Atheism

[Trumble]

ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL

^^Creation of Israel and gathering of Sephardic, Ashkenazi and the Jews of many other different races in Israel proves the authenticity of this prophecy and hence Quran.

At the risk of straying slightly off topic, I am hopelessly confused by this. How can it be claimed that this is a Qur'anic prophecy fulfilled when the almost universal Islamic position seems to be that those Jews should un-gather and go back where they came from?

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I think it is pointless to continue commenting on the mistranslations of Qur'anic verses, since it is quite clear to all of us that they are farfetched. Brother Abd'Majid made a mistake and he realises it; there isn't a need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Peace.

[barb]

I have never heard of the "...teleological and cosmological argument in favour of the existence of God" and I would LOVE to. Barb

[IceQueen~]

I have never heard of the "...teleological and cosmological argument in favour of the existence of God" and I would LOVE to. Barb

teleological argument for the existence of God is proving God's existence through evidence of design in the world

cosmological -proving existenec of God through idea of cause and effect and impossibilty of infinite regress..

if you want more details i'll give them insha allah

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]

teleological argument for the existence of God is proving God's existence through evidence of design in the world

cosmological -proving existenec of God through idea of cause and effect and impossibilty of infinite regress..

do you have a scientific peer reviewed paper for this "proof", no disrespect but "Harun Hanya" is not exactly a respectable source should that be your source for example.

[IceQueen~]

do you have a scientific peer reviewed paper for this "proof", no disrespect but "Harun Hanya" is not exactly a respectable source should that be your source for example.

actually root-i do RE so i think i know what i'm talking about dear...

[root]

Cool, I look forward to you posting it.

[IceQueen~]

Cool, I look forward to you posting it.

what? do u want me to post the RE syllabus?:?

[root]

what? do u want me to post the RE syllabus?

Not exactly, I thought you had agreed that you could provide a scientific peer reviewed paper for this "proof" of your following claim:

cosmological -proving existenec of God through idea of cause and effect and impossibilty of infinite regress..

[samobosna96]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God....... does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

[IceQueen~]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God....... does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

yup, and the other proof for the big bang is the cosmic background radiation!

[Ghazi]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God....... does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

:sl:

intresting... Cool avatar btw.

[root]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

probably, but what actually is the big bang other than a massive explosion and then expansion?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe...

Which universe? Let's face it we still cannot say how old the universe actually is, if more universes exist elswhere. We don't even know if time began at our last big band as we cannot assume anymore their was only one big bang.

how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order...

Who said it was created from nothingness, where is the clear proof?

the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God.......

"our" universe you mean, where did you get that source from?

does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

I think your on about a possible "Big Crunch". The bottom line here is that we just can't say with any certainty as to the origins of the universe to start claiming "evidence" from it..... As for proof of creation, it's based on assumptions and not even a probability. At one point in time and currently I guess, a single entity universe really could have supported your position. In my mind logically I think a single universe would probably implicate a form of creation since I accept you would have 1 chance and one chance only to hit the sweet spot, any indication of multiple universes put paid to that:

This will be of interest I think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...768191,00.html

A snippet:

The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory. The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many.

The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs

Regards

Root

[czgibson]

Greetings,

On the two arguments for god's existence that were mentioned: these are standard arguments that have been around for centuries, and you can read more about them here:

The cosmological argument

The teleological argument

These arguments may be convincing to believers, but they are generally unconvincing to non-believers. To cut a long story short, philosophers since Kant have been basically unimpressed by them.

the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse.

This is a modern variation of the teleological argument known as the 'fine-tuned universe' argument. You can read more about it here:

The anthropic principle and fine-tuned universe arguments

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think it is pointless to continue commenting on the mistranslations of Qur'anic verses, since it is quite clear to all of us that they are farfetched. Brother Abd'Majid made a mistake and he realises it; there isn't a need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I agree, but this raises what I think is an important point. No disrespect to Abd'Majid, who has owned up to his mistake in an honourable fashion, but this kind of thing is symptomatic of the kind of uncritical acceptance that poorly constructed arguments often receive from some religious people. Just because an argument supports your point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good argument. On this forum, the respect and admiration that the Harun Yahya website receives constitute another example of this.

Peace

[Hijaabi22]

:sl:
Is there evidence to support the existence of a Creator?

EHHHHHHHHH A MUSLIM BRO ASKIN THIS???????:? :? :?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

EHHHHHHHHH A MUSLIM BRO ASKIN THIS???????:? :? :?

I assume it's a hypothetical question. I don't think there's any reason to question Ansar's faith. ;)

Peace

[Trumble]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse.

The figures relate to the value of certain scientific constants and are indeed impressive, but we really do not know how possible, if indeed it was possible at all, that things could turn out other than they did. We also have no idea whether an infinity-minus-one number of such events did occur where things were different and they did "collapse" as a consequence... and no way of ever concievably finding out. Or whether every possible outcome occured simultaneously. And so on.

As has already been pointed out, the actual probability the Big Bang occured producing the sort of universe you describe (assuming it ever did) was not 0.000000000000001, or whatever, but 1. It occured, otherwise we would not be posting here speculating about it. The big question (or biggest - they are all pretty big!) is WHY it happened. God is as good an answer as any IMHO, but there is nothing to suggest any sort of "proof" of God's existence.

[root]

Hi All.

Pausing for reflection over two points raised in the past and nwe Scientific discovery to guage who and the end of the day is being supported or not:

Ansar:
That is simply a general rule. We haven't found any terrestrial planets outside our system but we have found hundreds of gaseous planets.

With all the factors to consider, the bottom line is that it is quite obvious that the perfect conditions we see on Earth are not random. They must have been selected.

Ansar, quite rightly pointed out that we had not found any planets other than Gas bags:

Alas, this is no longer true now that a number of them have been discovered outside our solar system.................

If you would like a creationist response, see:

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.

http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html

source:http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...t=neanderthals

Anyone following this thread will know that a number of Mitochondrial DNA had been extracted which supported the idea that Neanderthals were not human and a species in their own right.

Now we have extracted nuclear male Y chromozone.

This nuclear DNA is what really drives an organism's biochemistry.

Preliminary analysis shows the bundle of DNA responsible for maleness in the Neanderthal - its Y chromosome - is very different from modern human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes; more so than for the other chromosomes in the genome.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4986668.stm

Again, the evidence fully supports the idea that Neanderthals were indeed a seperate species.

[barb]

Marge1-- I appreciate the quick summary and offer of more deatail--------however-------------I just finished reading the "official" definitions via the Wikipedia link provided by czgibson, and, I think my head is about to explode. Barb

[syilla]

i always wonder... is trumble and hei go is the same person?

anyway...

heigou : i'll make dua for you that Allah will give u hidayah and open your hearts to convert to Islam...ameen... ;-)

[HeiGou]

i always wonder... is trumble and hei go is the same person?

There's an interesting question. I wonder why anyone would assume that - do we sound alike?

For the record, I can assure you I am not Trumble. Although I would not like to speak for Trumble. Maybe he is me?

heigou : i'll make dua for you that Allah will give u hidayah and open your hearts to convert to Islam...ameen... ;-)

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate the intention behind that.

[Trumble]

There's an interesting question. I wonder why anyone would assume that - do we sound alike?

For the record, I can assure you I am not Trumble. Although I would not like to speak for Trumble. Maybe he is me?

Not the last time I looked! Maybe we were brothers in a previous life, or something. Or maybe great minds just think alike! ;D

[Fishman]

:sl:
I believe that it is impossible to prove God using observations of the universe, but it is possible to prove God using a religious Book. That Book is the Quran.

I don't understand why people believe in God without believing in religion. To me that's unfalsifiable.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't understand why people believe in God without believing in religion. To me that's unfalsifiable.

And you think the existence of god is falsifiable?! Please do explain.

Peace

[Fishman]

Greetings,


And you think the existence of god is falsifiable?! Please do explain.

Peace

:sl:
religions are falsifiable, God on His own is not. there is no test to determine a God-made universe from one that appeared on it's own (not that that's possible), but you can test whether a religion is correct or not. I know scientology (no offence to scientologists), for example, is not correct because it claims that Hawaii existed 75 million years ago, when it didn't (not to my knowledge anyway).
:w:

[HeiGou]

religions are falsifiable, God on His own is not. there is no test to determine a God-made universe from one that appeared on it's own (not that that's possible), but you can test whether a religion is correct or not.

Of course there are tests to determine a God-made Universe or not. The very first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a man as he died to work out how heavy his soul was. The problem is that a lack of a result cannot disprove the existence of God. If an experiment proved God existed, and such a test is theoretically possible, then believers would be totally behind it. But any number of experiments that do not prove He exists mean little. Maybe we have not got the experiment right yet.

And the experience of "proving" religions is that when faced with overwhelming evidence that they cannot deny or suppress, most religions will quietly adopt those claims and deny that they were ever opposed to them. So in effect it is impossible to disprove any religion.

[primitivefuture]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[HeiGou]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Which was, I think, my point.

However at some point you have to accept that massive induction amounts to something like proof. Otherwise we would have to accept I might have fairies in the bottom of my garden.

[root]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What a crazy world we would live in if your statement rung true, perhaps one of the sanities of science is that it requires falsification.

Within all religous circles I can quite beleive this is the case and the means by which they claim all types of unsubstantiated claims. When it comes to logic, that statement simply does not hold any water.

This is a good reason why a scientific theory must be falsifiable. If someone beleives in little green men that live on the planet mars that are quite camera shy, I am not exactly going to support his hypothosis on the basis that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Logically, the scientific position would support the theory that the little green men don't exist. To falsify this theory one simply has to prove little green men on mars exist. However, the theory that little green men do exist is not falsifiable since nobody has observed them.

So the scientific theory that God does not exist is the current scientific position. All you have to do is prove God does exist and go collect your nobel peace prize.

[Sabi]

:sl: ,

The above argument is working on a fallacy. All scientific hypothesies require falsification. True. All hypotheses are essentially nothing more than a stab in the dark which then must be disprooved in order to be disregarded. Correct. This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed. The world of technology as we know it today is running on very many working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is only considered working until it is fount to be false, at such times a new hypothesis must be found to explain all the data.

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

Quantum mechanics works in exactly the same way. There are hypotheses which are favoured because they explain all the phenomena in their sphere of influence and there are others that have long since been thrown out of the window because although they may worked in limited environments they simply could not explain all phenomena.

Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence. And most working hypotheses today will only work as long as there is absence of evidence to the contrary, but as soon as evidence to the contrary emmerges, then the working hypothesis will be thrown out of the window ONLY IF a suitable alternative is found. Until that time, it will continue to be used simply because it works most of the time, and explains most things, though that "working" hypothesis will only be considered apparently working, and not really working.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis. If The argument is for example that a perfect god that can not change its rules and then has to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy a rule which it being omniscient knew that none other could satisfy then there are obvious flaws in that concept of god, and absolutely it negates itself as a working hypothesis. I think this is the kind of God most atheists do not believe in., But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

All that is needed is education in Tawheed and it will all make sense root. But don't believe me, get a book on islamic theology and tawheed and educate yourself in this matter. One can not refute a hypothesis while remaining ignorant of it. That is simply not scientific. If there is a hole in the working hypothesis explain it. It might be because you have not understood the tawheed, or it might be that you really and truely have found a hole that the hypothesis does not cover, in which case I for one wouild most certainly like to know about it, since I have been searching for one for nearly 15 years and have not found it yet. I am not joking.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses. You must present a working hypotheses, since it is unscientific (remember that science means knowledge, and hence it is not in the interest of knowledge) to say that one does not need to have an explanation, (while to accept that things simply are the way they are is in fact to believe in the God described in the Torah for example). It might be a technologist's or engineer's perspective on things, but it is most certainly not a scientific standpoint.

God Bless you with Guidance.

:brother:

[root]

Greetings Sabi. (All Quotes by Sabi)

The above argument is working on a fallacy. All scientific hypothesies require falsification. True.

True, additionally ALL theories and anything related to scientific issues require falsification, it's misleading to say that only an hypothosis requires falsification.

All hypotheses are essentially nothing more than a stab in the dark which then must be disprooved in order to be disregarded. Correct.

Disagree. An hypothos is is a tentative explanation. We have a set of hypotheses, each of which is consistent with the facts so far, but we expect some of the hypotheses to be ruled out as additional facts come in. This is far removed from a "stab in the dark" which I would phrase as a guess.

This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed. The world of technology as we know it today is running on very many working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is only considered working until it is fount to be false, at such times a new hypothesis must be found to explain all the data.

I think you have a very black & white attitude to science. How about a working hypothosis in technology changes as new discoveries require it, this does not mean a new hypothosis needs to be thought up, the current one could be ammended to explain the new data.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

You have made a number of assumptions here and simply made a prediction based on your own faith that God exists. Consider, a unifying theory (which i doubt will be attained in our lifetime) that suggests God does not exist. Further, perhaps we find a creator of the universe as an intelligent species billions of years old who created this universe as a test model for themselves and have no knowledge of us. Would you accept them as God?

Quantum mechanics works in exactly the same way. There are hypotheses which are favoured because they explain all the phenomena in their sphere of influence and there are others that have long since been thrown out of the window because although they may worked in limited environments they simply could not explain all phenomena.

Any scientific field works the same way, from the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics right through to evolution. Quantum mechanics in itself is not an hypothosis, but ideas within quantum mechanics will be. Same for evolution and the relativity. They are all solid theories that within them have a number of hypothosis.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis.

I stronly disagree with this quite arrogant notion. The fact of the matter is that an hypotosis for God existing as an hypothosis cannot use as part of the hypothosis a "supernatural" explanation which invalidates it as a scientific hypothosis. This is not arrogance but a set criterea for what is and is not of scientific value.

If The argument is for example that a perfect god that can not change its rules and then has to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy a rule which it being omniscient knew that none other could satisfy then there are obvious flaws in that concept of god, and absolutely it negates itself as a working hypothesis. I think this is the kind of God most atheists do not believe in., But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

I doubt that, Islam uses the "supernatural" which invalidates itself as scientific.

This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed.

I disagree, science does not work with facts since facts in a scientific context is absolute proof which is beyond science. Only religion offers absolute proof or at least claims as much.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

I disagree on the basis that religion use the "supernatural" to support your hypothosis, additionally the current scientific data does not support your position.

All that is needed is education in Tawheed and it will all make sense root. But don't believe me, get a book on islamic theology and tawheed and educate yourself in this matter. One can not refute a hypothesis while remaining ignorant of it. That is simply not scientific. If there is a hole in the working hypothesis explain it. It might be because you have not understood the tawheed, or it might be that you really and truely have found a hole that the hypothesis does not cover, in which case I for one wouild most certainly like to know about it, since I have been searching for one for nearly 15 years and have not found it yet. I am not joking.

Faith based literature use the "supernatural" which is unscientific, accusing me of ignorance because of this does not strengthen your hypothosis.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses. You must present a working hypotheses, since it is unscientific (remember that science means knowledge, and hence it is not in the interest of knowledge) to say that one does not need to have an explanation, (while to accept that things simply are the way they are is in fact to believe in the God described in the Torah for example). It might be a technologist's or engineer's perspective on things, but it is most certainly not a scientific standpoint.

That may well be. Science and the supernatural does not go together and in my opinion simply stifles the promotion and achievement of knowledge.

God Bless you with Guidance.

Thank-you.

[Sabi]

:sl:

science does not work with facts since facts in a scientific context is absolute proof which is beyond science

I almost agree with very strongly with you here, except to do so would lead me into the realm of absolutes.

Science and the supernatural does not go together and in my opinion simply stifles the promotion and achievement of knowledge.

I agree wholeheartedly, but by Super-natural I am presuming that you mean those things which can not be empirically measured. Since current scientific data can not be brought into this (as is the case with many areas of ongoing research) as it is lacking, then we need an hypothesis which does not rely upon the supernatural. At the risk of being absolute, I do agree with you very strongly on this.

And yet there are many Hypotheses in the world which call for the existence of something for which as of yet we do not have the instruments to measure. These are simply explanations, and they may work very well as explanations, that is until evidence comes along which is outside the sphere of that explanation, requiring at the very least as you rightly put it a re-working of the hypothesis if possible or as has indeed become the case in numerous fields a revolutionary approach and brand-new hypothesis in the interest of simplicity (remember that complex and convoluted is never so popular among scientists). Alternatively of course scientific data may come along which supports the hypothesis, then everyone is happy for a while.

No one can deny that the tentative explanation has often been a stab in the dark, in fact this is where creativity comes into science, and is even needed. Since there are infinite possibilities out there, we can never be sure that the explanation we will take a stab at will cover all the variables that truely exist, only the variables that we have discovered so far. This is where hypotheses come from.

I do indeed have a very black and white attitude to science (knowledge) thank you very much for picking up on that. For me, there are explanations that work, and there are explanations that do not. As soon as I discover that one of the explanations that has worked no-longer works in every case, then I need to find a new explanation. The rules of Knowledge are indeed black and white, or at least this approach is one that has not let me down so far. Of course I do not put my faith in this approach at the expense of all else, so it would not perturb me in the slightest if I discovered that this approach was flawed.

When I said the grand unifying theory would simply be a description of God, I am not making any assumption at all. All I am saying is that "I" will be happy with whatever explanation is come up with, as long as it really does explain everything, and does not leave me with another question, "yes but where did they come from?" If the answer is "They just always were", then as I mentioned before, that is the description of God in the Torah, so although we will certainly know more, the basic working hypothesis of that kind of God will only be re-enforced as a positive theory.

It is not arrogant to say that someone who dismisses a hypothesis on evolution may well be doing so only because they have not made themselves familiar with the ins and outs of that theory. I.E. their ignorance of the ins and outs may well be what has led to their dismissal of the explanation. Likewise it is not arrogant to say that anyone who dismisses any hypothesis may well be doing so because of their ignorance of that hypothesis. The clues to whether or not they are indeed ignorant of the tentative explanation will be in the language they use (e.g. a phrase like "islam uses the supernatural"). Basically it is easy for a doctor in the subject to identify an expert bluffer even if those with bachelor's degrees have the wool pulled over their eyes that the bluffer really does have some inkling of what they are talking about. My attitude is that the person would not be bluffing unless they were a baffoon/clown/joker (i.e. for their own personal entertainment) or unless they had a genuine interest in the subject (in which case they really should be encouraged to read more on that subject, as they might become the greatest scholar in that field). Tawheed is a process of logical elimination. Judging by your mind so far you may well really enjoy it, so I do recommend you get a good book about it. Islam does not make use of the supernatural any more than quantum and string theories do.

:brother:

P.S.
This is not important but perhaps you might appreciate a little constructive feedback.

You have made a number of assumptions here...

If I give a poor grade because I declare there to be too many assumptions a student may well challenge me and if it is discovered that I have not taken the care to understand what the student is really trying to say then I will loose the case, and will have to re-mark. The second time around I would have to say "your writing is unclear here" and ask for clarification. But I can not hide behind such a comment if the fault was not in the student's writing, but in my unwillingness/inability to comprehend then I will be in trouble again. It is not easy to be a lecturer.

[HeiGou]

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

I see two problems, the first is it does not so much as deal with it as insist that the question is beyond understanding. Everything is the work of God and so the whys and hows cannot be understood. The second is that the claim "There is an Invisible Pink Unicorn" is as much a valid working hypothesis as yours and it also deals with all the available evidence (as She created the Universe last Tuesday).

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

On the large scale that is true. There are questions to be answered. But on the small scale, on the level of individual problems, it works very well as a working hypothesis. If we see some Haitians, gay people and people who have had blood transfusions come in with strange diseases, we should go on to discover HIV, not say this is God's doing and there's nothing to be done.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis.

It is hard to know what possible further details of the working hypothesis there are that people do not understand. It is more likely that God is kept as a "God of the Gaps" - to cover those parts of science where ignorance is common and our understanding limited.

But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

I do not deny the plausibility of the Muslim God or the Christian God or the Hindu Gods or any other. I deny their usefulness to solving science problems. From that point of view, no matter what personal benefits we feel from God, God is not a good working hypothesis.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses.

Actually it does work perfectly well as a hypothesis and has been an enormously productive one too. On what possible grounds could you deny it?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

How could this proposition be disproved? Do you contend that it is falsifiable?

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

It doesn't explain where the universe came from, for example, but it can be used as the basis for a materialist explanation of how religion arose (a la Durkheim). Plus, of course, it's falsifiable. If god were to be discovered tomorrow, this proposition would have been proven wrong. As a result, this is the default position for mainstream science until contrary evidence arrives.

Peace

[primitivefuture]

It doesn't explain where the universe came from, for example, but it can be used as the basis for a materialist explanation of how religion arose (a la Durkheim). Plus, of course, it's falsifiable. If god were to be discovered tomorrow, this proposition would have been proven wrong. As a result, this is the default position for mainstream science until contrary evidence arrives.

The probability of the universe and life being created by chance is SO small that its only logical to reject the hypothesis.

[Fishman]

:sl:
Hey, great post Sabi (your way of life says 'Sabian', what does that mean?), we need more people who can make decent attempts to refute atheism. All we usually have is the 'fine-tuning' argument, which is not that good.

Brother primitive future, you can't know how likely it is for the universe to have come into existance. Using science, you cannot know about what caused the big bang. Science tells you the how, the when and the where, and Allah tells us these things too, along with the why.
:w:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The probability of the universe and life being created by chance is SO small that its only logical to reject the hypothesis.

Then why do so many logicians accept it? :p

Look, nobody knows how the universe came to be. How can you talk about the probability of it arising by chance being small? Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by chance, and secondly, the universe is here, so the probability of it arising is precisely one.

Peace

[Fishman]

Greetings,


Then why do so many logicians accept it? :p

Look, nobody knows how the universe came to be. How can you talk about the probability of it arising by chance being small? Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by chance, and secondly, the universe is here, so the probability of it arising is precisely one.

Peace

:sl:
I wouldn't say no-one knows. You can find that out by looking at the true religion.

And about God's falsifability, God is not falsifiable, and religions are. If we found out that there was really no beginning to the universe, then loads of religions would be falsified, including mine.

Would you believe that your friend was an alien who was unidentifable from a human, just because he said he was? No, you wouldn't, would you? That's like believing in God through faith alone.
But would you believe that your friend was the same alien as above if he gave you the engine of his spacecraft as evidence? Yes, because he has given you good, falsifiable evidence.
And that is like following the true faith, Islam. If you want to discover Allah, read the Quran, and pray for guidence (come on, it won't hurt, you're an atheist who doesn't believe he will be punished for it, aren't you?)!

By the way, a multiverse is just as unfalsifiable as God. And that's one of the things atheists use to disprove fine-tuning (which isn't a very good argument in itself).
:w:

[root]

Thanks for the response Sabi.

Islam does not make use of the supernatural any more than quantum and string theories do.

I really do question this. Allow me to bring up just one point (I have many) but I will use one simply as an example

Splitting of the moon

Islam takes this "miraculous" event literally. Now logically I know this not to be the case, no hypothosis can support it because it envokes a supernatural being AKA Allah.

Anything or anyone employed as a method of describing acts outside of the laws of the natural world is a supernatural entity or force. Yet, the paradox is that you yourself denies Islam employs a supernatural entity.

Quantum Physics does not employ supernatural entities or forces and nor does string theory or more specific "M" theory. Unless of course you can enlighten me by how Islam proposes the moon was split in two other than Allah which scientifically is a supernatural entity. No current theory or hypothosis currently known to science employs this as a method of interpreting the available data. Of, course I could even suggest that the splitting of the moon does not even have any observable data to which we could even begin an hypothosis. Other than the writings of a faith based religous book, though I don't mean to sound derogative by any means.

If I give a poor grade because I declare there to be too many assumptions a student may well challenge me and if it is discovered that I have not taken the care to understand what the student is really trying to say then I will loose the case, and will have to re-mark. The second time around I would have to say "your writing is unclear here" and ask for clarification. But I can not hide behind such a comment if the fault was not in the student's writing, but in my unwillingness/inability to comprehend then I will be in trouble again. It is not easy to be a lecturer.

A lot of wisdom is contained in your words, I absolutely agree, A failed student has a failed teacher. The assumptions were that the roads would lead back to Allah.

Fishman - I am not convinced you fully understand what "falsifiable" actually represents within a given theory.

[Fishman]

Fishman - I am not convinced you fully understand what "falsifiable" actually represents within a given theory.

:sl:
The splitting of the moon is a matter of faith. Just like the existance of Jinn. I don't expect to find any evidence outside of the Quran and authentic Hadith that would convince an atheist like you (or like I once was).

Falsifiablity means whether something can be proved wrong or not.
If I said 'it is day', then that can be proved wrong. It is falsifiable.
If I said 'it is night', then that can also be proved wrong.
If I said 'it is day or night', that is not falsifiable, because it cannot be proved wrong.
You can't argue with this explanation, because I found it on a site made by scientists, Evowiki.

Now, if I said 'the fine-tuning in the universe is created by God', that is unfalsifiable, because it cannot be proved wrong.
If I said 'the fine-tuning in the universe is because of a multiverse', that is also unfalsifiable, since a multiverse cannot be disproved.
:w:

[Sabi]

:sl:
Hey, great post Sabi (your way of life says 'Sabian', what does that mean?), we need more people who can make decent attempts to refute atheism. All we usually have is the 'fine-tuning' argument, which is not that good.
:w:

Jizakallah Khair Fishman :w:

You can read more about "Sabianism" (or Sibghatullah as it is properly called) here http://www.sebomenoi.com but from what I can gather in your title "almost a muslim" you too are already a Sabi. Agnosticism is absolutely fine, but Atheism is a belief system and is as flawed as any other. All we can say is that our knowledge is limited. Things are the way they are ultimately because there is an order to the universe. Therein I have found what I think God is, but I won't pretend I have any special Gnosis, that is not the Sabi way.

I like what you say about asking sincerely from ones heart for guidance. I know a former atheist who was a horrible man who did just that. Subahanallah its unbelieveable. And here I am still struggling because I have some inkling of belief anyway. Sometimes I think Atheists have it easy, all they have to do is ask Allah for guidance with sincereity.

Salaam

[Fishman]

Jizakallah Khair Fishman :w:

You can read more about "Sabianism" (or Sibghatullah as it is properly called) here http://www.sebomenoi.com but from what I can gather in your title "almost a muslim" you too are already a Sabi. Agnosticism is absolutely fine, but Atheism is a belief system and is as flawed as any other. All we can say is that our knowledge is limited. Things are the way they are ultimately because there is an order to the universe. Therein I have found what I think God is, but I won't pretend I have any special Gnosis, that is not the Sabi way.

I like what you say about asking sincerely from ones heart for guidance. I know a former atheist who was a horrible man who did just that. Subahanallah its unbelieveable. And here I am still struggling because I have some inkling of belief anyway. Sometimes I think Atheists have it easy, all they have to do is ask Allah for guidance with sincereity.

Salaam

:sl:
What I mean by 'almost a Muslim', is that I really want to revert to Islam, but just haven't told my parents and family yet. Insha'Allaah, I will be a Muslim soon.
Yes, atheism is just as flawed as any of the false religions, I used to be one, until I discovered Islam about one year ago.
:w:

[Sabi]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago. As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is. All I know is that believing that tradition is not an article of Islam as far as Sabis have understood it. Without doubt new truths can be discovered in any traditional story every day. That is where the value of such stories are, not in believing physical events (though as I said at first, the moon rock is an alarmingly accurate physical interpretation, though I do not usually like to look for such examples).

:brother:

[Sabi]

:sl:
What I mean by 'almost a Muslim', is that I really want to revert to Islam, but just haven't told my parents and family yet. Insha'Allaah, I will be a Muslim soon.

LOL my parents still think I am just confused. Isn't it funny how Transvestites can come out of the closet, but Muslims have to stay in the closet these days.

Yes, atheism is just as flawed as any of the false religions, I used to be one, until I discovered Islam about one year ago.
:w:

MashaAllah. congratulations.
:brother:

[HeiGou]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago.

Really? What is this evidence?

As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is.

I think you may find many Muslims around here do not think that an allegorical understanding of that hadith is permissible. They will insist on taking it quite literally I believe. After all they killed a guy in Iran for saying Muhammed did not perform that miracle.

[Fishman]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago. As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is. All I know is that believing that tradition is not an article of Islam as far as Sabis have understood it. Without doubt new truths can be discovered in any traditional story every day. That is where the value of such stories are, not in believing physical events (though as I said at first, the moon rock is an alarmingly accurate physical interpretation, though I do not usually like to look for such examples).

:brother:

:sl:
But don't the Hadith talk about the moon splitting at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? The moon-rocks came to Earth much later. There is also some crazy stuff going around that the moon was physically torn in two (most Muslims now believe that it was like a miraculous illusion, shown to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions), citing 'strange' cracks in the moon as evidence.

Can you sum up the relationship between Islam and Sabiansim in a few words? What you say makes it sound like the two are closely connected.
:w:

[Sabi]

:sl:
But don't the Hadith talk about the moon splitting at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? The moon-rocks came to Earth much later. There is also some crazy stuff going around that the moon was physically torn in two (most Muslims now believe that it was like a miraculous illusion, shown to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions), citing 'strange' cracks in the moon as evidence.

As I tried to indicate, I hope that the hadith on the subject means that the miracle was allegorical or some kind of amazing illusion, because such an event would not have escaped the watchful eye of the star gazers all around the world at the time. I agree with you that there are a lot of crazy ideas floating around which are an embarrassment to the scientific heritage muslims should be proud to be a part of. I hope HeiGou is wrong in the assumption about other muslims here otherwise you and I are in trouble.:rollseyes

Can you sum up the relationship between Islam and Sabiansim in a few words? What you say makes it sound like the two are closely connected.
:w:

I think that the simplest way of putting it is to say that when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) used to go to the caves prior to his inspiration, he was doing what Sabi`ah Hunafa` do. Because of this a lot of Pagans used to think that He and his companions were Sabians. If you have anymore questions about Sabis how about posting them here http://www.islamicboard.com/depth-is...-sabian-4.html so that this present thread does not go off-topic.

:brother:

[root]

It would seem to me that Islam has controversy within itself;

Seven Heavens

some muslims on this forum beleive that the seven heavens is a miraculous revelation to the seven atmospherical layers of our planet, other muslims here disagree.

Splitting of the moon

Some muslims here subscribe to it being a miraculous event and again other muslims here (such recently in this thread) don't give it as much support as the others.

[primitivefuture]

root, what is the p-value of a completely random cellular mutation?

[Fishman]

It would seem to me that Islam has controversy within itself;

Seven Heavens

some muslims on this forum beleive that the seven heavens is a miraculous revelation to the seven atmospherical layers of our planet, other muslims here disagree.

Splitting of the moon

Some muslims here subscribe to it being a miraculous event and again other muslims here (such recently in this thread) don't give it as much support as the others.

:sl:
Yes, there is lots of controversy surrounding these things. I, having thought about how the seven Heavens comply with scientific facts for a long time, personally have a completely different interpretation of them than most Muslims, which actually complies with science. I can't post it here though, since it's long and complicated.
:w:

[root]

root, what is the p-value of a completely random cellular mutation?

I don't know:

85% of streakers have this in common. What is it?

;D

[Fishman]

I don't know:
;D

:sl:
There are about 150 per generation. Most mutations are neutral, not harmful, and many of the harmful ones are also benificial in some environments, such as the dark-coloured wings of some peppered moths. Please do not listen to Harun Yahya's work on evolution, I can't warn you enough about how many lies, misquotes and straw-men it contains.
:w:

[Sabi]

:sl:
Yes, there is lots of controversy surrounding these things. I, having thought about how the seven Heavens comply with scientific facts for a long time, personally have a completely different interpretation of them than most Muslims, which actually complies with science. I can't post it here though, since it's long and complicated.
:w:

Could you please post it to me privately, I would be interested to read it.
Jizakhallah Khair.

P.S. Alpha Dude! You the Man! With 4 madhabs and a controvercial 5th Islam was always a religion of tollerance with regards to interpretation, it is a very sad thing that the western totalitarian "my way or the high way" attitude has started to corrupt certain corners of the Ummah. But what Allah (SWT) has established none will damage but by the permission of Allah (SWT).

:brother:

P.P.S Root, I am not really a Muslim (capital M) more of a muslim (small m), so I am not sure if it is fair to use such an a-typical example like me to criticize Islam (capital I).

[root]

There are about 150 per generation. Most mutations are neutral, not harmful, and many of the harmful ones are also benificial in some environments, such as the dark-coloured wings of some peppered moths. Please do not listen to Harun Yahya's work on evolution, I can't warn you enough about how many lies, misquotes and straw-men it contains.

Impressive. Can you tell me the odds of a misfiring retrovirus insertion in the reproduction sytem of the female sex cells (gametes)?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

With 4 madhabs and a controvercial 5th Islam was always a religion of tollerance with regards to interpretation, it is a very sad thing that the western totalitarian "my way or the high way" attitude has started to corrupt certain corners of the Ummah.

I wonder what this "Western totalitarian attitude" is that you're talking about?

Peace

[Sabi]

Crusaders

[Fishman]

Impressive. Can you tell me the odds of a misfiring retrovirus insertion in the reproduction sytem of the female sex cells (gametes)?

:sl:
No. I'm not that smart! I learn these things when attempting to disprove creationism. I'm just as opposed to it as you are!
:w:

[root]

No. I'm not that smart! I learn these things when attempting to disprove creationism. I'm just as opposed to it as you are!

Nor am I

Sabi - P.P.S Root, I am not really a Muslim (capital M) more of a muslim (small m), so I am not sure if it is fair to use such an a-typical example like me to criticize Islam (capital I).

First and foremost I am here to engage in healthy debate. Not necessaerily to cticize but yes to be critical at times.

[Woodrow]

:sl:
Is there evidence to support the existence of a Creator?

The key word here is evidence. Personaly I wish that the word proof would have been used instead. The concept of limiting ourselves to evidence and not proof, sends the messagement, that some of us may be hesitent to stand up and clearly say. "I KNOW ALLAH(swt) EXISTS"

Let us not settle for the mediocre that we have evidence, There can be evidence found for nearly any statement. Let us be certain enough to stand foreward and let it be known. We have proof, we have measurable facts.

Satement: Allah(set) Exists

PROOFS:
He has made his presence known

A. He has revealed Himself to mankind
1. Sacred writings speak of the existance of a God
2, Historicaly there have been verifiable people
that have had direct contact with him
3. He has made several verifiable convenents with humans

He has created an infinite universe

A, The universe exists
1. Matter is measurable, quantifiable and qualifiable
B. It was not built of matter
1. Matter did not exist prior to it's creation
2. Physical beings have not succeeded in
replicating it.
3. Atomic facts show that matter contains no solid
"building" material
C. There is no detectable end to the universe
1. Quantum pnysics and Astronomy verify that the universe
would not exist if it had finite limitations

He knows all things

[czgibson]

Greetings,

PROOFS:
He has made his presence known

A. He has revealed Himself to mankind
1. Sacred writings speak of the existance of a God
2, Historicaly there have been verifiable people
that have had direct contact with him
3. He has made several verifiable convenents with humans

He has created an infinite universe

A, The universe exists
1. It is measurable, quantifiable and qualifiable
B. It was not built of matter
1. Matter did not exist prior to it's creation
2. Physical beings have not succeeded in
replicating it.
3. Atomic facts show that matter contains no solid
"building" material
C. There is no detectable end to the universe
1. Quantum pnysics and Astronomy verify that the universe
would not exist if it had finite limitations

He knows all things

What you've given here are a series of assertions. Some of them have evidence to support them, some of them have no evidence to support them. These are certainly not 'proofs' of the existence of god.

To take two of your interlinked propositions, you've said that the universe is infinite, and that it is measurable. How can these two statements possibly both be true?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


What you've given here are a series of assertions. Some of them have evidence to support them, some of them have no evidence to support them. These are certainly not 'proofs' of the existence of god.

To take two of your interlinked propositions, you've said that the universe is infinite, and that it is measurable. How can these two statements possibly both be true?

Peace

First I will begin by thanking you for pointing this error to me:
"To take two of your interlinked propositions, you've said that the universe is infinite, and that it is measurable. How can these two statements possibly both be true?"
I had intended to say matter is measurable. I will go back and edit that.

Now the problem is going to be of proof. It is very difficult to present any proof, that all people will accept as proof.

I am deliberatly leaving that vague. To myself I am convinced of 2. things.
1. God revealed himself to mankind. 2. The universe had a Creator.

Those 2 things are sufficient proof for me that God exists. The following statements under each indicate why I believe those to be true.

Now I know you will not accept anything as proof unless it can be systematicaly measured and scrutinized beyond all doubt.

Can you name anything that you would accept as being undeniable Proof of God's existence?

The topic for this thread was :Is there evidence for God's existence. I think you will have to agree the answer to that is yes.


Now, I opened the door by saying that there is not only evidence there is proof. I will agree that you and I will differ as to what constitutes proof. Now, if we can both come to an agreement as to what would be an argeeable definition of Proof in this case, I will do my best, to find verification of it.

Would you accept mearsurable facts of both of my "proofs" A. God Revealed Himself B. The universe was created as proof of God's existance?

[HeiGou]

P.S. Alpha Dude! You the Man! With 4 madhabs and a controvercial 5th Islam was always a religion of tollerance with regards to interpretation, it is a very sad thing that the western totalitarian "my way or the high way" attitude has started to corrupt certain corners of the Ummah. But what Allah (SWT) has established none will damage but by the permission of Allah (SWT).

Some how I don't think it is fair to blame the West for that. Indeed your last sentence there suggests that "western totalitarian" attitude is entirely Islamic. How could Islam be anything else?

[Sabi]

How can a Sabian have a totalitarian Islamic perspective:?

[IceQueen~]

many people think they do not believe in God, but why don't they look around them at the world, the wonders of nature etc and reflect upon this..?
the other thing is, you can't put any water in a glass that's turned upside-down, so you have to have an open mind too.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace to you all, I have to say I am amazed this thread is still going strong after 800 posts, maybe this is going to be the infinite thread that cannot be measured.

To take two of your interlinked propositions, you've said that the universe is infinite, and that it is measurable. How can these two statements possibly both be true?

And it seems to pose the question can God create something infinite that he cannot measure?

We talk of God’s infinite love for each one of us but can he possibly love each one of us infinitely more than he loves himself?

By its very nature questions on infinity seem unanswerable.

In the spirit of searching for answers

Eric

[IceQueen~]

Greetings and peace to you all, I have to say I am amazed this thread is still going strong after 800 posts, maybe this is going to be the infinite thread that cannot be measured.



And it seems to pose the question can God create something infinite that he cannot measure?

We talk of God’s infinite love for each one of us but can he possibly love each one of us infinitely more than he loves himself?

By its very nature questions on infinity seem unanswerable.

In the spirit of searching for answers

Eric

some questions contradict themselevs so just starting to answer them-you fall into the trap of illogical stuff.

[Sabi]

No sister, do not worry. This is tawheed. The answer is of course yes. Whether we comprehend it or not. There is a similar question, can God make a camel pass through the eye of a needle without making the camel smaller or the hole bigger, and again the answer is of course yes. Logic is a gift from god we should not be shy to use it to the max.
O ye of little faith.

[IceQueen~]

No sister, do not worry. This is tawheed. The answer is of course yes. Whether we comprehend it or not. There is a similar question, can God make a camel pass through the eye of a needle without making the camel smaller or the hole bigger, and again the answer is of course yes. Logic is a gift from god we should not be shy to use it to the max.
O ye of little faith.

i'm not talking about these kind of arguments-i'm talking about stupid illogical questions that atheists ask just for the sake of mixing people up..

like can God create a stone He can't lift?

[HeiGou]

How can a Sabian have a totalitarian Islamic perspective:?

I do not know. When I meet one I'll let you know. In the meantime I do not see how Islamic rigour is my fault.

[Fishman]

I do not know. When I meet one I'll let you know.

:sl:
He is a Sabian.

There is no detectable end to the universe

That's because the universe has at least five dimensions to it. To us, it seems that there is no end, but if you kept travelling in the same direction, you would reach the place where you set off from. In other words, there is no edge.
:w:

[Woodrow]

:sl:
He is a Sabian.


That's because the universe has at least five dimensions to it. To us, it seems that there is no end, but if you kept travelling in the same direction, you would reach the place where you set off from. In other words, there is no edge.
:w:

Glad you said there are at least 5 Dimensions. More then one physicist has suggested the probable existence of many more. Now your statement is true, yet at the same time false. That assumes that the fabric of the space, matter, time continuum is a sphere with an infinite radius. True a projection can be made that traveling from one point will graphically return to the originating point. But, it would be an infinite distance and would take an infinite period of time to complete the circumvention of the sphere. We have a sphere that is describale, but has no physical limitations.

By it's very nature it is impossible to prove that the universe is infinite, as infinity can not be measured.

Perhaps, It would be better if I had said that there are no measuremente that prove the universe has limits. However, even that would not be considered that the universe is infinite, it merely means we have not developed technology to measure it fully. the other problem is even if we were to come up with an accurate method of measuring the extremes of the universe from point A to point B, the question will be what happens if I step past point B

[Sabi]

like can God create a stone He can't lift?

:sl: :sister:
Be at ease sister. None of the questions they can come up with have not been asked and answered already through the logic of strict Tawheed. The answer to that question for example is. Allah (SWT) can do whatsoever Allah wills if it pleases Him, and it is not for us to question Allah's motives or attribute to him anything that has not been revealed through one of his messengers. They are the sort of questions children ask and it is a sign that their knowledge is incomplete, so it is up to us to help them.

:brother:

[Sabi]

Allah (SWT) can hold infinity between His eyes, between his thumb and forefinger or between anything else Allah (SWT) so wills. This paradox is completely explainable by simple mathematics. Numbers can go on for infinity from 1 in a plus or minus direction, yet between 1 and Zero there are just as infinite number of fractions as there are between 1 and 2 or 1 and infinity.
Subahanallah.
:brother:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

i'm not talking about these kind of arguments-i'm talking about stupid illogical questions that atheists ask just for the sake of mixing people up..

like can God create a stone He can't lift?

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-than-him.html

Already answered.

:w:

[Fishman]

Glad you said there are at least 5 Dimensions. More then one physicist has suggested the probable existence of many more. Now your statement is true, yet at the same time false. That assumes that the fabric of the space, matter, time continuum is a sphere with an infinite radius. True a projection can be made that traveling from one point will graphically return to the originating point. But, it would be an infinite distance and would take an infinite period of time to complete the circumvention of the sphere. We have a sphere that is describale, but has no physical limitations.

By it's very nature it is impossible to prove that the universe is infinite, as infinity can not be measured.

Perhaps, It would be better if I had said that there are no measuremente that prove the universe has limits. However, even that would not be considered that the universe is infinite, it merely means we have not developed technology to measure it fully. the other problem is even if we were to come up with an accurate method of measuring the extremes of the universe from point A to point B, the question will be what happens if I step past point B

:sl:
there are ways of measuring the radius of the universe. You simply measure how much gravity is in the universe, which can tell you how curved it is. We know that the universe is almost flat, with a slight positive curve. We also know that the universe has no edge. If you extend any curved line, the two ends will eventually meet.
:w:

[root]

Perhaps, It would be better if I had said that there are no measuremente that prove the universe has limits. However, even that would not be considered that the universe is infinite

Are you not confusing the universe with space?

it merely means we have not developed technology to measure it fully. the other problem is even if we were to come up with an accurate method of measuring the extremes of the universe from point A to point B, the question will be what happens if I step past point B

You would extend the distance between point A and point B?

[Woodrow]

Are you not confusing the universe with space?

Space is not very clearly defined. In essence it means everything that is not within the earths atmosphere.


You would extend the distance between point A and point B?

True, but we had already defined the extremes of the Universe as A to B, to accept the concept that B can be extended denotes acceptance that the Universe is infinite.

[Sabi]

:thumbs_up LOL. Precisely!
:coolbro:

[Sabi]

Oops :rollseyes sorry Bro Woodrow, that was actually for Root, I thought his succinct response was quite witty.

What he meant was that it could only be expressed as a formula, so there would be no specific values, hence the equation would be unaffected. he is speaking in algebra, but it does make sense. As does your comment, which is seeking to be more empirical, but when we start talking about the kind of infinite figures needed to discuss this, empiricism becomes rather a moot point.

:brother:

[root]

Space is not very clearly defined. In essence it means everything that is not within the earths atmosphere.

I find space best described as the void between two atoms?

First of all let's look at something of infinate value closer to home that has no beginning and has no end but of immense value to us. This is simply "numbers". Yet, if I say the distance between me and my local shop is 135 metres you understand precisely what I mean. If our universe is 16 billion years old then it's distance between two points are 16 Billion Light Years apart!

If you was to take an imagenary journey to the very edge of the universe what would you see. Of course you would not hit a brick wall, the universe has no physical boundary or border. You will see "nothing", (no light & no matter) just darkness. but what is this "nothing".

Who created the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into? Another way of what I am trying to describe. Assume God created the universe, did god also create the "nothing" that the universe expands into. This is also a regressive question because who created the nothing that the nothing that the nothing that the nothing etc etc expanded into.

Does "nothing" exist? I for one say yes logically "nothing" must in a human sense exist. So finally, "nothing" is "nothing" otherwise described as "matterless space" and like numbers it is infinate, the universe is not.

[Sabi]

but what is this "nothing".
Who created the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into?

Seems to me that you are well on your way to finding God. That is where I started at least. I thought to myself, well I suppose that is just "it which is", then I found the ancient Hebrew way of saying those three words and absolute peace entered my being.

I find space best described as the void between two atoms?

Me 2. There is infinite space between them, and I find that mind-blowingly beautiful.

There is a difference between your supposition and my own way back. Mine was based upon this string of 5 concepts

no thing can not exist

Whereas you seem to have jumped (unless you have not illustrated the fullness of your calculations) to the paradoxical answer to that fact that we can not deny that space does exist, i.e. nothing really is. At least by this I mean I correct me if I am wrong, that although we can not touch it (or maybe that is all we can do?) or see it, we know that it is there. And from here we can start to finally understand all of those deep and meaningful statements of the prophets and messengers which people stand in awe at without actually grasping the immense beauty and truth of it all. So my eyes are wet typing this.

Are you sure you are an Atheist? Because you speak like a dry-eyed sabi. All you need is to let go with your emmotions and feel it flow. I had a friend in Pakistan who was a dry-eyed sabi, I don't know what her psychological history was, but whenever she tried to let go she started to get so physically shaken to pieces that she would stop. She went to Shrinks and took medication because she was so afraid of this emmotion. Then she decided to study psychology and she realised that there was nothing to fear but fear itself. She stopped the medication, and after a few weeks took a deep breath and boom. I am jealous of the ammount of love she has, it is immeasurable really. I don't know what it is about true dry-eyed sabi`een that allows them to experience so easily when it happens that which the rest of us wet-eyed sabi`een spend our whole lives seeking. Their tears are on the outside too when they pray, while to my regret mine are usually only on the inside.

God Bless you.

:brother:

[root]

Originally Posted by root
but what is this "nothing".
Who created the "nothing" that the universe is expanding into?

Sabi - Seems to me that you are well on your way to finding God. That is where I started at least. I thought to myself, well I suppose that is just "it which is", then I found the ancient Hebrew way of saying those three words and absolute peace entered my being.

The fact remains that I am very happy in the knowledge nobody created "nothing".

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
I find space best described as the void between two atoms?

Sabi - Me 2. There is infinite space between them, and I find that mind-blowingly beautiful.

Quite.

There is a difference between your supposition and my own way back. Mine was based upon this string of 5 concepts

no thing can not exist

Whereas you seem to have jumped (unless you have not illustrated the fullness of your calculations) to the paradoxical answer to that fact that we can not deny that space does exist, i.e. nothing really is. At least by this I mean I correct me if I am wrong, that although we can not touch it (or maybe that is all we can do?) or see it, we know that it is there.

I need some hash! (shame I stopped several years ago). I agree that we cannot truly observe nothing directly or indirectly, It does not exist. Unless you want to call me a lier when I say I am holding nothing in the palm of my hand. You also just described nothing as "it" creating in your or my mind a physical entity which is probably the point that our agreement parts. I accept nothing as being nothing, you seem contrary to that opinion.

And from here we can start to finally understand all of those deep and meaningful statements of the prophets and messengers which people stand in awe at without actually grasping the immense beauty and truth of it all. So my eyes are wet typing this.

Seems you have had quite an emotional stimuli and since I notice your next paragraph refers to Pakistan I am going off topic since I spent quite some time in Krach, pakistan. On my final day I spent time with new friends made who I had spent so much time with. I spent the day with some pakistani military officers, some wealthy Pakistani individuals smoking dope drinking beer and eating, a big passtime in Pakisan. I remember going to the beach and standing on a wall as the vey warm air gushed by my body off the arabian sea. Quite an endorfine packed experience which brought a tear to my eye. Finally, my Pakistani friend "Jimi" asked what my opinion was of him and his country. I said in all honesty "It seems pakistan and the UK have lost touch for the great historical events between the two have been confided to the history books and that is a great shame. I came here thinking terrorists and badlands, I leave with great friends and much respect for pakistan".

Jimmy, came to the British consulate with me and he would never allow me to pay for anything. I said to him in the consulate "you are now on British soil, you no longer pay for me and I return your hospitality". I duly took him to the bar and got him drunk ;D A picture of the Queen was on the wall and he said "look the Queen", and I nodded in agreement. He then went on to describe how the picture of the queen was on the wall in his home when he was a child. which to me only reinforced the great historical links pakistan and the British have, it's not all bad as some here would make us believe.

I have strayed - so shall get back on topic.

Are you sure you are an Atheist? Because you speak like a dry-eyed sabi. All you need is to let go with your emmotions and feel it flow. I had a friend in Pakistan who was a dry-eyed sabi, I don't know what her psychological history was, but whenever she tried to let go she started to get so physically shaken to pieces that she would stop. She went to Shrinks and took medication because she was so afraid of this emmotion. Then she decided to study psychology and she realised that there was nothing to fear but fear itself. She stopped the medication, and after a few weeks took a deep breath and boom. I am jealous of the ammount of love she has, it is immeasurable really. I don't know what it is about true dry-eyed sabi`een that allows them to experience so easily when it happens that which the rest of us wet-eyed sabi`een spend our whole lives seeking. Their tears are on the outside too when they pray, while to my regret mine are usually only on the inside.

I don't consider myself an atheist, it's a label other people give me because I reject the human religous explanation of God. I am here quite by chance and everything I observe around me also is. I disregard the antropic notionthat the laws of physics themselves are a carefully tuned put-up-job calculated to bring humanity eventually into existence, I reject this notion every bit as much as history playing a scriptured theatrical play whose purpose was pre destined to have a world order that we currently observe. It is no accident that we see stars in our sky at night and this does not imply that stars exist in order that we could have existed. It's just without stars their would be no atoms heavier than lithium in the periadic table and a chemistry of just three elements is too impoverished to support life. Seeing is the kind of activity that can go on only in a kind of universe where what you see is stars!

God Bless you.

Thankyou, such people as yourself bring hope peace and understanding amongst people. I have much respect for you brother!

a Selfish Gene once said:

Bodies of plenty I have seen
you think your so clever
but I will live forever
your just a survival machine.

[Sabi]

So you are a Sabi, just a naughty one :okay:

The fact remains that I am very happy in the knowledge nobody created "nothing".

Exactly! it is uncreated. The only difference really is that I call it... er... well... I suppose that is the difference, I referred to it as.... oops.... there I go again. How can I talk about it... tut, and again... well without saying IT? Space, Nothing, Hyperspace, The Swiss Cheese, The Matrix, all of these are just words, labels, names. We might as well choose one for it (tut sorry, there I go again). I just think it (oi vey) is such a beautiful fact (how's that one?) that only the most beautiful names will do. But if you find beauty in the word "Nothing" then perhaps that is your own private and special "wahy" (revelation). As a name it makes me quake at my own fragility in the face of it, so I suppose I can find beauty in the phrase "The Nothing", but since it is indivisible (it really is an indivisible singularity) I suppose that the presence of the definite article really does not matter that much but it just sounds nicer to my ears. It is difficult for me at least baring this Tawheed in mind to understand then some people calling themselves Sufis when they think they can be one with it, without complete and total self annihilation? What do you think?

Thankyou, such people as yourself bring hope peace and understanding amongst people. I have much respect for you brother!

Jizakallah khair brother, but it really is not me, it is the emmotion I have surrendered to. And thank you so much for tollerating my own choice of words instead of condemning them, I do hope you will be able to explain us to others like yourself. A bridge comes from two sides remember, so there would be no coming together were it not for you too. Its great to be a Human isn't it? I mean I am sure a slug has some kind of feelings too, but it really is wonderful that our reasoning can lead to such a complex flood of beautiful emmotion.

Salaam Brother.



P.S. I think its more catchy this way :P

There once was a selfish old Gene
who said "Bodies-a-plenty I've seen,
you think your so clever
but I'll live forever
your just a survival machine."

[root]

Exactly! it is uncreated. The only difference really is that I call it... er... well... I suppose that is the difference, I referred to it as.... oops.... there I go again. How can I talk about it... tut, and again... well without saying IT? Space, Nothing, Hyperspace, The Swiss Cheese, The Matrix, all of these are just words, labels, names. We might as well choose one for it (tut sorry, there I go again). I just think it (oi vey) is such a beautiful fact (how's that one?) that only the most beautiful names will do. But if you find beauty in the word "Nothing" then perhaps that is your own private and special "wahy" (revelation). As a name it makes me quake at my own fragility in the face of it,

An uncreated entity, now that must be the mother of all paradoxical thought.

so I suppose I can find beauty in the phrase "The Nothing", but since it is indivisible (it really is an indivisible singularity) I suppose that the presence of the definite article really does not matter that much but it just sounds nicer to my ears.

It's neither visible nor unvisible. I think your identification of a singularity is agreeable though if only in result but not by descriptive means.

it is difficult for me at least baring this Tawheed in mind to understand then some people calling themselves Sufis when they think they can be one with it, without complete and total self annihilation? What do you think?

Not sure entirely what you mean here. However, I don't consider "nothing" as being spritual, and as I said I am very comfortable with an uncreated infinately small/large non-entity that is "nothing".

[Ayesha Rana]

Not sure entirely what you mean here. However, I don't consider "nothing" as being spritual, and as I said I am very comfortable with an uncreated infinately small/large non-entity that is "nothing".

So what would you do Root if you found out that this inexplainable 'nothing' was created by God

[root]

So what would you do Root if you found out that this inexplainable 'nothing' was created by God

I would look to what "God" was? considering the question I am just about to ask you.

Can I ask you, given the same scenario. If the creation was a simulation run by alien supreme beings, would you accept them as "God"? and why not if you choose no.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Alien supreme beings? You're not a ralien are you? (or however you spell that)

[root]

Alien supreme beings? You're not a ralien are you? (or however you spell that)

You could at least answer the question?

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

It wasn't aimed at me though, and I thought it would be rude to answer for her.

[Ayesha Rana]

I would look to what "God" was? considering the question I am just about to ask you.

Can I ask you, given the same scenario. If the creation was a simulation run by alien supreme beings, would you accept them as "God"? and why not if you choose no.

All of them? God? I don't think so cos they would all be the most powerful and that would contradict that God has no equal. Get it?

[Ayesha Rana]

It wasn't aimed at me though, and I thought it would be rude to answer for her.

Thanks. I gotta go now Salaam.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

It's cool.;)

[root]

All of them? God? I don't think so cos they would all be the most powerful and that would contradict that God has no equal. Get it?

Bear that in mind when you stray into the fields of ID!

[Abdul Fattah]

I think there's a lot of assumptions made in the hyphotesis in this thread that should be point out. And most of the assumptions are the result of difrent interpretations of a word.

Take "nothig" . When we say we hold nothing in our hand, we actually do hold somthing (air molecules) in our hand. When we pull a bottle vacuum (= airfree) we still have something inside that bottle. Even empty space (the area of nothingness between stars and planets) is a materialistioc fabric. It's made out of higsparticles. And gravity bends this so called "empty" space.
(BTW, the space between atoms is very much finite. A line between to points cannot be infinite since the two points limit the lenght of that line. that's basic geometry)

So what is beyond the boundry of our universe. You say there is "nothing" beyond it. I say there is no "beyond" for your nothing to be present. What happens when we would forcly cross this boundery? Well we cant, the bounderey expands by the speed of light, so there's no cathing up on it, let alone pass it. What if hypotetically we could? Well my guess is, the matter you're build up of would disintegrate and be used to create empty space in the "nothingness". Edit: on second thought, this could be confusing, because there is no nothingness, otherwise it would be something. and if it's something, then your disintegrated energy would probably build that up to. Mast part is pure speculation of course.

Who cretaed the nothingness? Does nothing need creation when it's not there? Empty space was created by big bang. But nothingness isn't cretaed. If it were, it would outomaticly become something rather then nothing.

Can I ask you, given the same scenario. If the creation was a simulation run by alien supreme beings, would you accept them as "God"? and why not if you choose no.

There's a whole lot of assumptions lying in that question.

First of all We believe in the oneness of God, so that's an obvious obstacle in answering your question, so for simplicity I 'm going to answer the question as if you suggested a single alien, rather then a group.

Next important word: "creation". Creation can be interpreted in many ways. There's creation with full knowledge (big bang already calculated in that right now i would be writing this sentence, it all goes by a devine decreet (wich is the commonly accepted pov in islam). But then there's also weaker interpretations of creation. An impuls set loose to lead it's own life by luck. A scientific expierenment meant to produce data. etc...

Now if you repeat the quetsion considereing the devine decreet kind of creation, wich implies that what you call this alien is the creator, this entity is omnipotent, the one that planned and caused the events to happen, that made the qur'an, that granted us gifts and blessing more then we could ever count, and so on, yes then I suppose we would accept him. I mean, what's in a name. You call it alien, but by defenition anything that didn't origenate on earth is alien. So an entity that has no beginning at all would also be "alien".

Another interesting word choice is simulation. Is life real under this hypothesis? Are the promisses of the afterlife still standing. Is this simulation the test we are going to be judge for. Basicly is this just our religion with a lil twist. (Because in the end, all we know beside the 99 names of allah, is that e is beyond anything our mind can imagen, so let's keep an open mind).

Now; I know what your thinking. I took your question out of context, and I projected, tried to merge it with Islam. Some people might think I'm loosing my mind, and you might think I'm trying to avoid your question. But there's actually a point to all of this. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this is:
We do not believe and worship our creator simply out of respect because he created us, but also out of thankfullness for the method in which he did so, out of love for the blesings we recieve, our of fear for responsability over our acts we have been given, out of guilt for this perfect creation we do not do justice, out of joy that is granted in our hearths, etc. At first sight your hypotetical alien doesn't come close.

[root]

I think there's a lot of assumptions made in the hyphotesis in this thread that should be point out. And most of the assumptions are the result of difrent interpretations of a word.

Agreed.

Take "nothig" . When we say we hold nothing in our hand, we actually do hold somthing (air molecules) in our hand. When we pull a bottle vacuum (= airfree) we still have something inside that bottle. Even empty space (the area of nothingness between stars and planets) is a materialistioc fabric. It's made out of higsparticles. And gravity bends this so called "empty" space.
(BTW, the space between atoms is very much finite. A line between to points cannot be infinite since the two points limit the lenght of that line. that's basic geometry)

Agreed, I will clarify "nothing" as massless space. BTW the void between two atoms as space is quite acceptable to me.

So what is beyond the boundry of our universe. You say there is "nothing" beyond it. I say there is no "beyond" for your nothing to be present. What happens when we would forcly cross this boundery? Well we cant, the bounderey expands by the speed of light, so there's no cathing up on it, let alone pass it. What if hypotetically we could? Well my guess is, the matter you're build up of would disintegrate and be used to create empty space in the "nothingness". Mast part is pure speculation of course.

Yes, pure speculation. massless space is comparable with a mathamatical number in that it has no beginning and no end it just exactly what I have described "massless space". Anything else, for now is pure speculation.

Who cretaed the nothingness? Does nothing need creation when it's not there? Empty space was created by big bang. But nothingness isn't cretaed. If it were, it would outomaticly become something rather then nothing.

Correct, and yet the universe would appear to expand into massless space?

There's a whole lot of assumptions lying in that question.

yes, and so to the question of finding God I simply reversed the question and aked if the "God" found was not actually God. Would islam accept thenm as God.

First of all We believe in the oneness of God, so that's an obvious obstacle in answering your question, so for simplicity I 'm going to answer the question as if you suggested a single alien, rather then a group

Somehow I don't think you are going to.

Next important word: "creation". Creation can be interpreted in many ways. There's creation with full knowledge (big bang already calculated in that right now i would be writing this sentence, it all goes by a devine decreet (wich is the commonly accepted pov in islam). But then there's also weaker interpretations of creation. An impuls set loose to lead it's own life by luck. A scientific expierenment meant to produce data. etc...

I suppose I could clarify. Creation (for this question) is simply matter and physical laws (within my question). Everything else, and us are formed randomly within the laws of physics.

Now if you repeat the quetsion considereing the devine decreet kind of creation, wich implies that what you call this alien is the creator, this entity is omnipotent, the one that planned and caused the events to happen, that made the qur'an, that granted us gifts and blessing more then we could ever count, and so on

Hold on, your being sneaky the question of the intelligent designer was that they created the universe and dictated the rules of nature and never actually created nature planets or anything, they don;t know nothing about us and nothing about no Koran. Woukld you accept them as God?

, yes then I suppose we would accept him. I mean, what's in a name. You call it alien, but by defenition anything that didn't origenate on earth is alien. So an entity that has no beginning at all would also be "alien".

So if life never originated on Earth, we are all aliens. I quite agree.

Another interesting word choice is simulation. Is life real under this hypothesis? Are the promisses of the afterlife still standing. Is this simulation the test we are going to be judge for. Basicly is this just our religion with a lil twist. (Because in the end, all we know beside the 99 names of allah, is that e is beyond anything our mind can imagen, so let's keep an open mind).

If our universe was a simulation, we are still very much alive but your purposely refusing to accept that "us" an "intelligent designer" and "Islam" are all linked, my question was if we found proof that they are not linked in anyway and you found your intelligent designer WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEM AS GOD

Now; I know what your thinking.

You should not try to pre-empt me my freind. It does not always bode to be correct.

I took your question out of context, and I projected, tried to merge it with Islam. Some people might think I'm loosing my mind, and you might think I'm trying to avoid your question. But there's actually a point to all of this. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this is:

Yes I know you did.

We do not believe and worship our creator simply out of respect because he created us, but also out of thankfullness for the method in which he did so, out of love for the blesings we recieve, our of fear for responsability over our acts we have been given, out of guilt for this perfect creation we do not do justice, out of joy that is granted in our hearths, etc. At first sight your hypotetical alien doesn't come close.

You have not answered the question.

I wonder why it is that when I (atheistic) am answered a question similar to this "what happens if we prove God" it's fairly easy to answer. yet ask Islam a similar in return and all you get is "interpretation" "hypothosis" questioning of definitions of this that and the other.

It's a straight forward Question.

"If our universe was created by super intelligent beings" would you accept them as God?

[Abdul Fattah]

Agreed, I will clarify "nothing" as massless space. BTW the void between two atoms as space is quite acceptable to me.

It might seem as I am picking hairs here. But those interpretations are still questionable. First the void between two atoms is simular to the vacuum and still materialistic space. second, materialistic space (build up out of higgs-particles is assumed to be massles to). I'm not well informed enough to know why these massles particles are still influenced by gravity. I can only assume for the same reason as masseless photons are influenced by gravity. So why is it materialistic? becouse it's made up by the same energy as materials (and mass) are made up of. But I get the idea. you're hinting to an abstract "container for space" right? "a place for the space to be at" right?
So why am I still picking hairs? To get to the following ->

Correct, and yet the universe would appear to expand into massless space?

Who's to say that container exists? By okhams razor, there is no need for such a notion. The barrier of our universe as it expands, on its path it creates empty space (the materialistic kind) from energy. So one could have enough with that theory to explain the sudden increase of "room" .
Like I said:
You say there is "nothing" beyond the barrier. I say there is no "beyond" the barrier for your "nothing" to be present at.

As for the aliens, sorry if I frustrated you by apearently avoiding your question, I just had to make you go more in detail before I could answer. Now I think I can give you a more direct answer.

No, I would probably not accept them. I would feel misguided. Because in the hypothesis you suggested, my religion would turn out to be false. And as I said, we do not only worship and praise out of respect fro creation, but for many other aspects of religion that in your hypothesis would turn out to be an illusion.

edit: about this "nothingness, this room , this container. I believe the correct word is "ether". Listen to how Stephen hawkins explains how relativity got rid of the suggestion of a nether in his book, a brief history of time:

Maxwell’s theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton’s theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to.
It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!

Between 1887 and 1905 there were several attempts, most notably by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of objects contracting and clocks slowing down when they moved through the ether. However, in a famous paper in 1905, a hitherto unknown clerk in the Swiss patent office, Albert Einstein, pointed out that the whole idea of an ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. A similar point was made a few weeks later by a leading French mathematician, Henri Poincare. Einstein’s arguments were closer to physics than those of Poincare, who regarded this problem as mathematical. Einstein is usually given the credit for the new theory, but Poincare is remembered by having his name attached to an important part of it.
The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton’s laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell’s theory and the speed of light: all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass. In other words, it will make it harder to increase its speed. This effect is only really significant for objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light. For example, at 10 percent of the speed of light an object’s mass is only 0.5 percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light.
An equally remarkable consequence of relativity is the way it has revolutionized our ideas of space and time. In Newton’s theory, if a pulse of light is sent from one place to another, different observers would agree on the time that the journey took (since time is absolute), but will not always agree on how far the light traveled (since space is not absolute). Since the speed of the light is just the distance it has traveled divided by the time it has taken, different observers would measure different speeds for the light. In relativity, on the other hand, all observers must agree on how fast light travels. They still, however, do not agree on the distance the light has traveled, so they must therefore now also disagree over the time it has taken. (The time taken is the distance the light has traveled – which the observers do not agree on – divided by the light’s speed – which they do agree on.) In other words, the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.

Source: A brief history of time

[root]

It might seem as I am picking hairs here. But those interpretations are still questionable. First the void between two atoms is simular to the vacuum and still materialistic space. second, materialistic space (build up out of higgs-particles is assumed to be massles to). I'm not well informed enough to know why these massles particles are still influenced by gravity. I can only assume for the same reason as masseless photons are influenced by gravity. So why is it materialistic? becouse it's made up by the same energy as materials (and mass) are made up of. But I get the idea. you're hinting to an abstract "container for space" right? "a place for the space to be at" right? So why am I still picking hairs? To get to the following ->

You are picking hairs because your trying to predict an answer that we do not yet know. For example, if our universe is currently inside a super massive dark energy star then be sure it has a "boundary". If it was an string under "m" theory the "container" will not exist. "Nothing" to me is a comparable with a numbers, it has no beginning & no end can be infinately small or infinatly large. Massless space therefore is a credible use of term.

Who's to say that container exists? By okhams razor, there is no need for such a notion. The barrier of our universe as it expands, on its path it creates empty space (the materialistic kind) from energy. So one could have enough with that theory to explain the sudden increase of "room" .
Like I said:
You say there is "nothing" beyond the barrier. I say there is no "beyond" the barrier for your "nothing" to be present at.

Yet the universe "expands", without a barrier (what I actually beleive) then it is truly is expanding into massless space (ie:nothing). What lies beyond the universe if we assume we are not inside a dark energy star. I for one would suggest "nothing" (mass-less space).

As for the aliens, sorry if I frustrated you by apearently avoiding your question, I just had to make you go more in detail before I could answer. Now I think I can give you a more direct answer.

You did not frustrate me, under the theory of pamspermia (my favourite for the origins of life), we are all aliens by your own definition.

No, I would probably not accept them. I would feel misguided. Because in the hypothesis you suggested, my religion would turn out to be false. And as I said, we do not only worship and praise out of respect fro creation, but for many other aspects of religion that in your hypothesis would turn out to be an illusion

An expected answer.........

[Abdul Fattah]

You are picking hairs because your trying to predict an answer that we do not yet know. For example, if our universe is currently inside a super massive dark energy star then be sure it has a "boundary". If it was an string under "m" theory the "container" will not exist. "Nothing" to me is a comparable with a numbers, it has no beginning & no end can be infinately small or infinatly large. Massless space therefore is a credible use of term.

Well I didn't do so on purpose, but I guess you're right, I did stick to the clasical, currently accepted vieuw of the univers. As atractive and wild all new theories might sound, I think it makes more sense for us to stick with the more "established" theories.

Yet the universe "expands", without a barrier (what I actually beleive) then it is truly is expanding into massless space (ie:nothing).

Yes, I see your point, but why? I don't see any problem with there being no "beyond", not even for "nothingness". Either way, as far as I see, that nothingness is not something that calls for a previous creation since the barrier creates empty space while progressing.

Let me try a more philosophical aproach. Bare with me for a while. We look at dimensions as degrees freedoms. An object in a point has absolutely no freedom. An object on a line, can go left and right. An object on a plane can go left right, up and down. An object in 3d space can go left right up and down, backwards forewards. An object in 4d can even move trough time.

But what if we try to aproach it difrently. And rather then looking at dimensions as freedoms, we look at them as limitations. An object on a line can only go left and right because it is bound to that dimension. When we believe Allah, the creator of time is without beginning, it's not because he is infinite in the dimension of time but because it is not bound to that dimension. When we say Allah is everywhere, that's not becasue Allah is streched out infinitly over space, but because he is independant of it.

Ok, well you don't believe in Allah, but still, I think those two examples showed you how a dimension can be regarded as a restriction rather then a freedom. In that line of logic, does "nothingness" beyond the dimensions of our universe require an "ether" (empty space as you like calling it); considering this ether wouldn't be restricted by that dimension. Or is it perhaps because our minds fail to understand the meaning of dimensions; because all objects we observe are bound to the 4 noticable dimensions; that we have dificulty understanding there is no "beyond" the border of the universe. Theat there isn't even "empty space" beyond it.

Edit: oh btw, I did an edit of my previous post, and when it was finished I noticed you had already made a response, so you might have missed out the text in blue that I added, You might find it interesting...

[Abdul Fattah]

Oh, another thing I forgot to say (I constantly got interupted while making previous post). I said:

Well I didn't do so on purpose, but I guess you're right, I did stick to the clasical, currently accepted vieuw of the univers. As atractive and wild all new theories might sound, I think it makes more sense for us to stick with the more "established" theories.

There is something else to add here. Remember we had a simular discussion about time being infinite? And you brought up the theory of multiple big bangs, and I showed how that just shifted the problem back. Well the same logic aplies here. If we are in a dark star. Or i there was a previous universe, and the border of our current universe is just the outer riple of big bang changing the old universe (like a riple that changes the water when a rock fals in. The water already exist prior to the rock (= big bang). Then the problem gets shifted, in either one of those cases. Because then teh border of our universe isn't a real border, but rather a transitionzone (the furtest ripple). So that just shifts the problem to the real border. (perhaps the riples of the very first big bang). Or parhaps you can suggest infinite big bangs, bould that would imply infinite space, and even worse, infinite time. And we already agreed time dating back infinitly is quite paradoxal isn't it?

[Sabi]

What if time is just entropy/decay. no decay no change no change no movement no movement no time. Time is subjective (relative) and if the only witness to objective time is massless space then does objective time exist?

Higg particles if they exist (this is the first time I have heard of them) seem to be nothing more than a way of explaining fields, i.e. explaining the structures of the physical laws at the most fundamental level. Aren't they an extension of matter itself then? If you take a void of massless empty space for example then cause an atom to pop in there, the higg particles would suddenly be there too governing certain physical characteristics about the atom. But it is still independent of the void of massless empty space which was in the beginning.

Of course the only truely infinite thing is that which encompasses all finite things. At the moment, to the best of our knowledge this seems to be massless empty space. If it were something else which we have no concept of in this universe, then the Muslim idea is that it is still aware of the smallest things contained within it by its knowledge. Personally that leaves me rather cold. I may not know and worship it but it may know me? Then if not to know and worship it then why was I created? According to the strictest islamic Tawheed this vision of God is unacceptable as it goes against the concept that Allah was a hidden treasure and willed to be known, thus we exist to find and worship it.

That is why I believe that massless space is God. We can not touch it nor contain it nor really measure it (if we were to magnify a view of the space between two particles we could mignify to infinity). Thus I also believe that Massless Space has no boundary (that is my belief too) it is infinitely small or infinitely large. I it were contained, then Steve you are right that if massless space is contained within a dark energy star, then the boundaries of the question are pushed back. And when you think about the sizes we are talking about in that case, we really are infintesimally small, and it is no wonder that anyone might think what would the creator of all that if there was one care for nano specs like us? Hence since we are probably not something it is concerned with, why should we be concerned with it.?

So I think that Massless empty space is the best candidate for God that we can consider in the current sphere of Knowledge.

:brother:

[Abdul Fattah]

What if time is just entropy/decay. no decay no change no change no movement no movement no time. Time is subjective (relative) and if the only witness to objective time is massless space then does objective time exist?

Time is defenitly not abstract. It is not an abstract measurement we invented to define the speed of changes. Time is very much a materialistic fabric. That's what Einstein's general relativity proved. And that theory is tested. the same goes for space, it is not an abstract container. The key idea is that even the dimensions are build up out of enegry.

I'll show you why, but it'll take a while.
Einstein spent many years of his life trying to find out what time is exactly. According to presentism, only the present exist. The past is already gone and the future is yet to come. This fits well with Newton’s view of the world. But then Einstein showed how time is actually a fourth dimension. He believed in eternamlism; where both past and future exist simultaneously. That’s kind of hard to imagine, time as a dimension. As a visual aid, picture a film role. It consists out of different pictures. Each picture represents a scene of a movie or in the case of the dimension: a single unit in time. This unit is a timeless 3-dimensional universe. Exactly like the one we see around us, but then motionless. The film role’s length represents the fourth dimension; the dimension of time. The present is just one still picture of a whole movie. All these different pictures -or units- exist simultaneously. So both the past; the present and future exists. The past does not fade away, we simply move away from it. Likewise the future already exists; we simply haven’t reached it yet. Both exist on the same filmstrip as pictures next to each other. When one moves these pictures rapidly in front of a projector; one creates the impression of a single moving picture, which is in fact the sum total of different still pictures: units in time.

There are some natural limitations to the events of our world. Take temperature for example. Nothing can go below 0°Kelvin. That’s because heat is a side effect of movement. When you have no movement at all, there’s no heat created either and we thus have 0°K. In a similar way speed is related to mass. The heavier an object is, the harder it will be to accelerate it, according to Einstein’s E=mc2. So according to that equation, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass grows exponentially. To reach a speed equal to c would require infinite energy. A photon for example, can approach the speed c (speed of light) because it has such a low mass. The speed of light is thus also a natural limitation which can’t be surpassed because it would take up infinite energy

Well, this brings a problem. First remember movement is relative. For example if you are driving in the middle lane with your car; the car to your left, which is going faster seems to go forward, while the car to your right which goes slower will seem to go backwards. Then again, all three cars are on earth, which rotates and goes around the sun. The sun, which also is in orbit throughout the galaxy, takes earth along with it. To calculate the actual movement of the three cars would be rather pointless now.
We need a reference point when considering movements.
Let’s take a train station with a guy waiting as reference point. Now say I fire a gun inside a moving train. The bullet would now be accelerated by the gun in addition to the acceleration of the train . So the speed of the bullet to our reference train station would be calculated by adding the speed of a normal bullet to the speed of the train. But what do you do with the photons emitted by the headlights of the train? Do these photons travel by the speed of light added to the speed of the train? No the photons will go by the speed of light for both the conductor on the train, as for a person waiting in the train station. To go beyond the speed of light, even if it’s only a small bit -the bit that would come from the train- would require too much energy; which cannot be produced. But ponder on this: both the conductor as the traveler in the train station see the light moving at the same pace, but both see the train where the light comes from moving at a different pace. For the conductor, it will seem the train is stationary, and the train station is moving backwards. But for the traveler in the train station, the train station seems stationary and the train is going forward. How do you combine that difference in observation combined with the similar observation of the photons?
I think Einstein explained it best with general relativity. He figured: speed is distance traveled over time. So considering that obviously the distance traveled by the photons is the same for both the conductor watching as for the guy watching in the train station; the only possible explanation is that the time passing by for the conductor does not equal the time passing by for the train conductor, right?
This theory is tested. Two atom clocks were set at exactly the same time. One was left on the ground and the other traveled along with a high-speed jet. The second one later showed a slight difference, as if its trip allowed it to travel a millisecond forward in time. Later NASA did the same experiment with a satellite and they got an even clearer results with a difference of 11 seconds.

Higg particles if they exist (this is the first time I have heard of them) seem to be nothing more than a way of explaining fields, i.e. explaining the structures of the physical laws at the most fundamental level. Aren't they an extension of matter itself then? If you take a void of massless empty space for example then cause an atom to pop in there, the higg particles would suddenly be there too governing certain physical characteristics about the atom. But it is still independent of the void of massless empty space which was in the beginning.

Well the existance of higss particles haven't been proven yet. But, we have sen how gravity bends empty space. And if gravity can bend it, that means it isn't an abstract container, but a fabric build up out of energy.

And when you think about the sizes we are talking about in that case, we really are infintesimally small, and it is no wonder that anyone might think what would the creator of all that if there was one care for nano specs like us? Hence since we are probably not something it is concerned with, why should we be concerned with it.?

Hasn't anyone ever told you, size doesn't matter ;D

So I think that Massless empty space is the best candidate for God that we can consider in the current sphere of Knowledge.

Isn't it offensive to say Allah (s.w.t.) is nothing more then an ether in which teh universe lies?

[root]

Steve - Or parhaps you can suggest infinite big bangs, bould that would imply infinite space, and even worse, infinite time. And we already agreed time dating back infinitly is quite paradoxal isn't it?

Yes, the problem of regressive universes is apparant. But we are talking here massless space without a boundary which I think you subscribe to, I certainly do and Shabi has indicated he does.

Why would "nothing" need be created for by definition it has no beginning and no end, a point often raised about the universe is that it has a beginning so must have an end and thus a starting point of creation.

mass-less space does not have a beginning nor an end and since it does not exist nor does it need multiple regression

Sabi

I am prity much in agreement with you entirely other than I don't worship it. however, I find your appraisal of it beautifull.

[Abdul Fattah]

Why would "nothing" need be created for by definition it has no beginning and no end, a point often raised about the universe is that it has a beginning so must have an end and thus a starting point of creation.

mass-less space does not have a beginning nor an end and since it does not exist nor does it need multiple regression

But why do you think there is such a massless space, such a container that creates room?

[root]

This theory is tested. Two atom clocks were set at exactly the same time. One was left on the ground and the other traveled along with a high-speed jet. The second one later showed a slight difference, as if its trip allowed it to travel a millisecond forward in time. Later NASA did the same experiment with a satellite and they got an even clearer results with a difference of 11 seconds

Why have you concluded that one clock travelled forward in time, why did you not consider one clock had experienced a slowing of time. Doh, I just realised it's because the time was ahead of GMT right. Have you got a source, if correct two seperate experiments show both a speeding up and slowing of time. Incidently, the moleculao clock of all life on UK, a gene responsible for it is the same no matter what species of animal or tree you are!

A recent experiment which seeked to look into the common claims that during a time of extreme stress "Time seems to slow down", I am sure you know seomeone who at some point when reliving a car crash for example state that it all happened in "slow motion".

The test was to have a wrist device attached to a person and it flashed so quickly that you could not read the numbers. Only by reducing physical time could you see the numbers. they raised this guy up on a massive bunjy and let him loose (subjecting his body to zero gravity and stress on his body and mind. Result: Correctly read the number............

[Abdul Fattah]

Why have you concluded that one clock travelled forward in time, why did you not consider one clock had experienced a slowing of time. Doh, I just realised it's because the time was ahead of GMT right. Have you got a source, if correct two seperate experiments show both a speeding up and slowing of time.

Actually It doesn't matter which one was slowed down or which one speed up. The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity. What does matters is that the clock who traveled advanced lesser units in time then the stationary one.

Incidently, the moleculao clock of all life on UK, a gene responsible for it is the same no matter what species of animal or tree you are!

Euhm, I have no Idea what you're talking about here. Honestly , I'm clueless.

A recent experiment which seeked to look into the common claims that during a time of extreme stress "Time seems to slow down", I am sure you know seomeone who at some point when reliving a car crash for example state that it all happened in "slow motion".

This is often confused with timerelativity. In deep blue sea, a movie about sharks with ll cool J. One of the characters explained relativity as the difrence between putting your hand on a hot stove for a second and putting it on a hot woman for a sec. However that explenation is wrong. Einstein's theroy of relativity talks of a measurable difrence in times. It has nothing to do with psychologically induced speed of reception. stress just speeds up the processes that happen in your brain, and a faster processing causes a slower "perception". (if you proces quicker, that leaves you to interpret and think more in between difrent perceptions, leaving you to think that more time has passed by)

The test was to have a wrist device attached to a person and it flashed so quickly that you could not read the numbers. Only by reducing physical time could you see the numbers. they raised this guy up on a massive bunjy and let him loose (subjecting his body to zero gravity and stress on his body and mind. Result: Correctly read the number............

Hmm thats interesting, but here you could have a combination of both, because the jump simultaniously triggers adrenaline for faster processing of the brain and thus slower perception, while the downward movement woudl also make him travel foreward in time. The time travel however at such slow speed is almost neglectible. So I think the main contributor here is the adrenaline.

[Sabi]

Hasn't anyone ever told you, size doesn't matter ;D

:giggling:

Isn't it offensive to say Allah (s.w.t.) is nothing more then an ether in which teh universe lies?

Subahanallah! I don't think you realise what you are saying to me. All praise belongs to the Lah (SWT) the Lord of all creations! The All Encompassing! The Infinite, The Omnipresent, The eternal, The indivisible and there IS no god but IT!

I am actually trembling at the fact that I am including your above words, may the Lah (SWT) forgive me, in my own post here, but I have to let you know that to me your words seem like blasphemy.

Peace and love be unto you brother, I will be unable to talk more about that statement and hope you will understand my terror at your words.

:hiding:

[Sabi]

The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity.

This is what I said.

[Sabi]

we are talking here massless space without a boundary which I think you subscribe to, I certainly do and Shabi has indicated he does.

Not too Shabby I hope. :okay:

I am prity much in agreement with you entirely other than I don't worship it. however, I find your appraisal of it beautifull.

Thank you so much :statisfie it really isn't my own though, so I think you are true a believer. I have no idea how to make you into a worshipper though. Its probably because you are just too lazy though. :okay: But seriously, to be honest I think the way you described you appreciation of the sea in Pakistan is pretty close to giving praise, at least in my books. Increased aesthetic appreciation of the creations is the path to what Sabi`een call the mehemodan state (i.e. enlightenment), so just keep on appreciating beauty as you are doing and you will always be fine inshallah.

God Bless

:brother:

BTW, if there are any other "atheists" reading, I wonder what your opinions are on this topic?

[Abdul Fattah]

Peace and love be unto you brother, I will be unable to talk more about that statement and hope you will understand my terror at your words.

To be honest, no, I don't understand. I'd like to though. :)
Is it something along the lines of sufism? I don't get it, Isn't Allah much more? It seems uncalled for to define him as an ether. Because by any ability, charesteristic that you asign to Allah you deny Allah the oppposite of IT. (well not physicly deny him, but deny the image you form.) Let me try to give an example of what I meant. If one would say Allah has eyes that see, then they woudl imply that allah only sees as humans do, and not IR, uv, and so on. So even if it seems good to atribute a certain charesteristic to Allah, we always need to be carefull because by doing so we might not do him justice. I hope that explains why I said this could be considered blasphemy, I'm looking forewards to your response.

[Sabi]

:sl: Steve

Is it something along the lines of sufism?

No. Basically Sabi`een are not Sufi, but we do consider Sufi to be Sabi`een. But then Sabis are very tollerant in that respect to all religions and non religions alike. People are either in some level of Sabi`ah Hunafa like me or some level of Sabi`ah Mushrikoon, like the Yezidis for example.

I don't get it, Isn't Allah much more?

What can be more than infinity?

It seems uncalled for to define him as an ether.

Subahanallah, high exaulted be the Lah beyond all they attribute to IT. The Indefineable.

Because by any ability, charesteristic that you asign to Allah you deny Allah the oppposite of IT. (well not physicly deny him, but deny the image you form.)

:rollseyes I am sorry, I have never come accross this rule before. All I can respond is that it is impossible for me to ascribe to IT a physical image. Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed. I believe Al-Lah is all encompassing all seing all hearing etc. but I do not pretend to understand how.

Let me try to give an example of what I meant. If one would say Allah has eyes that see, then they would imply that Allah only sees as humans do, and not IR, UV, and so on.

:? Allah (SWT) is The All Seeing.

So even if it seems good to atribute a certain charesteristic to Allah, we always need to be carefull because by doing so we might not do him justice.

Indeed! Nothing is comparable to IT, far removed be AlLah beyond all they attribute to IT.

I hope that explains why I said this could be considered blasphemy

I thought I was the first one to bring up that concern :?
:w:
:brother:

[Abdul Fattah]

:sl: Steve
No. Basically Sabi`een are not Sufi, but we do consider Sufi to be Sabi`een. But then Sabis are very tollerant in that respect to all religions and non religions alike. People are either in some level of Sabi`ah Hunafa like me or some level of Sabi`ah Mushrikoon, like the Yezidis for example.

Ok that explains some of it.

What can be more than infinity?

Well look at an x/y-graph where x has infinite values but y is always 0. NOw out of a whole plane in which the graph is, the infinite values of x only give a single line. Infinite is the highest amount, but when you confine infinite to something specific (like masseless space, an ether) you also limitate.

:rollseyes I am sorry, I have never come accross this rule before. All I can respond is that it is impossible for me to ascribe to IT a physical image. Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed. I believe Al-Lah is all encompassing all seing all hearing etc. but I do not pretend to understand how.

Well it's not a rule, more like a general thought, in fact you described it yourself what I wanted to explain: Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed.

We don't know if Allah is masseless space, so to call him as such ..?
(correction, I don't know; perhaps you are basing this view on something, in which case I ask that my ignorance may be forgiven :) )

:? Allah (SWT) is The All Seeing.

Yes I know, I merely brought it up as an example to show how apointing a charesteristic, even though it looks ok to some people, limitates at the same time.

Indeed! Nothing is comparable to IT, far removed be AlLah beyond all they attribute to IT.

It seems our views aren't that far away from each other after all. :)

thought I was the first one to bring up that concern :?
:w:
:brother:

I guess we're talking next to one another. But perhaps we should continue this discusion in another thread before moderaters point out we're getting of topic?

[Sabi]

We don't know if Allah is masseless space, so to call him as such ..?
(correction, I don't know; perhaps you are basing this view on something, in which case I ask that my ignorance may be forgiven :) )

No appologies necessary brother. We are all each of us on a continual learning curve.

So it seems that you, me and root all agree on something. Yet that thing still eludes definition. I think that is is just beautiful. As long as we can all get along.

Still curious to know what other Atheists think about this? I heard someone once say that Atheists are half-way in Shahadah, but for two words because they say "There is no god".

:brother:

[root]

Actually It doesn't matter which one was slowed down or which one speed up. The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity. What does matters is that the clock who traveled advanced lesser units in time then the stationary one.

I am not up for a debate on "Time" since this thread I don't think is the place. I would just urge caution when we speak about what time actually is and represents. In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind -time frame)......experience(observer)

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)

I also looked into wether the clocks speeded up or slowed down, I could not find it. However, I did find that orbiting sattelites routinely have to have their clock adjusted with Earth time as they do speed up whilst maintaining orbit.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Still curious to know what other Atheists think about this? I heard someone once say that Atheists are half-way in Shahadah, but for two words because they say "There is no god".

I'd like to offer an opinion, but there seem to be several discussions going on here. What exactly is it you'd like to invite comments on?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


I'd like to offer an opinion, but there seem to be several discussions going on here. What exactly is it you'd like to invite comments on?

Peace

Asalaamu alaikum czgibson,

I have to agree with your observation. I have lost track of how many seperate conversations that are taking place. Also it is interesting to notice how many different disciplines are trying to be integrated into one thread.

Science:
Biology
Physics
Astronomy

Philosophy:
Theology
Ethics
Belief systems

Linguistics:
Languages
Definitions
Critical Analysis


I think I am getting confused.

[catmando]

I have long ago ceased debating with believers the existence of the god or gods they believe in. When the god or gods being discussed come down to Earth and show themselves I will be convinced. Until then, though...

[Abdul Fattah]

I am not up for a debate on "Time" since this thread I don't think is the place. I would just urge caution when we speak about what time actually is and represents. In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind -time frame)......experience(observer)

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)

There needs to be made a distinction indeed. But only between measurable time (that the clocks indicate) and percievable time (dependant on the speed of your brain, the speed of your neurotransmitting, etc... ). percievable time is very measurable in measurable time, but not the oher way around. In your 3 points, A-motion, and C-space-time are refering to the same thing. Motion of objects, there speed is "distance traveled" over time. So is dependant on Space time. So that "A-motion(physical time)" is enwoven within C-space-time(mathematical model that describes motion into space)

I also looked into wether the clocks speeded up or slowed down, I could not find it. However, I did find that orbiting sattelites routinely have to have their clock adjusted with Earth time as they do speed up whilst maintaining orbit.

Well the traveling clock will advance in time relativly to the stationary clock. Think of the apes were a rocket travels in time by going lightspeed-fast. The rocket only passes a small amount of time (the astraunouts aged, but only a lil' bit) whereas the earth passed a whole lot more time (and eventually even got inhabited by apes). However this is of course relative. Its like if I would ask, when I walk teh street, do I move forewards along the surface of the earth or does teh earth move backwards underneath my feet? In relative terms, both are possible. Same could be said about time. So did the earth speed up by being stationary, or did teh rocket speed down by being in movement? or did teh fabric of time get compressed by the movement of teh rocket? We' don't know. If CERN would be able to detect a graviton, that might answer some questions.

[Skillganon]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

[Abdul Fattah]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

I think that's quite narowminded. Our minds are so used to the dependancy of time that it seems crazy to suggest that whatever cause of our universe (and the time dimension that was created along with itwith it) would be by itself independant of any time. So crazy that Hugh Ross suggests the existance of a deeper time dimension. We are so used of thinking in terms of present, past and future that it seems imposible for anything to act independant of such (apearently universal) concepts. For anything to occur in a timeless frame.

[Abdul Fattah]

I have long ago ceased debating with believers the existence of the god or gods they believe in. When the god or gods being discussed come down to Earth and show themselves I will be convinced. Until then, though...

In otherwords you claim to be unable to believe. (believe by defenition, is accepting without proof)

Yet in the same time you label yourself as atheist. So that means you accept there is no god without having any proof of that! Unless you are actually an agnostiast rather then an atheist.

An atheist once told me: Atheism isn't a form of believe. We start from nothing. And we look around, and religion fails to convine us, so in the end we have no faith. Not out of convintion, but out of lack of a good alternative.

See what he failed to realise is, that his starting point was biased. How can you expect to end up with something, when you start from nothing? And when everywhere along teh road that something comes up, you go back to that place of nothingness? And I was a convinced atheists for years (with convinced I mean, I wasn't atheistic out of lazyness or lack of an alternative but out of convintion, out of argument, out of believe). So I've seen your side of the argument. And I can tell you in all honesty, neither paradigm has any argument or proof to their advantage. There's to much unexplored terrain for both sides of the argument to run circles in. At the end of teh day, it all coems down to willingness and personal expieriance. So yes, atheism is a form of believe. And you believe there is no God because you activly refuse to accept God without any proof of it.

[Joe98]

And you believe there is no God because you activly refuseto accept God without any proof of it.

And you believe in god without proof.

Ultimately I don't care what you believe except when that belief leads to hurt against me. Then I take notice.

"hurt" can be defined in many ways.

-

[Skillganon]

Well, I thought he was saying what ever is the cause of the universe (god) must be independent or must be seperate from the time dimension of the universe.
For time dimension must be relative to the beginning of the universe (hence from it's beginning time existed for us) for an entity to exist, time is not the same the way it is to us, as the way it is to this entity. The entity must exist outside this time-dimension and hence outside this universe.

quote "It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

[Abdul Fattah]

And you believe in god without proof.

Ye of course, like I said, neither side of the debate has any proof or argument in favour. In the end it all comes down to preferance, willpower, personal expierance...

Ultimately I don't care what you believe except when that belief leads to hurt against me. Then I take notice.

"hurt" can be defined in many ways.

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting yourself, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well, I thought he was saying what ever is the cause of the universe (god) must be independent or must be seperate from the time dimension of the universe.
For time dimension must be relative to the beginning of the universe (hence from it's beginning time existed for us) for an entity to exist, time is not the same the way it is to us, as the way it is to this entity. The entity must exist outside this time-dimension and hence outside this universe.

quote "It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Yes I completely agree with that. The part where I object to, is that he also suggested there is a difrent time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing exists, let alone a reason to assume it does. So by ockhams razor, it does not exist.

[Skillganon]

Yes I completely agree with that. The part where I object to, is that he also suggested there is a difrent time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing exists, let alone a reason to assume it does. So by ockhams razor, it does not exist.

True, for a different time-dimension to exist outside the time-dimension relative to this universe, must suggest also a biggining and an end, or atleast a biggining. as you suggest their is no evidence for that.

But you must note that the quote
"It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

is what we as a muslim know, and this is in evidence from the our scriptures, god is not the creation e.g. universe i.e. has no biggining or end, that God is outside the heaven (universe).

[Joe98]

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting your, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

:love: :love: :love:


-

[HeiGou]

Ye of course, like I said, neither side of the debate has any proof or argument in favour. In the end it all comes down to preferance, willpower, personal expierance...

And Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Santa Claus exists. There is no proof that he does not. In the end it does not come down to preference, will power and personal experience. Do you accept that argument as it applies to Santa Claus?

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting yourself, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

Very generous of you. I think it is more important to prevent you all from hurting us than preventing us from hurting ourselves.

[Sabi]

So it seems the discussion may be back on track if it is about Faith. Anti-Deism and Atheism are faiths and deism (belief in god without revelation) and theism (belief in God and revelation) are all faiths and the only thing that is faith in what is percieveable is agnosticism where in Islam we say Allahualim. True agnostics would say "who knows?" to every question beyond the present sphere of knowledge (including even Santa Claus perhaps).

It might be of interest that the Arabic word Haneef comes from the Sabi usage in Sabi`ah Hunafa` which ultimately comes from the Aramaic word hanifo meaning Agnostic. hence the sabi belief that one can not truely find God (nor true faith for that matter) without first being an agnostic. Hence true Sabi`ah Hunafa` should be 100% opposed to Gnosticism as was The Beloved (SAW).

Concerning time, if there were no motion in the creations there would be no measurement for time. Time = motion, hence all time is relative.

Concerning massless space, I believe in it. But since I can not see it nor measure it (we can magnify between the particles of an atom to infinity and it it will still be there) it amazes me that I know it is there. In fact I only know it is there because of the particles of the creations. Hence it would have remained unknown were it not for creation. It surrounds all the particles of the creations and yet is infinitely beyond the creations and is not a part of them. I think it is the most amazing fact.

[Abdul Fattah]

And Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Santa Claus exists. There is no proof that he does not. In the end it does not come down to preference, will power and personal experience. Do you accept that argument as it applies to Santa Claus?

Yes of course, ockhams razor is a very good way to proof that santa isn't real, because the accurate explenation (parents buy gifts for kid and say it's someone else) is a lot easyer then the alternative, some guy with a magicly flying sledge has a workshop with enslaved elves working 24/7 to provide the world with toys. leaving out to mention just how this single person can deliver all those toys to million of people and why the poor kids are always forgotten. I'd say ockhams razor works perfect here.

Very generous of you. I think it is more important to prevent you all from hurting us than preventing us from hurting ourselves.

Well that's very narrowminded again. There's a few guys driven by anger and war doing outrageous acts and therefor you think the chance that we (muslims in general) will hurt you is more likely then you will hurt yourself. Are you aware of suicide rate's in the west? Of how many people die due to substance abuse such as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Trust me the chance that you'll end up hurting yourself in this life is a lot higher then us hurting you, and that's not even mentioning the afterlife.

[Abdul Fattah]

Concerning time, if there were no motion in the creations there would be no measurement for time. Time = motion, hence all time is relative..

The motion we are familiar with needs time, however there are other forces that cause motion that are not dependant on time. In an eternalistic vieuw (such as in einsteins relativity, we need a force to explain our consciesness, and awareness of time, the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

Concerning massless space, I believe in it. But since I can not see it nor measure it (we can magnify between the particles of an atom to infinity and it it will still be there) it amazes me that I know it is there. In fact I only know it is there because of the particles of the creations. Hence it would have remained unknown were it not for creation. It surrounds all the particles of the creations and yet is infinitely beyond the creations and is not a part of them. I think it is the most amazing fact.

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

[HeiGou]

Yes of course, ockhams razor is a very good way to proof that santa isn't real, because the accurate explenation (parents buy gifts for kid and say it's someone else) is a lot easyer then the alternative, some guy with a magicly flying sledge has a workshop with enslaved elves working 24/7 to provide the world with toys. leaving out to mention just how this single person can deliver all those toys to million of people and why the poor kids are always forgotten. I'd say ockhams razor works perfect here.

Well I am not sure it is easier and easier explanations are not always entirely trustworthy.

Well that's very narrowminded again. There's a few guys driven by anger and war doing outrageous acts and therefor you think the chance that we (muslims in general) will hurt you is more likely then you will hurt yourself. Are you aware of suicide rate's in the west? Of how many people die due to substance abuse such as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Trust me the chance that you'll end up hurting yourself in this life is a lot higher then us hurting you, and that's not even mentioning the afterlife.

I am sorry you think it is narrowminded. I am aware of the low suicide rate in the West. How do you think Islam, or anything else, would prevent or reduce that rate? I know that the West has much higher life expectancies than any other region (except Japan). So those drugs, alcohol and tobacco don't seem to be doing us much harm. But even if they did, Islam, surely, is not going to ban us from doing that. I am not sure I think the chances of a few misguided Muslims hurting me are higher than the chances of me hurting myself (as a non-smoking, non-drug taking, moderate drinker). What I think is that the consequences of being bown up are more serious - and more preventable - than the consequences of drinking - and that Islam will not end that anyway. Let's mention the afterlife if you like.

[Sabi]

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

Are you there Root? What do you think? It seems ok to me, but is it ok to call massless space space fabric from your perspective? As for the energy, we are probably in the realms of higg particles again I suspect. Very interested to know more.

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I am not sure it is easier and easier explanations are not always entirely trustworthy.

Ockhams razor is the principle saying that if two theories explain a phenomenon equally, the simpler theory requiring fewer assumptions and explanatory principles is preferred and that generalizations should be based on observed facts and not on other generalizations. It's not about simplifying (= leaving out details for better general view). It's just common sense that the least complicated explenation is most likely the right one.

I am sorry you think it is narrowminded. I am aware of the low suicide rate in the West.

LOw? I suggest you look up the statistics, the west has a suicide rate well above average.

How do you think Islam, or anything else, would prevent or reduce that rate? I know that the West has much higher life expectancies than any other region (except Japan). So those drugs, alcohol and tobacco don't seem to be doing us much harm.

NO, tyhe life expectancy rateis higher because poverty is lower, because medical care is better, because highyene is better etc... However when you look at the percentages of deaths, a very larg piece of it is from drug, alcohol and tobacco. I'm not suggesting muslims should forbid non-muslim their substance abuses. But a difrent lifestyle wouldn't hurt the west, on the contrary. Now you can sit there and let a few repugnant acts cloud your judgement, but if you'll analyse the islamic rules and prescribtions you'll have to admit that they are beneficial.

[HeiGou]

LOw? I suggest you look up the statistics, the west has a suicide rate well above average.

It depends what you compare them to. It has much lower rates than the former Soviet countries. And most Third World countries do not keep figures worth looking at.

NO, tyhe life expectancy rateis higher because poverty is lower, because medical care is better, because highyene is better etc... However when you look at the percentages of deaths, a very larg piece of it is from drug, alcohol and tobacco.

Actually what causes good health in the West is not that simple and open to debate. No doubt the medical care etc play an important role. But how much of a role? As it turns out a little alcohol is good for you. The exact opposite of what people said ten years ago. The figures for deaths are not caused by drugs, alcohol and tobacco. They may play a role in causing many deaths. Tobacco certainly causes lung cancer but apart from that any causal link is hard to show.

I'm not suggesting muslims should forbid non-muslim their substance abuses.

So Islam and Islamic rule have little to offer us there. Which again suggests that the bigger problem is people from your side of the fence killing people on my side of the fence.

But a difrent lifestyle wouldn't hurt the west, on the contrary.

How do you know?

Now you can sit there and let a few repugnant acts cloud your judgement, but if you'll analyse the islamic rules and prescribtions you'll have to admit that they are beneficial.

Why can't I? You have just used exactly the same technique on alcohol drugs and tobacco. Sure smoking them increases your chances of dying, but you claim they kill. Being a Muslim must surely increase your chances of getting the wrong end of the stick and becoming a terrorist given that pretty much all terrorists in the world these days are Muslims. I'll stop doing it for Muslims if you stop doing it for tobacco.

I look at the Muslim world and I do not think that a inept and half-hearted implementation of Islamic rules is beneficial. I do not see why a proper full-scale implementation would change that. Why do you?

[root]

I did warn Steve of the dangers in the indescriminate use of time analogy. alas I don't think he has heeded it.

The motion we are familiar with needs time,

That makes no sense to me. Motion = (is)Time.

Further, the only empirical evidence we collectively possess concerning the 'nature of time' can be summed up as follows:

"Time's passage seems totally dependent upon local conditions."

however there are other forces that cause motion that are not dependant on time. In an eternalistic vieuw (such as in einsteins relativity, we need a force to explain our consciesness, and awareness of time, the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

Now Steve is straying from Motion = Time, to mind frame time. "time" for biological life-forms (Earth life-forms only) is actually controlled at a DNA level that is not connected with the Universe in a universal motion of time and as indicated above this time is dependent upon local conditions. Thus it is fair to say:

Time is of the mind, motion is of the universe:

So our biological clock known as the "Circadian rhythm" is the process by which "time" effects our bodies. Further reading of this is available here:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/clockgenes/

The NOW Theory

……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. - Albert Einstien

In the universe we observe only motion, there is no evidence of time running into the universe. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The process of experiencing of motion is following:

motion......perception (eyes).......elaboration (mind)......experience (observer)

Time is a construction of the mind, we will call it "mind-time frame". All what exist into the universe we experience into the "mind-time frame". We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion
B- time (mind-time frame)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion)

Steve, in his above comments has not bothered to distinguish between ABC.

How can you debate a concept of time without defining the context to which you are applying a given concept to a general defenition of time.

Further reading of the "now Theory" is available in here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

I don't buy that as a reasonable assumption without any supporting evidence and sources to which I would ask Steve to provide. massless-space contains no energy and does not exist, I think (unless I am wrong) Steve does not like (or is uncomfortable with) the idea of an uncreated "nothing".

[Sabi]

and does not exist

At least not in any scientifically defineable way. And yet it is a fact! Subhanallah.

[Abdul Fattah]

HeiGou, it's getting boring, just refuting what I say for teh saek of it, I showed my case, you wanna deny? Go ahead, don't expect me to waste enrgy on the conversation then.

I did warn Steve of the dangers in the indescriminate use of time analogy. alas I don't think he has heeded it.

That makes no sense to me. Motion = (is)Time.

Actually that's not 100% correct. Time is a dimension. You should try to think of it in a simular way then you think of spatial dimension. A room in which can be moved. And the motion we are most familiar with is a movement in 3D-space which always seems to go hand in hand with a movement in the 4th dimension: time. I said "the motion we are familiar with"; because who's to say all motions follow the same laws? Afterall, the only reasons the motions we witness call for a movement in time is because the objects that move are bound to the 4 dimensions. The fabric of space-time. now that line between space and time is there for a reason. Because the 4 dimension form one a consistant 4D-room. It's not a 3D space confined within a 1D time, it's a 4D space-time.

Now Steve is straying from Motion = Time, to mind frame time. "time" for biological life-forms (Earth life-forms only) is actually controlled at a DNA level that is not connected with the Universe in a universal motion of time and as indicated above this time is dependent upon local conditions.

No I wasn't forget the perceptions pseed. I'm talking about physicle time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.

Thus it is fair to say:

Time is of the mind, motion is of the universe:

Both time and motion are inhereted to the universe rather then to the mind, however there's another factor to consider. Einstein's relativity theory suggests eternalism (eternalism means that past, present and future are all equally real, so present, pas and future all exist simultaniously next to one another.) Now this eternalistic p.o.v. begs the question: what force is it that gives us this sense of "present"? And what force takes our consciousness through such a dimension of time? (note that such a force itself must by defenition be undependant of time, otherwise it would not be able to "push or pull" our conscienceness trough time.)

So our biological clock known as the "circadian rhythm" is the process by which "time" effects our bodies. Further reading of this is available here:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/clockgenes/

I'd say the carcadian rythm is the result of time effecting our body's rather tehn the proces itself.

The NOW Theory
In the universe we observe only motion, there is no evidence of time running into the universe. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The process of experiencing of motion is following:

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes. We measure duration of processes by the lenght of time they pass. But that doesn't mean time is nothing more.
What you suggest would be the same as suggesting: There is no evidence of distance running into the universe. With rulers we only measure the lenght a certain motion can go over a given time. I know that's a kick-you-in-the-croch-comparison. But think about it ;)

Time is a construction of the mind, we will call it "mind-time frame". All what exist into the universe we experience into the "mind-time frame". We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion
B- time (mind-time frame)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion)

Steve, in his above comments has not bothered to distinguish between ABC.

Let's neglect B, it's really irrelevant here. As for A, it is not time. Time does not equal motion. Time equals speed * distance travelled, not the moption itself.

I don't buy that as a reasonable assumption without any supporting evidence and sources to which I would ask Steve to provide. massless-space contains no energy and does not exist, I think (unless I am wrong) Steve does not like (or is uncomfortable with) the idea of an uncreated "nothing".

I repeat the same question. Why do you feel the need for such anotion of spacetime? The idea we have about the dimensions of the universe doesn't need such a thing. The material dimensions of time and space are selfsuffiecient enough to create "room". The urge for a concept of a 3Dimensional masseless-space where our 3D of our universe lie within is just a result of your mind taking the dimensions you are bound to for granted.

[root]

Actually that's not 100% correct. Time is a dimension.

OK, stop right their. You can hypothosise time is a dimension or you can post your source that Time as a dimension exists. The confudion here is that you are claiming the existence of "Time" as a dimension without producing credible scientific evidence that gives a consensus that a dimension of time exists. Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false........ That makes us both right, and that in iteslf is a paradox

Source please......................

No I wasn't forget the perceptions pseed. I'm talking about physicle time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.

Steve, you said below:

the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

That does not sound like ohysical time to me, in fact you still have not actually explained what you mean by "Physical Time". Can you even prove "Physical time" actually exists. If you think you can

Source Please.......

I'd say the carcadian rythm is the result of time effecting our body's rather tehn the proces itself

That's up to you, your free to beleive what you want. Point is, your again calling on time as if it is proven and we know exactly what it is, which of course we don't.

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes.

Source please......

We measure duration of processes by the lenght of time they pass. But that doesn't mean time is nothing more.

At leat we agree here, and no it does not mean it is nothing more. The point is We don't know. Of course you could just claim time is a dimension and hey presto it is more. However, that is bad science and currently unproven nor supported by consensus.

What you suggest would be the same as suggesting: There is no evidence of distance running into the universe. With rulers we only measure the lenght a certain motion can go over a given time. I know that's a kick-you-in-the-croch-comparison. But think about it

I know it is a pain is the ass when you want people to accept an hypothosis to accept yourpoint, but you can't go around claiming things that just are not. I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy. but that is all you can have, anything else we don't know yet. Your jumping the gun so to speak.

Think it's time you gave us some sources:

[Sabi]

Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false.

Me too. So I would also very much like to know if there is any evidence for this yet brother Steve, since it would make a serious change in my life.

I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy.

Oo that sounds interesting can you elaborate on that for me please?

[root]

Oo that sounds interesting can you elaborate on that for me please?

I think everyone would agree that the universe is expanding and I think we would all agree that all the matter in the universe is in motion. Motion = Time, so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

This concensus should be agreeable with everyone.

the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass. Thus, in a mass-less space some suggest time exists. Another analagy is speed, again speed like time is a measurement of motion like time. (Time is inexplicably linked to speed also) however, we can cast that aside for a moment. The relationship between speed and motion is inexplicably linked, you cannot have motion without speed. And again another analogy is mass & energy, you cannot have one without the other. Mass, energy and time are all relavent to each other in what would seem a unified manner.

The problem here is "Time" since some suggest time is as real as energy and mass whilst others believe "time" as nothing more than an illusion that does not actually exist in a physical form. True, time is measurable and predictable and shares much in common which inplies it is controlled by laws of physics. the same could be said for a "retro Virus" and wether or not it is "alive".

Steve's assetion are premature, and we will not be in a position to test this until some point next year. Until then the debate will continue................

A good link for further reading is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3577241

Which to me holds an excellent summary as quoted:

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

[catmando]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Not necessarily. If our Universe has "budded off" from another Universe, which is one theory of how it came to be, it does not follow that some unknown "Creator" had anything at all to do with it. Astrophysicists know that "Virtual" particles pop in and out of our space-time very frequently. That could very well be how our Universe started.

[Abdul Fattah]

@Heigou
sorry for not replying to your post earlyer, I didn't mean to ignore you I simply overlooked your post

It depends what you compare them to. It has much lower rates than the former Soviet countries. And most Third World countries do not keep figures worth looking at.

Obviously words as a lot and a lil' are always relative to their referance point. If you compare the number of suicides in the west to the number of smileys that are yelow you'll find suicide surprisingly low, however I ask you, what's the point of such a referance?

Actually what causes good health in the West is not that simple and open to debate. No doubt the medical care etc play an important role. But how much of a role? As it turns out a little alcohol is good for you. The exact opposite of what people said ten years ago. The figures for deaths are not caused by drugs, alcohol and tobacco. They may play a role in causing many deaths. Tobacco certainly causes lung cancer but apart from that any causal link is hard to show.

Such statements are not under common agreament. YEs, alcohol might have some benefits in small doses to the body but it has downsides at the same time for those small doses. In the end the downsides outweigh the benefits.
Let's face the obvious, however your opinion about substance abuse, you cannot deny their negative impact on society.

Why can't I? You have just used exactly the same technique on alcohol drugs and tobacco. Sure smoking them increases your chances of dying, but you claim they kill. Being a Muslim must surely increase your chances of getting the wrong end of the stick and becoming a terrorist given that pretty much all terrorists in the world these days are Muslims. I'll stop doing it for Muslims if you stop doing it for tobacco.

The difrence is: every cigarette is damaging wheter it kills you or not. The reason why some die and others don't depends mostly on the resistance of the body to cancer and the amount of time one smokes. SO it's not like 99% of the cigarettes are harmless and only that one unfortunat cig will kill you. As for muslims on the other hand 99% will not harm you. And those that harm you do not do so because they are muslims, but because they are misguided, whatever they claim.

I look at the Muslim world and I do not think that a inept and half-hearted implementation of Islamic rules is beneficial. I do not see why a proper full-scale implementation would change that. Why do you?

Because I used to life as an atheist and implemented these rules in my daily life and noticed the differences. In otherwords. I took the statement to the test!

@Root
Sorry but running low on time, inshallah I'll get back to you with the reason why time is a dimentions A.s.a.p.

[Abdul Fattah]

OK, stop right their. You can hypothosise time is a dimension or you can post your source that Time as a dimension exists. The confudion here is that you are claiming the existence of "Time" as a dimension without producing credible scientific evidence that gives a consensus that a dimension of time exists. Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false........ That makes us both right, and that in iteslf is a paradox

Source please......................

Well unfortunatly this is somewhere in the grey area between phisics and philosophy thus extremely challinging to proof. however it is a commonly accepted part of general relativity. If time is not a dimension how can objects travel faster or slower in time relative to eachother? Strictly theoretical you are right. It is not proven, however it is so interwined into the physisist's vieuw of the universe that it becomes hard to imagen it any other way. The article you posted from BBC Wasn't about the debate between eternalism and presentism, but more as to wich way we should interpretet that. I don't think there are many quantumphysisists with good multidimensional insight who still doubt whether time is a dimension or not. The question really is, how does this dimension work? What does it allow? What are teh laws it is governed by? etc...
For more information look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present...phy_of_time%29
(Ironicly, the page that explains presentism shows how eternalism is linked to general relativity whereas the page that explains eternalism does not; go figure :happy: )

Steve:No I wasn't, forget the perceptions speed. I'm talking about physical time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.
Root: you said below:
Steve: The force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

It seems you'er still stuck on time=motion. Although extremely correlated, that is not true, they are not the same thing. So when I speak of a source responseble for our notion of "present" that has nothing to do with the speed of our perception. The speed of our perception is determined by the chemical processes in our brains. Our notion of "presentness" however fails to be explained by simple neuropsychology. Two difrent things here.

That does not sound like ohysical time to me, in fact you still have not actually explained what you mean by "Physical Time". Can you even prove "Physical time" actually exists. If you think you can

Well beside the time traveling due to high speed (like in planet of the apes). There's another kind of time travel as a result of general relativity. Gravity also playes a role. Objects closer to mass (example, objects closer to earth) also travel faster trough time then objects far away of mass. Now if time can be manipulated by gravity, that means it follows the same laws as objects of mass do, and that suggests that they are made up out of the same enrgy as mass is made up by.

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes.
Source please......

Well this is somwhat covered by the same answer as the first question. General relativity sugegsts time is a dimension, therefor time is not the speed by which processes occur but rather a dimension in which processes are alowed to occur. But let me counter your question with yet another. If time is nothing more then the durations by which processes occur, then that means Time needs processes in order to exist, and if everything would stand still for a second, time will be frozen. NOw considering that, try to explain the beginning of teh universe: First there was nothing (so also no processes and thus also no time) and then... a wait, there is no then, because without time we cannot continue this story. (Sorry for the sarcastic tone, couldn't controle myself. :statisfie )

At leat we agree here, and no it does not mean it is nothing more. The point is We don't know.

this agreing thing is nice, we should try it more often :D

I know it is a pain is the ass when you want people to accept an hypothosis to accept yourpoint, but you can't go around claiming things that just are not. I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy. but that is all you can have, anything else we don't know yet. Your jumping the gun so to speak.

Think it's time you gave us some sources:

Well I hope I answered your questions somewhat. If there's still objections, fire away :)

[root]

Well unfortunatly this is somewhere in the grey area between phisics and philosophy thus extremely challinging to proof.

Yes, I already was aware of that and indeed warned you several posts back. Fact of the matter is simply you cannot get a general scientic consensus of a time dimension other than what I expressed in the above post's where I stated the following;

the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass.

I'll only accept spacetime

so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

Additionally, bringing in "Phyilosophy" as your source smacks of desperation to me. As I said before. Here is the concensus at the moment (again):

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

If time is not a dimension how can objects travel faster or slower in time relative to eachother? Strictly theoretical you are right. It is not proven, however it is so interwined into the physisist's vieuw of the universe that it becomes hard to imagen it any other way.

I agree that it is interwined and have said many times I accept spacetime? I also agree it is not proven or even a majority concensus. Imagination does not provide us data nor is it scientifically credible. I could imagine a little green man peddling a bike under the bonnet of my car, this does not mean I have reasonably provided any form of probability that my car is powered by anything other than a mechanical engine.

It seems you'er still stuck on time=motion. Although extremely correlated, that is not true, they are not the same thing. So when I speak of a source responseble for our notion of "present" that has nothing to do with the speed of our perception. The speed of our perception is determined by the chemical processes in our brains. Our notion of "presentness" however fails to be explained by simple neuropsychology. Two difrent things here.

Time = motion is empiracly tested, time as a dimension other than spacetime is not, additionally our notion of "presentness" in my mind is just a smokesceen and we are probably best dropping it, I consider the "NOW" theory perfectly plausable, if you don't then you don't. You really have not brought any credible alternative thus far.

Well this is somwhat covered by the same answer as the first question.

And as far as I can see your still stuck with the same problems.

this agreing thing is nice, we should try it more often

Agreed. :thankyou:

Well I hope I answered your questions somewhat. If there's still objections, fire away

Sorry, it's not the answers that I need satisfied on it's supporting data.

You can continue in vain to personally provide satisfactory data that gains a concensus that supports your position or you can accept what I said all along:

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

Perhaps a case of agreeing to disagree........As far as changing the way I perceive the world around me based on what you have provided, I think I will pass as we still are not in a position to reasonably know for sure.

Frustrating, I agree. In the future you might just be vindicated or shown to be wrong, killa I know. But it does not change what our current understanding is.

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, I already was aware of that and indeed warned you several posts back. Fact of the matter is simply you cannot get a general scientic consensus of a time dimension other than what I expressed in the above post's where I stated the following; the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass.
I'll only accept spacetime
so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime, don't you see those are both one and the same thing? Anyway You seem to have misunderstood I didn't mean to suggest time exists in it's own dimension, but rather that time is a dimension. And the connection with motion is that a motion in the other 3D's alwasy goes hand in hand with a movement trough time (regardless of which one is cause and which one is event). However, just because the movement we witness seems to be bound to the dimension of time in that way, doesn't mean that all motions are as such. It is already sugested by string theory that the so far unfound graviton could be escaping through certain dimensions. And since we already know gravity manipulates time it's quite obvious that the force behind gravity isn't strictly bound to time. It would certainly explain why gravity is so much weaker then the other forces.

Additionally, bringing in "Phyilosophy" as your source smacks of desperation to me. As I said before. Here is the concensus at the moment (again):

I wouldn't desperation, far from it, it's just honesty from my part not to pass philosophy of as science. This is however a very active discussion and many scientist claim that this is not the field of philosophy but also (theoretical) science whereas others say that the whole string-theory is strictly philosophical.

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

Well some of the questions are still unanswered but some were answered long ago, and if you believe in spacetime then you accept time as a dimention (or you have a lousy understanding of space-time; no offence; the two are just difrent ords for the same thing). So that leaves us with the question: "how exactly does this dimension work? And theer is wheer the questions come in and we can only result to philosophy and speculation. In other words, we don't know what time is, but we know what it's "not".

I agree that it is interwined and have said many times I accept spacetime? I also agree it is not proven or even a majority concensus. Imagination does not provide us data nor is it scientifically credible. I could imagine a little green man peddling a bike under the bonnet of my car, this does not mean I have reasonably provided any form of probability that my car is powered by anything other than a mechanical engine.

And this argument brings me back to the "time within a time" if you accept the 4D space-time, why still speculate on the existance of a more abstract time in which the 4D space-time is confined? The 4D fabric of space-time does not require it. So not only is the probability of it unprovide, but the theory itselfs makes it unnecesairy (as does your engine make the alternative green-man theory unnecesairy).

Time = motion is empiracly tested, time as a dimension other than spacetime is not, additionally our notion of "presentness" in my mind is just a smokesceen and we are probably best dropping it, I consider the "NOW" theory perfectly plausable, if you don't then you don't. You really have not brought any credible alternative thus far.

Time=motion is not tested, that equation is even false. and the now is not an alternative exlpenation for the "present" . the theory was just another way of pointing out the problem, not a solution to it.

And as far as I can see your still stuck with the same problems.

I have the luxery of filling in the gaps with my religion. I respect however this is something you cant. Then again it was never my intention to push my personal answers upon you, but rather only to pose you the very same questions that lead me to those answers.

Perhaps a case of agreeing to disagree........As far as changing the way I perceive the world around me based on what you have provided, I think I will pass as we still are not in a position to reasonably know for sure. Frustrating, I agree. In the future you might just be vindicated or shown to be wrong, killa I know. But it does not change what our current understanding is.

Yes we are runnig into a gridlock by the looks of it. But it aint over 'till the fat lady sings. So as long as you're willing, I'm not giving up either :)
By the way, have you start reading my book yet? in one of the chapters I explain my vieuw more in depth. Even made some illustrations to go along with it, might be helpfull.
[/QUOTE]

[root]

I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime,

Wehey, we getting somewhere? Yes, you now understand my postion.

don't you see those are both one and the same thing?

Not really. They are unified out of convenience, Not necessity.

Anyway You seem to have misunderstood I didn't mean to suggest time exists in it's own dimension, but rather that time is a dimension. And the connection with motion is that a motion in the other 3D's alwasy goes hand in hand with a movement trough time (regardless of which one is cause and which one is event). However, just because the movement we witness seems to be bound to the dimension of time in that way, doesn't mean that all motions are as such.

I can accept that.

It is already sugested by string theory that the so far unfound graviton could be escaping through certain dimensions. And since we already know gravity manipulates time it's quite obvious that the force behind gravity isn't strictly bound to time. It would certainly explain why gravity is so much weaker then the other forces.

yes, string theory predicts this. It could be also that Gravity is not a weak force afterall and that the super massive blackhole and the ultimate gravitational force within our galaxy appears weak because we are wuite towrds the edge of our galaxy. If correct, then Gravitons not need be escaping. Of course dissapearing Gravitons could be the case, equally it could not be. I say this time and time again, we simply cannot make such assertions at this point in time.

I wouldn't desperation, far from it, it's just honesty from my part not to pass philosophy of as science. This is however a very active discussion and many scientist claim that this is not the field of philosophy but also (theoretical) science whereas others say that the whole string-theory is strictly philosophical.

I agree, the point remains you can't build a scientific case based partly on philsophy.

I have the luxery of filling in the gaps with my religion. I respect however this is something you cant. Then again it was never my intention to push my personal answers upon you, but rather only to pose you the very same questions that lead me to those answers.

Is it luxury or convenience, to me the debate ends right here. Religion may well fill the gap for you. scientific discovery will only force you to unfill the gap and fill it with the correct data so I would question why you would "temorarily" fill the gaps in the first place. I guess that is the reason that religion in science is just an obstruction to some convenience to others.

The fact still remains Steve:
So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve:I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime, don't you see those are both one and the same thing?
root:Not really. They are unified out of convenience, Not necessity.

Really? What's the difrence then? space time, means that time si a dimension. I really cannot understand how someone could believe in time as a part of the 4D fabric of space-time but then again not believe in time as a dimension. In order to accept spacetime one needs to see time as a dimension. So you really can't have one without the other.

Is it luxury or convenience, to me the debate ends right here. Religion may well fill the gap for you. scientific discovery will only force you to unfill the gap and fill it with the correct data so I would question why you would "temorarily" fill the gaps in the first place. I guess that is the reason that religion in science is just an obstruction to some convenience to others.

Well the thing is, science didn't prove Islam wrong in the past. In fact it never unfilled those gaps it just confirmed them. And albeit luxery or convenience, it al seems very logical to me, to such an extend that I would consider denying it ill-willed.

[root]

Really? What's the difrence then? space time, means that time si a dimension. I really cannot understand how someone could believe in time as a part of the 4D fabric of space-time but then again not believe in time as a dimension. In order to accept spacetime one needs to see time as a dimension. So you really can't have one without the other.

Can you have motion without time?

Point is and it is getting tiring;

You, nor anyone can currently prove (and by this I mean a majority scientific consensus) that time even exists in the first place.

Well the thing is, science didn't prove Islam wrong in the past. In fact it never unfilled those gaps it just confirmed them. And albeit luxery or convenience, it al seems very logical to me, to such an extend that I would consider denying it ill-willed.

Science does not "prove" anything. Further, Islamic scripture is not supported by scientific data. Let's face it Steve. Look at how "islamic Knowledge is gained.

Firstly, A scientific discovery is made. Then every word in the koran and the thousands of hadiths are systematically searched and scrutinized for any relavence to the discovery, depending on the interpretation that is found Islam then announces another "miracle" or that science has just confirmed scripture. This works for the bible too and even Nostra Damus.........

[Sabi]

Salaam Steve,

I really do not see why the existence of "objective" time should be important. All "time" is relative, even the Quran talks about this (A day in Allah's reckoning is a 1000 or even 50000 years by our reckoning).

What has any of this to do with the existence or non-existence of space?

[Abdul Fattah]

@Root
Can you have motion without time?

Why not? Can you proof That motion is dependant on time? Or can you answer the following paradox:

If spacetime is build up out of energy, either it exists infinitly in which case the present couldn't eb a universal now, but needs to be inserted at a certain time. Or the 4D spacetime was created/formed at some time. whatever created it must then be independant of that time, it's own cretaion. Now either way both posibilitys suggest a force from outside the dimension of time. Sp obviously some forces are independant of time. If these forces fall under your defenition of a "motion" I do not know. But stuuf is happening outside the parameters of time.

Point is and it is getting tiring;
You, nor anyone can currently prove (and by this I mean a majority scientific consensus) that time even exists in the first place.

Root, what are you saying? General relativity is proven in numerous ways. Perhaps part of it should be interpreted slightly difrent. But still , how can you deny all of this? These theorys are far more proven then common descent or abiogenesis. Theorys you swear by. And these theorys you do deny?

@Sabi

I really do not see why the existence of "objective" time should be important. All "time" is relative, even the Quran talks about this (A day in Allah's reckoning is a 1000 or even 50000 years by our reckoning).

What has any of this to do with the existence or non-existence of space?

Well the "secret beyond matter" has indeed lil' to do with this. Then again I didn't bring it up to proove your theorys. But rather for difrent points.

[root]

Why not? Can you proof That motion is dependant on time? Or can you answer the following paradox:

No, I could not prove it. My analogy is similar to yours in that neither of us can really prove it. me saying that it takes 23 seconds to travel between 2 points is simply a measure of unit just like time?

If spacetime is build up out of energy, either it exists infinitly in which case the present couldn't eb a universal now, but needs to be inserted at a certain time. Or the 4D spacetime was created/formed at some time. whatever created it must then be independant of that time,

Why must it be indapendent of time if time simply did not exist.

whatever created it must then be independant of that time, it's own cretaion. Now either way both posibilitys suggest a force from outside the dimension of time.

Or time simply did not exist at the point your referencing, which is at what point?

Sp obviously some forces are independant of time. If these forces fall under your defenition of a "motion" I do not know. But stuuf is happening outside the parameters of time.

What "stuff"! How do you know? why use an hypothosis of energy without matter?

[Abdul Fattah]

No, I could not prove it. My analogy is similar to yours in that neither of us can really prove it. me saying that it takes 23 seconds to travel between 2 points is simply a measure of unit just like time?

Ok how's this for a proof:

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!
Source: stephen hawkin's "A brief history of time"
http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizi...y_in_Time.html

Why must it be indapendent of time if time simply did not exist.

Well time did not exist prior to it's creation. Whatever created time exist even when there was no time. So whatever created it was undependant of time. And more importantly. There was a change! perhaps it isn't quite considerable as "motion". But something happened, a change. This change suddenly created time. If the cause of tme was itself dependant on time, it could never be manifested since it relies on time for any "change" to occur.

Or time simply did not exist at the point your referencing, which is at what point?

Ok we're getting somewhere. I assume You were hoping that I would answer: a point "before". And I assume that you intended to reply that before suggest the existance time again. But I'm sorry to let you down, my answer is:
A point not bound to the dimension of time. It's not before or simultanious, or after, it's simply "not bound" by that dimension. Try to approach dimensions as limitations. An object on a line can only go left and right because it is bound to that dimension. It needs space because it's bound to that dimension. simular, motions that are bound to teh dimension of time need time to occur. but if something is independant of both space and time, it wouldn't need them. What is real freedom? When we believe Allah (s.w.t.), the creator of time is without beginning, it's not because he is infinite in the dimension of time but simply because he is not bound to that dimension. When we say Allah (s.w.t.) is everywhere, that's not because Allah (s.w.t.) is stretched out infinitely over space, but because he is independent of, not confined by space.

What "stuff"! How do you know? why use an hypothosis of energy without matter?

The stuffs refers to either the source of time, should time be finit, or either the source of our notion of "present" when time is infinite. Which one of those two I believe is irrelevant. the point is that either way you need forces independant of time.

[root]

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space.

Nowadays we use just this method to measure distances precisely, because we can measure time more accurately than length. In effect, the meter is defined to be the distance traveled by light in 0.000000003335640952 second, as measured by a cesium clock. (The reason for that particular number is that it corresponds to the historical definition of the meter – in terms of two marks on a particular platinum bar kept in Paris.) Equally, we can use a more convenient, new unit of length called a light-second. This is simply defined as the distance that light travels in one second. In the theory of relativity, we now define distance in terms of time and the speed of light, so it follows automatically that every observer will measure light to have the same speed (by definition, 1 meter per 0.000000003335640952 second). There is no need to introduce the idea of an ether, whose presence anyway cannot be detected, as the Michelson-Morley experiment showed. The theory of relativity does, however, force us to change fundamentally our ideas of space and time. We must accept that time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time.

Nice try :)

Look Steve, spacetime. Not "time"!

Motion = Time.......

As I said all along.

[Abdul Fattah]

Nice try :)
Look Steve, spacetime. Not "time"!

Come on Root.
Spacetime = space + time
Which part of that equation do you fail to understand?

Motion = Time.......
As I said all along.

Just repeating it long enough doesn't make it true.
here's motion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29

Motions that are bound to the dimension of time need time to occur.
That doesn't mean that motion equals time, that makes as much sense as saying:
"motion= space" since a motion bound to the dimension of space needs space to occur.

[root]

Come on Root.
Spacetime = space + time
Which part of that equation do you fail to understand?

I said right from the beginning I accept spacetime. Your looking to proove that time contributes to spatial dimension? That's trickier. But if time ran slower in your left leg than in your right leg, you'd be going round in circles!

[yasin]

we're getting slightly pedantic here

[Abdul Fattah]

I said right from the beginning I accept spacetime. Your looking to proove that time contributes to spatial dimension? That's trickier. But if time ran slower in your left leg than in your right leg, you'd be going round in circles!

No I did not look to proove that time contributes to the spatial dimension. I never said that. What I am saying instead is that time is a dimension. You accept spacetime wich basicly is what you get when the 3 spatial dimensions and the dimension of time are interwoven. But even though you accept spacetime you fail to knowledge time is a dimensions just because know I got (not so concealed) hidden agenda.

[root]

I reject the notion that time is a dimension in itself and asked you to prove it.

Alas, like I warned you the outcome was predictable, you failed. It's too early on mankinds path of scientific discovery. The only conselation I can offer is you "might" be right. Unfortunately you have an equal chance of being wrong.

[Abdul Fattah]

I reject the notion that time is a dimension in itself and asked you to prove it.

Alas, like I warned you the outcome was predictable, you failed. It's too early on mankinds path of scientific discovery. The only conselation I can offer is you "might" be right. Unfortunately you have an equal chance of being wrong.

Maybe I cannot present you a quick one-post proof, but that's because when looking into matters that deep proofs aren't that simple. nevertheless the notion that time is a dimension is a part of general relativity and is accepted by almost every scientist on earth, if not in fact every scientist. And the most part of general relativity is proven. If you doubt about this being scientific, then you can doubt about any given other thing being scientific as well.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry to interrupt here, but I'm pretty baffled by the direction this thread's taken. Steve, root, what does any of this discussion of time have to do with atheism?

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings,

Sorry to interrupt here, but I'm pretty baffled by the direction this thread's taken. Steve, root, what does any of this discussion of time have to do with atheism?

Peace

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:
*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.
*The force is individual.
*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.
*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

[root]

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

This is not correct. Einstien's theory "PREDICTS" that time is a dimension.

Source:http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html

The Gravity Probe B Mission by NASA set's out to test this prediction:

According to Einstein's 1916 general theory of relativity—our present theory of gravitation—space and time are inextricably woven into a four-dimensional fabric called spacetime, and gravity is nothing but the warping and twisting of spacetime by massive celestial bodies. Is this theory correct? The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite recently completed its first year in orbit around the Earth and is continuing to collect data in the first controlled experiment specifically designed to answer this question.

Steve is making a simple error in asking us to beleive the prediction to be correct as proof, whilst this might be true we just cannot say right now since the experiment may well falsify what he is suggesting. Here is a link for the current status of the experiment:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

[Abdul Fattah]

This is not correct. Einstien's theory "PREDICTS" that time is a dimension.

Source:http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html

The Gravity Probe B Mission by NASA set's out to test this prediction:

According to Einstein's 1916 general theory of relativity—our present theory of gravitation—space and time are inextricably woven into a four-dimensional fabric called spacetime, and gravity is nothing but the warping and twisting of spacetime by massive celestial bodies. Is this theory correct? The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite recently completed its first year in orbit around the Earth and is continuing to collect data in the first controlled experiment specifically designed to answer this question.

Just because the title says Einstein wrnog, doesn't mean this sugegst time isn't a dimension. It simply means Einstein was wrong about some of his interpretations and his views need to be revised, not thrown away completely.
If in fact their speculations turns out accurate, and the string theory is hereby proven; that will have some influences on how we see time, but note that this string theory also suggests time is a dimension. so either way, that part is safe! another point to raise is tha the conclusivness of this experement is questionable. Will the difrent clock really be in the same zero-gravity field? Or are they within the gravity field of the spaceship that carries them? And if they are within that gravity field of the space ship that carries them, are they lmocated at an equal distance from center gravitational point of that ship? I take it you see where I'm going at...

[root]

This is getting so boring:

Just because the title says Einstein wrnog, doesn't mean this sugegst time isn't a dimension.

And it does not suggest it is either

It simply means Einstein was wrong about some of his interpretations and his views need to be revised, not thrown away completely.

Correct but it will implicate his "PREDICTION" about time being a dimension. We don't know if he was wrong, his prediction cannot be shown correct or false until next year.

If in fact their speculations turns out accurate, and the string theory is hereby proven; that will have some influences on how we see time, but note that this string theory also suggests time is a dimension.

I agree, still not shown to be correct (PS, can we stop calling it string theory because it confuses the issue, string theory has multiple theories. Which one are you talking about. perhpas we could agree to "M" Theory. And can you give me anything that M theory has predicted correctly yet? On seconds thought perhaps not. You think a prediction is proof enough.

so either way, that part is safe! another point to raise is tha the conclusivness of this experement is questionable. Will the difrent clock really be in the same zero-gravity field? Or are they within the gravity field of the spaceship that carries them? And if they are within that gravity field of the space ship that carries them, are they lmocated at an equal distance from center gravitational point of that ship? I take it you see where I'm going at...

You trying to give me ammo for when you are proven right. Assuming of course the prdiction does confirm the prediction.

All your evidence merely "PREDICTS", that is not proof.

Come back for this discussion at the beginning of 2007 when the results will be fully available. Until then stop trying to make me beleive a prediction is proof. I wanto see the prediction is confirmed this will happen next year.

[Abdul Fattah]

It has nothing toi do with predictions. Time being a dimension has become a part of our science that is almost imposible to push away. And all these movements that are currently happening in the area of string theory do not undermine that thought, but rather include it in their theorys as well. This has nothing to do with predictions. General relativity is tested. The data proved it to be true. The only uncertainty is how we should niterpretet that data. And that uncertainty leads to such vieuws going back and forth. However non of these theorys undermine the notion of time being a dimension it is an inevetible result of the existance of time dillation.

[root]

General relativity is tested.

:heated:

Or so you thought at least........ If it was tested then why are they testing it's prediction? They would have already done that.

Think about it for some time......

[Abdul Fattah]

I've already showed you three tests that proved his theory right. If you don't want to accept it ...well thta's your decision then.

[root]

Sorry Steve,

You were always doomed to fail because you failed to acknowledge that what you called proof was a prediction and one that is still scientifically unresolved. Until it is, your overall case cannot be made with any scientific consensus. It's frustrating I know, but that's life in science............

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry Steve,
You were always doomed to fail because you failed to acknowledge that what you called proof was a prediction and one that is still scientifically unresolved. Until it is, your overall case cannot be made with any scientific consensus. It's frustrating I know, but that's life in science............

I'd apreciate you'd stop putting words into my mounth, the proof I gave you were tests performed by noble prize winners and NASA itself, no predictions. Tests and data.

If you don't want to accept that part... well that's your decision then.
I do find the following parallelism ironic:

* You accept evolution, yet refuse time as a dimension (=relativity theory).

* Evolution is based on assumptions. Time as a dimension is based on empirical testing.

* Evolution can not be tested, time as a dimension is tested by three difrent experiments.

* Evolution cannot make any predictions. Relativity with time as a dimension can.

* If it would be false it would not undermine any other part of science. If time as a dimension would turn out to be false our whole scientific vieuwpoint would fall down.

* EvolutionIt isn't even a solid theory with all the missing links. Time as a dimension is a complete theory with no missing links and an acceptable explenations. There are still questions we haven't answered and things that we cannot investigate, but so far there is no indication at all that they bring any problem to our view of time.

[root]

You accept evolution, yet refuse time as a dimension (=relativity theory).

Correct, I accept evolution whilst some of the hypothosis and predictions are still to be tested and remember evolution is falsifiable. I accept the theory of relativity which again still has some hypothisis with predictions that still need to be tested.

* Evolution is based on assumptions. Time as a dimension is based on empirical testing.

Certain aspects of evolution is based on assumption, so is the theory of relativity.

* Evolution can not be tested, time as a dimension is tested by three difrent experiments.

Incorret, Aspects of the theory of evolution can be tested as aspects of relativity also can be tested. And both seem to support the overall data, your trying to get me to swallow something that does not have a scientific consensus.

* Evolution cannot make any predictions. Relativity with time as a dimension can.

Incorrect. Evolution can and does make predictions

* If it would be false it would not undermine any other part of science. If time as a dimension would turn out to be false our whole scientific vieuwpoint would fall down.

Of course it would not. it would change our understanding of spavetime though, which is what this is about. Sure the theory of general relativity would stand and we would know if time was or was not a dimension in it's own right. It;s just too early to say (as i repeatedly have told you)......

EvolutionIt isn't even a solid theory with all the missing links. Time as a dimension is a complete theory with no missing links and an acceptable explenations. There are still questions we haven't answered and things that we cannot investigate, but so far there is no indication at all that they bring any problem to our view of time.

OK Steve, if you say so. Problem is the whole of the scientific community would disagree with you and I do as well, Bolded is your problem and as frustrated as you maybe, get with the game-plan and wait til we know for sure next year. Or just plug your gaps with faith since that is what you are inclined to do.

Without prejudice

Root

[Abdul Fattah]

Take a step back and reflect on what you're saying here root. You're saying evolution is more of a certainty then general relativity. And you're saying the whole scientific community will back you up?

Think Root. My words can only show you the right questions, eventually you'll have to dig up the answers yourself. So think. Think like you never thought before. Think like your life depends on it.

[root]

Take a step back and reflect on what you're saying here root. You're saying evolution is more of a certainty then general relativity. And you're saying the whole scientific community will back you up?

Thanks for the misrepresentation, I am saying that the theory of general relativity is no greater nor less accepted in the scientific community than evolution.

Think Root. My words can only show you the right questions, eventually you'll have to dig up the answers yourself. So think. Think like you never thought before. Think like your life depends on it.

Na, I don't think so. I prefer to wait for the judgement as opposed to assuming I know what the judgement will be. Pre-empting a scientific study is in itself bad science? We can hypothosise & predict, that's as far as you can go until the data has been fully scrutinised. A point you consistently fail to grasp.

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok you've done it, you actually succeed in making me tired of defending my point. I can only repeat my self so many times you wanna run in circles. Go ahead, have it your way.

[root]

It's not about having it my way, it's about you passing a prediction off that is only a prediction and it's resolvement is just around the corner. It is frustrating granted.........

[Abdul Fattah]

And I bet if you believe that hard enough and keep repeating it it will eventually become true :)

[Ayesha Rana]

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:
*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.
*The force is individual.
*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.
*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

Err so which point do Atheists agree with?

[root]

Treating time as a dimension is just a recognition of the fact that it takes a coordinate to tell you "when" an event occurs. While this is the only requirement for time to be treated as a dimension, there is a little more to this story. According to relativity, time and space are not able to be considered as separate entities.

Thus, time dimension does not exist as a sole entity (or has never been shown to exist). Thus a space-time dimension is perfectly acceptable to me. If Steve still considers himself holding the proof that time as a dimension exists as a single entity could he please submit his proposition to the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime who's e-mails are available for him to contact them from the following URL:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/openquestions.html

I could agree with all 3 of Steve's points for even though I disagree that time is a sole dimension (point 1) amongst other dimensions, even though the 3rd point is kinda messed up. What force is being talked about here? And the passage of time can be manipluated in some ways, at least in comparison to others. You can move at an extremely high velocity relative to some observer, plus a strong gravitational field will indeed alter how time passes in comparison to someone else. even if I accepted what Steve was saying point 4 would still not be valid. It would not pose difficult questions for an Atheist.

While we are on point four I may as well say it. Dualism is the metaphysical school of thought that there exist two fundamental substances: the mental and the physical. Nowhere in parts 1 through 3 Does Steve ever show that he understood the physical, and he has not even mentioned the mental.


What relativity suggests is that one's notion of time is the result of changes in the physical state of the universe, as he observes them. If it weren't for bodies in motion, there wouldn't be any such thing as time. Time exists only as a relation between moving objects.

Motion = Time

Finally, I dont see what any of this has to do with athiesm or religion of any kind and has gone way off-topic

[Abdul Fattah]

Root, you accept time is a part of the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time. In other words yopu accept the idea that the dimension of time is interwoven into the dimensions of space, but yet you do not acknowledge time is a dimension? If time isn't a dimension jow can it be interwoven in space? Whether or not time can be considered as seperate entity or not is irrelevant.
Even then it still requires a coordinate. Wheter or not they are interwoven or not makes absolutely no difrence here. Either way the question rises what makes us go through this part of the 4dimensional fabric without any control as opposed to the control we have over the spatial parts of the four dimensional fabric.

And the passage of time can be manipluated in some ways, at least in comparison to others. You can move at an extremely high velocity relative to some observer, plus a strong gravitational field will indeed alter how time passes in comparison to someone else.

That only alters the dimension itself, that is because the fabric of space time itself is material and thus influencable by forces of nature. But whatever is responsible four our notion of “time” as well as our notion of “present” is different from the dimension of time itself. Because eternalism suggests that both past, present and future exist next to one another. So if this dimension of time itself were responsible for our consciousness, our consciousness wouldn’t be located in the present, but be simultaneously spread out over our whole lives.

While we are on point four I may as well say it. Dualism is the metaphysical school of thought that there exist two fundamental substances: the mental and the physical. Nowhere in parts 1 through 3 Does Steve ever show that he understood the physical, and he has not even mentioned the mental.

the physical is explained again and again in each point. I can't be held acountable if you fail to understand the fabric of space-time. The mental is our notion of "present" and point three which you claim to be confusing is in fact showing that this notion is metaphysical.

What relativity suggests is that one's notion of time is the result of changes in the physical state of the universe, as he observes them. If it weren't for bodies in motion, there wouldn't be any such thing as time. Time exists only as a relation between moving objects.

That is not what relativity suggests. Relativity suggests time is adimension. Relativity suggests eternalism. Relativity does not suggest that time is teh speed by which processes occur.

Motion = Time

You'er always so eager to ask for source. Why don't you giove me source for that wrongfull interpretation of time then? I posted you links to what wikipedia has to say about both time and about motion, they are clearly not the same thing. You say you accept the notion of space time. Wheer time is a dimension interwined into the spatial dimensions. Do you not realise that means time is independant of motion? that motion is a proces that is simply manifested within time?

Finally, I dont see what any of this has to do with athiesm or religion of any kind and has gone way off-topic

You fail to see what dualism has to do with religion and atheism?

Ayesha
Points one and two are scientific. Point three is open for debate. It's very hard to make assumptions about a force we don't see. We only see the result of that force. (our notion of time) But there isn't any way to test how this works. So point three are educated guesses based on logical assumptions. And I can imagen that when an atheist dislikes these theorys that he does not accept them. Then again, each atheist is unique, and it's hard to make a general statement.

[root]

That only alters the dimension itself, that is because the fabric of space time itself is material and thus influencable by forces of nature. But whatever is responsible four our notion of “time” as well as our notion of “present” is different from the dimension of time itself. Because eternalism suggests that both past, present and future exist next to one another. So if this dimension of time itself were responsible for our consciousness, our consciousness wouldn’t be located in the present, but be simultaneously spread out over our whole lives.

Quite a philosophical approach, I will just give you in response what Einstien said about his theory when asked to summarize in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

Time in itself, absolutely, does not exist; it is always relative to some observer or some object. Without a clock I say 'I do not know the time' . Without matter time itself is unknowable. Time is a function of matter; and matter therefore is the clock that makes infinity real. (Fowles, The Aristos)

The discrete 'particle' effect of light is caused by discrete Standing Wave Interactions / Resonant Coupling. Time is caused by Wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter's activity and the phenomena of time).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...Relativity.htm

Motion = Time

It seems you are very hostile to such A buetiful and simplistic notion Steve, is this because you expected time to exist before matter or the birth of our universe. Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

[Abdul Fattah]

Quite a philosophical approach,

No it's not the part of time being bended by gravity is pure science. But this does not explain our notion of time, we need something besides that to explain it. There's nothing philosophicla to that. It only becomes philosophical once one starts to suggest difrent alternatives.

I will just give you in response what Einstien said about his theory when asked to summarize in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

And I will respond what I already said before, wheter or not they have a seperate existance is irrelevant to the issue here. Even if they are unavoidable linked, I can still raise the same question. In fact it was never my intention to suggest that time stands alone, I just isolated it so it's charesteristics would be more obvious.

Time in itself, absolutely, does not exist; it is always relative to some observer or some object. Without a clock I say 'I do not know the time' . Without matter time itself is unknowable. Time is a function of matter; and matter therefore is the clock that makes infinity real. (Fowles, The Aristos)

This has nothing to do with science. This is just a couple of philosophers their interpretation of the time but it goes in against the scientific view of time.

The discrete 'particle' effect of light is caused by discrete Standing Wave Interactions / Resonant Coupling. Time is caused by Wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter's activity and the phenomena of time).

As for the wave theory. It's unproven. And it doesn't show that time is caused by wave motion, it builds on the assumption that time is caused by wave motion.

Motion = Time

How do you respond to my argument ad absurdum motion=space? Motion is inevetible linked to sapce in the very same way as time is, does that make you assume that motion is equal to space to? And if we combine those two,
space= motion; motion = time => space = time ?

It seems you are very hostile to such A buetiful and simplistic notion

Hostile? Not really, I'm just trying to get some inaccurate views out of the world. I don't think it's beautyfull, I think it's ugly since your view is inacurate according to general relativity. This has nothing to do with my personal preferances or any other theory I have in my head. I would say exactly the same without these theorys.

Steve, is this because you expected time to exist before matter or the birth of our universe.

No not at all. I think all the dimensions were created simultaniously. You got my argument wrong, it's your p.o.v. that suggests this. you say all interaction is dependant of time. Therefor time needs to exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

what are you talking about? "within nothing" that's a contradiction in terms.
If there is nothing, then there's no "within" either.

[Dark_Spark]

I like how many people voted for FACT, when it clearly is not a fact. It is a belief.

Fact is something you can prove, and since no one has proved that god exists it remains a belief.

I'll take this opportunity to also point out that although atheists ( myself of which i am) cannot disprove the existence of god they personnally don't believe he exists.

[Abdul Fattah]

Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more a fact then scientific facts. I assume other voters here have a simular motivation.

[Dark_Spark]

Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more a fact then scientific facts. I assume other voters here have a simular motivation.

There is only one criteria to have a fact, and that is proof.

Its a bit like math, 1 + 1 = 2. That is fact.

[Abdul Fattah]

There is only one criteria to have a fact, and that is proof.

Its a bit like math, 1 + 1 = 2. That is fact.

No that's not a fact, that's a theory. Math is build on axioms and these axioms alow a group of rules. The axioms are unproven assumptions. They are not undeniable facts they are simply the base on which the theory is build.

To quote Einstein: As far as the laws of physics refer to reality they are uncertain and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.

[Dark_Spark]

No that's not a fact, that's a theory. Math is build on axioms and these axioms alow a group of rules. The axioms are unproven assumptions. They are not undeniable facts they are simply the base on which the theory is build.

To quote Einstein: As far as the laws of physics refer to reality they are uncertain and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.

That still doesn't refute that if you take one banana then add another banana you will have two bananas.

But if your coming from where i think your coming from your saying nothing is sure. Which again proves my point that god cannot be proved or disproved. Wouldn't you agree?

[Abdul Fattah]

That still doesn't refute that if you take one banana then add another banana you will have two bananas.

Let me try a difrent aproach. Are you familiar with the work of Rene Magritte? HE placed a picture of a chair and commented: this is not a chair. Then he placed a picture showing the word "chair" and he commented below, this is not a chair. The word "chair" is a charesteristic we give to teh object from our language. However an alien unfamiliar with our language might say that charesteristic is false.
(assuming the alien would be able to communicate despite not knowing our language of course :) ). Math is in a simular way just a language. It's not a universal truth, it's a language we constructed with axioms in order to define (=talk about) physics. You may say that your gesture with banana's follows your mathematical theory, but an alien might refuse that saying you didn't actually added the two banana's to each other but rather placed them within each others proximity.

But if your coming from where i think your coming from your saying nothing is sure. Which again proves my point that god cannot be proved or disproved. Wouldn't you agree?

Well not exactly. I would say: "nothing can be proven or disproven in general", since everybody will have difrent criteria to decide what he accepts and not. That doesn't mean people can't make up there minds and decide to accept their belief as factual.

[Dark_Spark]

Let me try a difrent aproach. Are you familiar with the work of Rene Magritte? HE placed a picture of a chair and commented: this is not a chair. Then he placed a picture showing the word "chair" and he commented below, this is not a chair. The word "chair" is a charesteristic we give to teh object from our language. However an alien unfamiliar with our language might say that charesteristic is false.
(assuming the alien would be able to communicate despite not knowing our language of course :) ). Math is in a simular way just a language. It's not a universal truth, it's a language we constructed with axioms in order to define (=talk about) physics. You may say that your gesture with banana's follows your mathematical theory, but an alien might refuse that saying you didn't actually added the two banana's to each other but rather placed them within each others proximity.

Well not exactly. I would say: "nothing can be proven or disproven in general", since everybody will have difrent criteria to decide what he accepts and not. That doesn't mean people can't make up there minds and decide to accept their belief as factual.

But we could communicate in mathematic theory though. Thats like saying tomato tomato (lol, this obviously doesn't work written but you get it).

Thats like some guy saying he can see ghosts. If he percieves it as fact, does it make it so? no, we drug him up and drag him off to an insane asylum. ;D

[Abdul Fattah]

But we could communicate in mathematic theory though. Thats like saying tomato tomato (lol, this obviously doesn't work written but you get it).

Assuming aliens would have teh same perception of the universe; simular questions, simular logics,... yes, then we might be able to work with some of the simularitys in our math and there math. But take an amoeba for example.
They don't expieriance gravity. They are completely unaware of gravity, which is the most obvious force of nature for us. An amoeba lives in water and therefor sees no difrence in up down, left right or foreward and backwards. So if they were to map there world there much more like to invent polar coordinates rather then carthesian coordinates. A difrent force like surface tension however plays a much more important role in the life of amoeba's. A force that has lil' meaning to our daily lives.

Thats like some guy saying he can see ghosts. If he percieves it as fact, does it make it so? no, we drug him up and drag him off to an insane asylum.

I'm not so found of the idea to lock up anyone who claims things that are inconsitent with our worldview. What if there are actually ghost? Do you not make a great error imprisoning an innocent man just for what he says? It's not logical to neglect a person's claims just on the base that it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm with Steve on the 2 + 2 = 4 question. It's not a fact, but simply something we agree about because we use a particular mathematical system. The axioms of that system are unproven assumptions. The idea that no mathematical system can ever be complete in this sense is down to this guy: Kurt Godel.

Peace

[HeiGou]

I'm with Steve on the 2 + 2 = 4 question. It's not a fact, but simply something we agree about because we use a particular mathematical system. The axioms of that system are unproven assumptions. The idea that no mathematical system can ever be complete in this sense is down to this guy: Kurt Godel.

Umm, Godel says that an axiomatic system cannot be shown to be complete. Wouldn't that imply that the system has to be sufficiently complex to involve axioms? 2+2=4 does not contain any axioms. Rather the arithmetic operations are basically underlying the entire system. They are too basic for inclusion. I was taught Godel's theorem using the example of a geometry system where in fact parallel lines do meet at infinity. I don't recall having to assume 1+1=2 but then I was not a very good student.

Even if I fail at the first hurdle, I would go on to claim that whatever axioms cannot be proven, 2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms. It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system. Let me stress that word consistent. Assume a mathematical system where 2+2=5 and think about the consequences.

[czgibson]

Greetings HeiGou,

2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms.

2 + 2 = 4 can only be proved by reference to the axioms, and it relies on certain definitions that form part of the system of mainstream mathematics. See here.

It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system.

Hmm... what is '2'? Can you go out and find me a '2' that I can observe?

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Umm, Godel says that an axiomatic system cannot be shown to be complete. Wouldn't that imply that the system has to be sufficiently complex to involve axioms? 2+2=4 does not contain any axioms. Even if I fail at the first hurdle, I would go on to claim that whatever axioms cannot be proven, 2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms.

The rules of addition can by themselfs be considered an axiom. How can you proof that 1+1 = 2 ? There is no proof for it, it is one of the axioms we base our math upon. We simply assume it in the theory of math.

Rather the arithmetic operations are basically underlying the entire system. They are too basic for inclusion.

Well axioms are the basis for math, and therefor are indeed underlying the entire system. But that doesn't make them any less of an assumption. Math is nothing more then an artificial system based on those assumptions.

It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system.

Like in the banana's example when you put two banana's next to each other we say we now have two banan's. But the banana's (1's) didn't fuse into a new entity (2). Instead when we move the banana's we just have two bannana's next to eachother (1+1).

Let me stress that word consistent. Assume a mathematical system where 2+2=5 and think about the consequences.

First of all the absense of a mathemetical system with difrent axioms doesn't make the existing axioms any less of an axiom. Furthermore 1+1=2 works only in all decimal math systems. In a binary math system 2 doesn't even exist. Here the sum of two 1's will rather be: 01+01=10

Here's more on the axiom of numeral systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system
I find the folowing to be a very interesting comment:
The base-10 system (decimal) is the one most commonly used today. It is assumed to have originated because humans have ten fingers.

[root]

No not at all. I think all the dimensions were created simultaniously. You got my argument wrong, it's your p.o.v. that suggests this. you say all interaction is dependant of time. Therefor time needs to exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

actually no, on my basis if the motion of matter itself creates the concept of time then on current school of thought matter did not exist prior to our universe so time could not have existed. I am starting to lose my way in this debate because to be honest I have lost our respevtive positions. My original POV was that time as a single entity (dimension) does not exist, and that current school of thought to which tries to explain time is still very open to much interpretation and debate. Though I did concede right at the beginning that I accept spce-time.

Quote:Root
Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

Steve - what are you talking about? "within nothing" that's a contradiction in terms. If there is nothing, then there's no "within" either.

Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up.

[Abdul Fattah]

actually no, on my basis if the motion of matter itself creates the concept of time then on current school of thought matter did not exist prior to our universe so time could not have existed.

Ok, I c your point now. So that means you (and whatever school you are refering to) believes in presentism? That the past no longer exists, and the future doesn't exist yet?

I am starting to lose my way in this debate because to be honest I have lost our respevtive positions. My original POV was that time as a single entity (dimension) does not exist, and that current school of thought to which tries to explain time is still very open to much interpretation and debate. Though I did concede right at the beginning that I accept spce-time.

No problem, that is understandable in such philosophical discusions where there's a lack of conclusive terminology. You've already reproduced your starting point, mine was the following:
Believing in space-time, and saying that our interpretation of time is a result of motions are two contradicting stands, since the first claims eternalism, and the second claims presentism.

Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up.

Yes well that p.o.v. is based on the assumption that there is something like "empty space" there. that there is a sort of "container" wherin something can "not exist".

[root]

Quote:Root
Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up

.

Steve - Yes well that p.o.v. is based on the assumption that there is something like "empty space" there. that there is a sort of "container" wherin something can "not exist".

I don't need to assume anything, I don't assume anything exists for space to expand into, thus why would it require a container for something not to exist.

[Abdul Fattah]

You assume the existance of a "nothing", a "masless space" as you call it. I'm not saying your "nothing needs a contanier to be in, I'm saying your defenition of nothing comes close to such a "container".

[IceQueen~]

the prophet (P) said that you know a camel has passed when you see it's dung. you know when a person has passed when you see their footprints.

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

[root]

I'm saying your defenition of nothing comes close to such a "container".

Please expand what you mean by a "container" since that in my mind implies that a barrier force will be in existence. If something does not exist, how can it have a container implying a restrictive limit. Not sure I understand u Steve.

[Abdul Fattah]

Please expand what you mean by a "container" since that in my mind implies that a barrier force will be in existence. If something does not exist, how can it have a container implying a restrictive limit. Not sure I understand u Steve.

A container is an empty room. It is something that "could" contain something but doesn't necesairly do so. I get the impresion from your previous posts that you believe there is actually such an emptyness beyond the boundries of the universe, while I see no reason to asume there is even that beyond it.

this of course begs the question, if there isn't even a "masless space" beyond these bounderies, what does our universe expand into? Well some scientists assume that the outer riples of big bang make up an "empty space" for the universe to be "contained" as they go along.

[root]

A container is an empty room. It is something that "could" contain something but doesn't necesairly do so.

No you misunderstand my POV.

I get the impresion from your previous posts that you believe there is actually such an emptyness beyond the boundries of the universe,

Emtyness is a way I would not describe it either

while I see no reason to asume there is even that beyond it.

I agree with this in my POV is that you cannot see nothing.

this of course begs the question, if there isn't even a "masless space" beyond these bounderies, what does our universe expand into?

This is my entire point here, your nearing the "nothing" that is essence I don't describe for it is beyond that, afterall it is nothing. It's not as if you could go place a suitcase in it since it does not exist....... our universe expands and it expands into "nothing", it's not a container it is not anything.

Well some scientists assume that the outer riples of big bang make up an "empty space" for the universe to be "contained" as they go along.

They do, and some even consider we are actually in a super massive dark star. Thus contained. As for the truth, take your pick eh.

[yoke]

the prophet (P) said that you know a camel has passed when you see it's dung. you know when a person has passed when you see their footprints.

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

If what you say is true then that would mean an ultimate creator is proof of another ultimate creator who created the ultimate creator and it would keep going on.

An ultimate creator does not explain anything for you have to ask the question where did the ultimate creator come from.

Instead ask where did the footprints come from and evolution explains and has evidence of how life evolved. Not like religion which demands faith and that is non thinking.

[Joe98]

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

No it doesn't. It means you don't understand how it came about.

Then you use superstition to try explain how it came about.

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok It seems I've reached the wrong conclusion about your thoughts on "massless space" Root, and I do not find teh post that triggered this, this thread has been going on for quite a while. I guess that leaves us with just a single difrence in opinion:
Believing in space-time on one hand, and saying that our interpretation of time is the simlpe result of motion are two contradicting stands, since the first fits in an eternalistic view (where both future and past exist simultaniously next to one another in the dimension of time), and the second fits in an presentistic view (where there is only teh present, the past has chenged into present and the future is yet to be made by changing the present some more.)

[root]

STEVE - Ok It seems I've reached the wrong conclusion about your thoughts on "massless space" Root, and I do not find teh post that triggered this, this thread has been going on for quite a while. I guess that leaves us with just a single difrence in opinion: Believing in space-time on one hand, and saying that our interpretation of time is the simlpe result of motion are two contradicting stands, since the first fits in an eternalistic view (where both future and past exist simultaniously next to one another in the dimension of time),

Time

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once."
— Albert Einstein

We can logically accept the virtual nature of time because we have no direct sensory mechanism to sense or perceive time. Despite this glaring absence, we do have a strong sense of time that plays a crucial role in every conscious decision we make in our lives. We can argue that the reason for the existence of time is our knowledge of our finite life-span. We can illustrate this argument by mapping the history of the universe to 45 years. This mapping also shows how our physics of the universe is an ambitious extrapolation from a very short span of knowledge to incredibly long time scales. Also, physics has multiple notions of time - Newton's constant time and Einstein's malleable time. The difference between these notions of time is indicative of its unreal nature. Time is unreal the same way as mathematics is unreal; they are both products of our intellect. And philosophically, they can be thought of as formal languages.

STEVE - and the second fits in an presentistic view (where there is only teh present, the past has chenged into present and the future is yet to be made by changing the present some more.)

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
— Albert Einstein

According to cognitive neuroscience, our perceptual experience of reality is only a distant and convenient mapping of the physical processes causing the sensory inputs. Sound is a mapping of auditory inputs, and space is a representation of visual inputs. Space and time are "unreal" from this point of view. Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical. These foundations are assumptions in most cases. Some of the assumptions, especially the ones in physics, are not difficult to spot. Others that pertain to the nature of reality itself are far trickier to appreciate. The elusive assumptions include the existence of time and space, for instance. The realness of reality is not merely a philosophical issue; it is a subject matter of cognitive neuroscience as well. Once the issue of reality gets back to the realm of science, it becomes something that physics has to describe. Physics, in turn, is erected on the philosophical assumptions on the existence of time and space.

[czgibson]

Greetings root,

Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical.

Wahey! I think that's the first (almost) positive thing I've ever heard you say about philosophy!

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

Time

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once."
— Albert Einstein

That quotation could work as an argument for both view points. It might have a verry witty undertone, but doesn't reveal that much about the actual shape, form of time.

We can logically accept the virtual nature of time because we have no direct sensory mechanism to sense or perceive time. Despite this glaring absence, we do have a strong sense of time that plays a crucial role in every conscious decision we make in our lives. We can argue that the reason for the existence of time is our knowledge of our finite life-span. We can illustrate this argument by mapping the history of the universe to 45 years. This mapping also shows how our physics of the universe is an ambitious extrapolation from a very short span of knowledge to incredibly long time scales. Also, physics has multiple notions of time - Newton's constant time and Einstein's malleable time. The difference between these notions of time is indicative of its unreal nature. Time is unreal the same way as mathematics is unreal; they are both products of our intellect. And philosophically, they can be thought of as formal languages.

Well I doubt Newtonian views on this are really relevant since Newton didn't really investigate "time" hat much.

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
— Albert Einstein

Same as before, It is a very vague comment. If you ask me what he meant here was to indicate how our views often get rusted in a simplistic representation of the real thing. But then again, who am I to interpret another man's words.

According to cognitive neuroscience, our perceptual experience of reality is only a distant and convenient mapping of the physical processes causing the sensory inputs. Sound is a mapping of auditory inputs, and space is a representation of visual inputs. Space and time are "unreal" from this point of view.

The problem with this is that neuropsychologist don't necesairy have a good insight in the physics of time. they base that defenition on the assumption that time is the speed by which events occur. From that biased pov, it's only natural to conclude that our notion of time is the mapping of those speeds.

Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical. These foundations are assumptions in most cases. Some of the assumptions, especially the ones in physics, are not difficult to spot. Others that pertain to the nature of reality itself are far trickier to appreciate. The elusive assumptions include the existence of time and space, for instance. The realness of reality is not merely a philosophical issue; it is a subject matter of cognitive neuroscience as well. Once the issue of reality gets back to the realm of science, it becomes something that physics has to describe. Physics, in turn, is erected on the philosophical assumptions on the existence of time and space.

Quite right, and the deeper you get into a certain matter, the harder it becomes to seperate the field of science from philosophy. eventally philosophy can becoem so overwhelming you can deny everthing. But then we reach a point were we need to ask ourselfs. How constructive are we? What base do we take? You cannot have mathematics without using axioms. You cannot think without assumptions. So do we stop thinking to avoid those assumptions? No we simply try and make the best out of it. It will get mesy at some point, but that doesn't mean we should give up. that doesn't mean we can accumelate knowledge through this proces of mixing philosophy with science.

[Zohair]

Science tells us that the universe was created by a big bang.

Allah (god) is the one who caused the big bang. as it even says in the quran.

"Don't you see that the heavens and the earth was once joined together and we clove them ascunder"

I don't, and never will, understand how someone can think that this universe does not have a creator.

Hey, you know what happened to me today? I was standing by the lake and wanted to get across to the other side. Suddenly, a tree cut itself, then it tied itself into a raft, it then proceeded into the lake right by the shore. Then a paddel just randomly appeared. I used this to get across the river.

You think I'm Crazy cause I proclaim that a measly raft was created by itslef?, you are the one who thinks this whole universe, and the galaxies, and solar systems and planets and stars inside of it was created from nothing.

who's crazier?

[czgibson]

Greetings Zohair,

Science tells us that the universe was created by a big bang.

Science is never that dogmatic and simplistic. Here's a better way of putting it: Science suggests that the Big Bang theory is the best current explanation for the early development of the universe.

Allah (god) is the one who caused the big bang. as it even says in the quran.

"Don't you see that the heavens and the earth was once joined together and we clove them ascunder"

Do you really believe that this is referring to the Big Bang? It's so vague it could refer to any number of theories.

I don't, and never will, understand how someone can think that this universe does not have a creator.

I don't absolutely exclude the possibility. Atheism is my belief; I don't say that I know it's true - unlike religious people who have certainty about these unknowns. You may claim to know how the universe began, but in fact you don't - nobody does. We just have different beliefs about it. I happen to believe that it's more likely that there is no conscious creator. I can't prove this, but I can give many reasons why I think like this - as you'll see if you search back throught this thread a little.

Hey, you know what happened to me today? I was standing by the lake and wanted to get across to the other side. Suddenly, a tree cut itself, then it tied itself into a raft, it then proceeded into the lake right by the shore. Then a paddel just randomly appeared. I used this to get across the river.

You think I'm Crazy cause I proclaim that a measly raft was created by itslef?, you are the one who thinks this whole universe, and the galaxies, and solar systems and planets and stars inside of it was created from nothing.

who's crazier?

This is an old argument, and if you genuinely did believe the raft story, then you would be crazier. Remember that the universe has had billions of years to organise itself into the arragement that we (partly) observe today, unlike your raft, which was apparently completed in less than a day. Also, nobody knows what existed before the universe. It may have been nothing, it may have been something else.

Peace

[Allah-creation]

Wow this thread is long! i just voted for this (The existence of God is an undeniable FACT).

[Link]

Wow this thread is long! i just voted for this (The existence of God is an undeniable FACT).

ye - lol - I'm not bothering with this thread too long

[Allah-creation]

i have a question for the athiest. explain to me how is it that our sun is the only sun that is close to us. Beside all the other suns that are light years away from us. And why is it in a perfect posion for our environment. Also, how is it that the atmosphere reflect most of the sun light and midifies it to best suit our environment.

[Link]

i have a question for the athiest. explain to me how is it that our sun is the only sun that is close to us. Beside all the other suns that are light years away from us. And why is it in a perfect posion for our environment. Also, how is it that the atmosphere reflect most of the sun light and midifies it to best suit our environment.

They believe it's a concidence by chance

[KAding]

i have a question for the athiest. explain to me how is it that our sun is the only sun that is close to us. Beside all the other suns that are light years away from us. And why is it in a perfect posion for our environment. Also, how is it that the atmosphere reflect most of the sun light and midifies it to best suit our environment.

If all these things would not have been the case, intelligent life would not have developed. We wouldn't be here to debate why the sun is not in a perfect position. In our big galaxy there are plenty of places where the sun is not in a perfect position to facilitate life. But there are billions of stars, is it really so suprising that near some of them there are planets that are positioned well enough to support life?

[root]

i have a question for the athiest. explain to me how is it that our sun is the only sun that is close to us. Beside all the other suns that are light years away from us. And why is it in a perfect posion for our environment.

I think Kading has got it right. Additionally, it is understood that during the formation of a solar system the lighter Gas matter is pushed further from the sun and the heavier matter which later goes on to form planets stays closer to the sun hence veavy rocky planets form closer to the sun while gas bags form further out. In a universe where their are more suns than grains of sand on our planet, is any wonder that a near infinate chance of planetory formation near to the sun occures.

Can we if we may take the below image as not being a design and consider the chances?

The above tree resides beside a roadside and if we look at this tree we notice that the branching closest to the road is very much restricted. We can say to ourselves that this tree was designed this way, for if the branches expanded into the road area then it would be hit by the lorries that passed by, we could further say that if those branches on the road side were even a metre longer then the tree would sustain damage from passing lorries.

Now I ask myself, was this tree designed to be inch perfect to account for the traffic or is it a simple case of "NATURAL FORCES" acting upon the tree! Our planet and solar system is comparable to this analogy.

[Woodrow]

Out of all the happenings in this world. Perhaps the most difficult is the concept of how and why we see or hear any thing, much less comprehend anything.

A strange little fact about us Humans. Our brains are sealed and protected deep within the skulls. Under normal conditions, nothing penetrates our skull, not light, not smell, not sound. Our brains are perfectly shielded from all harm and outside influences. Yet, we have the ability to perceive sights, smell and taste and hear words. Then to carry it above that we can formulate thoughts from that. We live and exist in a world that we will never directly see or touch. Yet, we know it is there.

Just think about that for a while. I will be back later to state why it fits in with this thread.

[Woodrow]

Out of all the happenings in this world. Perhaps the most difficult is the concept of how and why we see or hear any thing, much less comprehend anything.

A strange little fact about us Humans. Our brains are sealed and protected deep within the skulls. Under normal conditions, nothing penetrates our skull, not light, not smell, not sound. Our brains are perfectly shielded from all harm and outside influences. Yet, we have the ability to perceive sights, smell and taste and hear words. Then to carry it above that we can formulate thoughts from that. We live and exist in a world that we will never directly see or touch. Yet, we know it is there.

Just think about that for a while. I will be back later to state why it fits in with this thread.

Now to explain this.

Can there be any biological advantage in why, we as humans have the need or reason to find a purpose for our life? If all of this is just the result of simple biological evolution, without pre designed purpose. What need would there be for us to have the ability to comprehend what exists beyond our own little inner worlds. What random biological happening would give us the ability of imagination?

[cool_jannah]

:sl:

Logic is the magic word. Atheism is all logic as claimed by them..isin't it? Well if you think you can plot and plan and decipher your own ways on the purpose of your existence, Allah, the Almighty, has His own ways to bring people back to the straight path. Since Atheists consider science as their source of inspiration and the truth that established science beholds cannot be proven wrong, there are a few things that athiests might be interested in reading - Click Here -->

http://www.islamicity.com/science/
http://www.science4islam.com/
http://www.-----------------------/scientific_index.html
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive...no=1&thelang=E

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Out of all the happenings in this world. Perhaps the most difficult is the concept of how and why we see or hear any thing, much less comprehend anything.

Absolutely right, although perhaps not for the reasons you've given below. Philosophers have puzzled over the problem of perception for centuries.

A strange little fact about us Humans. Our brains are sealed and protected deep within the skulls. Under normal conditions, nothing penetrates our skull, not light, not smell, not sound. Our brains are perfectly shielded from all harm and outside influences. Yet, we have the ability to perceive sights, smell and taste and hear words.

This is because we have sense organs attached to our brain but not totally enclosed within the skull.

Then to carry it above that we can formulate thoughts from that. We live and exist in a world that we will never directly see or touch. Yet, we know it is there.

Unless you accept the brain in a vat hypothesis.

Can there be any biological advantage in why, we as humans have the need or reason to find a purpose for our life?

Do we?

If all of this is just the result of simple biological evolution, without pre designed purpose. What need would there be for us to have the ability to comprehend what exists beyond our own little inner worlds.

Can we?

What random biological happening would give us the ability of imagination?

Having an imagination obviously gives us an enormous evolutionary advantage. If a creature can imagine the various possibilities resulting from several courses of action, it will clearly have a survival advantage over one that can't.

Logic is the magic word. Atheism is all logic as claimed by them..isin't it?

No.

Atheism is a belief. Beliefs may include logical reasoning, but they are ultimately bound by personal preference based on the evidence available, which clearly falls outside the bounds of logic.

Well if you think you can plot and plan and decipher your own ways on the purpose of your existence, Allah, the Almighty, has His own ways to bring people back to the straight path.

I believe that the purpose of one's existence is something that each individual has to work out for themselves. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that each person's life is a continual search for the answer to the question "Who am I?" It is only at the moment of death that the totality of our personality has shown itself, and therefore only at that moment that we find the answer.

Since Atheists consider science as their source of inspiration

Science is a source of some inspiration, true, but it's mainly a source of information, explanation and discovery. I think that the arts are a much more potent source of inspiration in general.

and the truth that established science beholds cannot be proven wrong,

This comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. I suggest some further reading may be in order.

there are a few things that athiests might be interested in reading - Click Here -->

The usual 'scientific miracles in the Qur'an' nonsense? Yawn.

If you want to find out about science, how about reading some science texts? As in texts written by scientists, rather than religious apologists like the moronic Harun Yahya?

How about starting with a few of these pages:

Science - wikipedia entry
What is Science?
New Scientist - Internet Edition
Talk.Origins Archive

Peace

[QuranStudy]

Have you giys ever heard of the teleological and cosmological argument in favour of the existence of God? If not then Inshallah I'll explain

Please do :)

Atheism is nothing more than another faith. A faith in the absence of God.

[Joe98]

No, I see an empty bucket and I say it is empty.

You see an empty bucket say it's filled with God's love.

I don't need faith to say it is empty.

Islam has proved to me there is no God. Christianity cannot do that.

[QuranStudy]

Have you see everything existing in the world and beyond?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

No.

Atheism is a belief. Beliefs may include logical reasoning, but they are ultimately bound by personal preference based on the evidence available, which clearly falls outside the bounds of logic.

I believe that the purpose of one's existence is something that each individual has to work out for themselves. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that each person's life is a continual search for the answer to the question "Who am I?" It is only at the moment of death that the totality of our personality has shown itself, and therefore only at that moment that we find the answer.

I was quite surprised to read this. I thought atheism was claimed to be an absence of faith, and that the purpose of life was simply to pass on one's genes, as I believe some atheists have stated elsewhere on the forum.

Regarding what you said about personal preference: if this is based on evidence, then why does it have to fall outside the bounds of logic?

Hello Joe,

No, I see an empty bucket and I say it is empty.

You see an empty bucket say it's filled with God's love.

I don't need faith to say it is empty.

Since when did Muslims claim any of this? I think you will find more people will say it is filled with air particles as opposed to God's love!

Islam has proved to me there is no God. Christianity cannot do that.

How has Islam "proven" this?

Peace.

[madeenahsh]

Atheism

By Haneef James Oliver

Taken from: Sacred Freedom


Is the Existence of a Creator Something That Can Be Proven Logically?



Atheism can be described as the belief that no creator exists, and that the universe was not brought about by divine knowledge, will and ability. The following is a short excerpt from Sacred Freedom which follows a process of logical deductions to show that our universe must have been created by an All-Wise and All-Knowing Creator:

Pivotal Quote:

“Those who believe in chance concede that it is something which is not by nature ordered. Once this is understood, the following question must be asked: How could something that is by nature disordered consistently create order? This is a scientific impossibility. Hence, it must be concluded that not only has a Creator created our universe, but that He is also continually administrating its awe-inspiring affairs.”

Excerpt:

To demonstrate the error of those who deny the existence of a Creator, one may consider the ordinary example of how a book comes into being. The existence of a book necessitates the existence of a publisher who possesses three attributes: Firstly, this publisher must possess the knowledge of the required fields of expertise for the production of this book. Secondly, the publisher must possess the will to carry out such a task by consciously embarking upon this project. Thirdly, the publisher must possess the ability to carry out the task of creating the pages, cover and binding of the book while finishing it with distinction.

Once this is understood, the irrationality of claiming that a book created itself, or that it came about by mere chance, becomes apparent. Is it possible to legitimately claim that a book came about without a publisher, or that this universe came about without a Creator - solely on the basis that this publisher or Creator has not been seen?

In actuality, understanding that a Creator exists is much easier to grasp than understanding that a simple object like a book has an originator, as the formation of our universe is far more sophisticated than the formation of any one particular object. Accordingly, the Creator stated regarding those who deny His existence:



“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.” (52:35-36)



These verses prove that just as it would be impossible to claim that a book was created by nothing, it would also be impossible to claim that mankind was created by nothing. Likewise, just as it would be impossible to claim that a book created itself, it would also be impossible to claim that we created ourselves. Only one other possibility exists; that mankind and everything in this universe was brought about by an All-Knowing Creator.

It can be concluded that all things are known to come into existence by designers that possess the three attributes of knowledge, will and ability to create. No other conclusion can be drawn, except that our universe was fashioned by a Creator who possesses the knowledge, will and ability to create such an incredibly awe-inspiring formation.

Indeed, certain pieces of evidence left behind at the scene of a crime are considered incriminating proofs that lead courts to settle cases in an absolute manner. In the same way, Allah's Signs within His creation and the logical evidences contained within His revelation contain even more definite proofs that we were created by an All-Knowing, All-Powerful God.



“And upon the earth are Signs visible to all who have faith with certainty, just as there are Signs within your own selves. Will you not then see?” (51:20-21)

[Joe98]

In the same way, Allah's Signs within His creation...........

If there is a god he didn't leave any signs. Thats why we are athiests

[جوري]

If there is a god he didn't leave any signs. Thats why we are athiests

I don't see how anyone can make a statement like that?....question is where do you not see signs? how sophisticated is this universe?... from a humming bird and its flower to the human eye to the seasons as they change to the way the body fights infections... the body it is the most incredibly sophisticated piece of machinery let alone everything else around us... how many chances can nature alone get without complete anarchy... and if nature had its way why the perfection why the beauty? why not design to just function? my goodness .... anyhow to each his own.......

[cool_jannah]

If there is a god he didn't leave any signs. Thats why we are athiests

No, you are Athiest because you like to worship your desires. Its time to wake up. There are enough signs for you to believe in the Oneness of God.
What a waste of head...What intellect do you have if you depart this world in a state of disbelief and torment your own self with a painful punishment. You will be paying a miserable price for your ignorant beliefs.
If you truly wanted guidance you will get it provided you open you mind and heart..its not that tough....afterall its a matter of burning yourselves forever in a fire that is unbearable.

[Woodrow]

If there is a god he didn't leave any signs. Thats why we are athiests

I believe that is the reason you are an atheist. I am quite certain that you have done much searching and did not come to your conclusion without much thought.

However, many self-professed atheists, that I have met, call themselves atheist simply because they want to justify their own actions and have no desire to follow any established rule. I do not place you in that category, you are a thinker and aware of your logic.

A paradox of life. Both you and I probably have at least a functional level of intelligence. We have most likely searched in many of the same places and saw many of the same things. Yet, we have come to quite different conclusions.

To myself that is an indication that there is at least one factor, we have viewed differently. Perhaps it is this unmeasurable concept that seperates our thoughts. But the result is a paradox. The things I see as valid proof of God(swt) are the very same things you see as proof of random physical phenominae.

Very interesting world, to say the least.

[cool_jannah]

I believe that the purpose of one's existence is something that each individual has to work out for themselves.

wow. place your intellect over the intellect of the rest of the people no matter how reasonable they might be? You are not aware of the fact that Satan whispers into your mind and deceives you everytime you come closer to the truth.

The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that each person's life is a continual search for the answer to the question "Who am I?" It is only at the moment of death that the totality of our personality has shown itself, and therefore only at that moment that we find the answer.

Really? Crackpots is the word I would use for these "philosopers" who come up with the most idiotic concepts that preach nothing but falsehood. Just so you know...it will be too late by the time you realize the reality of your life...as per the philosophy of Sarte. Seriously man....I don't see how can people be so unrealistic? This is not a fairy tale..this is the reality of life...Click here http://www.themodernreligion.com/death/every-soul.html

ok let me ask you something...If somebody murders 300 people with a bomb and dies a natural death right after it. how should he be held accountable? or you think he is free from accountability? give me a logical answer.

This comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. I suggest some further reading may be in order.

You can correct me if im wrong! You mean to say that established scientific facts can be wrong?

The usual 'scientific miracles in the Qur'an' nonsense? Yawn.

Alhamdulillah. It might be nonsense to you. It is an undeniable truth to me.
To you is your way and to me is mine.

If you want to find out about science, how about reading some science texts? As in texts written by scientists, rather than religious apologists like the moronic Harun Yahya?

How about starting with a few of these pages:

Science - wikipedia entry
What is Science?
New Scientist - Internet Edition
Talk.Origins Archive

Peace

Thanks.. I am assuming that you have completely misunderstood the purpose of these facts being mentioned in the Qur'an. It is not a book of science..it is a book of signs. Just one simple clear unequivocal sentence in the Qur'an in agreement with established science is enough as a sign. There is not just one..there are many in the Qur'an.

[syilla]

I don't see how anyone can make a statement like that?....question is where do you not see signs? how sophisticated is this universe?... from a humming bird and its flower to the human eye to the seasons as they change to the way the body fights infections... the body it is the most incredibly sophisticated piece of machinery let alone everything else around us... how many chances can nature alone get without complete anarchy... and if nature had its way why the perfection why the beauty? why not design to just function? my goodness .... anyhow to each his own.......

i agree with you...

how can the atheist ppl said that this beautiful world...was created by accident...or shall we say coincidence...

[czgibson]

Greetings,

wow. place your intellect over the intellect of the rest of the people no matter how reasonable they might be?

I don't really see how my comment implies that. Your view, however, does imply that - you assume that you know the purpose of my life; I do not assume I know the purpose of anyone's, let alone my own.

You are not aware of the fact that Satan whispers into your mind and deceives you everytime you come closer to the truth.

You're right, I'm not aware of that. That's because I believe Satan is a fictional character invented to scare people.

Really? Crackpots is the word I would use for these "philosopers" who come up with the most idiotic concepts that preach nothing but falsehood.

Do you even know the first thing about Sartre? You can't even spell his name correctly, so I'm assuming not.

He's the founder of existentialism and one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, like it or not. Calling him a crackpot only displays your total ignorance of his ideas.

Just so you know...it will be too late by the time you realize the reality of your life...

I'm glad you feel confident enough to predict the future.

Seriously man....I don't see how can people be so unrealistic? This is not a fairy tale..this is the reality of life...Click here http://www.themodernreligion.com/death/every-soul.html

Sorry - that looks far more like a fairy-tale to me.

ok let me ask you something...If somebody murders 300 people with a bomb and dies a natural death right after it. how should he be held accountable? or you think he is free from accountability? give me a logical answer.

The simple answer is they can't be held accountable. Once someone is dead, it's impossible to punish them. This was the case with Hitler, who committed suicide before he could be brought to justice. I can understand your sense that there should be some way of holding them accountable after death, but wishing doesn't make it so.

You can correct me if im wrong! You mean to say that established scientific facts can be wrong?

Of course. That is how science progresses. In the Middle Ages, it was an established scientific fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This was strongly questioned by Copernicus and Galileo, among others, and the modern scientific view, as we all know, is that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Scientific theories can never be proven to be true; they can only be proven false. Whatever is currently accepted as a scientific fact is simply something that hasn't been proven false yet.

Alhamdulillah. It might be nonsense to you. It is an undeniable truth to me.
To you is your way and to me is mine.

I find the scientific miracles argument to be completely unconvincing, as I've explained many times on the forum.

Thanks.. I am assuming that you have completely misunderstood the purpose of these facts being mentioned in the Qur'an. It is not a book of science..it is a book of signs. Just one simple clear unequivocal sentence in the Qur'an in agreement with established science is enough as a sign. There is not just one..there are many in the Qur'an.

I don't understand this at all. I can think of many works of fiction that contain scientific facts - does this mean they are inspired by god too?

Peace

[Allah-creation]

czgibson, you are probably the most person i know that received so many signs about islam and still disbelieve. And i notice that u only reject the signs of the quran not disapprove them.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

czgibson, you are probably the most person i know that received so many signs about islam and still disbelieve.

I've learnt loads about Islam, mostly thanks to the people on this forum. None of it has convinced me that there is a god, however. When people mention these 'signs' to me, most of the time I'm staggered that any intelligent person could take them seriously.

And i notice that u only reject the signs of the quran not disapprove them.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Islam is a religion I find very interesting, mainly because of the (to me) extradordinary level of devotion seen in most of its adherents. I also think it's important for Westerners like me to try and learn about Islam given our current world situation.

Peace

[Joe98]

.....afterall its a matter of burning yourselves forever in a fire that is unbearable.

This is a threat. I can never accept any god or religions that threaten me.

[cool_jannah]

czgibson, what are the odds of an illiterate man (pbuh) mentioning precise scientific facts that were discovered only recently? I cannot see how you can deny that. or you believe somebody else wrote it in the Qur'an right after the discoveries?

This is a threat. I can never accept any god or religions that threaten me.

Well...God is all powerful..He can do whatever he wills..and He does only justice to people...and every time in the revelations He sent..He has warned people of disbelieving and associating partners with Him.

[evangel]

If I may this site carries quite a bit of information about the age and history of the earth.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/
To the athiests I have to say I admire your faith to believe that the earth is as it is by chance. I mean the statistical impossiblities of everything coming together as you say without a creator are beyond comprehension. There are few in any religious communities that are carried by the faith you exhibit.

But what if your wrong?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

czgibson, what are the odds of an illiterate man (pbuh) mentioning precise scientific facts that were discovered only recently? I cannot see how you can deny that. or you believe somebody else wrote it in the Qur'an right after the discoveries?

I've never seen any evidence of what you speak of. People have presented me with the 'scientific miracles in the Qur'an' argument, but instead of "precise scientific facts" I just see vaguely poetic ramblings that could be interpreted in various ways, and which have obviously just been sought out by Muslim apologists after the discoveries they are alleged to relate to.

If I may this site carries quite a bit of information about the age and history of the earth.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/

I couldn't get this link to work I'm afraid.

To the athiests I have to say I admire your faith to believe that the earth is as it is by chance.

Do atheists claim this? I certainly don't.

I mean the statistical impossiblities of everything coming together as you say without a creator are beyond comprehension.

But the fact is they have, as far as anyone knows. I don't know how the universe originated, and neither do you. You may think you know how it all started, but there is no evidence to support the creator hypothesis.

There are few in any religious communities that are carried by the faith you exhibit.

Atheists are not ususally members of religious communities...

But what if your wrong?

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Do you think I should believe in god solely because of the fear of hellfire?

Peace

[جوري]

i agree with you...

how can the atheist ppl said that this beautiful world...was created by accident...or shall we say coincidence...

If nothingness created itself for some unknown purpose and somehow a million possibility on earth, in the sky, in the water and in ourselves fell into place without the slightest bit of anarchy as usually happens when there is no Guide or engineer... then why the beauty, why the perfection why the order of events every day and seasonally? when something goes awry we deem it not the norm because we have standards by which to measure it? If randomness were supreme then every aspect of this universe would fall into anarchy....we wouldn't need all the details we would only need what was necessary to propagate....why would nothingness create all these superfluous details for what purpose? just the mere fact that we want to question tells me there is an innate need to find where we came from, and where we are going... on a very primal level for me anyway I have always believed that religion should give a sense of peace, purpose and fulfillment.... If our whole existence was some random act, then there is no loss as we go back to the dark nothing...but at least some of the anxiety of living without laws would have been alleviated ... and if there is an after life we'll have lived with a sense of accomplishment and armament for what is to come.... my two cents anyhow.... works for me..

[Joe98]

and somehow a million possibility on earth, in the sky, in the water and in ourselves fell into place without the slightest bit of anarchy

Actually it is constantly in anarchy.

In the meantime, why is it that the earth seems to be the only inhabited planet.

Scientists have found background "noise" representing catalysmic events billions of years ago in the universe and many light years away from earth.

Yet they have never discovered any signals from other beings on other planets. Why is that? The answer is because earth was a fluke.

Only 1 planet out of 6,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe supports intelligent life because earth was a fluke. A fluke caused by anarchy.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

The posts about scientific miracles in the Qur'an have been moved here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...t-quran-5.html

[جوري]

Actually it is constantly in anarchy.

In the meantime, why is it that the earth seems to be the only inhabited planet.

Scientists have found background "noise" representing catalysmic events billions of years ago in the universe and many light years away from earth.

Yet they have never discovered any signals from other beings on other planets. Why is that? The answer is because earth was a fluke.

Only 1 planet out of 6,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe supports intelligent life because earth was a fluke. A fluke caused by anarchy.

Sure if you say so.... Thanks for convincing me:thumbs_up

[Md Mashud]

You can fight about if theres evidence if God exists or not, but I will firmly say that there is definatly reason and cause to believe he exists.

[Keltoi]

The issue is simply faith. If one uses the scientific method, it is all but impossible to "prove" the existence of a supernatural entity. Although I know of many scientists who don't see a conflict between religion and science, there is a vital conflict, and that is the burden of proof that all true scientists must live by.

[Woodrow]

The issue is simply faith. If one uses the scientific method, it is all but impossible to "prove" the existence of a supernatural entity. Although I know of many scientists who don't see a conflict between religion and science, there is a vital conflict, and that is the burden of proof that all true scientists must live by.

There is a built in boundery to the scientific proof. One of the means of proof is to be able to replicate a phenomenae under controled conditions. It is often overlooked by some scientists that the inability to do that is not evidence something does not exist. It is only evidence of not having the ability to replicate something.

[root]

There is a built in boundery to the scientific proof.

I am very sceptical about the word "proof" from a scientific pov. probability is a far better understanding of a scientific pov!

One of the means of proof is to be able to replicate a phenomenae under controled conditions.

I find that staement very suspicious. If I propose an existing atom that is so heavy that if we could break it open the energy released would be equal to the big bang. Go replicate that!

It is often overlooked by some scientists that the inability to do that is not evidence something does not exist. It is only evidence of not having the ability to replicate something.

Looks like my atom (which I just made up) could exist, since we merely don't have the ability to replicate it yet, you point is over simplified and way out.

[Abdul Fattah]

Although I know of many scientists who don't see a conflict between religion and science, there is a vital conflict, and that is the burden of proof that all true scientists must live by.

I don't see any vital conflicts between religion and science. I might not have a degree in quantum physics, but I know a thing or two about science, and I don't feel like there's a burden to bear, please enlighten me :)

[QuranStudy]

If a relgion does not agree with science, then that religion is false. So far, I found one relgion which fits in this category.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If a relgion does not agree with science, then that religion is false. So far, I found one relgion which fits in this category.

Which false religion is it that you're thinking of?

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'd like to take up a point that's been mentioned a couple of times during this debate:

No, you are Athiest because you like to worship your desires.

This is a simplistic (bigoted?) attitude, which is suggested in a more even-handed way here:

However, many self-professed atheists, that I have met, call themselves atheist simply because they want to justify their own actions and have no desire to follow any established rule. I do not place you in that category, you are a thinker and aware of your logic.

It's good to see that Woodrow notes a distinction among atheists here: those who are self-serving and those who are not.

Atheism is the belief that there is / are no god(s). That's it.

All other extrapolations from that, people's reasons for being atheists or interpretations that could be derived from the fact that atheists exist are utterly secondary to the fact that atheism is a simple belief in a negative proposition.

Speaking for myself, I think that believing in god would be very comforting. I think the idea that someone was always watching over me with a loving attitude; that whatever happened, god would see that things turned out for the best, according to his will; and that everything in the universe had been organised according to his wishes would be a thoroughly delightful state of affairs. If I believed according to my desires, that would be what I'd believe.

However, I would also like to believe that eating chocolate helps you lose weight, or that I can be assured a long and happy life, or that my grandfather will recover soon and we'll play football together again. Just because I would like to believe these things does not make them so.

Peace

[جوري]

However, I would also like to believe that eating chocolate helps you lose weight, or that I can be assured a long and happy life, or that my grandfather will recover soon and we'll play football together again. Just because I would like to believe these things does not make them so.

Peace

Dark chocolate contain antioxidants called Catechins and Phenols. These antioxidants could prevent heart diseases and cancer... you can have it as a part of a balanced diet... if you follow it correctly you might even lose weight on it....
the long and happy life bit... well no one can guarantee you that... not even disbelief in God
Terminal patients have been known to go into remission so who knows maybe your grandad might recover and play with you again....
God spells Hope, guidance, and personal fulfillment... even if he "doesn't exist" there would be not much to lose for having believed as you go into the scary dark nothing of nonexistence...... but faith does open doors of grandeur and even tiny things like lady bugs begin to make sense.... when you know it isn't a random event... that your existence means something.... that whether you live or die it matters to the one who breathed life into that union of the two cells your parents donated........if you believe in science then science states those who have faith live longer, happier lives... and deal better with illness... their brain is known to secrete sertonin the same chemical found in anti-depressants... a natural opiate is this amazing thing called faith... if you search through previous posts you'll find that article stating so..... my two cents and of course you are free to live/do as you please......