When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.
However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.
The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.
I Have to agree with you. my brother is well up to date with science because he dose not believe in the existence of god but if only these atheists knew that muslims were the first ever scientists and they proved the existence of god
Actually, the first ever scientists were probably Greeks; however, I do agree that Islam has contributed much to the world of science (although, as in any religion, it falls short of proving to unquestionable doubt the existence of God).
Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.
Actually, the first ever scientists were probably Greeks; however, I do agree that Islam has contributed much to the world of science (although, as in any religion, it falls short of proving to unquestionable doubt the existence of God).
Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.
What are talking about , The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran and from the quran they took the scientific ideas and they still practise on it nowdays and thats why so many scientists become muslims because they knows the source was the quran when there is no greek or others exist
In your religion you cannot find any answer because already the real engeel and torat were cheated
Science and atheism are not synonymous; some of the best scientists on the Earth believe in God, and some of the least scientific peoples on Earth on atheists. There is very little correlation between the two.
Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything. The absolute outer limits of where a scientific viewpoint can take you in the direction of disbelief about anything is, "I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position--not as a real and firm belief that I actually necessarily have but just as a default position for the sake of what I'm doing, that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens." More like agnosticism-by-rulebook-imposed-convenience. But it doesn't even fit that, because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural. Therefore to reject the existence of God because of a lack of scientific evidence is like refusing to believe that something is buried on the dark side of the moon because nothing was found dug up in a recent excavation site dig by archaeologists in Greece.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything. The absolute outer limits of where a scientific viewpoint can take you in the direction of disbelief about anything is, "I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position--not as a real and firm belief that I actually necessarily have but just as a default position for the sake of what I'm doing, that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens." More like agnosticism-by-rulebook-imposed-convenience. But it doesn't even fit that, because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural. Therefore to reject the existence of God because of a lack of scientific evidence is like refusing to believe that something is buried on the dark side of the moon because nothing was found dug up in a recent excavation site dig by archaeologists in Greece.
I'm in complete agreement. This war of 'science vs religion' is a very new concept, the two lived in harmony with each other for much of history. The two only really came into conflict with Darwin and his theories (it is worth noting Darwin was actually a theist and then agnostic but was never an atheist). It's only with these extremist atheists such as Dawkins, who believe science is some form of a substitute to religion, who are creating a war out of nothing.
Nice analogy by the way.Science and the supernatural are as unrelated as German and Mongolian.
Correction: there is no possible correlation between the two because to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything.
If a scientific theory is rejected then it is perfectly rational to believe that any theoretical posits associated with that theory do not exist, as there is no longer any reason to think they do. For example, nobody today believes phlogiston exists, although not so long ago a great many scientists did.
because science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural
In what way? You could perfectly well argue that the supernatural is merely the natural that is not yet understood on the basis of a huge number of precedents alone. For example there are certain forms of human behaviour that might once have been attributed to the supernatural, say to 'evil demons'. They are now attributed to diagnosable medical conditions, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural. In exactly the way I have just described, with the rejection of the 'theory' of demonic possession there is no longer any rational reason to think the theoretical posits associated with it - the demons - exist.
It's like I'm not even here. Did no one even read what I said?
Yes, until you began writing about intelligent design.
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
If you want us to take you seriously, at least put some effort into pretending to take us seriously. It's a two-way street.
I actually was being serious when I posted that, but now I'm going to have to pretend, pending your response.
Rather than posting the same old explanations like "There's no evidence" or "Creation is self-contradictory", I thought I'd post my answer in a way that might cause the questioner to think about my reasoning rather than just replying with a quick fix for my "problem", which is what I usually get.
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
to think that something does not exist is as unscientific a mindframe as anyone could conceivably hold about anything.
This is why I solely considered myself agnostic for a long time..
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens.
..and that's where I am now.
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
science is completely outside the scope of, and irrelevant to, the question of the supernatural.
If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.
'logic' is not proof of much except adherence to some system of thought built on intuition and so on, dubbing anything as logical or illogical has no weight beyond asserting one's beliefs & axioms/priors.
Trumble: we make a leap of faith when believing in God, just as you do when you believe in Bhuddism, who created the creator is a non-question from this POV.
see, there being any one thing separate from anything else in this world is arbitrary, there exists only 'one' endless stream of existence that we for conveniece define as seperate things.
as for God, if you stop at the sun and moon, that is arbitary, if you stop at black holes and singularities/big bangs that is arbitrary, if you stop at 'laws of physics' that is arbitrary, how do you know if there weren't something before all these?
to avoid such arbitrariness we jump and say the cause of all is God. there is no absolute proof for God in this world, there is only faith, just as there is no 'true' scientific fact, we keep updating them all the time, and even they have embedded metaphysical assumptions.
If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.
and that assertion is based on?
I hope you do realize that if such a position were to be applied to everything then not even science would work..
to believe what you want to is your right, and is the basis of all religions-including atheism- but school yard atheism remains just that.
What are talking about , The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran and from the quran they took the scientific ideas and they still practise on it nowdays and thats why so many scientists become muslims because they knows the source was the quran when there is no greek or others exist
In your religion you cannot find any answer because already the real engeel and torat were cheated
Mariyyah, are you saying that no science nor any scientific ideas existed before the Qur'an? I think that people such as Archimedes, Ptolemy, Euclid, Herophilus, Hippocrates, and Democritus might take exception to that idea. As would Herodotus who wrote the first scientific history about 425 BCE. And that doesn't even take into account all of the unknown scientists who learned how developed a science of agriculture to plant crops and domesticate wild animals so that cities could be founded and civilization develop rather than humankind continuing to live in hunter/gathering groups; the development of astronomical calendars; the science to metalurgy enabled people to make copper, bronze, and eventually iron implements; the science of agricultural added irrigation as a way to improve crop production; wheels became added to pull carts and chariots were introduced; military science included the production of weapons such as the composite bow; lack of developments in the science of chemistry meant that prior to 2000 BCE wine soured just like milk; the science of mathematics included the introduction of zero and decimals; in astronomical sciences an understanding that the earth was a globe and the circled the sun can be found 2000 years before the Qur'an; and in the science of husbandry breeders learned to cross a male donkey with a mare to produce a mule, but that crossing a female donkey with a stallion produces a hinny which has stronger legs.
It wasn't just Greeks, but Babylonians, Chinese, and all around the world there was science taking place long before Muhammad (p) was even born, let alone your suggestion that "The scientists ideas belong to us the muslims because ALLAH SWT show everything on the quran." That's not to deny that Arab Muslims also made wonderful contributions in many different fields of science. If you meant to imply that the scientific genesis for "everything" is found in the Qur'an or that "scientists ideas belong...to the muslims", I think you will find that history says otherwise.
If we're talking about things defined as supernatural, as opposed to Trumble's examples of those things which were perceived as supernatural, then we can't even determine whether they exist or not, and then we're back at the situation above where by default, they don't exist.
I would dispute that any such distinction exists. I actually gave an example of each; phlogiston was considered every bit as natural as today we would consider quarks or photons to be. In both cases, though, it is perfectly rational to discard the theoretical posits with the theory as they have no existence independent of the theory that posited them. Likewise, it is irrational to discard them if the theory is not rejected.
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
'logic' is not proof of much except adherence to some system of thought built on intuition and so on, dubbing anything as logical or illogical has no weight beyond asserting one's beliefs & axioms/priors.
Formal logic has little to do with 'intuition', athough I'll certainly grant the word 'logic' is commonly misused here.
Trumble: we make a leap of faith when believing in God, just as you do when you believe in Bhuddism, who created the creator is a non-question from this POV.
The thread is about a claimed logical proof of the existence of God. While you are certainly right about the importance of faith, it cannot be relevant in that context.
Actually, I do believe the content of my own religious beliefs is ultimately reducible to natural explanation, although I'm less than convinced it's actually within the capacity of homo sapiens to actually do so. I suppose that's a faith-based position too!
The Big Bang is viewed as the efficient cause of the universe. In this it would be the big bang that is the cause of the universe and of reality as we know it, but this brings another question, what caused the big bang? When a child is told something, they immediately ask “why?” They understand that there must be a reason for the thing they have been told, the human mind is not equipped to accept any concept of the absence of cause and effect this is not a flaw, but an inherent reflection of the nature of reality. Same goes for the Big Bang, there must be a reason.
If we look at the law of cause and effect, reality shouldn’t exist unless there’s something outside of, or transcending, nature. This something we ALL know as God, the atheist or the Buddhist denying his existence is at the same time confirming it with this belief.
The thread is about a claimed logical proof of the existence of God. While you are certainly right about the importance of faith, it cannot be relevant in that context.
Actually, I do believe the content of my own religious beliefs is ultimately reducible to natural explanation, although I'm less than convinced it's actually within the capacity of homo sapiens to actually do so. I suppose that's a faith-based position too!
You have failed to provide a serious rebutall to this ONE argument, your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.
Speak for yourself. I see no 'intended purpose'; to me the massive degree of pain and suffering in the world is evidence of just the opposite.
What about the massive degree of wonders, goodness, kindness, generosity in the world? did you miss those? OPEN your eyes and take your head out of your ass.
You have failed to provide a serious rebutall to this ONE argument, your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.
Put up or shut up.
Oh, please. You are no 'big gun'; just an arrogant and largely ignorant small-bore regurgitating a well trodden (and well trodden on) 'argument'. You have already demonstrated on multiple occasions your total lack of comprehension of both the debate going on around you and of the philosphical terminology you lob into it at random. Your bluster does little to conceal your abject failure to answer the points raised.
I have used no 'word play' or 'sophistry', just pointed out that the assumptions and premises - which in this case amount to much the same thing - of your argument are highly questionable, to the extent that the argument itself has little force. They fall on two grounds. The first is what is known as the 'Problem of Evil' which an intellectual superstar such as yourself should already know all about. If you really want me to present it in full, so you can churn out the same ol' unconvincing responses, I'm happy to do so. To put it simply, though, lets start with your own babble;
What about the massive degree of wonders, goodness, kindness, generosity in the world? did you miss those? OPEN your eyes and take your head out of your ass.
Of course I didn't miss them. But their presence is totally consistent with an unguided and undesigned universe - as is that of their opposites which unlike you, seemingly, I also haven't missed. The presence of those opposites, though, is not consistent with a posited omnipotent omni-benevolent God.
The second is simply the absurdity, as has already been pointed out, of claiming nature is 'perfect'. That can be interpreted in one of two ways, either analytic or holistic, as it were. In the first case, such an observation just seems to indicate a standard of perfection that conflicts with common sense. A young child dies painfully of cancer; their body killing them with its own imperfection. 'Perfect'? The rains don't come, the crops fail, and millions starve. 'Perfect?' If you say so. Most would consider such a claim ludicrous.
In the second case, the suggestion is that the universe as a whole is 'perfect'. As a master of logic such a yourself will instantly recognise, the only way that can be true is by definition; in other words the universe is 'perfect' just because you say it is. There can be no objective measure as, there being only one universe (that we can ever experience, anyway), there are no 'imperfect' ones to compare it to. The universe is neither perfect or imperfect, as those terms have no meaning in relation to it. It simply is.
Add to that the totally unjustifiable leap to the existence of a creator even if assumptions of perfection are accepted (I'm afraid the wishful use of the word 'obvious' just expresses an intuition or opinion, not 'logic') and the argument is exposed for the nonsense it is. Unless, of course, you accept the necessity of faith as, mercifully, the theists rather wiser than yourself are quite happy to do.
Incidently, the 'what caused the Big Bang' thing is rather old-hat these days. You might want to read up on the 'Ekpyrotic Universe' or 'Big Splat' model which at least suggests the question might need quite substantial revision before we even consider the answer. Of course, one thing looks likely to remain unchanged; the undoubted appeal of ignoring such considerations in favour of simply labelling what we don't understand as 'God' and marking the problem as solved.
OK. If I take your statement and replace the subject (function of nature) with God it reads:
"God is far too perfect not to attribute it to a higher being."
Do you agree with that statement and if not, why not?
no, because what i meant by "nature is too perfect," is that what makes up nature/its functions and their processes, etc is too perfect. for eg, the systems of the human body (eg, digestive, reproductive, nervous, endocrine systems, etc) all co-operate and function in such an orderly manner to keep us going.
put the human body argument to the side for a second, and consider all other systems and forms of life around us eg, plants, the water cycle, the solar system, etc etc etc...consider not just what appears on the outside, but even the tiny atoms and molecules that make up the larger "body" of that being.
everything has supposedly evolved into the perfect state that we know exists.
what evolutionists claim that the whole universe (again not just what appears on the out side but the atoms and molecules and everything else that keeps it to function as it does) came into being plus organized itself to what it is, is something huge that requires better explaining that they have come up with....its like saying the house (any house) came into existence by itself. somehow the wood for the frame established itself in the ground, then it placed itself so that the bricks can be stacked to form the walls...then the roof tiles must of grew arms and legs because somehow they managed to get up and place themselves neatly on top of the house.
how can we be so certain that in the process of the house building itself (in absence of a builder) that the components that make up the house would
what have come together timingly to build the house? how do we know that the components that build the house wouldn't have died out of existence (as opposed coming together), considering the fact that it is pure coincidence that they came into exsistence to begin with?
Last edited by Ummu Sufyaan; 11-15-2009 at 09:20 AM.
...desperate for husnul-khitaam...
please make dua that Allah grants me a good end (to my life). please make dua that Allah guides me.
the most logical proof i got that God really exist and islam is the true religion is from that video and there are still more proofs coming up. Watch this...
It is an artificial distinction. I suppose to avoid make my point more clearly I wanted to deal with those 'supernatural' things that would not have any kind of detectable manifestation even if they were real (e.g. Heaven).
format_quote Originally Posted by Justufy
your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.
I lol'd
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
and that assertion is based on?
I hope you do realize that if such a position were to be applied to everything then not even science would work..
Of course science would work, because that's how science does work.
From Yahya Sulaiman's earlier post: "I do not yet see any scientific evidence for the existence of X, so until or unless some scientific evidence for it appears that I can validate to my satisfaction and to the satsifaction of those among the scientific community whose opinions I also trust I will take the tentative position ... that X does not exist, until or unless evidence to the contrary of this position pops up, if and when that happens."
That is why atheism is perfectly reasonable and compatible with science, contrary to the ideas of many people here who will write it off as illogical or simply another 'belief'.
hat is why atheism is perfectly reasonable and compatible with science, contrary to the ideas of many people here who will write it off as illogical or simply another 'belief'
I'm not in contention with such a comment, but do you acknowledge that religion is also at harmony with science?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks