Religion and atheism "the everlasting battle"

[Mohammed Bilal]

Islam and atheism have been in an everlasting battle on "how the earth was created?"
The Debate
I asked my friend how was the earth created he replied " Cells created energy and eventually made molecules which made craters, asteroids, planets, suns and stars collide otherwise known as the "big bang theory" from Charles Darwin.

Then i asked him how was space and planets and suns/stars created he again went back to the moving of cells and molecules which creates heat energy. Then i asked him where did the cells and molecules come from? He replied from dark matter. Then i asked where did dark matter come from and he said the universe and finally i asked where did the universe come from? He said "from cells, the cells, universe and dark matter are a cycle and come from each other"

So i said where did all 3 of those substance come from?
But cleverly he dodged the question and said where did Allah (swt) come from. I didn't know what to say obviously Allah (swt) was there from the first place but then he would say that the 3 substances were there from the first place so i paused for a moment. Then I said this question your asking the wrong person go to scholars in case i say something incorrect.

Then he began to say that he won the debate whereas we actually neutralised each other. Later on i tried to make him understand that we equalised each other out and he began making racist remarks so i just walked away. In the end he asked for fogiveness.

If anyone has a comeback for " where did Allah (swt) come from please inform me. :w: Thankyou :brother:

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace Mohammed Bilal;

If anyone has a comeback for " where did Allah (swt) come from please inform me. :w: Thankyou :

Forget trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist, it can’t be done.

Atheists have to want God to exist before they find him, sounds kind of daft.

Later on i tried to make him understand that we equalised each other out and he began making racist remarks so i just walked away. In the end he asked for fogiveness.

I think you may have one other way of putting Islam over to your friend, by saying it teaches you to be slow to anger, not to retaliate, and you are able to forgive.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Cheb]

Very true Eric.
However, I do have a response that I would give anyone who asks me this questions.
I explained it in another thread but I will copy it here too. The part that most relates to this thread is in bold:

Greeting to everyone on this forum. I am a first time viewer and poster. I am glad that this discussion is taking place in a civilized fashion despite having 2 opposite views.
I was not able to see every post about this issue so if I repeat anything someone else had said then I apologize.
Now to get my view in.

I would like to say that despite what some may think, there is much more evidence that suggests that there is a God than not. Therefore if we are going to use an Atheists logic (please correct me if I am wrong) that if we cannot prove it then we dont believe in it, then it would be a more logical decisions to believe that there is a God. I mean can you prove that he doesnt exist? No you cant. So why not go with the logical decision?

Here are some things that I found very interesting in science. I would like to briefly talk about Einstein's general theory of relativity. A very interesting point that the theory supports is that Space and time are finite. This means that there is an end to time and space. It suggests that all time already exists. The past and future at one time. Think of it as if we are in a huge box were both time and space exist in a finite form. Now we know that God has already written what is going to happen to us. We also know that God is also seeing things that are happening in both the present and the future. I dont believe that it is a simple coincidence that one of the world's best scientists of all time has a theory that supports the existence of God (Even though he may not have thought about it in that way).
I hope that you guys would read about this carefully because it is very interesting.
Another point I would like to make is my own so I dont have anything to support it. I always hear the question "if God exists then who created HIM, what existed before God?" My answer to that is that the question itself is false. We believe that God has created all things. I am not only talking about living or physical things. God also created emotion, our conscious, and also time! Yes I do not believe time is something that has always existed. It is God who created time. Therefore it is not God who did not exist in the beginning of time; it is time that did not exist. These things are hard to understand because our brains have their limits, we simply cannot think in the 4th dimension and therefore refuse to accept anything within it.

HeiGou "I think that being good makes you happy. And conversely whatever makes you happy, in the sense of really happy and in the long run, must be good. It seems obvious to me that it is better to love, and be loved, by one woman than have sex with many you hardly know. It seems better to me to work hard, earn your own money, live in your own house, than to steal. It seems obvious to me that drinking to excess or taking drugs is only going to impair your mind and ruin your life.

Now I do not need God to believe any of those things. They seem self evident and clear to me. Do you think they are irrational and can only be supported by an appeal to the divine?"

I disagree with this. If you recall "civilized" people did not exist until religion was found. People use to burry their kids alive sometimes, and it was religion that stopped that. Just like it stopped many other wrong things that we do. That fact is, the reason why you think it comes naturally now is because religion and God has taught us that this is the right way. There are billions of people that believe in God and it is through them that these "good" qualities come from. You were not born an atheist. You were born a human being taught these good qualities that have been passed on through generations of believers.
To support my point I would like to point out the African tribes that follow medieval beliefs that have little to do with what any of the three main religions believe. Not all, but many have regular sacrifices and rituals that they view as right. They have not been touched by religion and therefore are stuck in ancient times. That is what happens when religion is not introduced to a community. They only seem self evident and clear to you because it is religion that made them that way. If not for religion you we would still not know how to differentiate clearly between right and wrong. With all due respect, I believe you have turned your back on what has given you those good qualities that you posses.

[Mohammed Bilal]

:sl: But then he will say i am dodging the question won't he. :ws:

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

[root]

Islam and atheism have been in an everlasting battle on "how the earth was created?"

I disagree, atheists woke up in the modern world knowing the knowledge gained through science did not match what religion tried to tell us......

As far as the formation of the universe goes we are still learning though reasonably confident on how Galaxies and solar systems were able to form. New information is discoverd everyday such as recently:

Physicists have confirmed that neutrinos, which are thought to have played a key role during the creation of the Universe, have mass.

This is the first major finding of the US-based Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (Minos) experiment.

The findings suggest that the Standard Model, which describes how the building blocks of the Universe behave and interact, needs a revision.

Neutrinos are believed to be vital to our understanding of the Universe.

As for the origins, we cant say for sure. We just don't accept the creationist view since it has not and does not require any supporting evidence, and it don't have any........

[HeiGou]

I would like to say that despite what some may think, there is much more evidence that suggests that there is a God than not. Therefore if we are going to use an Atheists logic (please correct me if I am wrong) that if we cannot prove it then we dont believe in it, then it would be a more logical decisions to believe that there is a God. I mean can you prove that he doesnt exist? No you cant. So why not go with the logical decision?

But why is that the logical decision? We can't prove that He does exist. We can't prove He doesn't. Surely Occam's Razor suggests we should reduce complexity where possible and so assume, pending further research, God does not exist? What is the evidence that suggests he does?

Now we know that God has already written what is going to happen to us.

No we do not know that. As a Muslims you may believe that, you may even know it in a religious sense, but "we" do not know it.

We also know that God is also seeing things that are happening in both the present and the future. I dont believe that it is a simple coincidence that one of the world's best scientists of all time has a theory that supports the existence of God (Even though he may not have thought about it in that way).

Exactly how does that prove the existence of God? God by definition is not bound by the laws of nature. It would not matter what Einstein found, your God would be able to exist in that Universe.

Another point I would like to make is my own so I dont have anything to support it. I always hear the question "if God exists then who created HIM, what existed before God?" My answer to that is that the question itself is false. We believe that God has created all things. I am not only talking about living or physical things. God also created emotion, our conscious, and also time! Yes I do not believe time is something that has always existed. It is God who created time. Therefore it is not God who did not exist in the beginning of time; it is time that did not exist. These things are hard to understand because our brains have their limits, we simply cannot think in the 4th dimension and therefore refuse to accept anything within it.

So the question is not false, it is actually a very good one, your answer is simply that it is all too difficult to think about and we cannot understand?

I think that being good makes you happy. And conversely whatever makes you happy, in the sense of really happy and in the long run, must be good. It seems obvious to me that it is better to love, and be loved, by one woman than have sex with many you hardly know. It seems better to me to work hard, earn your own money, live in your own house, than to steal. It seems obvious to me that drinking to excess or taking drugs is only going to impair your mind and ruin your life.

Now I do not need God to believe any of those things. They seem self evident and clear to me. Do you think they are irrational and can only be supported by an appeal to the divine?

I disagree with this. If you recall "civilized" people did not exist until religion was found. People use to burry their kids alive sometimes, and it was religion that stopped that. Just like it stopped many other wrong things that we do.

Actually I do not agree with this at all. Civilised people existed before religion or at least before Christianity and Islam as we know it.

[------]

Forget trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist, it can’t be done.

Atheists have to want God to exist before they find him, sounds kind of daft.

Exactly. Thats the point. God exists and athiests know that he exists. They simply refuse to believe it. Which to me, seems kinda dumb I'm sorry to say.

[HeiGou]

Islam and atheism have been in an everlasting battle on "how the earth was created?"

Well that's not fair - the battle has not been everlasting. It is only 1400 years old or so.

I asked my friend how was the earth created he replied " Cells created energy and eventually made molecules which made craters, asteroids, planets, suns and stars collide otherwise known as the "big bang theory" from Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, not of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory says that the entire Universe was once a singularity - a single point of mass and then it exploded into a cloud of incredibly hot plasma out of which, eventually, the Galaxy as we see it cooled and formed.

Then i asked him how was space and planets and suns/stars created he again went back to the moving of cells and molecules which creates heat energy. Then i asked him where did the cells and molecules come from? He replied from dark matter. Then i asked where did dark matter come from and he said the universe and finally i asked where did the universe come from? He said "from cells, the cells, universe and dark matter are a cycle and come from each other"

Actually the atoms and molecules of the Universe were created in that first Big Bang or were subsequently created through the process of fusion in later Stars. There is a theory that the Universe contains large amounts of Dark Matter but that has not been proven, Presumably that too, if it exists, was created in the Big Bang.

So i said where did all 3 of those substance come from?
But cleverly he dodged the question and said where did Allah (swt) come from. I didn't know what to say obviously Allah (swt) was there from the first place but then he would say that the 3 substances were there from the first place so i paused for a moment. Then I said this question your asking the wrong person go to scholars in case i say something incorrect.

The matter in the Universe all comes from the Big Bang ultimately.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Exactly. Thats the point. God exists and athiests know that he exists. They simply refuse to believe it. Which to me, seems kinda dumb I'm sorry to say.

Atheists know god exists? What on earth gives you that idea?

If I knew god existed then I clearly wouldn't be an atheist!

Peace

[HeiGou]

Exactly. Thats the point. God exists and athiests know that he exists. They simply refuse to believe it. Which to me, seems kinda dumb I'm sorry to say.

You know, at some point, if you deal with non-Muslims for any extended period of time, you may have to accept that we are not all pretending. We are actually real people and we have real opinions. Just because you do not understand us doesn't make us stupid.

God may or may not exist. But I certainly do not know either way. And I am not pretending just to annoy you. I am happy to respect your opinion, but I think you ought to respect mine too.

[Cheb]

But why is that the logical decision? We can't prove that He does exist. We can't prove He doesn't. Surely Occam's Razor suggests we should reduce complexity where possible and so assume, pending further research, God does not exist? What is the evidence that suggests he does?

Actually if you are going to choose the simple path, it is much easier to believe that God does exist. Science does not have the answers of how the earth started and likely never will. We already know how all came to existence and therefore it saves quite a lot of time trying to figure it out.

No we do not know that. As a Muslims you may believe that, you may even know it in a religious sense, but "we" do not know it.

Now come on it does not take a genius to figure out that I was talking about Muslims. I am making a point.

Exactly how does that prove the existence of God? God by definition is not bound by the laws of nature. It would not matter what Einstein found, your God would be able to exist in that Universe.

I am not trying to prove that God exists!! If it were that easy, you would be a believer by now. Read Eric's post and you would understand better. What this does is support the existence of God. I don’t see how you got that I was saying God would be bound by laws of nature. Please explain.

So the question is not false, it is actually a very good one, your answer is simply that it is all too difficult to think about and we cannot understand?

If you choose to see that is the answer so be it. The part you are addressing is me pointing out that there is a 4th dimension that God has not given us the ability to understand. For example when I said time did not exist, can you imagine how time wouldn’t exist? Of course not, neither can I. That part, we cant understand. However, that was not my answer. I am giving you my view from an Islamic perspective just like you are giving your view from a Atheists perspective. I don’t expect you to believe but I would expect you to understand. My actual answer was that God created time just like everything else. The question was "What was there before God?". Notice the word before. The word 'before' means previous to in time. This means that the question is implying that time existed. But that is why I pointed that the question was false. You can’t use the word 'before'. There was no before, there was no time, there was God the creator of all.

Actually I do not agree with this at all. Civilised people existed before religion or at least before Christianity and Islam as we know it.

No, man without laws (in most cases) is by default bad (opinion). Religion and the sense that there is a greater being watching over us is what make us good.

[HeiGou]

But why is that the logical decision? We can't prove that He does exist. We can't prove He doesn't. Surely Occam's Razor suggests we should reduce complexity where possible and so assume, pending further research, God does not exist? What is the evidence that suggests he does?

Actually if you are going to choose the simple path, it is much easier to believe that God does exist. Science does not have the answers of how the earth started and likely never will. We already know how all came to existence and therefore it saves quite a lot of time trying to figure it out.

Well that is the simplest - the "everything is just too hard to understand" solution - but it is not the least complex because you have taken a highly complex Universe and added a Being of infinite more complexity on top of that. Science has more of the answers now than we did 50 years ago, and a lot more than we did 500 years ago. What makes you think that will we not have all the answers one day? Moreover science is useful knowledge. Sure, religious knowledge may come on handy on the Day of Judgement, but in the meantime it is pretty darn useful and provides things like cures for polio. Saving time should not be the measure of any paradigm.

Exactly how does that prove the existence of God? God by definition is not bound by the laws of nature. It would not matter what Einstein found, your God would be able to exist in that Universe.

I am not trying to prove that God exists!! If it were that easy, you would be a believer by now. Read Eric's post and you would understand better. What this does is support the existence of God. I don’t see how you got that I was saying God would be bound by laws of nature. Please explain.

I am not saying he is. I am saying for any given definition of the Laws of Nature, your God would exist because you take the easy way out and say He is so infinitely great He is unknowable.

So the question is not false, it is actually a very good one, your answer is simply that it is all too difficult to think about and we cannot understand?

If you choose to see that is the answer so be it. The part you are addressing is me pointing out that there is a 4th dimension that God has not given us the ability to understand. For example when I said time did not exist, can you imagine how time wouldn’t exist? Of course not, neither can I. That part, we cant understand. However, that was not my answer. I am giving you my view from an Islamic perspective just like you are giving your view from a Atheists perspective. I don’t expect you to believe but I would expect you to understand. My actual answer was that God created time just like everything else. The question was "What was there before God?". Notice the word before. The word 'before' means previous to in time. This means that the question is implying that time existed. But that is why I pointed that the question was false. You can’t use the word 'before'. There was no before, there was no time, there was God the creator of all.

Except that God must have existed before time. He must be in some way outside the Universe as we know it and hence able to look forward and back in time. So if God existed before time as we know it did, why couldn't some other Being of even more Infinite Greatness?

Actually I do not agree with this at all. Civilised people existed before religion or at least before Christianity and Islam as we know it.

No, man without laws (in most cases) is by default bad (opinion). Religion and the sense that there is a greater being watching over us is what make us good.

That is an opinion and not one that I share. Are you sure that the sense that there is a Greater Being over us makes us good? Because some people cut the heads off some schoolgirls in Indonesia the other day and I suspect it is because they thought there was some Greater Being watching over them. To prove your point you would have to show that everything your Greater Being commanded was for the good, or at least better than what was there before.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace Brother Cheb;

Faith in God seems very strange, God does not seem to put any pressures on us to believe in any particular way, but rather it seems we put pressures on each other to believe in some way.

It seems strange that you should find your faith in God through Islam, my faith is through Christianity and there seems thousands of other ways to God. We need to pray for each other that God will grant us all salvation.

Faith seems to be a journey always one day at a time and we never really get to a final destination until death.

I never really found a faith in God until I was about fifty; it seems that God works in mysterious ways.

May God bless you all.

Eric

[Ghazi]

Salaam

Theres no battle between atheism and islam any atheist is doing him self harm noone else.

[Skillganon]

Well that is the simplest - the "everything is just too hard to understand" solution - but it is not the least complex because you have taken a highly complex Universe and added a Being of infinite more complexity on top of that. Science has more of the answers now than we did 50 years ago, and a lot more than we did 500 years ago. What makes you think that will we not have all the answers one day? Moreover science is useful knowledge. Sure, religious knowledge may come on handy on the Day of Judgement, but in the meantime it is pretty darn useful and provides things like cures for polio. Saving time should not be the measure of any paradigm.

Science is usefull, knowledge I hold in high regard, but it never necissitate that God does not Exist. I been studying science most of my life, and I never came across any proof of such notion.
If anything it does, it make's my belief more concrete!

I am not saying he is. I am saying for any given definition of the Laws of Nature, your God would exist because you take the easy way out and say He is so infinitely great He is unknowable.

Nope, You got it wrong. It is because we don't base God as a form, or any part of nature. We don't put God in the realm of creation. His is the creator of everything created. You and me!

Except that God must have existed before time. He must be in some way outside the Universe as we know it and hence able to look forward and back in time. So if God existed before time as we know it did, why couldn't some other Being of even more Infinite Greatness?

Can you elaborate to what you exactly saying?

That is an opinion and not one that I share. Are you sure that the sense that there is a Greater Being over us makes us good? Because some people cut the heads off some schoolgirls in Indonesia the other day and I suspect it is because they thought there was some Greater Being watching over them. To prove your point you would have to show that everything your Greater Being commanded was for the good, or at least better than what was there before.

Do you know why they did that? it's because of you! You told them to do it!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Theres no battle between atheism and islam any atheist is doing him self harm noone else.

What harm do you think I'm doing myself, out of interest?

Peace

[Ghazi]

Greetings,


What harm do you think I'm doing myself, out of interest?

Peace

Salaam

being a non-muslim possability of dying in that state.

[HeiGou]

Science is usefull, knowledge I hold in high regard, but it never necissitate that God does not Exist. I been studying science most of my life, and I never came across any proof of such notion.
If anything it does, it make's my belief more concrete!

It does not demand that God does not exist, but it removes Him as a working hypothesis. You cannot say, scientifically, this is this way because God wants it to be so. You have to find a scientific explanation.

Nope, You got it wrong. It is because we don't base God as a form, or any part of nature. We don't put God in the realm of creation. His is the creator of everything created. You and me!

Which is what I said. Your definition of God is independent of the Natural World. He is reconcilable with any model of that world because He is above and apart from it.

Can you elaborate to what you exactly saying?

I think I am moving forward to the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument - how do you know the that IPU did not create the entire Universe including any other Gods that may or may not exist, last Tuesday?

Do you know why they did that? it's because of you! You told them to do it!

I think if I muster enough character I can forgive you for saying that. Have you seen the pictures of those dead girls? It is not funny.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace HeiGou;

Because some people cut the heads off some schoolgirls in Indonesia the other day and I suspect it is because they thought there was some Greater Being watching over them. To prove your point you would have to show that everything your Greater Being commanded was for the good, or at least better than what was there before.

I think we have to be very clear in our own mind as to who was responsible for the girls being killed.

If there is no God it seems very clear that the killer killed for his own motives.

If there is a God, why should God want a man to kill girls, God is eternal and surely he can wait another hundred years for the girls to die?

To me it seems that when someone kills and then says in his defence God told me to kill these evil people, then he is really saying don’t blame me blame God.

I sense that God has given us the freedom to do as we choose in this world so that when we stand before God we are then accountable for our own actions. We won’t be able to stand before God and say you told me to kill those school girls.

It is the final judgement that counts.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[Skillganon]

It does not demand that God does not exist, but it removes Him as a working hypothesis. You cannot say, scientifically, this is this way because God wants it to be so. You have to find a scientific explanation.

It remove's him as a working hypothesis?
When and where? How?
No, You see everything is govern by natural law of nature,e.t.c so if I say, this happen's because of this law of nature, it does not remove God! This happen's because God created it this way to happen's that everything to follow this law or that!
You see nature is at God's whim and not God at nature's whim.
I agree that one's need to find a scientific explanation, but noway it removes God.

Which is what I said. Your definition of God is independent of the Natural World. He is reconcilable with any model of that world because He is above and apart from it..

Yes, and ?

I think I am moving forward to the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument - how do you know the that IPU did not create the entire Universe including any other Gods that may or may not exist, last Tuesday?

What does IPU mean?
CAn you elaborate?
What's Tuesday got to do with it :?

I think if I muster enough character I can forgive you for saying that. Have you seen the pictures of those dead girls? It is not funny.

Hey. Yeah I seen many picture's and you know what they said, "Atheist's told them to do it". One of them pointed at you?

[HeiGou]

It remove's him as a working hypothesis?
When and where? How?
No, You see everything is govern by natural law of nature,e.t.c so if I say, this happen's because of this law of nature, it does not remove God! This happen's because God created it this way to happen's that everything to follow this law or that!
You see nature is at God's whim and not God at nature's whim.
I agree that one's need to find a scientific explanation, but noway it removes God.

Well you can go on asserting that it all reflects God's work, but if you come across something odd, as a scientist you need to explain it. Not just say, this is something God wants. So He is out of the picture in terms of cause and effect.

What does IPU mean?
CAn you elaborate?
What's Tuesday got to do with it

IPU, obviously, stands for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, who, as everyone knows, created the Universe last Tuesday as an exact model of a Universe that is 3.5 billion years old. You might think you have memories of lastMonday but you don't - the IPU invented those for you to make you think the world is older than it is.

Hey. Yeah I seen many picture's and you know what they said, "Atheist's told them to do it". One of them pointed at you?

On the whole I don't think I can forgive such crassness and so I won't bother.

[Skillganon]

Well you can go on asserting that it all reflects God's work, but if you come across something odd, as a scientist you need to explain it. Not just say, this is something God wants. So He is out of the picture in terms of cause and effect.

To an extent I agree! It is because God's want it so, meaning God made it so, to follow that nature e.t.c but saying that God want's it so, where I think we both agree is not to leave something at that just that, but we should look for explanation of why and how it happened, i.e. find the Law of nature, that made it happen's so.

IPU, obviously, stands for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, who, as everyone knows, created the Universe last Tuesday as an exact model of a Universe that is 3.5 billion years old. You might think you have memories of lastMonday but you don't - the IPU invented those for you to make you think the world is older than it is..

What you propose is self collapsing. It's not an argument itself!
Creator is an:
1. Unicorn.
2. pink.
3. Invisible.
4. Gave us implanted Memories since Tuesday!.

On the whole I don't think I can forgive such crassness and so I won't bother.

No! what need's to be forgiven? for me making such statement, was for you to think. What's those picture's got to do with anything?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What you propose is self collapsing. It's not an argument itself!
Creator is an:
1. Unicorn.
2. pink.
3. Invisible.
4. Gave us implanted Memories since Tuesday!

It seems you have not yet received the Good News about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. See here:

Invisible Pink Unicorn

She is sometimes mentioned alongside Last Thursdayism (and variants thereupon), and bears comparison with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To their adherents, these beliefs are seen as being every bit as reasonable as their mainstream religious counterparts.

Peace

[Cheb]

Greetings,


It seems you have not yet received the Good News about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. See here:

Invisible Pink Unicorn

She is sometimes mentioned alongside Last Thursdayism (and variants thereupon), and bears comparison with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To their adherents, these beliefs are seen as being every bit as reasonable as their mainstream religious counterparts.

Peace

You know this kind of thinking would actually make sense. However, we have our religion and we have faith. Everyone has a sense that a greater being exists. Some shrug it off and others take it to another level. However, we do not simply believe in God. We believe in God and His messanger and His book. Chances are that you wont believe in God if you dont want to. For us, the strength of our faith is all the proof we need.

[czgibson]

Greetings Cheb,

You know this kind of thinking would actually make sense. However, we have our religion and we have faith. Everyone has a sense that a greater being exists.

I agree with you up until your last point here - I have no sense that a "greater being" exists, if by that you mean a supernatural creator / lawgiver.

Some shrug it off and others take it to another level. However, we do not simply believe in God. We believe in God and His messanger and His book.

Quite right. You're perfectly entitled to do so.

Chances are that you wont believe in God if you dont want to. For us, the strength of our faith is all the proof we need.

I think belief in god would be quite comforting, actually. It's not that I don't want to believe in god, it's just that I see no reason to do so.

Mind you, the corollary of your statement is that theists believe in god because they want to. That's something I have always suspected.

Peace

[Skillganon]

Greetings,


It seems you have not yet received the Good News about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. See here:

Invisible Pink Unicorn

She is sometimes mentioned alongside Last Thursdayism (and variants thereupon), and bears comparison with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To their adherents, these beliefs are seen as being every bit as reasonable as their mainstream religious counterparts.

Peace

Do you believe in it i.e. IPU?

[Cheb]

Greetings Cheb,


I agree with you up until your last point here - I have no sense that a "greater being" exists, if by that you mean a supernatural creator / lawgiver.

Well that is just my belief. I believe all human beings have the sense taht God exists built in from when they are born. How they are brought up may lead them to another path.

I think belief in god would be quite comforting, actually. It's not that I don't want to believe in god, it's just that I see no reason to do so.

Actually I think there are plenty of reasons, come on think about it. It is just that there is no undeniable proof to Atheists.
Eternity is not a short time, why not play it safe :rollseyes

Mind you, the corollary of your statement is that theists believe in god because they want to. That's something I have always suspected.

Peace

"Want" is just one of the reasons, not the only one.

[Cheb]

Do you believe in it i.e. IPU?

Actually no one does. It is not meant to be believed in, rather provide just another argument of why God doesnt exist.

[czgibson]

Greetings Cheb,

Actually I think there are plenty of reasons, come on think about it. It is just that there is no undeniable proof to Atheists.
Eternity is not a short time, why not play it safe :rollseyes

One reason I wouldn't "play it safe" is because I'm aware of the flaws of Pascal's Wager!

Peace

[Skillganon]

Actually no one does. It is not meant to be believed in, rather provide just another argument of why God doesnt exist.

How is that(IPU) an argument that God does not exist?

Can you elaborate?

[Mohammed Bilal]

Hang on gibson your dodging the question.... who made dark matter, the universe, and cells???? This is due to darwins theory correct? Hint hint theory he made something up (not to disrespect him) and because it is a pretty descent idea people start believing him?

[Cheb]

Greetings Cheb,


One reason I wouldn't "play it safe" is because I'm aware of the flaws of Pascal's Wager!

Peace

I know I wasnt really serious about that. That is why I put the face there. Besides playing it safe is not a reason to believe in God, you do need to be convinced among other things.

[Cheb]

How is that(IPU) an argument that God does not exist?

Can you elaborate?

It is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn

[Skillganon]

Actually no one does. It is not meant to be believed in, rather provide just another argument of why God doesnt exist.

and you gave me a link here

It is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn

Hey! I been to the wikpedia site, but can you demostrate how this is another argument of why God does not exist?

[Cheb]

I prefer not to post the argument but just read under "Dogma" for an explanation.

[Skillganon]

I read the Dogma Section, is not....(in you own word)

..... just another argument of why God doesnt exist.

[Cheb]

I read the Dogma Section, is not....(in you own word)

What is your point?

[Skillganon]

What is your point?

That' it is not an argument (itself) against, that in your own word, "God does not exist!"

LOL!

[Cheb]

Why not?
The fact that we do not believe in the argument doesnt make it any less of one. Still needs to be adressed.
We are getting a little off topic here.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hang on gibson your dodging the question....

Really?

who made dark matter, the universe, and cells????

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, of course!

This is due to darwins theory correct?

Nope. Darwin lived before dark matter had been suggested; he says nothing about cosmology; while he does talk about cells he doesn't say who made them.

Hint hint theory he made something up (not to disrespect him) and because it is a pretty descent idea people start believing him?

Do you know what a theory is? I suspect not.

Peace

[Skillganon]

Why not?
The fact that we do not believe in the argument doesnt make it any less of one. Still needs to be adressed.
We are getting a little off topic here.

All I am saying it is not an argument against existence of God!

[Skillganon]

[quote=czgibson]

who made dark matter, the universe, and cells????

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, of course!

So you accept a creator?

[Mohammed Bilal]

[QUOTE=HeiGou;238794]Well that's not fair - the battle has not been everlasting. It is only 1400 years old or so.[QUOTE=Heigou;238794]

Heigou the term "everlasting battle" is exaggerated its just a term. A point of debate if you call it because we can't decide on one particular thing

[Mohammed Bilal]

[QUOTE=Skillganon;240285]

So you accept a creator?

Yes gibson you have just contradicted yourself. :rant: :heated:

[Mohammed Bilal]

Greetings,


Really?



The Invisible Pink Unicorn, of course!



Nope. Darwin lived before dark matter had been suggested; he says nothing about cosmology; while he does talk about cells he doesn't say who made them.



Do you know what a theory is? I suspect not.

Peace

Hey gibson watch it im not here to insult ok. and anyway you are contradicting yourself if the "invisible pink unicorn" made the universe then u have a creator. :giggling:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hey gibson watch it im not here to insult ok.

You don't have to insult anyone - no-one's forcing you...

and anyway you are contradicting yourself if the "invisible pink unicorn" made the universe then u have a creator. :giggling:

Quite right - well spotted. Here's the definition of irony for you, just in case you didn't get it:

Irony

Peace

[HeiGou]

Actually no one does. It is not meant to be believed in, rather provide just another argument of why God doesnt exist.

I am not sure She exists merely to prove that God does not exist. But She can certainly be used to show that many Theist arguments are poorly structured and thought-out. She is used more in an exercise in logic than in disproving God's existence. After all a Theist has to not only believe in a God, but in their particular God. And most arguments that can be used to support any one God can also be used to support the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Mohsin]

I just read this Q & A, looks inetresting and linked to this thread


Question :


A non muslim friend of mine asked how i will prove existence of god and why has he given us life,and with what purpose. my answer did not satisfy him ,please tell me what i should tell him?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

My dear Muslim brother, your efforts to call people to Allaah and explain the reality of Allaah’s existence make us very happy. Finding out about Allaah is in tune with the sound fitrah (natural inclinations of man) and with sound reasoning. How many there are who, once the truth becomes clear to them, they hasten to submit to Allaah (enter Islam). If each one of us was to do his duty towards his religion, a great deal of good would be achieved. So we congratulate you, our brother, for undertaking the mission of the Prophets and Messengers, and we give you the glad tidings of the great reward which you are promised, as your Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If Allaah were to guide one man at your hands, that would be better for you than red camels.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3/134; Muslim, 4/1872). “Red camels” are the best kind of camels.

Secondly:

With regard to proof of the existence of Allaah, it is obvious to anyone who ponders the matter, and there is no need for a lengthy discussion. When we ponder the matter, we find out that it is divided into three categories: instinctive evidence, tangible evidence and shar’i evidence. We will explain that to you further, in sha Allaah.

1 – Instinctive evidence:

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:

The instinctive evidence that God exists is the strongest of all evidence for those who are not led astray by the devils. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So set you (O Muhammad) your face towards the religion (of pure Islamic Monotheism) Haneef (worship none but Allaah Alone). Allaah’s Fitrah (i.e. Allaah’s Islamic Monotheism) with which He has created mankind” [al-Room 30:30]

Man’s sound nature (fitrah) testifies to the existence of God and man cannot turn away from that unless the devils mislead him; whoever is misled by the devils may not recognize this evidence.”

(From Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah)

Every person feels inside himself that he has a Lord and Creator, and he feels that he is in need of Him; if some major calamity befalls him he turns his hands, eyes and heart towards the heavens, seeking help from his Lord.

2 – Tangible evidence:

This refers to the things that exist in this universe; we see around us things that exist, such as trees, rocks, mankind, the earth, the heavens, seas, rivers…

If it is asked: these things are so many – who created them and is taking care of them?

The answer is that if these things came into being by accident, spontaneously and with no cause, then there is no one who knows how they were created, and that is one possibility. But there is another possibility, which is that these things created themselves and are taking care of themselves. And there is a third possibility, which is that there is Someone Who created them. When we look at these three possibilities, we find that the first and the second are impossible. If we reject the first and the second, then the third must be the one which is correct, which is that these things have a Creator who created them, and that Creator is Allaah. This is what is stated in the Qur’aan, where Allaah says:

“Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief” [al-Toor 52:35]

Moreover, when were these mighty things created? For all these years, who is it that has decreed that they should remain in this world and has granted them the means of abiding?

The answer is, it is Allaah who has given to each thing that which is suited to it and will guarantee its survival. Do you not see the beautiful green plants; when Allaah cuts off their water supply, can they live? No, rather they become dry stalks. If you ponder all things you will find that they are dependent upon Allaah. Were it not for Allaah, nothing would remain.

And Allaah has created everything to do that for which it is suited. So camels, for example, are for riding. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not see that We have created for them of what Our Hands have created, the cattle, so that they are their owners.

And We have subdued them unto them so that some of them they have for riding and some they eat” [Yaa-Seen 36:71-72]

Look at the camel and how Allaah has created it strong, with a strong back, so that it can be used for riding and it is able to endure harsh conditions which other animals cannot bear.

If you look at other creatures you will find that they are suited to the purposes for which they were created. Glory be to Allaah.

Examples of tangible evidence include the following:

When calamities befall people this points to the existence of the Creator, for example, when they call upon Allaah and Allaah responds to their prayer; this points to the existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said: “When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed for rain, he said, ‘Allaahumma aghithnaa, Allaahumma aghithnaa (O Allaah, send us rain, O Allaah, send us rain).’ Then a cloud came and it started to rain before he had even come down from the minbar. This points to the existence of the Creator.” (Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah).

3 – Shar’i evidence:

All divinely-revealed laws point to existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:

“All the divinely-revealed laws point to the existence of the Creator and to the perfect nature of His knowledge, wisdom and mercy, because these laws must have been prescribed by someone, and that Lawgiver is Allaah.” (From Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah).

With regard to your question: why did Allaah create us?

The answer is: so that we would worship Him, thank Him and remember Him, and do that which He has commanded us. You know that among mankind there are kaafirs and there are Muslims. This is because Allaah wants to test His slaves as to whether they will worship Him or worship others. That is after Allaah has showed the way to everyone. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Who has created death and life that He may test you which of you is best in deed” [al-Mulk 67:2]

“And I (Allaah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone)” [al-Dhaariyaat 51:56]

We ask Allaah to enable us and you to do that which He loves and is pleased with, and to do more da’wah and work for the sake of His religion. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.



Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

[czgibson]

Greetings Moss,

Thanks for your post. It takes us through a rather limited approach to some of the standard arguments. I'll try and explain what I mean:

With regard to proof of the existence of Allaah, it is obvious to anyone who ponders the matter, and there is no need for a lengthy discussion.

This is certainly not true. Many people have pondered the matter at great length and decided that there is no god.

1 – Instinctive evidence:

Every person feels inside himself that he has a Lord and Creator, and he feels that he is in need of Him; if some major calamity befalls him he turns his hands, eyes and heart towards the heavens, seeking help from his Lord.

This is an assertion without foundation. Many people have no instinctive sense that they have a "Lord and Creator". Unless by "Creator" you mean one's parents, then I fall into the category of someone who has never had a sense that there is a god.

2 – Tangible evidence:

This refers to the things that exist in this universe; we see around us things that exist, such as trees, rocks, mankind, the earth, the heavens, seas, rivers…

If it is asked: these things are so many – who created them and is taking care of them?

The answer is that if these things came into being by accident, spontaneously and with no cause, then there is no one who knows how they were created, and that is one possibility. But there is another possibility, which is that these things created themselves and are taking care of themselves. And there is a third possibility, which is that there is Someone Who created them. When we look at these three possibilities, we find that the first and the second are impossible. If we reject the first and the second, then the third must be the one which is correct, which is that these things have a Creator who created them, and that Creator is Allaah.

This is a form of the argument from design (put very weakly, to be frank). The writer gives three possible explanations of how existent objects in the universe came to be, then rejects the first two possibilities while giving no reason for this rejection. Anyone who is convinced by this dogmatic style of argumentation really needs to study more.

The answer is, it is Allaah who has given to each thing that which is suited to it and will guarantee its survival. Do you not see the beautiful green plants; when Allaah cuts off their water supply, can they live? No, rather they become dry stalks. If you ponder all things you will find that they are dependent upon Allaah. Were it not for Allaah, nothing would remain.

This is an example of the gambler's fallacy.

Examples of tangible evidence include the following:

When calamities befall people this points to the existence of the Creator, for example, when they call upon Allaah and Allaah responds to their prayer; this points to the existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said: “When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed for rain, he said, ‘Allaahumma aghithnaa, Allaahumma aghithnaa (O Allaah, send us rain, O Allaah, send us rain).’ Then a cloud came and it started to rain before he had even come down from the minbar. This points to the existence of the Creator.” (Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah).

I thought examples like this came under the author's first heading, instinctive evidence? He seems to have become confused by his own system.

3 – Shar’i evidence:

All divinely-revealed laws point to existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:

“All the divinely-revealed laws point to the existence of the Creator and to the perfect nature of His knowledge, wisdom and mercy, because these laws must have been prescribed by someone, and that Lawgiver is Allaah.” (From Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah).

I've seen many circular arguments in my time, but none quite so blatant as this. If you believe that some laws can be divinely revealed, then you already believe in something divine, so this argument will only convince someone who is already a theist. Even then, it doesn't add anything that they didn't already believe.

I think Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid would definitely benefit from a course in philosophy, or, failing that, a few discussions with the forum's own Ansar Al-'Adl, who is far more proficient at arguing this case.

Peace

[Mohammed Bilal]

Greetings,


You don't have to insult anyone - no-one's forcing you...



Quite right - well spotted. Here's the definition of irony for you, just in case you didn't get it:

Irony

Peace

Gibson ur getting really cheeky i am a muslim and want to live up to my name so dont insult!!!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Gibson ur getting really cheeky i am a muslim and want to live up to my name so dont insult!!!

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd insulted you. It was a vain attempt at sharing a joke with you. Since it's backfired, please accept my apologies.

Peace

[Mohammed Bilal]

Greetings,


Sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd insulted you. It was a vain attempt at sharing a joke with you. Since it's backfired, please accept my apologies.

Peace

Apology accepted no offense but i did kinda warn you before but you probably didn't read it.

[Mohammed Bilal]

Greetings,


Sorry, I wasn't aware that I'd insulted you. It was a vain attempt at sharing a joke with you. Since it's backfired, please accept my apologies.

Peace

Apology accepted no offense but i did kinda warn you before but you probably didn't read it.peace

[Mohammed Bilal]

Anyway we all need to stick to the subject: can it be proved to an atheist? What do you think czgibson?

[Mohammed Bilal]

I would say probably not atheists have a strong belief in darwins theory right? please tell me if im wrong.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Anyway we all need to stick to the subject: can it be proved to an atheist? What do you think czgibson?

I don't think it's possible to prove either that god exists or that he doesn't. There's no real evidence either way.

I think it's much more likely that there is no god, and that everything attributed to him has simply been invented by humans. That's why I call myself an atheist - not because I have definitive proof that there's no god.

I would say probably not atheists have a strong belief in darwins theory right? please tell me if im wrong.

I would say most atheists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - there may be a few that don't. Put it this way, every atheist I've met certainly believes it.

Peace

[Skillganon]

Here's a Video of Islam Vs Atheism. LOL
Visit.
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-atrocity.html

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Here's a Video of Islam Vs Atheism. LOL
Visit.
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-atrocity.html

How many times have you posted this video? It seems to be on every thread at the moment...

Peace

[Pankaja dasa]

Not replying to anybody but in particular here

Logical + Commen Sense (viz intelligence) = Knowledge
Logical + No commen Sense (viz no intelligence) = Speculations

Scientists/Athiests have No commen. Big subject.:heated:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Not replying to anybody but in particular here

Logical + Commen Sense (viz intelligence) = Knowledge
Logical + No commen Sense (viz no intelligence) = Speculations

Scientists/Athiests have No commen. Big subject.:heated:

Eh?

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain what you're on about.

Peace

[Pankaja dasa]

Theory of Science is 'Big Bang', Evolution, etc. When we die THAT'S IT.:brother:

So if they really believe this why are they seaching for more answers?. It is because they have no commen sence. They are simply contradicting themselves by claiming to KNOW when in fact they don't. So they are searching for 'a myserious thing'. So just like e=mc square;D

They also have no commen sence to think they are simply contradicting themselves 24/7.

For example, an athiest will say 'show me God'. This is the last thing he will say, we will say create something with a big bang? He cannot say anything. So they are accepting Scientists as Prophets of God.;D

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim 108,

You've got an interesting take on the world. Welcome to the forum, since I haven't said it already. :)

Theory of Science is 'Big Bang', Evolution, etc. When we die THAT'S IT.:brother:

So if they really believe this why are they seaching for more answers?. It is because they have no commen sence. They are simply contradicting themselves by claiming to KNOW when in fact they don't. So they are searching for 'a myserious thing'. So just like e=mc square;D

Scientists are always looking for more answers precisely because they realise that they don't know everything. Also, whatever is currently classed as scientific 'knowledge' can be revised should new and better evidence turn up.

They also have no commen sence to think they are simply contradicting themselves 24/7.

I suppose that when you are ill you don't go to see a doctor, then.

For example, an athiest will say 'show me God'. This is the last thing he will say, we will say create something with a big bang? He cannot say anything. So they are accepting Scientists as Prophets of God.;D

Scientists believe things because they have evidence. Religious people believe in things without evidence. I know which method of accumulating knowledge seems more rational to me; you're free to think differently, of course.

Since I'm an atheist, it's not true to say I am "accepting Scientists as Prophets of God", since, as you know, atheists don't believe in god.

Peace

[Pankaja dasa]

Scientists believe things because they have evidence

.;D ;D ;D ;D

What evidence do you speak of?:happy:


So far I haven't seen any proof just theories.

I can bake a cake, but I need to do it practically. So Science first has
to prove the theories. Then they can talk, about who created this
world. Without any Proof? They teach in schools world created
by Big Bang. Is this what we teach children! That without
any proof anything can be taught?

[Skillganon]

.;D ;D ;D ;D

What evidence do you speak of?:happy:


So far I haven't seen any proof just theories.

I can bake a cake, but I need to do it practically. So Science first has
to prove the theories. Then they can talk, about who created this
world. Without any Proof? They teach in schools world created
by Big Bang. Is this what we teach children! That without
any proof anything can be taught?

Exactly their are alway's theories, and at the sametime their could be several theories explaining 1 certain thing.
Also to note theories are replaced when something better comes along!

[Pankaja dasa]

Exactly their are alway's theories, and at the sametime their could be several theories explaining 1 certain thing.
Also to note theories are replaced when something better comes along!

I used to accept these theories, but when I read about Vedic Science, I changed my mind. It says God created everything.

[vpb]

I think Darwin was just a psycho, as long as he says that u must push everyone to achieve something, I would not be suprised if he says something else. and if Darwin supports that there is no God, then just simple questions about people who believe in darwin's theory

"what is the meaning of life, why are u here?"

[Pankaja dasa]

I admit I still have issues with how to talk with athiests. How do you get somebody to believe in God?:giggling:

Personally I think it's impossible. Because it says in Vedic Scriptures there are always two kinds of people in this World one that believes and the other that doesn't. :rollseyes

The reason why I believe in God is because of the following reason:

In Science you have three thing is which to say how something is proved:

1. Theory
2. Practice or Practical
3. Conclution

The theories they present have not gone beyond the first stage as of yet. Big Bang, evolution etc. And according to Science if you make a mis-calculation in a theory or practice [wink] then everything else you say after this will be wrong. So far they have not done this. They talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. :rant:

In religion first we have theory that we are a soul. We cannot see our own soul. But we accept on the basis of practically applying this science in our lives. And we feel spirtitual because of it. Science claim 'spiritual feelings' are only feelings. This Philosophy is akin to the Philosophy of the Shankracharya School in India. In this they always say people who practice God consciousness are sentimental people and they have no real connection with God. So science is leaning very dangerously towards this path. Of 'no feelings' only voidness. Just the same way Science says when we die that is it. It's the same Philosophy. It only leads to speculations [theories] and athisuem. In the end the only conclution [leaving out pracitical demonstations] is that there is actually no God in exsistance. But everything is simply energy. Whether or not it is eternal energy science does not know. I talked with one athiest he said he believes everything becomes energy and exsists like this. So this way they actually want to EXSIST even after death. I feel this is natural for everybody. Who wants to die? And cease to exsist? We all want to be happy. Now let Science find out the mysteries of the Universe. Hare Krishna.

[vpb]

Muslim_108, brother

I admit I still have issues with how to talk with athiests. How do you get somebody to believe in God?

if you don't know how to talk, then you know what question to ask
"what is the meaning of life, why are we here?"
lol :)

[Pankaja dasa]

Muslim_108, brother


if you don't know how to talk, then you know what question to ask
"what is the meaning of life, why are we here?"
lol :)

;D good

[i_m_tipu]

:salamext:

What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish truth or fact in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and technologies emerge.

[HeiGou]

Theory of Science is 'Big Bang', Evolution, etc. When we die THAT'S IT.:brother:

Well no, that's all we know about with some degree of scientific certainty. There are, and always have been, pious scientists. It is just that most religious claims have turned out to be false or misunderstood or simply not testable. Science cannot deal with anything that it cannot test.

So if they really believe this why are they seaching for more answers?. It is because they have no commen sence. They are simply contradicting themselves by claiming to KNOW when in fact they don't. So they are searching for 'a myserious thing'. So just like e=mc square;D

Scientists tend to claim to know very narrowly defined things. They do not make broad claims if they can avoid it. The search for more answers is fun and worthwhile in and of itself. Why would scientists stop? Scientists do not search for mysterious things - if anything they want to reduce the number of unknown things and increase the number of well defined, well known things like e=mc^2.

They also have no commen sence to think they are simply contradicting themselves 24/7.

Do you understand what scientists do?

For example, an athiest will say 'show me God'. This is the last thing he will say, we will say create something with a big bang? He cannot say anything. So they are accepting Scientists as Prophets of God.;D

I do not even follow this. But few scientists claim to be prophets. Some of the ones I know might think they are, but no one else, not even their Mothers, agrees with them.

[HeiGou]

What evidence do you speak of?:happy:


So far I haven't seen any proof just theories.

I can bake a cake, but I need to do it practically. So Science first has
to prove the theories. Then they can talk, about who created this
world. Without any Proof? They teach in schools world created
by Big Bang. Is this what we teach children! That without
any proof anything can be taught?

Well scientists have cured dozens of diseases. They have put men on the Moon. They have built nuclear weapons. Compared to this the whole sum of religious practioners have done what? Some Yogis claim to be able to fly. The Big Bang has some degree of proof. In science nothing can be true without proof, or at least without being the best explanation for the evidence available.

[HeiGou]

I would say probably not atheists have a strong belief in darwins theory right? please tell me if im wrong.

Probably most educated people, atheist or not, have reasonable confidence in Darwin's Theory. It certainly makes atheism more sensible. Where are you going with this?

[HeiGou]

I think Darwin was just a psycho, as long as he says that u must push everyone to achieve something,

Why do you think that is what Darwin said? Darwin was actually a rather kind hearted, generous man who was troubled by many of the things he saw in the world and many things that he thought about.

I would not be suprised if he says something else. and if Darwin supports that there is no God, then just simple questions about people who believe in darwin's theory

"what is the meaning of life, why are u here?"

I am not convinced that Darwin supported the idea that there was no God. He trained for the priesthood, but became less religious. Whether or not he was an atheist is arguable. His wife was pious and he kept up a public front to spare her feelings at any rate so it is hard to tell.

There is no meaning to life in the greater sense. I am here to be good and to do good to others.

[Pankaja dasa]

is just that most religious claims have turned out to be false or misunderstood or simply not testable

Claim that there is a God?;D

[HeiGou]

Claim that there is a God?;D

Can you think of a scientific way to test that claim?

[Pankaja dasa]

Can you think of a scientific way to test that claim?

It's a feeling in your heart. Science says it is simply a chemical reaction. That there is no tanglible proof that this person has any spiritual feelings. Athiest's will say the same. So they are saying what we feel is false.

I feel this is natural reaction for an athiest because they are of the view that death means voidness. So naturally they shall say the feelings we have is a checimal reaction.

[HeiGou]

It's a feeling in your heart. Science says it is simply a chemical reaction. That there is no tanglible proof that this person has any spiritual feelings. Athiest's will say the same. So they are saying what we feel is false.

I feel this is natural reaction for an athiest because they are of the view that death means voidness. So naturally they shall say the feelings we have is a checimal reaction.

A feeling in your heart is not proof and so far it is not testable. No one would deny some people have spiritual feelings. In fact a team has claimed that they can induce such feelings in patients by stimulating part of their brain with electrodes.

But none of this is a test for God. The first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a man as he was dying. They hoped to find out how much his soul weighed. That was a scientific test.

[Skillganon]

A feeling in your heart is not proof and so far it is not testable. No one would deny some people have spiritual feelings. In fact a team has claimed that they can induce such feelings in patients by stimulating part of their brain with electrodes.

But none of this is a test for God. The first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a man as he was dying. They hoped to find out how much his soul weighed. That was a scientific test.

Don't worry! you will find out sooner or later!

Peace!

[Pankaja dasa]

The first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a man as he was dying. They hoped to find out how much his soul weighed. That was a scientific test.

What did they base this test one;D

[Pankaja dasa]

[QUOTE=HeiGou;242340]A feeling in your heart is not proof and so far it is not testable. No one would deny some people have spiritual feelings. In fact a team has claimed that they can induce such feelings in patients by stimulating part of their brain with electrodes. QUOTE]

Mmm.

[Pankaja dasa]

If you can stimulate part of the brain to achieve spiritual feelings. Then they are saying it is material feelings. The findings would be interesting possibly. But since Science doesn't know much about the Brain. The findings do not hold much credit. So they are saying everything is a chemical combination, so according to this you can take certain drugs to make you feel happy. So drugs are greater than God. This is the same tactic used again and again. When we die that is it, so why are we searching for the truth? What is the truth? That we are Dead? It's very contradictive statement. And if you feel when you die that is it, then what is the point of your exsistance? Knowledge? Well your Knowledge says 'when we die that is it'. So it's a vicouse circle. Death death and more death. Saying we only have no spiritual feelings, is exactly what is expected from somebody whos believe death to be all-in-all.

[Pankaja dasa]

[S]Can you get this machine they used to induce spiritual feelings on the market? ! This would be preferable to using drugs.

What do they base these feelings on? When I have spiritual feelings it is not really a feeling of hapiness. It is something else. Peace and Happiness. It goes beyond anything. Anyway, tell me when this drugs out. I will surely test it out and compare it to 'my so-called feelings'. Until then I will get druged up on these feelings I have.[/S]

[Pankaja dasa]

Oxford dictionary on-line:


practical

• adjective 1 of or concerned with practice rather than theory. 2 likely to be effective in real circumstances; feasible. 3 suitable for a particular purpose. 4 realistic in approach. 5 skilled at manual tasks. 6 so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.

• noun Brit. an examination or lesson involving the practical application of theories and procedures.

— ORIGIN from Greek praktikos ‘concerned with action’.

[HeiGou]

If you can stimulate part of the brain to achieve spiritual feelings. Then they are saying it is material feelings.

Well scientists would more or less imply that, but it is not certain. Perhaps God tickles that part of your brain when he wants you to think a certain way?

The findings would be interesting possibly. But since Science doesn't know much about the Brain. The findings do not hold much credit.

Actually if they hold up they hold a great deal of credit. They tell us some useful things about how the brain works. And I googled the studies and these findings go back to the 1930s.

So they are saying everything is a chemical combination, so according to this you can take certain drugs to make you feel happy. So drugs are greater than God. This is the same tactic used again and again.

I agree it is the same tactic and it is no better this time than last time. Who says drugs are greater than God? Why do you feel a need to invent claims I have not made?

When we die that is it, so why are we searching for the truth? What is the truth? That we are Dead? It's very contradictive statement. And if you feel when you die that is it, then what is the point of your exsistance? Knowledge? Well your Knowledge says 'when we die that is it'. So it's a vicouse circle. Death death and more death. Saying we only have no spiritual feelings, is exactly what is expected from somebody whos believe death to be all-in-all.

I do not know why you are searching for the Truth, but from where I sit most people get by fine without thinking about these things. Who knows what the Truth is? The only truth I know is that we will all find out soon enough. Too soon in fact. I don't have any problems with the reasons for my existence and neither does the other 99 percent of humanity. My knowledge says that when we die we do not know what happens next. You may believe, but you do not, and cannot, know.

[Pankaja dasa]

My knowledge says that when we die we do not know what happens next. You may believe, but you do not, and cannot, know.

Isn't that being ignorant? I thought Scientists we very intelligent and knew everything.:giggling:

[HeiGou]

Isn't that being ignorant? I thought Scientists we very intelligent and knew everything.:giggling:

I think we established the limits about what you know of scientists some time ago.

Science needs a test. If you can test it, you can talk about it. Death is not readily susceptible to tests because, well, so few people come back.

[...]

But what about all the things that science can't prove, but can be seen so we know they exist. Does science just deny their existence?

[HeiGou]

But what about all the things that science can't prove, but can be seen so we know they exist. Does science just deny their existence?

If they can be seen why wouldn't science talk about them?

All science is about is a form of logical, rigorous, testable methods for studying the real world. Anything that can be examined and tested can be thought about in a logical and rigorous way. The problem with religion is so many claims cannot be tested. As I say, all a scientist needs is a handle on a question, the right question, the right experiment. The scientist may not be right, but others will follow and correct mistakes.

[ISDhillon]

Hello folks,:happy:

I am going to make a generalization here and say that all humans go through life missing something, and that something is only found in god. So when you believe in god then you accept he does exist, because your existence makes sense and their is no longer anything missing. Satisfaction of your existence requires more it requires spiritual experience.

ISDhillon

[Pankaja dasa]

I think we established the limits about what you know of scientists some time ago.

Science needs a test. If you can test it, you can talk about it. Death is not readily susceptible to tests because, well, so few people come back.

Daeth is a fact

[Pankaja dasa]

If they can be seen why wouldn't science talk about them?

All science is about is a form of logical, rigorous, testable methods for studying the real world. Anything that can be examined and tested can be thought about in a logical and rigorous way. The problem with religion is so many claims cannot be tested. As I say, all a scientist needs is a handle on a question, the right question, the right experiment. The scientist may not be right, but others will follow and correct mistakes.

Are you descibing the big bang theory? How an explosion creates? What instance do we see that an explosion can create?

[HeiGou]

Are you descibing the big bang theory? How an explosion creates? What instance do we see that an explosion can create?

No I am not. But I could be. We can still "hear" the echos of the Big Bang and more importantly it describes the majority of the observable data. So it is a good theory and has been widely, if provisionally, accepted. What is your point?

[HeiGou]

I am going to make a generalization here and say that all humans go through life missing something, and that something is only found in god. So when you believe in god then you accept he does exist, because your existence makes sense and their is no longer anything missing. Satisfaction of your existence requires more it requires spiritual experience.

I know atheists who seem perfectly satisifed to me. They do not seem to be missing anything at all. Perhaps you need to restrict your sample size?

[Pankaja dasa]

No I am not. But I could be. We can still "hear" the echos of the Big Bang and more importantly it describes the majority of the observable data. So it is a good theory and has been widely, if provisionally, accepted. What is your point?

Sound is exsistant is everything we see, I think that is Scientifically proven. Water also has sound, air has sound waves, everything that exsists consists of certain amount of sound waves. Religiously this is accepted. That sound can 'create'. Without sound nothing is exsisting.

Though I find it hard to believe an explosion can systematcially create a Universe. An explosion according to the Laws of Nature destroys. It doesn't create. Finding sounds waves in the atmosphere is not enough evidence.

You would according to 'real science' go about creating a small object with an explosion. This is REAL science. Providing concreate [pardon the pun] Practicial basis for this theory. Otherwise it is simply a theory.

[HeiGou]

Sound is exsistant is everything we see, I think that is Scientifically proven.

Not really. Sound needs a medium to travel through. It is transmitted by changes in pressure and that requires something that will compress, no matter how small that compression might be. Air for instance. Vaccuum does not compress because it does not contain any medium and so it does not transmit sound. All those Science Fiction films with explosions in Space? Utter nonsense. Admittedly there is no such thing as a perfect vaccuum but it does not affect this post.

By "echo" I mean microwave background noise.

Water also has sound, air has sound waves, everything that exsists consists of certain amount of sound waves. Religiously this is accepted. That sound can 'create'. Without sound nothing is exsisting.

Uh huh. I think that science and religion are two separate things.

Though I find it hard to believe an explosion can systematcially create a Universe. An explosion according to the Laws of Nature destroys. It doesn't create. Finding sounds waves in the atmosphere is not enough evidence.

An argument from incredulity is not a good argument. Just because it sounds complex doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, the explosion of the Big Bang did not systematically create anything except hot plasma and slightly heavier elements beyond hydrogen. This plasma exploded outwards, and gradually cooled, and condensed out of which Stars were, eventually formed, and hence planets and so on.

You would according to 'real science' go about creating a small object with an explosion. This is REAL science. Providing concreate [pardon the pun] Practicial basis for this theory. Otherwise it is simply a theory.

Well with hydrogen bombs we fairly effectively prove our ability to do on a small scale what the Big Bang did - fuse light elements together to create heavier ones and release a lot of energy.

[Pankaja dasa]

An argument from incredulity is not a good argument. Just because it sounds complex doesn't mean it is impossible. Besides, the explosion of the Big Bang did not systematically create anything except hot plasma and slightly heavier elements beyond hydrogen. This plasma exploded outwards, and gradually cooled, and condensed out of which Stars were, eventually formed, and hence planets and so on.

In our Books called The Srimad Bhagavatam which has been in exsistance since 1400BC, mentions 'Planatery Systems'. And the movements of the Sun Planet. Now how did people in those days (which Science considers them to be unintelligent) know all this. (By the way it is known fact Science nicked most of it from Vedic Culture, then gave it their own spin). This is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5, www.vedabase.net

SB:.5.22.2
Sri Sukadeva Gosvami clearly answered: When a potter’s wheel is moving and small ants located on that big wheel are moving with it, one can see that their motion is different from that of the wheel because they appear sometimes on one part of the wheel and sometimes on another. Similarly, the signs and constellations, with Sumeru and Dhruvaloka on their right, move with the wheel of time, and the antlike sun and other planets move with them. The sun and planets, however, are seen in different signs and constellations at different times. This indicates that their motion is different from that of the zodiac and the wheel of time itself.
==

SB:5.23.2:
Established by the supreme will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the polestar, which is the planet of Maharaja Dhruva, constantly shines as the central pivot for all the stars and planets. The unsleeping, invisible, most powerful time factor causes these luminaries to revolve around the polestar without cessation.

I am not saying I understand this verse. But this describes the universe as 3-4 dimentional. Not linear. (like a really bad PC Game). Since you know a lot about Stars and such. I'm sure you can figure out what it's saying.

Bhagavatam actually says the Sun doesn' revolve all on it's own by Magic. It's movement depends on God.

Well with hydrogen bombs we fairly effectively prove our ability to do on a small scale what the Big Bang did - fuse light elements together to create heavier ones and release a lot of energy.

[root]

I found this thread quite interesting and would after reading it conclude the following:

"Ignorance to what a theory is and the differing types of theories misrepresentative of what in reality they represent. To argue against science whilst displaying such monstrous ignorance towards it is actually representing nothing more than a fools debate."

Root