Questions for atheists about origin of universe

[QuranStudy]

Since you guys do not believe God exists, where do you think mass and energy came from? How were atoms and electrons created?

Thanks.

[azim]

I've also found it interesting that when talking about God, the constant question of 'who created God' is asked? Yet when we explain that 'God' is uncreated, has always existed and will never cease exist - far beyond the limitations of time and space and concepts that we cannot even fathom - they take it as a being illogical. Yet these same people ask no questions when presented with the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Subhanallah, we question the infallible and accept the one prone to mistakes (i.e. al-Insaan(humans)).

[wilberhum]

I have always found it interesting that the answer to every thing needs to be created is some thing that was not created.

So why does the “Original Matter” need to have a creator.
Why could it not have always existed?

[MusLiM 4 LiFe]

everything comes 4rm sumwhere.. ^ there has to be an explanation innit?

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

[wilberhum]

everything comes 4rm sumwhere..

But you contradict that statement when you say god was not created.

[QuranStudy]

Why could it not have always existed?

Under your reasoning, nobody created a Ford Mustang, since "it always existed." Nobody created life and the universe since "it always just existed."

[MusLiM 4 LiFe]

But you contradict that statement when you say god was not created.

but us muslims have an explanation.. we know 4 sure theres Allah..

[wilberhum]

Under your reasoning, nobody created a Ford Mustang, since "it always existed." Nobody created life and the universe since "it always just existed."

It is always easy to ridicule a statement by giving an example that has no relevance.
We are talking about billions of years ago not last year.
Comparing the first ever to the trillionth descendant is also ill relevant.

[wilberhum]

but us muslims have an explanation.. we know 4 sure theres Allah..

The theory of the FSM is also an explination. Unprovable explinations are easy. But then that is all we have.

[azim]

I have always found it interesting that the answer to every thing needs to be created is some thing that was not created.

So why does the “Original Matter” need to have a creator.
Why could it not have always existed?

Entering the deep realms of theoretical physics now...

Matter is not really the bulk of it, the real 'mystery' are laws. The laws of both classical and theoretical physics are shaped in a way to facilitate life as the end result.

If you believe that matter always existed, thats fine, what about the rules that govern them? Perhaps they always existed too, but those are a lot of assumptions that we can't verify.

While they have no knowledge thereof. They follow nothing but an assumption, and verily, assumptions are no substitute for the truth. (5:53)

The truth is that we exist, and we were created. The natural belief then is that we have a creator. Rather to assign ourselves as being creations of a non-sentient process of evolution and chance is wishful thinking.

[QuranStudy]

It is always easy to ridicule a statement by giving an example that has no relevance.
We are talking about billions of years ago not last year.
Comparing the first ever to the trillionth descendant is also ill relevant.

I am simply using your logic and relating it to a hypothetical scenario.

Under what logical basis can you claim that mass and energy always existed? The tendency to make assertions without emperical evidence defeats the purpose of the fundamentals of atheism.

[therebbe]

All the things we are discussing are beyond the comprehension of our brains. Therefore there is no way the argument between G-d fearing and Atheists will ever have a winner.

We have all gotten into speculation and our arguments hold absolutly no proofs.

[جوري]

But you contradict that statement when you say god was not created.

God is not a "thing" so there is no contradiction in his statement if you are going to get technical.... One might not be able to prove the "existence" or "nonexistence" of God and on this front scientists, men of God and lay men stand equal? ... my personal reasoning if there is or isn't why take chances? If one spends life in a righteous way, does good deeds ... has a strong bond with the "creator" then one will have a sense of peace, purpose and fulfillment... I recently got an edition of (NEJM) New England Journal Of Medicine, on the benefits of religions in end life situations ... stating patients who had strong beliefs or meditated or prayed coped so much better with their illness and the inevitable than those who believed in nothing... I'll try to find the issue ... if I can't you may search archives on line searching last years issues.... If there is a God ... you'll have lived a better life and prepared better for the after life ... if there isn't, then what did you lose as you enter the great nothing? certainly there will be no regret for a pious life as one enters the nothing ... my take anyhow....

[QuranStudy]

All the things we are discussing are beyond the comprehension of our brains.

But I thought atheists use "logic, facts, and statistics," LOL.......

[therebbe]

But I thought atheists use "logic, facts, and statistics," LOL.......

True, but the "logic, facts and statistics" are point to the fact that our brain power is not powerful enough to comprehend the concept of the infinity, or no creator.

[QuranStudy]

True, but the "logic, facts and statistics" are point to the fact that our brain power is not powerful enough to comprehend the concept of the infinity, or no creator.

Thats defeats the purpose of atheism. People are atheist because they disbelieve what they cannot understand (Creator).

[therebbe]

Not necessarily. Atheism is not the unity of a one message. Atheism is basically declaring there is not existence of G-d.

What some declare about 'facts, logic, and statistics' are separate at least under my understanding. That is from the individuals mouth.

[جوري]

this is an attatchment to my earlier post.... I can't fine the original article but found one similar....This isn't to say jump on the band wagon and become religious rather a display of patient population coping mechanism, differences in depression and coping between those who have faith from those who don't...

"McClain et al.35 recently found that among terminally ill cancer patients, depression was highly correlated with a desire for hastened death in participants with low levels of spiritual well-being (r=0.40, p<0.0001) but not in those with high levels of spiritual well-being (r=0.20, p=0.06). Thus, spiritual well-being was found to offer some protection against end-of-life despair for those facing imminent death. Similarly, Nelson et al.36 reported a strong negative association between scores on the FACIT Spiritual Well-Being Scale and scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale among terminally ill patients with diagnoses of cancer and AIDS. The authors concluded that existential or spirituality-based interventions may offer important clinical benefits for those struggling to cope with a grave illness and prognosis."

[wilberhum]

Azim,
My understanding is at the moment of the “Big Bang” current laws of physics did not apply and there is no ability to define any thing before the Big Bang.

The truth is that we exist, and we were created. The natural belief then is that we have a creator. Rather to assign ourselves as being creations of a non-sentient process of evolution and chance is wishful thinking.

Again you are talking about the trillionth interaction when the subject is about the first interaction. I see no relevance between the two. Still you justify a creator on the basis of every thing needing a creator except the creator. Though I think the “Original Matter” had a creator, I don’t find it a requirement.

[wilberhum]

QuranStudy

Under what logical basis can you claim that mass and energy always existed?

I make no claim, I only present the possibility.

The tendency to make assertions without emperical evidence defeats the purpose of the fundamentals of atheism.

The fundamentals of atheism? The only fundamental of atheism is “no god”.
Besides I’m not a “Fundamental Atheist”.

[wilberhum]

Therebbe

We have all gotten into speculation and our arguments hold absolutly no proofs.

I totally agree. Anything involving god is not provable and we are talking about a point in time that can not be replicated and thus provide some proof. I only present what I conceder could be a valid alternative.

[wilberhum]

Purestambrosia

why take chances?

You make good points but they do not answer the question.

[جوري]

Purestambrosia

You make good points but they do not answer the question.

Not every question has an answer.... we had a peds Patient once who looked emaciated... was clearly febrile... we ran the million dollar work up on her... couldn't find the cause of her illness... yet she was clearly sick ... we simply couldn't identify the cause of her malady; with all the lab tests and highly developed equipment... we treated anyway with a broad spectrum... thankfully she recovered... bottom line is absence of evidence isn't conclusive that there was no illness... all the clinical signs pointed to an illness though deeper inspection couldn't recognize an organic cause.... on another note,
we didn't have a chloride sweat test 100 years ago to test for cystic fibrosis, but cystic fibrosis did exist whether we chose to acknowledge it or not.....Same thing of the universe... just because we can't grasp or logically able to prove that there is a God doesn't mean that there isn't....it is beyond our scope... our brains are too limited with all our advancements, we still get sick, age and die, we can't mimic the sophistication of creation.....
Medical evidence provides proof that patient with strong moral and religious support do better.... Personally I think that there is such grandeur and beauty that can't be a chance happening... to me if evolution works, it should limit itself to necessities but not beauty why do we need it? if it is all about survival? .... In the smallest of insects I see signs.... but that is just me.... either way I don't think God needs our validation or approval... Allah alghanii wantoum alfoqra'a.....

[wilberhum]

Purestambrosia
I truly acknowledge that there is value to religion. But I also think that “Too much of a good thing”, is not good. I see where religion damages the “Quality of Life”.

But again, this has nothing to do with the question.

[جوري]

Purestambrosia
I truly acknowledge that there is value to religion. But I also think that “Too much of a good thing”, is not good. I see where religion damages the “Quality of Life”..

I hear what you are saying.... religion is much like a knife.... can be used to heal by a skilled surgeon or murder by the deranged... It is up to the individual to use it wisely... we are all responsible for our own actions before God not others!
your statement brings an interesting point... I wish someone would help me locate this Hadith in Arabic and English... I read it some time ago... it goes
"ina aldeen wasi3, fawghil feeh berfiq, ina almonbata la aradan qata3, wla th'hran abqa"
roughly translates to... "religion is vast, so preach with gentility... the one who is harsh, hasn't crossed land nor kept his transport" this is my own understanding of the Hadith anyone is welcome to correct me... we all have different approaches and different personalities... that will reflect on how we carry our religion... a dress doesn't usually look the same on two people, though it is made of the same material.... again my take
thanks for reading
:w:

[KAding]

Since you guys do not believe God exists, where do you think mass and energy came from? How were atoms and electrons created?

Thanks.

I don't know.

[wilberhum]

I don't know.

But that is so unhuman. Humans have to have an answer for everything.
If we don't know the answer, we make one up.
I liken it to asking two men what the square root of 8 is. One said 4, the other said, I don't know. Which one is right? Just because you are the only one with an answer, doesn't make you right.

But your simplicy is great. Good on you.

[QuranStudy]

But that is so unhuman. Humans have to have an answer for everything.
If we don't know the answer, we make one up.
I liken it to asking two men what the square root of 8 is. One said 4, the other said, I don't know. Which one is right? Just because you are the only one with an answer, doesn't make you right.

Ironic, because that's the typical atheist's mentality.

[wilberhum]

Ironic, because that's the typical atheist's mentality.

You say that like it was a "Bad Thing". I think it's true, but is a "God Thing".
An Atheist says there is no god.
A theist says there is a GOD, but then makes up thousands of rules.

[KAding]

Ironic, because that's the typical atheist's mentality.

How so? Do atheist claim they know where 'mass' and 'energy' come from? All they propose are theories and possibilities. They never say 'this is how it is' without doubt.

[wilberhum]

How so? Do atheist claim they know where 'mass' and 'energy' come from? All they propose are theories and possibilities. They never say 'this is how it is' without doubt.

Ironic, because that's the typical theist's mentality. :giggling: :giggling:

[QuranStudy]

How so? Do atheist claim they know where 'mass' and 'energy' come from? All they propose are theories and possibilities. They never say 'this is how it is' without doubt.

And yet they reject God with confidence LOL

[Dahir]

allaboutcreation.org

So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment.

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum.

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

ATHEISTS: Your famed 'Darwin Theory' has been disproven many times, but you couldn't even scratch the surface of Intelligent Design. Let us discuss.

[lolwatever]

is that from a transcript from a lecture btw?? coz i attended a lecture that pretty much said xactly same wording lol
salams

[Dahir]

is that from a transcript from a lecture btw?? coz i attended a lecture that pretty much said xactly same wording lol
salams

Yes. Its from allaboutcreation.org -- it says above. I'm not sure if its from a lecture. Its form several books, I'm sure, although the website listed one book as source material.

[wilberhum]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN is not a Question for Atheists.

It is just another theist theory.

[Dahir]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN is not a Question for Atheists.

It is just another theist theory.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I, as a Theist, personally thought Evolution was a test to my beliefs and I put my mind to disproving it, but I later found out that the theory had been disproven years, maybe decades ago.

C'mon, Wilbur, I challenge you! :D

[lavikor201]

Aethiests will create there propoganda, and theists will create theres. People have to stop trying to pretend they can 100% prove anything related to this subjct.

It is all belief.

[Dahir]

Aethiests will create there propoganda, and theists will create theres. People have to stop trying to pretend they can 100% prove anything related to this subjct.

It is all belief.

Religion is scientific-based. Re-read the Torah and you'll soon discover that there are subliminal scientific messages throughout. Its a mission for Theists to prove their faith on all grounds, and that includes scientific grounds -- because Atheists know less than we do, its their perception and that has to be corrected.

[wilberhum]

allaboutcreation.org



ATHEISTS: Your famed 'Darwin Theory' has been disproven many times, but you couldn't even scratch the surface of Intelligent Design. Let us discuss.

:giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Who by Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) the “Pseudo Sciencest”?
Got anyone who has any credibility in the field?

Religion is scientific-based

:giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:

[lavikor201]

Religion is scientific-based. Re-read the Torah and you'll soon discover that there are subliminal scientific messages throughout.

I do not believe in the Torah because I can prove it is 100% accurate. No one can do that for any book. It is a matter of BELIEF.

[wilberhum]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I, as a Theist, personally thought Evolution was a test to my beliefs and I put my mind to disproving it, but I later found out that the theory had been disproven years, maybe decades ago.

C'mon, Wilbur, I challenge you! :D

:giggling: :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Every thing (except religion) points to evolution.

What's the challenge? Disprove the unprovable.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

ATHEISTS:

Hello! I must admit you got my attention there.

Your famed 'Darwin Theory' has been disproven many times,

Try saying that in front of a room full of biologists!

but you couldn't even scratch the surface of Intelligent Design.

Perhaps you're right, although I thought William Paley pretty much exhausted its argumentative potential in about, ooh.... 1802?

Peace

[Dahir]

Greetings,
Hello! I must admit you got my attention there.

Try saying that in front of a room full of biologists!

Perhaps you're right, although I thought William Paley pretty much exhausted its argumentative potential in about, ooh.... 1802?

Peace

Well, at least you tried to argue, I appreciate that effort...:uhwhat

Where's Root, he's a feisty Atheist! :shade:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Religion is scientific-based.

What exactly do you mean by this opaque statement?

Its a mission for Theists to prove their faith on all grounds, and that includes scientific grounds -- because Atheists know less than we do, its their perception and that has to be corrected.

Marvellous! Thank you, O wise and knowledgable being for promising to correct my perception! All the ideas that I have on my own are rubbish; I need you to tell me how to live.

Peace

[Dahir]

Greetings,

Marvellous! Thank you, O wise and knowledgable being for promising to correct my perception! All the ideas that I have on my own are rubbish; I need you to tell me how to live.

Peace

See, CZ, I'm tempting you. Take the bait and join the debate! ;)

What exactly do you mean by this opaque statement?

What I mean is that religion is one large, philosophical biological statement. Most people pass religion off as JUST a manuscript for lifestyle. But if you read the Quran, our seamingly (to outsiders) ritualistic lifestyle is all based on science -- we don't eat pork because its been tested and proven to cause stomach cancer -- just ONE example.

[Joe98]

Religion is scientific-based.

So endeth, the thread!

:bravo:

[Dahir]

So endeth, the thread!

:bravo:

That's it? :confused:

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

Here is a rule I keep in mind about Athiests,

Give them 5 minutes and move on, if they dont agree then probably Allah has closed their hearts. Its like debating with a person on a clear sunlit day and he's arguing that there's no sun! Spending too much time to convince them is time wasted.

:w:

[Dahir]

:sl:

Here is a rule I keep in mind about Athiests,

Give them 5 minutes and move on, if they dont agree then probably Allah has closed their hearts. Its like debating with a person on a clear sunlit day and he's arguing that there's no sun! Spending too much time to convince them is time wasted.

:w:

Good lesson. But its not an issue of convinving anyone. I just wanted counter-theories that would touch light on the subject, instead I got typical drivel, jokes, and stereotype jabs.

Maybe its the fact that I saw this article 20 minutes ago and it was the single most profound thing I've read in my entire life -- to me it was a world of knowledge and it personally proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design was necessary to even make sense of things, let alone be in our current state. Maybe they don't see it the same way I did.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Good lesson. But its not an issue of convinving anyone. I just wanted counter-theories that would touch light on the subject, instead I got typical drivel, jokes, and stereotype jabs.

I'm sorry you don't feel you've had a reasonable chance to air your views.

Maybe its the fact that I saw this article 20 minutes ago and it was the single most profound thing I've read in my entire life -- to me it was a world of knowledge and it personally proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that intelligent design was necessary to even make sense of things, let alone be in our current state. Maybe they don't see it the same way I did.

I'm afraid not, no. If that article has had a deep effect on you then, fair enough, that's your experience to keep. Essentially, though, it's a standard ID proponent's statement of the argument from irreducible complexity. It's been around a while, but it's never moved beyond the status of pseudoscience.

If it makes sense to you, then that's your view, but don't imagine it means the theory of evolution by natural selection has been disproved.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings Ähmed,

Here is a rule I keep in mind about Athiests,

Give them 5 minutes and move on, if they dont agree then probably Allah has closed their hearts. Its like debating with a person on a clear sunlit day and he's arguing that there's no sun! Spending too much time to convince them is time wasted.

:w:

I think you're probably right.

We're all reasonable people, and yet we have this basic disagreement which no amount of argument can resolve.

There's still a huge amount we can learn from each other. Let's stop trying to argue - let's educate one another.

Peace

[snakelegs]

Aethiests will create there propoganda, and theists will create theres. People have to stop trying to pretend they can 100% prove anything related to this subjct.
It is all belief.

this seems to be as almost impossible concept to convey to some people here.
you will not find many here who would say this:

I do not believe in the Torah because I can prove it is 100% accurate. No one can do that for any book. It is a matter of BELIEF.

about the qur'an.

[lavikor201]

Exactly. I can't prove the Torah is 100% accurate, but I can believe it is 100% accurate, because no one can prove any of our books are 100% accurate. It is all faith! Even for an atheist, it is faith in their beliefs.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

That is not the case with the Quran, you can claim as you wish but the fact remains that the Quran is unchanged and is completely accurate as it was 1400 years ago. Even non-muslims have testified to this!

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

http://beconvinced.com/en/article.ph...20The%20Quran?

http://beconvinced.com/en/article.ph...20The%20Quran?

Peace.

[snakelegs]

That is not the case with the Quran, you can claim as you wish but the fact remains that the Quran is unchanged and is completely accurate as it was 1400 years ago. Even non-muslims have testified to this!

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

http://beconvinced.com/en/article.ph...20The%20Quran?

http://beconvinced.com/en/article.ph...20The%20Quran?

Peace.

i am incapable of understanding how religion can ever be more than belief no matter how many times i run into this concept.
this is not a negative statement - it is just that religion and science are 2 different systems - one is not superior and one inferior.

[snakelegs]

Exactly. I can't prove the Torah is 100% accurate, but I can believe it is 100% accurate, because no one can prove any of our books are 100% accurate. It is all faith! Even for an atheist, it is faith in their beliefs.

religion requires no "proof".

[Dahir]

i am incapable of understanding how religion can ever be more than belief no matter how many times i run into this concept.
this is not a negative statement - it is just that religion and science are 2 different systems - one is not superior and one inferior.

No. Religion serves to prove science correct, not challenge it.

When scientists tried studying the atom, they found out that atom was more 99% Empty -- that was written in the Koran in reference to the weightlessness of an atom.

Scientists tried to disprove God and created the big-bang theory, but that was false -- and in the Koran it says that the creation of the Earth was a precise creation/project, not a random explosion.

Scientists tried their witty ways again to disprove God with Evolution -- once again proven wrong, by both their own colleagues and the Koran.

You see, religion IS science! ALL you need to know is in the Koran. The first physicists, medicine men, and educators were Muslim -- their craft was well-tuned because they followed the Koran and made minimum error.

When you have scientists now following God's decree and instead CHALLENGING him, they make many mistakes, too many to count.

[Keltoi]

No matter how many times you repeat the phrase "religion is science" I still don't buy it. That doesn't mean science and religion must be mutually exclusive, just that science works under a very rigid set of criteria that religion or pseudoscience don't have to operate under. Science looks for answers and so does religion, but they seek those answers in obviously different ways. As for the statement that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been "disproven", I would be very curious as to how you came by that long lost secret in the scientific community.

[lavikor201]

That is not the case with the Quran, you can claim as you wish but the fact remains that the Quran is unchanged and is completely accurate as it was 1400 years ago. Even non-muslims have testified to this!

Alright and I say the Torah has been unchanged since it was given to Moshe by G-d. Therefore, I win because the Quran must be wrong then. Or do you see the point of not playing a dumb game, of pretending you have 100% proof.

[جوري]

too many to count.

I like that line it reminds me of "TNTC" a left shift... WBC too numerous to count..... I have met with so few Atheists Docs. or biologists for that matter. I'd say many are non practicing but believe very much in G-D. Though an article I have just read in NEJM showed that 95% of patients have strong religious beliefs as opposed to just 65% of Doctors........... still an overwhelming majority. I think religion is very much alive and with us; and will continue until such a time when G-D lifts it from this world!

The largest cluster of Atheists that I have encountered however were in undergrad. History/philosophy and English Majors and the professors who taught the courses... I have no idea why? Probably not an accurate tally. I can never for the life of me figure out why they could spend hours with fascinated eyes discussing Amairgen, Derbforgaille, Ailill Mac Mata, Phaedera, or the Manjushri as if their whole existence rested on it over religion, Which didn't seem to hold the least bit of interest. Unless the discussions were from an Art history perspective in which case again no Annunciation painting seemed to hold a candle to (Jupiter and Io).... I guess they make for good Ice breakers and "intelligent conv?"
Lucky are those who get exposed to everything, but never get overwhelmed and still find their way I suppose......
Nice article though. I'd accept intelligent design more if Bush wasn't behind it..... Everything loses credence when his name is in its midst or when he endorses it!

[Joe98]

....instead I got typical drivel, jokes, and stereotype jabs.

That's because you said religion is scientific. That destroys your credibility on this issue. There is no point contuinuing.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No. Religion serves to prove science correct, not challenge it.

So why have you listed one example where science is (apparently) in agreement with the Qur'an and two where this is not so?

When scientists tried studying the atom, they found out that atom was more 99% Empty -- that was written in the Koran in reference to the weightlessness of an atom.

Scientists tried to disprove God and created the big-bang theory, but that was false -- and in the Koran it says that the creation of the Earth was a precise creation/project, not a random explosion.

What was false? Are you just making this up now?

Scientists tried their witty ways again to disprove God with Evolution -- once again proven wrong, by both their own colleagues and the Koran.

Who has proven evolution wrong? How can this bombshell have been concealed so completely from the scientific community?

You see, religion IS science! ALL you need to know is in the Koran.

Really? On its own I don't think it would be enough to get someone through primary school.

The first physicists, medicine men, and educators were Muslim -- their craft was well-tuned because they followed the Koran and made minimum error.

Now you've entered the realm of pure fantasy. Have you ever heard of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Socrates? All lived around a thousand years before the Qur'an; they were certainly not even monotheists, let alone Muslims.

Peace

[Trumble]

Now you've entered the realm of pure fantasy. Have you ever heard of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Socrates? All lived around a thousand years before the Qur'an; they were certainly not even monotheists, let alone Muslims.

Indeed. Not to mention the entire early Indian and Chinese civilizations. The latter developed a system of wholistic medicine that is still in widespread (and indeed increasing) use today. The influence of those Greeks and others still resonates throughout the world with regard to those three fields and most others - as it heavily influenced the early muslim thinkers of all varieties. Apart from matters of pure theology and law, rather more than the Qur'an, actually.

[wilberhum]

Indeed. Not to mention the entire early Indian and Chinese civilizations. The latter developed a system of wholistic medicine that is still in widespread (and indeed increasing) use today.

Now, now boys, don't break his bubble. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:

[Allah-creation]

The fact that the Quran is 100 percent gods words and no one can disprove it not even a single part if it is enough evidence for me 2 believe islam is the true religion.

[IzakHalevas]

The fact that the Quran is 100 percent gods words and no one can disprove it not even a single part if it is enough evidence for me 2 believe islam is the true religion.

Well I believe the Torah to be 100% words of Allaah and I believe no one can disprove a single verse. They can believe they have by misinterpreting it but will not in REALITY prove it wrong.

Look at that. We have two conflicting views.

[Trumble]

In both cases, you can "prove" or "disprove" neither.. even in the hopelessly loose sense with which those words are often used on this forum. Religion is about faith and belief, not "proof". If there was "proof" that the Qur'an, say, really was the Word of God anybody sane would be a muslim. Muslims believe that it is, but nobody can "prove" it.

[جوري]

- as it heavily influenced the early muslim thinkers of all varieties. Apart from matters of pure theology and law, rather more than the Qur'an, actually.

How do you know early Muslim scholars were influenced by these cultures? I'll use Suramin for an analogy-- and because I am willing to gamble that you have no clue what it is! Surely Suramin has existed since 1916..... C51H34N6O23S6... you could find out about it through its discoverer Oskar Dressel with all our high speed internet his is not a name readily known.......... or you can discover it in your lab all by your lonesome. Very possible if the course of ailment were prevelant in your area and you being a man of sci. were looking for means to remedy it! if you were cut off from the world in desert land there is a strong possibility it is your own finding and not borrowed in the (case of Quranic science) consider the possibility? consider it even more knowing that modern technology wasn't available then. i.e high speed internet, phones, computers, etc moreover, he who brought us the Quran was illitrate.......
http://www.1001inventions.com/index....tSectionID=309

Now, now boys, don't break his bubble. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:

Be careful with all that undue giggling lest the rest of us mistake you for having happy puppet syndrome.... thank you for teaching us all about Uniparental Disomies.......... it is nice to stroke others' ego, it is even nicer to come up with your own anaolgies......
peace!

[Trumble]

How do you know early Muslim scholars were influenced by these cultures?

The only 'culture' I mentioned in that context was Greek (and Roman, by implication). India and China I mentioned solely in relation to the rather ludicrous claim there had been no 'physicists', physicians or educators prior to Islam. By 'scholars' I assume you mean people in those fields rather than those skilled in Qur'anic interpretation and Islamic jurisprudence.

The most important piece of evidence is simply that many of the most significant works of the Greek philosophers and scholars are still around. It was Islamic civilization that preserved them during the Dark Ages in the West, and it is hard to believe that was done if nobody was influenced by them. Most, if not all, of the work of the great muslim scientists and mathematicians can be traced back to those roots.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Well I believe the Torah to be 100% words of Allaah and I believe no one can disprove a single verse. They can believe they have by misinterpreting it but will not in REALITY prove it wrong.

Look at that. We have two conflicting views.

Wont God judge between us on the Day of Judgement? We'll see who was on the Truth then.
52: 31. Say (O Muhammad

to them): "Wait! I am with you, among the waiters!"

:w:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I do not believe in the Torah because I can prove it is 100% accurate. No one can do that for any book. It is a matter of BELIEF.

we can do it for the quran, it is indeed a 100%.


zaalikal kitaabulaa raybaafih !

it is a book in which is no doubt !

[جوري]

The most important piece of evidence is simply that many of the most significant works of the Greek philosophers and scholars are still around. It was Islamic civilization that preserved them during the Dark Ages in the West, and it is hard to believe that was done if nobody was influenced by them. Most, if not all, of the work of the great muslim scientists and mathematicians can be traced back to those roots.

That isn't evidence it is a conjecture!

[lavikor201]

we can do it for the quran, it is indeed a 100%.

And I say I can do it for the Torah. it is indeed 100%.

Now we are at a crossroad again. One o us must be wrong, and we have an awnser for every argument against our Holy books... maybe its faith, not proof.

I have enough faith, to not care about prooving anything to you. Something you may be lacking.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I have enough faith, to not care about prooving anything to you. Something you may be lacking.

not really, its because everything in our religion makes sense, all it requires is to read it properly, other religions seem far more confusing. Only the few mislead ones CLEARLY purposely misinterpret our text !

[lavikor201]

not really, its because everything in our religion makes sense, all it requires is to read it properly, other religions seem far more confusing. Only the few mislead ones CLEARLY purposely misinterpret our text !

Not really, the Torah is very easy to understand. It is just butchered and mistranslated by people who wish to disprove it, but cannot. What you must do is read the whole Torah and then go back and see if you understand a concept that is foreign to you that now, which used to make you think the Torah is crazy, is completly nessesary.

Ansar Al Adr has to explain with paragraphs many single verses of the Quran which do not make sense to readers who believe they may be contradictory, so therefore, I would not say your scriptures are "easier" to understand then mine.

Peace!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Not really, the Torah is very easy to understand. It is just butchered and mistranslated by people who wish to disprove it, but cannot. What you must do is read the whole Torah and then go back and see if you understand a concept that is foreign to you that now, which used to make you think the Torah is crazy, is completly nessesary.

Ansar Al Adr has to explain with paragraphs many single verses of the Quran which do not make sense to readers who believe they may be contradictory, so therefore, I would not say your scriptures are "easier" to understand then mine.

Peace!

yes he has to explain the translations to people :) not the original arabic text !

[Malaikah]

Scientists tried to disprove God and created the big-bang theory, but that was false -- and in the Koran it says that the creation of the Earth was a precise creation/project, not a random explosion.

:sl:

Umm... who said the big bang was random?? what happened after the big bang was incredible complex and requires extreme precision when it came to particles interacting with each other and balancing out and so forth in order to produce what we have today!! no randomness at all! :rollseyes

anyway i thought some people liked the big bang idea because there is a verse that talks about expansion of the heavens or something? :? and one proof of the big bang is that the universe is expanding...

Scientists tried their witty ways again to disprove God with Evolution -- once again proven wrong, by both their own colleagues and the Koran.

you know whats weird, the only thing, to the best of my knowlegde (someone please correct me if im wrong), that islam proves wrong about evolution, is that idea that humans evolved from a inferior lifeform. we know that humans were created directly, through adam...

but allah swt doesnt say anything about how he created other animals plants and living organisms, therefore, it is possible that they evolved from a single cell, as suggested by the theory of evolution, with gods 'permission' of course!

there are heaps of examples of evolution that have been observed, natural selection and so forth... survival of the fittest, these arent weird concepts, they explain what has been observed in reality and i can give you an example of natural selection if really want...

that said, the theory of evolution is still a theory, it could be correct for non-human living things, or it could not- thats why its called a theory! allahu a'lam!

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

I have enough faith, to not care about prooving anything to you. Something you may be lacking.

Rathar on the contrary, we believe that our faith is the Truth and the only way to be succesful, therefore we want to get the message to everyone, as many people as possible, so they can be succesful as well. Our job is only to convey to you the message, become Muslim is up to you. No one will force you there.

This is not a lack of faith, it is in fact the greatest faith because we want others to recognize the Truth of Islam and also because we want others to enter Paradise. We do not hold ourselves above everyone else as the "chosen people", but we believe that Islam is the only religion with God and the only religion that He will accept, therefore it is our job like it was the job of the Prophets to guide people to the Truth. After all, there can be only one Truth isnt it? And what is there after Truth but falsehood?

Peace

[Trumble]

After all, there can be only one Truth isnt it? And what is there after Truth but falsehood?

Peace

There can only be on Truth, but many of us believe there are multiple possible, and equally valid, interpretations and experiences of it. If you get too hung up on one, spiritual growth stagnates IMVHO.

[root]

ID. Can someone please give me a link to a scientific peer reviewed paper that takes the matter even remotely serious please.

Thankyou.

PS...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6084974.stm

[wilberhum]

ID. Can someone please give me a link to a scientific peer reviewed paper that takes the matter even remotely serious please.

Thankyou.

PS...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6084974.stm

Root,
Great link. It was really interesting.
As far as a "Scientific Peer Review Paper', the following is the best I could find. I think further research will produce no better.

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

[Fishman]

:sl:
I think the problem here is people misunderstanding what science means. If you mean science in it's correct way (finding out about the universe through observation), then religion certainly isn't science-based. But if you have a misunderstanding of the word science, and take it to mean "facts about the universe", then somebody might say that religion is 'science'-based.
:w:

[Trumble]

Your famed 'Darwin Theory' has been disproven many times, but you couldn't even scratch the surface of Intelligent Design. Let us discuss.

Sorry to disappoint but 'Scientific' ID has not so much had its surface scratched as been shot down in flames (rather quietly). Something most of its advocates, including the author of the article at the start of this thread, presumably, find it convenient to ignore... and assume a generally receptive (and indeed gullible) audience won't be bothered to find out.

It was all sparked off by Behe's (a biochemist) work on "irreducible complexity", in which he reached the conclusion that certain basic biochemical systems were so complex that they could not have been build up in stages of any sort - as would have happened had they evolved by Darwinian processes. It actually looked rather convincing for a while, and off went the ID band-wagon, but sadly far less well publicised was the work which showed that those systems in fact COULD have arisen via evolutionary processes. Including the famed bacterial flagellum.

What was left was really no more than a re-adoption of the old teleological argument for the existence of God, which is philosophical rather than scientific. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, and you can even turf out some scientific 'evidence' to support it (and attack it, come to that) but like every other philosophical argument for the exitence of God there are counters, and it can neither be 'proved' or 'disproved'.

[snakelegs]

Rathar on the contrary, we believe that our faith is the Truth and the only way to be succesful, therefore we want to get the message to everyone, as many people as possible, so they can be succesful as well. Our job is only to convey to you the message, become Muslim is up to you. No one will force you there.

This is not a lack of faith, it is in fact the greatest faith because we want others to recognize the Truth of Islam and also because we want others to enter Paradise. We do not hold ourselves above everyone else as the "chosen people", but we believe that Islam is the only religion with God and the only religion that He will accept, therefore it is our job like it was the job of the Prophets to guide people to the Truth. After all, there can be only one Truth isnt it? And what is there after Truth but falsehood?

Peace

don't christians also believe this? if so, does this mean that a violent confrontation between the 2 is inevitable?

[root]

Cheese - that said, the theory of evolution is still a theory, it could be correct for non-human living things, or it could not- thats why its called a theory! allahu a'lam!

hhhmmmm, hold the boat. The theory of general relativity is also a theory as well. Does this mean Gravity does not exist because I suppose based on what you are saying it may not. :giggling:

[Malaikah]

Does this mean Gravity does not exist because I suppose based on what you are saying it may not. :giggling:

Please tell me you are kidding?

Gravity is real. Relativity is just a theory that attempts to explain aspects of it. The validity of the theory has nothing to do with the existance of the phenomena. Dur :rollseyes

Evolution is real. The details, assumptions and extrapolations of the theory of evolution are nothing more than parts of a theory- whether they are wrong or right changes nothing of the reality of the observed phenomenum.

:rollseyes

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

this seems to be as almost impossible concept to convey to some people here.
you will not find many here who would say this:

I do not believe in the Torah because I can prove it is 100% accurate. No one can do that for any book. It is a matter of BELIEF.

about the qur'an.

The many Prophets of Allaah who were sent to nations before us, came with proofs and miracles to authenticate their words and convince the people that they were indeed God's Messengers. The unique thing about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is that both his message and his miracle came in one: the Qur'an. With this in mind, I think that it is possible to prove that the Qur'an is in fact 100% accurate and moreover the actual words of Allaah, because unlike the previous scriptures, it was sent for the whole of mankind until the end of time and thus it contains much to convince us that true guidance is really found therein.

However, while we can have a lengthy discussion about the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, we need to bear in mind that indeed it is not intended to teach us everything we need to know about science. This does not mean that scientific miracles cannot be found in it, but that they are not its sole purpose. As for the success of early Muslims (in the Golden Ages of Islam), it can be said that much of their success rested on their adherence to Islam and the manner in which it opened their minds, not that everything they learnt - in terms of science - was found in the Qur'an.

What you must do is read the whole Torah and then go back and see if you understand a concept that is foreign to you that now, which used to make you think the Torah is crazy, is completly nessesary.

Ansar Al Adr has to explain with paragraphs many single verses of the Quran which do not make sense to readers who believe they may be contradictory, so therefore, I would not say your scriptures are "easier" to understand then mine.

Yet if we apply the same methodology - to read the whole context of the verses in question, apparent contradictions are quickly diminished. The Qur'an is so rich with history, language and wisdom that treatises are written to elucidate what is already embedded within, as opposed to introducing such. Much can be taken away by the layman, but for those who seek further, a great deal more can be acquired.

don't christians also believe this? if so, does this mean that a violent confrontation between the 2 is inevitable?

Although both religions may exclusively claim to be upon the truth, both advocate peace and shun unjustice, therefore it does not necessitate a violent encounter.

Peace :).

[Trumble]

The theory of general relativity is also a theory as well. Does this mean Gravity does not exist because I suppose based on what you are saying it may not.

Indeed. That's how science works, it's all 'just' theories. Any and all theories are rejected when another comes along which better explains the facts. The older theory may be totally abandoned, or just refined and expanded. General relativity is a great example; it improved the Newtonian theory (which in itself was perfectly adequate to explain observable everyday phenomena) to account for instances, many (but not all) of which were themselves purely theoretical at least in terms of humanity's direct experience of them.

Evolution, natural selection and neo-darwinism have NOT been "disproved" in any sense, although there are indications they may not comprise a whole and complete explanation of the phenomena the are supposed to account for. Allowing that, the parallel with gravity suggests refined theories on the same lines are more likely to provide that full explanation than anything else. Evolution, however, is easily the best scientific theory we have. Minimal research will show that 'scientific' ID doesn't even come close, no matter how much some people wish it did. As with any other theory which does not support the facts as well as the prevalent one, it has been pretty much abandoned by serious science, although that does not mean there are scientists who are not attracted to the idea.

ID is a pretty neat idea, and has generated some rather good philosophical arguments. Anyone who still believes it is science, though, is living in cloud-cuckoo land. That doesn't mean it's dead and gone forever, somebody might discover an "irreducible complexity" that really is irreducible, that no Darwinistic theory can account for. Then it would be game-on again... but only then.

[root]

cheese - Gravity is real.

Cheese - Evolution is real.

Thankyou.

[Malaikah]

^o) Youre welcome

[Munda Pakistani]

I do not believe in the Torah because I can prove it is 100% accurate. No one can do that for any book. It is a matter of BELIEF.

Belief based on what? Being born in a Jewish family?

[New_Muslim]

if you accept that everything is just random and we just evolved where did everything come from? The big bang had to start from small matter but matter can't just happen. It must be created.

[Trumble]

A common response is that it can (and does) just happen! :D Another is that if matter can't just happen and needs creating why isn't exactly the same true of God? And several others venture into realms of theoretical physics (Planck lengths, quantum foams and so forth) that nobody here really understands, anyway.

Rather than elaborate, though, all of those have been discussed at some length in other threads recently, so you might want to just trawl through the last couple of pages or so and add to those.

[IzakHalevas]

if you accept that everything is just random and we just evolved where did everything come from? The big bang had to start from small matter but matter can't just happen. It must be created.

A simple answer would be "how was G-d created?" It is naive to think we will discover the truth of the universe here. The common statements from both sides are getting old, and in reality nothing is to be gained by conducting another argument similar to "chicken or egg" argument.

[------]

:sl:

The chicken :D ... ... ... :rollseyes

OT: Atheists argue endlessly tryint to find valid points to prove their arguments...but hardly succeed as there is SO MUCH evidence, without religion, for the existence of God. However, if they turn a blind eye to that, then that's their loss!

:w:

[IzakHalevas]

OT: Atheists argue endlessly tryint to find valid points to prove their arguments...but hardly succeed as there is SO MUCH evidence, without religion, for the existence of God. However, if they turn a blind eye to that, then that's their loss!

Theists argue with the same amount of effort, trying to find points that favor them as well.

[vpb]

the big chicken inside an egg :P

[Pygoscelis]

Actually one of the lovely things about being an atheist is that you don't have to have all the answers.

I don't claim to know the origin of the universe. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

I think that discomfort with the unknown is one of the driving forces behind religion.

[Pygoscelis]

Oh and I can answer about the Chicken and the Egg.

The Egg came first.

It just wasn't a chicken Egg.

:)

[------]

Theists argue with the same amount of effort, trying to find points that favor them as well.

:sl:

LOL joka, Muslims don't have to argue, we have got proof :) The Qur'an :p

Oh and I can answer about the Chicken and the Egg.

The Egg came first.

It just wasn't a chicken Egg.

Bleev me, it was definitly the chicken :D

:peace:

[KAding]

Theists argue with the same amount of effort, trying to find points that favor them as well.

And it is just as unconvincing as the atheist argument is to theists :).

[KAding]

:sl:

LOL joka, Muslims don't have to argue, we have got proof :) The Qur'an :p

I read much of the Qu'ran and found it unconvincing also to be honest. Besides, the Qu'ran didn't really try to convince me that God was real, but rather seemed to assume I already believed in him and mainly wanted me to accepted that this were truly his commands. To put it another way, ironically an average philosophy book goes into more depth on the question of God's existence than the whole of the Qu'ran.

[Abdul Fattah]

I think the trick is, the qur'an will try to get you to think about God's existence. Rather then putting down a universal argument that everybody would accept it places the responsibility with the reader. So if you start reading this book already convinced that it is false, then it's very probable that it won't defeat your prejudges. But that's not the point neither.
I don't know and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best

[Pygoscelis]

The wonderful thing about staunch adherence to a belief (fundamentalists) or disbelief (strong atheists) in God is that you can take any evidence and view it from your own paradigm, confirming your initial view.

I don't think any amount of science is going to deconvert an ardent fundamentalist. They will just declare that God works in mysterious ways etc. And I don't think any amount of "proof" is going to convert an ardent strong atheist (which I'm not btw). God himself could appear before them and they'd just dismiss him as a dream or some bad mushrooms.

[Keltoi]

I believe, in general, that most self-described athiests are actually agnostic. They approach life from an intellectual standpoint, what is "real" and "unreal". Having been an athiest/agnostic in the past, I sort of understand that line of thought. However, in my opinion, I think some athiests become so rigid in their own belief system that they almost become more fundamentalist than those who have faith. While I do have faith, I think critical thinking and human reason is a gift from God, not something to be stamped out. Athiests are on their own journey through life, and whether or not they find faith is between them and God. Nothing is going to suddenly convince either athiests or believers to change their minds. So I don't find these threads particularly helpful.

[Pygoscelis]

I agree.

But it is fun to try to see the world from the other perspective.

[Malaikah]

I read much of the Qu'ran and found it unconvincing also to be honest. Besides, the Qu'ran didn't really try to convince me that God was real, but rather seemed to assume I already believed in him and mainly wanted me to accepted that this were truly his commands. To put it another way, ironically an average philosophy book goes into more depth on the question of God's existence than the whole of the Qu'ran.

The Quran isnt a book of 101 reasons why Allah swt exists, it is a book of guidance the pious amongst mankind.

Also, it looses a lot of its touch when it is translated in to english- the Quran is actually the highest standard of arabic writting in the world.

[M2A^AKIB^]

Do the Atheist ever look at the nature carefully? how they work so perfectly? do they ever ask themselves how perfection could come from nothing??? and i mean nothing???????????

[IzakHalevas]

Do the Atheist ever look at the nature carefully? how they work so perfectly? do they ever ask themselves how perfection could come from nothing??? and i mean nothing???????????

Since I believe G-d to be "perfection", would an atheist not ask me how G-d was created from nothing? How could the human mind process the answer that G-d is everything and infinite?

[Skillganon]

The problem with this type of argument is to look at it simply. Their is not amount of argument that will be sufficient to a person who has already decided on the conclusion.

Here's is the low down. I will break it up.

Creator:

1. He created everything.
2. He is uncreated.

Creation:

1. Has been created.
2. Came to be from nothing.

Theist put's the creator who created, everything.
Consider if one disclude a creator. (non-theist)

This will leave with:

1. The Universe came to be from nothing. or
2. Something existed in the beginning and it from certain process came to be the universe.

What will you notice is claiming position 1 will be quite hard to imagine without thinking of a creator in the equation.

Admitting position 2, will be admitting in essence something that existed in the biggining and that thing to be "uncreated".

That basicly simplifies it.

[mysticalsilence]

Since I believe G-d to be "perfection", would an atheist not ask me how G-d was created from nothing? How could the human mind process the answer that G-d is everything and infinite?

Why is it easy to accept in science that the universe came out of nothing and not to further contemplate its origins and just accepting it has no cause. But when it comes to GOD it has to be explained.

I mean think about it if God dosent exists then we are stuck with no logical solution to reality and the origin of the universe and will never find one.

But if God does exist and created the Universe we have some kind awnser and we cannot subject the origins of God to a question that is limited to the God created reality itself.


If a child was in a large house with no means to escape.
And he grew in it up with everything he needed to survive in it.

What would make sense if you looked at this objectively and relate it to how we perceive and mesure things for this specific case.

A) The child(when older and mature) assumed the house came out of nothing and he some how got molded out of all the stuff in the house by chance over a period of time. And developped a few theories that are imcomplete but to his understanding "fall into place".

Or

B)The child(when older and mature) assumed he was placed there by a mother and father who chose to remain unperceived directly to him who also created the house and it was some sort of experiment or test.


To the child even when he grows old and mature either case is unprovable and he might be agnostic to how the house came about and how he exists.


But in these 2 cases specifically from an outsiders point of view case B or agnoticism makes more sense. And it would be stupid for the child to ask how exactly the mother and father came about when he cannot even fully understand his own existence yet. IF case B was true he will not even know of other houses and the fact that copulation is required for his own existence. He wouldent even have the basis to ask that question properly within his own reality let alone awnser it.

Now if you look at that house as the universe and the child as humanity.
This gives you an objective view on this topic and if you look at it objectively Athiesm does not make sense and agnosticism or beleif in God does .

[Trumble]

Why is it easy to accept in science that the universe came out of nothing and not to further contemplate its origins and just accepting it has no cause. But when it comes to GOD it has to be explained.

It isn't easy to accept that in science, and considerable contemplation on the subject continues. 'Out of nothing' is a gross over-simplification, too.

I mean think about it if God dosent exists then we are stuck with no logical solution to reality and the origin of the universe and will never find one.

And if He does we are stuck with no logical (or indeed any) solution to the origin of God, so postulating God solves nothing; it just adds another layer to the original problem. The unvarying answer is to define God as 'first cause' in some way, which has a considerable number of logical problems of its own. The unvarying answer to that is to stick God in some sort of catagory which allow those problems to be ignored - which leads to the inverse of your own question, why is it easy to accept that God came out of nothing and not to further contemplate His origins and just accepting He has no cause?

[root]

I mean think about it if God dosent exists then we are stuck with no logical solution to reality and the origin of the universe and will never find one.

I don't see how we are stuck at all, perhaps "God" might just be someone you never really expected:

Consider at least one of these propositions must be true:

1. Almost all civilisations at our level of development become extinct before becoming technologically mature.

2. The fraction of technologically mature civilisations that are interested in creating ancestor simulations is almost zero.

3. You are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

If you accept any of the above conclusions then you are almost certainly living in a simulated mind within a simulated universe within a simulation running on a computer with awesome computing power, so powerful that a fraction of processing time would allow for an infinate number of calculations containing an infinate number of simulated minds.

Alternatively, you could consider "Him" as our god which again upholds logic as a reasonable assumption, just like religous folk do.

http://www.venganza.org/

[Pygoscelis]

Why is it easy to accept in science that the universe came out of nothing and not to further contemplate its origins and just accepting it has no cause.

It is quite freeing to simply admit you don't know. I don't understand why that is so hard for some people.

But when it comes to GOD it has to be explained.

We only stick that to you when you tell us that God is the only possibility. The true possibilities are as variant as your imagination and probably more.

I mean think about it if God dosent exists then we are stuck with no logical solution to reality and the origin of the universe and will never find one.

Just because your mind is currently unable to conceive of a logical solution, doesn't mean that there isn't one. Don't fall into the fallacy that because you can't think of an answer there is none.

But if God does exist and created the Universe we have some kind awnser

No you don't. You've only moved the question one step. If God created the universe, who created God? If upper God created lower God who created Upper God, and so on. You've solved nothing. You've only complicated matters.

[i212]

Assalamualaikum (Peace be with you),

When we put God aside from all the creation.
Then from where of those creation come?

[MuslimCONVERT]

The fact is The Big Bang proves that there is a God because it states that the universe came from nothing.

In 1929 Dr. Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding.

The expansion of the universe means, ultimately that the universe had a focal point. Imagine the Universe as a balloon being blown up and dots are drawn on the balloon representing galaxies and planets and stars. This mental image is not unlike how the universe is working right now. Now imagine that, instead of blowing up the balloon, we let the air out and watch it contract. This is like watching "big bang" in reverse.

now lets say we are starting from the point where our balloon galaxy is retracted. At this point in the big bang this is called the "monoblock." In other words, all of the matter in the universe started from 1 big chunk, or monoblock.

Now this is important. Because if all the matter in the universe existed in one place at one time, in this so-called monoblock, the gravity would be so immense, that it would collapse on top of itself, and it would have zero volume. I.E. nothing.

Then this explosion occured, like the Qu'ran says in chapter 21:30, and as a result, the universe is expanding, as the Qu'ran says in chapter 51:47.

[Trumble]

The fact is The Big Bang proves that there is a God because it states that the universe came from nothing.

Don't get too hung up on the 'from nothing', it's a gross over-simplification that is most likely wrong (although you may well get into uncharted territory as to what actually constitutes "something"). Either way, there is no chain scientific of reasoning that leads to God, let alone proves he exists. And yet again, of course, the question as to where God might have come from is conveniently set aside. In relation to ultimate origins, the God hypothesis solves nothing.

A lot of this stuff just can't be dumbed down too far, let alone cherry picked, while still being understood (as far as anyone does understand it) - let alone trying to draw conclusions from it regarding God.

[Blakrose]

I don't believe in any religion, but I do respect people that do :) I don't know if that makes me an Athiest, probably does, but to me, I just don't understand how people can't think for themselves. I am kind to everyone and everything. I don't need to know why I am here, and where I will go when I die (even though I am scared to death of dieing cause I love my family and friends). I don't understand why people follow restrictions from years ago, and try to put them into their life now. Times back then were so different to times now.. guess I am just rambling lol.. but honestly it just suprises me.

take care :)

[glo]

I don't believe in any religion, but I do respect people that do :) I don't know if that makes me an Athiest, probably does, but to me, I just don't understand how people can't think for themselves. I am kind to everyone and everything. I don't need to know why I am here, and where I will go when I die (even though I am scared to death of dieing cause I love my family and friends). I don't understand why people follow restrictions from years ago, and try to put them into their life now. Times back then were so different to times now.. guess I am just rambling lol.. but honestly it just suprises me.

take care :)

Hi Blakrose

I agree that blindly following any doctrine, whether religious or otherwise, without thinking for yourself is very dangerous indeed!

Welcome to LI! :)

Peace

[Trumble]

I don't believe in any religion, but I do respect people that do :) I don't know if that makes me an Athiest, probably does....

Agnostic rather than athiest, I suspect.. as somebody said earlier that's probably true of most supposed 'atheists.

... but to me, I just don't understand how people can't think for themselves. I am kind to everyone and everything. I don't need to know why I am here, and where I will go when I die (even though I am scared to death of dieing cause I love my family and friends).

Personally, I don't there really needs to be any 'reason' we are here, we just are. The best way to think about it is that if there was no 'us', there would not even be a question; so perhaps just the question itself is the reason?

I don't understand why people follow restrictions from years ago, and try to put them into their life now. Times back then were so different to times now.. guess I am just rambling lol.. but honestly it just suprises me.

I just depends on the perspective you start with. Muslims, for example, believe that the Qur'an is quite literally the direct and final (until He decides otherwise, anyway) Word of God passed on to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. As such, with those restrictions coming from God Himself, man is not at liberty to change them. The teachings of the Qur'an apply to any age, although sometimes they need to be 'interpreted' to apply to things not mentioned specifically; man has the gift of reason for just that purpose.

If you believe the Qur'an to have come from God, you really can't logically view things any other way. If you don't, of course, you will think that its teachings, if adopted at all, she be adapted more freely and added to to account for changing circumstances. Even as a non muslim I'd say that's rather less than you might think, though. While technology has changed, people haven't much. Islam is pretty much unique in the way it integrates both religious and everyday matters; you can't split the religious and secular anywhere near as easily as you can with, say, Christianity as the Qur'an attempts to cover, pretty much, every aspect of how people should live.

[mysticalsilence]

The best way to think about it is that if there was no 'us', there would not even be a question; so perhaps just the question itself is the reason?

Thats exactly Why I believe God might have chosen not to be apparent directly!

Our whole existence and its reason is the question itself!

To me it has to be asked I cannot live without asking it everyday!

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't believe in any religion, but I do respect people that do :) I don't know if that makes me an Athiest, probably does, but to me, I just don't understand how people can't think for themselves. I am kind to everyone and everything. I don't need to know why I am here, and where I will go when I die (even though I am scared to death of dieing cause I love my family and friends). I don't understand why people follow restrictions from years ago, and try to put them into their life now. Times back then were so different to times now.. guess I am just rambling lol.. but honestly it just suprises me.

take care :)

As a former atheist I can understand that point of view. However I do disagree with your logic there. First of all, just because people chose to folow a certain doctrine or consider their own logic and intelligence inferior to their religion doesn't mean they can't and don't think for theirselves. As for following restrictions out of believe. People do it all the time. Following orders out of patriatism. Following rules out of respect for the law. Just think what people would do in order to protect their belief in freedom. Islam is timeless and following it's rules only has advantages. Just because they were revealed long time ago doesn't mean it's not aplicable anymore. In fact it seems illogical that we shoudl adapt religion to people's way of life rather then the other way around. The Qur'an was meant as a guideline. It only makes sense to follow that. But f course that requires belief first.

[Pygoscelis]

just because people chose to folow a certain doctrine or consider their own logic and intelligence inferior to their religion doesn't mean they can't and don't think for theirselves.

I think that is debatable.

[Abdul Fattah]

I think that is debatable.

When you have your blood tested do you not rely on a doctor to interpret those results? Sure you can get a second opinion, and be critical about it, but in the end you acknowledge that in this area of expertise the doctor's knowledge is superior. And we do this all the time, relying on experts, that doesn't mean we're unable or unwilling to think for ourselves.

[Pygoscelis]

When you have your blood tested do you not rely on a doctor to interpret those results? Sure you can get a second opinion, and be critical about it, but in the end you acknowledge that in this area of expertise the doctor's knowledge is superior. And we do this all the time, relying on experts, that doesn't mean we're unable or unwilling to think for ourselves.

It does if you just accept what a single "expert" says as the Absolute Truth (tm) about everything.

There is no need for thought when you already have all the perfect answers.

[Abdul Fattah]

you can go and get a second opinion, there's no harm in that, the Qur'an invites people to investigate and learn. But the thing is, to continue the metaphore, in the end Islam is the doctor that we find most credible, so we take his prescription.

[root]

in the end Islam is the doctor that we find most credible, so we take his prescription.

I think the "we" often hides those brought up in the faith and would question the validity of that statement.

As a former atheist I can understand that point of view.

The paradox being is that you still are an atheist. We all are to some degree, some more so than others dependent only on which god society offers and which one you choose to reject.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes root, as the old saying goes, "We are all atheists. I just believe in one less God than you do".

[Abdul Fattah]

The paradox being is that you still are an atheist. We all are to some degree, some more so than others dependent only on which god society offers and which one you choose to reject.

We all are an atheist to some degree? Really how's that? You're saying that in a way even believers believe that there is no God at some level? and just how are you able to tell what's in people's mind?

[Muhammad]

Greetings root,

I think the "we" often hides those brought up in the faith and would question the validity of that statement.

Everyone is welcomed to question the validity of that statement, whether they are born Muslims or otherwise.

3:190. Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding.

4:82. Do they not then consider the Qur'&#226;n carefully? Had it been from other than All&#226;h, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.

38:29. (This is) a Book (the Qur'&#226;n) which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding may remember.

We all are to some degree, some more so than others dependent only on which god society offers and which one you choose to reject.

Conversely, it could be said that we are all believers to some degree, even if it is a belief in non-existence.

Peace :).

[Pygoscelis]

We all are an atheist to some degree? Really how's that? You're saying that in a way even believers believe that there is no God at some level? and just how are you able to tell what's in people's mind?

I'm not sure what he meant by it

What I meant was that we're all atheists with respect to the vast majority of Gods out there. Some of use just fail to dismiss that final God.

[Abdul Fattah]

I'm not sure what he meant by it

What I meant was that we're all atheists with respect to the vast majority of Gods out there. Some of use just fail to dismiss that final God.

Not believing in some Gods doesn't make people atheistic. If that were so then Islam would be an atheistic religion as the testimony of faith claims: "there is no god worthy of praise safe for Allah". But by defenition atheism means not to believe in any gods. this is just a more sophisticated version of the well know argument: "People used to worship fire; that was stupid; religion is also a form of worship; therefor religion is stupid."
But as you can undoubtedly see that generalization is not necessarily true; let alone compelling.

[Pygoscelis]

Not believing in some Gods doesn't make people atheistic.

No, you're right. It doesn't. But it does give you a taste of atheist thought. We atheists feel the same about Allah as you feel about Zeus, etc.

this is just a more sophisticated version of the well know argument: "People used to worship fire; that was stupid; religion is also a form of worship; therefor religion is stupid."

I agree that this argument you are making and refuting isn't compelling. Religion isn't stupid because people used to worship fire. It is stupid for other reasons :giggling: Naw just kidding. It isn't stupid at all. If it was, then the majority of people in the world are stupid.