Brain in a vat experimentor, "I think therefore I am" actually logically proved the existance of a higher being (i.e. God)....be it the "scientist" playing with the brain in a vat or some other higher being
Well, Descartes didn't mention the brain in a vat concept, although you're right to bring him up here because he made very similar points. His idea was that there could be a demon constantly deceiving him as to what was real, so he would have to suspend judgement on everything he possibly could in order to find out what the secure foundations for knowledge could actually be.

On his proof for the existence of god: his proof is famous for being transparent in its departure from the logic of the rest of his Discourse on Method, and it is actually discounted if you follow that logic through properly. He basically claims to have proven god's existence because he cannot doubt it, whether for personal reasons of faith or due to fear of persecution from the religious authorities. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia entry on Discourse on Method:

Perhaps the most strained part of the argument is the reasoned proof of the existence of God and indeed Descartes seems to realise this as he supplies three different 'proofs' including what is now referred to as the ontological proof of the existence of God (some argue that Descartes inserted his statement on the existence of God in the Discourse on Method to appease censors of the time; a very serious concern, as within Discourse Descartes points out that he was at first reluctant to publish the work because of the recent show trial of Galileo by the Catholic Church in 1633, only four years earlier).
Peace
Reply

Eric H
02-26-2006, 01:07 PM
Greetings and peace czgibson,

You seem to be a very patient, peaceful and understanding person, but can I ask, what prevents you from believing in God?

Take care

Eric
Reply

czgibson
02-26-2006, 02:16 PM
Greetings Eric,
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
You seem to be a very patient, peaceful and understanding person, but can I ask, what prevents you from believing in God?
I've explained in outline what led to me becoming an atheist on this thread:

Click me -> :)

I suppose your question is slightly different, though. There are many things that prevent me from believing in god, chief among them being the overwhelming lack of evidence for his existence. Following on from that, I think it's massively more likely that god is a fiction created by humans for various purposes than that an unobservable, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator being actually exists.

The famously sceptical philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked about what he would say to god after his death if it turned out that he had been wrong all along, and god actually did exist. He answer was: "I would say: God, why have you made the evidence for your existence so insufficient?" That just about sums up my position.

If god does exist, I think he's bored with us and wants to be left alone. After all, it's been a very long time since any event occurred that huge numbers of people would designate as being a miracle. Compare the situation today with the times of the Old Testament, when god was described as being like a person, with no embarrassment about making an appearance and performing miracles for all to see. Things have changed - either god isn't putting in the effort to convince people he exists, or he's been a fiction from the start and his changing characteristics are the result of the differing needs of human society. You know which of those I believe. :)

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
02-26-2006, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

The famously sceptical philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked about what he would say to god after his death if it turned out that he had been wrong all along, and god actually did exist. He answer was: "I would say: God, why have you made the evidence for your existence so insufficient?" That just about sums up my position.
interesting... The Qur'an actually mentions things around that line, saying that people will be asking a question along those lines and God will point to His Creation and many signs as proof. Things you're surrounded with and take for granted:

2:118 AND [only] those who are devoid of knowledge say, "Why does God not speak unto us, nor is a [miraculous] sign shown to us?" Even thus, like unto what they, say, spoke those who lived before their time [97] their hearts are all alike. Indeed, We have made all the signs manifest unto people who are endowed with inner certainty.

Interesting how the Quran tackles every issue... :)
Reply

czgibson
02-26-2006, 08:34 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
interesting... The Qur'an actually mentions things around that line, saying that people will be asking a question along those lines and God will point to His Creation and many signs as proof. Things you're surrounded with and take for granted:

2:118 AND [only] those who are devoid of knowledge say, "Why does God not speak unto us, nor is a [miraculous] sign shown to us?" Even thus, like unto what they, say, spoke those who lived before their time [97] their hearts are all alike. Indeed, We have made all the signs manifest unto people who are endowed with inner certainty.

Interesting how the Quran tackles every issue... :)
If I was writing a religious book about a god I claimed was speaking to me I'd be sure to include passages addressing the doubters. It's an obvious tactic really, isn't it?

It's interesting how the last part of the quote there uses circular reasoning:

Indeed, We have made all the signs manifest unto people who are endowed with inner certainty.
So, only the people who are already certain about god will even realise that signs have been given to all humanity - in other words, these people believe because they believe.

Peace
Reply

cool_jannah
02-26-2006, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE>By AbuAmeenah Bilal Philps


<FONT face=Garamond size=4><B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">"Why was I created? Why am I here? What am I doing in this world? Why did God create me?"
Reply

muslimahh
02-26-2006, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


If I was writing a religious book about a god I claimed was speaking to me I'd be sure to include passages addressing the doubters. It's an obvious tactic really, isn't it?

It's interesting how the last part of the quote there uses circular reasoning:



So, only the people who are already certain about god will even realise that signs have been given to all humanity - in other words, these people believe because they believe.

Peace
czgibson

Would you like to share what else you would write in such a book? Whatever you write in such a book would not, for a fact, be as comprehensive as the Quran which deals with any issue, and many statements such as yours above have been addressed AND answered. Your argument is a weak one.

On another topic, I was wondering today, as an atheist, what is your purpose in life? What value do your actions bring you? I'm not trying to pratronize you, I honestly have no idea. In my mind it would be a horrible and futile existance...
Reply

muslimahh
02-26-2006, 10:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
So, only the people who are already certain about god will even realise that signs have been given to all humanity - in other words, these people believe because they believe.

Peace

Its actually closer to their faith is reaffirmed when they believe. Pondering and recognizing one sign leads to another and leads to another that further reaffirms you, its up to those themselves however to be open to such thoughts and begin the initial belief.

Its hard to explain in such a small post but through reading the Quran as a whole, its a lot easier to understand rather than have it explained third person styles.
Reply

root
02-27-2006, 08:05 AM
its up to those themselves however to be open to such thoughts and begin the initial belief.
That sounds like one has to be prepared to believe, before they are ready to believe?
Reply

muslimahh
02-27-2006, 02:43 PM
of course,

its like a student, if you're not prepared to learn and you're thrown into a classroom but mentally shut your eyes and ears are you going to learn anything? not much.

It comes within yourself first, which is why we're all accountable for whether we believe and follow God's Word or if we don't. If God Willed everyone would believe.

Here's an example from a philosophy class that demonstrates this. We were all discussing the proof of God in our tutorial, so I asked this one girl "what would cause you to believe" and she said something along the lines of a divine miracle where say a dead bird was raised to life again. Before that the class was discussion scientific factors behind other occurances and how they are nothing but scientific, not divine. I replied that with this too, should she see a bird revive from the dead, certain people would see this as a sign from God while others would just figure out another scientific explanation for it and it would not cause them to believe at all.....see somewhat what i mean?

disclaimer - i'm not denying science, rather it is the process as to how this happens through the Will of God. We often, as humans, focus on symptoms of a certain occurance and name those as the cause rather than the overall picture.

Those are my thoughts on this anyways.
Reply

czgibson
02-27-2006, 05:43 PM
Greetings muslimahh,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
Would you like to share what else you would write in such a book?
Well, I'm not a religious person or someone who claims to be a prophet, so I don't know what else I'd include. That point about addressing the doubters seems very obvious though.

Whatever you write in such a book would not, for a fact, be as comprehensive as the Quran which deals with any issue, and many statements such as yours above have been addressed AND answered.
To address your first point here, it's perfectly possible that someone could produce a book as comprehensive as the Qur'an. You can't assume it's not possible. Of course, it depends what you mean by comprehensive. Is the Encyclopedia Britannica as comprehensive as the Qur'an? I would say it is - far more so, in fact.

On the second point, can you show me where in the Qur'an that that precise statement of mine earlier was addressed and answered?

Your argument is a weak one.
You're free to think so, of course, but I respectfully disagree. I'm open to being proven wrong on this point, though.

On another topic, I was wondering today, as an atheist, what is your purpose in life? What value do your actions bring you? I'm not trying to pratronize you, I honestly have no idea. In my mind it would be a horrible and futile existance...
I think my biological purpose in life is to survive - the same as every other species. That is something I cannot determine; it has already been chosen for me simply by virtue of being alive.

Other purposes that I have given myself are to learn, to make friends, to be happy and to try and bring about happiness for others.

Do you think that without belief in god your life would be horrible and futile?

Peace
Reply

root
02-27-2006, 06:00 PM
I think my biological purpose in life is to survive - the same as every other species. That is something I cannot determine; it has already been chosen for me simply by virtue of being alive.

Other purposes that I have given myself are to learn, to make friends, to be happy and to try and bring about happiness for others.

Do you think that without belief in god your life would be horrible and futile?
As an athiest, I would like to add to this good comment from czgibson that our purpose beyond surviving is to reproduce and pass our ancient DNA to new life so my Genes may carry on:

A new favourite saying I have adopted:

An itinerant selfish gene said:

"Bodies a-plenty I've seen you think your so clever but i'll live forever. Your just the survival machine"
Reply

muslimahh
02-27-2006, 07:38 PM
to czgibson and root:)

format_quote Originally Posted by root
An itinerant selfish gene said:
A new favourite saying I have adopted:

"Bodies a-plenty I've seen you think your so clever but i'll live forever. Your just the survival machine"
lol, that is pretty funny.

I guess we Muslims are giving you a run for your money or at least something to think about ;)

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Do you think that without belief in god your life would be horrible and futile?
My thoughts of a life without purpose being horrible and futile stem from back in the day before I found Islam, so for me personally they are well founded. As a Muslim now, I have purpose in every single one of my actions. A smile counts as charity, and charity, God Willing, will be rewarded. I have directions, rules to follow and an explanation as to why I was created and what will happen after that has information and logic behind it.

Had I been just created as a being to pass on my gene to others, I would be no more than an animal and, clearly, that is not the case since, and I'm assuming that you would agree, there is at least some level of difference between an animal and humans. Although we have the same eyes, ears, general morphology, there is something extra there. Logically, it doesn't make sense that such a complex and beautiful earth has been made without any higher purpose than just surviving. The world and our bodies ourselves are just too complex and interdependent to have come by chance.


As humans, we can't even firmly figure out when its going to rain, nevermind being able to make it rain, and yet we thing we have creation all figured out? I'm not convinced at all. There is, without doubt, a God up there controlling this all and creating us.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
To address your first point here, it's perfectly possible that someone could produce a book as comprehensive as the Qur'an. You can't assume it's not possible. Of course, it depends what you mean by comprehensive. Is the Encyclopedia Britannica as comprehensive as the Qur'an? I would say it is - far more so, in fact.
Hmm, I'm going to definitely argue against that. Regardless, I am very interested in your thoughts on the Quran(once you have had the time to read it) as an objective reader. It is not just a book of laws and is much richer in infomation, knowledge and guidance than any encyclopedia.

If you need a link to it, you can get a shareware program of the Quran at
http://www.islamchannel.tv/downloads.aspx

I'd sincerely like to know what you two think.
Reply

czgibson
02-27-2006, 08:26 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
My thoughts of a life without purpose being horrible and futile stem from back in the day before I found Islam, so for me personally they are well founded.
Who says an atheist's life is without purpose?

A smile counts as charity, and charity, God Willing, will be rewarded.
That's not the only reason why you smile, surely? I'm sure that being nice to people isn't something that requires god-given rewards in order for you to do it.

I have directions, rules to follow and an explanation as to why I was created and what will happen after that has information and logic behind it.
You have an explanation - I'm just not convinced it's the right one. Each to their own.

Had I been just created as a being to pass on my gene to others, I would be no more than an animal and, clearly, that is not the case since, and I'm assuming that you would agree, there is at least some level of difference between an animal and humans. Although we have the same eyes, ears, general morphology, there is something extra there.
Right. It's difficult to put your finger on just what it is though, isn't it? I suspect dolphins might think they're different from all the other animals too.

Logically, it doesn't make sense that such a complex and beautiful earth has been made without any higher purpose than just surviving.
That the earth is complex and beautiful is a subjective judgement that you have just made, therefore you can't say this argument rests on logic.

The world and our bodies ourselves are just too complex and interdependent to have come by chance.
Who says they did? I certainly don't.

As humans, we can't even firmly figure out when its going to rain, nevermind being able to make it rain, and yet we thing we have creation all figured out? I'm not convinced at all.
Who says we do? I certainly don't.

Hmm, I'm going to definitely argue against that. Regardless, I am very interested in your thoughts on the Quran(once you have had the time to read it) as an objective reader.
I've tried several times. I've managed to read substantial sections of it, but overall I find it very repetitive and hectoring.

It is not just a book of laws and is much richer in infomation, knowledge and guidance than any encyclopedia.
I don't see how this is possible. Encyclopedias generally contain huge amounts of information comprising a large chunk of the world's knowledge at a given time. If I want to find out about quantum mechanics, Martin Luther, the Beatles, Leonardo da Vinci or the Spanish Inquisition, am I going to look in the Qur'an?

If you need a link to it, you can get a shareware program of the Quran at
http://www.islamchannel.tv/downloads.aspx
I've got two editions of it on my shelf. Thanks for the link though.

Peace
Reply

root
02-27-2006, 08:34 PM
Of course, nothing you have said is "proof" of god. However I would like to disect your main comment if I may.

Had I been just created as a being to pass on my gene to others, I would be no more than an animal and, clearly, that is not the case since, and I'm assuming that you would agree,
I would not agree with you at all. Mankind has only spritually and emotionally developed in the last 40,000 years which is not even a nano second in evolutionary time, You & me are just animals with animal instincts too, why do you think you are scared in the woods at night?

there is at least some level of difference between an animal and humans.
In what way are we different?

Although we have the same eyes, ears, general morphology, there is something extra there.
I think you neglected to say the most important part, DNA.

Logically, it doesn't make sense that such a complex and beautiful earth has been made without any higher purpose than just surviving.
Is that not based on the "assumption" the earth was made "just for man".

The world and our bodies ourselves are just too complex and interdependent to have come by chance.
Some say this, others don't but who is right. Evolution for example requires "time", and your concept of time is in built into your brain via DNA the very same sequence of "ticking clock" DNA is found in all living life on this planet, not so different from the animails eh!
Reply

Eric H
02-27-2006, 09:09 PM
Greetings and peace to you all,

I think we have to be very sympathetic towards our atheist friends, many of them are highly knowledgeable, but knowledge on its own is not a sufficient reason to believe in God. Believing on its own is not enough because we need to trust in God, if we trust in God we will be inspired to do something.

The amount of arguing between people of the same faith and different faiths is no great advert to say that a loving God exists, religions cause a huge turmoil on this Earth.

Many atheist turn towards humanist values; as a way of seeking good for mankind.

If the religions of the world could build greater interfaith friendships and work more for the overall benefit of mankind; then we would give atheists a greater incentive to believe.

In the spirit of seeking greater interfaith friendships

Eric
Reply

czgibson
02-27-2006, 09:32 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace to you all,

I think we have to be very sympathetic towards our atheist friends, many of them are highly knowledgeable, but knowledge on its own is not a sufficient reason to believe in God. Believing on its own is not enough because we need to trust in God, if we trust in God we will be inspired to do something.

The amount of arguing between people of the same faith and different faiths is no great advert to say that a loving God exists, religions cause a huge turmoil on this Earth.

Many atheist turn towards humanist values; as a way of seeking good for mankind.

If the religions of the world could build greater interfaith friendships and work more for the overall benefit of mankind; then we would give atheists a greater incentive to believe.

In the spirit of seeking greater interfaith friendships

Eric
:bravo:

I think you've reached a profound truth there.

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
02-28-2006, 01:33 AM
Ummm sorry I took so long to answer.



I have a good excuse, promise.



I was sitting at home and my regular computer was occupied, so I waited, and waited......and waited.



Then the funniest thing happened....




I was sitting for a while, nothing....then, all of a sudden this little metal think appeared. I started to reach for it, then poof, it got bigger. So I waited.




Later, I saw the metal thing expand and expand until it looked kind of green and spotted, kind of like a microchip.


then it grew and grew until a plastic layer formed on the outside


....and these wires developped,


....then a monitor....


and then BOOM! A working computer....TOTALLY BY CHANCE! and OUT OF NOTHING!! *GASP* and I sit here typing this post with my magically formed computer....typing away.



This is what you guys sound like by denying a creator. People would thing you're ridiculous for saying a computer came out of nothing and totally by chance and is fully functionning....I'm just waiting for my "chance" computer to create offspring who are perfectly symbiotic with the other beings in the house, relying on them for survival and yet evolving fully independently. Oh, and of couse, the computer is the same as a leaf of paper in my house because, of course, they were both created by chance.
Reply

muslimahh
02-28-2006, 02:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Of course, nothing you have said is "proof" of god. However I would like to disect your main comment if I may.



I would not agree with you at all. Mankind has only spritually and emotionally developed in the last 40,000 years which is not even a nano second in evolutionary time, You & me are just animals with animal instincts too, why do you think you are scared in the woods at night?
Furthermore, You're saying we're nothing but animals? What stops you from procreating with your siblings? or procreating with your mother? (my apologies for my crudeness here)

format_quote Originally Posted by root
Some say this, others don't but who is right. Evolution for example requires "time", and your concept of time is in built into your brain via DNA the very same sequence of "ticking clock" DNA is found in all living life on this planet, not so different from the animails eh!
and according to the theory of evolution, man evolved with other species. How then are we so morally advanced, intellectually even? And so much moreso than any animal really.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I suspect dolphins might think they're different from all the other animals too.
Of course, just like you and me, except for that they firmly know about the exitance of their Creator.
Reply

czgibson
02-28-2006, 04:02 PM
Greetings muslimahh,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
Ummm sorry I took so long to answer.

I have a good excuse, promise.

I was sitting at home and my regular computer was occupied, so I waited, and waited......and waited.

Then the funniest thing happened....

I was sitting for a while, nothing....then, all of a sudden this little metal think appeared. I started to reach for it, then poof, it got bigger. So I waited.

Later, I saw the metal thing expand and expand until it looked kind of green and spotted, kind of like a microchip.

then it grew and grew until a plastic layer formed on the outside

....and these wires developped,

....then a monitor....

and then BOOM! A working computer....TOTALLY BY CHANCE! and OUT OF NOTHING!! *GASP* and I sit here typing this post with my magically formed computer....typing away.

This is what you guys sound like by denying a creator. People would thing you're ridiculous for saying a computer came out of nothing and totally by chance and is fully functionning....I'm just waiting for my "chance" computer to create offspring who are perfectly symbiotic with the other beings in the house, relying on them for survival and yet evolving fully independently. Oh, and of couse, the computer is the same as a leaf of paper in my house because, of course, they were both created by chance.
I don't know why you think I sound like that. I don't believe the universe developed because of chance, as I thought I'd made clear. What makes you think that that is my position?

Of course, just like you and me, except for that they firmly know about the exitance of their Creator.
Now you're telling me dolphins are theists. What on earth gives you that impression? Do you have access to their thoughts?

Peace
Reply

root
02-28-2006, 05:05 PM
Furthermore, You're saying we're nothing but animals? What stops you from procreating with your siblings? or procreating with your mother? (my apologies for my crudeness here)
What stops the majority of animals from doing this and what drives animals to do this? My friends dog would have sexual intercourse with a pillow or my leg until I boot it, Instinct I guess. For example we instinctly are sexually "put off" from people who "resemble" family members whilst we inadvertantly are more trusting towards them. Why do you think that is?

and according to the theory of evolution, man evolved with other species. How then are we so morally advanced, intellectually even? And so much moreso than any animal really.
Primates have a far bigger brain to body mass which helps and within the primates man has evolved a brain size 6 times bigger than what it should be for a typical mammal, the power of communication could and probably is the launching pad to intellect. BTW, the gene responsible for speech has been identified and is called the "FOXP2" gene which mutated ("changed") 400,000 years ago so it took 380,000 years to propogate through man before we see it's effect starting 40,000 years ago, primates and most animals have this gene but it appears that the human FOXP2 gene underwent slight changes. A "mistake" in the letters of the DNA code causes a rare disorder in humans marked by severe language and grammar difficulties.
Reply

muslimahh
02-28-2006, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings muslimahh,


I don't know why you think I sound like that. I don't believe the universe developed because of chance, as I thought I'd made clear. What makes you think that that is my position?
Czgibson,

I would very much like to hear your explanation on how earth came to being not by-chance without the involvement of a God.



format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Now you're telling me dolphins are theists. What on earth gives you that impression? Do you have access to their thoughts?

Peace
Why not? If you said
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Right. It's difficult to put your finger on just what it is though, isn't it? I suspect dolphins might think they're different from all the other animals too.
and further stated that we are no different than animals, why not? It is plausible according to your explanation.
Reply

muslimahh
02-28-2006, 10:01 PM
Root,

Regarding animal instincts in humans, what determines where we are animal-like and non-animal like? You are arguing that humans are driven by instinct, and yet we are distinguished by animals through a process in which all living beings in the world themselves have gone through? Why only man.

Furthermore the argument around the differentiation of right and wrong among men does not stop at procreation. I invite you to explore the many behaviours that are displayed by animals regardless of species and are morally reprehensible in human beings and I challenge you to explain why this is using your own beliefs.
Reply

root
03-01-2006, 08:45 AM
Regarding animal instincts in humans, what determines where we are animal-like and non-animal like? You are arguing that humans are driven by instinct, and yet we are distinguished by animals through a process in which all living beings in the world themselves have gone through? Why only man.
The only determination is that you are an animal or you are not.

Furthermore the argument around the differentiation of right and wrong among men does not stop at procreation. I invite you to explore the many behaviours that are displayed by animals regardless of species and are morally reprehensible in human beings and I challenge you to explain why this is using your own beliefs.
Social evolution like biological evolution is a process of time.
Reply

mathematicci
03-01-2006, 02:48 PM
Every village must have its headman; every needle must have its manufacturer and craftsman. And, as you know, every letter must be written by someone. How, then, can it be that so extremely well-ordered a kingdom should have no ruler? And how can so much wealth have no owner, when every hour a train2 arrives filled with precious and artful gifts, as if coming from the realm of the unseen? And all the announcements and proclamations, all the seals and stamps, found on all those goods, all the coins and the flags waving in every corner of the kingdom - can they be without an owner?
Reply

muslimahh
03-01-2006, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Social evolution like biological evolution is a process of time.
Then why humans only? Logically it does not make sense that humans only would develop socially unless there was a distinction between humans and animals. Why would this distinction come about? Its obviously not through an evolutionary process beginning by chance and eventually reaching the point of humanness while animals, if anything, began to evolve at the same time, if not earlier depending on how you look at it, than human beings.

The evidence you are giving me is lacking is as much scientific evidence as creationism or intelligent design explanations except that the latter options make logical sense and are fully explainedin several scriptures.
Reply

root
03-01-2006, 05:39 PM
Then why humans only?
Why do camels only have those humps on thier back, Why are 10% of europeans immune to aids yet the rest of the world are not!

Logically it does not make sense that humans only would develop socially
What gives you the idea that only humans develop socially, all primates form social groups and many other species too.

unless there was a distinction between humans and animals. Why would this distinction come about? Its obviously not through an evolutionary process
You obviously don't know much about evolution (as your evolved computer post) implied. Can you even explain why it could not come through an evolutionary process.

beginning by chance and eventually reaching the point of humanness while animals, if anything, began to evolve at the same time, if not earlier depending on how you look at it, than human beings.
That makes no sense at all and clearly only shows the level of ignorance you have towards evolution. (I don't mean to be offensive)

The evidence you are giving me is lacking is as much scientific evidence as creationism or intelligent design explanations except that the latter options make logical sense and are fully explainedin several scriptures.
The evidence is thier for you to access if you could be bothered, but then again I don't think you can be?
Reply

أحمد
03-01-2006, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Why are 10% of europeans immune to aids yet the rest of the world are not!
:sl:

:) I think thats a question for the people involved in the engineering of the virus, but here's an article that you may find interesting (its got nothing to do with proof of God in any way, its just about AIDS):
I hope that cover's the AIDS issue sufficiently.

:w:
Reply

czgibson
03-01-2006, 06:20 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
I would very much like to hear your explanation on how earth came to being not by-chance without the involvement of a God.
Big Bang + Evolution by Natural Selection. Neither of these things have been absolutely proven, but they are certainly the best guesses on offer. Also, although both contain random elements, they contain non-random elements too.

Why not? If you said
The (frankly bizarre) idea that dolphins are theists does not logically follow from what I said.

and further stated that we are no different than animals, why not? It is plausible according to your explanation.
I think you'll find it was root who stressed the similarities between us and other animal species. Although I agree with him, there is something that separates humans from other animals, but I'm not precisely sure what it is - more highly developed intelligence, self consciousness - something like that, but as I say, I'm not sure.

You'll find that nothing in my statements so far makes dolphins being theists seem a likely proposition - perhaps you can explain in more detail how you've arrived at this conclusion.

1. Do you yourself think dolphins are theists, and if so why?

2. How did you derive this statement from what I said?

Peace
Reply

root
03-01-2006, 06:40 PM
I think thats a question for the people involved in the engineering of the virus, but here's an article that you may find interesting (its got nothing to do with proof of God in any way, its just about AIDS):
http://hiddenrealities.8m.com/aids.html
I hope that cover's the AIDS issue sufficiently.
What a load of dribble if you don't mind me saying so. Firstt your right that aids has nothing to do with the proof of god, however just to quickly shoot your thread down as crap (it seems to me you want to just blame the US for anything irrespective of source)

The Conspiracy Theory

Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people. Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Some even believe that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence they are based on is tenuous at best, and often ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV, or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959. They also fail to take into consideration the lack of genetic-engineering technology available to 'create' the virus at the time that AIDS first appeared.
You could just simply educate yourself free of your apparent ignorance here:

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

(PS. Spare me the moon landings)

CZGIBSON -

think you'll find it was root who stressed the similarities between us and other animal species. Although I agree with him, there is something that separates humans from other animals, but I'm not precisely sure what it is - more highly developed intelligence, self consciousness - something like that, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Intelligence, self consciousness and even a soul. How strongly would you feel the probability of all this lies in mans ability to communicate verbally. How much of a seperation has language written and verbal advanced the human race as a species?
Reply

czgibson
03-01-2006, 07:12 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by root
CZGIBSON -
Intelligence, self consciousness and even a soul. How strongly would you feel the probability of all this lies in mans ability to communicate verbally. How much of a seperation has language written and verbal advanced the human race as a species?
Excellent point - I fully agree. Although other species can communicate, none can do it to the extent we can, and I don't know of an animal besides humans that can use written communication.

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
03-01-2006, 07:25 PM
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.

Written communication is a sign from God, as is the diversity of species like camels, the diversity of the environment, weather, water, humans, monkeys, birds, insects, everything you see around you.

I don't get any benefit from conveying this message to you and only God Almighty can open your hearts. I hope you both reflect on this and sincerely think about life as a whole rather than presenting arguments that are simply theoretical and unlikely.

Peace,
Reply

HeiGou
03-01-2006, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
The mistake there is to think that evolution is by chance and without any direction. Globally there is a case, but locally there is not. At any one time, on average, it is the slowest gazelle that gets eaten (but only on average). So that over time gazelles become faster. That is not by chance. And it has a direction. Now over billions of years conditions change so that gazelles might suddenly wake up and all the cheetahs are extinct - lucky them. But then some other hither-to lesser pressure will work on them.

Written communication is a sign from God, as is the diversity of species like camels, the diversity of the environment, weather, water, humans, monkeys, birds, insects, everything you see around you.
If God sent me a letter I might believe. But He has sent a variety of missives through intermediaries with no clear and obvious Divine origin (at least to me)

As for the diversity of species, this looks like an argument for evolution to me. After all diversity seems to be increasing.

I don't get any benefit from conveying this message to you and only God Almighty can open your hearts. I hope you both reflect on this and sincerely think about life as a whole rather than presenting arguments that are simply theoretical and unlikely.
If you are right you surely will. And either way, surely you must get some psychic satisfaction?

Not that it matters.
Reply

root
03-01-2006, 11:12 PM
The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
With the greatest of respect, all you are doing here is carrying the torch of ignorance, perhaps you should firmiliarise yourself to what evolution is and is not, at least then you would see the errors of your ways for yourself. This is not about your faith, this is your right. However, to base the theory of evolution as natural history is what creationists love to teach people such as you, since I would agree with what you have said in reference to the evolution out of nothingness, however, the point is evolution did not evolve out of nothingness which renders your point utterly useless.
Reply

muslimahh
03-02-2006, 12:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
With the greatest of respect, all you are doing here is carrying the torch of ignorance, perhaps you should firmiliarise yourself to what evolution is and is not, at least then you would see the errors of your ways for yourself. This is not about your faith, this is your right. However, to base the theory of evolution as natural history is what creationists love to teach people such as you, since I would agree with what you have said in reference to the evolution out of nothingness, however, the point is evolution did not evolve out of nothingness which renders your point utterly useless.
This point I understand. Thank you for putting it nicely, I appreciate that.
I took a university level course in evolution, speciation etc. etc. and did quite well, so I am somewhat familiar with the evolutionary theory.

Basically I was assuming that you were under the impression that you believe that evolution did evolve from nothing since it is the only way that you would have somewhat of an argument against the existance of God.

Please explain your belief concerning this so I can once and for all understand where you are coming from.
Reply

root
03-02-2006, 02:05 AM
This point I understand. Thank you for putting it nicely, I appreciate that. I took a university level course in evolution, speciation etc. etc. and did quite well, so I am somewhat familiar with the evolutionary theory.
If that is true why are you even entertaining this following notion as described by yourself:

muslimahh - The computer argument was just to point out how ridiculous the proposition that everything we know today came to be my evolution, chance and without any direction or intentional creation. If I said that and was serious you would think I was a fool.
You have taken "Evolution" out of context and by doing so included a lot of theory that is not even part of the evolution theory. Do you believe that man was created as man or evolved into man from the very first single celled living organisms? since evolution is simply the following:

The change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Basically I was assuming that you were under the impression that you believe that evolution did evolve from nothing since it is the only way that you would have somewhat of an argument against the existance of God.
I have thought long and hard over your comment here. As I already stated, evolution does not start from the premis of "nothingness", how life started is still a scientific mystery and is part of the abiogenesis theory which is defined as:

the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth

Also note the "other" theories that are not part of the evolutionary theory:

1. The creation of the universe from nothing: the big bang (quantum physics)

2. The formation of the earth and sun: planetology (physics, astronomy, geology)

3. The creation of the different forms of life: evolutionary history (biology, phylogenetics, paeleontology)

Finally, to talk about all these issues in a unified manner is referred to as "Natural History" and as you can guess "Natural History" is defined as:

all the events stretching from the creation of the universe to the creation of contemporary species is 'natural history'.

So by saying evolution cannot explain how life evolved from nothingness, therefore evolution has "controversy" is nothing short of blatant misrepresentation of the truth. (which is often peddled by the creationists/ID hypothosis).

Please explain your belief concerning this so I can once and for all understand where you are coming from.
I believe that I just have.
Reply

muslimahh
03-02-2006, 02:16 AM
scientifically, something cannot come out of nothing. Give me an example. Solutions need sovents and solutes, A zygote needs an egg and a sperm, two parents etc. etc. etc.

If something is unknown, such as how life itself came to being from something what is that something? where did that something orignate from? and that from? and that from etc. etc. There is no scientific process that shows something originating from nothing.

You are telling me that the evolutionary theory does not state life came from nothing but rather from something, we just don't know what. How does this negate the existence of a God? You are saying that you just don't know what this is. Perhaps God is the link you are missing here.
Reply

mathematicci
03-02-2006, 05:55 AM
MODERATOR'S COMMENT: PLEASE DO NOT SIMPLY PASTE ARTICLES FROM OTHER WEBSITES ONTO THE FORUM. THE FORUM IS A PLACE FOR DISCUSSION. YOU ARE FREE TO RAISE YOUR OWN POINTS, OR ARTICULATE THESE ARGUMENTS IN YOUR OWN WORDS. JAZAKUMALLAHU KHAYRAN.
Reply

root
03-02-2006, 07:42 PM
Hi Muslimahh

Can I at this point remind you of a question I posed for you, it was quite an important question I felt to understand how we take this debate forward and I did bolden it for you:

Do you believe that man was created as man or evolved into man from the very first single celled living organisms?
I have noted your points for future reference since I want to be clear what you believe in reference to the question above.
Reply

muslimahh
03-03-2006, 12:58 AM
Hi Root,

I believe man has been created beginning from Adam and Eve, only God Almighty knows what they looked like and how similar they were to us. But yes, they were created through God's will in human form. I have an idea where you're going on this (i could be wrong) but to clarify my posts on evolution, much was for the sake of discussion, and furthermore, the explanation of speciation, adaptation to habitat etc., the way I see it may be possible is that it is the means to which God Almighty is maintaining, creating and controlling all of this earth if we as humans are correct.

What I strongly believe is that none of this is possible without a Creator, God.

Anymore clarifications I'll be willing to answer, hope this is what you were looking for.
Reply

root
03-03-2006, 06:40 PM
I believe man has been created beginning from Adam and Eve, only God Almighty knows what they looked like and how similar they were to us. But yes, they were created through God's will in human form.
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
Reply

cool_jannah
03-03-2006, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
dude, what are saying? you dont make sense at all. what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science? and for your information Qur'an is not a book of science, its a book of signs...
there is no need for it to explain in detail about the date and time of Adam and eve...thats the most useless point ive heard in this forum.
Adam and Eve were created and the Qur'an talks about them so that we learn lessons from them. It doesnt matter if they lived a million years ago or thousand years ago.
the bottom line is athiest worship a god - which is their own desires and whispers from satan. thats their god. no matter what they have to say. they cant proove this point wrong.
Reply

The Ruler
03-03-2006, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve
der was NO life on earth b4 Adam n Eve....teh Qur'an states so....they wer the first cretions. :rollseyes

:w:
Reply

muslimahh
03-03-2006, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
OK, you are stating that you believe in adam and eve. May I ask your source of why you beieve this to be true, and can you explain if "man" existed prior to adam and eve and given that the koran claims quite a lot of scientific knowledge could you care to give me a date that adam and eve existed as evolution also has an Adam & Eve, so if the Koran & Islam is in scientific harmony the two shouold match should they not? (is that logical to you).
That would be logical if we assumed that everything we know about science today is correct and perfect.

The Quran and all that is in it can be proven correct through the establishment in One God, and the truth of His last messenger (peace be upon him)

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true. The date of Adam and Eve's existence is not given in the Quran and thus, any guess towards this can only be a human-based guess prone to mistakes.

As I have, myself, a strong and sincere strength of faith in God and His Messenger, and the creation and existance of Adam and Eve is mentionned in the Quran, I know it is true. That is my proof. It can't be imposed on you if firstly you don't believe in either.

The difference between today's Western society and Muslims is that the West does not believe unless they scientifically prove everything, which in itself assumes that we have the means to do, assuming we are perfect in our knowledge and science to determine absolutely everything. Things like one's thought,inner emotions, and souls (if you believe in them) are all unseen and yet established for the large number of people.


Logically, its easy to prove the existance of God and the miracles of the Quran. Of course it takes some openmindedness and sincere drive for the truth on one's part, as well as God Almighty's Will.

I have a question, out of sincere curiosity, what do you think would be a proof for you towards the existance of God?
Reply

czgibson
03-03-2006, 11:21 PM
Greetings,

I think this latest section of the debate shows more than anything else the huge difference in understanding that Muslims and atheists have when it comes to the meaning of words like 'science' and 'logic'. Here are some examples of what I mean by this:

Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.

Saying something like "Logically, its easy to prove the existance of God and the miracles of the Quran." shows that a fundamentally different understanding of logic is in play to that familiar to Western logicians. In the logic of Western philosophy, there is no possibility of proving god's existence or non-existence. 'God' is simply a term that has been brought into the history of ideas which has no external observable referent.

Of course it takes some openmindedness and sincere drive for the truth on one's part, as well as God Almighty's Will.
Similarly, in Western logic there's no question of being openminded - something is either true or it isn't. You can get into modal logic which takes account of possibilities and necessities, but still, being openminded has nothing to do with it. This is the case despite the fact that it's a characteristic that is often valued in humans, a consequence of the nature of logic, which is not able to place values on things.

That would be logical if we assumed that everything we know about science today is correct and perfect.
Of course, no scientist assumes this. Plus, two assumptions have been made here: that a) the Qur'an is perfect, and that b) science must live up to it, when in fact neither of these is necessarily true.

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.
This is a quote that totally baffles me. Let's assume for a moment that it was possible to prove the existence of god and the truth of the Qur'an logically, as is claimed here - surely then it would be possible to prove the existence of Adam and Eve logically? I don't understand how the belief system shown here can be considered at all coherent.

Here's another difference:

As I have, myself, a strong and sincere strength of faith in God and His Messenger, and the creation and existance of Adam and Eve is mentionned in the Quran, I know it is true. That is my proof.
I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.

This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
03-03-2006, 11:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.

Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.
I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.

Peace
Very true, thats what I was trying to show when mentionning the differences between Western science and religion.

By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.

What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.
Reply

czgibson
03-04-2006, 12:19 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.
Yes, that part is clear enough.

My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.
OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.

By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.
Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:

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

What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.
Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 04:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Yes, that part is clear enough.



OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.
Hello czgobson (Root, where did you go?)

Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.



format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
sure, point taken, thank you.



format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.
And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 04:48 AM
Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.


Common sense and logical thought (not official wikipedia logical equations etc ;) ) is enough to do the trick.
Reply

yasin
03-04-2006, 07:07 AM
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?

religion is about faith, science is about proof.

If you're looking for proof then religion simply isnt for you.
Reply

yasin
03-04-2006, 07:10 AM
And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about? How are we here?

NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.

And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't. So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.

So please, Mr Atheist- if not God then how did we get here? And don't say you don't know, because as humans we have a belief about everything!
Reply

HeiGou
03-04-2006, 11:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?
I experience Gravity every day. Every minute of every day. And so, I am willing to bet, do you. What is more I experience the same type of gravity each and every minute of each and every day that you do. If I drop a stone, it falls at the same speed as a stone you drop. Who would deny gravity? Think of the number of ways in which your experience, or anyone else's, of God is not the same.

That is not weak. It takes courage to stand up to the idols of the tribe and say "I do not believe". Weakness to go to the temple every day when you no longer really believe just because you do not want to upset your relatives.
Reply

root
03-04-2006, 01:47 PM
Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
Perhaps it is this type of logic that divides us ultimately, (though the chemical in our brains and the use of certain areas of the brain also differ between believers and non believers, but that is for another thread).

if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
I simply do not accept this point, we cannot prove that a magic teapot orbits the earth. Using your logic leaves a way to actually accept the existence of a magic teapot orbiting the earth. Surely, before we consider if something is truthfull or not we need some collaboration and by parallel we should discount a book called "Revelations of the magic teapot" since it holds a position of bias, and I feel religion does. One could simply pass that back by stating that science is biased, but I disregard that for science cannot in most cases simply make evidence up due to the peer reviewing system.

Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true. The date of Adam and Eve's existence is not given in the Quran and thus, any guess towards this can only be a human-based guess prone to mistakes.
So you believe solely on faith. Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will leave this debate now and it has been interesting, I think we have prity much established what the conclusion is.

"Proof of god lies in faith". Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will start a thread titled "The science of faith".
Reply

The Ruler
03-04-2006, 01:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
"Proof of god lies in faith". Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will start a thread titled "The science of faith
proof of God does NOT lie in faith...do i v to say it agin?! :rollseyes

der r signs dat sum people r oblivious of n dose r da ppl dat will not open der hearts to Islam.

:w:
Reply

czgibson
03-04-2006, 05:39 PM
Greetings muslimahh,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.
Here's what you said:

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.
The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.

And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.
No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?

Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.

format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?
Are you making another generalisation about atheists? It's getting to be a habit with you.

If you think atheists are weak minded, I assume you believe that thinkers of the calibre of David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell were just a bunch of thickies compared to your formidable intellect...

(HeiGou has already answered your rather bizarre argument about gravity.)

And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about?
If you're asking how life began, nobody knows. Life developed by evolving through natural selection.

NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.
If that assertion was actually a fact, then everybody would believe in god. In fact, everyone would know that god existed.

And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't.
More insults - you'll struggle to convince anybody of anything if that's your standard approach. Also, I've read lots about evolution already, so you don't need to worry on that score. :)

So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.
You make an interesting point here - I always thought the theory of evolution was developed to explain biological variation, but there you go. Where have you found this information that it was actually intended to prove religion to be true? Bring on the references.

As for your claim about the small kitchen table, there's lots more evidence supporting evolution than I think you're aware of.

See here for a general outline: Evolution

(I know you'll read it, cause I know you're interested. :))

So please, Mr Atheist- if not God then how did we get here? And don't say you don't know, because as humans we have a belief about everything!
That makes no difference, since there's a clear distinction between beliefs and knowledge. I've answered your question earlier on in the post.

Peace
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 08:05 PM
Root,

I'm getting a little bit of sarcasm from your posts.

While I understand what you are saying, you yourself have said that not everything we have on earth today has an answer. Unfortunately, it seems that either you're trying to be funny by mocking what I've said so far or you have not taken a single point from what I have been posting for this past week or so. Everything you've stated here is out of context and rather than typing exactly what I have said already in this discussion out a second time, I ask you to re-read my past posts, in context and not draw conclusions that are taken from my posts quite out of context.


format_quote Originally Posted by Root
Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.
So you're saying if this was the case you would probably be able to establish that there is the possibility of a Creator. Look at humans themselves, we are constantly changing and perfecting our sciences anr our inventions. Why are you then limiting the power of God?

Why would only a couple of solar systems versus many prove to you that there is a Creator while the many that we have now does not? A creation is a creation. If anything there are more reasons and means to see this with the variety and complexity of life on this earth adn the makeup of space

You are arguing that the only way you would think of the possibility that God exists is if there was creation, it stayed absolutely static and there were separate strands of creation, unlinked by a common genetic-makeup and without any "ingredients" such as amino acids etc.

If anything there is a means to creation. You are looking for a sort of magical, fairytale creation where everything goes *poof* and suddenly appears. This in itself is a flawed way of thinking as it limits the power of the Creator and simplifies creation it itself.

For example if I had eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a vanilla cake by adding a little vanilla, a chocolate cake by adding a little chocolate and a coffee cake by adding some coffee beans, no big deal, its been done, but say I took eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a cake, then some carrots, then some chicken and then some bread by only slightly changing the ingredients but keeping the same basic make-up that would make me a master chef. Thus all of this is the sign of a creator, with many species having only slight differences in genetic makeup but varying greatly.

If anything its an obvious demonstration of the Power and Ingenuity of the Creator of the Universe.
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 08:09 PM
edit, sorry double post :P
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings muslimahh,


Here's what you said:



The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.



No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?



I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.
Hello Czgibson,

My apologies for my quick choice of words, I am glad you at least understand my position. Forums aren't the best avenues for debate.

My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.

I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.

You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists? What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich D&#252;rrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." " Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator. The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.
Reply

muslimahh
03-04-2006, 08:12 PM
Root and Czgibson,

I enjoyed our discussion and I am sorry to say that in the coming days I will be swamped with a great amount of work (Im in my final year of university, in my last two months) I hope I have given you at least something to reflect on.

I may be able to sporadically answer other posts, just not at this intensity.


I want to end by inviting you both to accept Islam. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain and hopefully much more to think about.

Take care and I wish you both the best.

Sincerly,
Muslimahh
Reply

czgibson
03-04-2006, 08:59 PM
Hello muslimahh,
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.
I don't depend on it absolutely for my beliefs. I use logical and philosophical reasoning too, as well as simple feelings when it comes to questions of taste and so on.

I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.
Of course. I think spaghetti is nicer than lasagne, but I'm never going to be able to prove that to someone. Not everything even requires proof.

You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists?
I don't remember saying this.

What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian."
Einstein believed in a god, but not in the sort of god you believe in. Rather than being a theist, it would be more accurate to describe him as a pantheist. Here's the man himself, talking about a claim of the sort you have just made:

format_quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Another quote from Einstein:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
I couldn't agree more.

Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator.
It's true to say Newton was a very religious man, but he was living in a time when modern science was in its infancy. If I had been alive then, pre-Enlightenment, pre-Darwin and at a time when atheism (or being suspected of atheism) was punished much more severely than it is now, I think that accepting theism would be a much more sensible course of action.

The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.
Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.

It's been good talking to you, muslimahh, and while I can't take up your suggesting of accepting Islam, I will say that you've been an insightful debater and I wish you well with your studies.

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-04-2006, 09:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
yeh...the pilosophers are just in aggreement...bt tey dont have ny proof that God exists. all this time, you people have been asking us mulims questions like how do we know God exists and stuff.....but can i ask u onw thing...

can you in anyway prove that there is no God?

:w:
Reply

mathematicci
03-04-2006, 10:50 PM
Yes tagrid.You have drew attention to one of the most important point about God existance.People who want to prove ttha there is no God they have to visit all time before world and after world, and they have to see all palaces.At the end if hey cannot see any proof about lackness of God they can approve it.However God's activities are appearing in everywhere and in every time.It is being appeared as Sun.But, people who peretend not to see can make only night for themselves...
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 12:17 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
can you in anyway prove that there is no God?
Of course not - think about it rationally for one second! If you can't prove god exists then you can't prove god doesn't exist. That point is pretty obvious really, and it's been mentioned a few times already.

To use an example that root has mentioned already (on this very thread I believe), imagine I told you there was a teapot in orbit around the Earth. It's in orbit beyond the range of all our satellites, and no human spacecraft have come across it in their travels. Despite this, it is actually there, and you are unable to prove to me that it is not.

Your belief in god is based on exactly the same foundations as my (imaginary) belief in the teapot. There is no more reason to believe in one than the other.

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-05-2006, 04:16 AM
:sl:
I've refrained from posting in this thread until now, because I've commented in great detail on this subject in two earlier threads, so I'll just provide the links to those threads now:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tence-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...og-thread.html
Other interesting threads:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...some-ayat.html
:w:
Reply

yasin
03-05-2006, 05:12 AM
I can not be bothered to reply to the Atheists wrong stance on what i've said.

it's stupid of you as an atheist to moan that you're generalised, perhaps you expect people whenever talking about a group of people to say oh but not all of them?

One question i throw at you is please please explain many amazing facts about the Quran and Bible.

such as how were they able to make so many accurate predictions?

How was the Quran able to make statements about science, maths etc that modern day scientists have only recently found? This has been so powerful that many many American scientists and astronomers have converted to Islam as they have been bewildered at how accurate the Quran is with educational commentaries.
Reply

HeiGou
03-05-2006, 10:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
I can not be bothered to reply to the Atheists wrong stance on what i've said.
I am sorry to hear that.

it's stupid of you as an atheist to moan that you're generalised, perhaps you expect people whenever talking about a group of people to say oh but not all of them?
We will stop if you stop. So the next time the media refers to all Muslims being terrorists you will not complain?

One question i throw at you is please please explain many amazing facts about the Quran and Bible.

such as how were they able to make so many accurate predictions?

How was the Quran able to make statements about science, maths etc that modern day scientists have only recently found? This has been so powerful that many many American scientists and astronomers have converted to Islam as they have been bewildered at how accurate the Quran is with educational commentaries.
Name a few of those American scientists and astronomers?

This is easy to explain and in fact you have answered your own question. The Quran and the Bible do not contain amazing facts, or at least no one knew they did. Modern scientists, usually believers or in the pay of the Saudi government, have gone over the Bible and the Quran with a fine tooth comb and taken out anything they can semi-plausibly claim to be scientific and claimed it is a miracle. So the Quran did not, for about 1400 years, make any sort of statements about science or maths. It is only in the last 30 years or so that some people have claimed it does.
Reply

mathematicci
03-05-2006, 12:29 PM
Dera Czicbson, You're saying that our beleive in God is similar with your example of teapot.It's you point of view and your own parivacy opinion, so I respetc it.However your refusal of God is based on your afraid.You're afraid of praying on God.BEcause if you obey to God, you will have to pray on Him.And you will have to forsake your some pleasant habits.YOu think tat ypu're nop worship anyne.However If you don't beleive in God, you have to wirship numberless thing.First of all people who don't beleive in God fully obey to Satan.We can say truly that they are slave of Satan.If you want to see how it occurs look some behaviour.It ordey you to get Alcohol or Cocain or make any other bad action and people obey it eagerly...In short peole, who don't want to obey God, have to worship endless thing...
Reply

HeiGou
03-05-2006, 01:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mathematicci
However your refusal of God is based on your afraid.You're afraid of praying on God.BEcause if you obey to God, you will have to pray on Him.And you will have to forsake your some pleasant habits.YOu think tat ypu're nop worship anyne.
Don't you think it is a little arrogant to claim knowledge of what another man feels and thinks? Dont' you think that perhaps it would be nice to ask why someone believes something before telling them? Don't you think that you have done what rude inconsiderate atheists often do which is to say some thing like "You just need a cruch because you are not strong enough to accept the world as it is"?

However If you don't beleive in God, you have to wirship numberless thing.First of all people who don't beleive in God fully obey to Satan.We can say truly that they are slave of Satan.If you want to see how it occurs look some behaviour.It ordey you to get Alcohol or Cocain or make any other bad action and people obey it eagerly...In short peole, who don't want to obey God, have to worship endless thing...
Really? You think there are no good people in the world who do not worship God? There were none before Monotheism? No good Hindus or Buddhists? No good from Arabia at all before Islam?

But the real problem is different. Many bad things are done by people who worship God. They behead school girls. They blow up shrines and Buddhas. They fly planes into buildings. Are these people worshipping God or Satan and why is it worshipping God is not enough to make them not do it?
Reply

The Ruler
03-05-2006, 01:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Of course not - think about it rationally for one second! If you can't prove god exists then you can't prove god doesn't exist. That point is pretty obvious really, and it's been mentioned a few times already.
hmmm...we can prove dat God exists....its just that some people are unaware of the signs...i said that before....

but there is NO proof that God doesnt exist < i hope you get what i mean :rollseyes

:w:
Reply

afriend
03-05-2006, 01:25 PM
Well, try and prove that god doesn't exist.

What happened before the big bang?

A big bang from nothing?

From just space and vacuum....with complete emptiness....A big Bang? Without the help of Allah?

Also, 1 thing i wud like to point out.

The Quraan talks about the 2 seas that will never meet, 1400 years ago?

Who or what could have known about that 1400 years ago, there was no scientific equipment...
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 01:34 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
I can not be bothered to reply to the Atheists wrong stance on what i've said.
I've seen some useless debating styles in my time, but this guy is just unbelievable! ^^^

format_quote Originally Posted by mathematicci
Dera Czicbson, You're saying that our beleive in God is similar with your example of teapot.It's you point of view and your own parivacy opinion, so I respetc it.However your refusal of God is based on your afraid.You're afraid of praying on God.BEcause if you obey to God, you will have to pray on Him.And you will have to forsake your some pleasant habits.YOu think tat ypu're nop worship anyne.However If you don't beleive in God, you have to wirship numberless thing.First of all people who don't beleive in God fully obey to Satan.We can say truly that they are slave of Satan.If you want to see how it occurs look some behaviour.It ordey you to get Alcohol or Cocain or make any other bad action and people obey it eagerly...In short peole, who don't want to obey God, have to worship endless thing...
HeiGou's already answered this for me. This bit is quite amusing:

First of all people who don't beleive in God fully obey to Satan.We can say truly that they are slave of Satan.
It appears I'm a slave of something else I don't believe in - remarkable. It's fascinating to be told what I am and what I think.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
hmmm...we can prove dat God exists....its just that some people are unaware of the signs...i said that before....
Yes, you've said it before, but it's not true. As I've said many times, if you could prove god existed then everyone would believe in god.

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-05-2006, 01:40 PM
arrrrgh do i have to say it again....the people who can see Allah's signs do know that God exists. the people that cant see them just come up with theories out of no where and say that 'God doesnt exist' although they jus cant prove it...:rollseyes

:w:
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 01:45 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
arrrrgh do i have to say it again....the people who can see Allah's signs do know that God exists.
No you don't. You have faith that god exists, which is different from having knowledge.

the people that cant see them just come up with theories out of no where and say that 'God doesnt exist' although they jus cant prove it...:rollseyes
What theories are you thinking of?

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
03-05-2006, 01:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
Well, try and prove that god doesn't exist.
Try to prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist. It is nearly impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist.

What happened before the big bang?
There was no space and no time before the Big Bang. Therefore there was no time for anything to happen in.

A big bang from nothing?

From just space and vacuum....with complete emptiness....A big Bang? Without the help of Allah?
Yep. It looks that way. Except there was no space or vacuum - the entire Universe existed as a singularity: a single point of space with virtually no dimensions. The entire Universe as we know it (and a lot more) was pressed down into that tiny dot.

Also, 1 thing i wud like to point out.

The Quraan talks about the 2 seas that will never meet, 1400 years ago?

Who or what could have known about that 1400 years ago, there was no scientific equipment...
Well two seas obviously do meet. Which passage are you thinking of? Any person who has ever been to see a river flow into a sea knows that there is a space where fresh and salty water do not mix right away. The Portuguese found Brazil because they were sailing in the middle of the Ocean when they noticed it had turned brown and was fresh - they turned and sailed up it until they hit the Amazon. Everyone knew this.
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 01:57 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
Well, try and prove that god doesn't exist.
Why? Why don't you try and prove to me that the orbiting teapot doesn't exist?

What happened before the big bang?
Nobody knows.

The big bang is the earliest event we can conceive. If you ask 'what caused it?' the answer is 'nobody knows'. You can invent a cause for it like god, but then the question becomes 'what caused god'?

The Quraan talks about the 2 seas that will never meet, 1400 years ago?
And what are these two seas exactly?

Who or what could have known about that 1400 years ago, there was no scientific equipment...
Please could we give the "scientific miracles " argument a rest? It's just pathetic. See HeiGou's post #102 for the standard response. It's been given every time someone's brought this argument up, and it's just getting boring now.

Peace
Reply

afriend
03-05-2006, 02:03 PM
And what are these two seas exactly?
well, the two two seas.

The fresh water sea, and the Salty water sea, they will never meet or mix.

Somewhere in the pacific ocean.
Reply

HeiGou
03-05-2006, 02:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
well, the two two seas.

The fresh water sea, and the Salty water sea, they will never meet or mix.

Somewhere in the pacific ocean.
Now if the Quran mentioned the Pacific Ocean that would have been pretty impressive. Not impossible but impressive. Does it?

Of course think of the opportunity missed by not mentioning America and making sure Muslims got there first!

And incidentally, fresh and salt water do mix in the end. Are you sure that is what you mean?
Reply

mathematicci
03-05-2006, 05:45 PM
It is a sane principle that whena you talk about something you intend mentioning its perfect degree.For example when I tell you what aple is, nobody thinks a rotten or wormy apple.Most people imagine a red or green bright apple.That description of non-beleived people is describies the upper degree of non-beleivers.Of course every charactaristic of pagans don't have to be infidel and every feature of Muslims cannot be derived from Islam.My previous writing should be took into account with these perspectives.
For example some non-believers say:"Lİfe is a quarrel".Islam says:"life is working to gether".Which one of these is more benefit.The first one is results in wars and terror while the other encourage people to help eac hother.This is only a small example.Please don't stifle in that example.Answer main opinion if you want to answer me.
I want to say as a notte that I am not an antogonist of Atheists or any other non-believers.I love all people since Human is the perfect creature of GOD.God love human more than all other creatures. :)
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 06:15 PM
Why do you ppl who deny the existence of Allah; continue to be in this denial? What do you think you was created by no1 and you came to life yourself, :confused: Do you think the chemical reaction that occurs when a fetus is being produced, process and structure of cells just happens by chance, all the functions and duty every little cell undertakes in the human, and other creatures bodies just happens by itself? Did the cells design itself with such perfect and flawless design? Do you think its all a conicedence? coz i dont think so! all this far too complex and with certainty can't happen just by itself, any rational person would agree to this and would know that there is a greater force; and that is Allah. you ppl who deny Allah really need to wake up, this is a very ignorant way of thinking, He created mankind from absolutely nothing and you deny him? too much ignorance as well as denial, :confused: Who created all the universe did it make its ownself? did big bang occur? :confused: and everything sprung up, then life came about in humans, animals, and every other living things? :confused: These are all evidence that Allah exist, look around you all of that is the proof of Allah, Sky, mountains, oceans, all of these wonders in the World as well as the Universe...yet you still dont believe? :confused: anyone with a brain would know Allah; the creator of the Earth, Heavens and everything in between Does in fact exist, and that there is not doubt about that! Look at it from this perspective every product, painting etc; is without a doubt designed and constructed by someone from nothing? Right? and they are its designer, artists; no1 denies this. So you could use the same logic when thinking about life, world, as a mater of fact the whole universe..who created that from nothing?...who design and structured everything with perfection, everything functions smoothly without any errors; Allah created all this flawless creation; with no errors in, including us! so why are you guys -> :confused: ! and probably still be after reading this; but even more! :confused:

In the Quran Allah says:

56:57: It is We Who have created you: why will ye not witness the Truth?
56:58: Do ye then see?- The (human Seed) that ye throw out,
56:59: Is it ye who create it, or are We the Creators?
56:60: We have decreed Death to be your common lot, and We are not to be frustrated
56:61: from changing your Forms and creating you (again) in (forms) that ye know not.
56:62: And ye certainly know already the first form of creation: why then do ye not celebrate His praises?
56:63: See ye the seed that ye sow in the ground?
56:64: Is it ye that cause it to grow, or are We the Cause?
56:65: Were it Our Will, We could crumble it to dry powder, and ye would be left in wonderment,

[Extracted from Surah Al Wâqi'ah] and many other surahs on similar topic

What science is coming up with nowadays due to all its advance technology had already been stated in the Quran by Allah, but you still deny? :confused: keep it going!

It is God who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. [Surat at-Talaq: 12] Though you still --> :confused:

All Praises and glory are due to Allah and Him alone!, the maintainer of the universe

P.S. i might have repeated points in my post that have already been expressed in other members posts, reason being i havent read no posts on this thread, i just wanted to put my opinion across, so if i have done this Please keep cool! :confused:

ONE!
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fight&Die4Allah
Why do you ppl who deny the existence of Allah; continue to be in this denial? What do you think you was created by no1 and you came to life yourself, :confused: Do you think the chemical reaction that occurs when a fetus is being produced, process and structure of cells just happens by chance, all the functions and duty every little cell undertakes in the human, and other creatures bodies just happens by itself? Did the cells design itself with such perfect and flawless design? Do you think its all a conicedence?
No.

coz i dont think so! all this far too complex and with certainty can't happen just by itself, any rational person would agree to this and would know that there is a greater force; and that is Allah.
Then why have so many rational people been atheists?
did big bang occur?
It seems very likely that it did, yes.

These are all evidence that Allah exist, look around you all of that is the proof of Allah, Sky, mountains, oceans, all of these wonders in the World as well as the Universe...yet you still dont believe?
How is the sky evidence that Allah exists?

anyone with a brain would know Allah; the creator of the Earth, Heavens and everything in between Does in fact exist, and that there is not doubt about that!
Many people with brains have not believed in Allah, therefore it would seem there is considerable doubt about what you say.

Look at it from this perspective every product, painting etc; is without a doubt designed and constructed by someone from nothing? Right? and they are its designer, artists; no1 denies this. So you could use the same logic when thinking about life, world, as a mater of fact the whole universe..who created that from nothing?...who design and structured everything with perfection, everything functions smoothly without any errors; Allah created all this flawless creation; with no errors in, including us! so why are you guys -> :confused: ! and probably still be after reading this; but even more! :confused:
This is the argument from design, also known as the teleological argument. Do you think I've never seen it before? I've responded to it so many times on this forum I'm not going to bother again. See here:

Teleological Argument

What science is coming up with nowadays due to all its advance technology had already been stated in the Quran by Allah, but you still deny? :confused: keep it going!
Please could you point to the sections of the Qur'an that deal with quantum theory, string theory and the mapping of the human genome?

It is God who created the seven heavens and of the earth the same number, the Command descending down through all of them, so that you might know that God has power over all things and that God encompasses all things in His knowledge. [Surat at-Talaq: 12] Though you still --> :confused:
Right - just because someone makes an assertion doesn't mean you have to believe it unquestioningly. You are allowed to use your own intelligence to think about these things.

ONE!
TWO!

Peace
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
No.

Then why have so many rational people been atheists?
thats a matter of opinion :confused:

It seems very likely that it did, yes.
ok thats what you believe and can keep believing in that, aint no problem

How is the sky evidence that Allah exists?
Umm whats holding the sky up...strings? what makes the cloud float in the sky? Allah is the controller of everything

Many people with brains have not believed in Allah, therefore it would seem there is considerable doubt about what you say.
and also many ppl with brains, and some without have believed in Allah!

This is the argument from design, also known as the teleological argument. Do you think I've never seen it before? I've responded to it so many times on this forum I'm not going to bother again. See here:

Teleological Argument
ok that's what you believe

Please could you point to the sections of the Qur'an that deal with quantum theory, string theory and the mapping of the human genome?
What i meant to say SOME then...and i will bring you an example what has already been stated in the Quran but umm non-believers or scientists had to work it out themsleves.

Right - just because someone makes an assertion doesn't mean you have to believe it unquestioningly. You are allowed to use your own intelligence to think about these things.
yea where have i said you cant use your own intelligence, but who's given you that intelligence? Allah gave it, He is the real provide of everything! and i was just expressing my opinion, im sure i said that :confused: and not get into a debate with you

Furthermore, i wasnt tryna convince you Allah does exist, because obviosly i cant do that, i dont think anyone can! you just have to wait and see till the day we all return to Yours, everyone and everything else, CREATOR (Allah)..im sure everyone with the same views on this matter as you will then and only then truly believe

TWO!

Peace
THREE!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-05-2006, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Why? Why don't you try and prove to me that the orbiting teapot doesn't exist?
In such cases it just becomes a discussion of the attributes of the entity in question. I don't believe in an orbiting teapot because its attributes are contradictory. This is just like the invisible pink unicorn argument or the ice-cream factory on jupiter argument.

When you say that there is an orbiting teapot, well a teapot is a man-made object used for tea. If this isn't used for tea and only resembles a teapot, then why are you calling it a teapot? If it simply some debris in orbit around our planet that you think resembles a tea pot then I do agree, there is a lot of space junk out there from destroyed satellites and other projects. So I wouldn't be suprised if one piece slightly resembled a teapot. :)

The problem you have is that you deny the existence of God without any evidence to do so, yet all the examples you can bring such as orbiting teapots, invisible unicorns, the tooth-fairy, santa claus and icecream factories were all either self-contradictory or inconsequential. You were better off using arguments against God such as claims that His attributes are self-contradictory.

Peace
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 08:18 PM
makes sense^^^Masha'Allah
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 08:31 PM
Greetings Ansar,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
In such cases it just becomes a discussion of the attributes of the entity in question. I don't believe in an orbiting teapot because its attributes are contradictory. This is just like the invisible pink unicorn argument or the ice-cream factory on jupiter argument.
What is contradictory about a teapot being in orbit?

When you say that there is an orbiting teapot, well a teapot is a man-made object used for tea. If this isn't used for tea and only resembles a teapot, then why are you calling it a teapot? If it simply some debris in orbit around our planet that you think resembles a tea pot then I do agree, there is a lot of space junk out there from destroyed satellites and other projects. So I wouldn't be suprised if one piece slightly resembled a teapot. :)
I'm talking about an actual teapot here. How can you be certain whether it is actually there or not?

The problem you have is that you deny the existence of God without any evidence to do so, yet all the examples you can bring such as orbiting teapots, invisible unicorns, the tooth-fairy, santa claus and icecream factories were all either self-contradictory or inconsequential. You were better off using arguments against God such as claims that His attributes are self-contradictory.
I don't deny the existence of god due to evidence, but lack of evidence! Besides, surely the burden of proof is on the theist, since they are making a positive assertion?

You've chosen to label some of the examples I've used as self-contradictory, which I accept in some cases, or inconsequential, which is your personal judgment, and so is really neither here nor there.

Let's think about the teapot argument: is there, or is there not a teapot in orbit around the planet? It has never been observed, so we have no way of knowing, therefore strictly we should be agnostic about it. However, the orbiting teapot is at least conceivable, since we are familiar with examples of teapots here on Earth. This is where the position is different from that of god. Not only has god never been observed, but no similar or analogous creature exists anywhere in the universe, therefore rather than being agnostic about god, it is far more likely that he is actually a fiction.

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-05-2006, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
It has never been observed,
hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...:rollseyes

:w:
Reply

afriend
03-05-2006, 08:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...:rollseyes

:w:
good point sis.....

Nice 1

ok, now lets hear what they got to say.
Reply

Eric H
03-05-2006, 08:54 PM
Greetings and peace czgibson and root,

I was probably agnostic for about thirty years and during that time I came into contact with people of various faiths, but none of their messages seemed to have any affect on me. I suppose I was in my late forties when I tried to find out for myself if there is a God or not, and over a period of a couple of years I read a whole collection of books on different religions, evolution, and the creation of the universe.

At some point I just stopped to think that I had this huge amount of information in my head, I had written loads of notes and I still had to admit to myself I didn’t have a clue.

It wasn’t until I was speaking to my brother in law about why he believed in God and why he went to the Baptist Church, his reply was quite profound for me there were no lectures on scriptures, he simply said if you want to find God you have to do SOMETHING.

He did not tell me what to do, he just left it at that, the more I thought about his words the more I sensed I had to do something.

Faith in God is a strange concept for non-believers, but at some point in your life whether it is tomorrow or twenty years time you may just get this urge to search for God.

Faith constantly inspires me to do things, the more I do the more I seem to have a greater certainty that a loving God exists.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Take care

Eric
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 09:24 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...
They've observed lots of things. Sure, no-one was around to witness the Big Bang - it's a hypothesis based on observations of its effects. Similarly, the transition from primitive apes to modern apes and humans has been suggested because of the similarity of our genetic sequences, combined with evidence from the fossil record.

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-05-2006, 09:27 PM
Hi Callum,
Yes, let's continue with the teapot example. My questions for you:

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot? Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something? Is it man-made? Do we know how it got into orbit? Do we know how long it has been in orbit?

After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.

How do we prove something, like God, does not exist? Here's an example of a proof that a triune Deity cannot exist:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...logy-coherent/

Peace.
Reply

bezimany 071
03-05-2006, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
well, the two two seas.

The fresh water sea, and the Salty water sea, they will never meet or mix.

Somewhere in the pacific ocean.
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth



The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°)

Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.

The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress. God has said:

He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)

But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:

He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)

One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water.



Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water

This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).


for more where this came from check out the website this information was copied from:
http://www.islam-guide.com/

ma salaama
bez
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 09:50 PM
Greetings Ansar,

Your questions are beside the point. This is a thought experiment, it's not something based on reality. However, the point is that it could be real, we just have no way of knowing for certain.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?
Because that's what it is.

Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something?
Not as far as anyone knows.

Is it man-made?
Probably.

Do we know how it got into orbit?
No.

Do we know how long it has been in orbit?
No.

After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.
I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.

How do we prove something, like God, does not exist? Here's an example of a proof that a triune Deity cannot exist:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...logy-coherent/
An interesting article, although it's really a very straightforward matter to prove that a trinitarian god is logically incoherent. I would do it along the same lines as the article, although I disagree with one small point:

This is a definition of God that Jewish-Islamic theism can easily accept without any major difficulties, for this is the common understanding of God in Western theism.
The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.

That point aside, the article says nothing I would disagree with. However, it is somewhat orthogonal to the discussion we're having now. That article is based on the argument of logical incoherence, where as the line I'm following now comes down to the question of the burden of proof.

Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.

Peace
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 09:52 PM
i suppose all these miracles time after time just magically happened too, similar to how the universe was formed right?

i suppose you gonna deny these miracles, the signs that prove Allah does Exist


STONE MAKING SAJDAH TO ALLAH AZA'WAJAAL, RESEMBELING A HUMAN BEING IN THAT POSITION



KALIMAH - THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH & MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IS HIS MESSENGER





More on >> http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...azawajaal.html

ALLAH DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT? :confused:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-05-2006, 10:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Your questions are beside the point.
I don't think so. If we are introduced to a concept then we must first examine the concept itself as part of our discussion on its validity.

Because that's what it is.
Now we run into definition issues. Why do you call it a 'teapot' if it has never been used as such as far as anyone knows. Why not call it a "teapot-shaped object" ?

Probably.
Yes or no? If yes, then was it originally designed as a teapot and somehow got lost in space? If no, then why do you call it a teapot?

I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.
I think it does. If you are going to claim that there is an invisible, untedetectable entity that exists in an alternate dimension, I won't deny it, I'll just say it is inconseuqential and continue my life. But God is not inconsequential if He exists.

The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.
Yes, you are correct that is an error in the article.

Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.
A good summary of your argument. However, I pointed out above why I think your argument fails.

Peace.
Reply

czgibson
03-05-2006, 10:15 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Fight&Die4Allah
i suppose all these miracles time after time just magically happened too, similar to how the universe was formed right?

i suppose you gonna deny these miracles, the signs that prove Allah does Exist
I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace
Reply

Ghazi
03-05-2006, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,



I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace
Salaam

Your denying the stone, seriously take a look.
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace
exactly what i thought you gonna say, im not surprise! btw why jesus? :confused:

Peace.
Reply

DaSangarTalib
03-05-2006, 10:41 PM
Heres something intresting....

Who Created the Universe From Nothing?

With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?

Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 1

Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:

By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.2
READ MORE>> http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_03.html

and >> http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_04.html
Reply

mathematicci
03-05-2006, 11:17 PM
I have read a good question which written by Czgibson:"Why most rationalist scientist say there is no God".
Ask your sana for a minute:When you're ill...Where do you go?Do you see a doctor or Computer engineer....or.. When you want to buy a beefsteak; do you want it from a tailor?Of course these are illogical.Than if you want to learn something about God, you should ask it people who are interested in God.If you do not have several perejudges. You should ask God people who found him.Scientist whor deny Him cannot give you anything about Him.For example, imagine that America has not been discovered yet.Neither you nor I know that there is a overseas continental.However one day you have heard that a man named Colomb says there is Continetal across seas.I heared it too, but I did not approve it.You're asking me is that true...I am a seaman and I say to you:"I have gone the other side of that sea and I didn't see any thing.I don't believe it.I deny that rumours." Imagine that I deny insistently.Do you maintain asking America to me?If you continue, can your belief be true?"Of course you investigate that rumour in Colomb's side.My refusal is derived from my ship's insufficiency or from going on wrong side.For these resons you should ask God from His experts if you want to learn whether He is existed or not...
Reply

muslimahh
03-05-2006, 11:47 PM
quick reply....

teapot example is not the same as we do not see any manifestations of this teapot.

The manifastations of God is His Creation and how it is maintained in perfect harmony for life to continue to exist

Further to the big bang theory, say the universe was just one small speck....who created that speck and how was it compressed?.....if anything every single argument including that for evolution and the big bang argues that creation emerged from a certain item, not nothing, i.e. evolution = amino acids like nitrogen, carbon, oxygen etc. and the big bang from a compressed speck. The point is that there was something to being this reaction about as there were key ingredients involved in their manifestations.
Reply

mathematicci
03-06-2006, 12:09 AM
Yes Muslimah.Conceding that first point have created itself has not any difference from saying all our writings is writen by it's own.All actions have to be possessed any author.We everyday experience that any letter cannot be writen by it's own.Then how can we say that these trees, Sun, moon have writen by it's own.Ofcourse God's letters and words do not resemble our writings.When He wants to write; He writes satrs, galaxies, planets, bacteries, flies...
Reply

yasin
03-06-2006, 01:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am sorry to hear that.



We will stop if you stop. So the next time the media refers to all Muslims being terrorists you will not complain?



you my good friend can burn in hell for what you've said.

I hate people like you lavishing to make such horrid statements seem true.

There have been billions of Muslims in this world, not even 1% of them would be considered a terrorist.

Last time i checked 1% was not a majority.

Stop making nasty damaging violence provoking statements like that
Reply

yasin
03-06-2006, 01:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
IThis is easy to explain and in fact you have answered your own question. The Quran and the Bible do not contain amazing facts, or at least no one knew they did. Modern scientists, usually believers or in the pay of the Saudi government, have gone over the Bible and the Quran with a fine tooth comb and taken out anything they can semi-plausibly claim to be scientific and claimed it is a miracle. So the Quran did not, for about 1400 years, make any sort of statements about science or maths. It is only in the last 30 years or so that some people have claimed it does.

you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.

You have never read the Quran, FACT.

So how can someone like you decide what it does or not contain, and dont lie and say that you have read it.

If you want names of the scientists do a Google search, it's not my place here to spoon feed everything i say to people that dont want to believe it.

You have a very closed mind and it is obvious from your half heart attempts at rubbishing solid facts.
Reply

anis_z24
03-06-2006, 02:12 AM
Salam
Do we not know of the verse that says - 025.063 And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";-
In this case HeiGou can be classified as ignorant, because HeiGou is talking about something HeiGou doesn't know.
So say peace as the Quran asks us to do.

Peace
Reply

yasin
03-06-2006, 02:35 AM
my apologies and thank you for your advice
Reply

Eric H
03-06-2006, 11:03 AM
Greetings and peace yasin;

Trying to convince someone of the existence of God can seem very frustrating and maybe we should bear in mind the observations of St. Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

I sense those words are equally as valid today.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

HeiGou
03-06-2006, 11:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
you my good friend can burn in hell for what you've said.
I like to think I will burn in Hell for much more than just asking a question. So let me ask you the obvious question - why is it you think my asking a question will have me ending up in Hell?

I hate people like you lavishing to make such horrid statements seem true.
If you had taken some time you may have noticed it was not said with the intent you seem to think it is. What is the difference between a Muslim saying "All kafirs are..." and the media saying "All Muslims are..."? Why is it wrong to say Muslims are responsible for all the terrorism in the world but it is not wrong to say all Kafirs are responsible for all the fitnah in the world?

There have been billions of Muslims in this world, not even 1% of them would be considered a terrorist.

Last time i checked 1% was not a majority.

Stop making nasty damaging violence provoking statements like that
I did not use the word majority. I did not say what you think I did.

What violence do you think I am provoking?
Reply

HeiGou
03-06-2006, 11:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.

You have never read the Quran, FACT.
I find the Quran impossible to read as it happens. I have browsed. I assume Muslims do not read it either, but study it, recite it, or something.

So how can someone like you decide what it does or not contain, and dont lie and say that you have read it.
I have never said I have picked it up and read it from cover to cover. You are, of course, missing my point. It is unimportant what it contains, what matters is what Muslims have thought it contains. Did any Muslim think it contained a reference to the Big Bang before Dr Buicalle told them it did? Not that I know of. If I am wrong I would love to hear of one. Which Muslim thought the Universe was some 3.5 billion years ago because the Quran told them it was before the West decided it was?

If you want names of the scientists do a Google search, it's not my place here to spoon feed everything i say to people that dont want to believe it.
If I did a google search on scientists and Islam I expect that I would get a lot of historical stuff and not a few sites that I would be prohibited from posting here. I doubt that I would get much on any Muslim scientists who believed that the Quran contained scientific miracles before, say, 1970.

You have a very closed mind and it is obvious from your half heart attempts at rubbishing solid facts.
What solid facts?
Reply

muslimahh
03-06-2006, 10:40 PM
Really funny how those not believing in God are not presenting any arguments towards their position.

If you go by the rules of the scientific method, which all non-theist arguments usually revolve around (the tenants of science) you would require a null-hypothesis,

thus a hypothesis would be : - there is a God
the null hypothesis would be - there is no God

A hypothesis cannot be proven, rather it is nullified should the null hypothesis be supported by evidence



Evidence supporting the existance of God is all around us, life, symbiosis of differings species, animals, humans, nature, temperature and all of the complexities we see all around us. That which does not support it, and thus supporting the null hypothesis, arguably is the process of evolution, the big bang etc. (although these can still be supported by stating that this is the means by which God Almighty maintains and creates life) however, unfortunately for the null hypothesis, and as I have constantly pointed out, each of these arguments still do not account for the creation of the initial ingredients required for this process...i.e. the life elements Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen for evolution or that small compressed speck that atheists argue caused the big bang.

And yet, when I ask: where did these come from, I either get no reply or "we don't know" ...
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-07-2006, 01:29 AM
Hi czgibson and HeiGou,
It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.

Regards
Reply

root
03-07-2006, 01:26 PM
Yes, let's continue with the teapot example. My questions for you:

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot? Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something? Is it man-made? Do we know how it got into orbit? Do we know how long it has been in orbit?

After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.
The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?
Because it is a teapot

Is it man-made?
No.

Do we know how it got into orbit
No

Do we know how long it has been in orbit
No
Reply

HeiGou
03-07-2006, 03:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.
Sorry, haven't been reading about the flying tea pot. But I'll make an effort to catch up.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-07-2006, 03:18 PM
Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?
:w::rose::peace:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Oh and i'd like to remind all sides to remain polite towards each other, and avoid being rude about peoples views. Everyone is entitled to one after all.
:w::rose::peace:
Reply

HeiGou
03-07-2006, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?
According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.
Reply

nishom
03-07-2006, 04:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.

If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
Reply

czgibson
03-07-2006, 04:23 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by nishom
Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
Then what caused that force? Another prior force? An infinite regress of forces?

Why add an extra cause?

Peace
Reply

HeiGou
03-07-2006, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nishom
If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
Scientists use terminology a little differently to other people. A theory is more to a scientist than it is to a lay person. Here it is the best explanation for the observed facts. If you reject the Big Bang as a theory, and some do, then you need to explain whatever facts are left over. The Big Bang has done quite well. Simply saying "Well God made it that way" is excellent as an explanation but is not very useful.

Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
Nothing caused the Universe to exist as a singularity as far as I know. It just was. More feasible? But you are simply creating a bigger problem - who created that creative force? You can insist that the first creative force was the First Cause that had no creator, but why not just apply that to the whole Universe at the time of the Big Bang and reduce the complexity of the theory?
Reply

root
03-07-2006, 04:34 PM
The "Big bang" theory states that the universe came to be from a "big bang", (A really loud explosion) which science predicted then found and not visa verser. The prediction of the big bang came from einstien's famous equation, why and how the really big explosion occured is the mystery to which we have a number of options ranging from simply nothingness to "other sides of black-holes meaning matter in matter out" to my personal favourite of two universes colliding within a mutiverse scenario. Of course one could just say it was created by god, which I think by far is the weakest hypothosis here.
Reply

czgibson
03-07-2006, 04:40 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I don't think so. If we are introduced to a concept then we must first examine the concept itself as part of our discussion on its validity.
If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.

Now we run into definition issues. Why do you call it a 'teapot' if it has never been used as such as far as anyone knows. Why not call it a "teapot-shaped object" ?
This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?

Yes or no? If yes, then was it originally designed as a teapot and somehow got lost in space? If no, then why do you call it a teapot?
It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.

I think it does. If you are going to claim that there is an invisible, untedetectable entity that exists in an alternate dimension, I won't deny it, I'll just say it is inconseuqential and continue my life. But God is not inconsequential if He exists.
If he exists and everything humans have ever said about him is true, then yes, this is correct. But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false. It is up to me to support my claim that the teapot is there, just as it is up to the theist to support their claim that god exists.

Here is the originator of this idea, Bertrand Russell. As you can see, I got it wrong by saying the teapot is orbiting the Earth, but the point remains the same:

format_quote Originally Posted by Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell takes the idea further than I have, and his quote is dated by the mention of the psychiatrist. Bearing in mind that atheism is no longer considered to be a symptom of mental illness, and imagining that Russell's description of the situation regarding the ancient authority of religious teapot lore were actually in place, would you deny it then?

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-07-2006, 05:24 PM
Greetings Root,
Thanks for joining in.
format_quote Originally Posted by root
The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?
My answer is that either we will find such a concept incoherent/contradictory in which case it doesn't exist, or inconsequential in which case it doesn't matter if it exists.

Because it is a teapot

No.
If it's not man-made then how is it a teapot? What is it made of? Is it just some debris that looks remarkably like a teapot?

No



No
Do we know if it still exists in orbit?

Hello Callum,
I hope I don't get your responses confused with root's. :)
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.
Right. By 'thinkable', I would take that to mean that it must be logically coherent.

This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?
What is a teapot? It is a pot with a handle, spout and lid in which tea is brewed and from which it is poured. If I draw a picture of teapot and cut it out - does that count? If I make a teapot-like shape out of cardboard, does that count?

It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.
I think it does. Unless you are attributing supernatural powers to this teapot then it had to have a source. Is this a teapot-god which has existed from eternity or is it just a teapot? You told me it was the latter. So if it is a teapot, that means it is a manmade object designed and manufactured for pouring tea and it has somehow gotten into orbit without being destroyed. That means it must have gotten into orbit at some point in time after the manufacture of teapots. How could it get into orbit? Can you offer a logical explanation for that?

But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false.
Let's take a claim that is more clearly impossible to prove false, for a moment. Take the claim that there is an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. I can't prove that to be false. But I can't deny it either. I just say it is inconsequential to my life. The problem is that an atheist does deny the existence of God, a concept that is neither logically incoherent nor inconsequential. And there is no basis for such a denial. Being agnostic is one thing, but being atheist is another.

The quote from Russell is essentially the same idea. If one asserts that there is a teapot between earth and mars, they need to provide some sort of coherent explanation concerning its existence. Not proof of its existence, but a coherent explanation. So for a teapot, they need to explain if they mean that it is identical in substance and design to those manufactured on earth. and they need to suggets a possible explanation for how it got there. If they can't then through proof by contradiction, we can negate the existence of such a teapot.

Regards
Reply

anis_z24
03-08-2006, 01:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nishom
If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
Salam
the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


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

Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-08-2006, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.
This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?

Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-08-2006, 10:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anis_z24
Salam
the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


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

Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.
Subhan-Allah.....
Reply

HeiGou
03-08-2006, 10:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?
That is an excellent question. Scientists are still working on these issues. Perhaps you might like to tell us what the Quran says about brane theory?

Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.
Except single cells did not pop out of thin air by chance. They built on a billion years or so of existence and slow evolution. What are the chances of that?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-08-2006, 10:37 AM
So you're saying evolution has a conscience? Like 'oh... i think i'll grow some eyes now'?
Reply

HeiGou
03-08-2006, 12:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
So you're saying evolution has a conscience? Like 'oh... i think i'll grow some eyes now'?
Obviously not. But evolution is, first and evidently, evolutionary - it builds on what has happened in the past. So break-down the process of evolving a single cell into a lot of little steps. What are the chances of those little steps?

And the Universe is very old. It has had a lot of time to get it right. It is about 13.7 billion years old. And it is very big. There are a lot of places where it might have happened. There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the Universe.

Compared to this, the Earth is just one planet around one star and is just 4.5 billion years old. More or less. And humans have only been around for 160,000 years. A lot of wasted effort there, no? You would think any Conscious Designer would not be so wasteful.

4600 MYA The planet Earth forms from the accretion disk revolving around the young Sun.
4100 MYA The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form[1].
4000 MYA Life appears, possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. These molecules copying/reproducing/replicating requires resources like energy, space and smaller building blocks, which soon become limited, resulting in competition. Natural selection favors those molecules which are more efficient at replication. The atmosphere does not contain any free oxygen.
3900 MYA Late Heavy Bombardment: peak rate of impact events upon the Earth, Moon, Mars and Venus by asteroids and comets (planetesimals); this constant disturbance may encourage life to evolve (See: Panspermia). It is thought these impacts cause the oceans to boil away completely, more than once; yet life persists[2].
Cells resembling prokaryotes appear. These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose. Glycolysis generates ATP molecules as short term energy currency and is used in almost all organisms unchanged to this day. Lifetime of the last universal ancestor; the split between the bacteria and the archaea occurs.
3500 MYA Bacteria develop primitive forms of photosynthesis which at first do not produce oxygen. These organisms generate ATP by exploiting a proton gradient, a mechanism still used in virtually all organisms.
3000 MYA Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve; they use water as reductant, thereby producing oxygen as waste product. The oxygen initially oxidizes dissolved iron in the oceans, creating iron ore. Then the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere rises, acting as a poison for many bacteria.
2500 MYA Some bacteria evolve the ability to utilize oxygen to more efficiently use the energy from organic molecules such as glucose. Virtually all organisms using oxygen employ the same set of reactions, the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. The "runaway icehouse" effect[3] results in the Huronian glaciation (2,500 million-2,100 mya)[4].
2100 MYA More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes, which contain various organelles. The closest relatives of these are probably the Archaea. Most have organelles which are probably derived from symbiotic bacteria: mitochondria, which use oxygen to extract energy from organic molecules and appear similar to today's Rickettsia, and often chloroplasts, which derive energy from light and synthesize organic molecules and originated from cyanobacteria and similar forms. This is an example of co-evolution.
1200 MYA Sexual reproduction evolves and leads to faster evolution [5]. While most life occurs in oceans and lakes, some cyanobacteria may already live in moist soil by this time.
1000 MYA Multicellular organisms appear: initially colonial algae and later, seaweeds, living in the oceans.[6]
1000-750 MYA The first known supercontinent, Rodinia, forms and then breaks apart again.
950-780 MYA Sturtian Ice Age. This is a time of multiple near-global glaciation with periods oscillating between a Snowball Earth and a greenhouse Earth.
900 MYA There are 481 18-hour days in a year. The rotation of the Earth has gradually slowed ever since.
750-580 MYA According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, the Precambrian Varangian ice age is so severe that the Earth's oceans freeze over completely; only in the tropics do oceans remain liquid.
600 MYA Sponges (Porifera), Jellyfish (Cnidaria), flat worms (Platyhelminthes) and other multicellular animals appear in the oceans. Cnidaria and Ctenophora are some of the earliest creatures to have neurons; these are in the form a simple net, with no brain or central nervous system.
600-540 MYA The second supercontinent, Pannotia, forms and breaks up.
565-525 MYA The Cambrian explosion, a rapid set of evolutionary changes, creates all the major body plans (phyla) of modern animals. The cause of this huge expansion in the variety of life forms is still a matter of scientific debate. Arthropoda, represented by an abundance of trilobites, is the dominant phylum. Pikaia, a small swimmer of the phylum chordata, is possibly the ancestor of humans. Anomalocaris is a predator up to 2 meters in length whose living descendant today may well be the Pycnogonid, or Sea Spider[7].
530 MYA First footprints on land [8]
505 MYA The first vertebrates appear: the ostracoderms, jawless fish related to present-day lampreys and hagfishes. Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia are examples of these jawless fish, or Agnatha. (See also prehistoric fish).
488 MYA The first of the seven major extinction events over geological time occurs at the Cambrian-Ordovician transition.
475 MYA The first primitive plants move onto land[9], having evolved from green algae[10] living along the edges of lakes. They are accompanied by fungi, and very likely plants and fungi work symbiotically together; lichens exemplify such a symbiosis.
450 MYA Arthropods, with an exoskeleton that provides support and prevents water loss[11], are the first animals to move onto land[12]. Among the first are Myriapoda (millipedes and centipedes), later followed by spiders and scorpions.
450-440 MYA The two Ordovician-Silurian extinction events occur. Taken together these constitute the second mass extinction event.
400 MYA First insects are without wings: silverfish, springtails, bristletails. First sharks appear[13]. First Coelacanth appears; the species had been thought to be long-extinct until living specimens were discovered in 1938. It is often referred to as a living fossil.
370 MYA Cladoselache, a shark, is a high speed predator[14].
365 MYA The Late Devonian extinction is the third mass extinction.
Insects evolve on land and in fresh water from the myriapods. Some fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda. This happens in the water; tetrapods (Ichthyostega , Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae) then use their legs to move out onto land, probably to hunt insects. Lungs and swim bladders evolve. Amphibians today still retain many characteristics of the early tetrapods.
360 MYA Plants evolve seeds, structures that protect plant embryos and enable plants to spread quickly on land. Creation of Woodleigh crater (100 km wide) and Siljan Ring (40 km wide, Dalecarlia, Sweden).
360-286 MYA The golden age of sharks[15].
350-250 MYA Karoo Ice Age, beginning with early Carboniferous and ending with late Permian. Two particular periods in which much of Gondwanaland is glaciated from an early centre in Africa and South America, and a later centre in India and Australia, caused by polar wandering
300 MYA The supercontinent Pangea forms and will last for 120 million years; this is the last time all of the earth's continents fuse into one. Evolution of the amniotic egg gives rise to the Amniota, reptiles, who can reproduce on land. Insects evolve flight, and include a number of different orders (e.g. Palaeodictyoptera, Megasecoptera, Diaphanopterodea, and Protorthoptera) Dragonflies (Odonata) still resemble many of these early insects. Vast forests of clubmosses (lycopods), horsetails, and tree ferns cover the land; when these decay they will eventually form coal and oil. Gymnosperms begin to diversify widely. Cycads, plants resembling palms, first appear.
280 MYA The Protodonatan dragonfly Meganeura monyi is among the biggest insects that ever lived, with a wingspan of about 2 feet. Vertebrates include many Temnospondyl, Anthrachosaur, and Lepospondyl amphibians and early anapsid and synapsid (e.g. Edaphosaurus) reptiles.
256 MYA Diictodon, Cistecephalus, Dicynodon, Lycaenops, Dinogorgon and Procynosuchus, are a few of the many mammal-like reptiles known from South Africa and Russia. Pareiasaurs were large clumsy herbivores. The first Archosauriformes.
250 MYA The Permian-Triassic extinction event wipes out about 90% of all animal species; this fourth extinction event is the most severe mass extinction known.
Lystrosaurus is a common herbivore that survives the extinction. The archosaurs split from other reptiles. Teleosts evolve from among the Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish), and eventually become the dominant fish group. Atmospheric oxygen, at 10%, is one third of its former level, so animals with air sac breathing systems will do well (present-day bird respiration exemplifies the air sac system). Some spores of bacteria Bacillus strain 2-9-3 (Sali bacillus marismortui) are trapped in salt crystals known as halite in New Mexico. They are re-animated in AD 2000 and have multiplied rapidly. Currently the world oldest living organism.
220 MYA The climate is very dry, and dry-adapted organisms are favored: the archosaurs and the Gymnosperms. Archosaurs diversify into crocodilians, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs.
From synapsids come the first mammal precursors, therapsids, and more specifically the eucynodonts. Initially, they stay small and shrew-like. All mammals have milk glands for their young, and they keep a constant body temperature. Also, one of a pair of autosomes acquires gene SRY (derived from the SOX3 gene of the X chromosome) to become the Y chromosome, which has been decreasing in length since. Gymnosperms (mostly conifers) are the dominant land plants. Plant eaters will grow to huge sizes during the dominance of the gymnosperms to have space for large guts to digest the poor food offered by gymnosperms.
208-144 MYA Second major spread of sharks[16].
200 MYA Fifth mass extinction event occurs at the Triassic-Jurassic transition.
Marine reptiles include Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs. Ammonites and belemnites flourish. Dinosaurs survive the extinction and grow to large size, but the thecodonts, or "socket-toothed" reptiles, die out. Modern amphibians evolve: the Lissamphibia; including Anura (frogs), Urodela (salamanders), and Caecilia. Geminiviridae, a diverse group of viruses, are traceable to this epoch or earlier[17].
180 MYA The supercontinent Pangea begins to break up into several land masses. The largest is Gondwana, made up of the land masses which are now Antarctica, Australia, South America, Africa, and India. Antarctica is still a land of forests. North America and Eurasia are still joined, forming the Northern supercontinent, Laurasia.
164 MYA The oldest swimming mammal, Castorocauda lutrasimilis, is the immediate predecessor of modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna.
160 MYA 3 metres long, Guanlong wucaii - meaning crested dragon from the five colours, Xinjiang province in northwestern China, is the oldest Tyrannosaur.
150 MYA Giant dinosaurs are common and diverse - Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, along with smaller forms like Ornitholestes and Othneilia. Birds evolve from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is an ancestor of birds, with claws, feathers but no beak.
135 MYA New dinosaurs Iguanodon, Hylaeosaurus, etc., appear after extinction of Jurassic forms. Microraptor gui, a 77 cm long dinosaur in Liaoning, Northeast China, has bird-like feathered wings on 4 limbs.
133 MYA Jeholornis prima, primitive bird in the Jiufotang Formation of north-eastern China eats seeds. The bird has large, strong wings, and also had a long, bony tail, like many dinosaurs.
130 MYA Angiosperm plants evolve flowers, structures that attract insects and other animals to spread pollen. This innovation of the angiosperms causes a major burst of animal evolution and co-evolution.
128 MYA One early tyrannosaur is Dilong paradoxus in Lioning Province of China. Has feathers and a small body of 5 feet (1.5 m) long.
125 MYA Eomaia scansoria, a eutherian mammal, which leads to the formation of modern placental mammals. It looks like a modern dormouse, climbing small shrubs in Liaoning, China. The parrot-beaked Psittacosaurus is the ancestor of the later horned dinosaurs.
123 MYA Sinornithosaurus millenii is a dinosaur in Liaoning, China that has primitive feathers not used for flight. Other dinosaurs with feathers are Sinosauropteryx (most primitive feathers, simplest tubular structures) and Changchanornis. Have common ancestor with Archaeopteryx. Other dinosaurs include Polacanthus (armoured herbivore) and Eotyrannus (early tyrannosaur).
110 MYA Sarcosuchus imperator, eight metric tons, 12 m long, head 2 m long, largest crocodile. Carnivorous dinosaurs included the "raptor" Deinonychus and sail-backed semi-aquatic spinosaurs, herbivores include the tallest known sauropod Sauroposeidon proteles, as well as the bulbous-nosed iguanodont Altirhinus (ancestral to duck-bills) and the armoured Sauropelta.
100 MYA The giant theropod dinosaurs Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus are even bigger than Tyrannosaurus.
88 MYA Breakup of Indo-Malagasy land mass.
80 MYA Many kinds of sauropod, duck billed, horned and meat-eating dinosaurs; half of all known dinosaur species are from the last 30 MY of the Mesozoic, after the rise of the angiosperms. India starts moving to Eurasia.
75 MYA Last common ancestor of humans and mice [18].
65 MYA The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (sixth extinction event) wipes out about half of all animal species including all non-avian dinosaurs, probably because of a cooling of the climate precipitated by the giant impact of an asteroid: iridium powder from the asteroid forms a layer that covers the whole Earth. Creation of the Chicxulub Crater (170 km across, now half-submerged off the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico).
Without the presence of the giant and diurnal dinosaurs, mammals can increase in diversity and size. Some will later return back to the sea (whales, sirenians, seals) and others will evolve flight (bats). A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Archonta branches into the primates, tree shrews, and bats. Primates have binocular vision and grasping digits, features that help them to jump from one tree branch to another. One example is Plesiadapis which is extinct by 45 million years ago.
60 MYA Creodont, meat eater, northern hemisphere, extinct by 5.2 million years ago, possible ancestor of Miacids.
55 MYA Australia breaks away from Antarctica. The earliest true primates, called euprimates, first appear in North America, Asia, and Europe. One example is Carpolestes simpsoni at Clarks Fork Basin of Wyoming. It has grasping digits but no forward facing eyes. Another (earliest?) euprimate Teilhardina asiatica (Hunan, China) is mouse-sized, diurnal, and has small eyes. Mako Sharks are the probable ancestor of the Great White Shark [19].
50 MYA The evolution of the horse starts with Hyracotherium: the size of a fox with large nails instead of hoofs. Ancestor of whales (which include dolphins), Ambulocetus natans (Pakistan) probably walks on land like the modern sea lion and swims like modern otters. It has webbed feet that give it added power when swimming, and still hears directly from its ears. Pezosiren portelli, ancestor of modern manatees, walks like a hippo and swims like an otter. Miacids include Miacis, a five-clawed ancestor of all dogs, cats, bears, raccoon, fox, hyena, jackal, civet; it is a meat-eating, weasel-like tree climber.
48.5 MYA Gastornis geiselensis (Europe, USA), 1.75 m tall carnivorous bird, is a top predator
46.5 MYA Rodhocetus, ancestor of whale, successor to Ambulocetus, no longer needs to drink fresh water.
43 MYA Earliest elephant, Moeritherium (Egypt): 1m tall, size of a large pig, eats soft, juicy plants. It has a long nose, but no trunk nor tusks.
40 MYA Primates (order) diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (lemurs and lorises) and Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes); the latter is diurnal and herbivorous.
37 MYA Basilosaurus, up to 20 m long, snakelike ancestor of whales, has reduced but well-developed hind limbs. Hears from sounds transmitted to middle ears through vibrations from lower jaws. In Egypt's 'Whale Valley', what would later be the Wadi Hitan desert is underwater, teeming with Basilosaurus isis which had no blowhole but had to raise its head above water to breathe. Early ancestors of strepsirrhines primate appear in the Egyptian desert, Biretia fayumensis and Biretia megalopsis.[20].
35 MYA Grasses evolve from among the angiosperms.
30 MYA Haplorrhini (suborder) splits into infraorders Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World primates). New World monkeys have prehensile tails and migrate to South America. Catarrhines stay in Africa as the two continents drift apart. One ancestor of catarrhines might be Aegyptopithecus. New World monkey males are color blind. Haplorrhines: Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum, similar to today's lemurs, live in rainforests on Bugti Hills of central Pakistan. Ancestor of all cats, 9 kg Proailurus, lives in trees in Europe, goes extinct 20 million years ago.
27.5 MYA Indricothere, rhino relative, 4.5 m tall, tallest mammal on land, lives in Mongolia.
27 MYA Phorusrhacos longissimus (Terror Bird) 2.5 m tall in the Americas. Extinct by 15,000 years ago.
25 MYA Catarrhini males gain color vision but lose the pheromone pathway [21]. Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). The Old World primates do not have prehensile tails (e.g. Baboon); some do not have tails at all. All hominoids are without tails.
22 MYA India collides with Asia, causing the rise of Himalaya and the Tibetan plateau. Cut off from the humidity, Central Asia becomes a desert. Appearance of deinotherium, ancient elephant, extinct by 2 million years ago. Evolving from an animal that looks part dog, part bear and part raccoon, the dawn bear (Ursavus elmensis) is the ancestor of all bears living today. It is the size of a fox, hunts in the tree tops, and supplements a diet of meat with plant material and insects. The first group, the Ailuropodinae, follows a plant-based diet, branches off, and only one member, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), survives today.
21 MYA A mongoose-like creature floats to Madagascar from Africa on a raft of vegetation. It becomes the ancestor of all carnivorous mammals there.
20 MYA The African plate collides with Asia. Cynodictis, ancestor of dogs, has a shortened fifth claw which foreshadows the dewclaw (vestigial) of modern dogs. They look like the modern day civet and have feet and toes suited for running. The two superfamilies of carnivores (canines and felines) are distinct by this time. Gomphotherium, ancient elephant.
19 MYA Megatherium americanum (giant sloth 6m long). Extinct 8000 years ago.
16 MYA Squalodon shows early echolocation of whales. Megalodon is a gigantic shark the size of a bus [22]; it has a long reign and disappears suddenly about 1.6 MYA.
15 MYA Apes from Africa migrate to Eurasia to become gibbons (lesser apes) and orangutans. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gibbon. Orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are great apes. Humans are hominins.
13 MYA Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the orangutan. A relative of orangutans: Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis (Northern Thailand). Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Spain, possibly common ancestor of great apes and humans.
10 MYA The climate begins to dry; savannas and grasslands take over the forests. Monkeys proliferate, and the apes go into decline. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gorillas. This is the heyday of the horses as they spread throughout the Northern hemisphere. After 10 MYA they decline in the face of competition from the artiodactyls. Tomarctus, ancestor of dogs, is an extremely dog like animal.
7 MYA Biggest primate Gigantopithecus is 2 m tall and lives in China (Gigantopithecus blacki), Vietnam, and northern India (Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis). Extinct by 300,000 years ago.
5.6 MYA Drying up of the Mediterranean Sea (the Messinian Event).
5 MYA Volcanoes erupt and create the small area of land that joins North and South America. Mammals from North America move South and cause extinction of mammals there.
Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The latest common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Chad, Sahara, west of Rift Valley). The earliest in the human branch is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya). Chimpanzees and humans share 98% of DNA: biochemical similarities are so great that their hemoglobin molecules differ by only one amino acid. One group of chimps can have more genetic diversity than all of the six billion humans alive today, due to later population bottlenecking on the human lineage. Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precursor of speech.
4.8 MYA Chimpanzee size hominim genus, Ardipithecus walks upright
3.7 MYA Some Australopithecus afarensis leave footprints on volcanic ash in Laetoli, Kenya (Northern Tanzania).
3.5 MYA Orangutans diverge into Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus) and Sumatran (Pongo abelii) sub-species. Great White Sharks appear.
3 MYA The bipedal australopithecines (early hominins) evolve in the savannas of Africa being hunted by Dinofelis. Species include Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus bosei. Other genera include Kenyanthropus platyops.
Gorillas die out on the South bank of the Congo River. North and South America become joined, allowing migration of animals. Modern horses, Equus first appear. Deinotherium (4 m tall), is a gigantic cousin of the elephant, with downward pointing tusks in the lower jaw.
2.5 MYA Smilodon (Saber-toothed cat) appears.
2.2 MYA Gorillas diverge into the Western lowland (Gorilla gorilla) and Eastern (Gorilla beringei) sub-species.
2 MYA Homo habilis (handy man) uses primitive stone tools (choppers) in Tanzania. Probably lives with Paranthropus robustus. Emergence of Broca's area (speech region of modern human brain). Homo species are meat-eating while Paranthropus eats plants and termites. Some chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at the Southern part of the Congo River branch off to form the Bonobos (Pan paniscus/pigmy chimps). Bonobos live in female dominated society. Saber Tooth moves from North America to South America.
1.8 MYA Homo erectus evolves in Africa and migrates to other continents, primarily South Asia.
1.75 MYA Dmanisi man/Homo georgicus (Georgia, Russia), tiny brain came from Africa, with Homo erectus and Homo habilis characteristics. An individual spent the last years of his life with only one tooth by depending on the kindness and compassion of others to obtain sufficient sustenance.
The glyptodon, a giant armadillo the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, lives in southern Peru.
1.6 MYA Biggest marsupials: Appearance of Giant Short-faced Kangaroo (Procoptodon goliah) in Australia, extinct by 40,000 years ago. At 2 m to 3 m tall and weighing 200 kg to 300 kg, it is the largest kangaroo ever known. Wombat-like Diprotodon optatum, 2,800 kg, 3 m long, Australia, extinct by 45,000 years ago.
1.5 MYA Marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex or Leo) appears in Australia and goes extinct by 46,000 years ago.
1 MYA Genus Canis (coyotes, jackals, wolves, dingoes, domestic dogs) develops as a branch from Tomarctus. The gray fox, Urocyon cinereogenteus is the most primitive canid still alive today.
800 kYA Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) moves to Arctic North America.
780 kYA The Earth's last (most recent) geomagnetic reversal.
700 kYA Common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.
500 kYA Homo erectus (Choukoutien, China) uses charcoal to control fire, though they may not know how to create or start it.
400 kYA Eastern gorillas (Gorilla beringei) diverge into the eastern lowland (G. beringei graueri) and mountain (G. beringei beringei) sub-species. Giant deer Megaloceros giganteus, Ireland; the antlers together span about 3.6 m or larger, extinct by 9.5 kYA.
355 kYA Three 1.5 m tall Homo heidelbergensis scramble down Roccamonfina volcano in Southern Italy, leaving the earliest known Homo footprints, which were made before the powdery volcanic ash solidified.
250 kYA The Polar Bear evolves from an isolated high latitude population of Brown Bears.
195 kYA Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest known Homo sapiens.
160 kYA Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practise mortuary rituals and butcher hippos. Their dead bodies are later covered by volcanic rocks.
150 kYA Mitochondrial Eve lives in Africa. She is the last female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today.
130 kYA Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) evolves from Homo heidelbergensis and lives in Europe and the Middle East, buries the dead and cares for the sick. Has hyoid bone (60,000 yrs ago, Kebara cave, Israel), used for speech in modern humans. (Today humans use roughly 6000 spoken languages). Uses spear, probably for stabbing rather than throwing. FOXP2 gene appears (associated with the development of speech).
100 kYA The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa by this time or earlier; they derive from Homo heidelbergensis. Homo sapiens (humans) live in South Africa (Klasies River Mouth) and Israel (Qafzeh and Skhul), probably alongside Neanderthals. Modern humans enter Asia via two routes: one North through the Middle East, and another further South from Ethiopia, via the Red Sea and southern Arabia. (See: Single-origin hypothesis). Mutation causes skin color changes in order to absorb optimal UV light for different geographical latitudes. Modern "race" formation begins. African populations remain more 'diverse' in their genetic makeup than all other humans, since only a subset of their population (and therefore only a subset of their diversity) leaves Africa. For example, mtDNA shows that an individual with English ancestors is more similar genetically to an individual with Japanese ancestors than are two individuals drawn from two African populations.
82.5 kYA Humans in Zaire fish using sharp blades spears made from animal bones.
80 kYA Humans make bone harpoons in Katanda, Democratic Republic of Congo.
74 kYA Supervolcanoic eruption in Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia, causes Homo sapiens population to crash to 2,000. Six years without a summer are followed by a 1,000 year ice-age. Volcanic ash up to 5 m deep covers India and Pakistan.
70 kYA The most recent ice age, the Wisconsin glaciation, begins.

Humans in the Blombos cave in South Africa make tools from bones, show symbolic thinking by creating ochre paintings. They also collect and pierce holes through sea shells to make necklaces. Giant beavers (Castoroides ohioensis, Toronto, Canada) largest rodents, length up to 2.5 m, dies out 10,000 years ago.
60 kYA Y-chromosomal Adam lives in Africa. He is the last male human from whom all current human Y chromosomes are descended.
50 kYA Modern humans expand from Asia to Australia (to become today's Indigenous Australians) and Europe. Expansion along the coasts happens faster than expansion inland. Woolly rhino (Coelodonta antiquus) in Britain.
40 kYA Cro-Magnon Humans paint and hunt mammoths in France. They have extraordinary cognitive powers equivalent to modern humans, which enable them to become predators/hunters at the top of the food chain. Extinction of gigantic marsupials in Australia, probably due to humans, results in the lack of domesticated animals, partially leading to the relatively primitive lifestyle of the humans there, later, when compared to the rest of the world.
32 kYA First sculpture found in Vogelherd, Germany. First (bird bone) flute found in France. Stone tools in Kota Tampan, Malaysia.
30 kYA Modern humans enter North America from Siberia in numerous waves, some later waves across the Bering land bridge, but early waves probably by island-hopping across the Aleutians. At least two of the first waves left few or no genetic descendants among Americans by the time Europeans arrive across the Atlantic Ocean. Humans reach Solomons. Humans move into Japan. Bow and arrows used in Sahara (grassland). Fired ceramic animal models made in Moravia (Czech Republic).
28 kYA Oldest known painting: in the Apollo 11 Rock Shelter[23]., Namibia, Africa. A 20 cm-long, 3 cm-wide object found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura in Germany is the earliest sculpted stone penis[24].
27 kYA Neanderthals die out leaving Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis as the only living species of the genus Homo. Czech invented textile and pressed weaving patterns into pieces of clay before firing them.
25 kYA Throwing sticks for hunting animals made from mammoth tusk (Poland).
23 kYA Venus of Willendorf, a small statuette of a female figure, discovered at a paleolithic site near Willendorf, Austria, dates from this era.
20 kYA Humans leave foot and hand prints in Tibetan plateau. Oil lamps made from animal fats on shells used in caves in Grotte de la Mouthe, France. Bone needles used to sew animal hides. (Shandingdong Man, China). Microblade culture (Northern China). Mammoth bones used to build houses (Russia).
18 kYA Homo floresiensis existed in the Liang Bua limestone cave on Flores, remote Indonesian island.
15 kYA The last Ice Age ends. Sea levels across the globe rise, flooding many coastal areas, and separating former mainland areas into islands. Japan separates from Asia mainland. Siberia separates from Alaska. Tasmania separates from Australia. Java island forms. Sarawak, Malaysia and Indonesia separate. One group of humans in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East develop agriculture and, as a result of the benefits it brings, permanent settlements and cities. These appear first in what is now Iraq. This process of food production, coupled later with the domestication of available animals caused a massive increase in human population that has continued to the present. In this time, also, the cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira were produced.
14 kYA Megafauna extinction starts (continuing to current day), where over 100 large mammal species disappear possibly caused by the expanding human population.
11.5 kYA Extinction of the Sabertooth (Smilodon).
11 kYA Human population reaches 5 million. Extinction of Homo floresiensis.

Extinction of woolly mammoth. Domestication of dogs (first domesticated animal) from Grey Wolf subspecies (Canis lupus pallipes). All modern dogs today (5 main groups, about 400 breeds) belong to a single subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.
10.4 kYA Plant domestication begins with cultivation of Neolithic founder crops in Near East. Jericho (modern Israel) settlement with about 19,000 people.
10 kYA Sahara is green with rivers, lakes, cattles, crocodiles and monsoons. Japan's hunter-gatherer Jomon culture creates world earliest pottery. Humans reach Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, the last continental region to be inhabited by humans (excluding Antarctica).
8 kYA Domestic wheat Triticum aestivum originates in southwest Asia, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, due to hybridisation of emmer wheat with a goat-grass, Aegilops tauschii.
6.5 kYA Two rice species are domesticated: Asian rice Oryza sativa and African rice Oryza glaberrima.
3 kYA Humans start using iron tools.
AD 1 Human population 150 million.
AD 1835 Human population 1 billion.
AD 1969 Humans walk on the moon.
AD 2006 Human population approaching 6.5 billion[25].
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-08-2006, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Compared to this, the Earth is just one planet around one star and is just 4.5 billion years old. More or less. And humans have only been around for 160,000 years. A lot of wasted effort there, no? You would think any Conscious Designer would not be so wasteful.
The first problem with this point is that it makes the [unwarranted] assumption that God expends effort in the process of creation.
The second problem with this point is that it makes the [unwarranted] assumption that humanity is the greatest purpose in the design of this universe. But the Qur'an doesn't states this, in fact it says:
40:57 The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed superior to the creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know not.
Reply

azim
03-08-2006, 11:56 PM
The "Big bang" theory states that the universe came to be from a "big bang", (A really loud explosion) which science predicted then found and not visa verser.
Hate to be pedantic, but the 'big bang' theory states that all the substance and matter in the universe had at one point in the past zero distance between them (i.e. where one single infintely small singularity). And there was no noise, for obvious reasons.

why and how the really big explosion occured is the mystery to which we have a number of options ranging from simply nothingness to "other sides of black-holes meaning matter in matter out" to my personal favourite of two universes colliding within a mutiverse scenario.
All theories that can neither be proven nor disproven with the current level of science and technology.

Of course one could just say it was created by god, which I think by far is the weakest hypothosis here.
No one is saying "it was created by God, let's leave it at that, move it on now boys". Rather, the more we discover about the universe, the more we see a sculpted and designed creation - although this is a matter of opinion.

What can be said is that all the arrows of logic and science point at something existing that is no bound by space, time, the laws of classical or even quantum physics. Something that existed, always existed and always will exist. Why? Because you always need a constant, and thus, to assume that their is a God isn't a uneducated way of dismissing all scientific research, rather it is the decision one makes based on their knowledge and life experience.
Reply

moez_b10
03-09-2006, 04:11 AM
salam i appreciate the sister who put this article, and for anybody who thinks the exitance of God isn't logic then things popping out of nowhere and coming to existence is no where near logic. we dont have to over complicate things with these crazy theories that this is all a mind game ur mind is pulling a big trick on u. as we know the universe is a complex creation so there has to be a creator, just like a computer, it has complex systems in it, everybody knows somebody invented it right? so if you want to get to know God use ur mind just like you use your mind for everything else, dont think faith in God is when a miricle happens to you and you think oh God saved me therefore there has to be a God, its not because of that you shud believe it's His signs which he put for us in the universe. in the Quran it says "And in the Earth there are signs for those who use reason", also " By the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth, indeed He True (existing) just as you are talking"

Use your Brains that God gave you, Peace
salam
Reply

anis_z24
03-09-2006, 04:15 AM
Salam,
So may I ask what is anyones reason not to believe in God(this goes to who ever doesn't)?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-09-2006, 11:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by moez_b10
salam i appreciate the sister who put this article, and for anybody who thinks the exitance of God isn't logic then things popping out of nowhere and coming to existence is no where near logic. we dont have to over complicate things with these crazy theories that this is all a mind game ur mind is pulling a big trick on u. as we know the universe is a complex creation so there has to be a creator, just like a computer, it has complex systems in it, everybody knows somebody invented it right? so if you want to get to know God use ur mind just like you use your mind for everything else, dont think faith in God is when a miricle happens to you and you think oh God saved me therefore there has to be a God, its not because of that you shud believe it's His signs which he put for us in the universe. in the Quran it says "And in the Earth there are signs for those who use reason", also " By the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth, indeed He True (existing) just as you are talking"

Use your Brains that God gave you, Peace

salam
Haha.....:giggling:
Reply

HeiGou
03-09-2006, 11:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anis_z24
Salam,
So may I ask what is anyones reason not to believe in God(this goes to who ever doesn't)?
As far as I can see there are many reasons - the absurdity of the concept of a God who is watching all the time, judging and eventually punishing, the cruelty and injustice of the world which is hard to reconcile with a All-Powerful and Merciful God, the contradiction between having Free Will and an All-Powerful, All-Knowing God, and simple the fact that there is no objective evidence for Him and, thanks to science, no need to assume He exists.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-09-2006, 11:31 AM
What is so hard to believe about there being free-will and an All-Merciful All-Powerful God? Is it easier to assume that evolution is the cause of our existence and that we originate from a chimpanzee? *rolls eyes* I think this requires faith too Hei Gou.
Reply

HeiGou
03-09-2006, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by moez_b10
salam i appreciate the sister who put this article, and for anybody who thinks the exitance of God isn't logic then things popping out of nowhere and coming to existence is no where near logic.
No one assumes that things pop out of nowhere. At least no atheist scientists do. Some religious believers do. What is logical about that?

[quotye] we dont have to over complicate things with these crazy theories that this is all a mind game ur mind is pulling a big trick on u. [/quote]

No we do not have to over-complicate things, but science works that way. The assumption that God created the world 6002 years ago is a simple explanation for everything, but it is not productive or useful. Science is very productive and highly useful. So it might be easy not to over-complicate things and assume that if you have a disease God wants you to suffer and that is that. But a sensible approach would be to take advantage of the many benefits of modern science and seek medical help. Why would you accept science in medicine and not in cosmology?

Of course God is complicated too. You can simplify more and claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Universe last Tuesday. How do you test to see which claim is stronger?

as we know the universe is a complex creation so there has to be a creator, just like a computer, it has complex systems in it, everybody knows somebody invented it right?
Complex systems do not need a creator. A computer is obviously the work of a designer. But the Universe was created and has followed clear lines of development ever since. No sign of design there. Life has evolved. You can create complexity through evolution without too much trouble. That is the difference - there is no random chance here. Nor a designer that we can tell.

Use your Brains that God gave you
That is what scientists like to think they are doing.
Reply

HeiGou
03-09-2006, 11:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
What is so hard to believe about there being free-will and an All-Merciful All-Powerful God? Is it easier to assume that evolution is the cause of our existence and that we originate from a chimpanzee? *rolls eyes* I think this requires faith too Hei Gou.
Ahh, but faith of a different order. Evolution explains the evidence. You can accept that God created the world, but you have to claim ignorance of His intentions or deny the evidence. Evolution is just common sense really. At least on a small scale. Woudl you deny that the slowest gazelle gets eaten by cheetahs and so over time, gazelles get faster as only the faster live to breed? Fish all over the world are getting smaller. Scientists say this is because fish nets are required to be designed to let the smaller ones go and so only the smaller fish produce young. Would you deny that?

The problem with free will from an agnostic/atheist perspective is that God knows. Before I was born, before the Earth was formed, from the very moment of Creation God knew what I was going to do and what my eventual punishment would be. He placed me where I am knowing that the influences I am under would make me make the decisions I do. Whatever I think or have thought or will think is known to Him. So if I am faced with a decision, the outcome is known already. I may think I have free will, but that decision has been made for me already. Theologians ties themselves in knots on these issues.
Reply

anis_z24
03-10-2006, 03:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
No one assumes that things pop out of nowhere. At least no atheist scientists do. Some religious believers do. What is logical about that?

[quotye] we dont have to over complicate things with these crazy theories that this is all a mind game ur mind is pulling a big trick on u.
No we do not have to over-complicate things, but science works that way. The assumption that God created the world 6002 years ago is a simple explanation for everything, but it is not productive or useful. Science is very productive and highly useful. So it might be easy not to over-complicate things and assume that if you have a disease God wants you to suffer and that is that. But a sensible approach would be to take advantage of the many benefits of modern science and seek medical help. Why would you accept science in medicine and not in cosmology?

Of course God is complicated too. You can simplify more and claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the Universe last Tuesday. How do you test to see which claim is stronger?



Complex systems do not need a creator. A computer is obviously the work of a designer. But the Universe was created and has followed clear lines of development ever since. No sign of design there. Life has evolved. You can create complexity through evolution without too much trouble. That is the difference - there is no random chance here. Nor a designer that we can tell.



That is what scientists like to think they are doing.[/quote]

Salam
so prove that God does not exisit, I am not trying to frustrate you but you must show us prove as we have.
Reply

HeiGou
03-10-2006, 10:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by anis_z24
so prove that God does not exisit, I am not trying to frustrate you but you must show us prove as we have.
I cannot do that nor do I believe for sure that God does not exist.

Nor would I try if I thought I could. That would be rude.
Reply

j4763
03-10-2006, 12:57 PM
If the only proof is that everything had to be created, who created god?
Reply

أحمد
03-13-2006, 02:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I cannot do that nor do I believe for sure that God does not exist.

Nor would I try if I thought I could. That would be rude.
:sl:

:hiding: It is quite obvious, assuming that God doesn't exist is one thing; knowing for sure with proof just cannot happen. The simple reason is that it is outside the capacity of the Human Mind. I would suggest that if you try to grasp something easier; the concept of the "soul". :hiding: Can anyone tell me exactly what it looks like? (Most likely your answer will be No, if its Yes, then please do not forget to write the description in your post) As for prooving the existence of God, you limit your proofs to what you can see with your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your tongue, touch with your hand, and smell with your nose. What keeps you so narrow minded, and away from the truth; is that you limit everything to your tiny little brains. :hiding: As athiests don't really believe in the existence of the soul, they might believe in something even scientists assume; exists: TIME. I would just like to know what colour time is, before I agree with anything as such, Or is it a mere assumption that intervals of any event can be placed upon a physical object; that you cannot sense with any of your senses, nor is it something which you may understand. Scientists assume that there is this physical feature of the "universe" known as time.

:w:
Reply

أحمد
03-13-2006, 02:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
If the only proof is that everything had to be created, who created god?
:sl:

:hiding: No-one created God, he has always existed. The Quran answers your question in Surah 112 (its a very small Surah, it'll take you a few seconds to read).

:w:
Reply

czgibson
03-13-2006, 04:38 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
It is quite obvious, assuming that God doesn't exist is one thing; knowing for sure with proof just cannot happen. The simple reason is that it is outside the capacity of the Human Mind.
True. Atheists never say they have proof that there is no god, but theists sometimes claim to have proof that there is. In fact, of course, there is no proof either way.

As athiests don't really believe in the existence of the soul, they might believe in something even scientists assume; exists: TIME. I would just like to know what colour time is, before I agree with anything as such, Or is it a mere assumption that intervals of any event can be placed upon a physical object; that you cannot sense with any of your senses, nor is it something which you may understand. Scientists assume that there is this physical feature of the "universe" known as time.
Time is not a physical feature of the universe, nor is it a substance. However, different conceptions of time exist in different fields of thought. Philosophers who follow Kant regard time as one of the two fundamental categories of all our possible experience, while physicists following Einstein see time and space as intimately connected in spacetime. Since these are abstract notions, in neither case does it make sense to ask what colour time is; it's like asking about the colour of memory, forgiveness or generosity. It's what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle would call a category mistake.

Peace
Reply

abdul Majid
03-13-2006, 05:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


In fact, of course, there is no proof either way.

category mistake.

Peace

hmm. take a look around you, do you think that all this beauty and speices and colors and so forth came out of a big bang??? we dont even have to talk about humans or mountians or water or anything else, think of animals only??

How can order come out of disorder?? it cant no way...

if i drop a cup of oj on the floor, is it gonna make 4 equal cups with the same oj in it?? ofcorse not!!

listen , WHEN YOU SEE A PAINTING, YOU KNOW ITS A PAINTING WRITE??
DO YOU HAVE TO SEE THE ARTIST DRAW IT??

SO YOU SEE THIS GREAT CREATION IN FRONT OF YOU!! DO YOU HAVE TO SEE WHO CREATED IT, NO?!?! BY YOU CAN TELL ITS CREATED BY A FORCE MUCH GREATER THAN YOU, AND THATS GOD ALMIGHTY MY FRIEND
Reply

Eric H
03-13-2006, 07:02 PM
Greetings and peace abdul Majid;

hmm. take a look around you, do you think that all this beauty and speices and colors and so forth came out of a big bang??? we dont even have to talk about humans or mountians or water or anything else, think of animals only??

How can order come out of disorder?? it cant no way...
These maybe the reasons that you or I take as proof for the existence of God, because we have a need to believe in God, BUT and it is a huge but;

We cannot look at a tree, mountain, animal, bird or human and say yes the God of Islam created all this, in a way we have to strive for proof of a religion as a separate issue.

In a way our friend czgibson has to find a need for God before he will find him, a certain amount of proof is there but you have to want to find it before you start searching.

To anyone who uses logic this seems to suggest that you have to almost conjure up the evidence you need to find your conclusions. At some point you may come to a conclusion that total proof does not exist and you just accept the existence of God on a certain amount of trust and faith.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric











210148]hmm. take a look around you, do you think that all this beauty and speices and colors and so forth came out of a big bang??? we dont even have to talk about humans or mountians or water or anything else, think of animals only??

How can order come out of disorder?? it cant no way...

if i drop a cup of oj on the floor, is it gonna make 4 equal cups with the same oj in it?? ofcorse not!!

listen , WHEN YOU SEE A PAINTING, YOU KNOW ITS A PAINTING WRITE??
DO YOU HAVE TO SEE THE ARTIST DRAW IT??

SO YOU SEE THIS GREAT CREATION IN FRONT OF YOU!! DO YOU HAVE TO SEE WHO CREATED IT, NO?!?! BY YOU CAN TELL ITS CREATED BY A FORCE MUCH GREATER THAN YOU, AND THATS GOD ALMIGHTY MY FRIEND[/QUOTE]
Reply

czgibson
03-13-2006, 07:06 PM
Greetings,

It never ceases to amaze me how strongly some theists will rely on the argument from design.

format_quote Originally Posted by abdul Majid
hmm. take a look around you, do you think that all this beauty and speices and colors and so forth came out of a big bang???
I believe in the Big Bang theory because it's currently the best on offer.

if i drop a cup of oj on the floor, is it gonna make 4 equal cups with the same oj in it?? ofcorse not!!
No, but what does this prove?

listen , WHEN YOU SEE A PAINTING, YOU KNOW ITS A PAINTING WRITE??
DO YOU HAVE TO SEE THE ARTIST DRAW IT??
Of course not.

SO YOU SEE THIS GREAT CREATION IN FRONT OF YOU!! DO YOU HAVE TO SEE WHO CREATED IT, NO?!?!
But how do I know it was consciously created? This is a very different case from creating a painting. After all, I've seen people create paintings many times. It happens every day. I've even done it myself.

But I've never seen or heard of anyone creating a universe.

BY YOU CAN TELL ITS CREATED BY A FORCE MUCH GREATER THAN YOU, AND THATS GOD ALMIGHTY MY FRIEND
No need to shout. I'd like you to have a think about this question: would you say god is an ordered or a disordered being?

Peace
Reply

abdul Majid
03-13-2006, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace abdul Majid;



These maybe the reasons that you or I take as proof for the existence of God, because we have a need to believe in God, BUT and it is a huge but;

We cannot look at a tree, mountain, animal, bird or human and say yes the God of Islam created all this, in a way we have to strive for proof of a religion as a separate issue.

In a way our friend czgibson has to find a need for God before he will find him, a certain amount of proof is there but you have to want to find it before you start searching.

To anyone who uses logic this seems to suggest that you have to almost conjure up the evidence you need to find your conclusions. At some point you may come to a conclusion that total proof does not exist and you just accept the existence of God on a certain amount of trust and faith.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric


***These are just logical ideas one can reflect on!!

quote"We cannot look at a tree, mountain, animal, bird or human and say yes the God of Islam created all this, in a way we have to strive for proof of a religion as a separate issue."...

***we cant??? and i didnt know islam had its own god??? im talkign about creation here?? did you create it?? no ofcorswe not, is any human being able to?? no way....


Quote"In a way our friend czgibson has to find a need for God before he will find him, a certain amount of proof is there but you have to want to find it before you start searching."

* **i think gibson knows how do find things! ok so you admit a certain amount of proof is there, thats step one!!



quote"To anyone who uses logic this seems to suggest that you have to almost conjure up the evidence you need to find your conclusions. At some point you may come to a conclusion that total proof does not exist and you just accept the existence of God on a certain amount of trust and faith."

***conjure up evidence??? why its all around you!! its logic!! creation!!
and i didnt know that your aware of my thoughts, that i will come to a conclusion that proof does not exist??? what are you talking about friend??
proof exists, its not gonna be a deffinate answer becuase than everybody would beleive and it wouldnt be a test anymore would it??


peace
Reply

Muezzin
03-13-2006, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Time is not a physical feature of the universe, nor is it a substance. However, different conceptions of time exist in different fields of thought. Philosophers who follow Kant regard time as one of the two fundamental categories of all our possible experience, while physicists following Einstein see time and space as intimately connected in spacetime. Since these are abstract notions, in neither case does it make sense to ask what colour time is; it's like asking about the colour of memory, forgiveness or generosity. It's what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle would call a category mistake.

Peace
At least we know the colour of envy.

Though the Incredible Hulk sort of screws that up.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-13-2006, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Obviously not. But evolution is, first and evidently, evolutionary - it builds on what has happened in the past. So break-down the process of evolving a single cell into a lot of little steps. What are the chances of those little steps?

And the Universe is very old. It has had a lot of time to get it right. It is about 13.7 billion years old. And it is very big. There are a lot of places where it might have happened. There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the Universe.

Compared to this, the Earth is just one planet around one star and is just 4.5 billion years old. More or less. And humans have only been around for 160,000 years. A lot of wasted effort there, no? You would think any Conscious Designer would not be so wasteful.

4600 MYA The planet Earth forms from the accretion disk revolving around the young Sun.
4100 MYA The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form[1].
4000 MYA Life appears, possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. These molecules copying/reproducing/replicating requires resources like energy, space and smaller building blocks, which soon become limited, resulting in competition. Natural selection favors those molecules which are more efficient at replication. The atmosphere does not contain any free oxygen.
3900 MYA Late Heavy Bombardment: peak rate of impact events upon the Earth, Moon, Mars and Venus by asteroids and comets (planetesimals); this constant disturbance may encourage life to evolve (See: Panspermia). It is thought these impacts cause the oceans to boil away completely, more than once; yet life persists[2].
Cells resembling prokaryotes appear. These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose. Glycolysis generates ATP molecules as short term energy currency and is used in almost all organisms unchanged to this day. Lifetime of the last universal ancestor; the split between the bacteria and the archaea occurs.
3500 MYA Bacteria develop primitive forms of photosynthesis which at first do not produce oxygen. These organisms generate ATP by exploiting a proton gradient, a mechanism still used in virtually all organisms.
3000 MYA Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve; they use water as reductant, thereby producing oxygen as waste product. The oxygen initially oxidizes dissolved iron in the oceans, creating iron ore. Then the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere rises, acting as a poison for many bacteria.
2500 MYA Some bacteria evolve the ability to utilize oxygen to more efficiently use the energy from organic molecules such as glucose. Virtually all organisms using oxygen employ the same set of reactions, the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. The "runaway icehouse" effect[3] results in the Huronian glaciation (2,500 million-2,100 mya)[4].
2100 MYA More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes, which contain various organelles. The closest relatives of these are probably the Archaea. Most have organelles which are probably derived from symbiotic bacteria: mitochondria, which use oxygen to extract energy from organic molecules and appear similar to today's Rickettsia, and often chloroplasts, which derive energy from light and synthesize organic molecules and originated from cyanobacteria and similar forms. This is an example of co-evolution.
1200 MYA Sexual reproduction evolves and leads to faster evolution [5]. While most life occurs in oceans and lakes, some cyanobacteria may already live in moist soil by this time.
1000 MYA Multicellular organisms appear: initially colonial algae and later, seaweeds, living in the oceans.[6]
1000-750 MYA The first known supercontinent, Rodinia, forms and then breaks apart again.
950-780 MYA Sturtian Ice Age. This is a time of multiple near-global glaciation with periods oscillating between a Snowball Earth and a greenhouse Earth.
900 MYA There are 481 18-hour days in a year. The rotation of the Earth has gradually slowed ever since.
750-580 MYA According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, the Precambrian Varangian ice age is so severe that the Earth's oceans freeze over completely; only in the tropics do oceans remain liquid.
600 MYA Sponges (Porifera), Jellyfish (Cnidaria), flat worms (Platyhelminthes) and other multicellular animals appear in the oceans. Cnidaria and Ctenophora are some of the earliest creatures to have neurons; these are in the form a simple net, with no brain or central nervous system.
600-540 MYA The second supercontinent, Pannotia, forms and breaks up.
565-525 MYA The Cambrian explosion, a rapid set of evolutionary changes, creates all the major body plans (phyla) of modern animals. The cause of this huge expansion in the variety of life forms is still a matter of scientific debate. Arthropoda, represented by an abundance of trilobites, is the dominant phylum. Pikaia, a small swimmer of the phylum chordata, is possibly the ancestor of humans. Anomalocaris is a predator up to 2 meters in length whose living descendant today may well be the Pycnogonid, or Sea Spider[7].
530 MYA First footprints on land [8]
505 MYA The first vertebrates appear: the ostracoderms, jawless fish related to present-day lampreys and hagfishes. Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia are examples of these jawless fish, or Agnatha. (See also prehistoric fish).
488 MYA The first of the seven major extinction events over geological time occurs at the Cambrian-Ordovician transition.
475 MYA The first primitive plants move onto land[9], having evolved from green algae[10] living along the edges of lakes. They are accompanied by fungi, and very likely plants and fungi work symbiotically together; lichens exemplify such a symbiosis.
450 MYA Arthropods, with an exoskeleton that provides support and prevents water loss[11], are the first animals to move onto land[12]. Among the first are Myriapoda (millipedes and centipedes), later followed by spiders and scorpions.
450-440 MYA The two Ordovician-Silurian extinction events occur. Taken together these constitute the second mass extinction event.
400 MYA First insects are without wings: silverfish, springtails, bristletails. First sharks appear[13]. First Coelacanth appears; the species had been thought to be long-extinct until living specimens were discovered in 1938. It is often referred to as a living fossil.
370 MYA Cladoselache, a shark, is a high speed predator[14].
365 MYA The Late Devonian extinction is the third mass extinction.
Insects evolve on land and in fresh water from the myriapods. Some fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda. This happens in the water; tetrapods (Ichthyostega , Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae) then use their legs to move out onto land, probably to hunt insects. Lungs and swim bladders evolve. Amphibians today still retain many characteristics of the early tetrapods.
360 MYA Plants evolve seeds, structures that protect plant embryos and enable plants to spread quickly on land. Creation of Woodleigh crater (100 km wide) and Siljan Ring (40 km wide, Dalecarlia, Sweden).
360-286 MYA The golden age of sharks[15].
350-250 MYA Karoo Ice Age, beginning with early Carboniferous and ending with late Permian. Two particular periods in which much of Gondwanaland is glaciated from an early centre in Africa and South America, and a later centre in India and Australia, caused by polar wandering
300 MYA The supercontinent Pangea forms and will last for 120 million years; this is the last time all of the earth's continents fuse into one. Evolution of the amniotic egg gives rise to the Amniota, reptiles, who can reproduce on land. Insects evolve flight, and include a number of different orders (e.g. Palaeodictyoptera, Megasecoptera, Diaphanopterodea, and Protorthoptera) Dragonflies (Odonata) still resemble many of these early insects. Vast forests of clubmosses (lycopods), horsetails, and tree ferns cover the land; when these decay they will eventually form coal and oil. Gymnosperms begin to diversify widely. Cycads, plants resembling palms, first appear.
280 MYA The Protodonatan dragonfly Meganeura monyi is among the biggest insects that ever lived, with a wingspan of about 2 feet. Vertebrates include many Temnospondyl, Anthrachosaur, and Lepospondyl amphibians and early anapsid and synapsid (e.g. Edaphosaurus) reptiles.
256 MYA Diictodon, Cistecephalus, Dicynodon, Lycaenops, Dinogorgon and Procynosuchus, are a few of the many mammal-like reptiles known from South Africa and Russia. Pareiasaurs were large clumsy herbivores. The first Archosauriformes.
250 MYA The Permian-Triassic extinction event wipes out about 90% of all animal species; this fourth extinction event is the most severe mass extinction known.
Lystrosaurus is a common herbivore that survives the extinction. The archosaurs split from other reptiles. Teleosts evolve from among the Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish), and eventually become the dominant fish group. Atmospheric oxygen, at 10%, is one third of its former level, so animals with air sac breathing systems will do well (present-day bird respiration exemplifies the air sac system). Some spores of bacteria Bacillus strain 2-9-3 (Sali bacillus marismortui) are trapped in salt crystals known as halite in New Mexico. They are re-animated in AD 2000 and have multiplied rapidly. Currently the world oldest living organism.
220 MYA The climate is very dry, and dry-adapted organisms are favored: the archosaurs and the Gymnosperms. Archosaurs diversify into crocodilians, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs.
From synapsids come the first mammal precursors, therapsids, and more specifically the eucynodonts. Initially, they stay small and shrew-like. All mammals have milk glands for their young, and they keep a constant body temperature. Also, one of a pair of autosomes acquires gene SRY (derived from the SOX3 gene of the X chromosome) to become the Y chromosome, which has been decreasing in length since. Gymnosperms (mostly conifers) are the dominant land plants. Plant eaters will grow to huge sizes during the dominance of the gymnosperms to have space for large guts to digest the poor food offered by gymnosperms.
208-144 MYA Second major spread of sharks[16].
200 MYA Fifth mass extinction event occurs at the Triassic-Jurassic transition.
Marine reptiles include Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs. Ammonites and belemnites flourish. Dinosaurs survive the extinction and grow to large size, but the thecodonts, or "socket-toothed" reptiles, die out. Modern amphibians evolve: the Lissamphibia; including Anura (frogs), Urodela (salamanders), and Caecilia. Geminiviridae, a diverse group of viruses, are traceable to this epoch or earlier[17].
180 MYA The supercontinent Pangea begins to break up into several land masses. The largest is Gondwana, made up of the land masses which are now Antarctica, Australia, South America, Africa, and India. Antarctica is still a land of forests. North America and Eurasia are still joined, forming the Northern supercontinent, Laurasia.
164 MYA The oldest swimming mammal, Castorocauda lutrasimilis, is the immediate predecessor of modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna.
160 MYA 3 metres long, Guanlong wucaii - meaning crested dragon from the five colours, Xinjiang province in northwestern China, is the oldest Tyrannosaur.
150 MYA Giant dinosaurs are common and diverse - Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, along with smaller forms like Ornitholestes and Othneilia. Birds evolve from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is an ancestor of birds, with claws, feathers but no beak.
135 MYA New dinosaurs Iguanodon, Hylaeosaurus, etc., appear after extinction of Jurassic forms. Microraptor gui, a 77 cm long dinosaur in Liaoning, Northeast China, has bird-like feathered wings on 4 limbs.
133 MYA Jeholornis prima, primitive bird in the Jiufotang Formation of north-eastern China eats seeds. The bird has large, strong wings, and also had a long, bony tail, like many dinosaurs.
130 MYA Angiosperm plants evolve flowers, structures that attract insects and other animals to spread pollen. This innovation of the angiosperms causes a major burst of animal evolution and co-evolution.
128 MYA One early tyrannosaur is Dilong paradoxus in Lioning Province of China. Has feathers and a small body of 5 feet (1.5 m) long.
125 MYA Eomaia scansoria, a eutherian mammal, which leads to the formation of modern placental mammals. It looks like a modern dormouse, climbing small shrubs in Liaoning, China. The parrot-beaked Psittacosaurus is the ancestor of the later horned dinosaurs.
123 MYA Sinornithosaurus millenii is a dinosaur in Liaoning, China that has primitive feathers not used for flight. Other dinosaurs with feathers are Sinosauropteryx (most primitive feathers, simplest tubular structures) and Changchanornis. Have common ancestor with Archaeopteryx. Other dinosaurs include Polacanthus (armoured herbivore) and Eotyrannus (early tyrannosaur).
110 MYA Sarcosuchus imperator, eight metric tons, 12 m long, head 2 m long, largest crocodile. Carnivorous dinosaurs included the "raptor" Deinonychus and sail-backed semi-aquatic spinosaurs, herbivores include the tallest known sauropod Sauroposeidon proteles, as well as the bulbous-nosed iguanodont Altirhinus (ancestral to duck-bills) and the armoured Sauropelta.
100 MYA The giant theropod dinosaurs Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus are even bigger than Tyrannosaurus.
88 MYA Breakup of Indo-Malagasy land mass.
80 MYA Many kinds of sauropod, duck billed, horned and meat-eating dinosaurs; half of all known dinosaur species are from the last 30 MY of the Mesozoic, after the rise of the angiosperms. India starts moving to Eurasia.
75 MYA Last common ancestor of humans and mice [18].
65 MYA The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (sixth extinction event) wipes out about half of all animal species including all non-avian dinosaurs, probably because of a cooling of the climate precipitated by the giant impact of an asteroid: iridium powder from the asteroid forms a layer that covers the whole Earth. Creation of the Chicxulub Crater (170 km across, now half-submerged off the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico).
Without the presence of the giant and diurnal dinosaurs, mammals can increase in diversity and size. Some will later return back to the sea (whales, sirenians, seals) and others will evolve flight (bats). A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Archonta branches into the primates, tree shrews, and bats. Primates have binocular vision and grasping digits, features that help them to jump from one tree branch to another. One example is Plesiadapis which is extinct by 45 million years ago.
60 MYA Creodont, meat eater, northern hemisphere, extinct by 5.2 million years ago, possible ancestor of Miacids.
55 MYA Australia breaks away from Antarctica. The earliest true primates, called euprimates, first appear in North America, Asia, and Europe. One example is Carpolestes simpsoni at Clarks Fork Basin of Wyoming. It has grasping digits but no forward facing eyes. Another (earliest?) euprimate Teilhardina asiatica (Hunan, China) is mouse-sized, diurnal, and has small eyes. Mako Sharks are the probable ancestor of the Great White Shark [19].
50 MYA The evolution of the horse starts with Hyracotherium: the size of a fox with large nails instead of hoofs. Ancestor of whales (which include dolphins), Ambulocetus natans (Pakistan) probably walks on land like the modern sea lion and swims like modern otters. It has webbed feet that give it added power when swimming, and still hears directly from its ears. Pezosiren portelli, ancestor of modern manatees, walks like a hippo and swims like an otter. Miacids include Miacis, a five-clawed ancestor of all dogs, cats, bears, raccoon, fox, hyena, jackal, civet; it is a meat-eating, weasel-like tree climber.
48.5 MYA Gastornis geiselensis (Europe, USA), 1.75 m tall carnivorous bird, is a top predator
46.5 MYA Rodhocetus, ancestor of whale, successor to Ambulocetus, no longer needs to drink fresh water.
43 MYA Earliest elephant, Moeritherium (Egypt): 1m tall, size of a large pig, eats soft, juicy plants. It has a long nose, but no trunk nor tusks.
40 MYA Primates (order) diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (lemurs and lorises) and Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes); the latter is diurnal and herbivorous.
37 MYA Basilosaurus, up to 20 m long, snakelike ancestor of whales, has reduced but well-developed hind limbs. Hears from sounds transmitted to middle ears through vibrations from lower jaws. In Egypt's 'Whale Valley', what would later be the Wadi Hitan desert is underwater, teeming with Basilosaurus isis which had no blowhole but had to raise its head above water to breathe. Early ancestors of strepsirrhines primate appear in the Egyptian desert, Biretia fayumensis and Biretia megalopsis.[20].
35 MYA Grasses evolve from among the angiosperms.
30 MYA Haplorrhini (suborder) splits into infraorders Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World primates). New World monkeys have prehensile tails and migrate to South America. Catarrhines stay in Africa as the two continents drift apart. One ancestor of catarrhines might be Aegyptopithecus. New World monkey males are color blind. Haplorrhines: Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum, similar to today's lemurs, live in rainforests on Bugti Hills of central Pakistan. Ancestor of all cats, 9 kg Proailurus, lives in trees in Europe, goes extinct 20 million years ago.
27.5 MYA Indricothere, rhino relative, 4.5 m tall, tallest mammal on land, lives in Mongolia.
27 MYA Phorusrhacos longissimus (Terror Bird) 2.5 m tall in the Americas. Extinct by 15,000 years ago.
25 MYA Catarrhini males gain color vision but lose the pheromone pathway [21]. Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). The Old World primates do not have prehensile tails (e.g. Baboon); some do not have tails at all. All hominoids are without tails.
22 MYA India collides with Asia, causing the rise of Himalaya and the Tibetan plateau. Cut off from the humidity, Central Asia becomes a desert. Appearance of deinotherium, ancient elephant, extinct by 2 million years ago. Evolving from an animal that looks part dog, part bear and part raccoon, the dawn bear (Ursavus elmensis) is the ancestor of all bears living today. It is the size of a fox, hunts in the tree tops, and supplements a diet of meat with plant material and insects. The first group, the Ailuropodinae, follows a plant-based diet, branches off, and only one member, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), survives today.
21 MYA A mongoose-like creature floats to Madagascar from Africa on a raft of vegetation. It becomes the ancestor of all carnivorous mammals there.
20 MYA The African plate collides with Asia. Cynodictis, ancestor of dogs, has a shortened fifth claw which foreshadows the dewclaw (vestigial) of modern dogs. They look like the modern day civet and have feet and toes suited for running. The two superfamilies of carnivores (canines and felines) are distinct by this time. Gomphotherium, ancient elephant.
19 MYA Megatherium americanum (giant sloth 6m long). Extinct 8000 years ago.
16 MYA Squalodon shows early echolocation of whales. Megalodon is a gigantic shark the size of a bus [22]; it has a long reign and disappears suddenly about 1.6 MYA.
15 MYA Apes from Africa migrate to Eurasia to become gibbons (lesser apes) and orangutans. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gibbon. Orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are great apes. Humans are hominins.
13 MYA Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the orangutan. A relative of orangutans: Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis (Northern Thailand). Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Spain, possibly common ancestor of great apes and humans.
10 MYA The climate begins to dry; savannas and grasslands take over the forests. Monkeys proliferate, and the apes go into decline. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gorillas. This is the heyday of the horses as they spread throughout the Northern hemisphere. After 10 MYA they decline in the face of competition from the artiodactyls. Tomarctus, ancestor of dogs, is an extremely dog like animal.
7 MYA Biggest primate Gigantopithecus is 2 m tall and lives in China (Gigantopithecus blacki), Vietnam, and northern India (Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis). Extinct by 300,000 years ago.
5.6 MYA Drying up of the Mediterranean Sea (the Messinian Event).
5 MYA Volcanoes erupt and create the small area of land that joins North and South America. Mammals from North America move South and cause extinction of mammals there.
Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The latest common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Chad, Sahara, west of Rift Valley). The earliest in the human branch is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya). Chimpanzees and humans share 98% of DNA: biochemical similarities are so great that their hemoglobin molecules differ by only one amino acid. One group of chimps can have more genetic diversity than all of the six billion humans alive today, due to later population bottlenecking on the human lineage. Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precursor of speech.
4.8 MYA Chimpanzee size hominim genus, Ardipithecus walks upright
3.7 MYA Some Australopithecus afarensis leave footprints on volcanic ash in Laetoli, Kenya (Northern Tanzania).
3.5 MYA Orangutans diverge into Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus) and Sumatran (Pongo abelii) sub-species. Great White Sharks appear.
3 MYA The bipedal australopithecines (early hominins) evolve in the savannas of Africa being hunted by Dinofelis. Species include Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus bosei. Other genera include Kenyanthropus platyops.
Gorillas die out on the South bank of the Congo River. North and South America become joined, allowing migration of animals. Modern horses, Equus first appear. Deinotherium (4 m tall), is a gigantic cousin of the elephant, with downward pointing tusks in the lower jaw.
2.5 MYA Smilodon (Saber-toothed cat) appears.
2.2 MYA Gorillas diverge into the Western lowland (Gorilla gorilla) and Eastern (Gorilla beringei) sub-species.
2 MYA Homo habilis (handy man) uses primitive stone tools (choppers) in Tanzania. Probably lives with Paranthropus robustus. Emergence of Broca's area (speech region of modern human brain). Homo species are meat-eating while Paranthropus eats plants and termites. Some chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at the Southern part of the Congo River branch off to form the Bonobos (Pan paniscus/pigmy chimps). Bonobos live in female dominated society. Saber Tooth moves from North America to South America.
1.8 MYA Homo erectus evolves in Africa and migrates to other continents, primarily South Asia.
1.75 MYA Dmanisi man/Homo georgicus (Georgia, Russia), tiny brain came from Africa, with Homo erectus and Homo habilis characteristics. An individual spent the last years of his life with only one tooth by depending on the kindness and compassion of others to obtain sufficient sustenance.
The glyptodon, a giant armadillo the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, lives in southern Peru.
1.6 MYA Biggest marsupials: Appearance of Giant Short-faced Kangaroo (Procoptodon goliah) in Australia, extinct by 40,000 years ago. At 2 m to 3 m tall and weighing 200 kg to 300 kg, it is the largest kangaroo ever known. Wombat-like Diprotodon optatum, 2,800 kg, 3 m long, Australia, extinct by 45,000 years ago.
1.5 MYA Marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex or Leo) appears in Australia and goes extinct by 46,000 years ago.
1 MYA Genus Canis (coyotes, jackals, wolves, dingoes, domestic dogs) develops as a branch from Tomarctus. The gray fox, Urocyon cinereogenteus is the most primitive canid still alive today.
800 kYA Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) moves to Arctic North America.
780 kYA The Earth's last (most recent) geomagnetic reversal.
700 kYA Common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.
500 kYA Homo erectus (Choukoutien, China) uses charcoal to control fire, though they may not know how to create or start it.
400 kYA Eastern gorillas (Gorilla beringei) diverge into the eastern lowland (G. beringei graueri) and mountain (G. beringei beringei) sub-species. Giant deer Megaloceros giganteus, Ireland; the antlers together span about 3.6 m or larger, extinct by 9.5 kYA.
355 kYA Three 1.5 m tall Homo heidelbergensis scramble down Roccamonfina volcano in Southern Italy, leaving the earliest known Homo footprints, which were made before the powdery volcanic ash solidified.
250 kYA The Polar Bear evolves from an isolated high latitude population of Brown Bears.
195 kYA Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest known Homo sapiens.
160 kYA Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practise mortuary rituals and butcher hippos. Their dead bodies are later covered by volcanic rocks.
150 kYA Mitochondrial Eve lives in Africa. She is the last female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today.
130 kYA Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) evolves from Homo heidelbergensis and lives in Europe and the Middle East, buries the dead and cares for the sick. Has hyoid bone (60,000 yrs ago, Kebara cave, Israel), used for speech in modern humans. (Today humans use roughly 6000 spoken languages). Uses spear, probably for stabbing rather than throwing. FOXP2 gene appears (associated with the development of speech).
100 kYA The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa by this time or earlier; they derive from Homo heidelbergensis. Homo sapiens (humans) live in South Africa (Klasies River Mouth) and Israel (Qafzeh and Skhul), probably alongside Neanderthals. Modern humans enter Asia via two routes: one North through the Middle East, and another further South from Ethiopia, via the Red Sea and southern Arabia. (See: Single-origin hypothesis). Mutation causes skin color changes in order to absorb optimal UV light for different geographical latitudes. Modern "race" formation begins. African populations remain more 'diverse' in their genetic makeup than all other humans, since only a subset of their population (and therefore only a subset of their diversity) leaves Africa. For example, mtDNA shows that an individual with English ancestors is more similar genetically to an individual with Japanese ancestors than are two individuals drawn from two African populations.
82.5 kYA Humans in Zaire fish using sharp blades spears made from animal bones.
80 kYA Humans make bone harpoons in Katanda, Democratic Republic of Congo.
74 kYA Supervolcanoic eruption in Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia, causes Homo sapiens population to crash to 2,000. Six years without a summer are followed by a 1,000 year ice-age. Volcanic ash up to 5 m deep covers India and Pakistan.
70 kYA The most recent ice age, the Wisconsin glaciation, begins.

Humans in the Blombos cave in South Africa make tools from bones, show symbolic thinking by creating ochre paintings. They also collect and pierce holes through sea shells to make necklaces. Giant beavers (Castoroides ohioensis, Toronto, Canada) largest rodents, length up to 2.5 m, dies out 10,000 years ago.
60 kYA Y-chromosomal Adam lives in Africa. He is the last male human from whom all current human Y chromosomes are descended.
50 kYA Modern humans expand from Asia to Australia (to become today's Indigenous Australians) and Europe. Expansion along the coasts happens faster than expansion inland. Woolly rhino (Coelodonta antiquus) in Britain.
40 kYA Cro-Magnon Humans paint and hunt mammoths in France. They have extraordinary cognitive powers equivalent to modern humans, which enable them to become predators/hunters at the top of the food chain. Extinction of gigantic marsupials in Australia, probably due to humans, results in the lack of domesticated animals, partially leading to the relatively primitive lifestyle of the humans there, later, when compared to the rest of the world.
32 kYA First sculpture found in Vogelherd, Germany. First (bird bone) flute found in France. Stone tools in Kota Tampan, Malaysia.
30 kYA Modern humans enter North America from Siberia in numerous waves, some later waves across the Bering land bridge, but early waves probably by island-hopping across the Aleutians. At least two of the first waves left few or no genetic descendants among Americans by the time Europeans arrive across the Atlantic Ocean. Humans reach Solomons. Humans move into Japan. Bow and arrows used in Sahara (grassland). Fired ceramic animal models made in Moravia (Czech Republic).
28 kYA Oldest known painting: in the Apollo 11 Rock Shelter[23]., Namibia, Africa. A 20 cm-long, 3 cm-wide object found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura in Germany is the earliest sculpted stone penis[24].
27 kYA Neanderthals die out leaving Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis as the only living species of the genus Homo. Czech invented textile and pressed weaving patterns into pieces of clay before firing them.
25 kYA Throwing sticks for hunting animals made from mammoth tusk (Poland).
23 kYA Venus of Willendorf, a small statuette of a female figure, discovered at a paleolithic site near Willendorf, Austria, dates from this era.
20 kYA Humans leave foot and hand prints in Tibetan plateau. Oil lamps made from animal fats on shells used in caves in Grotte de la Mouthe, France. Bone needles used to sew animal hides. (Shandingdong Man, China). Microblade culture (Northern China). Mammoth bones used to build houses (Russia).
18 kYA Homo floresiensis existed in the Liang Bua limestone cave on Flores, remote Indonesian island.
15 kYA The last Ice Age ends. Sea levels across the globe rise, flooding many coastal areas, and separating former mainland areas into islands. Japan separates from Asia mainland. Siberia separates from Alaska. Tasmania separates from Australia. Java island forms. Sarawak, Malaysia and Indonesia separate. One group of humans in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East develop agriculture and, as a result of the benefits it brings, permanent settlements and cities. These appear first in what is now Iraq. This process of food production, coupled later with the domestication of available animals caused a massive increase in human population that has continued to the present. In this time, also, the cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira were produced.
14 kYA Megafauna extinction starts (continuing to current day), where over 100 large mammal species disappear possibly caused by the expanding human population.
11.5 kYA Extinction of the Sabertooth (Smilodon).
11 kYA Human population reaches 5 million. Extinction of Homo floresiensis.

Extinction of woolly mammoth. Domestication of dogs (first domesticated animal) from Grey Wolf subspecies (Canis lupus pallipes). All modern dogs today (5 main groups, about 400 breeds) belong to a single subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.
10.4 kYA Plant domestication begins with cultivation of Neolithic founder crops in Near East. Jericho (modern Israel) settlement with about 19,000 people.
10 kYA Sahara is green with rivers, lakes, cattles, crocodiles and monsoons. Japan's hunter-gatherer Jomon culture creates world earliest pottery. Humans reach Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, the last continental region to be inhabited by humans (excluding Antarctica).
8 kYA Domestic wheat Triticum aestivum originates in southwest Asia, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, due to hybridisation of emmer wheat with a goat-grass, Aegilops tauschii.
6.5 kYA Two rice species are domesticated: Asian rice Oryza sativa and African rice Oryza glaberrima.
3 kYA Humans start using iron tools.
AD 1 Human population 150 million.
AD 1835 Human population 1 billion.
AD 1969 Humans walk on the moon.
AD 2006 Human population approaching 6.5 billion[25].
Finally takinf the time to read all this, this just may be the funniest thing i've heard:). Make sure you put it in the halal-fun section *clap*.
Reply

abdul Majid
03-13-2006, 07:24 PM
lol, wow thats long my eyes hurt
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-13-2006, 07:30 PM
read it! i swear the thing had me cracking up with laughter!!!:happy:
Reply

czgibson
03-13-2006, 08:10 PM
Greetings Abdul Majid,

format_quote Originally Posted by abdul Majid
Quote"In a way our friend czgibson has to find a need for God before he will find him, a certain amount of proof is there but you have to want to find it before you start searching."

* **i think gibson knows how do find things! ok so you admit a certain amount of proof is there, thats step one!!
Eric's a theist. I don't think you'll need to try very hard to convince him!

quote"To anyone who uses logic this seems to suggest that you have to almost conjure up the evidence you need to find your conclusions. At some point you may come to a conclusion that total proof does not exist and you just accept the existence of God on a certain amount of trust and faith."

***conjure up evidence??? why its all around you!! its logic!! creation!!
Eric's right. He's imagining what it's like to be a non-believer in god, and he's doing it well. To atheists, people of faith seem to believe almost because they want to.

and i didnt know that your aware of my thoughts, that i will come to a conclusion that proof does not exist??? what are you talking about friend??
proof exists, its not gonna be a deffinate answer becuase than everybody would beleive and it wouldnt be a test anymore would it??
When you come to understand logic (which you evidently think of so highly), you will realise that there is no proof of the existence or non-existence of god, unless, of course, you want to invent your own definition of the word "proof".

Peace
Reply

czgibson
03-13-2006, 08:11 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
read it! i swear the thing had me cracking up with laughter!!!:happy:
Would you care to share any particularly amusing highlights?

That's a lot of people's beliefs you're laughing at there.

Peace
Reply

------
03-13-2006, 08:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Would you care to share any particularly amusing highlights?

That's a lot of people's beliefs you're laughing at there.

Peace
Well brother we respect what other people believe as it is their life and their choice

Peace
:peace:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-13-2006, 08:35 PM
I'm laughing because my biology teacher said religion is fairy tales, and i'm looking at what Hei Gou wrote and that looks like fairy tales to me. And scientist can't get offended because science isn't a religion is it? If you are, then i'm sorry.
Reply

anis_z24
03-13-2006, 08:40 PM
Salam,
-When you come to understand logic (which you evidently think of so highly), you will realise that there is no proof of the existence or non-existence of god, unless, of course, you want to invent your own definition of the word "proof".

Peace-
quote from Czgibson


It seems that you can not accept something beyond the human logic, which is the ability of God.

-and by the way the people who challenged God have always lost.
So don't be of them.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-14-2006, 04:21 AM
Does anyone want to continue the teapot discussion? My last post on it hasn't been answered yet.
Reply

Eric H
03-14-2006, 07:31 AM
Greetings and peace czgibson;

Eric's right. He's imagining what it's like to be a non-believer in god, and he's doing it well. To atheists, people of faith seem to believe almost because they want to.
Not to much imagination on my part, I suppose I was pretty much agnostic for about thirty years.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric
Reply

Eric H
03-14-2006, 07:39 AM
greetings and peace Ansar Al-'Adl;
Does anyone want to continue the teapot discussion? My last post on it hasn't been answered yet
How did I overlook the chance for tea, put the kettle on and I will be round for a cuppa, I take one sugar. ;D ;D

Teapots are for tea and they should be kept in the house, best place for them.

kind regards

Eric
Reply

HeiGou
03-15-2006, 10:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
I'm laughing because my biology teacher said religion is fairy tales, and i'm looking at what Hei Gou wrote and that looks like fairy tales to me. And scientist can't get offended because science isn't a religion is it? If you are, then i'm sorry.
Well I am not going to get offended. I am pleased that I can provide some amusement. But why fairy tales? Why does it look like fairy tales to you? More importantly, given that scientists, unlike theologians, have to prove everything that they claim, do you believe that this is a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth or the only slightly less worrying massive cover-up by God to make the entire Universe look like evolution was going on when it wasn't?
Reply

The Architect
03-15-2006, 01:45 PM
This is very conclusive evidence, and nice support for God's existence, but by no means, is it proof. We cannot prove that God exists, because we have not seem Him, we have not heard Him, we have not tasted God. We have had no physical contact with this being. I don't think human mind could create something like that. If we cannot truly fathom God, then how can we possibly create Him? The idea is ludicrous! Science cannot explain God. He is not measurable, He is infinite. Science can measure heat because it is finite and in a form of energy, it cannot measure cold because cold is simply the absence of heat. We, living our own sinful lives...sin, evil is the absence of God, the absence of good.

I believe in God, not because anyone has told me to, or because having a belief in God will benefit my life (although it is a nice little luxury), but because of all the things in life that I have chosen to put stock in, He is the only one that has never let me down. My belief in God has been strengthened by the massive downward spirals I've taken of late that I realize now were triggered by my own attempts to live a life without Him on my mind.

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.
Reply

root
03-15-2006, 02:41 PM
We cannot prove that God exists
So he either exists without evidence and so does the loch-ness monster or he does not exist at all. From a scientific point of view science in most areas cannot give you any certainty pertaining to factual and only offers a probability. The probability is that god does not exist and thioer is no afterlife.

We, living our own sinful lives...sin, evil is the absence of God, the absence of good.
Sin is religous based so I take no bearing from it as I am more interested in morals and I would certainly counter balance your point by putting forward that religion is the entity itself which in my mind best describes evil in the world around me and God being nothing more than a terrorist by defininition that is what I label anyone that kills women children and babies indescriminently and on mass.

I believe in God, not because anyone has told me to, or because having a belief in God will benefit my life (although it is a nice little luxury), but because of all the things in life that I have chosen to put stock in, He is the only one that has never let me down.
I think your first point is very valid and people of faith on average live longer and happier than people with no faith. However, hope will never let you down either and hope might be what is ultimately behind the gift wrapping of what you label God.

My belief in God has been strengthened by the massive downward spirals I've taken of late that I realize now were triggered by my own attempts to live a life without Him on my mind
As you demonstrate, faith and belief is a very personal experience.

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do.
I think not many people actually give it much thought and that belief in God or christian values (I will step aside Islam for the time being since I am talking my experience within the uK which is christian majority) probably does exist more than we realise despite the empty churches. Truth & religion are at odds and have been even more so recently, forums such as this try hard to breach this gap or divide but it's a widening gap and to my mind quite rightly so.

Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking.
perhaps living in ignorance is an easy thing to do also, and your "hope" to live in paradise is by no means assured according to Islam and I think to coin a phrase from Islam "God knows best". Comforting in life that you hope to live an eternity is probably (according to my mind) irrelavent after our deaths.

It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas
I totally agree with your statement here, though I would question as usual the validity of "Him".

Kindest Regards
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-15-2006, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well I am not going to get offended. I am pleased that I can provide some amusement. But why fairy tales? Why does it look like fairy tales to you? More importantly, given that scientists, unlike theologians, have to prove everything that they claim, do you believe that this is a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth or the only slightly less worrying massive cover-up by God to make the entire Universe look like evolution was going on when it wasn't?
Can I ask you something? Have you studies the Qur'an in great detail? Yes or no will be sufficient.
Reply

HeiGou
03-16-2006, 10:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Well I am not going to get offended. I am pleased that I can provide some amusement. But why fairy tales? Why does it look like fairy tales to you? More importantly, given that scientists, unlike theologians, have to prove everything that they claim, do you believe that this is a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth or the only slightly less worrying massive cover-up by God to make the entire Universe look like evolution was going on when it wasn't?
Can I ask you something? Have you studies the Qur'an in great detail? Yes or no will be sufficient.
No.

Now may I ask if you will answer my last question?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-16-2006, 10:23 AM
ok... my answer is to read the Qur'an in great detail:).
Reply

HeiGou
03-16-2006, 11:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
ok... my answer is to read the Qur'an in great detail:).
Does the Quran explain why God made all these fossils and left them lying around the place to fool us into thinking that evolution has taken place?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-16-2006, 01:10 PM
fossils of what exactly?
Reply

HeiGou
03-16-2006, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
fossils of what exactly?
Any ones you like. Dinosaurs. Do you think dinosaurs existed? Neanderthals. Do you think they did too?

Did these creatures exist way back then or is the fossil record fraudulent?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-16-2006, 08:28 PM
Dinosaurs, yes. Neanderthals, no.
Reply

The Ruler
03-16-2006, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Did these creatures exist way back then or is the fossil record fraudulent?
a fossil record could be of any other creature. i mean how much can science prove these things? how true are they? sure they explain things in a logical way, but believe it or not, that is your belief. yor belief is that science is logical and explains everything! did u actually see those fossil records and experimented them? couldnt there be exaggerations? like anyone with the intention to blow religion away could and would do anything to achieve his/her goal.

:w:
Reply

czgibson
03-16-2006, 09:09 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
yor belief is that science is logical and explains everything!
Science is often logical, but many of its discoveries rely on luck as well.

like anyone with the intention to blow religion away could and would do anything to achieve his/her goal.
Are you suggesting that modern biology is a vast conspiracy to get rid of religion?

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-16-2006, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Science is often logical, but many of its discoveries rely on luck as well.
luck, faith, belief....dont they come from the same branch? they are connected in soume way..... and yes, of course you would say science is logical. < like i said before....but that is you belief.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Are you suggesting that modern biology is a vast conspiracy to get rid of religion?
nope....not all of science. but there are certain aspects of science that is false :rollseyes

Peace
Reply

The Architect
03-16-2006, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Any ones you like. Dinosaurs. Do you think dinosaurs existed? Neanderthals. Do you think they did too?

Did these creatures exist way back then or is the fossil record fraudulent?
In the Bible in the book of Genesis, it does not specify exactly what creatures God created in the seven days of creation. So dinosaurs very well may have been, and probably were part of God's plan of creation. Ah here's Genesis chapter 1.

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Reply

czgibson
03-16-2006, 10:26 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
luck, faith, belief....dont they come from the same branch?
The same branch of what, exactly?

they are connected in soume way..... and yes, of course you would say science is logical. < like i said before....but that is you belief.
Science often uses logic. That is a fact, like it or not.

nope....not all of science. but there are certain aspects of science that is false :rollseyes
Who says modern biology is all of science?

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-16-2006, 10:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The same branch of what, exactly?
like say luck is a sort of faith which is like belief innit?

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Science often uses logic. That is a fact, like it or not.
if thta is how you argue, i can also argue that islam is the right path, believe it or not. but that is not how it is....u think science is logical because you believe it to be. if you dont believe in something, it never seems true to you. just like if you dont believe in someone, you wouldnt beleve that what that person is saying is true o not.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Who says modern biology is all of science?
i didnt say dat. in my previous post, i meant that not all aspects of biology is a conspiracy but certain aspects of it has gone too far. beyond what religion says.

:w:
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Dinosaurs, yes. Neanderthals, no.
So the bones of the Neanderthals are...fakes by humans? Tests by God?

How long ago did the dinosaurs live as far as you are concerned?
Reply

root
03-17-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~ [Link only for registered members]
Dinosaurs, yes. Neanderthals, no.
Partial DNA has been extracted from a neanderthal, the evidence is in the doubters cannot doubt anymore. Neanderthals existed and were not (probably) related to us. However, they existed and it cannot be denied.
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by The Architect
This is very conclusive evidence, and nice support for God's existence, but by no means, is it proof. We cannot prove that God exists, because we have not seem Him, we have not heard Him, we have not tasted God. We have had no physical contact with this being.
So wouldn't that mean there is no evidence at all much less no conclusive evidence?

I don't think human mind could create something like that. If we cannot truly fathom God, then how can we possibly create Him? The idea is ludicrous!
Why? We all must accept that some people have created some Gods (unless you are a Hindu or the like). After all if Allah exists, Shiva must not. So it must be taken as a basic assumption that humans have invented Gods, and find them perfectly logical and satisfactory in every way.

Science cannot explain God. He is not measurable, He is infinite. Science can measure heat because it is finite and in a form of energy, it cannot measure cold because cold is simply the absence of heat. We, living our own sinful lives...sin, evil is the absence of God, the absence of good.
Science may be able to explain God. It is all a matter of asking the right questions and performing the right experiments. So far there has been no evidence of the existence of God, but that does not mean there never will be. The first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a dying man before and after death to find out how much his soul weighed. If they had found a positive result, that would have had religious implications don't you think?

I believe in God, not because anyone has told me to, or because having a belief in God will benefit my life (although it is a nice little luxury), but because of all the things in life that I have chosen to put stock in, He is the only one that has never let me down.
Can I assume that at some point in your life you had religious education classes, and in fact no one ever comes to any religion "spontaneously" - they have to be taught by someone?

My belief in God has been strengthened by the massive downward spirals I've taken of late that I realize now were triggered by my own attempts to live a life without Him on my mind.
It is well known that religiousity often occurs when people have serious emotional trauma.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 10:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So the bones of the Neanderthals are...fakes by humans? Tests by God?

How long ago did the dinosaurs live as far as you are concerned?
I have no idea how long ago the dinosaurs lived. Why does that matter? Yes the fossils are either fakes or misinterpretted.
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
a fossil record could be of any other creature.
So not a dinosaur but another creature of the same bone structure? What other creature?

i mean how much can science prove these things? how true are they? sure they explain things in a logical way, but believe it or not, that is your belief. yor belief is that science is logical and explains everything! did u actually see those fossil records and experimented them? couldnt there be exaggerations? like anyone with the intention to blow religion away could and would do anything to achieve his/her goal.
Science can prove how old the bones are by testing them. They can find out roughly what period they come from by looking at the layers of Earth they were found in. They can assume common origins to create a relational-tree showing their nearest relatives. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of knowledge. There are Christian scientists, Jewish scientists, Hindu and atheist scientists, even some Muslim scientists. Science is open to all who are willing to open their minds - no belief is necessary. Dinosaurs were first discovered and studied in a time when there were no people trying to blow away science. When most scientists were Believers. All you have to do is learn with an open mind and you will see.
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
I have no idea how long ago the dinosaurs lived. Why does that matter? Yes the fossils are either fakes or misinterpretted.
I am curious about your beliefs - whether you are a Young Earther or not. If the fossils are fakes, who faked them?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 10:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am curious about your beliefs - whether you are a Young Earther or not. If the fossils are fakes, who faked them?
Some athiest scientist duhhhh!:giggling:
Reply

root
03-17-2006, 10:37 AM
Fossils cannot be fakes (most of the time). We have examples of fossils for species thought to be long extinct, then a live species is found and the reconstruction and representation of what the creature looked like were able to be assesed. The results were that the reconstructions are very accurate.

Here is an example of one of many:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4493825.stm
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 10:39 AM
cool.
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Some athiest scientist duhhhh!:giggling:
But even religious scientists have found them. Anyone can find fossils if they look in the right place. You can wander along the beaches of southern Britain and find fossils. Are you saying there has been a massive conspiracy by some group of atheist scientists that stretches back over 2000 years (when the first dinosaur bones were dug up in China) and across the entire world from North America to East Asia?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 10:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
But even religious scientists have found them. Anyone can find fossils if they look in the right place. You can wander along the beaches of southern Britain and find fossils. Are you saying there has been a massive conspiracy by some group of atheist scientists that stretches back over 2000 years (when the first dinosaur bones were dug up in China) and across the entire world from North America to East Asia?
:) I believe dinosaurs existed silly. The neanderthal fossils or fake/misinterpretted.
P.s... do you like my avatar?:)
Reply

root
03-17-2006, 10:48 AM
P.s... do you like my avatar?
Yes, that is a big telescope. Is he a bird watcher observing migration paths?

The neanderthal fossils or fake/misinterpretted.
lol......... you'll be telling us next the moon is made of cheese
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 10:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
:) I believe dinosaurs existed silly. The neanderthal fossils or fake/misinterpretted.
So do you also reject the other humanoid fossils such as Homo Habilis?

And who would fake the Neanderthal fossils?

P.s... do you like my avatar?:)
What is it with you and SAMs anyway?

I prefered the woman.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 02:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Yes, that is a big telescope. Is he a bird watcher observing migration paths?
Yes, he especially loved green birds (inside joke).



format_quote Originally Posted by root
lol......... you'll be telling us next the moon is made of cheese
It isn't?:?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
03-17-2006, 02:50 PM
i cant remember who but one of the prophets (AS) asked Allah (swt) what is the least of his mercy on us.. THE LEAST!
and he said, take a breath, that is the least of my mercy!

SUBHANALLAH!!!

:sl:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-17-2006, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So do you also reject the other humanoid fossils such as Homo Habilis?

And who would fake the Neanderthal fossils?
You lost me... the what?

I heard that one time this scientists glued a monkey skull to a human jaw. Lol, he was creative. I know i'm going to regret saying that, but I thought it was really funny.



format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
What is it with you and SAMs anyway?

I prefered the woman.
I think it looks romantic:).
Reply

j4763
03-17-2006, 05:27 PM
I heard that one time this scientists glued a monkey skull to a human jaw. Lol, he was creative. I know i'm going to regret saying that, but I thought it was really funny.
I too remember seeing that documentry. I think it was all a hoax something about finding the missing link between man and ape.
Reply

The Ruler
03-17-2006, 07:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
So not a dinosaur but another creature of the same bone structure? What other creature?
how do u no dat da creature was called dinosaur :?

:w:
Reply

HeiGou
03-17-2006, 11:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
You lost me... the what?
Scientists have found a lot of humanoid fossils. Homo Habilis is one of them.

I heard that one time this scientists glued a monkey skull to a human jaw. Lol, he was creative. I know i'm going to regret saying that, but I thought it was really funny.
Piltdown man.

I think it looks romantic:).
Hmmm, romantic? You know much about Sigmund Freud?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 09:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Scientists have found a lot of humanoid fossils. Homo Habilis is one of them.



Piltdown man.



Hmmm, romantic? You know much about Sigmund Freud?
Lol to the last two parts. No idea what that is, please inform me. I really don't know much about this homo habilis so please educate me on that matter too.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 09:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by j4763
I too remember seeing that documentry. I think it was all a hoax something about finding the missing link between man and ape.
OH MY GOD, thank you! Now I don't look clinically insane... pheww.
Reply

HeiGou
03-18-2006, 09:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Lol to the last two parts. No idea what that is, please inform me. I really don't know much about this homo habilis so please educate me on that matter too.
OK I deleted the joke about the Mahr. See? - I can learn!

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

The so-called Piltdown Man was fragments of a skull and jaw bone collected in the early years of the twentieth century from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, in the English county of Sussex. The fragments were claimed by experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of an hitherto unknown form of early man. The latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni was given to the specimen.

The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jaw bone of an ape combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. It has been suggested that the forgery was the work of the person said to be its finder, Charles Dawson, after whom it was named. This view is strongly disputed and many other candidates have been proposed as the true creators of the forgery.

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

Homo habilis «HOH moh HAB uh luhs» ("handy man", "skillful person") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to 1.8 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene. The definition of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964. Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo (except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans, however it had a reduction in the protrusion in the face. It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like, Homo rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (ie. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).

Have a look at the articles.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 09:27 AM
What joke????
I want to know!
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 09:30 AM
Wow ok.... thanks for that.
So how are you sure these fossils aren't faked/minterpretted?
Reply

HeiGou
03-18-2006, 10:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
Wow ok.... thanks for that.
So how are you sure these fossils aren't faked/minterpretted?
I am not sure. It is entirely possible that some fossils are faked. But when several similar fossils are found by different people it become less likely. When they stand up to testing it becomes less likely. Misinterpretation is a more interesting problem but the great thing about science is everyone should have an open mind, everything is open to debate and if the interpretation is wrong, other people will soon come up with another paradigm. This is why Piltdown was accepted - it fit the preconceived ideas of the scientists at the time (basically the British were more evolved than the French). But it was soon shown to be wrong.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 12:18 PM
Interesting. Ok, thank you for that.:)
Reply

root
03-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Wow ok.... thanks for that.
So how are you sure these fossils aren't faked/minterpretted?
It would depend, firstly a "fossil" is prity non descriptive.

Fossil - A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.

A fly may become fossilised in tree sap and survive a million years or so in pristine condition, fossils also can become deep frozen in the antarctic. relatively young fossils may in the right circumstances fossilise for thousands of years.

Fossils are very rare indeed, this considered you need to bear in mind that 90% of species now extinct have left no trace of thier existence so we will never know what other species have once lived. Further, thier ain't that many people actually looking for them!!!!

"Most" fossils though do not have any biological matter at all, and what once was bone is now hard rock that has the bone shape and texture inprinted onto the stone, dating the rock and the rock around the fossil is how the age of the fossil is determined. The same process of rock being inprinted is also found with leaves etc etc.

Like anything of value, fossil finds can make you rich and similar to the art world fossils have been known to be faked. For fossils of scientific interest, science does now go to extreme lengths to determine the validity of new fossil finds before publishing any work.

Hope this helps..........
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-18-2006, 01:37 PM
Thanks:).
So they can or can't be misinterpretted/faked?
Reply

root
03-18-2006, 03:06 PM
So they can or can't be misinterpretted/faked?
Yes........... Innocent people can be convicted of murder, people can have the wrong organ removed in surgery, indeed the quran can be misinterpretted (see my post on the red rose nebular:http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...e-nepular.html)
Reply

Eric H
03-18-2006, 04:53 PM
Greetings and peace to you all,

We have reached 239 posts in this discussion and we seem to be getting dizzy from going round in circles.

I sense that instead of calling this thread ‘proof of God’ we should call it ‘faith in God’ and this would be a better description of how we trust in God.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
03-19-2006, 07:56 AM
^^perhaps:)
Reply

czgibson
03-21-2006, 08:10 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
like say luck is a sort of faith which is like belief innit?
I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.

if thta is how you argue, i can also argue that islam is the right path, believe it or not.
No, the two statements are not logically comparable. I said science often uses logic, whereas your statement was definitive, i.e. Islam is the right path. I didn't say science always uses logic, but that it often does so is undeniable.

but that is not how it is....u think science is logical because you believe it to be.
Hopefully you can now see that you've misrepresented my statement here.

if you dont believe in something, it never seems true to you. just like if you dont believe in someone, you wouldnt beleve that what that person is saying is true o not.
Fair enough.

i didnt say dat. in my previous post, i meant that not all aspects of biology is a conspiracy but certain aspects of it has gone too far. beyond what religion says.
For the last few exchanges you've used 'science' and 'biology' interchangably, which is why my inference from what you said was actually fair.

Peace
Reply

The Ruler
03-23-2006, 09:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.
no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way :?

:w:
Reply

abdul Majid
03-23-2006, 09:03 PM
luck???
Reply

HeiGou
03-25-2006, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tagrid
no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way :?
The tail end of a binomial distribution.
Reply

------
03-25-2006, 02:51 PM
It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.
I agree.
Reply

HeiGou
03-25-2006, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
My answer is that either we will find such a concept incoherent/contradictory in which case it doesn't exist, or inconsequential in which case it doesn't matter if it exists.
OK Not my thread, but let's see what I would like to reply to.

I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.

Do we know if it still exists in orbit?
That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?

Let's take a claim that is more clearly impossible to prove false, for a moment. Take the claim that there is an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. I can't prove that to be false. But I can't deny it either. I just say it is inconsequential to my life. The problem is that an atheist does deny the existence of God, a concept that is neither logically incoherent nor inconsequential. And there is no basis for such a denial. Being agnostic is one thing, but being atheist is another.
A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.

Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?

The quote from Russell is essentially the same idea. If one asserts that there is a teapot between earth and mars, they need to provide some sort of coherent explanation concerning its existence. Not proof of its existence, but a coherent explanation.
Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith. Assume that there was a long running tradition, taught in schools and upheld by Bishops and Ulama, that said teapot did exist. Why would you need a coherent explanation? Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent? You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?

So for a teapot, they need to explain if they mean that it is identical in substance and design to those manufactured on earth. and they need to suggets a possible explanation for how it got there. If they can't then through proof by contradiction, we can negate the existence of such a teapot.
Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.
Reply

HeiGou
03-25-2006, 03:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pagal Kuri
It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.
I agree.
But with what do you agree? Don't you think there is a contradiction in what the previous poster said - after all if belief in God is easy but living His law is hard, what do you expect? Most people will say they believe in God but won't live as if they do. Blinking and breathing come natural. I was not taught to do them. And yet belief in God is highly socially specific. If idolated from true believers, children do not ever become believers. People do not convert in large numbers to any religion that does not try very hard to make converts. All evidence suggests belief in God is very hard if by that you mean anything more than the pieties of social belief.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-11-2006, 05:58 PM
Hi HeiGou,
Sorry I forgot about this post, I know it's been over two weeks but I still would like to reply.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.
Such as?

That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?
Is it claimed that it still orbits around the earth?

A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.
Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.
Thanks for the quote. What do you think is the difference between being a weak atheist and being agnostic? What is meant by 'absence of belief'? That they never affirm it or deny it?

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.
You're absolutely right, and this illutsrates my point well about when we can dismiss something as inconsequential.

Now about the IPU. The difference between this and the ice cream factory or the orbiting teapot is that you have now ascribed divine powers to the entity, so the discussion becomes a theological one. We now examine the concept and see if it fits in with a plausible explanation of our universe. As I said before, one needs to provide a coherent explanation for the entity in question.

Is the IPU created or uncreated? Is it pink or is it invisible (note that it would be contradictory to suggest that it is both)? A unicorn implies an organic creature with a physical body. Does it have eyes or is it invisible (note again that it is contradictory to suggest both)? Ultimately, when you examine the coherence of the concept itself you are left with some Zoomorphic model of God versus the Unique model of God found in Islam.

As for associating with horse shoes and eternal damnation, two things are being confused here. On one hand there is the belief in the entity, and on the other hand there is the obligations we have towards the entity. I believe that someone can realize the existence of a divine entity just by following their fitrah but I don't believe that they will be able to realize all the religious practices that this entity has mandated for us. For the latter, one must consult the revelation.
Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?
I believe in the divine Creator, I just don't believe He has the image of a unicorn.

Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith.
Because if one cannot provide any coherent explanation for the subjects existence, then it is sufficient to reject it on the basis of logic. If there is no coherent explanation, then the belief lacks credibility.
Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent?
Yes, I do believe that the Islamic understanding of God is the most coherent explanation for our universe.
You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?
To a theological discussion, as above.
Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.
Obviously this is no longer a normal teapot. If it is uncreated, then it is not composed of matter is it? If it is not composed of matter, there goes the entire 'teapot' model.

Peace.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-16-2006, 03:41 PM
:sl:
I'd like to remined members not to spam all threads with the same link. If you like it, post it once in the exchange links section. Especially because this section is for members to articulate their own arguments and only refer to links as back-up for arguments, not as substitutes for arguments.

And please do not post only a smiley. If you have some beneficial information share it inshaa'Allah, otherwise please refrain from posting here.

:w:
Reply

Hussein radi
04-16-2006, 03:55 PM
This video is another proof.

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=124

To be honest with you i don't know why they don't beieve in god. there are proofs everywhere of his existence. Our planet and the habitants in it are all proof of his infinite power and knowledge. I am sure you know the perfection of Human bodies and Universe. The body uses all these intelligent ways to function. Infact, the understanding of the eyes helped the devolpment of the camera. Maybe they don't believe in him because they don't find it important and care too much about this life and not the life after. And Satan is blinding those who don't believe through whispering influences. Their are billions of people who believe in god, two main religions are Islam and christianity. Many scientests also believe in god,including einstein.
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 01:20 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 08:56 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 08:42 PM
  4. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:03 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-19-2006, 08:25 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!