I believe that there is no verifiable scientific proof that Allah (swt) exists. By this I mean that no one has ever seen, smelled or touched Him. Moses conversed with Him through the burning bush, but we don't have a tape recording of the conversation. No one has measured or defined His nature other than what He has revealed in the Quran. Belief in Allah (swt) is the most fundamental belief that we Muslims and other theists have. Why do you believe in His existence?
My belief in Allah (swt) centers around the requirement I see for a Creator. This perceived need of a Creator is derived from my scientific knowledge (PhD in genetics and molecular biology, mash'Allah) and through the use of my mind to know that the universe and all life (as my friend Eric noted) did not arise by chance, but rather was created by a Higher Power that I know as Allah (swt). It is my choice to believe in Allah (swt) as it is the choice of others to disbelieve.
I will use an analogy that I have stated elsewhere. If I were to walk upon a beach and came upon three bricks (_ _ _) that were stacked on top of each other perfectly aligned like:
|
|
|
I would conclude that someone came before me and stacked them up in that matter. The fact that there were no footprints left in the sand would not be proof that I was wrong and that the bricks instead became stacked by the random crashing of the waves on the shoreline. Rather I would conclude that these waves erased the footprints of the person who stacked the bricks while leaving the bricks standing. How much more intricate is the design of life systems that are evidence of a Creator?
Life coming from nothing makes just as much sense to me as sentient creator coming from nothing.
Why do you assume that the Creator had a beginning? Can you imagine the possibility that the Creator has an existence very much unlike ours with no beginning or end, no need for food or rest, all-knowing and all-powerful?
I would respond to you mr pygo but this is probably the 20th time I've seen you displaying your inability to differentiate between the Creator and greek mythology. All of creation is evidence to the existence of a Creator, it is not the same as "greek mythology characters". This inability to differentiate roles reflect on how you think a niqab = ski mask.
Do you say that because of the scientific evidence or because of your religion? I mean to say, that the evolution of man for example is well documented through the fossil record. It is not complete, it is far from complete, but it informs us of the process and experiment and observation fits the theory. In the future the theory may change, that's how science works.
So do you reject the evidence on the basis that it is scientifically unsound or that it doesn't agree with your religion?
I have no problem with those findings of fossils. I also have no problems with those fossil scientists revising their stories every now and then. I am not rejecting their hypotheses outright but I have my own senses and my senses tell me that something is amiss.
Assuming that the evolutionists are right, then all living things have a common ancestor. So it should be logical to expect some kind of resemblance between the living things in existence today. I only take into consideration those in existence today because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph, there is no hard and fast rule or conclusion about those which are now extinct.
So among the living things in existence today, my senses tell me that man is unique. A thousand years ago, man lived a certain way with a certain level of technology which is rather different from what is available today. If the other living things came from a common ancestor, then my senses tell me that i should also see other species having some kind of advance in their way of living and level of technology.
So far I have yet to know of anything like that. As far as I know, a thousand years ago, spider spun their webs in the same way spiders spin their webs today. A thousand years ago, bees made their hives the same way bees make their hives today. Doesn't really seem logical. If all living things came from a common ancestor, then surely if man has progressed in the last one thousand years, at least one other specie, if not more, should also have advanced in the last one thousand years. Man, according to the evolutionists, (or at least according to what I think evolutionists think) are no different from the rest of the living things. According to them (I think) man is just a random phenomenon, nothing special, nothing outstanding at all.
All of creation is evidence to the existence of a Creator
If you call it creation then you are presuming there is a creator in order to prove there is a creator. So you're not saying much at all.
, it is not the same as "greek mythology characters".
No, but that is the next step.
If you want to stop at a mere "creation force" and not claim it is sentient, not claim it speaks to us, not claim it sent us prophets, etc, then that is one thing. But once you start doing those things you are putting yourself on the same footing as greek mythology as far as non-muslims are concerned. From a non-muslim's perspective, there is no more convincing evidence for Allah than there is for Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Baal, etc.
This inability to differentiate roles reflect on how you think a niqab = ski mask.
That is an entirely separate discussion. I do not believe that niqabs are ski masks... I believe that you should have no more right to cover your face than I should, and that your religion should not entitle you to special treatment.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 05-31-2013 at 05:04 AM.
there is no more convincing evidence for Allah than there is for Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Baal, etc..
evidences for Allaah are Quran and hus Messenger Muhammad both of which cannot be denied. no linguistic expert of the Arabic language can deny the miraculous eloquence of the Quran and no historian can, beingtrueto himself, after studying the history of our beloved, peace be upon him, deny that he was jndeed unlettered and was a simple man who suddenly took on this great mission with none other then the help of God.
pygo you cant say the evidences for Allaah snd gods like Ra are the same because of the fact that such a huge population of this world axxepts allah and with good reason as i stated above.
this evidence may not convince you who most likely indulge in many vices, but it has convinced those who mantain piety
-
My tears testify that i have a heart
yet i feel me and shaytan never part
-
We shouldn't keep the company of kaffirs if they'll lose their manners where it comes to the magistrate of it then becomes revolting not to mention wrong to engage sofahaa!
Last edited by جوري; 05-31-2013 at 11:22 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
If you call it creation then you are presuming there is a creator in order to prove there is a creator. So you're not saying much at all.
Not presuming, it is a reasonable conclusion. I would call a laptop a manufactured product and reason would have me deduce that there is indeed a laptop manufacturer. There is no "presumption".
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
No, but that is the next step.
If you want to stop at a mere "creation force" and not claim it is sentient, not claim it speaks to us, not claim it sent us prophets, etc, then that is one thing. But once you start doing those things you are putting yourself on the same footing as greek mythology as far as non-muslims are concerned. From a non-muslim's perspective, there is no more convincing evidence for Allah than there is for Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Baal, etc.
Exactly, no. So you admit that the idea of a Creator is NOT the same as a "greek mythology character". Yet you are trying to use that as an argument against a Creator. Not once in the last few posts did I ask you or observer to accept revelation as knowledge, I even said so in a few posts above, because you can't even use simple reason how am I to expect you to accept revealed knowledge?
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That is an entirely separate discussion. I do not believe that niqabs are ski masks... I believe that you should have no more right to cover your face than I should, and that your religion should not entitle you to special treatment.
Indeed it is a separate discussion but it does reflect your inability to understand the differentiate roles of different things. A woman would wear a niqab out of modesty. A man in a ski mask? Doubtful. Yet they are to you the same.
I don't. I don't even believe this creator of yours exists. Perhaps re-read what I wrote?
I said "life coming from nothing makes as much sense to me as a creator coming from nothing.
I would also say that our reality being eternal makes as much sense to me as a creator of our reality being eternal.
The statement "life coming from nothing makes as much sense to me as a creator coming from nothing" is rather confusing. The "life coming from nothing" not making sense seems to imply you believe that life as we know it today in one form or another has always existed and that the seminal ancestral life form gave rise to all extinct and existing species of life. Well to me, life and the species of life coming from nothing through the actions of an all-powerful, sentient (your term) Creator makes all of the sense in the world. Even if there was a Common Ancestor for all species of life, then it is illogical for higher, more complex species to spontaneously appear through entirely naturalistic processes without the direct and intimate involvement of a highly intelligent and powerful Creator. Coming from my perspective that a Creator is essential, then your statement "a creator coming from nothing" not making sense of a neccesity means that the creator had a beginning, hence the statement I made, "Why do you assume that the Creator had a beginning?"
evidences for Allaah are Quran and hus Messenger Muhammad both of which cannot be denied.
Most humans on earth don't agree with you. They are not muslims.
no linguistic expert of the Arabic language can deny the miraculous eloquence of the Quran and no historian can, beingtrueto himself, after studying the history of our beloved, peace be upon him, deny that he was jndeed unlettered and was a simple man who suddenly took on this great mission with none other then the help of God.
Accepting for the moment that your book is so well written (which many would dispute) and that your beloved was unlettered, do you think non-muslims are going to conclude that your beloved was aided by God or that he was aided by other men who could write?
pygo you cant say the evidences for Allaah snd gods like Ra are the same because of the fact that such a huge population of this world axxepts allah and with good reason as i stated above.
Truth isn't democratic. Allah isn't any more likely to exist as more and more people covert and come to believe he does. If Gods exist based on the number of beleivers, then how can you deny the existence of Shiva and Vishnu?
this evidence may not convince you who most likely indulge in many vices, but it has convinced those who mantain piety
Only the muslims who maintain piety. There are far more non-muslims than muslims who maintain piety. There are lots of other religions out there with people who are "Pious".
We shouldn't keep the company of kaffirs if they'll lose their manners
Why would you expect Kaffir to be polite to you given your constant rudeness towards them?
It is a very rare occassion that you have ever posted anything remotely resembling manners when addressing Kaffir. And Hulk just got through telling Observer he is incapable of rational thought. You would then demand manners from Kaffir?
Accepting for the moment that your book is so well written (which many would dispute) and that your beloved was unlettered, do you think non-muslims are going to conclude that your beloved was aided by God or that he was aided by other men who could write?
What kind of conclusion is that? Certainly not one based on study. It isn't just about 'well written' It is about Textual Integrity, logical Consistency, miraculous Features, supernatural Eloquence, prophecies, transcendence and coverage of every aspect of man's life, political, economical, laws of inheritance, social structure, worship not to mention it is the book upon which modern day Arabic grammar was built. If people were going to conclude that he was 'aided' shouldn't they have done so at the time when Arabic was at its peak and the poets used to compete by hanging their scrolls at kaaba for prizes of the most eloquent. Also he'd not only need a super poet, super predictor, super wise person but an archiver given the revelation of verses at times twenty years apart to flow contextually and in lyricism; one who would be so selfless as to not take any credit and for what purpose perhaps shouldn't that other person been a messenger instead but so that Muhammad would die poor with his armour pawned to a Jew at the time of his death. Where is your logic or reason or do you just want to take up web space repeating the nonsense that the net is redolent with, without the slightest thought or study. I don't really care whether or not you accept Islam and I do wish Muslims would stop casting pearls before swine but if you're going to be insulting or insinuating, then take it else where, it is a lucrative business from what I hear! best,
Last edited by جوري; 05-31-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Not presuming, it is a reasonable conclusion. I would call a laptop a manufactured product and reason would have me deduce that there is indeed a laptop manufacturer. There is no "presumption".
You said that creation is evidence for creator. That is a tautology. If we agree to call it creation, then of course it has a creator. If we don't pre-suppose it is creation, and call it something else, say "reality", we would then be looking at it differently and it wouldn't be so simple to declare it must be created.
Exactly, no. So you admit that the idea of a Creator is NOT the same as a "greek mythology character".
Sure.
Yet you are trying to use that as an argument against a Creator.
No I'm not.
Not once in the last few posts did I ask you or observer to accept revelation as knowledge, I even said so in a few posts above, because you can't even use simple reason how am I to expect you to accept revealed knowledge?
Read the thread title. You are not the only one posting here. And even if you were, are we not allowed to bring this stuff up ourselves?
Indeed it is a separate discussion but it does reflect your inability to understand the differentiate roles of different things. A woman would wear a niqab out of modesty. A man in a ski mask? Doubtful. Yet they are to you the same.
It doesn't matter what the supposed motivation is. You should not be allowed to claim special status and break laws the rest of us are required to follow based on your religion. If the woman wearing the niqab is may cover her face, then everybody else should be able to as well.
Why would you expect Kaffir to be polite to you given your constant rudeness towards them?
I haven't asked any kaffir to be 'polite' toward me and God knows where your compass lies all together. This is about respecting the rules of engagement when speaking about the religion of Islam, its messenger and books. I don't blame you for drawing the wrong conclusions all the time- it would indeed explain your life style choices & constant erroneous conclusions.
You're not owed politeness it is earned. But You owe respect to the board and its religion if you desire to remain a member here!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
The "life coming from nothing" not making sense seems to imply you believe that life as we know it today in one form or another has always existed and that the seminal ancestral life form gave rise to all extinct and existing species of life.
You are reading too much into it. I didn't say life coming from nothing makes no sense. I said it makes about as much sense as a creator coming from nothing. Both have X coming from nothing. One is one step removed from the other. You could go back into infinite redress or you could say something came from nothing somewhere along the line or you could say that something along the line was eternal. I see no reason to accept any point along the line more than any other based on what little evidence we have.
I haven't asked any kaffir to be 'polite' toward me and God knows where your compass lies all together. This is about respecting the rules of engagement when speaking about the religion of Islam, its messenger and books. I don't blame you for drawing the wrong conclusions all the time- it would indeed explain your life style choices & constant erroneous conclusions.
You're not owed politeness it is earned. But You owe respect to the board and its religion if you desire to remain a member here!
The irony here is that you have been rude to your fellow muslims here on this board far more than I ever have been.
If the other muslims here find me rude or disrespectful they can speak for themselves. You and your constant stream of insults frankly have no credibility on that.
The irony here is that you have been rude to your fellow muslims here on this board far more than I ever have been.
Go ahead quote me!
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If the other muslims here find me rude or disrespectful they can speak for themselves. You and your constant stream of insults frankly have no credibility on that.
They've been as well reporting you as to why the mods continue to put up with your frank insolence and for over half a decade is beyond me. I'll simply believe that it reflects the forgiving nature of Muslims, but someone has to point it out. Any insolence toward Islam, the prophet, the book will not be tolerated. I don't give a fig what you think of me or my behavior toward anyone it is merely a deflection from your end to water down your otherwise intolerable behavior and then pad it by crying about my so-called rudeness to like minded individuals as if a barricade against the truth!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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
it then becomes revolting not to mention wrong to engage sofahaa!
would die poor with his armour pawned to a Jew at the time of his death. Where is your logic or reason or do you just want to take up web space repeating the nonsense that the net is redolent with, without the slightest thought or study. I don't really care whether or not you accept Islam and I do wish Muslims would stop casting pearls before swine but if you're going to be insulting or insinuating, then take it else where, it is a lucrative business from what I hear!
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks