/* */

PDA

View Full Version : GOD in the eyes of Science: Possibility or Necessity



أحمد
10-06-2005, 11:42 AM
:sl:

:) The new approach of Science towards the concept of GOD . . .

:) What do you think about the new approach?

:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ameeratul Layl
10-06-2005, 11:46 AM
:sl:

I dont get the question :-[ Do u think u cud re word it? :p

Allah ma3akum :sister:
Reply

أحمد
10-06-2005, 11:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ameeratul Layl
:sl:

I dont get the question :-[ Do u think u cud re word it? :p

Allah ma3akum :sister:
:sl:

:) I just want to know if you want to say anything about it (a bit like feedback), except that I didn't make the article . . . :thumbs_up

:w:
Reply

beans
10-11-2005, 07:08 PM
salams, its interesting, the way science and religion now a days at least it seems that they've become more integrated, before it was like so black and white i don't know i like the change.
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
root
10-12-2005, 09:15 PM
God and Science are as apart as black and white is.
Reply

Idris
10-12-2005, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
God and Science are as apart as black and white is.
Not true. The reason why the Muslims were so great in science is cuz they believed in God. To be a Muslim is to be a scientist. Nature is the creation of God. And in nature God has planted His patterns eg Genetics, the cell, Maths, Physics, biochemistry etc. To discover these patterns is to gloriify Allah and that is why the Muslims have done wonders in science :D
Reply

root
10-12-2005, 10:14 PM
To be a Muslim is to be a scientist.
Science observes and on the basis of it's observations makes predictions and then tests those predictions. Could you please post me the relevent peer reviewed scientific paper that observes and predicts "God".

True, religion and science can to a certain extent integrate but the title of the thread states God and science, and as we all know the God one subscribes to would depend on the religion you follow.

So God is no way scientific and that's a scientific fact!
Reply

Idris
10-12-2005, 10:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Science observes and on the basis of it's observations makes predictions and then tests those predictions. Could you please post me the relevent peer reviewed scientific paper that observes and predicts "God".

True, religion and science can to a certain extent integrate but the title of the thread states God and science, and as we all know the God one subscribes to would depend on the religion you follow.

So God is no way scientific and that's a scientific fact!

The scienticfic paper you seek is the Quran. Read it and understand it :)

Where's your proof that God doesn't exist's?. Surely if God exists He is the creator of all things including science. Surly a creation must have a Creator.
Reply

Ameeratul Layl
10-13-2005, 10:49 AM
:sl:

Islam and science go hand in hand.

Allah ma3akum
Reply

Ameeratul Layl
10-13-2005, 12:12 PM
Hello.

Wat religion do you follow if u dont mind me asking.

Kind Regards.
Reply

root
10-13-2005, 12:17 PM
Wat religion do you follow if u dont mind me asking.
I don't mind at all, I have no religous nomination.
Reply

Ameeratul Layl
10-13-2005, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
I don't mind at all, I have no religous nomination.

Peace.
Well, its nice your intersted in Islam.

Kind regards.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-13-2005, 01:44 PM
:sl:
Let's leave the scientific miracles of the Qur'an for the other thread. This thread is for the concept of God and the limits of the scientific approach.
:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
10-13-2005, 01:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl: Br. Ahmed Waheed,
I'm curious as to why you've title this article, "The New Approach of Science towards the Concept of God' since it only consists of a critique of the intelligent design theory.

:w:
Reply

أحمد
07-12-2006, 01:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl: Br. Ahmed Waheed,
I'm curious as to why you've title this article, "The New Approach of Science towards the Concept of God' since it only consists of a critique of the intelligent design theory.

:w:
:sl:

The link I gave before seems to have become currupt; it keeps going to a different topic, just as you have pointed out. Ithink this should take you to the correct one: http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...od_000713.html

:w:
Reply

wilberhum
07-12-2006, 05:53 PM
God and Science go together like Fish and bicycles.
If for no other reason, science if about the physical and god is about the spiritual. There is nothing scientific about god.
ID is just another theist theory and has nothing to do with science.
Reply

Ameeratul Layl
07-12-2006, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
God and Science go together like Fish and bicycles.
If for no other reason, science if about the physical and god is about the spiritual. There is nothing scientific about god.
ID is just another theist theory and has nothing to do with science.

:sl:
God and science go hand in hand.

peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-12-2006, 06:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ameeratul Layl
:sl:
God and science go hand in hand.

peace
Yes, just like a fish and a bicycle.
Give me one scientific fact about god.
Reply

Ameeratul Layl
07-12-2006, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Yes, just like a fish and a bicycle.
Give me one scientific fact about god.

no, lets put it another way. Give me one that isn't!
Reply

wilberhum
07-12-2006, 06:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ameeratul Layl
no, lets put it another way. Give me one that isn't!
You can always tell when someone has lost and won't admit it.
Water freezes. Notice the lack of "god" in that statement.
You flunked the chalange.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-12-2006, 08:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

:) The new approach of Science towards the concept of GOD . . .

:) What do you think about the new approach?

:w:
You can’t use science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

In fact if you perform test in trying to prove the existence of God, it would automatically be disregarded as science because the test would have only been preformed with some expectations.

You see, if you are trying to prove the existence of God, you might unknowingly be picking and choosing data, test, and coming up with bias results.

The point of science is to figure out the physical world without any kind of outside sources or personal feelings because those could alter the results.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-13-2006, 02:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You can always tell when someone has lost and won't admit it.
Water freezes. Notice the lack of "god" in that statement.
You flunked the chalange.
-Why does it freeze?
-By the absence of energy (heat).
-Why does the absence of energy make it freeze?
-Because the particles won't have any energy to extract energy from.
-Then that means freezing is neutral, freezing is the absense of action.
And thus the real event we should be investigating is "ice melting" rather then "water freezing". So lets try again:

-Why does ice melt?
-Because the energy causes the particles to move, and the movement brakes certain bounds in between molecules.
-Why does energy make particles move?
-Well particles movement is related to their energy levels as we have noticed that from empirical testing.
-Cute, but that doesn't answer me WHY?

I'll give you another (easyer) on:
-Why do apples fall from a tree?
-Because of gravity.
-what is gravity?
-Gravity is a force existing between any two objects with mass that creates an attraction between those two objects.
-Why do objects with mass attract one another?
(there's two answers: )

general relativity: Objects follow geodesic paths in the curvature of spacetime, which in their turn are created by mass.
Question for gen.rel.: why/how do objects with mass cause geodesic paths into space time?

Quantum mechanics: Objects atract each other because of the mesenger particles (gravitons) that they send t one another.
Question for quantum mech: why do messenger particlescause this movement with object?


I think you'll get the idea right?
You forgot something very essential. Science is based on emperical testing. It doesn't tell us WHY things happens it tells us HOW things happen. Religion tells us WHY things happen and not HOW (at least not in detail). So they are two ways of looking at the same thing and they do go hand in hand, the difrence is one tells you why and the other tells you how.


For the sake of argument, try to look at it from the other perspective for a sec. God manifests his laws. Mankind is witness. God is consequent and always acts in the same way. Mankind is witness. Mankind starts to recognise paterns in these consequent acts of God. Mankind starts to find mathemetical ways to describe the way God manifests his law. Mankind calls this the science of nature, since this is the nature of everything they know. Mankind claims they no longer need God, they got science now.
Reply

Malaikah
07-13-2006, 02:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
For the sake of argument, try to look at it from the other perspective for a sec. God manifests his laws. Mankind is witness. God is consequent and always acts in the same way. Mankind is witness. Mankind starts to recognise paterns in these consequent acts of God. Mankind starts to find mathemetical ways to describe the way God manifests his law. Mankind calls this the science of nature, since this is the nature of everything they know. Mankind claims they no longer need God, they got science now.
:sl:

Exactly.

In my opinion, science and God are related in the sense that God created this universe and the physical laws it follows. When we study science, all we are doing is trying to understand the world that God created.

But at the same time, we cant use science to understand the nature of God, but only the world he created, which certainly can assist in ones appreciation of God when one realises how complex and amazing the world actually is.

Also, to have an understanding of religion (i prefer to talk of Islam), you do not need to understand science to be a great Muslim and make it to paradise inshaallah. But the study of science with out the belief of God, i think, is limited becuase even though concepts about the world around us can be explained by scientific theories, they are shallow with out the appreciation that it came to be this way through the will of God.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-13-2006, 07:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
-Why does it freeze?
-By the absence of energy (heat).
-Why does the absence of energy make it freeze?
-Because the particles won't have any energy to extract energy from.
-Then that means freezing is neutral, freezing is the absense of action.
And thus the real event we should be investigating is "ice melting" rather then "water freezing". So lets try again:

-Why does ice melt?
-Because the energy causes the particles to move, and the movement brakes certain bounds in between molecules.
-Why does energy make particles move?
-Well particles movement is related to their energy levels as we have noticed that from empirical testing.
-Cute, but that doesn't answer me WHY?

I'll give you another (easyer) on:
-Why do apples fall from a tree?
-Because of gravity.
-what is gravity?
-Gravity is a force existing between any two objects with mass that creates an attraction between those two objects.
-Why do objects with mass attract one another?
(there's two answers: )

general relativity: Objects follow geodesic paths in the curvature of spacetime, which in their turn are created by mass.
Question for gen.rel.: why/how do objects with mass cause geodesic paths into space time?

Quantum mechanics: Objects atract each other because of the mesenger particles (gravitons) that they send t one another.
Question for quantum mech: why do messenger particlescause this movement with object?


I think you'll get the idea right?
You forgot something very essential. Science is based on emperical testing. It doesn't tell us WHY things happens it tells us HOW things happen. Religion tells us WHY things happen and not HOW (at least not in detail). So they are two ways of looking at the same thing and they do go hand in hand, the difrence is one tells you why and the other tells you how.


For the sake of argument, try to look at it from the other perspective for a sec. God manifests his laws. Mankind is witness. God is consequent and always acts in the same way. Mankind is witness. Mankind starts to recognise paterns in these consequent acts of God. Mankind starts to find mathemetical ways to describe the way God manifests his law. Mankind calls this the science of nature, since this is the nature of everything they know. Mankind claims they no longer need God, they got science now.
I like your post! It provoked a lot of thought out of me.

Check this out – Sciences and mathematics are ways to describe how the universe functions, physical laws. And for some odd reason, as people better understand how these laws work, they disregard as being Godly. However, because the universe has an infinite number of laws to understand and since every answered question provokes more questions, there will always be something that is not scientifically and mathematically describable; therefore the universe will always be considered Godly.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-13-2006, 10:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by iLL_LeaT
I like your post! It provoked a lot of thought out of me.

Check this out – Sciences and mathematics are ways to describe how the universe functions, physical laws. And for some odd reason, as people better understand how these laws work, they disregard as being Godly. However, because the universe has an infinite number of laws to understand and since every answered question provokes more questions, there will always be something that is not scientifically and mathematically describable; therefore the universe will always be considered Godly.
Nice view. This reminds me of a comparison I once read. Imagen two-dimensional creatures living in a two dimensional iron plate. there is a person shooting bullets trough that plate. Now the creatures can only notice the sudden apearence of aa metal object, the sudden disapearence of it, and then teh hole it leaves behind. If these holes would be shot in a certain pattern, they would however be able to construct laws about it. Perhaps even predict where and when the next hole will be shot. But none of those calculations wil bring them any closer to the notion of a threedimensional person with a gun firing bullets in their world.
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 05:32 PM
All these nice meaningless posts. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Give me one scientific fact about god.
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 05:35 PM
Could you like expand on the question?!
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
All these nice meaningless posts. I'm still waiting for an answer.
something cant be made out of nothing, therefore a primary source is needed. theres your scientific mumbo jumbo!
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 05:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
something cant be made out of nothing, therefore a primary source is needed. theres your scientific mumbo jumbo!
So what was the primary source for god?
Is god nothing?
Why coulden't some form of matter always existed?
You still miss the point. There are no scientific facts about god.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So what was the primary source for god?.
this very question shows you have no understanding of what God is.

God is the first and the last and the allmighty. Can you really call that question valid?

Why coulden't some form of matter always existed?
becoz that would defy your science :-\
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 05:49 PM
So what was the primary source for god?
Nothing.

Is god nothing?
God is everything.

Why coulden't some form of matter always existed?
God has always 'existed' and will always 'exist'.

You still miss the point. There are no scientific facts about god.
YOU still miss the point, God is BEYOND science.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 05:52 PM
^ MashAllah :)
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 05:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
Could you like expand on the question?!
The question is quite simple. There are scientific facts/proofs/findings. There are scientific theories about many things. These theories are not just, gee I think statements, and they are conclusions backed up by thousands of findings. So they are based on facts. I can prove water boils. I can prove that pressure will change the point at which water boils.
So what scientific statement can I make about god.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 05:55 PM
wilberhum, heres a thought, try making something out of nothing, just try it. Seriously !
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
YOU still miss the point, God is BEYOND science.
No, I didn't miss the point. That is exactly my point.
[S]There is nothing scientific about god.[/S]
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 05:57 PM
There are scientific theories about many things.
Uh -huh. Yeh.

There are scientific facts/proofs/findings. There are scientific theories about many things. These theories are not just, gee I think statements, and they are conclusions backed up by thousands of findings.
Yup.

I can prove water boils. I can prove that pressure will change the point at which water boils.
I'm sure you can.

So what scientific statement can I make about god.
Have u seen the Qur'an by any chance? Have u read it? Can u see the scientific miracles in there? Is that not enough for you? If it isn't then I guess u think that Allah did not send down the Qur'an (astagfirullah).
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
wilberhum, heres a thought, try making something out of nothing, just try it. Seriously !
Wilberhum, You try creating a human and breathing life into it. Just try, and show me the results. Which won't be very good I suspect.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 05:59 PM
Edit
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 05:59 PM
LOL i edited it akhee.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 06:02 PM
so did i :hiding:
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
Have u seen the Qur'an by any chance?
Circular logic is not scientific nor is it proof.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Circular logic is not scientific nor is it proof.
science is only catching up with the Quran, so that makes your question invalid!
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
Wilberhum, You try creating a human and breathing life into it. Just try, and show me the results. Which won't be very good I suspect.
No, I'm just saying that there is nothing scientific about god. No more, no less.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
No, I'm just saying that there is nothing scientific about god. No more, no less.
your perception is flawed and its likely you will say vice versa to us. This is going nowhere, Allah guides who he wills.


:peace:
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
science is only catching up with the Quran, so that makes your question invalid!
That is what you believe. But your belief is not scientific.
There is nothing scientific about god.
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
your perception is flawed and its likely you will say vice versa to us. This is going nowhere, Allah guides who he wills.


:peace:
Then please give me a scientific fact so that I can see my flaw.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 06:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is nothing scientific about god.
im sry but i see your perception is completely flawed.

if you want proof then you must read the Quran in arabic wiv an open mind.
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
im sry but i see your perception is completely flawed.

if you want proof then you must read the Quran in arabic wiv an open mind.
Again, circular logic is not proof. You can't use an unproven as proof.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Again, circular logic is not proof. You can't use an unproven as proof.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...science++islam

enjoy
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
I can't witch the video untill tonight. So I will not be able to comment on the content till tomorrow.
But all of this kind of stuff I have seen have little conection to reality.
I hope that it isn't more of Harun Yahya's junk.
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 07:34 PM
There is nothing scientific about god.
So the miracles in the Qur'an just appeared by chance?!

I hope that it isn't more of Harun Yahya's junk.
Excuse me? :omg:
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 07:46 PM
So the miracles in the Qur'an just appeared by chance?!
I have read about a dozen. The only miracle I saw was that some one would believe any of it.

Excuse me? (about Harun Yahya's junk)
No excuse him. He is a insult to all Muslims and anyone with an intelligent open mind.
But lets not change the topic. I still want a scientific statement about god.
That does not include Harun Yahya's “Pseudo Science”.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
No excuse him. He is a insult to all Muslims and anyone with an intelligent open mind.
But lets not change the topic. I still want a scientific statement about god.
That does not include Harun Yahya's “Pseudo Science”.
that link i gave you is by Dr.Zakir Naik.

Thats right DOCTOR, a man of science whos excelled in his field.
if he cant show you the answer to what you ask we certainly cant. Please come back after watching both parts of the video so we can continue :)
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 07:49 PM
I have read about a dozen. The only miracle I saw was that some one would believe any of it.
Could u please enlighten me?

He is a insult to all Muslims and anyone with an intelligent open mind.
How rude.

Dr. Zakir Naik's Lecture - Quran And Modern Science Conflict Or Reconciliation

Scroll to the bottom of the page, download, sit back and enjoy! :)
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
Could u please enlighten me?



How rude.

Dr. Zakir Naik's Lecture - Quran And Modern Science Conflict Or Reconciliation

Scroll to the bottom of the page, download, sit back and enjoy! :)
umm i already kinda gave him the link, nice one newayz :thumbs_up
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
that link i gave you is by Dr.Zakir Naik.

Thats right DOCTOR, a man of science whos excelled in his field.
if he cant show you the answer to what you ask we certainly cant. Please come back after watching both parts of the video so we can continue :)
I know, I'm looking forward to it.
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 07:53 PM
So u respect Dr. Zakir Naik then :)
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 07:54 PM
Could u please enlighten me?
Not if you can't read with an open mind.
Reply

wilberhum
07-13-2006, 07:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
So u respect Dr. Zakir Naik then :)
I don't know anything about him. I'm hoping to do some research before I see the viedo.
Reply

------
07-13-2006, 07:55 PM
My mind is so open I'm scared something will drop into it :rollseyes
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-13-2006, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I don't know anything about him. I'm hoping to do some research before I see the viedo.
i guarantee that you will be pleased with what you find sir :)
Reply

wilberhum
07-14-2006, 06:49 PM
Abd'Majid

Sorry, I was totally unimpressed.

This is what I found on the web.
Dr. Zakir Naik, is the President of the Islamic Research Foundation, and has spoken extensively on the topics of Islam and Comparative Religion. He was born on October 18, 1965 in Mumbia (Bombay) India. He holds a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) from the University of Mumbai. Dr. Naik has an ability to quote extensive passages of the Qur'an, as well as other books, from memory.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik
They had a lot of information, both pro and con.

This was all the unbiased information I could find. I checked over a hundred of the more than 13 thousand hits. Almost everything fell into one of two categories, buy his stuff or here is my bias opinion. Of course the later contained pro and anti, but only two that were neutral with the primary purpose of providing unbiased information.

I was disappointed to see no scientific credentials.
I found this interesting note about the Islamic Research Foundation
Apart from propagation of religious beliefs, it is not clear what research this foundation has done.
I read a posting on “Dr. Zakir Naik explanations & Debates”, which has one of his writings.
“CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST” I found his “LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD” never really answered the question. The “Pen Book” analogy I thought was just plain silly.
“QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE” with the “If a new object or a machine” has nothing to do with science and none of his arguments would hold any credibility to a non-believer. He falls 9 yards short of “to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.” You would first have to believe that the Qur’an is a revelation of God before you accept any of it. Nothing but classical circular logic.
“THEORY OF PROBABILITY” more empty stuff. I don’t care how many dice you have. When I look out and see every one of them are sixes. That is not proof that you didn’t throw them.
“CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN”, again arguments that only a believer will accept.

I found his work as theist propaganda for theists. I don’t have any problem with that and there is nothing wrong with propaganda. It is simply spreading your point of view. It just doesn’t have any scientific value. I would venture a guess that at least 99% of the non-believers would find anything he states as creditable science.
It all falls under the category of “Preaching to the Choir”.

As far as the video was concerned, it was much of the same old stuff.
If A not = B and B not = C then A = C. So many claims that just don’t hold water. There is no way they would have been a ware of what many knew and things that any butcher would have seen.

It is good for “preaching to the choir’ but It just isn’t credible science.

So back to my original request.

Give me on scientific fact about god.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-15-2006, 09:11 AM
wilberhum why dont you judge for yourself? Check out the video, i feel the opinion you have posted seems biased because they are passing judgement. Do they have proof that IRF have done no research. i actually have seen proof that they have done EXTENSIVE research due to the ammount they know!

so please check it out.

:peace:
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 07:37 PM
Abd'Majid
why dont you judge for yourself? Check out the video, i feel the opinion you have posted seems biased because they are passing judgement.
I did judge for my self. As I said “As far as the video was concerned, it was much of the same old stuff”.

Do they have proof that IRF have done no research.
About:
Apart from propagation of religious beliefs, it is not clear what research this foundation has done.
I see no indication that they stated any kind of “proof”. It sounds to me like they are saying they have not seen anything but propaganda and imply that they have not done any extensive research.
I just thought it was an interesting opinion.

Now just think about it. If someone could prove god, it would be in press headlines all over the world and athleticism would almost become extent and if it was truly proven that the Quran was from god, almost ever theist in the world would become Muslim.
The fact is that he only has an argument and there is no proof.

If I’m so wrong, why haven’t I seen a scientific fact about god?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 07:45 PM
no-one believes what other people witness/believe/experience when it comes to religion.
Theres many proofs many people have had but most people out of ignorance reject them.
well wilberhum, looks like you cant understand the proof without reading the quran. thats a shame.
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 08:13 PM
Abd'Majid
no-one believes what other people witness/believe/experience when it comes to religion.
Well your half right, that’s a start. When it comes to articles of faith, I believe that you believe. When it comes to the rest of life I think one person is as credible as the next, at least until they show me that I have made a judgment error. When someone says they have proof and don’t provide any, I modify my judgement.
I take no issue with your religious beliefs, as long as you state that it is a religious belief. But I do take issue when some one clames proof when there is none.

Theres many proofs many people have had but most people out of ignorance reject them.
About god, there is no proof to reject. It is ignorance to accept an argument as proof.

well wilberhum, looks like you cant understand the proof without reading the quran. thats a shame.
When I want to understand the definition of “Proof”, I go to a dictionary.

You keep telling me I’m wrong instead of giving me a “Scientific Fact about god”. Why is that? The answer is simple, there is no “Proof” there is only belief.
Reply

czgibson
07-17-2006, 08:26 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
The answer is simple, there is no “Proof” there is only belief.
I've found myself saying this again and again on this forum. For some reason, Muslims believe that the existence of god (and, by extension, the Islamic religion) can somehow be proven. As far as I know, this is the only mainstream religion whose adherents make this claim.

This leads me to suspect that Muslims must use a different definition of the word 'proof' to the rest of humanity, since it is obvious that if any proof of god's existence did actually exist, then everyone alive would be a theist, just as everyone alive believes that black is not white.

Peace
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You keep telling me I’m wrong instead of giving me a “Scientific Fact about god”. Why is that? The answer is simple, there is no “Proof” there is only belief.
if your sincere in what you ask then please read the arabic quran and try to understand its meanings, read many different translations it might help. Trust me you'll find your proof !
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Abd'Majid
Does the difference between faith and fact totally escape you?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Abd'Majid
Does the difference between faith and fact totally escape you?
ok let me try to explain it,
to me ok "to me", the fact that the prophet (saws) showed signs from 1400 years ago of whats recently being discovered and for every sign to be true is a clear proof, an evidence.

So i would call that a fact wouldnt you?
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
ok let me try to explain it,
to me ok "to me", the fact that the prophet (saws) showed signs from 1400 years ago of whats recently being discovered and for every sign to be true is a clear proof, an evidence.

So i would call that a fact wouldnt you?
No! Many of those things were known. Many twist what is written that it is a total distortion. I have never read any “Scientific” statement that has not been debunked. Also I find it a sad thing to try to turn an “Holy Book” into a “Science Book”.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
No! Many of those things were known. Many twist what is written that it is a total distortion. I have never read any “Scientific” statement that has not been debunked. Also I find it a sad thing to try to turn an “Holy Book” into a “Science Book”.
*sigh* well i guess to you is your way and to me is mine.
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
*sigh* well i guess to you is your way and to me is mine.
But what about that Scientific Fact?
This thread is about "GOD in the eyes of Science". It isn't about the Quran or anything else. It is about god and science. No one has yet even come close to giving a scientific fact about god. I think this confirms this.

[MAD]Give me one scientific fact about god.[/MAD]
Reply

czgibson
07-17-2006, 09:22 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
[MAD]Give me one scientific fact about god.[/MAD]
How about this?: it can be established with a high degree of certainty that millions of people throughout history have believed in the existence of god despite there being no evidence to support this view.

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


How about this?: it can be established with a high degree of certainty that millions of people throughout history have believed in the existence of god despite there being no evidence to support this view.

Peace
You win the prize, "with a high degree of certainty".
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 10:21 PM
hmm, so none of you have experienced anything in life to make you slightly lean towards "just perhaps, maybe there is a God"?

just out of curiosity?
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 10:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
hmm, so none of you have experienced anything in life to make you slightly lean towards "just perhaps, maybe there is a God"?

just out of curiosity?
I believe in god. I also realize that if a matter of belief. But when it comes to Proof, there is none. You see, I understand the difference between faith and fact.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-17-2006, 10:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I believe in god. I also realize that if a matter of belief. But when it comes to Proof, there is none. You see, I understand the difference between faith and fact.
I apologise, i guess i just feel that the existence of God is just too clear. Forgive me but i find its both faith and fact.

I realise that facts always must be backed up by proof. But the Quran is proof enough for me.


:peace:
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 10:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
I apologise, i guess i just feel that the existence of God is just too clear. Forgive me but i find its both faith and fact.

I realise that facts always must be backed up by proof. But the Quran is proof enough for me.


:peace:
Please, no apology. We are all just communicating our thoughts and beliefs.
But your Quran and proof are a matter of faith. I respect that. But still it is a matter of faith.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-17-2006, 11:18 PM
The problem with facts about these days is that they only have to do with what we consider reality. Anything outside of that realm is considered not factual or scientific, it is philosophy at best.

Let me take a second to define what I think reality is. Reality is only what we know about existence. The idea of reality is ever expanding. As science evolves, and testing gets more refined and advanced, we discover and figure out new information to fit in our idea of reality. The day could come that the idea of reality stretches to the point of an afterlife and the existence of God, but as of now it does not.

Isaac Newton made a huge mistake in trying to prove the existence of God with science. Since then, science has sort of been looked at as proof that there is no God. However, if you can only test for functions of this universe, how can you possibly say there is or isn’t something outside of what humans consider reality?

I too think there is a God, but I know that is not a fact. Just because it is not a fact does not mean it is not true. And in that, there is hope!

Bottom line, there are no know facts outside of our reality.
Anything is possible. spooky!
Reply

wilberhum
07-17-2006, 11:25 PM
Agnostics rock. We seam to be a minority that understand the difference between faith and fact.
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 08:47 AM
Agnostics rock. We seam to be a minority that understand the difference between faith and fact.
Erm....no lol Muslims rock as they have the true faith.
Reply

sevgi
07-18-2006, 08:51 AM
there are two types of knowledge..that of the world which eg, science attempts to explain; and true knowledge, also of the world which islam tries to xplain...the first, however, is illuminated by the light of the latter...

sort of like the sun and the moon...the moon gets its light from the sun due to its reflective or wateva characteristics...

hope that makes sense...:)
Reply

sevgi
07-18-2006, 08:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Agnostics rock. We seam to be a minority that understand the difference between faith and fact.
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).

What does that spell???
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 08:55 AM
LOLOLOL thats getting reps!!!! ;D ;D ;D
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-18-2006, 09:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Abd'Majid

Give me on scientific fact about god.
i can try to give u ans

first u have 2 give me ans

who created science??
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 09:53 AM
He's probably going to say - humans....:rollseyes
Reply

sevgi
07-18-2006, 09:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
He's probably going to say - humans....:rollseyes
well then we wud say that humans didnt create science they applied it to the world around us(also not created by humans...)
Reply

sevgi
07-18-2006, 09:58 AM
Humans have jst found a way to use the universe for their own benefit and called it "science"
Reply

czgibson
07-18-2006, 11:07 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by sumeyye
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).
You're quite right. When asked "Does god exist?" an agnostic will say "I don't know".

I think agnosticism is a much easier position to defend than atheism, my own belief.

Incidentally, one can be an agnostic about any question; it's just that most people associate the word with the question of god's existence.



Peace
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 12:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sumeyye
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).

What does that spell???
hehe

"and when truth is shed onto falsehood, falsehood perishes for falsehood is bound to perish"


MashAllah
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 12:43 PM
so where does the word "Athiest" come from?
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 12:46 PM
Allahu Alim
Reply

czgibson
07-18-2006, 01:10 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
so where does the word "Athiest" come from?
It's also from Greek, and it uses one of the same roots as 'agnostic' - 'a' meaning 'without'.

The other part comes from the Greek word 'theos' meaning 'god', which is used as a root in words describing many faith-based persuasions. A theist is someone who believes in god; an atheist is someone who doesn't. A monotheist believes in one god, and a polytheist believes in many gods. A pantheist believes that everything is god, and theology is the study of god(s).

Check this site to find out more about the roots of modern English words:

Online Etymology Dictionary

Peace
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 01:19 PM
U've confused my poor little brain :'(

Only messin lol i gets ya ... i think :p
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 05:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
Erm....no lol Muslims rock as they have the true faith.
Of course, every religion says that. Just another part of the belief system.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Of course, every religion says that. Just another part of the belief system.
no really its the true faith :)


You try reading the Quran without being moved, no really, try it (you must understand arabic in order to do this)
Reply

------
07-18-2006, 05:48 PM
Of course, every religion says that. Just another part of the belief system.
But every religion doesn't have proof :)
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
But every religion doesn't have proof :)
we already been through this, he doesnt accept that our brilliant illiterate prophet saws obtained the Quran through divine ways and he doesnt accept that what happened 1400 years ago is being recently proven to be true...


:salamext:
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
i can try to give u ans

first u have 2 give me ans

who created science??
You are too cute. you will not answer me straight forward question until I answer loaded trick question. That way you can avoid answering my question. Why, because you have no answer.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 06:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You are too cute. you will not answer me straight forward question until I answer loaded trick question. That way you can avoid answering my question. Why, because you have no answer.
but seriously, answer that, its really interesting :eek:
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
no really its the true faith :)


You try reading the Quran without being moved, no really, try it (you must understand arabic in order to do this)
No really it is "Just another part of the belief system".
Tell me which religion claims they are not the "True Faith"?
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
But every religion doesn't have proof :)
No religion has proof. They have arguments, but no proof. That is unless you redefine proof. Make circular logic a valid form of proof. Etc. Etc.
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
we already been through this, he doesnt accept that our brilliant illiterate prophet saws obtained the Quran through divine ways and he doesnt accept that what happened 1400 years ago is being recently proven to be true...


:salamext:
You are totally correct.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-18-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You are totally correct.
but the question is why?
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
but seriously, answer that, its really interesting :eek:
I would say at this point you have answered the question. There are no scientific facts about god.
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
but the question is why?
There is the short and the long answer. The short answer is I believe that all religions are man made. For the long answer, send an email to wilberhum@hotmail.com
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 06:19 PM
I think agnosticism is the most misunderstood concept in the world.

There are always misleading statements like:
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).
And
When asked "Does god exist?" an agnostic will say "I don't know".
Unless you keep that statement relative to proof.

Agnostic; 1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known."
An agnostic can believe that god exists or not. They only agree that there is no proof and whether god exists or not it is simply a matter of faith.
Reply

wilberhum
07-18-2006, 10:03 PM
Remember when? Way back in the beginning of this thread. Its title is GOD in the eyes of Science. What was present was the ID Theory.
Let’s take a moment to do some simple science talk.
I can heat water and see what happens. I can do it a 100 times and see that the same thing keeps happening. I can take the air out of a bottle and I can see what happens. I can do it a 100 times and see that the same thing keeps happening. That is how science works.
Now add god. Can I heat god and see what happens? Can I do it 100 times and see the same thing reoccurring? Can I take god out of a bottle? Can I do it 100 times and see the same thing reoccurring? Of course not.
We define god as a spirit with no physical properties. Having no physical properties, we can not do any thing scientifically. It is that simple. There fore there are no “Scientific Facts about god”.

ID is about god. Since there is nothing scientific about god, there is nothing scientific about ID. It is simply just another Theist Theory.

Now having said that, I think there is some reasonable logic in that theory. It sure makes more since than the Adam and Eve story. So I have some faith in the Theory of ID. And I do want to emphases faith. Because it is about god, it is about faith and has nothing to do with science or provable facts.

I think teaching ID is a good idea. But it needs to be in a religion class, not in a science class. Teaching ID is a science class makes as much since as teaching algebra in a creative writing class.

There are lots of good things to be said about faith and religion.
Don’t tarnish it by trying to make it what it’s not.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-19-2006, 12:39 AM
Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable.
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-19-2006, 05:59 AM
hi wilberhum
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You are too cute. you will not answer me straight forward question until I answer loaded trick question. That way you can avoid answering my question. Why, because you have no answer.
Talking of our creator is not a straight forward thing.

I can give a example

Let say…
Someone created a calculator or anything. Does it possible for a calculator or that thing created by human talk about the human.
…...never
and if that calculator starting to think why i have no knowledge about the human.
does not it's looks silly

Allaah (swt) created us as a best creature on universe.
Does not mean u have the knowledge of our creator.

But amazing thing is that
I ask u a very simple question.
who created the science
Why doesn’t u answer it?

Thou I guess u can give the ans

Waiting for ur ans.
I promise (Allaah Willling)I give my ans about ur question.
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-19-2006, 06:16 AM
hello iLL_LeaT
format_quote Originally Posted by iLL_LeaT
Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable.
i will enjoy talking with u insAllaah
i have no problem.
go on
Reply

sevgi
07-19-2006, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
so where does the word "Athiest" come from?
The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived form a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity".
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 05:44 PM
i_m_tipu
Why doesn’t u answer it?
Because you are not interested in an answer. Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything, standard answer. God.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
i_m_tipu

Because you are not interested in an answer. Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything, standard answer. God.
if his not i certainly am interested !
Science came about ever since man began to think. If you consider the intensity of heat then you could say its man that learnt how to create devices to control that intensity (cookers - increase,decrease amount of flame). What im saying is who created the fire, if you go back to the roots you cant come to any conclusion other then God exists.

Scientific proof... science wouldnt even exist without the brain God has given to man...
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 06:36 PM
Scientific proof... science wouldnt even exist without the brain God has given to man...
Just what I said you would say.
Is this your idea of a scientific fact about god/
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Just what I said you would say.
Is this your idea of a scientific fact about god/
my idea is that God prevails over science. Is that so hard to grasp?
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
my idea is that God prevails over science. Is that so hard to grasp?
It is a very easy to grasp. It is so easy anyone can do it.
Or as in a commercial “It’s so easy that even a cave man can do it”.

Mankind has asked millions of questions to give a one word answerer to all of them will ensure that the next million questions will be answered with one word.
Using your approach, we would still not understand why water doesn’t flow up hill let alone trying to find out how stars form.

You like one word answers, which is OK. I like the answers that stretch my thinking.

I like the ones that I have to read three times and think about if for hours to begin to understand. I fascinated by the methods that were use to conclude that TRex was not a fierce predator but only a scavenger. I’m amazed that they can date things in billions of years.
Abiogenesis, what a concept. Currently it is beyond me, but I’m trying to grasp it.

So have fun with your one word answers.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 08:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I like the ones that I have to read three times and think about if for hours to begin to understand. .
^^^this is just proof that you would love to read the Qur'an.

Also:
What you have said is basically:

"Any bozo (or rather caveman) can easily state that God exists but its harder to explain it through scientific means"

forgive me if i've put any words in your mouth, it wasnt my intention :X

anyway, my understanding: Theres plenty of scientific proof for the Quran.
Your understanding: There all void


STALE-MATE
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 09:25 PM
its harder to explain it through scientific means"
Not harder, impossible. Big difference.
Theres plenty of scientific proof for the Quran.
And you have every right to believe that. About 20% of this world would agree with you. But circular logic is not scientific.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 09:29 PM
circular logic, just what is that? And whats your logic?
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
circular logic, just what is that? And whats your logic?
Circular Logic The term is usually not used to describe the broader fallacy that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself. The more accepted classification for such arguments is as a fallacy of many questions.

Example: I can prove the world if flat. My father told me so and my father always tells the truth.
The falicy is that there is no proof that "my father always tells the truty". So I'm using an unproven as proof.

My logic I like the kiss method. I value things that make sence. and don't those that don't.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 09:56 PM
lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic :)
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic :)
Just a bigger circle. All base in faith.
Reply

Woodrow
07-19-2006, 11:07 PM
I suspect Brother Abd'Majid, was using a touch of sacasism.
lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-19-2006, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I suspect Brother Abd'Majid, was using a touch of sacasism.
lol and why do you say that respected brother :p
Reply

wilberhum
07-19-2006, 11:19 PM
Well enough, I'm right and no I'm right.
An excellent question has been asked and never answered.
I would love to see some responses to this.

format_quote Originally Posted by iLL_LeaT
Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-19-2006, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
my idea is that God prevails over science. Is that so hard to grasp?
An interesting question just popped into my head. It’s a little off subject, but…

To you, would God still prevail over all if he came out and said that he existed, but (there’s always a “but”) there isn’t actually an afterlife.

I guess my question is:

Would God still prevail over all if he said there was no hell or heaven, just nonexistence after life?

Or

If God said, “Heaven is completely full, everyone from this point in time will go to hell,” would God still prevail over all?

(Whatever question is scarier to you. Personally nonexistence is scarier then hell.)

I hear that some Jehovah Witnesses don’t give a rat’s ass about Jesus, the Father, or the Holy Spirit. Even though they believe there religion is true, because they think that heaven only fits so many people in it, and it’s full. They still go to church, but they don’t pray, and they don’t take communion, ever. (could be a roomer)
Reply

Woodrow
07-19-2006, 11:52 PM
Agreed Wilburhum;

Originally Posted by iLL_LeaT
Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable
Now putting on my old retired psychologist hat. The most simple explanation is that in regards to faith many of us have a series of hidden beliefs. A hidden belief is one we were not taught, it is a belief that developes from our understanding of what we see as self evident beliefs.

The funny thing is we are not aware of what our hidden believes are. They have never been successfully challanged or questioned. When a hidden belief is questioned or challanged, we have no taught memory as to how come we believe it. We simply believe it. We have no background to prove it, our human reaction is to then respond from an emotional level and the debate is gone.

Ill-Leat, one of the best statements of the day I attribute to you:

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.
That is all any of us needs to know.
The reasons of my own Faith are of value only to me. I need not worry that others do not believe the same, I am only responsible for why I believe.
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-20-2006, 06:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
i_m_tipu

Because you are not interested in an answer. Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything, standard answer. God.
now i understand u and i both may not used to answer

Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything
hmm....
i thought i give some thought early:?
you will not answer me straight forward question

Talking of our creator is not a straight forward thing.

I can give a example

Let say…
Someone created a calculator or anything. Does it possible for a calculator or that thing created by human talk about the human.
…...never
and if that calculator starting to think why i have no knowledge about the human.
does not it's looks silly

Allaah (swt) created us as a best creature on universe.
Does not mean u have the knowledge of our creator.
Reply

czgibson
07-20-2006, 10:48 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think agnosticism is the most misunderstood concept in the world.

There are always misleading statements like:
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).
And
When asked "Does god exist?" an agnostic will say "I don't know".
Unless you keep that statement relative to proof.
Eh? What's misleading about these statements? They're absolutely true. Having knowledge of something implies proof, or, at the very least, evidence.

An agnostic can believe that god exists or not.
In these cases the person would be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; both of these positions are different from a simple agnostic.

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 05:48 PM
Czgibson
Having knowledge of something implies proof, or, at the very least, evidence.
True but having no knowledge does not stop belief. That is the error that many make.
In these cases the person would be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; both of these positions are different from a simple agnostic.
True again. I am an agnostic theist. Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists have come to an improvable conclusion, a simple agnostic has not.
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 05:52 PM
i_m_tipu
Talking of our creator is not a straight forward thing.
Taking any side about anything that has no proof is not straight forward.
That comes back to my original point.
There is no proof.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 05:58 PM
what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 06:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?
What does this have to do with anything?
Is this a "Scientific fact about god"?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What does this have to do with anything?
Is this a "Scientific fact about god"?
it would give us an understanding of what we're discussing.

Lets see if its possible to define God through science, well now:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
it would give us an understanding of what we're discussing.

Lets see if its possible to define God through science, well now:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?
I think you have just agreeded with me. "its not possible to define God through science".
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 06:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think you have just agreeded with me. "its not possible to define God through science".
you are welcome to think that, even though i dont agree but please answer my question:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
you are welcome to think that, even though i dont agree but please answer my question:
Still don't agree? What would it take to convince you that there is no Scientific fact about god? You have never given a valid answer. Maybe the fact that you have no valid answer does not impact your indefenceable defence.
To the silly question. No an ant can not understand. At least untill they evolve a larg brain like we have.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Still don't agree? What would it take to convince you that there is no Scientific fact about god? You have never given a valid answer. Maybe the fact that you have no valid answer does not impact your indefenceable defence.
*sighs* for the last time the Quran is upto date with all the latest science ! Even the fact that a flies wing contains antidote was mentioned by the prophet saws !

To the silly question. No an ant can not understand. At least untill they evolve a larg brain like we have.
That comparison seemed silly didnt it? And here we are trying to compare science to God, dont you realise how ridiculous it seems?
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 07:43 PM
More circular logic. Every requests for Scientific facts is unanswered, or answered with flawed statements, or with silly questions.

I will not continue a battle of wit with an unarmed opponent.

This is like arguing with a blind man who states that color does not exist.

So, no more silly games. Until you come up with a valid argument, I will not continue with this stupidity.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 07:44 PM
i completely agree,
comparing science and god is sheer stupidity.
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 07:50 PM
Finally, thank you.
Be strong in your faith.
But realize that it is faith.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-20-2006, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Finally, thank you.
lol likewise
Be strong in your faith.
Thank you, i will try inshaAllah.

But realize that it is faith.
Did you know that the Quran condemns blind faith. While you may not percieve it we are repeatedly asked to reflect in our surroundings for they hold signs to the existence of the creator. While you may deny scientific evidence for the claim i find it impossible to deny the signs.


Im sorry to frustrate you, sincerely i am, but i still believe its a fact of life...

:peace: :)
Reply

wilberhum
07-20-2006, 08:15 PM
:thankyou: Best of luck.
Till we meet againl ;D
Reply

------
07-21-2006, 08:22 AM
LOL so this thread should be closed now ryt :rollseyes
Reply

Eddi
07-21-2006, 02:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
LOL so this thread should be closed now ryt :rollseyes
:sl:
Yes, I agree.
Where are the mods and admins?
Reply

syilla
07-21-2006, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Still don't agree?
i don't.
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syilla
i don't.
Then bring a Scientific Fact about god.
Reply

syilla
07-21-2006, 04:51 PM
well...to tell you the truth i'm not really in the mood.

But before i start posting (it'll be the last post), you just ask yourself. Don't you think human being is different from other living creature in this world (I'm not saying that human being is the higher form). We can do whatever what we want...we are created to be a living creature that was never will be satisfy with what he have now...or what we are. Why is that? Why is we are so different? and why...human alone can destroy the earth....

Please read this...source : http://www.harunyahya.com/article2_01.php

A century ago, the creation of the universe was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored. The reason was the general acceptance of the idea that the universe existed in infinite time. Examining the universe, scientists supposed that it was just a conglomeration of matter and imagined that it had no beginning. There was no moment of "creation"-a moment when the universe and everything in it came into being.

This notion of an infinite universe fit in very well with atheism. It is not hard to see why. To hold that the universe had a beginning could imply that it was created and that, of course requires a Creator-that is, Allah. It was much more convenient and safer to circumvent the issue by putting forward the idea that "the universe exists for eternity", even though there was not the slightest scientific basis for making such a claim.

Unsurprisingly, the discoveries in the 20th century proved with compelling evidence that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.

There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".

With the Big Bang's victory, the myth of 'eternal matter' that constituted the basis of the materialist philosophy is thrown into the trash-heap of history. What, then, was before the Big Bang and what was the power that brought the universe into 'being' with this big explosion when it was previously 'non-existent'? This question certainly implies, though terribly disturbing for the materialists, the existence of a Creator. The renowned atheist philosopher Antony Flew comments on the issue. He says:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story.1
Many scientists who do not blindly condition themselves to be atheists have admitted the role of an almighty Creator in the creation of the universe. This Creator must be a Being Who has created both matter and time, yet Who is independent of both. Well-known astrophysicist Hugh Ross has this to say:

If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.2
Yes, matter and time are created by the almighty Creator Who is independent of all these notions. This Creator is Allah, Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth.

In truth, the Big Bang caused much greater trouble for the materialists than the above confessions of the atheist philosopher, Antony Flew. For the Big Bang not only proves that the universe was created out of nothing, but also that it was brought into being in a very planned, systematic and controlled manner.


The Big Bang took place with the explosion of the point which contained all the matter and energy of the universe and its dispersion into space in all directions with a terrifying speed. Out of this matter and energy, there came about a great balance containing galaxies, stars, the sun, the earth and all other heavenly bodies. Moreover, laws were formed called the 'laws of physics', which are uniform throughout the whole universe and do not change. All these indicate that a perfect order arose after the Big Bang.

Explosions that we are normally familiar with, however, do not bring about order. All of the observable explosions tend to harm, disintegrate, and destroy what is present. For example, the atom and hydrogen bomb explosions, fire-damp explosions, volcanic explosions, natural gas explosions, solar explosions: they all have destructive effects.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the world-renowned astronomer, who finally had to accept the Big Bang theory after many years of opposition, expresses this situation very well. He says:

The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect - with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies.3
Another aspect of this extraordinary order formed in the universe following the Big Bang is the creation of a 'habitable universe'. The conditions for the formation of a habitable planet are so many and so complex that it is impossible to think that this formation is coincidental.

Paul Davies, a renowned professor of theoretical physics, calculated how 'fine tuned' the pace of expansion after the Big Bang was, and he reached an incredible conclusion. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion after the Big Bang had been different even by the ratio of one over a billion times a billion, no habitable star type, and therefore any form of life, would have been formed. Paul Davies says:

Careful measurement puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been 'fine-tuned' to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at the time the pattern of expansion was already firmly established, the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than one in a billion billion, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The big bang was not, evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude.4
The laws of physics that emerged together with the Big Bang have not changed at all over a period of 15 billion years. Furthermore, these laws stand on calculations so scrupulous that even a millimetre's variation from their current values can result in the destruction of the whole structure and configuration of the universe.


We created the heavens and the earth, and everything between them, in six days and We were not affected by fatigue. (Qur'an, 50:38)

The famous physicist Prof. Stephen Hawking states in his book A Brief History of Time, that the universe is set on calculations and balances more finely tuned than we can conceive. Hawking states with reference to the rate of expansion of the universe:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.5
Paul Davies also explains the unavoidable consequence to be derived from these incredibly precise balances and calculations:

It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.6
In relation to the same fact, an American professor of Astronomy, George Greenstein, writes in his book The Symbiotic Universe:

How could this possibly have come to pass [that the laws of physics conform themselves to life]?.. As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved.7
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of Allah's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.

In the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the ships which sail the seas to people's benefit, and the water which Allah sends down from the sky- by which He brings the earth to life when it was dead and scatters about in it creatures of every kind-and the varying direction of the winds, and the clouds subservient between heaven and earth, there are Signs for people who use their intellect. (Qur'an, 2: 164)

Doubtlessly, the design of the universe is evidence of Allah's power to establish. The precise balances and all the human beings and other creatures are the evidence of Allah's supreme power and act of creation. This result discovered by modern science is just a reworking of a truth revealed fourteen centuries ago in the Qur'an:

Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne. He covers the day with the night and, each pursuing the other urgently; and the sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of all worlds. (Qur'an, 7:54)

_________________________

You can read more at his website www.harunyahya.com

you can also try Dr. Zakir Naik

______________________

I wish you good luck in finding the truth...
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 04:59 PM
well...to tell you the truth i'm not really in the mood.
That is a great way to say "I can't answer the question".
If I'm so wrong then just give me one little scientific fact about god.
[MAD]There is no debate if you can't answer the question.[/MAD]
Reply

Zohair
07-21-2006, 05:00 PM
another good website is

http://www.-----------------------

and browse around this site, in the comparative religions section

http://www.irf.net
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 08:27 PM
[MAD]There is no debate if you can't answer the question.[/MAD]
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-21-2006, 08:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
[MAD]There is no debate if you can't answer the question.[/MAD]
Its not that we cant answer your question, with all due respect it simply seems that you are blind and sealed to the answer. I dont think you would accept it if it dawned right in front of you :-\


forgive me, but thats the way it seems...
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Majed
Its not that we cant answer your question,
Then why don't you answer it?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-21-2006, 08:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Then why don't you answer it?
lol dear friend, you would only call it circular logic :p
Reply

czgibson
07-21-2006, 09:23 PM
Greetings,

It was only a matter of time before someone brought Harun Yahya into this discussion. I find reading his articles hilarious, but upsetting. It truly is worrying that people could read his mass-produced drivel and take it at all seriously.

format_quote Originally Posted by Harun Yahya
It was much more convenient and safer to circumvent the issue by putting forward the idea that "the universe exists for eternity", even though there was not the slightest scientific basis for making such a claim.
I wonder which thinkers the author is referring to. He seems pretty confident of his case. Who actually proposed this as a serious scientific explanation? As far as I know, it was only ever mooted as a possibility.

And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".
This view has absolutely nothing whatever to do with philosophical materialism. However, since Harun Yahya has amply demonstrated in numerous diatribes that one of his main hobbies is to misrepresent materialism, it's hardly surprising to find this little gem of nonsense.

With the Big Bang's victory, the myth of 'eternal matter' that constituted the basis of the materialist philosophy is thrown into the trash-heap of history.
And again.

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story.
I don't know why Anthony Flew has such a problem here. Although, having said that, he has now converted to a vague form of theism, so evidently these kinds of worries got the better of him.

In any case, I don't see how the Big Bang theory necessarily implies a creator god.

Well-known astrophysicist Hugh Ross
He's rather better known for being a creationist than for being an astrophysicist...

And then we get the usual argument from design - centuries old, and still repeated ad nauseam by believers. See here for a few standard responses to it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Majed
Its not that we cant answer your question, with all due respect it simply seems that you are blind and sealed to the answer. I dont think you would accept it if it dawned right in front of you :-\
When the answer consists of the staggering banalities of Harun Yahya and his ilk, it's no wonder people don't accept it...

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 09:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Majed
lol dear friend, you would only call it circular logic :p
What do ou want to call it? Islamic Proof? Proof that only a Muslim would except?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-21-2006, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What do ou want to call it? Islamic Proof? Proof that only a Muslim would except?
just proof would be nice :)
Reply

czgibson
07-21-2006, 09:52 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Majed
just proof would be nice :)
If possible, I'd like to hear a Muslim person give a definition of 'proof', since every time I've heard Muslims use that word it seems to have meant something totally different to how I understand it...

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 10:02 PM
Harun Yahya teaches “Pseudo Science” and caries no respect in the scientific community. His “Invitation to Truth”, is any thing but.
He is an insult to intelligence and makes a mockery of every Muslim.
Reply

wilberhum
07-21-2006, 10:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Majed
just proof would be nice :)
Yes it would be. Got some?
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-22-2006, 05:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Every requests for Scientific facts is unanswered.
thats not true at all
all are try to give ans with some thought.
your are not cooperative and that is the only reason u don't have the ans.

you are not being helpfull
as u not ans a word of those questions

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
with flawed statements, or with silly questions
that is very strange...
non of those questions is silly
can u proof any of those question is silly.
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I will not continue a battle of wit with an unarmed opponent.

This is like arguing with a blind man who states that color does not exist.

So, no more silly games. Until you come up with a valid argument, I will not continue with this stupidity.
totally agreed
talking with u is totally wastage

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
This is like arguing with a blind man who states that color does not exist.
that is the thing I and others try to make u understand
a blind man can not see bcoz he has no power on eye.
but he can realize with his other organs.

u maybe forget
u or anyones don't have a tiny knowledge about a tiny part of human body or any natural thing.(what and how that tiny part created)

first try to find urself where u are and position

if u do

than come to talk of GOD (creator of the thing that exits)
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-22-2006, 01:35 PM
Wilberhum, you're asking for sqaure circles. You say nobody can give you a scientific proof of God. I say: Science is an investigation of Gods laws, so every single scientific fact prooves teh existance of God. The reason we are unable to answer your question is not because answering it is imposible, but rather because you will fail to accept any answer we give.

I'm gonna repost what I posted before:

You forgot something very essential. Science is based on emperical testing. It doesn't tell us WHY things happens it tells us HOW things happen. Religion tells us WHY things happen and not HOW (at least not in detail). So they are two ways of looking at the same thing and they do go hand in hand, the difrence is one tells you why and the other tells you how.

For the sake of argument, try to look at it from the other perspective for a sec. God manifests his laws. Mankind is witness. God is consequent and always acts in the same way. Mankind is witness. Mankind starts to recognise paterns in these consequent acts of God. Mankind starts to find mathemetical ways to describe the way God manifests his law. Mankind calls this the science of nature, since this is the nature of everything they know. Mankind claims they no longer need God, they got science now.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-23-2006, 11:00 PM
:sl:
I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know how much of what I'm going to say has already been mentioned.

To speak about God under the scope of science is not logically consistent with common definitions. Science is the systematic study of the physical order and the natural laws which govern the observable universe. As theists believe that God is the originator of those laws and that order, He is beyond the scope of science. The 'eyes of science' cannot behold God, or anything beyond our observable universe for that matter. Science is the study of observable creation, not the Creator.

And yet, in response to those who would claim that theists mistakenly believe in an entity without proof, it should be pointed out that scientists have unanimously accepted a great host of entities without proof. (See a Muslim critique of agnosticism here). Everything from atoms to gravity to electromagnetic radiation is accepted without proof. Instead, in science the accepted theory is the one that provides most parsimonious explanation for observable phenomena. Applying this standard to the realm of religion, Muslims maintain that not only does Islam provide the most parsimonious explanation for our position in the universe, but it stands above all other religious or secular ideologies in its logical coherence and comprehensive answers, beginning with the most fundamental question of the purpose of life.

Concerning the origin of the universe, the energy and entropy therein, the sudden sentience of a human being, the fundamental moral sense and natural disposition of human beings, and many other issues, Islam provides definitive, logical and comprehensible answers. While many may be content to merely plead ignorance or fail to provide alternative theories on such issues, a scientific approach would require the acceptance of the logical answers provided by Islam.

:w:
Reply

wilberhum
07-24-2006, 04:14 PM
Ansar Al-'Adl
To speak about God under the scope of science is not logically consistent with common definitions.
That’s an excellent summation of what I have been saying all this time.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-24-2006, 11:22 PM
Really? I thought you were trying to say there's nothing scientific about God.
Big difference
Reply

wilberhum
07-25-2006, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Really? I thought you were trying to say there's nothing scientific about God.
Big difference
Ansar Al-'Adl summed it up quite well.
To speak about God under the scope of science is not logically consistent with common definitions.
The answer is easily derived from that. There is nothing scientific about god. Therefore you can not make a scientific statement about god. But I would expect that you could not see that. You have a remark ability to see what isn’t there and not see what is. Also, as always, you never provide any answer. So until you have a valid statement, please don’t bother.
Reply

root
07-26-2006, 10:28 AM
GOD in the eyes of Science:

Possibility

Yes I would certainly suggest it's a possibility, so is camera shy little green men on the moon who have so far evaded detection. Both are equally possible. The theory that states God does not exist is a scientific valid theory and as for God existing, that currently can only be an Hypothosis.

Necessity

Certainly not.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-26-2006, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Ansar Al-'Adl summed it up quite well.

The answer is easily derived from that. There is nothing scientific about god. Therefore you can not make a scientific statement about god. But I would expect that you could not see that.
No, what ansar said is taht God is the source of the phenomena investigated within science. So there is something scientific about God, since science by itself is teh investigation of the habitual acts of God.


format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You have a remark ability to see what isn’t there and not see what is. Also, as always, you never provide any answer. So until you have a valid statement, please don’t bother.
That's cute first you say I will not be able to give you an answer, and then to cash in that claim you propose that I don't even try. Or at least not untill I have a valid statement, but wait a minute, what is valid? I'm quite certain that you will dismiss anything I'll say as being valid; as it wouldn't fit in your own un-validated view.
Reply

wilberhum
07-26-2006, 11:48 PM
Steve
I didn't see the Scientific Fact. Why is that?
Reply

Chuck
07-27-2006, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Therefore you can not make a scientific statement about god.
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
No, what ansar said is taht God is the source of the phenomena investigated within science. So there is something scientific about God, since science by itself is teh investigation of the habitual acts of God.
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I didn't see the Scientific Fact. Why is that?
Everything in science is not observable fact, there are lots of theories too.
Reply

iLL_LeaT
07-27-2006, 01:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by root
The theory that states God does not exist is a scientific valid theory.
What (!)?

And what theory is that?

The existence of God (as of now) can not be proven or disproven by science, so any theory of God’s existence is not scientifically valid.
Reply

root
07-27-2006, 10:22 AM
The existence of God (as of now) can not be proven or disproven by science, so any theory of God’s existence is not scientifically valid.
It's perfectly plausable for a theory that claims God does not exist. All you have to do to prove the theory wrong (aka - Falsifiable) is prove God exists. As you said, any theory of God's existence is not scientifically valid currently!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-27-2006, 02:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Steve
I didn't see the Scientific Fact. Why is that?
Because you're blind. I'm telling you; every single fact we examine in science is of devine nature. There is not an apple that falls to the ground; not an electon repeling another, not an atom that is held toghether without Allah enpowering it to be so. You want empirical testing? How about every prayer I make that gets answered? Every reasonable thing I ask for granted. How bout that warm fussy feeling I get from my soul. How bout the miracles of the Qur'an. How about the scientific view of time suggesting the existance of a soul? How about an age old religion answering paradoxes that science still cannot answer today. I've been an atheist almost my whole life. And I was always interested in science. And if you think my knowledge of science is poor I welcome you to debate me in it. After a certain while I realised science doesn't contradict religion (well at least not islam, it does contradict other religions) but in fact, science needs Islam to complete it!

You think you can prove something with a simplistic statement like "There's nothing scientific about God". Don't make me laugh. You want a serious debate, well then start one. with all do respect, these one liners only make you look ignorant.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-27-2006, 02:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
but in fact, science needs Islam to complete it!
:thumbs_up mashAllah

with all do respect, these one liners only make you look ignorant.
ye thats kinda the reason i stopped replying in this thread :-\
Reply

wilberhum
07-27-2006, 07:11 PM
Steve
Because you're blind.
Then show me the light.
State a scientific fact about god.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-27-2006, 11:04 PM
LOL
my post is full of them.
If you don't see them there's no point in me pointing them out for you.
Reply

czgibson
07-27-2006, 11:38 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
If you don't see them there's no point in me pointing them out for you.
Steve, being a man who knows a thing or two about science, surely you'll accept that a scientific fact has to be something that's objectively verifiable, not dependent on subjective prior beliefs?

I'm obviously with Wilberhum on this one...

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
07-27-2006, 11:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
LOL
my post is full of them.
If you don't see them there's no point in me pointing them out for you.
Anything, any excuse. There is no scientific statement about god in any of your post. There is one and only one reason you refuse to point to one.
You don't have one, because there are none.

[MAD]Give me a Scientific Satatement about god.[/MAD]
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
07-28-2006, 12:03 AM
Orbits

“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33

Today, the laws governing the celestial systems are well known. Galaxies are balanced by the position of stars and planets in well-defined orbits, as well as the interplay of gravitational forces produced by their masses and the speed of their movements. But is this not what the Qur’an describes in terms which have only become comprehensible in modern times.

Embryo

“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14

The term ‘chewed flesh’ (mudghah) corresponds exactly to the appearance of the embryo at a certain stage in its development.

It is known that the bones develop inside this mass and that they are then covered with muscle. This is the meaning of the term ‘intact flesh’ (lahm).

The embryo passes through a stage where some parts are in proportion and others out of proportion with what is later to become the individual. This is the obvious meaning of a verse in the chapter al-Hajj, which reads as follows:

“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.

Next, we have a reference to the appearance of the senses and internal organs in the chapter as-Sajdah:

“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9

Those are just a few. I think its enuff.

Heres a website incase u wana know more :)

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm

God is above his creation..to say proof for Gods "existence" is necessary is like sayin God is part of creation, which seizes God to be unique. To prove God's existence.. i think just looking at this world(His creation) is enuff, unfortunately not enuff for everyone. I know that doesnt go wit the question, but incase some1 is thinkin that.>.< Actually i hope i didnt contradict myself there lol.
Name a process u know thats started on its own without some1 in charge of it. Name a manufactured product completed without some1 being the manufacturer. If i say my computer came to be without a creator, are u gunna believe me? If i say a vcr came to be without a manufacturer are u gunna believe me? of course not. So how can somethin so detailed difficult and specific like the universe jus start on its own? How can somethin so detailed like a human being and every part of us that has a purpose and role in our body jus come to be?
Everything that exists has a purpose one way or another, good or bad. So how can somethin like a human not have a purpose. Somethin more unique than any creation surely has a purpose and most likely a creator.
Neways lets keep this debate clean. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.We all know, there is no compulsion in Islam. Our job as Muslims is to invite ppl to Islam and let them understand it. The rest is up to them to decide what they want to believe.

Peace :)
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
07-28-2006, 12:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aalimah
My mind is so open I'm scared something will drop into it :rollseyes
LOL..i cracked at that:giggling:
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-28-2006, 01:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Steve, being a man who knows a thing or two about science, surely you'll accept that a scientific fact has to be something that's objectively verifiable, not dependent on subjective prior beliefs?

I'm obviously with Wilberhum on this one...

Peace
Well, when I ask for something in prayer and I get answer from an unexpected corner, time and time again, it is no longer subjective to prior believes. When I took the shahada, the feeling I felt it is way beyond anything psychology can explain. Now I do understand, that these are my personal expieriances. And I understand that they're in no way verifyable to you. But if you like you can verify your own expieriance, the only trick is, you have to make the first step towards God. If you're sincear in believing, God will inshallah make himself objectively verifiable for you.

Anything, any excuse. There is no scientific statement about god in any of your post. There is one and only one reason you refuse to point to one. You don't have one, because there are none.
I'll repeat myself: I'm telling you; every single fact we examine in science is of devine nature. There is not an apple that falls to the ground; not an electon repeling another, not an atom that is held toghether without Allah enpowering it to be so.

Now you can sit there, and ignore this answer (again) and ask me for a scientific fact about God (again). But that's not going to change my answer. I gave you an answer, I already gave you a lot of answers to your question. You might not like those answers, because they don't fit your taste. Yet to deny I've given them is sheer stupidity.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
07-28-2006, 01:39 AM
Look if u guys rnt satisfied with the answers given to u, then do yourselves a favor and try readin the Quran "with an open mind." If u still dont believe thats up to u. Its not upto us to try and force u, because we cant. The most we can do is tell u about Islam and invite u to it. If ur still not satisfied, then there is no point in going on with the topic.
End of story

Peace
Reply

searchingsoul
07-28-2006, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Look if u guys rnt satisfied with the answers given to u, then do yourselves a favor and try readin the Quran "with an open mind." If u still dont believe thats up to u. Its not upto us to try and force u, because we cant. The most we can do is tell u about Islam and invite u to it. If ur still not satisfied, then there is no point in going on with the topic.
End of story

Peace
A lot can be learned from an open mind and asking questions.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
07-28-2006, 03:10 AM
Then ask questions without getting to each others throats. The whole point is to share information with each other not get cynical.
Reply

czgibson
07-28-2006, 12:38 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Well, when I ask for something in prayer and I get answer from an unexpected corner, time and time again, it is no longer subjective to prior believes. When I took the shahada, the feeling I felt it is way beyond anything psychology can explain. Now I do understand, that these are my personal expieriances. And I understand that they're in no way verifyable to you. But if you like you can verify your own expieriance, the only trick is, you have to make the first step towards God. If you're sincear in believing, God will inshallah make himself objectively verifiable for you.
It seems you're very confused about the meanings of the words 'subjective' and 'objective' here, which has led to you contradicting yourself a few times.

You claim that your personal experiences are not subjective, yet you also say they are not verifiable by me, so in fact they obviously are subjective. Also, your last statement contains an oxymoron: "objectively verifiable for you". Such a thing is self-contradictory. If something is objectively verifiable, then it can be verified by everyone, regardless of their prior beliefs.

I'll repeat myself: I'm telling you; every single fact we examine in science is of devine nature. There is not an apple that falls to the ground; not an electon repeling another, not an atom that is held toghether without Allah enpowering it to be so.
The connection with Allah here is not factual, but assertive.

Now you can sit there, and ignore this answer (again) and ask me for a scientific fact about God (again). But that's not going to change my answer. I gave you an answer, I already gave you a lot of answers to your question. You might not like those answers, because they don't fit your taste. Yet to deny I've given them is sheer stupidity.
No, it isn't. You've been asked for a fact, and you've given a list of assertions, therefore you haven't answered the question at all.

Peace
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-28-2006, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=czgibson;423551]Greetings,

It seems you're very confused about the meanings of the words 'subjective' and 'objective' here, which has led to you contradicting yourself a few times.

You claim that your personal experiences are not subjective, yet you also say they are not verifiable by me, so in fact they obviously are subjective. Also, your last statement contains an oxymoron: "objectively verifiable for you". Such a thing is self-contradictory. If something is objectively verifiable, then it can be verified by everyone, regardless of their prior beliefs.[quote]
I strongly disagree.
They are not verifiable because i hold no credibility in your eyes. Because my claims, my thoughts, my intentions, my memories, when I explain them to you, I have no credebility. That doesn't mean they are by nature subjective. It's like that just because they are personal. The personal charesteristic of them only makes them unavailable for others, it does not necesairly make them subjective. So it is possible for something to be objective but at the same time unverifiable to some. If the whole world were blind, safe for one person who could see, and that person claims: the sky is blue. Then his statement is still objective. Regardless of wheter other people can verify it or not.

Now regardless of this, you could still question my objectivity (was I delusional? am I lying? did I misinterpret things? am I paranoia? and so on...)
If one of those would be true, then my claims are indeed subjective. But that doesn't mean any given personal experience is subjective by default. It would only mean mine wasn't a trustworthy one. But for you to examine the objectivity of my personal expieriance is futile, since it holds no value to you either way. That's why I suggested to examine your personal expieriance. There you CAN verify wheter or not your claims are lies, there You can still try to keep an open mind for difrent interpretations, there you can examine wheter you are likely to have been delusional or not (have you taken drugs, do you have a menatl illness, do you have an unstable personality... ).

The connection with Allah here is not factual, but assertive.
Every single connection proposed in the field of science is assertive. Your claim brings us no knew knowledge about that connection. For a conenction in Science is assertive by defenition since science is unable to examine the meaning behind causal actions. We can only study a repetetive corelation between two events. And measure and describe the correlation in the form of formula's. But whatever connects them is still as big of a secret as it was a thousand years ago.

No, it isn't. You've been asked for a fact, and you've given a list of assertions, therefore you haven't answered the question at all.
Yes I have answered the question. I've offered my arguments. And I 've shown why the question is flawed. And finaly I have given answers either way. You may disagree on wheter my answers fit the criteria. And discus it as we are doing now. But to conclude I have not answered the questions, while the given answers are still being debated is preposterous. And on top of that it again shows us the ill-willed true nature of the question itself. For the questioner is confident not to encounter an answer in his naroowmindedness. That is why I 've repeadetly have tried to shown the difrent flaws in the questions , and have taken the time in explaining the context of the questions and my answers, before actually giving them.
Reply

wilberhum
07-28-2006, 04:45 PM
Not a single [MAD]Scientific Fact about god[/MAD]
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
07-28-2006, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Not a single [MAD]Scientific Fact about god[/MAD]
this is ridiculous.

its like you constantly asking, whats 2+2, whats 2+2 and we're all saying, ITS 4 ITS 4 !! But you just ignore us everytime. For the last time theres plenty of scientific facts and proofs in the Quran and Sunnah !!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
07-28-2006, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
this is ridiculous.

its like you constantly asking, whats 2+2, whats 2+2 and we're all saying, ITS 4 ITS 4 !! But you just ignore us everytime. For the last time theres plenty of scientific facts and proofs in the Quran and Sunnah !!
I know
I'm starting to think he's just hoping that eventually we'll give up, and peolpe will only read the last few posts, and thus it will seem as if he has won. But I'm to stuburn to grant him even that ;D
Reply

wilberhum
07-28-2006, 06:03 PM
But I'm to stuburn to grant him even that
Now I understand. Add stuburn and stupitidy and I see where you are comming from.
You have no intention of an honest discussion. You only desire to practice your stuburnness.
Contact me when you grow up.

Thank you
Wilber
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
07-28-2006, 06:21 PM
Funny how u guys totally ignored my post!! Say somethin bout that, im waiting aight? k thnx..
Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Orbits

“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33

Today, the laws governing the celestial systems are well known. Galaxies are balanced by the position of stars and planets in well-defined orbits, as well as the interplay of gravitational forces produced by their masses and the speed of their movements. But is this not what the Qur’an describes in terms which have only become comprehensible in modern times.

Embryo

“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14

The term ‘chewed flesh’ (mudghah) corresponds exactly to the appearance of the embryo at a certain stage in its development.

It is known that the bones develop inside this mass and that they are then covered with muscle. This is the meaning of the term ‘intact flesh’ (lahm).

The embryo passes through a stage where some parts are in proportion and others out of proportion with what is later to become the individual. This is the obvious meaning of a verse in the chapter al-Hajj, which reads as follows:

“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.

Next, we have a reference to the appearance of the senses and internal organs in the chapter as-Sajdah:

“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9

Those are just a few. I think its enuff.

Heres a website incase u wana know more :)

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm

God is above his creation..to say proof for Gods "existence" is necessary is like sayin God is part of creation, which seizes God to be unique. To prove God's existence.. i think just looking at this world(His creation) is enuff, unfortunately not enuff for everyone. I know that doesnt go wit the question, but incase some1 is thinkin that.>.< Actually i hope i didnt contradict myself there lol.
Name a process u know thats started on its own without some1 in charge of it. Name a manufactured product completed without some1 being the manufacturer. If i say my computer came to be without a creator, are u gunna believe me? If i say a vcr came to be without a manufacturer are u gunna believe me? of course not. So how can somethin so detailed difficult and specific like the universe jus start on its own? How can somethin so detailed like a human being and every part of us that has a purpose and role in our body jus come to be?
Everything that exists has a purpose one way or another, good or bad. So how can somethin like a human not have a purpose. Somethin more unique than any creation surely has a purpose and most likely a creator.
Neways lets keep this debate clean. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.We all know, there is no compulsion in Islam. Our job as Muslims is to invite ppl to Islam and let them understand it. The rest is up to them to decide what they want to believe.

Peace :)
Thas wat i posted >.<
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-28-2006, 08:58 PM
:sl:
The discussion seems to have deteriorated and to avoid any further insults I think it best to close the thread.

:w:

:threadclo
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: 8
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 03:57 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 03:52 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2009, 11:05 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-18-2006, 09:13 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2005, 04:30 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!