Isn't Science really Proving God today?

**- Qatada -** · 02-15-2009

Isn't Science really Proving God today?

Many atheists today try to say that science is disproving God's existence, simply because we are understanding how the universe works. i.e. in the past people thought that the Sun only rised because 'God did it', and now people know that its because the sun is rotating on its axis using science.

In Islam, we know that God/Allah tells us to reflect on the creation and to understand how it functions in harmony with each other - as a sign that it is controlled and designed by God. Wasn't it the Muslims who revived science into Europe, finally causing the Rennaissance?

Atheists can't answer with scientific proof the most crucial points which support their beliefs;

What occurred before the Big Bang.

Theists do really and sincerely want to know who caused the beginning of all matter, but atheists will tell us to accept that 'they dont know' - so why should we prefer their belief over ours? The Big Bang infact proves God more than disproves God, because in the past philosophers argued the universe was eternal [in the state it is in today] forever, but the Big Bang proved that it had a beginning point and therefore more lenient towards an Originator. Why should we believe that something which does not have an intellect controls the different forces to form things which could have only been formed by control and one with an intellect? Chaos by itself cannot cause control or a greater harmony - a harmony which is prevalent in the universe we live in today.

they might argue that there are eternal crunches and big bangs to allow this universe to come into existence, and the planet earth allows life to survive within it due to this 'chance' - but we say that you have no proof for this claim that there have been eternal crunches and big bangs, so why should we believe this claim without any evidence on your part? [something u claim to depend upon].

Furthermore, the idea of the big bangs' has to have an ending point due to laws of Entropy,

Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19

Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

Which means that the universes' big bangs will again, need a starting source of energy to begin the cycles once all over again. So this refutes the claims of eternal Big Bangs'.

The First Cause

We know that anything which begins to exist, has a cause. Allah says (translation of meaning):

Were they created by nothing? Or were they“ themselves the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create the heaven and earth? Nay, but they are not sure.” (Quran 52: 35-36)

The thing which caused the universe has to be a being with freewill and knowledge, or no freewill and no knowledge [to do what he wished.] If he was to have no freewill and no knowledge, there would be no universe or matter created because he wouldn't have the will to do so. So it could only have been an agent with freewill and knowledge who caused matter to come into existence, and controlled it in a way to produce and sustain life. The evidence for this is well known and apparent.

Some examples of this include the earth being in the EXACT location to sustain life, for millions of years. There are mentions in the Qur'an of the earth being dead, and Allah/God sends rain from the skies and suddenly fruits of all colours and tastes grow from this earth for our benefit and use, this is further emphasised to show that the same way God gives life to the dead earth - He will bring humans back to life for the ressurection on Judgment Day in a similar way.

People may disagree with such a point by stating that it was just by chance that this planet sustains life, and that there are millions of others which do not. To argue against this, one can simply say that scientists are still unsure of whether life exists on Mars (the closest planet to us), so how can we be so confident in claiming that other planets do not also support life by God's control? If the person replies that this should be mentioned by God in your book sent by God, you can explain that the book is sent for guidance to be successful in this life and the next, and God/Allah has given us our senses to use them to advance in science to make more discoveries. It does not increase or decrease us in faith to believe that there are also other life forms existent on other planets and solar systems.

Some people may argue that we cannot see God, however - theists can say that they believe this based on logical reasoning. Scientists have never seen the atom, electrons, and gravity, however - based on their reasoning and theories - they have come to the conclusion that they exist. So why should you be criticised for believing in God based on reasoning?

Abiogenesis (life from non life)

How the first cell came into existence. One cell contains over 1000 pages of information*[i.e. the DNA (within each cell) contains ALL the information of the body's makeup, from the colour eyes you will have to how tall you can be]. So to claim that it was formed by chance is a lie. Otherwise it can easily be said that an encyclopedia was written correctly by chance, which is false.

*Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30

W.H.Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist acknowledges that "the most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."

[W.R.Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp.298-99.]

Those who claim that abiogenesis occurred may quote Miller's Study, however - its well known that Miller was mistaken in the environment that he performed the experiment in.

National Geographic, a well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998

In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21

Lately, scientists have tried to produce cell proteins i.e. cell membranes to try to prove that abiogenesis (life from non life) can occur. However, they are unable to produce the DNA/RNA of the cell - which is the most important part of the cell! (as explained above, the DNA of the cell contains ALL the information of the body i.e. what colour eyes the person will have, the hair colour, the persons height etc. - all the characteristics of the being) Like mentioned before, even the most basic of cells (i.e. bacteria) cannot have come into existence by chance, simply because they contain so much information within them and are "more complex than any machine thought up by man." So if man himself can't imagine a greater machine than the cell, how can he think it came into existence by chance?

This is why theists believe in Intelligent Design.

**Muezzin** · 02-26-2009

Science vs religion = false dichotomy.

Thank you, use the Internet for news, comedy and Batman now.

I wish.

**Qingu** · 02-26-2009

Gravity is a harsh mistress.

**Eric H** · 02-28-2009

Greetings and peace be with you Qingu;

I disagree. It's not supernatural, it's just nonsensical.

If I told you something was located "north of the north pole," what would you say? Would you say that this was a supernatural location? No, you'd say it is physically impossible for something to be north of the north pole, that the concept itself doesn't make logical sense.

There is probably some star or planet or something north of the North Pole.

The same is true with the concept of "before the big bang." It's just harder to comprehend because we're all so used to thinking about time in a rigid way.

Just because it is hard to comprehend, there must have been something before the big bang. Something must have had no beginning, or something must have come from nothing, how else could the universe come into existence?

Trouble is you can’t write a science paper by saying, particle X had no beginning, then the big bang happened.

But this lack of proof leaves all sides open to form their own opinion Muslims, Christians, atheists and all others.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

**Qingu** · 03-05-2009

Originally Posted by Eric H

Greetings and peace be with you Qingu;

Peace be with you as well.

There is probably some star or planet or something north of the North Pole.

No, there really isn't. "North" is a direction that only makes sense relative to the surface of the earth. A star may be "above" the earth's surface, but that is not the same as "north." You can prove this to yourself with a globe. Put your finger anywhere on the globe. At no point can your finger be further "north" than the north pole—even if you let your finger hover above the north pole.

Similarly, the word "before" only makes sense relative to the concept of spacetime—a concept that only exists within the universe. Just like you can't go "north of the north pole," neither can you go "before the big bang." It's not a concept that makes any sense.

Just because it is hard to comprehend, there must have been something before the big bang. Something must have had no beginning, or something must have come from nothing, how else could the universe come into existence?

According to Stephen Hawking, it didn't. The universe has always existed.

Don't you think that God has always existed? Why does the eternal, uncaused existence of the Universe trouble you, but not the eternal, uncaused existence of a deity?

But this lack of proof leaves all sides open to form their own opinion Muslims, Christians, atheists and all others.

Not really, because this would ignore Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually right).

I already know the universe exists. I live in it. Now, either the universe itself has always existed, or else something else—Allah, Jesus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn—existed before the universe, caused the universe to magically appear, and itself always existed. But unlike the universe, I don't know that any of these beings exist, and invoking their existence to explain the existence of the universe just moves the exact same question back to "okay, how do you explain the existence of Allah/Jesus/the IPU"?

**Duncan Ferguson** · 03-08-2009

There is so much wrong with the original post that it is difficult to know where to begin. I would suggest, however, that William Lane Craig and Jonathan Wells are the last people to look to for support.

An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods. This is so clear in conception that it still amazes me that there are those who genuinely believe that it comprises a worldview in the same way that Islam or Christianity do. In fact, there is no worldview, save the rejection of those that depend on the notion of a god, that atheism is necessarily connected to.

If an atheist was intent on disproving gods then he couldn't do it using scientific means because science is clearly a discipline that seeks to understand the natural world. Most notions of a god postulate that god to be outside of nature, and often outside of space and time as well. Moreover, a true scientific theory works along the basis that it can be disproved, so not only can science not disprove the divine, but it can never prove its own findings, either.