PDA

View Full Version : Proof that God exists!!!



Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Proof 1


'The Cell is as complicated as New York City'. (‘Look’, January 16, 1962, Page 46).

There is no design without a designer. Imagine, yourself walking in the desert. If you came across a city like New York, would you think, 'Ow, maybe it came into existence by chance?!' No, because you know that there is no design without a designer. Saying that a cell can come into existense by chance without a designer, is like saying that New York City can come into existense by chance without a designer!

'Behold! In these things there are signs for people who believe'. (Qur'an 6:99).
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Kittygyal
02-13-2007, 11:01 PM
salamualikum.

"Behold! In these things there are signs for people who believe". (Qur'an 6:99).
subhnallah! allah suabhwnatallah is our designer :)

Ma'assalama
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:05 PM
Proof 2


'The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 1.000.000.000.000 bits, comparable to about 100.000.000 pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica'. (Carl Sagan, 'Life in Encyclopedia Britannica’, Macropaedia, Page 893).

There is no information without inteligence. Imagine yourself walking in the desert. If a few stones in the desert were put in such an order that they spelled your name in english, would you think: 'Ow, maybe the wind blew them in this order?' I don't think so, because you know that there is no information without inteligence. Saying that DNA can come into existence by chance and without inteligence is like saying that a dictionary can come into existence by chance and without intelgence! Is this not a proof for the existence of God?

'Thus do We explain the Signs in detail for those who reflect'. (Qur'an 10:44).
Reply

Kittygyal
02-13-2007, 11:08 PM
salamualikum.
mashallah, akhi where you getting this info from?
Ma'assalama
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Um_ahmad
02-13-2007, 11:12 PM
thanks for the info. subhan allah
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:17 PM
Proof 3


'If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,00000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous'. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

'An increase of only one part in a million in the rate of the early universe’s expansion would have meant that the kinetic energy of expansion would have so dominated gravity that stars could not form'. (John Leslie, 'Universes', Page 29).

'If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 10^60 (i.e. one million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million) the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible'. (Robin Collins).

'If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible'. (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

Can this happen by chance?

'He makes His Signs clear to mankind, that they may celebrate His praise'. (Qur'an 2:221).
Reply

FBI
02-13-2007, 11:26 PM
:sl:

Man that last pic is so cool
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:28 PM
Proof 4


'The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (i.e. evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. (Sir Fred Hoyle, 'Hoyle on Evolution', Nature magazine, November 12, 1981).

Just like a cell, a Boeing 747 exists of 6.5 million different parts. Saying that a cell can come into existence without a disigner, is like saying a Boeing 747 can come into existence without a designer!

'We have detailed the signs for those who receive admonition'. (Qur'an 6:126).
Reply

Kittygyal
02-13-2007, 11:30 PM
salamualikum
ah, i wana fly on that plane to U.SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Ma'assalama
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:33 PM
Proof 5


'If the mass of a proton were increased by 0.2% hydrogen would be unstable and life would not have formed'. (J. P. Moreland, 'Scaling the Secular City', 1987, Page 53).

As you know, 0.2& is much less than even 1%. Could this have happened by chance?

'And how many Signs (for God's existence) in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn their faces away from them!' (Qur'an 12:105).
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:40 PM
Proof 6


'If the neutron were 0.1% less massive, so many protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in the universe would have rapidly collapsed into either neutron stars or black holes'. (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle', Page 400).

Did this happen by chance?

'Allah created the heavens and the earth in true proportions. Verily in that is a Sign for those who believe'. (Qur'an 29:44).
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-13-2007, 11:45 PM
Masha'Allah, thats interesting. Cool info!
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-13-2007, 11:58 PM
Proof 7


'Before you finish reading this sentence, approximately 100.000.000.000 operations will have been completed inside your eyes'. (Harun Yahya, 'Miracle in the eye', 2005, Page 25).

'When confronted with darkness, the human eye increases its ability to see 100.000 times. The finest camera in the world cannot even come close to such magnification, yet the human eye does it every day, easily and automatically'. (James Kennedy, 'Why I Believe').

'To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural slection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree'. (Charles Darwin, 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', 1859, Page 155).

Imagine yourself walking in the desert. If you found a camera in the desert, what would you think? Would you think, 'Well, it is technicaly possible that come's into existence by chance?' If you think like that, contact the nearest hospital to your house, as soon as possible! If not, then how did the eye, which is much more complicated come into existence by chance and without a designer?

'It is He Who has created for you hearing, sight, feeling and understanding. Little thanks it is ye give!' (Qur'an 23:78).
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-14-2007, 12:04 AM
^^bro where do u get all this? i wana know :D
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-14-2007, 12:10 AM
Proof 8


'John Barrow and Frank Tipler estimate that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10^100 (i.e. ten thousand, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million) would have prevented a life-permitting universe'. (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle').

'Decreasing the strong nuclear force by 5% would make it impossible for stars to burn'. (John Leslie, 'Universes', Page 4).

'Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 10^40 (i.e. ten thousand, million, million, million, million, million, million) then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible'. (Robin Collins).

'Some of the basic forces of the universe also need to be finely-tuned to each other. Gravity is roughly 10^39 (i.e. thousand, million, million, million, million, million, million) times weaker than electromagnetism. If it had been only 10^33 (i.e. thousand, million, million, million, million, million) times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster”. (John Leslie, 'Universes', Page 5).

The chance that this all happened by chance, is zero!

'He Who created the seven heavens one above another. No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of the Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again. Seest thou any flaw? Again turn thy vision a second time. Thy vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out'. (Qur'an 67:3 and 4).
Reply

Cole
02-14-2007, 12:16 AM
I'm a devout Christian. :D (AKA, I'm not a follower of the Catholic Church; Evangelical)

But, I do know that we, as religious people, do not have to prove anything, we live by faith.
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-14-2007, 12:17 AM
^^bro where do u get all this? i wana know :D
hehe masha'Allah sister. I got the quotes from some Christian and Islamic websites. I will post them, so that all brothers and sisters can read them. I share them with you, so that you can use it as a weapon against the Atheists. Not to win a debate, but to help them see the truth, Insha'Allah. This kind of stuff are Signs of Allah and many people don't know that science is on our side, Alhamdolillah. Allah fulfilled His promise, when He said,

'We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?' (Qur'an 41:53).
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-14-2007, 12:29 AM
Proof 9


'The brain's tissue includes some 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 protein molecules'. ('The Tape Recorder in Your Brain', Coronet, 1958, Page 57).

'What about the human brain? It's a legitimate computer system, 1.000 times faster than a Cray Super Computer and with more connections than all the computers, phone systems and electronic appliances on the entire planet'. (Eastman and Missler, 'The Creator Beyond Time and Space').

'There are 10.000.000.000 nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10.000.000.000 cells sprouts between 10.000 and 100.000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1.000.000.000.000.000 connections. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10.000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10.000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100.000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world'. (Michael Denton, 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis', Page 330).

'The information content of the brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons about a 100.000.000.000.000 bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world largest libraries. The equivalent of 20.000.000 books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a small space'. (John Polkinghorne, 'One World', London, 1986, Page 57).

'In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10.000.000.000 to 100.000.000.000 neurons, each of which connects to about 10.000 others, and all of which function in parallel. Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex tasks of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps'. (Michael Recce & Philip Treleavan, 'Computing from the brain’, New Scientist, Vol. 118, No. 1614, Page 61).

'If memory is so detailed, how can the brain find room for it all? It is estimated that, in a lifetime, a brain can store 1.000.000.000.000.000 units of information. To store so much, the units of storage must be of molecular size. There would be room for nothing more'. (Isaac Asimov, 'Asimov’s New Guide to Science', Page 848).

The brain is without doubt, one of the greatest proofs for God's existence!! Subhan'Allah wallahu Akbar!

'On the earth are signs for those of assured faith, and also in yourselves. Can ye then not see?' (Qur'an 51:20 and 21).
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-14-2007, 12:31 AM
Masha'Allah. so u basically compiled it together with pics? :D
May i know of the sites...or r they just random? :)
Reply

syilla
02-14-2007, 12:34 AM
MashaAllah...cool pictures

rep for you...(not just because of the pics of course...lol)
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-14-2007, 12:56 AM
Masha'Allah. so u basically compiled it together with pics? May i know of the sites...or r they just random?
I got this quotes from hundreds of websites, sister. Just cut and paste the quotes in a searchengine and you'll come across thousands of websites. But let me give you a few websites,

www.reasons.org
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org
www.answersingenesis.org


:w:
Reply

Battle_4_Peace
02-14-2007, 01:02 AM
Abu Hanifah
Imam Abu Hanifa organized a meeting with Atheists to discuss the existence of Allah. On purpose, Imam Abu Hanifa joined the gathering late which lead the Atheists to believe that Imam Abu Hanifa had no argument. Finally when he arrive he told them, 'I came to cross the river and no boats were there to take me across then a tree fell down and formed planks of wood all by itself and I waited and the rest of the boat was formed right before my eyes and that's why I am late'. Of course they didn't believe him and told him it couldn't just happen like that. Imam Abu Hanifa replied, 'Then how can the universe form all by itself?'.


Imam Shafi
Imam Shafi was asked what the proofs are of the existance of God and he replied, 'The leaves of Toot (berries) are all but one. Each leaf tastes exactly the same. Insects, honey bees, cows, goats, and deer live off of it. After eating these the insects produce silk; bees produce honey; deer give musk (a special kind of scent), cows and goats deliver off-springs. Is this not clear evidence that one kind of leaf has so many qualities, and who created these qualities? It is the Creator who we call Allah. Who is the Inventor and the Creator."


Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal reflected on the question in the following way. He said, 'There is an incredibly strong fort, it has no doors, there is no way to get in. In fact, there is not even a hole in it. From outside it glows like the moon and from inside it shimmers like gold. It is sealed from all sides, matter of fact it is air tight. Suddenly one of its doors breaks down, a living thing with eyes and ears, a beautiful looking animal appears yelling and wandering all over. So is not there a creator who made it possible for life to take place in this secured and closed fort? And is not this Creator better than humans? This Creator has no limit'. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to an egg which is closed from all sides but Allah The Creator puts life in it and a chick pops out.


Imam Malik
Once Khalifa Haroon Rasheed asked Imam Malik, 'What is the evidence pointing to the existence of Allah?' Imam Malik replied, 'Difference in languages, difference in pitches of voice, difference in singing are proof that Allah exists!'
Reply

Malaikah
02-14-2007, 01:21 AM
:sl:

Subhanallah! Jazakaallah khayr!

Existence itself is proof enough!

Originally Posted by Cole
But, I do know that we, as religious people, do not have to prove anything, we live by faith.
We would have to be pretty stupid to have witnessed the world around us, and the miracle of life, and then said, belief in God is only faith. If existence isn't all the proof anyone needs, then I don't know what is wrong with our intelligence. :)
Reply

SilentObserver
02-14-2007, 07:30 AM
There is no proof. Only faith.

If someone could prove beyond all doubt that God existed, it would be a monumental, historical moment. It would change mankind forever.

These claims of proof of God are only faith. Your 'proof' is not proof at all to someone that does not share your faith.

For the record, I believe in God. I am somewhat of an agnostic though.
Reply

Eric H
02-14-2007, 07:38 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Battle_4_Peace;

Very impresive stuff, but I feel it would be more honest to say evidence that God exists, rather than proof that God exists. We can interpret evidence in many ways, hence we have Islam, Christianity, Hindu, and all manor of beliefs.

Proof is proof and is not open to interpretation.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric
Reply

wilberhum
02-14-2007, 06:58 PM
Again some people don’t seam to have the ability to distinguish between a “Valid Argument” and “Proof”. You convince no one but those already convinced.
And that is not entirely true either. I believe in god the creator and I can see through your silliness.
Reply

Trumble
02-14-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by Battle_4_Peace
'If the neutron were 0.1% less massive, so many protons would be built up to make neutrons that all the stars in the universe would have rapidly collapsed into either neutron stars or black holes'. (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle', Page 400).

Did this happen by chance?
The trouble is that's a nonsensical question. The statement is true, but there is no chance involved. It happened. Odds 1:1. If it hadn't have happened we would not be here discussing it. We don't know, and are incapable of knowing, of any other possible 'results'. We don't know what the 'odds' (they weren't zero) were at that one point in time (and in this context even that doesn't make sense, of course) and we don't even know it could have happened any other way. Neither do we know how many failed attempts there were in which universes rapidly ceased to exist because the constants worked out wrong, or even if every possibility actually happened simultaneously.

The modern argument for design is interesting (and very, very well known), but as with all other arguments regarding the existence of God 'proves' absolutely nothing. In addition to the above, the same old question still sits there unanswered by theists. If New York needs a designer, the cell needs a designer and the universe needs a designer why doesn't something more complex than all of those things, God, need a designer? The best answer offered is a load of philosophical waffle about 'first causes', and every move there is easily countered (but not disproven!) by the 'other side'. Taking the 'belief' side is purely a matter of faith, as has been said. For that reason, only those who already believe accept the design argument as any sort of proof as they accept quite happily that God somehow popped out of nothing even when nothing else is allowed to. To others it's an interesting and thought provoking argument, no more.
Reply

wilberhum
02-15-2007, 12:14 AM
Just think, if an asteroid had not hit 65 million years ago, we might be debating if 6 toed lizards were really our most recent ancestor. :smile:
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-15-2007, 10:19 AM
I Am The Walrus
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 11:17 AM
'The brain's tissue includes some 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 protein molecules'. ('The Tape Recorder in Your Brain', Coronet, 1958, Page 57).

'What about the human brain? It's a legitimate computer system, 1.000 times faster than a Cray Super Computer and with more connections than all the computers, phone systems and electronic appliances on the entire planet'. (Eastman and Missler, 'The Creator Beyond Time and Space').

'There are 10.000.000.000 nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10.000.000.000 cells sprouts between 10.000 and 100.000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1.000.000.000.000.000 connections. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10.000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10.000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100.000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world'. (Michael Denton, 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis', Page 330).

'The information content of the brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons about a 100.000.000.000.000 bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world largest libraries. The equivalent of 20.000.000 books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a small space'. (John Polkinghorne, 'One World', London, 1986, Page 57).

'In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10.000.000.000 to 100.000.000.000 neurons, each of which connects to about 10.000 others, and all of which function in parallel. Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex tasks of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps'. (Michael Recce & Philip Treleavan, 'Computing from the brain’, New Scientist, Vol. 118, No. 1614, Page 61).

'If memory is so detailed, how can the brain find room for it all? It is estimated that, in a lifetime, a brain can store 1.000.000.000.000.000 units of information. To store so much, the units of storage must be of molecular size. There would be room for nothing more'. (Isaac Asimov, 'Asimov’s New Guide to Science', Page 848).

The brain is without doubt, one of the greatest proofs for God's existence!! Subhan'Allah wallahu Akbar!

'On the earth are signs for those of assured faith, and also in yourselves. Can ye then not see?' (Qur'an 51:20 and 21).
You call this evidence! This thread should be closed because it's bull and we all know that no evidence or proof exists, ditto nana, NOTHING.

This is noting but an arguement from complexity and can be seriously challenged with "climbing mount improbable" debate where u my friend can only see the sheer rock face in front of you and not the gradual slope that lies behind!

Lets's take a cup of tea. Drink most of it - down to perhaps the last mouthful or even the last sip. How big a number do you need to have to describe to me what you have left in your cup? Would the last sip of your tea (I'll use tea here because I don't like coffee) be "astronomical"?

so if we could show you that things were in fact bigger than you thought (more parts for the brain in your model, a bigger hurricane, etc.) maybe you could start to see that life could have happened by chance (and in fact probably did happen that way).

Back to the last sip of water.

How many molecules are there in a rather small form of life, such as a very simple bacteria? That is to say, how many parts are there to be put in place to build the brain you say can't be made by chance.

Sip a little more water but leave just a bit behind. How much is there now?

If you can swirl it around in the cup, you will really have quite a large amount. If it is even just down to a few drops (less than the sip I said to leave behind), that is still quite large. Probably well past "astronomical".

A small shot glass will hold over 30ml, so half of that will be around a "mole" of water (a gram-molecular-weight) or roughly 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. If you have only left a few drops in your cup then maybe change the "602" to "10" or so and leave the rest.

Now look at that last sip of tea/water/coffee and try to picture the size of the atoms involved in your mind. (I have trouble here, so I think you will too - they are very small.) The American budget deficit has a long way to go to catch up with numbers like this (but keep electing republican presidents and anything is possible).

Now, let's do the same thing with the duration of "time".

You probably think that "thousands and millions" of years is "astronomical", but note that I just said "and" in that expression. Try changing the "and" to the word "of".

Thousands of millions of years. Repeat that to yourself.

A million years followed by another million years followed by yet another million years (that's three million years), followed by another million years (4) and another (5) and still followed by yet another (6)..... until you get to (2145).

Between 2,145 and 2,146 million years ago there was an interval of time that lasted for one million years. (That is a thousand years followed by another thousand years [2] followed by yet another thousand years [3] and another [4] and so on until a thousand thousands is reached.) This all happens one year at a time. And back around 2,146 million years life had been going on quite happily on this here rock in space for - another thousand million years???

Somewhere back around then, life was approaching the "halfway" point in the story of life on earth, such a very long duration of time ago that your chance of understanding it is about the same as your perception of the size of an atom or a water molecule. And "life" could even be older that the age of this planet, if it was able to survive a few intervals "freeze-dried" in the icy balls we call "comets". In that case, it could have started on Mars a bit earlier than the history of earth would allow, or it may even have been able to jump from one solar system to another as they passed near each other. But I'm also happy with the idea that life did first occur here and the laws of chemistry and such - if you bother to learn them - make that understandable.

Now, back to your question. How many molecules does it take to make a "cell" and how many molecules are there in the average size ocean or even in a tide-pool? If you were to keep trying combinations of atoms every day for a few million years, how many times would you get a plausible combination that could have been "life"? Try thinking about this every time you are about to take the last sip of whatever you are having to drink for the next few years, the come back and tell me that astronomical numbers are a reason not to have allowed life to occur.
Reply

Re.TiReD
02-15-2007, 11:26 AM
:sl:

When the droppings of a camel indicate its presence and the footprints of a human reveal his presence, then why would the heavens and the earth with all their magnificence and glamour; not point to the existence of an Al-Mighty Creator? SubhanAllah :) :w:
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by Dreamer
:sl:

When the droppings of a camel indicate its presence and the footprints of a human reveal his presence, then why would the heavens and the earth with all their magnificence and glamour; not point to the existence of an Al-Mighty Creator? SubhanAllah :) :w:
Let's call bulls*** bulls***
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-15-2007, 11:39 AM
Try being less rude in your post for once in your life please..
Reply

Re.TiReD
02-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Let's call bulls*** bulls***
pardon?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 11:41 AM
Look around, do you see the world, unverse, people, animals. They are proof my Master created this and much much more.
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Look around, do you see the world, unverse, people, animals. They are proof my Master created this and much much more.
Yes, and when we find the explanation, it seems your god (assuming it end up as YOUR god) seems less and less involved in anything. Besides which, still waiting on the credible "proof".

Reply

Re.TiReD
02-15-2007, 11:52 AM
lool that good old word 'proof',

I'd rather worship a God (Our God) than a set of theories. peace out!
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Look around, do you see the world, unverse, people, animals. They are proof my Master created this and much much more.
Originally Posted by Dreamer
lool that good old word 'proof',

I'd rather worship a God (Our God) than a set of theories. peace out!
That is your perogative, you can worship a sky god if you wish. I only object to teaching it as truth in a science class........................ and thier is something about the truth I find appealing, guess that's why I dont bury my head in the sand and claim to have faith.
Reply

Re.TiReD
02-15-2007, 12:04 PM
Okay..I dont see any use arguing over this as there have been and will probably be loads more threads on this topic.

But I'd like to wish you the best of luck in finding the 'truth' and 'proof' of the existence of God. Peace out :)
Reply

'Abd al-Baari
02-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Mashallah such cool info
Jazakallah bro for sharing
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by root
Yes, and when we find the explanation, it seems your god (assuming it end up as YOUR god) seems less and less involved in anything. Besides which, still waiting on the credible "proof".

He speaks to me......all the proof I need:D
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 01:20 PM
He speaks to me......all the proof I need
An interesting point. The Yorkshire ripper heard voices too, he's serving life for multiple murders. When we hear voices we are either mad or very religous, I don't see the distinction really.
Reply

England
02-15-2007, 06:15 PM
I believe in God. My religion is different to everyone's here but the problem is I don't know what it is. I believe in God, just one God and Jesus as his Son, the Virgin Mary as Jesus' Mother. I don't believe that "if we don't worship God we will go to hell." My beliefs are that God is our Father and he looks at us as his children. You should respect him as your Father and just live your life. Don't commit any wrong doings such as murder, terrorism, stealing etc. This body of ours is like an egg and once we pass we hatch and our spirit is separated from the Good and the Bad. The Good enters the spirit world which is a much better place than here and the bad shall not enter. I don't believe in worship.


Does anyone know what my religion is? :p My beliefs are based on spiritualist churches I've been to and the accurate readings I've received.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by root
An interesting point. The Yorkshire ripper heard voices too, he's serving life for multiple murders. When we hear voices we are either mad or very religous, I don't see the distinction really.
HOW VERY DARE YOU! :p - The shabad 'Jis Nu Toon Jania So Jan Janae'' To Those You Give Your Knowledge To, They Will Know You'

You're spritually blind, I'll pray for you my brother/sister!
Reply

wilberhum
02-15-2007, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by Dreamer
:sl:

When the droppings of a camel indicate its presence and the footprints of a human reveal his presence, then why would the heavens and the earth with all their magnificence and glamour; not point to the existence of an Al-Mighty Creator? SubhanAllah :) :w:
What does it prove if a human footprint is in the middle of the camel droppings? Camels existed before humans?
Reply

root
02-15-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
[B]HOW VERY DARE YOU!
dare me or not, it's a valid point. When people hear voices they are reffered for mental assesment, when the voices invoke religion then it seems to be OK. Two distinctions, where I only see one.

:p - The shabad 'Jis Nu Toon Jania So Jan Janae'' To Those You Give Your Knowledge To, They Will Know You'
Thanks for those words, I can only offer you wise words in return.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open.

You're spritually blind, I'll pray for you my brother/sister!
I don't think so, I have faith in the spaghetti monster or are you just another atheist to MY GOD! Additionally, thanks for preying for me and more so for telling me since it would seem preyers have a placebo effect only when the recipient is aware of preyers being made on thier behalf, otherwise it's quite a futile waste of valuable time and good quality oxygen, dont u think.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-15-2007, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by root
dare me or not, it's a valid point. When people hear voices they are reffered for mental assesment, when the voices invoke religion then it seems to be OK. Two distinctions, where I only see one.



Thanks for those words, I can only offer you wise words in return.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open.



I don't think so, I have faith in the spaghetti monster or are you just another atheist to MY GOD! Additionally, thanks for preying for me and more so for telling me since it would seem preyers have a placebo effect only when the recipient is aware of preyers being made on thier behalf, otherwise it's quite a futile waste of valuable time and good quality oxygen, dont u think.
You will be saved, even if you don't believe. :D
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-16-2007, 08:31 AM
Maybe he doesn't WANT to be saved.

I don't.

If there is a heaven and hell as envisioned by Islam or Christianity, heaven doesn't sound at all like a place I would want to go. All the good subservient Christians and Muslims can go on and praise God for all eternity. I request only that I cease to exist. And I hope that I have the moral fibre to stand up to the Tyrant God and not break if he condemns me to his sadistic torture called hell. Even if not, I'd have to at least try. I wouldn't respect myself if I didn't.
Reply

Malaikah
02-16-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
praise God for all eternity.
Actually, paradise is a life of its own full of nothing but pleasure. The lowest person in paradise will have 10 times the earth and everything in it all for himself to enjoy. The only form of worship is when the believers glorify God out of gratitude and happiness.

I request only that I cease to exist.
Sadly, that is the fate of the animals, and when those destined to hell see that the animals are turned to dust and cease to exist, they will wish that they would also be turned to dust.

And I hope that I have the moral fibre to stand up to the Tyrant God and not break if he condemns me to his sadistic torture called hell. Even if not, I'd have to at least try. I wouldn't respect myself if I didn't.
God is a not a tyrant. If you are sent to hell you won't be able to maintain any dignity, at all. You won't even be thinking about it. The fire of hell is 70 times hotter than that of earth, and that is only part of the punishment...

Considering that God is the Most Merciful and Compassionate, the sinners must have done something pretty bad to be taken to hell, and if you find yourself in that situation (and may God protect us all from that), then know that you have no one to blame but yourself, and most certainly not God.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-16-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Maybe he doesn't WANT to be saved.

I don't.

If there is a heaven and hell as envisioned by Islam or Christianity, heaven doesn't sound at all like a place I would want to go. All the good subservient Christians and Muslims can go on and praise God for all eternity. I request only that I cease to exist. And I hope that I have the moral fibre to stand up to the Tyrant God and not break if he condemns me to his sadistic torture called hell. .
Sikhs don't believe in the above either.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-16-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
Considering that God is the Most Merciful and Compassionate, the sinners must have done something pretty bad to be taken to hell
I thought Islam was like Christianity in that you are condemned to hell simply for not believing in Allah? Is that incorrect?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-17-2007, 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I thought Islam was like Christianity in that you are condemned to hell simply for not believing in Allah? Is that incorrect?
Not exactly
We are not told who will go to heave nand who will go to hell. In teh end only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows and only he will judge. It could be that someone appears to be a firm believer but is actually a hypocrite, and it may be that someone is not muslim because he doesn't know Islam, but follows his soul and does all the right things for all the right reasons.

since we cannot know these things, since we cannot judge intentions since we don't have the insight nor capacity to balance scales of good and evil deeds, we are unable to make claims about who will be in hell and who will be in heaven. Of course being a practising Muslim increases those chances dramatically. And being a disbeliever decreases them in a very simular way that being a mathematician increases your chances at solving an equation whereas being a disbeliever in math decrease it.
Reply

AzizMostafa
02-17-2007, 04:16 AM
Imam Ali bin Abi Talib says:
> Wonder at who:
1. was just a drop of semen the other day + will turn into a corpse tomorrow.
2. doubts God although he/she sees His creations.
3. has forgotten death although he/she sees people dying.
4. denies the second life although he/she has seen the first life.
5. inhabits this transient abode but ignores the everlasting abode.
Reply

Trumble
02-17-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
God is a not a tyrant. If you are sent to hell you won't be able to maintain any dignity, at all. You won't even be thinking about it. The fire of hell is 70 times hotter than that of earth, and that is only part of the punishment...
Can you explain why a totally benevolent, omnipotent God supposed to be " the Most Merciful and Compassionate" would let anybody go to hell merely for the "crime" of not acknowledging him (or indeed far worse ones). Not much mercy or compassion there. Surely that is indeed the worse sort of tyranny, egoism and indeed sadism? As God cannot have those properties (or at least, we are all in an awful lot of trouble if He does) the whole concept of heaven and hell seems nonsense. Even within a theistic context it seems likely the whole thing was dreamt up to keep in people in line behaving as they should.

Why would a God who is truly the most merciful and compassionate not exhibit this mercy and compassion and admit everyone to Paradise.. or indeed to extinction, if that is what they choose?
Reply

Malaikah
02-17-2007, 08:45 AM
^God is the Most Merciful and Compassionate, and He is also severe in punishment, and also Just. He is not Merciful in such a way that would be unjust (such as by allowing evil people to enter His Paradise). He is also most Wise and we should never question what we know to have come from Him.

We were created for a reason- to worship God alone. I am not sure if you know this, but before Adam was placed in earth all of humanity was drawn out from him and stood before God, and we accepted the 'challenge' to have freedom of choice and live our lives on Earth and accept God's messengers. So, this is something we agreed to, it isn't something that was forced on to us, we choose it.

You might not make much of rejecting God- but it is the height of arrogance and pretence of self-sufficiency, and only God is self-sufficient.

We might not understand the enormity of the crime of rejecting God, or associating partners with Him, but is only because of our own ignorance. For example, Allah swt mentioned in the Quran, that the act of associating partners with God (more specifically, the claim that He has a son) is so terrible that:

Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins,
[19:90]

...and yet mankind just can't understand.

God is the one who makes the rules, not us. He is most worthy of praise.

Oh, and you also for get that rejecting God isn't only about not believing in Him- you also reject to do as He commanded you to do, having the audacity to disobey Him, the arrogance to refuse that He even exists, even though He is the one who created you and nourished you and gave you so much blessings and signs to contemplate, you come up with cheap arguments such as not believing that God would allow such injustice to happen in the Earth, thereby considering Him to be unjust and unaware of what He has created and not able to set things aright, although He has said:

Consider not that Allâh is unaware of that which the Zâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.) do, but He gives them respite up to a Day when the eyes will stare in horror.
[14:42]

...you deny God His rights, and also you deny mankind their God-given rights by refusing God's plan and creating your own cheap human version, thereby causing trouble and corruption in earth by following a flawed governing system... etc
Reply

SilentObserver
02-17-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
We were created for a reason- to worship God alone.
Does God have an enormous ego, or does God have issues with self-esteem and needs constant reassurance?


Originally Posted by Malaikah
before Adam was placed in earth all of humanity was drawn out from him and stood before God, and we accepted the 'challenge' to have freedom of choice and live our lives on Earth and accept God's messengers. So, this is something we agreed to, it isn't something that was forced on to us, we choose it.
OH boy! You are going to have to provide proof of this one!


Originally Posted by Malaikah

We might not understand the enormity of the crime of rejecting God, or associating partners with Him, but is only because of our own ignorance. For example, Allah swt mentioned in the Quran, that the act of associating partners with God (more specifically, the claim that He has a son) is so terrible that:

So by your words, we are to be punished for ignorance? For not understanding the enormity of our crimes, or if we are even committing a crime? This is merciful? This version of God is very, very wrong.

Originally Posted by Malaikah

We might not understand the enormity of the crime of rejecting God, or associating partners with Him, but is only because of our own ignorance. For example, Allah swt mentioned in the Quran, that the act of associating partners with God (more specifically, the claim that He has a son) is so terrible that:

I have heard some say that the act of assuming that God would need a man (namely muhammud) to make his wishes know is very wrong. That this diminishes the strength of God. They say that Muhammud was not a prophet.
Reply

Malaikah
02-17-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by SilentObserver
Does God have an enormous ego, or does God have issues with self-esteem and needs constant reassurance?
Asta3furillah, no! The reality is that God only told us that we were created to worship him, we don't have any other information. Only He knows the true wisdom behind His creating us.

OH boy! You are going to have to provide proof of this one!
The only proof I have is the word of Muhammad pbuh. Do you still want it?

So by your words, we are to be punished for ignorance? For not understanding the enormity of our crimes, or if we are even committing a crime? This is merciful? This version of God is very, very wrong.
No. Just because we don't understand the enormity of the crime, doesn't mean weren't warned about it.

I have heard some say that the act of assuming that God would need a man (namely muhammud) to make his wishes know is very wrong. That this diminishes the strength of God. They say that Muhammud was not a prophet.
The audacity of such an argument:rolleyes: . Who is assuming God needs it? We witnessed that a man was sent, and we believed in him. God sent us a man from amongst ourselves to remind us.

We believe that is what God choose to do, not that it was the only thing in His power to do, nor that God is dependent on Muhammad pbuh in anyway!

That was His plan- to warn us via a man. He could have told us Himself- just as He spoke directly to Moses Himself, but that is not what He willed.

It is ironic that someone would argue that God is in need to sending a man because He is somehow not capable of delivering his own message, and consider this to be a weakness of His Power, while their own argument shows that they believe themselves to be wiser than God because they assume that God is dependent on Muhammad pbuh (which no one ever claimed!) and that He doesn't know what He is doing. Sounds like they are demanding that God do things their own way (unless they only devised the argument because they believe that Muslims actually think that God was incapable of going the job himself- may God protect us from such a sinful line of thinking).
Reply

SilentObserver
02-17-2007, 09:45 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
It is ironic that someone would argue that God is in need to sending a man because He is somehow not capable of delivering his own message, and consider this to be a weakness of His Power, while their own argument shows that they believe themselves to be wiser than God because they assume that God is dependent on Muhammad pbuh (which no one ever claimed!) and that He doesn't know what He is doing. Sounds like they are demanding that God do things their own way (unless they only devised the argument because they believe that Muslims actually think that God was incapable of going the job himself- may God protect us from such a sinful line of thinking).
LOL! I'm getting used to you getting it all wrong. My point was that God does not need a man to do anything.
consider this to be a weakness of His Power, while their own argument shows that they believe themselves to be wiser than God because they assume that God is dependent on Muhammad
Foolish assumption. No, clearly my point is that God is more intelligent and powerful than we can imagine. I was merely poking holes in the little box that you have attempted to place him in. The only sinful line of thinking is ......... something I can't say on this forum.
May God help you to see how wrong you are, poor girl.
Reply

Malaikah
02-17-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by SilentObserver
LOL! I'm getting used to you getting it all wrong. My point was that God does not need a man to do anything.
I think we all know that God is capable of acting however He pleases and doing whatever He wished- but I understand why Him wishing to send a Messenger in human form to us is a sign that He is diminished in strength?

If we all knew without doubt that God existed because He had spoken to us, it would destroy the purpose of creating us. this life is a test. What good is a test if we have all the answers. :rolleyes:

I was merely poking holes in the little box that you have attempted to place him in.
God is beyond human understand and comprehension- I know that very well. I didn't place Him in no box, you did with the claim that sending a Messenger diminishes His power, you think yourself wiser than God if you believe that. Even if you assume that Muhammad is not a messenger, you still placed limits on God when you made that claim.
Reply

SilentObserver
02-17-2007, 09:54 AM
What makes you think this life is a test?
Reply

Malaikah
02-17-2007, 09:55 AM
That is the Islamic creed. We are created to worship God. This life is a test to see how we do- fail the test and you are punished with hellfire, pass and you are rewarded with paradise.
Reply

SilentObserver
02-17-2007, 10:03 AM
Sure is a good thing you are wrong.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-17-2007, 01:16 PM
lol indeed.

This life is more than a test. This isn't a dress rehearsal either. It is the real deal. This is the big show, not the warm up act to some great afterlife existence. The time is now, the curtain is up, its a full house and the spotlight is on you. Time to dance.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
02-17-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
lol indeed.

This life is more than a test. This isn't a dress rehearsal either. It is the real deal. This is the big show, not the warm up act to some great afterlife existence. The time is now, the curtain is up, its a full house and the spotlight is on you. Time to dance.
It's all here and now baby.....:p
Reply

zoro
02-17-2007, 01:31 PM
Strange. I posted the following, it appeared, then disappeared, and just now I received a note saying that someone had reponded to it -- but I still don't see it! Strange -- but I'm new to this game.

Anyway, with apologies if it's somewhere else -- and saddened if it has been censored, here it is again:

I had a little chat with Allah the other day, and she let me in on "the skinny". She said that, indeed, life was a test -- and that most people were failing it. She said that it's boring as hell in eternity, and she wanted to identify some company who could bring something original to the table. She said that she sent all the confusing and confused messages to humanity (in the Avesta, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Vedas, and so on), to see who would buy into them, swallow them, regurgitate them, fight for them, and so on, rather than think for themselves. She said she only wanted those who, by themselves, could figure out right from wrong and how to live their lives.

She said that all the rest, the "believers", were like sheep, the elements in whose bodies she intended to just recycle in the Earth's environment, to see if they might eventually lead to more intelligent people. I suggested to her that such would mean that about 80% of the people in the world would be "recycled", but she said that it was closer to 99.99%. I asked her how she came to that figure, and she responded that very few people use their brains for what they were made for: to evaluate, to hold "beliefs" only as strongly as the evidence warrants, to estimate probabilities, to help intelligence evolve.

I asked her if she'd mind if I relayed her message to humanity. She said: "Whatever -- at least 99% of them won't listen to you anyway, and the rest don't need it; those few are already thinking for themselves and don't need any message from me."

So there you go: let those who have ears, listen; those who have eyes, see; those who have brains, use them for what they were made.
Reply

Trumble
02-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
The reality is that God only told us that we were created to worship him, we don't have any other information. Only He knows the true wisdom behind His creating us.
So you are suggesting that although God told us we were created solely to worship him, He might actually have had another reason He is keeping to himself?

I hope this doesn't offend anybody but I can see only two possibilities from that, either God does have an enormous ego (or self esteem issues, etc) as SilentObserver suggests - why else would He create something for the sole purpose of worshipping Himself? - or He has been quite specifically been 'economical with the truth' as to why we are here. If He did that, what else might He have been 'economical with the truth' about?

Logically, what other possibilities are there? None of this suggests there isn't a God, of course, but I just don't understand how it doesn't shoot down the idea of a totally benevolent one. Why would any benevolent and merciful entity set up a 'test', success being determined seemingly on acknowledging His existence and worshipping Him, and failure to do so resulting in eternal hellfire for those concerned? Those condemned are 'guilty' of no more than a scepticism that seems perfectly reasonable in view the lack of any real evidence for what they are supposed to believe in. I just cannot associate an "OBL goes to paradise, Gandhi goes to hell" scenario with benevolence and mercy. The whole Heaven/Hell scenario is totally incompatible with a benevolent God.
Reply

Malaikah
02-17-2007, 01:39 PM
We do not have the authority to question why God does things. His Wisdom is greater than yours and mine. He created the whole universe, subhanallah. He created you and I and He has every right to do with us as He pleases.

Allah is greater than all that they attribute to Him.

May He guide mankind to His mercy.
Reply

zoro
02-17-2007, 01:51 PM
Malaikah: What evidence do you have that "He created the whole universe." I though that it was fairly well established that the universe created itself from a symmetry-breaking fluctuation in a total void, e.g., see the first chapter of my (free!) book at http://zenofzero.net/ or see http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...4881#post34881 .
Reply

Maidah
02-17-2007, 02:39 PM
Ok let's assume for a minute that this life is not a test and humans or the universe was no created by God (astagfarullah for sayin that). For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence? It's not as simple as saying because i have a brain or a nerveous sytem, because even a featus has this, but in and out of itself the featus cannot prove it's existence unless relied on the mother that is carryin it to assure its existence. Meaning that even though we may be able to prove our existence it will always be in reference to something or somone. If the notion of everything being created by chance prevailed than why would there be so many other thories of our being, because sometimes even logic and resoning is not enough to explain something, look at the area of medecine. Even the theory of probability has a probabilty to exist. The infinite regress must halt at one point, otherwise you can pose a question upon a question and never derive to an answer. We can't deny that everyhthing has a source, whether being an abstract thought or an object. To us muslims the source of our being is Allah, but when you're not aware of where you came about from how can you claim that other sources are not justified.
Reply

zoro
02-17-2007, 04:49 PM
Well, let me respond one step at a time. First, you asked, "For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence?"

Although neither of the labels "nonbeliever" or "atheist" are appropriate for me, yet my response is that no existence can be "proved". Existence is an hypothesis, whose predictions must be tested. For example, if you proceed with the hypothesis that you exist, then I predict that you can read the rest of this sentence. Did it work?

Similar leads me to the conclusion that the chance of the hypothesis "I exist" being wrong is only about 1 part in 10^25. Yet, I still can't "prove", for example, that we're not a simulation in some giant computer game.

You then propose the proposition / question: "If the notion of everything being created by chance prevailed [then] why would there be so many other thories of our being..."

I don't see the connection. If you're asking why it took humans thousands of generations to understand more science, then I think there are many obvious answers.

You state: "Even the theory of probability has a probabilty to exist." I certainly grant you that! If you can't "prove" that you exist, it sure makes it difficult to "prove" anything else exists! But I'd put the probability (for the theory of probability existing) to be up there pretty close to the probability that you exist, i.e., ~ 0.9999999999999999999999999 .

You state: "The infinite regress must halt at one point, otherwise you can pose a question upon a question and never derive to an answer."

Well, I'd agree that it would be nice if the "regress" stopped, but let's not reach conclusions just because we want them to be so! That "proof by pleasure" principle is a very dangerous and ****able fallacy; it's led billions of people astray. That we may never "derive" an answer may be so -- but then, it'll keep humanity guessing and wondering and challenged!

You state: "We can't deny that everyhthing has a source, whether being an abstract thought or an object."

Well that's not so! Physics has identified billions of instances of things that "are their own source", e.g., all radioactivity.

You state / ask: "when you're not aware of where you came from how can you claim that other sources are not justified"?

Well, I have a fairly good idea where I came from -- although I admit to the possibility that maybe my parents told me less than the full "truth" -- and then, if someone comes along and says that the source of, say, cheese, is the Moon, I won't necessarily say that they're "unjustified", but I will ask them (as I asked Malaikah) for evidence to support such a "wild and wooly" claim. Thus, I asked Malaikah for evidence for his "wild and wooly" claim that Allah created the universe.
Reply

Trumble
02-17-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Maidah
For those nonbeleivers and atheists, how would you be able to prove your existence? It's not as simple as saying because i have a brain or a nerveous sytem, because even a featus has this, but in and out of itself the featus cannot prove it's existence unless relied on the mother that is carryin it to assure its existence. Meaning that even though we may be able to prove our existence it will always be in reference to something or somone.

That opens a huge philosophical can of worms, but the response is a very old, and indeed famous one, cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I exist. No reference to anything external is required. It's a fascinating statement not least because it is self-confirming not once, but twice. Both "I think" and "I exist" have the unusual property that, to be formulated at all, they must be true.
Reply

zoro
02-17-2007, 05:37 PM
Trumble: "Truth" and "proof" are applicable only to closed systems, not to the open system of reality (open in both space and time). Descartes' "proof" of his existence is invalid (and similarly for Aquinas' and Aristotle's "proofs"); at best, they're only "plausibility arguments".

More generally, one can never prove any existence via deduction, since a premiss of deduction is that logic is applicable, and a premiss of logic is that things exist and are distinct; therefore, any "logical proof" of the existence of anything is already contained in the premiss. Again (and all of ontology notwithstanding), any "existence" is an hypothesis, whose predictions are to be tested experimentally. Thereby, all of ontology is more properly treated as a subset of phenomenology.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 04:08 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-27-2011, 12:08 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-07-2011, 12:57 PM
  4. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-22-2006, 01:09 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2005, 01:29 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!