Proof of God

**Protected_Diamond** · 02-23-2006

The Islamic belief and subsequently the Islamic way of life are premised on an intellectual basis. Therefore, Islam is neither a religion nor a set of values and rituals that arise from blind faith. Rather, Islam is an intellectual belief from which emanates a comprehensive socio-political and economic system. To understand the unique system that Islam offers necessitates the explanation of the Islamic belief i.e. the belief in God, Allah (swt) and the word of God, and the Qur'aan.

God: The arguments

Today if you mention God then you'll probably get a negative reaction. It has become the trend to get on with life and not bother to ask the question whether there is a God or not. In fact this question was not even asked much in the days of old, when you simply had to believe in God or be persecuted. Therefore, it is not surprising that people find it easy to believe that the existence of God is a myth, simply because they have never thought deeply about the idea.

It is because people continued to believe in God blindly i.e. blind faith, rather than use ration, that science and its attempted explanations of universal phenomena was hailed as the 'new (false) God'.

But let us deal with both arguments - for and against the existence of a Creator - from a rational perspective. A common argument by many Christians and some other religions is that God is the God of many abstract attributes such as Love, Peace, Mercy which indeed are admirable qualities for human beings to aspire to. This characterisation of God is based upon an implicit assumption that God can be likened to human beings thus the attempt to understand God in a human framework. Accordingly, we find in some societies, such as early Greek, that individual gods were used to represent single human attributes, and in other cultures gods have the quality to reproduce.

The question this begs is whether the essence of an unlimited Creator is understandable through a limited, imperfect human mind when God lies beyond our perception? Rational thought would dictate that if God exists then knowledge of God's attributes can only come from itself. Therefore, famine in the world leading to the deaths of millions would not deny the Justice, Mercy or Love of a supposed God, but would only if one attributed the human essence to God. Similarly, if one understands God as the Governor and Controller of the universe then the notion of God dying is nonsensical. This is the failure of Christianity and indeed all religions, as their belief becomes a matter of blind faith. Consequently, they allow themselves to be plagued by rational contradictions, which inevitably lead to intellectual rise to disprove the existence of God. Are these arguments valid? To understand the validity of any proposed argument the premise should be examined. Science is concerned with the methodology of processes in the physical world, i.e. it deals with 'how' and not 'why'. Thus scientists are not concerned with why gravity exists but how gravity influences bodies to shape this universe.

The scientific method is limited in that it can only deduce rules by repeated observation of physical phenomena. Thus the question of the existence of God does not and cannot fall into the realm of scientific thought because science deals with the mechanisms of events and phenomena within the universe i.e. the tangible and not the intangible. To test the hypothesis to apply scientific proof for or against God, one would effectively have said that God is "testable'. Therefore, logically one would conclude God to be within the universe since God must be physically tangible in order to test. Since God is tangible and contained within the universe, God must be limited and therefore cannot be God.

Thus scientists are falling into the same trap as the blind followers of religion that is they are implicitly defining a role to God as the 'one who makes things work'. Since scientists have explained how things work the question of God does not arise. Those who argue from this angle have falsely assumed an attribute/essence of God in the same way Christians say God has a son or is Love.

To prove or disprove the existence of a Creator we need to go beyond the limitations of the scientific method and proceed rationally for it is only the rational thought which has the ability to deal with an issue like this.

The rational thought

Man progresses as a result of his thoughts concerning everything around him. Thoughts are what distinguish man from other animals and without them man would be lost. Thought occurs when man receives information about something through his five senses. He then distinguishes it by linking it to previous information and experiences he has encountered. For example, a person comes across a plant. He knows that it is a plant due to previous knowledge of what a plant looks like. But only when he links it with previous information on the various types of plants will he be able to tell if it is edible or poisonous.

Hence, just receiving information is not enough. It will remain only as information that we cannot appreciate or understand. However the process of linking it to previous information and distinguishing the information is the process of thought and is the key of understanding and progressing.

Consequently, when man becomes convinced of the correctness of a thought, it becomes a concept, which he carries, thus, affecting his behaviour. For example, if we carry a concept of dislike of someone, it will affect our behaviour towards that person. So we see that carrying false ideas has serious implications for a person and if such false ideas are carried widely it has serious implications for society.

Thus the idea and question of God has serious implications because the answer obtained becomes the very basis by which we understand the creation and purpose of man, life and the universe. Therefore, the method used should not merely be the rational thought but be comprehensive and agree with reality. Anything hypothetical or emotional should be rejected since their basis disagrees with ration and reality.

The rational proof

When we look around at everything we can sense one factor is shared by these things, they are all limited. By limited we mean that they have restrictions, a starting point and an ending point, and they all have definable attributes, i.e. they are finite.

Man is born and he dies. There is no one alive who will not die. During his life span, he will grow to a certain shape, height and volume. The universe is defined as all the celestial bodies and planets. All these objects have a certain mass, shape, volume and so on. The life span of a star may be very long, but a point in time will come when it will cease to exist.

The universe is large, but is still a 'finite' space. No scientist could ever prove using hard facts that the universe has no bounds. In fact when they say the universe arose from a Big Bang and is expanding they inherently admit it is finite in size, otherwise it could not expand! There is nothing in reality, which is unlimited. No matter how hard we try, man is unable to find anything unlimited around him. All he can perceive is the finite and limited.

A further attribute of everything around us is that they are all needy and dependent in order to continue existing. They are not self-sustaining or independent. Man has needs. He has to satisfy in order to survive. He has organic needs. Man must eat and drink if he is to survive. If he does not he will die. We see need and dependency in plants and animals. They depend on other parts of the food chain for their existence. The water cycle is dependent on the sun, which is dependent on the laws of the galaxies and of burning mass, and so on... Nothing man can perceive is self-subsistent. So things exist, but do not have the power of existence. They cannot control when they die or when other bodies die.

There is one fact that emerges from all this. If something is limited and finite, and does not have the power to be self-subsistent then it must have been created. Applying this to everything we see will bring us to a conclusion. If everything in the universe is created because it has not the power of being in existence on its own, and is finite and limited, then there must be a Creator. This Creator by contrast has to be unlimited and not needy and dependent on anything to bring it into, or sustain its existence.

The universe; the sum of finite and dependent objects is finite and dependent - but dependent on what? It is dependent on something to start and sustain life; and something to plan and develop life.

The only rational and intellectual solution to the question of creation is that there is a Creator, which has accounted for all that we see and perceive. Ration tells us that nothing can be created without a creator. Ultimately there must be a Creator who is unlimited in every aspect.

Some scientists challenge this with a theory that everything depends on something for existence, which in turn depends upon something for existence, and so on ad infinitum. This theory is irrational, as it does not explain how anything came into existence in the first place. It uses an idea of ' Infinity’, which we know does not exist in reality. It does not, or even make an attempt, to explain-the very first step in the sequence. It is illogical and incomplete in its theory, and far from being scientific. If at its basis the theory is weak, how is it possible to trust the proceeding theoretical argument for the creation of the universe?

Conclusion

Hence, looking at any planet in the universe, contemplating on any phase of life, or comprehending any aspect of man provides a conclusive evidence for the existence of a Creator, what Muslims call Allah (swt).

This intellectual proof of the existence of Allah (swt) is an understanding open for everyone and obligatory for all Muslims to be convinced of. Each person must explore to the limit of his understanding. Blind belief has no place in Islam. Believing through instinctive emotions is unreliable and dangerous as emotions can change and add error to ones belief and actions. And if the basis of the belief is irrational and weak, how can a system of life be built upon it?

**czgibson** · 03-21-2006

Greetings,

Originally Posted by Tagrid

like say luck is a sort of faith which is like belief innit?

I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.

if thta is how you argue, i can also argue that islam is the right path, believe it or not.

No, the two statements are not logically comparable. I said science often uses logic, whereas your statement was definitive, i.e. Islam is the right path. I didn't say science always uses logic, but that it often does so is undeniable.

but that is not how it is....u think science is logical because you believe it to be.

Hopefully you can now see that you've misrepresented my statement here.

if you dont believe in something, it never seems true to you. just like if you dont believe in someone, you wouldnt beleve that what that person is saying is true o not.

Fair enough.

i didnt say dat. in my previous post, i meant that not all aspects of biology is a conspiracy but certain aspects of it has gone too far. beyond what religion says.

For the last few exchanges you've used 'science' and 'biology' interchangably, which is why my inference from what you said was actually fair.

Peace

**The Ruler** · 03-23-2006

Originally Posted by czgibson

I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.

no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way

**abdul Majid** · 03-23-2006

luck???

**HeiGou** · 03-25-2006

Originally Posted by Tagrid

no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way

The tail end of a binomial distribution.

**------** · 03-25-2006

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.

I agree.

**HeiGou** · 03-25-2006

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

My answer is that either we will find such a concept incoherent/contradictory in which case it doesn't exist, or inconsequential in which case it doesn't matter if it exists.

OK Not my thread, but let's see what I would like to reply to.

I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.

Do we know if it still exists in orbit?

That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?

Let's take a claim that is more clearly impossible to prove false, for a moment. Take the claim that there is an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. I can't prove that to be false. But I can't deny it either. I just say it is inconsequential to my life. The problem is that an atheist does deny the existence of God, a concept that is neither logically incoherent nor inconsequential. And there is no basis for such a denial. Being agnostic is one thing, but being atheist is another.

A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.

Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?

The quote from Russell is essentially the same idea. If one asserts that there is a teapot between earth and mars, they need to provide some sort of coherent explanation concerning its existence. Not proof of its existence, but a coherent explanation.

Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith. Assume that there was a long running tradition, taught in schools and upheld by Bishops and Ulama, that said teapot did exist. Why would you need a coherent explanation? Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent? You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?

So for a teapot, they need to explain if they mean that it is identical in substance and design to those manufactured on earth. and they need to suggets a possible explanation for how it got there. If they can't then through proof by contradiction, we can negate the existence of such a teapot.

Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.

**HeiGou** · 03-25-2006

Originally Posted by Pagal Kuri

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.

I agree.

But with what do you agree? Don't you think there is a contradiction in what the previous poster said - after all if belief in God is easy but living His law is hard, what do you expect? Most people will say they believe in God but won't live as if they do. Blinking and breathing come natural. I was not taught to do them. And yet belief in God is highly socially specific. If idolated from true believers, children do not ever become believers. People do not convert in large numbers to any religion that does not try very hard to make converts. All evidence suggests belief in God is very hard if by that you mean anything more than the pieties of social belief.

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 04-11-2006

Hi HeiGou,
Sorry I forgot about this post, I know it's been over two weeks but I still would like to reply.

Originally Posted by HeiGou

I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.

Such as?

That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?

Is it claimed that it still orbits around the earth?

A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

Thanks for the quote. What do you think is the difference between being a weak atheist and being agnostic? What is meant by 'absence of belief'? That they never affirm it or deny it?

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.

You're absolutely right, and this illutsrates my point well about when we can dismiss something as inconsequential.

Now about the IPU. The difference between this and the ice cream factory or the orbiting teapot is that you have now ascribed divine powers to the entity, so the discussion becomes a theological one. We now examine the concept and see if it fits in with a plausible explanation of our universe. As I said before, one needs to provide a coherent explanation for the entity in question.

Is the IPU created or uncreated? Is it pink or is it invisible (note that it would be contradictory to suggest that it is both)? A unicorn implies an organic creature with a physical body. Does it have eyes or is it invisible (note again that it is contradictory to suggest both)? Ultimately, when you examine the coherence of the concept itself you are left with some Zoomorphic model of God versus the Unique model of God found in Islam.

As for associating with horse shoes and eternal damnation, two things are being confused here. On one hand there is the belief in the entity, and on the other hand there is the obligations we have towards the entity. I believe that someone can realize the existence of a divine entity just by following their fitrah but I don't believe that they will be able to realize all the religious practices that this entity has mandated for us. For the latter, one must consult the revelation.

Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?

I believe in the divine Creator, I just don't believe He has the image of a unicorn.

Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith.

Because if one cannot provide any coherent explanation for the subjects existence, then it is sufficient to reject it on the basis of logic. If there is no coherent explanation, then the belief lacks credibility.

Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent?

Yes, I do believe that the Islamic understanding of God is the most coherent explanation for our universe.

You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?

To a theological discussion, as above.

Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.

Obviously this is no longer a normal teapot. If it is uncreated, then it is not composed of matter is it? If it is not composed of matter, there goes the entire 'teapot' model.

Peace.

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 04-16-2006

I'd like to remined members not to spam all threads with the same link. If you like it, post it once in the exchange links section. Especially because this section is for members to articulate their own arguments and only refer to links as back-up for arguments, not as substitutes for arguments.

And please do not post only a smiley. If you have some beneficial information share it inshaa'Allah, otherwise please refrain from posting here.

**Hussein radi** · 04-16-2006

This video is another proof.

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=124

To be honest with you i don't know why they don't beieve in god. there are proofs everywhere of his existence. Our planet and the habitants in it are all proof of his infinite power and knowledge. I am sure you know the perfection of Human bodies and Universe. The body uses all these intelligent ways to function. Infact, the understanding of the eyes helped the devolpment of the camera. Maybe they don't believe in him because they don't find it important and care too much about this life and not the life after. And Satan is blinding those who don't believe through whispering influences. Their are billions of people who believe in god, two main religions are Islam and christianity. Many scientests also believe in god,including einstein.

**czgibson** · 04-16-2006

Greetings,

Originally Posted by Hussein radi

Many scientests also believe in god,including einstein.

Einstein was more of a pantheist on the lines of Spinoza rather than a straightforward theist. Here's a quote from him:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

See this page for more of Einstein's views on god:

Einstein on God

Peace

**Ansar Al-'Adl** · 04-22-2006

I wrote this as a response to someone's objection to God, but the thread was deleted so I'm posting it here, inshaa'Allah.

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Hi
Thanks for your post. Your argument started off with God's predestination and then you moved to the famous atheist argument known as the 'problem' of evil, and then you switched back to the argument against pre-destination.

Let's start with predestination. Yes, God knows everything that will happen. But you neglect the fact that God transcends time and space; He is above and beyond our universe. So He is not restricted by time into past, present and future as we are. He sees all events past, present and future.

Do you agree that our universe has a definite future? i.e. that there is a definite course that our universe is going to take, and that every individual in our universe has a definite future. Predestination or no predestination everyone will agree with the fact that there is a definite future. If person X can only do either A or B, there is a definite course he will take, we just don't know whether it is A or B. But we know that he cannot do both. He has one specific choice which he will choose.

So if we agree that there is a definite course which the universe will follow, whether people have free-will or not, then it makes no difference whether we also state that there is a divine entity beyond this universe who knows what that definite course is that we will take. If it did not contradict our free-will to say that there is a definite course, then neither does it contradict it to suggest that there is someone beyond time and space who knows what that definite course is.

If we took all the future happenings in person X's life and made them into a movie which person Y watched, that has no impact on person X's free-will. X still has the choice, but Y simply knows which ones he will choose.

Now we come to your version of the problem of evil when you ask, "Why did God create such a person knowing they would be evil?" This question is no different from the question of why God created evil. We have discussed this question in great detail in this thread, but briefly, if there was no opposition to peace, justice, and faith, then where would the test be in establishing peace, justice and faith in God?

Regards

**جوري** · 01-11-2008

Great thread.. well by great I meant Ansar's posts ..
Maybe tomorrow I'll write up something on the null hypothesis (rejecting/or failing to reject it) Type I & II errors, confidence interval and how scientific testing is actually done to 'prove' an event, although czgibson was on to something.. this thread at times lacked directionality..
well, if I am in the mood for it anyhow.. I think I am enjoying the 'atheistical colloquium' too much not for its scientific approach but for its moronity and rabid overture!

**Woodrow** · 01-11-2008

Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,

Einstein was more of a pantheist on the lines of Spinoza rather than a straightforward theist. Here's a quote from him:

See this page for more of Einstein's views on god:

Einstein on God

Peace

I've seen that site before. All I can say is something seems to be out of context. That is not the Einstein I met in 1952. In 1952 he was a summer guest of one of my neighbors and 6th Grade Teacher, Giles Desmond. I spent quite a bit of time talking with him that summer, being a young kid I simply saw him as a kind old man. I was very much impressed with his religious attitude. Often when we were float fishing on the Farmington River he would attempt to explain to me how he had seen the work of a creator in everything he had seen. I was a bit young to grasp his concepts of relativity and thought I was teaching him how to bait a fish hook. He thought he was explaining to me about how all things can be reduced to nothing if it was not for the existance of God(swt).

Those quotes are quite in contrast to what I saw in him as a man.

**ranma1/2** · 01-11-2008

Originally Posted by muslimahh

Lets go through an exercise, shalll we?

(for anyone who wants to participate)

Q1 - If there was no God, how did everything we have in nature and non-nature come to be?

(one word answers are welcome....i know the answer most of you will give, but for fun's sake, entertain me

)

god did it does not answer how. all it is is a answer that tells us nothing.

teh GFSM did it. see that doesnt answer anything.

As for how there are several scientific theories. I suggest looking up the basics of cosmology for starters.

edit, dang it this is a resurected thread..

Oh well medium resurrectrion spell say level 7 for something 2 years old.

**جوري** · 01-11-2008

Originally Posted by Woodrow

I've seen that site before. All I can say is something seems to be out of context. That is not the Einstein I met in 1952. In 1952 he was a summer guest of one of my neighbors and 6th Grade Teacher, Giles Desmond. I spent quite a bit of time talking with him that summer, being a young kid I simply saw him as a kind old man. I was very much impressed with his religious attitude. Often when we were float fishing on the Farmington River he would attempt to explain to me how he had seen the work of a creator in everything he had seen. I was a bit young to grasp his concepts of relativity and thought I was teaching him how to bait a fish hook. He thought he was explaining to me about how all things can be reduced to nothing if it was not for the existance of God(swt).

Those quotes are quite in contrast to what I saw in him as a man.

^^ I have bought the book you recommended Einstein's Universe 978-0517385708
well let you know how it pans out insha'Allah..

**Isambard** · 01-11-2008

It would seem you lived an interesting life Woodrow.

In response to the thread. I just want to address the statement that all of existance is proof of Gods existance. I think ppl are simply attributing it based on ignorance as to what a "godless universe" would look like.

To give an example why this is silly; "All of existance is proof that Mars is red".

In regards to weak/strong atheist, Id say alot of atheists are actually both. Even agnostics, deists and even most theists are the majority of the time strong atheists.

This is because the deities of almost all formal religions can be tested for at least indirectly.

This can be done either thru science, logic, or just believing your faith to be superior.

Im only a weak atheist when it comes to the deist God. He left as an undefined abstract which I then have no way to prove/disprove so it would be dishonest of me to say it doesnt exist.

**جوري** · 01-11-2008

Originally Posted by Isambard

It would seem you lived an interesting life Woodrow.

Live(s) an interesting life wal7mdlilah! rabena yitwal fi 3omro and yi7asen 3amaloh Ameen

In response to the thread. I just want to address the statement that all of existance is proof of Gods existance. I think ppl are simply attributing it based on ignorance as to what a "godless universe" would look like.

Maybe you can eleborate on that a little..

To give an example why this is silly; "All of existance is proof that Mars is red".

I think you are reverting back to your old ways with nonsensical questions and/or conclusions to which I believe Br. woodrow's earlier post to you would be appropriate here too!

Originally Posted by Woodrow

this is one of the first questions brought up in both Debating 101 and Philosophy 101.

The point being if something looks like a question and sounds like a question it does not mean it is a question.

A logical as that sounds as a question, it is actually an excercise in nonsensical recognition.

This is like asking the classic question of:

If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half.
How many pancakes would it take to shingle a dog house?

The first part of the Question:

Now to a person that is not educated or has very limited knowledge, that looks like a question. But is it? Is it a question or is a nonsence phrase under the grammatical formation of a question.

Place any other quality in place of correct, let the quality be either true, false or nonsence. The question does not pass the scrutiny of being able to be replaced with other qualities and sound rational.

For example:

Is God tall because he is God?

Is God purple because he is God?

Is God strong because he is God?

Any quality can be placed in there and the problem is we still do not have a question, we have a statement that is based upon cause and effect when what we have is state of being and neither a condition of cause and effect.

Question 2 is a fallacy. By definition of a supreme God, there can only be one God, so question two is a moot point as it is an impossibility by definition.

Children playing in philosophy 101 only serve to illustrate their own ignorance by their inability to formulate legitimate questions. The simplest fool can ask more questions than the wisest man can answer.

In regards to weak/strong atheist, Id say alot of atheists are actually both. Even agnostics, deists and even most theists are the majority of the time strong atheists.

You have run a study on that? or just a hunch?

This is because the deities of almost all formal religions can be tested for at least indirectly.

How do you test for a deity?

This can be done either thru science, logic, or just believing your faith to be superior.

That is a little incoherent, especially the very last assertion!

Im only a weak atheist when it comes to the deist God. He left as an undefined abstract which I then have no way to prove/disprove so it would be dishonest of me to say it doesnt exist.

As good a reason as any to spend ones life being an atheist!

cheers

**Muezzin** · 01-12-2008

The fact that people, with all the dictionaries of the Internet available to them, still spell 'existence' with an 'a' is proof enough that nobody will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists. It's a matter of faith.

Like my faith in spelling tests...

**Omari** · 01-12-2008

Originally Posted by Muezzin

nobody will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists. It's a matter of faith.

Isn't the proof of the authencity of the Quran sufficient enough to prove that it's god's word and by extention prove the existAnce of god? [existence]