God Doesnt exist because we havent and cant see him?

format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard

Care to expand?

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

peace!

format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by noodles

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

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

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

Because it goes against your religion?

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

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

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

Don't assume more then you know.

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

Yes it has.

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

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


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

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

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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

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

edit
Woops, that button is quick reply.

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


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

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

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

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: N/c?

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

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

How is it a politically motivated theory?

Read up on history.

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty informative stuff.

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

I did no such thing.

This isn't suppose to be the grand answer

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

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

pwnage

I like the style ^^.

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard

Could you expand?

On what point?

format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard

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

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

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

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

I will like to quote some statements in an article:

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

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

and

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

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

and a conclusion of:

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

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

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

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

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

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