God Doesnt exist because we havent and cant see him?

[Sami Zaatari]

as you all know one common atheist argument which they mockingly use is that god doesnt exist because we dont see him, that we are dellusional and crazy for believing in the 'invisible man upstairs' as they say.

well this article refutes this argument and shows how weak and illogical and mis-interpreted it is with us God believers:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Sign..._Signs_of_God_

article should also be helpful for Muslims who have been having this problem as well!

[wilberhum]

as you all know one common atheist argument which they mockingly use is that god doesnt exist because we dont see him, that we are dellusional and crazy for believing in the 'invisible man upstairs' as they say.

well this article refutes this argument and shows how weak and illogical and mis-interpreted it is with us God believers:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Sign..._Signs_of_God_

article should also be helpful for Muslims who have been having this problem as well!

I'm always amazed when people say what other people say when it is not what other people say.

I have never heard any atheist say "that god doesnt exist because we dont see him". :-\

It is just another distortion to preach to the faithfull. :-[

[Md Mashud]

I have never heard any atheist say "that god doesnt exist because we dont see him".

Maybe because your an agnostic is why you havn't. I too agree its dumb logic.

But time and time again, people ask me stupid stuff like "have you ever seen god" - "How can he exist if you can't see him" and other crap... So its not as uncommon as you think.

[wilberhum]

Maybe because your an agnostic is why you havn't. I too agree its dumb logic.

But time and time again, people ask me stupid stuff like "have you ever seen god" - "How can he exist if you can't see him" and other crap... So its not as uncommon as you think.

There are a number of atheists on this forum. They speak up all the time. They are very verbal about what and why they believe. I have known lots of atheists too, none every use such stupitity.
Now of course, atheism is no protection from stupidity, so I'm sure some have made such a stupid arguement.

But to say "common atheist argument" is a totally faulse statement.

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

[Md Mashud]

Oh your signature, that works for disbelievers too :).

[snakelegs]

sami,
the question is kind of absurd. does a rainbow not exist because i have my eyes closed? we have some very noisy atheists here - i have only read some of their posts, but none have made that statement.
i think it would be better to say that atheists say that god does not exist because there is no physical, scientific proof.
and of course beliefs do not require such proofs.

[Sami Zaatari]

sami,
the question is kind of absurd. does a rainbow not exist because i have my eyes closed? we have some very noisy atheists here - i have only read some of their posts, but none have made that statement.
i think it would be better to say that atheists say that god does not exist because there is no physical, scientific proof.
and of course beliefs do not require such proofs.

im not talking about atheists here. but others i have seen, i always see them laugh and mock saying theists believe in the big invisible man upstairs! they say it mockingly like were stupid because we believe in an entity we cant see etc.

[wilberhum]

im not talking about atheists here. but others i have seen, i always see them laugh and mock saying theists believe in the big invisible man upstairs! they say it mockingly like were stupid because we believe in an entity we cant see etc.

Boy, you must hang out with a bunch of atheists. :rolleyes:

Anyone that presents a stance that can be refuted with one word, "AIR", is really stupid. :-\

[ranma1/2]

i dont think many atheists you this argument "im sure some do."

I think many use that there is no evidence of the islamic god existing.
And that science seems to contradict many things in the quran.

[Salaam]

have you seen your brain, NO, so you dont have a brain!!!!!

[wilberhum]

have you seen your brain, NO, so you dont have a brain!!!!!

And there is always that one, the most stupid of all.

I think you need a real small one to think there is any validity to it. :hmm:

[snakelegs]

im not talking about atheists here. but others i have seen, i always see them laugh and mock saying theists believe in the big invisible man upstairs! they say it mockingly like were stupid because we believe in an entity we cant see etc.

if that's what they are saying - they just want to provoke you. i would recommend ignore. when people mock, it shows that they are not interested in dialogue. it is their problem, not yours.

[Md Mashud]

And that science seems to contradict many things in the quran.

Don't make up lies. There is no such thing as contradiction of science and Islam and I challenge you to show the proof in future when making such arguements because Im sure you would be refuted very quickly. To even a greater extend, science and existance of God perfectly work without contradiction and having read so much into it, nothing yet has challenged this claim.

[Sami Zaatari]

And there is always that one, the most stupid of all.

I think you need a real small one to think there is any validity to it. :hmm:

well you see they say air is very 100% provable etc, the same thing with the brain, they say its 100% provable with pictures etc etc.

when it comes to god though, they apply a different way saying god isnt provable, even with the many signs of his existence.

[wilberhum]

well you see they say air is very 100% provable etc, the same thing with the brain, they say its 100% provable with pictures etc etc.

when it comes to god though, they apply a different way saying god isnt provable, even with the many signs of his existence.

The existance of god is not proveable, nor is his non existance.

There are valid arguements for the existance of god.
There are valid agruements for the non-existance of god.

Giving more attributes to god, gives no more agruments for the existance of god, but creates massage arguements for the non-existance.

IMHO

[Md Mashud]

The existance of god is not proveable, nor is his non existance.

There are valid arguements for the existance of god.
There are valid agruements** for the non-existance of god.
Giving more attributes to god, gives no more agruments for the existance of god, but creates massage arguements for the non-existance.

IMHO

Unfortunatly, I have never came across these. Usually the arguements are not linked to existance of God, but rather just explanation of a process, which true or not, would have no conflict with the existance of God. I always get a smile when, someone explains the theory of X or Y, say Evolution as an example in a Theist vs Atheist debate, its as if they think that if the theory was true God doesn't exist :).

P.S. If someone can give me a valid arguement to the non-existance of God, please PM me :).

[wilberhum]

Unfortunatly, I have never came across these. Usually the arguements are not linked to existance of God, but rather just explanation of a process, which true or not, would have no conflict with the existance of God. I always get a smile when, someone explains the theory of X or Y, say Evolution as an example in a Theist vs Atheist debate, its as if they think that if the theory was true God doesn't exist :).

P.S. If someone can give me a valid arguement to the non-existance of God, please PM me :).

It is so nice to see someone not buying into the “evil atheist scientists” trying to prove god doesn't exist junk.

What I was trying to say was.
Pro - The universe needs a greater.
Con - Well then by the same logic god needs a creater.

Now if you say god is just, I can give many examples of injustice.

So the more attributes you give god, the more, and more vaild arguments against the existance one can come up with.

Is that clear? I hope so. :hiding:

[Md Mashud]

Thing is, God being just, would be relative, to what God designed, by believing in God, you would see life under a new glass - Rather then life is be all and end all, thus alot would seem as injustice beleiving in the latter and I would agree to it, but we don't believe in this life being all. Proof of this is, how, I don't think theres anything unjust by God, while a disbeliever will say if God existed why did he create evil. Different terminology.

[wilberhum]

Thing is, God being just, would be relative, to what God designed, by believing in God, you would see life under a new glass - Rather then life is be all and end all, thus alot would seem as injustice beleiving in the latter and I would agree to it, but we don't believe in this life being all. Proof of this is, how, I don't think theres anything unjust by God, while a disbeliever will say if God existed why did he create evil. Different terminology.

A lot depends on how you look at things.
I concider what you are saying is an explination about being just .ETC....
But I don't see it as a valid agruement for the existance of god.

[Md Mashud]

That explanation was not an arguement for the existance of God, just a refuatation that the original comment that "God being just and creating unjust on the Earth" contradicts the characteristic bought by religion, because not all agree to that statement, or see it that way par say.

Also it should be noted that, even if one doubts a religion (in terms of what it has said about anything, including God), that should not be used as a counter-arguement for Gods existance, many people beleive in God and not a religion. You can at best say that the religion is wrong to assume God is just, but never God doesnt exist, if you get what Im saying.

[wilberhum]

That explanation was not an arguement for the existance of God, just a refuatation that the original comment that "God being just and creating unjust on the Earth" contradicts the characteristic bought by religion, because not all agree to that statement, or see it that way par say.

Also it should be noted that, even if one doubts a religion (in terms of what it has said about anything, including God), that should not be used as a counter-arguement for Gods existance, many people beleive in God and not a religion. You can at best say that the religion is wrong to assume God is just, but never God doesnt exist, if you get what Im saying.

I do totally get what you are saying. :thankyou:

many people beleive in God and not a religion.

So true, you are talking to one. :giggling:

Peace
Wilber

PS: I have been meaning to tell you, I love your "Get Real".

[Md Mashud]

Yep, most are fascinated at the sig!

[جوري]

The existance of god is not proveable
IMHO

I used that same logic today... I was walking on Madison and my olfactory sensed the aroma of warm apple pie... it is unheard of.. no one bakes on Madison-- I saw it by a deserted window pane.. I thought to myself.. this orphan pie, what is its purpose there? I must walk over and grab it.. I just see it lying in all its glory.. a piece of perfection...it belonged to me as I saw no one baking it, no one buying the apples, or the crust or slaving over putting it together.. I don't see an oven and no one brought it over to let it cool off and waft into the breeze-- besides I see its burnt around a few edges which is such a great flaw.. after all anyone that slaves all day over a pie wouldn't allow it a certain imperfections..
Yes the pie self-assembled on its own volition..
the 9 inch double crust, the 3/4 cup white sugar the 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour the 1/8 teaspoon salt , the 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon the 1/4the teaspoon ground nutmeg the 6 tart apples - peeled, cored and sliced itself, the 2 tablespoons butter were but the products of a series evolutionary steps by which all these ingredients came about and self-assembled then the oven Preheated itself to 450 degrees F, then Baked itself in for 10 minutes. and then Lowered its own temperature to 350 degrees F and baked itself an additional 40 minutes. then flew over by the window pane.. in quietude not letting us into its secret assembly..
Why are you there pie?
two people argued
a pie doesn't just appear
another guy.. it is very possible.. and I'll go on further to say the pie is evil.. why can't the pie be evil? I see a couple of burnt edges too.. what is the meaning of this?
A group of sages assembled trying to comprehend the odd event..
it made the news paper
a pie unattended on Madison

yet it seems it is man's lot to be in a place of mystery wrapped in an enigma..

[Md Mashud]

I used that same logic today... I was walking on Madison and my olfactory sensed the aroma of warm apple pie... it is unheard of.. no one bakes on Madison-- I saw it by a deserted window pane.. I thought to myself.. this orphan pie, what is its purpose there? I must walk over and grab it.. I just see it lying in all its glory.. a piece of perfection...it belonged to me as I saw no one baking it, no one buying the apples, or the crust or slaving over putting it together.. I don't see an oven and no one brought it over to let it cool off and waft into the breeze-- besides I see its burnt around a few edges which is such a great flaw.. after all anyone that slaves all day over a pie wouldn't allow it a certain imperfections..
Yes the pie self-assembled on its own volition..
the 9 inch double crust, the 3/4 cup white sugar the 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour the 1/8 teaspoon salt , the 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon the 1/4the teaspoon ground nutmeg the 6 tart apples - peeled, cored and sliced itself, the 2 tablespoons butter were but the products of a series evolutionary steps by which all these ingredients came about and self-assembled then the oven Preheated itself to 450 degrees F, then Baked itself in for 10 minutes. and then Lowered its own temperature to 350 degrees F and baked itself an additional 40 minutes. then flew over by the window pane.. in quietude not letting us into its secret assembly..
Why are you there pie?
two people argued
a pie doesn't just appear
another guy.. it is very possible.. and I'll go on further to say the pie is evil.. why can't the pie be evil? I see a couple of burnt edges too.. what is the meaning of this?
A group of sages assembled trying to comprehend the odd event..
it made the news paper
a pie unattended on Madison

yet it seems it is man's lot to be in a place of mystery wrapped in an enigma..

:D I had a laugh, good stuff! That bolded part was the icing on cake :P

Not somthing I would use to disprove atheism, but hey I find its humerous =).

You really outdone yourself, this is a masterpeice!

[Isambard]

Only people I see who make said arguement are online atheists who frequent less than admirable online boards. Using that as a basis to determine "atheist thought" is silly. Unless you also wish to take my theory that Muslims believe the McNugget is really made from people.

[Trumble]

There are valid arguements for the existance of god.
There are valid agruements for the non-existance of god.

I think maybe we could do with a little hair-splitting for once, as it does rather get to the root of the problem... or at least demonstrates why arguing about it will get nowhere.

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically (in the proper sense of the word) follows from the premises. A sound argument is one where not only is that true, but all of the premises - including any implied ones - are also true. There are indeed several valid arguments both ways. There are also 'sound' ones both ways if you accept their premises as true. As theists and atheists will never agree on which premises are true it is pointless waffling about 'logic'. BOTH sides have perfectly logical arguments, but in the eyes of the other 'side' they can never be sound. As the essential premises are metaphysical/ontological and, essentially, a matter of opinion, it all comes down to belief, not 'logic' or 'proof'.

[جوري]

:D I had a laugh, good stuff! That bolded part was the icing on cake :P

Not somthing I would use to disprove atheism, but hey I find its humerous =).

You really outdone yourself, this is a masterpeice!

It wasn't meant to establish or confute anything.. it was of the same gauge as the ratiocination reached by the original poster to whom this was a reply!

But thank you.. sometimes I crack me up too it is scary ;D

:w:

[جوري]

found this by bro. Ansar.. so brilliant masha'Allah.. I wonder why he doesn't participate on the forum anymore? the newbies must have a deadening effect on him? ;D
a bit of a deviation from the topic at hand.. but I believe serves to answer some of the ultra absured questions atheists come up with!

Question: Can God create a stone large enough that even He can't lift?

Answered by Ansar Al-'Adl

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absoloute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullfied. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissable. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:
And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.

This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'
Hopefully that makes the issue clear.

[Md Mashud]

realised I forgot to touch on one of your points. This is referring to

What I was trying to say was.
Pro - The universe needs a greater.
Con - Well then by the same logic god needs a creater.

I just came to a problem that is, using that logic, God needs a creator. I am here to explain why not .

The universe, is not in the metaphysical state, its in the matter, physics, forces and energy as we can understand today scientifically. The state that the universe is in, materialistic, means that is must be created (to conserve many laws of science).

However, same cannot be said about God. We never put the limit that God has any materialistic or physical characteristics - which could deem him to have to be created to abide by laws. Nothing about God do we state which can conflict or has anything to do with any scientific laws that we know of yet - God is metaphysical.

Does metaphysical mean that is contradicting science? No, rather its an area we do not have the capability to go into , modern science does not disprove that existance cannot exist in a different state to ours, infact does make sense that there could be other realms of existance - at the end of the day if ours realms of existance could exist why not others right?

It is infact, that due to the materialistic/matter based nature of the Universe and the scientific logic that it must have a beginning due to scientific laws it must abide from conservation of energy to quantum mechanics, that we could only come to the conclusion that - if anything was to be created, the original thing that was created must have been created by somthing which is not in the realm of science we know infinite time ago- That is the phsyical/matter based science, being the Universe.

The loop must end somewhere to such an existance not being limited to such materialistic qualities because if there was no beginning to the beginning of materialistic/matter based creations as we know then nothing would exist at all.

I know this is a bit confusing, but I hope it gives a rough idea what Im trying to preach .

[Trumble]

but I believe serves to answer some of the ultra absured questions atheists come up with!

Hardly. It takes rather more than an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible to demonstrate a 'fallacy', particularly in the context of this particular question.

Neither are the questions you refer to 'absurd'; the omnipotence paradox has never been 'resolved' other than by selecting the definition of 'omnipotence' used very carefully. Which is, with reference to my last post, the reason it is something else atheists and theists are unlikely to agree on.

[ranma1/2]

Don't make up lies. There is no such thing as contradiction of science and Islam and I challenge you to show the proof in future when making such arguements because Im sure you would be refuted very quickly. To even a greater extend, science and existance of God perfectly work without contradiction and having read so much into it, nothing yet has challenged this claim.

lets see.. hmm. science says we evolved quran says some entitiy made us out of clay.

[ranma1/2]

...Unless you also wish to take my theory that Muslims believe the McNugget is really made from people.

dont be silly everyone knows there is no meat in McNuggets what so ever...

[AvarAllahNoor]

You can see him, but you must be pure of heart.

[Md Mashud]

lets see.. hmm. science says we evolved quran says some entitiy made us out of clay.

The Quran has no evidence for the theory of evolution. As muslim, we do not accept theory of evolution, for the same reason many scientists don't.

Lets be a bit more observant there. Science does not say we evolved, never has and probably never will. Evolution is just a theoretical model, which to this day has not been proved. Its just as silly as the strings theory - Its alot of mathematics which they moulded to work, it means nothing (I would definatly tell you to look at the string theory, just to see what people can do these days to produce a theory, which after analysis goes to say how stupid it is, its a bit like the bible code, nothing but a coincidence of numbers and no basis on fact).

There is a difference between a scientific theory, which is even argued against by top scientists, compared to scientific FACTS. Get it right. When did you see a book on fact of evolution? Never, its theory of evolution. Its a theory with so many missing links, more holes in it then a truck of Polo's even according to the majority census of scientists, to think that it can be used to contradict anything, even religion, is illogical. If you think only religion says evolution is wrong, then you have been living in a hole, the amount of debates, readings Ive done on that, it is clear that the reason people believe it as fact is for the same reason as Darwin, not because it was fact, but merely it helped him to believe it was fact! Way too many scientists completely laugh this out, to take it seriously still as fact is a flaw in ones brain.

For a further insight, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50bAUtu50uc, only 38 minutes.

This is one from Dr Zakir Naikh, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-_BDLNfcOc (6 mins 31, if your lazy) and/or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwv0Px3MRvk. Won't take more than 20 minutes.

You can read about it in more detail if you wish, Im sure many sources exist. To this day, I never seen anything factful to make such a contradiction yet to Quran. Any theory can make contradiction to anything, unless its fact I cannot strip anything of credibility until then.

I will end this paper with the statement, that Quran is the word of God and creation around us, is the work of God. If the source of both is same, then there can not be any discrepancy in the two, one has to confirm the other. One is theory and other is the practical, therefore nothing in Science is against Quran. As we have seen today science actually confirms what Quran had already said. Scientists are only discovering the laws of the creator, because everything in nature is caused, by secondary causes, regulated by the primary cause, the creator.

So I still wait for you on the challenge, show me where Islam contradicts science, and unproved discredited theories is not science, I will wait for this till the last breath I take.

[جوري]

this has been played here ad nauseam...
you mess with people's 'vague ideas' in which some sort of confidence has been placed and you are due for a tirade... evolution has after all become a constitutional part of atheist beliefs, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
in a sense these people have found a demi God in quasi science-- and you assult him by oppugning some of their 'logic'.. again, they are human and bound by the human condition.. it is simple transference and it is simple displacement... even if they slap 'logic' on the heading!

:w:

[جوري]

Hardly. It takes rather more than an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible to demonstrate a 'fallacy', particularly in the context of this particular question.
.

Perhaps you care to point out its aesthetically inconsistent flaws, instead of being colorfully verbose and ineffective?

[wilberhum]

Edit
Question answered.

[Trumble]

Perhaps you care to point out its aesthetically inconsistent flaws.

I rather thought I already had.

'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people.

As I said, an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible. Why is it impossible? You or I could create (as in build) something we cannot lift. So surely God can? Except that being omnipotent He can't.. and hence the paradox. It cannot be solved simply by claiming the scenario is 'impossible'.. for other beings it clearly isn't, and therefore in making that claim you must also be making fundamental and equally unsubstantiable claims about the nature of God. Or, at the very least, making assumptions as to the precise meaning of 'omnipotent' which involve taking some liberties with regard to the dictionary definition... as I said it is around the precise meaning of the word in this context that most scholarly musings on the topic are centred.

The flaw is not "aesthetic", it is fundamental. That is why the paradox remains a paradox and the "ultra absurd" questions are perfectly reasonable - albeit as unproductive as the answers given to them. I don't see the problem.. it is unreasonable to expect any theist to do a better job than Ansar in 'explaining' the paradox when there seems no possible way of doing so without making assumptions that are not open to challenge because their truth or otherwise can never be demonstrated, or are simply a matter of opinion. It's a little philosophical conundrum, not a 'killer' argument for the non-existence of God.

[جوري]

I rather thought I already had.

Not with any sort of dexterity I am afraid!
I don't think you got it well out of your system the first time around, and here is a chance to purge in his absentia.. a well and good opportunity to disport more of that circular logic, I am afraid is just not cutting it! :-\

[Isambard]

Not with any sort of dexterity I am afraid!
I don't think you got it well out of your system the first time around, and here is a chance to purge in his absentia.. a well and good opportunity to disport more of that circular logic, I am afraid is just not cutting it! :-\

Care to expand?

[noodles]

I rather thought I already had.



As I said, an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible. Why is it impossible? You or I could create (as in build) something we cannot lift. So surely God can? Except that being omnipotent He can't.. and hence the paradox. It cannot be solved simply by claiming the scenario is 'impossible'.. for other beings it clearly isn't, and therefore in making that claim you must also be making fundamental and equally unsubstantiable claims about the nature of God. Or, at the very least, making assumptions as to the precise meaning of 'omnipotent' which involve taking some liberties with regard to the dictionary definition... as I said it is around the precise meaning of the word in this context that most scholarly musings on the topic are centred.

The flaw is not "aesthetic", it is fundamental. That is why the paradox remains a paradox and the "ultra absurd" questions are perfectly reasonable - albeit as unproductive as the answers given to them. I don't see the problem.. it is unreasonable to expect any theist to do a better job than Ansar in 'explaining' the paradox when there seems no possible way of doing so without making assumptions that are not open to challenge because their truth or otherwise can never be demonstrated, or are simply a matter of opinion. It's a little philosophical conundrum, not a 'killer' argument for the non-existence of God.

I rather think your argument isn't very perceptive and there is a reason I say that.

But before I go any further let me point out somethings.


I think you may agree that you and I are different from one another and also from the rest of the world. I'd also point out that no two human beings are the same. Twins, Triplets, Quadruplets, however many you have alike, they are each their own person. Even if they look alike, their intellect may not. Nor are their experiances similar. Yet we often find ourselves comparing ourselves to one another. Why? you may ask. Some may conclude, that it is to better ourselves, and others may deduce that we do so to feel better of ourselves.

Regardless, we compare because it is embedded in us to do so.

Anyway, that aside.

The problem with the paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" is that we are so used to viewing ourselves and others through one lens that often times we fail to examine the problem any other way. You've compared God to a human being. That is perhaps your biggest mistake for failing to grasp our understanding of Allah.

Perhaps if you look at it in one way, you can say that prehistoric men (that term doesn't mean anything to me, but it may mean something to you) had greater strength than any humans present today because they had to do lifting on a daily basis and their physique and brute force was immense. The same cannot be said in the present day (just exclude the weight lifters etc.) Today, strength isn't anything. Rather in the contemporary world, Ideas are what we value. Innovators are the money makers of today. Can you not imagine a designer building a device to lift this object that even he can't lift? Sure he didn't use his strength because he didn't need to, he used his brain.

In Islam, it is silly to attribute any human characteristic with the almighty, because the titles we produce can never befit him. He is so much more than that. However, for the sake of human understanding, He himself has given attributes that we may understand.

Anyway, that is my take on the matter at hand.

Salam

(P.S sorry for rambling in the beginning, I don't really know what point I was trying to make, but I'll just keep it up there and also do excuse my grammar)

[جوري]

Care to expand?

Perhaps it would do a world of difference if you'd glance over said post, written by br. Ansar draw some abstracts from the general idea(s) inferred and derived in that specific topic; then make the request for expansion? What do you think? There is nothing more irritating than insinuating yourself in the middle of a topic with non specific requests!

peace!

[Isambard]

Perhaps it would do a world of difference if you'd glance over said post, written by br. Ansar draw some abstracts from the general idea(s) inferred and derived in that specific topic; then make the request for expansion? What do you think? There is nothing more irritating than insinuating yourself in the middle of a topic with non specific requests!

peace!

I have read it and Trumble offered a good rebuttle. Perhaps you should re-read his post and give it some consideration before tossing it aside. If there is some flaw in his thinking, point it out.

[kwolney01]

I don't understand how people can give that excuse for not beliving in God. Just because we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't see air but we know it exists..we can't see love we know that exists...

[جوري]

I have read it and Trumble offered a good rebuttle. Perhaps you should re-read his post and give it some consideration before tossing it aside. If there is some flaw in his thinking, point it out.

I believe Br. Ansar has explored the topic from all facets and covered it more than adequately.. the mere fact that trumble bothered only with the first paragraph which he felt he could pounce on hardly qualifies it as a 'rebuttal'. we'd regard it with some consideration if he'd bothered point out the flaws in the whole not in part. Further the delivery of his whole confutation is ill-chosen or rather I should say well-chosen? since he found this time opportune to controvert and not when the original topic was presented.. rather amusing as I see him on of the original posters on that particular thread.. http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post466313
again leaves me with one impression which is the need to purge himself for being confounded the first time around. From what I see the thread is still open and no one is stopping him from challenging the original poster rather than take the timid approach out!

by the way did he elect you to speak on his behalf by proxy? if we are going to speak of 'consider' and 'toss aside', one should expect that you expend some effort in the whole process-- like critiquing the original post in whole, instead of hiding behind someone else's descending prolegomenon? .. don't you think?
There is such a thing as being extraneous, that is where trumble's fell.. as I didn't see anything in it, that merits a 'rebuttal'!

[Trumble]

You've compared God to a human being. That is perhaps your biggest mistake for failing to grasp our understanding of Allah.

I did not compare anything with anything. I did point out that for the paradox to be 'answered' it is necessary to explain why God is different in this respect, and to do so without making assumptions that are wide open to challenge. Hence my repeated comments on the working definition of "omnipotent". Just saying He is different without specifying how "doesn't cut it" as PA would say, as a response to a philosophical argument.

the mere fact that trumble bothered only with the first paragraph which he felt he could pounce on hardly qualifies it as a 'rebuttal'. we'd regard it with some consideration if he'd bothered point out the flaws in the whole not in part.

My argument is general and applies to rather more than the one paragraph I quoted.

[ranma1/2]

The Quran has no evidence for the theory of evolution. As muslim, we do not accept theory of evolution, for the same reason many scientists don't.

Because it goes against your religion?

Lets be a bit more observant there. Science does not say we evolved, never has and probably never will.

Correct, its not living, so perhaps I should say that the scientific community says we evolved., im pretty sure you knew that but I guess I have to be detailed with you.

Evolution is just a theoretical model, which to this day has not been proved.

It sounds as if you need to understand the word theory better. No theory is every proven. Also the Theory of evolution has not been proven “how evo works.” Evo itself “is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. More specifically the chang of allele in a population.” is a fact.
Similarly the theory of gravitation are also theories and also not proven. Likewise gravity itself “ that objects with mass attract each other” is a fact.

Its just as silly as the strings theory - Its alot of mathematics which they moulded to work, it means nothing (I would definatly tell you to look at the string theory, just to see what people can do these days to produce a theory, which after analysis goes to say how stupid it is, its a bit like the bible code, nothing but a coincidence of numbers and no basis on fact).

This here pretty much shows your point of view. “I don’t understand it so bah…”

….. Its a theory with so many missing links, more holes in it then a truck of Polo's even according to the majority census of scientists, to think that it can be used to contradict anything, even religion, is illogical.

It doesn’t matter if we had no fossils, it is still supported by evidence. Fact, the theory is accepted by the scientific community, many a peer reviewed paper has been written on it supporting it. “none against it that I can think of” So yes, it can be used to contradict creationism.

If you think only religion says evolution is wrong, then you have been living in a hole, …

Oh im sure many a person can “Say its wrong” but no one has proven its wrong or given evidence. Im still waiting for evidence that its wrong… But im sure the EAC is preventing peer reviewed papers from showing up.

So I still wait for you on the challenge, show me where Islam contradicts science, and unproved discredited theories is not science, I will wait for this till the last breath I take.

Well the theory of evolution has not been discredited and I am pretty confident it never will.

[wilberhum]

I don't understand how people can give that excuse for not beliving in God. Just because we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't see air but we know it exists..we can't see love we know that exists...

That was my point. If you look through the posts, no one makes that claim. :-\
The author is fighting wind mills. :skeleton:

[Md Mashud]

Because it goes against your religion?

No. If this was the reason, then every scientist would accept evolution, but they don't and I can tell you its not on the basis of religion or contradiction on any of their belifs but due to not being convinced by the theory itself.

So when a scientist thinks that evolution theory is wrong - does it make the scientist wrong? He can't be, because their is no fact to say he's wrong, similar to the Quran. It would be similar to alt of years ago, that if someone said the Earth was not the center of the universe, people would call him crazy and wrong - because at the time they had a THEORY that it must be in the center! See how wrong it is now?

This here pretty much shows your point of view. “I don’t understand it so bah…”

Don't assume more then you know.

Well the theory of evolution has not been discredited and I am pretty confident it never will.

Yes it has.

Fact, the theory is accepted by the scientific community, many a peer reviewed paper has been written on it supporting it. “none against it that I can think of” So yes, it can be used to contradict creationism.

Further makes me believe that you have been reading on the propaganda of things! Never heard anything against it? Your surely joking, theres only a tonne? These days alot of things are supported, even that humans actually can make a difference to global warming. Evolution itself is a politicaly motivated theory (goes back to the battle between christians and scientists) rather then a scientific one. If you have fudning and people willing, you can make people make anything seem true.


It still is a theory and thus science does not contradict the Quran as it is still just a theory. I could just make up a theory which contradicts gravity, but would that mean gravity is wrong?

Correct, its not living, so perhaps I should say that the scientific community says we evolved., im pretty sure you knew that but I guess I have to be detailed with you.

You made my point clear here. If Quran contradicted the SCIENTIFIC community (I should mention not the whole) - this is different from contradicting science... Scientists believe in lots of things, since the eary days, alot of which were wrong, some right. One day even that the world was flat or the Earth was at the center of the Universe! So your point again, that science contradicted Quran is alot of breeze.

So, Im still waiting for real science that contradicts the Quran from you, not theories. To give examples, I know some people belive that the universe is 6000 years old, Id say thats a scientific contradiction. If someone preached that gravity is 6m/s² on Earth, Id say thats a scientific contradiction.

[جوري]

My argument is general and applies to rather more than the one paragraph I quoted. Perhaps you did not actually read it? I'm afraid I no longer have much regard for your opinion. Possibly because, as here, your own habit of hiding your own inability to respond to the relevant point behind a smokescreen of arrogance and insult is getting very, very, tiresome.

points of relevance? fresh coming from someone who sits on the web all day looking to refute research in which basic precepts are lost to him... How much did you read of the 47 page PDF file before quickly looking for a source to debunk it?
I am afraid you've stumbled upon an adequate appraisal of your own characteristics for a change. When you come up with something of substance, can we then read.. I am afraid we too get tired of your fatuous self-aggrandizing episodes... No one has asked you for a review of the original post.. I am afraid it wasn't even addressed to you... If you feel inferior to Ansar and wish to dispute him, I suggest you do it directly rather than by proxy. Maybe then your 'points of relevance' will carry more weight!

[wilberhum]

edit
Woops, that button is quick reply.

[Sheba]

Does God exist?

If a document can be produced that is in excess of 1400 years old. The author calls Himself God and it can be verified as factual.

Is 100's of years ahead of it's time and is proven both scienticificaly, medically and verified by the science of mathamatics. Could this possiblily be evidence that God really does exist?

Sheba

[Isambard]

No. If this was the reason, then every scientist would accept evolution, but they don't and I can tell you its not on the basis of religion or contradiction on any of their belifs but due to not being convinced by the theory itself.

Which scientists? And what exactly is it about the theory you find in error?

So when a scientist thinks that evolution theory is wrong - does it make the scientist wrong? He can't be, because their is no fact to say he's wrong, similar to the Quran. It would be similar to alt of years ago, that if someone said the Earth was not the center of the universe, people would call him crazy and wrong - because at the time they had a THEORY that it must be in the center! See how wrong it is now?

That was mroe due to the church trying to control findings...and setting those who disagreed to be set on fire.

Don't assume more then you know.



Yes it has.


Such as?

Further makes me believe that you have been reading on the propaganda of things! Never heard anything against it? Your surely joking, theres only a tonne? These days alot of things are supported, even that humans actually can make a difference to global warming. Evolution itself is a politicaly motivated theory (goes back to the battle between christians and scientists) rather then a scientific one. If you have fudning and people willing, you can make people make anything seem true.

How is it a politically motivated theory? If anything, if someone could disprove evolution, they would get rich for such a monumental discovery. The closest so far is psedo-scientists twisting findings to get large sums of money from faith based groups. If a scientist could write a paper that isnt destroyed by peer evaluation, that scientist would be very very famous


It still is a theory and thus science does not contradict the Quran as it is still just a theory. I could just make up a theory which contradicts gravity, but would that mean gravity is wrong?


what is your take on this?

[67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.


[15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders;
[15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil:
[15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits. What do you make of it?

You made my point clear here. If Quran contradicted the SCIENTIFIC community (I should mention not the whole) - this is different from contradicting science... Scientists believe in lots of things, since the eary days, alot of which were wrong, some right. One day even that the world was flat or the Earth was at the center of the Universe! So your point again, that science contradicted Quran is alot of breeze.

Thats nice, but science never claims to be the unmovable truth. It by its very nature is tentative, unlike the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes some really out there claims as well like the one I mentioned above.

So, Im still waiting for real science that contradicts the Quran from you, not theories. To give examples, I know some people belive that the universe is 6000 years old, Id say thats a scientific contradiction. If someone preached that gravity is 6m/s² on Earth, Id say thats a scientific contradiction.

Is there a set number that would you like? And mind if I lumped in some historical ones?

[Md Mashud]

[67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.


[15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders;
[15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil:
[15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits. What do you make of it?

I am not a mutjahid. There must be the original arabic firstly, secondly I won't assume

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits

We can make a new religion if we base it on translations.

So its better to find what an islamic scholar to give tafsir on the texts, I am not allowed to make out what I think it means... The texts to us can be infinitly ambigious, especially as we are not experts at arabic and secondly that its not even in Arabic to begin with, if you understand what I mean.

I was looking on the lines of more that, Islam undoubtedly stated X, which contradicts scientific fact Y.

Thats nice, but science never claims to be the unmovable truth. It by its very nature is tentative, unlike the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes some really out there claims as well like the one I mentioned above.

See above, again, my point is, there wasn't a scientific contradiction, maybe scientists disagreed with it but thats opinionated.

That was mroe due to the church trying to control findings...and setting those who disagreed to be set on fire.

edit: N/c?

Which scientists? And what exactly is it about the theory you find in error?

Please, don't ask me to babysit you on basics. Did you really think that the majority of scientists accepted evolution as an answer, or even credible? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8 <-- This isn't suppose to be the grand answer, but its a funny clip, and I think you can clearly see with your eyes that a scientist appears to not agree with evolution, while another does. If you are talking of if those who disregard are high status or not? Well thats even more of a researchful task to produce to you. Id rather you look into it. The point is, if this was scientific fact, no one would refute it and if anyone does, be it Quran scientist or a Bush, you can't say they are wrong in any sense, they just contradicted an opinion not a fact.

How is it a politically motivated theory?

Read up on history.

[Isambard]

Interesting you should mention Kent Hovind as a "scholar".

Let his unquentionable character speak for itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyHuSlL3yY

And here is "Dr." Hovind getting pwned by his own garbled quotes he twisted from Darwin and pointed out by Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4&NR=1

And here is further pwnage for your enjoyment :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wglbviUuXjg&NR=1

Before I forget, you may want to check this out
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

Pretty informative stuff.

[Md Mashud]

Interesting you should mention Kent Hovind as a "scholar".

I did no such thing.

This isn't suppose to be the grand answer

This referred to that - I don't even know the scientists, but I just recall one disagreeing with the theory (this one stuck to mind, it goes to show how scientists are quite dumb, I mean look how Ali G played them all, thought it was hilarious). I don't say he is a great scientists - but the ideology behind it is that - scientists do agree = its not really scientific fact - u can take it as an anecdotal arguement point of view.

I don't know what your plan is with those posts, but I must comment on the

pwnage

I like the style ^^.

Btw, I did make a quick note, about the evolution of the eye. Quran does not deny, the gradual changes/adoptions if you will, of the same animal/creature - like the beak of a bird, or the feet of a horse, rather the apes-->human thing and things alike... We don't agree that the human however had evolutions/adoptions of itself, or through transitions from other animals.

[Isambard]

I did no such thing.



This referred to that - I don't even know the scientists, but I just recall one disagreeing with the theory. I don't say he is a great scientists - but the ideology behind it is that - scientists do agree = its not really scientific fact.

I don't know what your plan is with those posts.

To show he isnt a scientist, merely a moron masquarating as one

Btw, I did make a quick note, about the evolution of the eye. Quran does not deny, the gradual changes/adoptions if you will, of the same animal/creature - like the beak of a bird, or the feet of a horse, rather the apes-->human thing and things alike... I think people think that Quran denies some adoption creatures altogether, which I have never heard of.

Could you expand?

[Md Mashud]

Could you expand?

On what point?

[Isambard]

On what point?

Your last point, 'apes/humans and things alike'. Sry was, a bit vague:confused:

[Md Mashud]

Your last point, 'apes/humans and things alike'. Sry was, a bit vague:confused:

Thinking about it now, I have never ever heard anything regarding animal species that transitioned (i.e. the claims of fossil). The Quran is not a science book as you know, so it did not talk about what did what, the conflict to people came when certain verses talked about the coming of man, in a way which can be described as non-evolutionary, if you know what I mean.

As far as I know, their hasn't been mention of animals and evolution, nor any ayat stating "EVOLUTION IS WRONG" or the such. So what we live by is that, apes did not turn into human. If anyone knows any more specifics on it, please bring it up, as I am not a master of arabic or Quran to convery exactly what the Quran has said on the matter.

Usually, Islamic scholars won't detail into this, on that it is just a theory (evolution) and so whats the point of discussing it, it would bear no effect on Islam as a theory can contradict anything it likes, people, science, religion, it won't matter until it becomes a fact.

I will like to quote some statements in an article:

Of what significance is this to Muslims? In point of religion, if we put our scientific scruples aside for a moment and grant that evolution is applicable to something in the real world; namely, the mollusks of Lake Turkana, does this constitute unbelief (kufr) by the standards of Islam? I don't think so.

With respect to evolution, the knowledge claim that Allah has brought one sort of being out of another is not intrinsically impossible ((a) above) because it is not self-contradictory. And as to whether it is (b), "impossible because of Allah having informed us that it cannot occur", it would seem to me that we have two different cases, that of man, and that of the rest of creation.

and

Other Species
As for other cases, change from one sort of thing to another does not seem to contradict revelation, for Allah says,
"O people: Fear your Lord, who created you from one soul [Adam, upon whom be peace] and created from it its mate [his wife Hawa], and spread forth from them many men and women" (Qur'an 4:1),
and also says, concerning the metamorphosis of a disobedient group of Bani Isra'il into apes,
"When they were too arrogant to [desist from] what they had been forbidden, We said to them, 'Be you apes, humiliated'" (Qur'an 7:166).
and in a hadith, "There shall be groups of people from my community who shall consider fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful: groups shall camp beside a high mountain, whom a shepherd returning to in the evening with one of their herds shall approach for something he needs, and they shall tell him, 'Come back tomorrow.' Allah shall destroy them in the night, bringing down the mountain upon them, and transforming others into apes and swine until the Day of Judgement." (Sahih al-Bukhari. 9 vols. Cairo 1313/1895. Reprint (9 vols. in 3). Beirut: Dar al-Jil, n.d., 7.138: 5590). Most Islamic scholars have understood these transformations literally, which shows that Allah's changing one thing into another (again, in other than the origin of man) has not been traditionally considered to be contrary to the teachings of Islam. Indeed, the daily miracle of nutrition, the sustenance Allah provides for His creatures, in which one creature is transformed into another by being eaten, may be seen in the food chains that make up the economy of our natural world, as well as our own plates.

If, as in the theory of evolution, we conjoin with this possibility the factors of causality, gradualism, mutation, and adaptation, it does not seem to me to add anything radically different to these other forms of change. For Islamic tenets of faith do not deny causal relations as such, but rather that causes have effects in and of themselves, for to believe this is to ascribe a co-sharer to Allah in His actions.

and a conclusion of:

To summarize the answer to your question thus far, belief in macro-evolutionary transformation and variation of non-human species does not seem to me to entail kufr (unbelief) or shirk (ascribing co-sharers to Allah) unless one also believes that such transformation came about by random mutation and natural selection, understanding these adjectives as meaning causal independence from the will of Allah. (note this is not denying that natural selection/random mutation could not occur, but that it cannot be used to say that it can explain life God-independantly - so rather that they were God agented)

Summary of Islamic Conclusions
Allah alone is Master of Existence. He alone causes all that is to be and not to be. Causes are without effect in themselves, but rather both cause and effect are created by Him. The causes and the effects of all processes, including those through which plant and animal species are individuated, are His work alone. To ascribe efficacy to anything but His action, whether believing that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them, is to ascribe associates to Allah (shirk). Such beliefs seem to be entailed in the literal understanding of "natural selection" and "random mutation," and other evolutionary concepts, unless we understand these processes as figurative causes, while realizing that Allah alone is the agent. This is apart from the consideration of whether they are true or not.
As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.

source, I Can't Quote it all BUT its a good read if you have time, is a modern approach and not just a "its a theory, you have no proof, shutup" article: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

So, from what I gather, Quran denies that apes >> Humans, in simple terms. Every other branch of evolution, has not been touched upon on the Quran, which would mean that evidences such as fossil, cannot not really contradict Quran.

It also mentions that, any adaptations/evolution that does occur - does not make that God-Independant as it is not the absolute - and the means for it to occur to begin with was God, God being the agent.

If anyone wishes to correct me please do, I would not like to claim total confidence.

[Pygoscelis]

I don't understand how people can give that excuse for not beliving in God. Just because we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't see air but we know it exists..we can't see love we know that exists...

Absolutely correct.

Just because we can't see the invisible aliens who sit on our shoulders doesn't mean they don't exist.

I have never heard an atheist claim that God doesn't exist because we can't see him. That would be nonsensical.

To any atheist, both God and the aliens on the shoulder could exist... We atheists just don't have any reason to believe that they do. Neither appears to impact our lives in any way. And claims about them appear to be invented by other people. There are also equally plausible competing ideas such as Gods who want the exact opposite things of us.

The comparison we atheists often give of God(s) to celestial tea pots, IPUs, flying spaghetti monsters etc, may sound offensive to believers, but they are not meant as insults. They are meant to give believers an understanding of how atheists truly view the idea of specified Gods.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not us making fun of you. It is us trying to show you how extraordiary your claims are to somebody without the evidence for them you apparently have.

[Sheba]

Peace,

But there is verifiable proof available that God exists...does anyone wish to learn how?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

source, I Can't Quote it all BUT its a good read if you have time, is a modern approach and not just a "its a theory, you have no proof, shutup" article

LOL ! Nice one, i like those type of articles :D

[ranma1/2]

Peace,

But there is verifiable proof available that God exists...does anyone wish to learn how?

sure.
and you mean evidence right? proof is for math.

[Pygoscelis]

Peace,

But there is verifiable proof available that God exists...does anyone wish to learn how?

You've got no more proof that your specified God exists than I have that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. Show me otherwise.

[Trumble]

Peace,

But there is verifiable proof available that God exists...does anyone wish to learn how?

No there isn't, or anything even vaguely resembling it. Were there, I think folks might actually be very surprised at the rate at which 'atheists' would disappear.

[Sheba]

I am rather suprised at people saying something does not exist before checking out the evidence for it! Ranma 1/2 stated math is proof...that's exactely the science that our Creator has used to prove that the Quran is from God. I do not mean the "good read" of the Da Vinci code either.

The Quran is written in a way...proven by math....that this scripture CANNOT be sent by anyone other than the Creator.

Yes, it will give proof to all those disbelievers...but some don't want to learn the truth. God does not force anyone to believe in Him, but the truth is there for all those who wish the right path.

[Pygoscelis]

I am rather suprised at people saying something does not exist before checking out the evidence for it!

First, please stop this annoying habbit theists have of putting words into our mouths. NOBODY here has said God does not exist. We have merely said there is no evidence for this extraordinary claim that your specific God exists so we operate like he doesn't. Its just like there really COULD be invisible aliens sitting on your shoulder right now. Its possible. But I doubt you worry much about it.

The Quran is written in a way...proven by math....that this scripture CANNOT be sent by anyone other than the Creator.

Go on...? All I see is a bunch of stories people claim to be truth. How does this prove anything?

[guyabano]

We go over and over this topic again and again. Can somebody change the disc please?

Everybody has his beliefs, that doesn't make people more superior towards others. The Aztecs had theirs Gods, the Maya, the Egyptians, and so on. There is no God, in best case, there are Gods ! If you would have said that Allah is the only true God, well Aztecs would have chopped off your head for blasphemy.
Allah might be a God, but not the God.
Didn't people in Pre-Islamic Era also not believe in more than 350 different Gods?

So why this permanent Religion Bashing? Can we not simply coexist in peace?

[Malaikah]

Living in peace doesn't mean we have to denounce our own religion!

It is impossible for Allah to be a God, because then that means Islam is wrong and there is no Allah at all! Allah is the God.

This is our belief, and we don't need to reject this belief in order to live in peace with others! :thumbs_up

[Sheba]

First, please stop this annoying habbit theists have of putting words into our mouths. NOBODY here has said God does not exist. We have merely said there is no evidence for this extraordinary claim that your specific God exists so we operate like he doesn't. Its just like there really COULD be invisible aliens sitting on your shoulder right now. Its possible. But I doubt you worry much about it.



Go on...? All I see is a bunch of stories people claim to be truth. How does this prove anything?

I was suprised at the fact that people have not checked out our Creator's claim for proof and not "putting words into our mouths". If you believe, or not believe is of no importance to me...but it will be to you.

My intention was simply to give you the proof you demand. If you chose to check it out that would be to your benefit. If not, to your loss..the choice is yours.


Do you wish to learn, or do you wish to mock?

[guyabano]

Living in peace doesn't mean we have to denounce our own religion!

It is impossible for Allah to be a God, because then that means Islam is wrong and there is no Allah at all! Allah is the God.

This is our belief, and we don't need to reject this belief in order to live in peace with others! :thumbs_up

No, Islam is not wrong. It is just a religion among others, not better, not worsier.

[ranma1/2]

I am rather suprised at people saying something does not exist before checking out the evidence for it! Ranma 1/2 stated math is proof...that's exactely the science that our Creator has used to prove that the Quran is from God. I do not mean the "good read" of the Da Vinci code either.

The Quran is written in a way...proven by math....that this scripture CANNOT be sent by anyone other than the Creator.

Yes, it will give proof to all those disbelievers...but some don't want to learn the truth. God does not force anyone to believe in Him, but the truth is there for all those who wish the right path.

so what evidence do you have?

many books you can find math in them.
Please provide this evidence.
Heck lets say for a moment that there is special scripture, why not aliens, people from the future, monsters named bob, the GFSM...etc..

of course i dont see anything special so far but i will wait..

(starts holding breath.)

[Sheba]

Rather than provide small examples may I suggest you visit the following websites.

The first is the starting point, the second far more advanced.

www.---------------/miracle

www.ultimatemathematics.com

[ranma1/2]

at best it seems to be looking for patterns and numerology.

one part where they were talking about the number 19 and they saidthe letters 1 and 9 look the same alll over the world was laughable.

I guess Japan and china arent in this world.

Still waiting for evidence.

[Trumble]

I was suprised at the fact that people have not checked out our Creator's claim for proof and not "putting words into our mouths". If you believe, or not believe is of no importance to me...but it will be to you.

My intention was simply to give you the proof you demand. If you chose to check it out that would be to your benefit. If not, to your loss..the choice is yours.

Do you wish to learn, or do you wish to mock?

'Learning' involves checking out both sides of the story.

Nobody is trying to 'mock' anybody.. it's just we all (I suspect) have checked it, and all other such 'proofs', out - and find it to be nothing of the sort. You hang around here a while, and you get to see all of it.

You can visit an Islamic site and see what appears to be a reasonable argument. However, you can also visit an agnostic/atheistic, or even Christian site in some cases, and see an equally convincing argument that the Islamic argument is bunkum. In neither case, if you check and research them with reasonable care, do you find 'proof'. So you are left with two arguments presenting evidence, and all you can do is weigh them up and decide which evidence you consider strongest. Which gets chosen depends pretty much on the view you had in the first place... and hence evidence a muslim would find convincing is nothing of the sort to an atheist. It's much easier to accept something as 'proof' of the existence of God IF you believe God existed before you even considered it!

[Pygoscelis]

My intention was simply to give you the proof you demand. If you chose to check it out that would be to your benefit. If not, to your loss..the choice is yours.

All i see is something similar to pyramidology. Ever checked that out? Does it make you a believer in ancient egyptian myths?

[asadxyz]

All i see is something similar to pyramidology. Ever checked that out? Does it make you a believer in ancient egyptian myths?

Only an atheist can have such an irrational thought that "design can exist without a designer".
Not seeing a thing does not mean that it does not exist.
No one has seen the "atom" and its components.But they exist because we know through indirect evidenc.
.

[wilberhum]

Only an atheist can have such an irrational thought that "design can exist without a designer"..

You live in a very small world, don't you. I don't believe in "Design" eather, so add this agnostic to you "Hate List".

Not seeing a thing does not mean that it does not exist.

Of course not. The thread creater was "fighting windmills".

No one has seen the "atom" and its components.But they exist because we know through indirect evidenc.

Of course you are right. That is why this whole thered is just bumb.

[Trumble]

Only an atheist can have such an irrational thought that "design can exist without a designer".

Same old strawman. And the same old reply, as it doesn't seem to have sunk in the last time. No (halfway intelligent) atheist thinks "design can exist without a designer". By definition a 'design' must have a designer. What atheists actually think is that there is no 'design' to require a designer.

Got it?

Not seeing a thing does not mean that it does not exist

Nobody would disagree with that. But, again, nobody has said that not seeing a thing means it doesn't exist... its another strawman. But not seeing something doesn't exactly go a long way towards 'proving' that it does exist, does it?

[ranma1/2]

still waiting for evidence. (continues holding breath.)

[Pygoscelis]

Only an atheist can have such an irrational thought that "design can exist without a designer".
Not seeing a thing does not mean that it does not exist.
No one has seen the "atom" and its components.But they exist because we know through indirect evidenc.
.

You may want to read some of the thread before putting your foot in your mouth like that.

And um.. such blatant bigotry like "only an atheist can have such an irrational thought"... are we supposed to read beyond that and respect anything else you may have to say? What if I were to tell you that only a muslim could resort to terrorism. That wouldn't go over too well eh?

[Sheba]

at best it seems to be looking for patterns and numerology.

one part where they were talking about the number 19 and they saidthe letters 1 and 9 look the same alll over the world was laughable.

I guess Japan and china arent in this world.

Still waiting for evidence.

Peace Ranma,

I agree with you, that statement was incorrect. However, just because of one person's error does not negate the mathematical proof of the Quran. The proof was put in place by God, the mistake was made by man.

The proof is there for all to see and verify, look past that error and read on.

[ranma1/2]

Peace Ranma,

I agree with you, that statement was incorrect. However, just because of one person's error does not negate the mathematical proof of the Quran. The proof was put in place by God, the mistake was made by man.

The proof is there for all to see and verify, look past that error and read on.

ive read it and at best its evidence for certain patterns and that people can find patterns in anything. "numerology and all"

Please provide evidence as asked earlier. All i consider this is to be nonsense.

[Sheba]

ive read it and at best its evidence for certain patterns and that people can find patterns in anything. "numerology and all"

Please provide evidence as asked earlier. All i consider this is to be nonsense.

Peace Ranma,

Have you read the ultimatemathematic site as well? This is a extremely advanced site and would take some reading/study. If you have read this and still disagree then I would withdraw from all related topics as you will never see God's proofs even though they are with you in EVERYTHING you do.

[Woodrow]

We are taking a break from arguments and non-constructive debate.

:threadclo