Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

It is not 'circular reasoning' at all. The significance of evolution by natural selection to the atheistic argument is simply that it provides a naturalistic explanation of how many events that might otherwise be assumed the consequence of deliberate design by God or gods might occur without such deliberate design. The fact that it could be argued that the evolution mechanism could itself be the product of design doesn't affect that utility in the slightest unless, of course, the theist can prove that it is.

I fully agree that evolution by natural selection could theoretically be a designed process, indeed such an extremely elegant designed process compared with the alternatives suggested by creationists (and creation myths) it never ceases to amaze me why so many theists are so quick to dismiss it! To adopt the theistic counter you suggest necessitates accepting that evolution by natural selection exists. As a considerable number of those participating on the theist side of such debates resolutely refuse to do so, that alone makes it a worthwhile addition to the atheistic armory!

My head spins at the fallacies. It's too much. I'm going to have to break this down bit by bit or I'll lose track. Probably I'll still miss several mistakes of yours. My mind is like a doorway with too many people trying to walk through it at once.

It is not 'circular reasoning' at all. The significance of evolution by natural selection to the atheistic argument is simply that it provides a naturalistic explanation of how many events that might otherwise be assumed the consequence of deliberate design by God or gods might occur without such deliberate design. The fact that it could be argued that the evolution mechanism could itself be the product of design doesn't affect that utility in the slightest unless, of course, the theist can prove that it is.

It's a naturalistic non-explanation since it assumes the lack of design behind it, and that's what makes it circular. In fact, you're doing the same thing right there in that quote! If your only way out of it is the Burden of Proof Pushing tactic, that's a sad case indeed. But all in good time. Not to mention how the whole evolutionary aspect of it all is just one tiny fraction of the possible signs anyway--or rather only one symptom of their marks--which makes, once again, the whole thing a diversion or incomplete answer to begin with.

I fully agree that evolution by natural selection could theoretically be a designed process

Then why don't you call yourself an agnostic?!

indeed such an extremely elegant designed process compared with the alternatives suggested by creationists (and creation myths) it never ceases to amaze me why so many theists are so quick to dismiss it! To adopt the theistic counter you suggest necessitates accepting that evolution by natural selection exists. As a considerable number of those participating on the theist side of such debates resolutely refuse to do so, that alone makes it a worthwhile addition to the atheistic armory!

Since when did this become about Young Earth Creationism? Whether young earth or old earth, design is design. That part of my article was merely a refutation of one of the many common counters, showing how by their own logic, whether or not their natural selection premise of it is true, they fail, hoisted on their own petard with their own circular reasoning. Don't even think about attempting another diversion with a question about whether or not I believe in evolution: I'm sick of the subject after discussing it till I'm blue in the face on a billion occasions at the Understanding Islam board and it has no bearing whatsoever here. Whether young earth or old earth, design is design. And what in all of tarnation does elegance have to do with anything??!!

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

That's a lot of text for what is essentially the watchmaker argument. Could you not cut all that down to one or two paragraphs?

No. Especially since you've made it clear with your remark that you're just going to yawn it off as the same old same old despite it containing refutations of many of the same old same old counters used against it you don't get in many presentations of teleological arguments. Not to mention that if you'd read it thoroughly then you'd know it was essentially the argument from natural law (my version of it, anyway), whereas Paley's watchmaker argument is a more generic teleological argument. Be less lazy and go to the trouble of reading a few paragraphs (or if you already have, reading them more cautiously). You might be surprised. Even if you're not, you'll still at least have more knowledge of what you're scoffing at.

lets look at one of Allahs proofs - his messengers

consider that hundreds of people pop up around the globe all at completely time periods to one another, with language barriers, all with one common belief and message. There is only one god.

i couldnt believe it when i found out hinduism was a monotheistic faith or that the bible taught belief in one god.there are so many similarities between the bible and quran, one has to wonder was the source the same?
look at zoroastrianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroast...n_of_Zoroaster

that is very near the same as prophet muhammads story. if you ask me zoroaster was a prophet of god.

lets look at the KAPAUKU PAPUANS OF WEST GUINEA. im sure some of you may have heard of them, a tribe recently discovered having had no contact with modern civilisation. But the same fundamental ideas about god as islam

http://www.themodernreligion.com/pro...ry-nation.html

now tell me, do you not think God sent a warner to these people?

so is all this one huge coincidence? perhaps a giant conspiracy? were these prophets all crazy? or the age old argument that every prophet just ripped of the beliefs of his predesessors and repackaged it?

nay how does the truth stand out from falsehood?

Proof depends upon several the most important being an agreement as to what are mutually accept measurments and what are mutually accepted tools of measurement.

we can sit here arguing for years about gravity. We can even agree that weight is an indication of gravity. But, if we do not agree on the scale used to measure weight, we have no proof.

so it is with trying to prove the existence of God(swt) to an Atheist. We can offer everything see as proof, but unless we can offer it a measurement the athiest will accept, we are wasting our time and theirs.

"They say: Why hath not an angel been sent down unto him? If We sent down an angel, then the matter would be judged; no further time would be allowed them (for reflection)."
6:8

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Indeed. But its still fun

It is also good mental exercise as long as everybody remembers to respond to the statement without attacking the person.

I doubt very many if any atheists would ever become believers in God(swt) because of a thread in a forum, but we can learn a little about each other and come to an understanding that we each have what we consider valid reasons to believe as we do..

It also awakens us to the fact that what one person sees as self evident, is not self evident to everybody. We each need to understand that what one person holds dear is not always accepted by another person and it can not be hammered into the person.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Let me try my hand at this again; here's something (admittedly a very heavily edited version of a quite excerpted portion from an extremely rough draft of a work in progress--I hope the ellipses don't make it too choppy) from the book on Islam I'm writing:

No problem.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Consider what [“the forces of nature”] do to the world. They give it mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and what is generally seen as beauty. In other words, all their operationally defining characteristics are the marks of design.

You’ve begged the question. The whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Think of a Rubix Cube. It may not be easy to solve the puzzle of precisely how the whole thing works but you can still observe with much ease that it is a designed thing. Its main characteristics are mechanism, organization, structure, intricacy, and (color-based) aesthetics. Would a Rubix Cube have simply happened to come to be somehow if no intelligent being had made it?

The Rubik’s cube is organized? I thought that was the whole point?  Granted, We know that a Rubik’s cube is designed because we know when and where and who designed it. Your point is irrelevant.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

So it is with the world, as far as we can observe.

You cannot use purposefully designed objects such as watches or paintings as analogues to naturally occurring objects, you are begging the question by having known creators analogous to unknown creators. We know what humans create; the whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Do its laws or “forces” not provide it with a great degree of organization and structure by their mere existence? Is the world not intricate? Everyone knows it is, even the infant who has got a single glimpse out of the nursery room window. Are not many things in the way the world works—the hydrological cycle, for example—not mechanism of a sort? Is there not what most would agree is beauty in the world’s rich, lush verdure, gorgeous mountains, dazzling rivers and cataracts, and wondrous colorful caves? There might not be much meaning to any of these characteristics if they were alone (I have found that many people posing teleological theistic arguments make too singular a focus on intricacy) but they all coexist…

Okay, so there appears to be a degree of complexity in the mechanisms of the natural laws. Is that the point?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Think of the arts—any of them. A painter makes a painting with the use of the three primary colors (blue, yellow, and red), using and combining them in different ways to make his intricate, organized, aesthetic work of design. An author uses the three types of sentences (statements, questions, and commands) to do the same thing when constructing a story. So it is with a composer of music using the three building blocks and shaping tools for the music (rhythm, melody, and lyrics), or an architect with his ceilings, walls and floors.

Yes. Artists are creative. Artists create... stuff.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

So it is with gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electro-weak force. They combine with each other in different patterns to produce the world with the same characteristics. Experience teaches us that they could not were there not an Artist behind them…

You cannot use purposefully designed objects such as watches or paintings as analogues to naturally occurring objects, you are begging the question by having known creators analogous to unknown creators. We know what humans create; the whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator, but maybe you’re going to explain it later on.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

I hear…all the time from atheists…the appeal to natural selection, an example of the self-negating idea of order from chaos, used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed.

1) Evolution is not an idea of order from chaos.
2) It is not used as evidence against the notion of the world having been designed. That argument was refuted well before evolution by natural selection was accepted.
3) You haven’t provided any evidence that the world was designed. You’ve repeatedly begged the question.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Of what use is this argument when one could at least as easily use it as evidence of the opposite position?

It’s easy if you haven’t understood the theory evolution.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

To start with the premise that natural selection happens because of impersonal or random things instead of being part of an ultimate purpose, and then use that premise on which to build an argument against the existence of that ultimate purpose, is to form yet one more bit of atheistic circular reasoning…

The theory of evolution stands with or without the existence of god. The fact that the theory contradicts what you believe does not make it any more atheistic vis-à-vis Islam than any other opposing theory. I have yet to hear a biologist claim that in order for evolution to be true, god must not exist or there must not be a purpose to this world. You’ve strung together multiple unrelated propositions as a singular ideology.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

The agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell raised objections of his own the better part of a century ago and they are still paralleled or parroted by nontheists everywhere. These objections come from Russell’s famous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian”, in which he spends much less time on the subject of Christianity than the principal subject of God’s existence.

It’s quite easy to dispel a religious belief in god if there is no god to believe-in. I’m sure you can grasp that. Get to the heart of the matter.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

He said on the subject of the world’s design by natural law, “Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced...You no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion…

The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.”

You’ve really butchered the whole argument, I’ve pasted the section below.

format_quote Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell

Then there is a very common argument from Natural Law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for any explanation of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of Natural Law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find that they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a law-giver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which way you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and, being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were you are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate law-giver. In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of these arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

His original script deals efficiently with your arguments below:

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Do you see what Russell’s doing here, dear reader? He’s trying to explain one kind of law (the laws of physics) by appealing to another kind of law (the laws of mathematics). That just brings us back to square one. It’s yet more nontheistic circular reasoning at worst and utter futility at best. The material world itself offers no more actual explanation for the existence of the mathematical laws (or rather the realities they’re describing) than it does for the physical ones. I would respond to Russell with his own words from the same essay: “It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ‘Suppose we change the subject.’ The argument is really no better than that.” On the subject of design by law Russell continues, “You are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted.”…If God exists then by He is a supernatural Being, which means that He is not a part of nature but beyond it. Natural law, by definition, applies to nature. So of course the train of natural law ends before God: how could it not when it’s only natural law? Were God to be subject to any sort of law, it would be a supernatural law, not a natural one, and we have no reason to believe there is any supernatural equivalent to natural law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

But by far the weakest argument Russell makes is: “If you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending—something dead, cold, and lifeless.” Will a Rubix Cube last forever? Do paintings not peel, fade, decay? Does the paper on which literature, scripts and poetry are written not peel, fade, decay? Do great works of architecture not eventually fall apart? Do the sounds produced by the instruments of a band not dwindle into silence? Come now! Whether or not something is designed has nothing whatsoever to do with its transience…

Again, you’ve yet to present an argument for design. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

In his essay “A Designer Universe?” [Scott] Weinberg admits, “I’d guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena.” But then he adds: “We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.” Without any special role for life? What, then, do you call the laws making this planet form into the only one of its kind within interminable and uncrossable gulfs, if not altogether anywhere? What do you call the laws which keep this planet spinning in orbit in just the rate we need upon it if we are to remain on it and be graced by cool winds without which our weather would fall apart? Or keeping the earth in an orbit rather than allowing it to drift too close to the sun? What do you call the laws causing living things to grow and thrive? No special role for life indeed! Here’s an exercise, dear reader: walk around outside for just an hour and see how many instances you can spot of physical laws having special roles in our living… The atheistic scholar Kai Nielsen objects to the concept of design in the world by saying that were the world to be designed via its laws, it would not be like it is today but instead would be more like the growth of vegetation or fungus—another mere assertion. The only way that Nielsen’s argument could work is if the kind of growth in question were a natural mark of design, like the marks I listed in the previous section—but that’s not the case, now is it? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel a vegetation-or-fungus-like growth? Is a computer a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth? Is a Parcheesi board a vegetation-or-fungus-like-growth?

No new arguments presented.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman

Once more, this is quite an edited excerpt; considering the predictability of atheistic counter-argumentation, though, I'm sure any responses I'll hear to it which aren't covered above will be from the parts I put ellipses over or am already planning for the "atheistic chestnuts refuted" series. So let's hear it.

I didn’t hold typographical errors against you.

All the best,


Faysal

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Proof depends upon several the most important being an agreement as to what are mutually accept measurments and what are mutually accepted tools of measurement.

we can sit here arguing for years about gravity. We can even agree that weight is an indication of gravity. But, if we do not agree on the scale used to measure weight, we have no proof.

so it is with trying to prove the existence of God(swt) to an Atheist. We can offer everything see as proof, but unless we can offer it a measurement the athiest will accept, we are wasting our time and theirs.

This wholes up the entire thread in nut-shell. What might be the biggest proof for us to believe in God may mean nothing to others. People have received guidance just when they held some earth in their hands which made them recognise the meaning of life and death. On the other hand, there are people who have witnessed miracles right in front of their own eyes but they don't believe in God. The Qur'an clearly addresses such people in the following verse:

And even if We had sent down unto them angels, and the dead had spoken unto them, and We had gathered together all things before their very eyes, they would not have believed, unless Allah willed, but most of them behave ignorantly.

Surah Anam - 6:111

Is he who was dead (without Faith by ignorance and disbelief) and We gave him life (by knowledge and Faith) and set for him a light (of Belief) whereby he can walk amongst men, like him who is in the darkness (of disbelief, polytheism and hypocrisy) from which he can never come out? Thus it is made fair-seeming to the disbelievers that which they used to do.

Surah Anam - 6:122

From my own experience, there are verses in the Qur'an about Hypocrites which I could completely identify with before I started practising Islam. When I read those verses for the first time, I couldn't believe it. Those verses to some extent really did the trick for me but, I'm sure, many won't find them as moving.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,


Absolutely. It demonstrates that (for the people you've quoted at least), obedience is far more important than doing the right thing.

Peace

I suppose its just about the motivation to do the right thing. The proof that there is this beautiful super-natural being called God who loves you 99 times more than your mother is enough for a believer to stay on the right path. Humans are dumb, they always need some motivation to get them off their butt and start working. Whatever ethics there exist in this world today are because of the scriptures which were sent from time to time. The rules and regulations of Planet Earth were made by God. Doing good is something good only and only because God said so. If there was no God then there wouldn't be anything called crime/sin either as whatever crimes/sins exist, they involve pleasing one's self at the expense of something.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

you are not the only one. I was born muslim but spent many years astray and these two verses are among the verses that opened my mind and heart.

I think we should just be thankful to Allah for having blessed us.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

I think your reaction shows that possibility of non existing God is not palatable to even yourself.

No it isn't palatable to me, but not for the reasons you have assumed. I do believe in a God, just not the 'Allah' of the Qur'an, for I do not believe that such a God could have created this universe. As you can see, my reasons for believing in God are different to those of the Justufy and Wa7abiScientist. To them, it is, as simple as God = morality, and without God there is no morality and, more importantly, no reward for moral deeds, and therefore no need to do moral deeds because one is not going to be rewarded for them.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

They have just buried their inate moral compass so far beneath religious dogma that they no longer recognize that it is there (absent of the religions they have layered over it). I will bet that if these people lost their religion they would suddenly refind the compass itself.

Precisely, as happened with myself. It is difficult at first because one has relied on religion so long to define morality as opposed to their own intuition. However, after the initial 'shock' of having to think for yourself, you learn to trust that intuition again, instead of looking to scholars, books and quotes to interpret and define for you what a moral life is.

I feel that the God of the Qur'an offers a carrot and stick approach to coerce His followers into doing good deeds, and without that carrot of Paradise or that stick of the Hellfire there is no other real reason from an Abrahamic perspective to do anything selfless. I also feel that the debate over God all too often becomes percieved as a case of Darwinian Atheists vs. Abrahamic Faith, when we need to open our eyes a little bit and realise that there are not just two sides, and that particularly Abrahamic faith does not have a monopoly on the concept of God or morality.

Brothers Eliphaz and Pygoscelis
Your arguments are, well, logical and acceptable. The points that you've put forward that there is no need for a religion for one to be good and selfless are valid. Islam has its share of such people. For instance, from the companions of the Prophet(PBUH) himself there were Abu Bakr and Uthman (R.A.), both of whom were very truthful, moral and virtuous people even before the arrival of Islam but before Islam, they were just Abu Bakr and Uthman. The entry of Islam in their hearts made them Abu-Bakr Siddeeq and Uthman Ghani. It just raised them to such unreachable high degrees of Humanity. Siddeeq means a person who is very righteous & very sincere and Ghani is one who is very generous and kind.

Its absolutely fathomable that you can be a good human being without following any religion but whats the use of doing any good when you don't recognise the Creator of all good. Suppose a man has two sons. One is very sincere to him, loves him, respects him, serves him and is always humble with him. The other is totally rebellious, not even acknowledging the fact that he has a father and considers himself to be self-sufficient and a result of a miraculous birth without any parents. When the sincere son does even a small amount of good, the fathers is filled with joy and pride of having such a son whereas when the rebellious one does something good, the father ought to feel bad. The father would feel that his other rebellious son of his has all the kindness in his heart for others and outsiders but not for the one who gave birth to him. It would just grieve the father to see that his son is doing something good but never utters a word of kindness to his own dear Dad. So what good can the other son earn by saddening his father so much. Can there be any deed which this rebellious son would do which will make this father proud without making him sad?

I hope you got the message which I wanted to send through that example.

And Allah is the one who loves us 99 times more than our parents and he is also the Most-Merciful.