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?
“Whoever puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is Allah for him.”
I think this latest section of the debate shows more than anything else the huge difference in understanding that Muslims and atheists have when it comes to the meaning of words like 'science' and 'logic'. Here are some examples of what I mean by this:
Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.
Saying something like "Logically, its easy to prove the existance of God and the miracles of the Quran." shows that a fundamentally different understanding of logic is in play to that familiar to Western logicians. In the logic of Western philosophy, there is no possibility of proving god's existence or non-existence. 'God' is simply a term that has been brought into the history of ideas which has no external observable referent.
Of course it takes some openmindedness and sincere drive for the truth on one's part, as well as God Almighty's Will.
Similarly, in Western logic there's no question of being openminded - something is either true or it isn't. You can get into modal logic which takes account of possibilities and necessities, but still, being openminded has nothing to do with it. This is the case despite the fact that it's a characteristic that is often valued in humans, a consequence of the nature of logic, which is not able to place values on things.
That would be logical if we assumed that everything we know about science today is correct and perfect.
Of course, no scientist assumes this. Plus, two assumptions have been made here: that a) the Qur'an is perfect, and that b) science must live up to it, when in fact neither of these is necessarily true.
No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.
This is a quote that totally baffles me. Let's assume for a moment that it was possible to prove the existence of god and the truth of the Qur'an logically, as is claimed here - surely then it would be possible to prove the existence of Adam and Eve logically? I don't understand how the belief system shown here can be considered at all coherent.
Here's another difference:
As I have, myself, a strong and sincere strength of faith in God and His Messenger, and the creation and existance of Adam and Eve is mentionned in the Quran, I know it is true. That is my proof.
I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.
This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.
I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.
Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.
I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.
Peace
Very true, thats what I was trying to show when mentionning the differences between Western science and religion.
By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.
What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.
I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.
Yes, that part is clear enough.
My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.
OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.
By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.
Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:
What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.
Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.
OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.
Hello czgobson (Root, where did you go?)
Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:
Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.
And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.
Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
Common sense and logical thought (not official wikipedia logical equations etc ) is enough to do the trick.
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?
religion is about faith, science is about proof.
If you're looking for proof then religion simply isnt for you.
And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about? How are we here?
NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.
And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't. So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.
So please, Mr Atheist- if not God then how did we get here? And don't say you don't know, because as humans we have a belief about everything!
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?
I experience Gravity every day. Every minute of every day. And so, I am willing to bet, do you. What is more I experience the same type of gravity each and every minute of each and every day that you do. If I drop a stone, it falls at the same speed as a stone you drop. Who would deny gravity? Think of the number of ways in which your experience, or anyone else's, of God is not the same.
That is not weak. It takes courage to stand up to the idols of the tribe and say "I do not believe". Weakness to go to the temple every day when you no longer really believe just because you do not want to upset your relatives.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
Perhaps it is this type of logic that divides us ultimately, (though the chemical in our brains and the use of certain areas of the brain also differ between believers and non believers, but that is for another thread).
if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
I simply do not accept this point, we cannot prove that a magic teapot orbits the earth. Using your logic leaves a way to actually accept the existence of a magic teapot orbiting the earth. Surely, before we consider if something is truthfull or not we need some collaboration and by parallel we should discount a book called "Revelations of the magic teapot" since it holds a position of bias, and I feel religion does. One could simply pass that back by stating that science is biased, but I disregard that for science cannot in most cases simply make evidence up due to the peer reviewing system.
Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.
No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true. The date of Adam and Eve's existence is not given in the Quran and thus, any guess towards this can only be a human-based guess prone to mistakes.
So you believe solely on faith. Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will leave this debate now and it has been interesting, I think we have prity much established what the conclusion is.
"Proof of god lies in faith". Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will start a thread titled "The science of faith".
Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.
Here's what you said:
No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.
The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.
And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.
No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?
Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.
I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.
format_quote Originally Posted by yasin
i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?
Are you making another generalisation about atheists? It's getting to be a habit with you.
If you think atheists are weak minded, I assume you believe that thinkers of the calibre of David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell were just a bunch of thickies compared to your formidable intellect...
(HeiGou has already answered your rather bizarre argument about gravity.)
And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about?
If you're asking how life began, nobody knows. Life developed by evolving through natural selection.
NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.
If that assertion was actually a fact, then everybody would believe in god. In fact, everyone would know that god existed.
And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't.
More insults - you'll struggle to convince anybody of anything if that's your standard approach. Also, I've read lots about evolution already, so you don't need to worry on that score.
So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.
You make an interesting point here - I always thought the theory of evolution was developed to explain biological variation, but there you go. Where have you found this information that it was actually intended to prove religion to be true? Bring on the references.
As for your claim about the small kitchen table, there's lots more evidence supporting evolution than I think you're aware of.
I'm getting a little bit of sarcasm from your posts.
While I understand what you are saying, you yourself have said that not everything we have on earth today has an answer. Unfortunately, it seems that either you're trying to be funny by mocking what I've said so far or you have not taken a single point from what I have been posting for this past week or so. Everything you've stated here is out of context and rather than typing exactly what I have said already in this discussion out a second time, I ask you to re-read my past posts, in context and not draw conclusions that are taken from my posts quite out of context.
format_quote Originally Posted by Root
Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.
So you're saying if this was the case you would probably be able to establish that there is the possibility of a Creator. Look at humans themselves, we are constantly changing and perfecting our sciences anr our inventions. Why are you then limiting the power of God?
Why would only a couple of solar systems versus many prove to you that there is a Creator while the many that we have now does not? A creation is a creation. If anything there are more reasons and means to see this with the variety and complexity of life on this earth adn the makeup of space
You are arguing that the only way you would think of the possibility that God exists is if there was creation, it stayed absolutely static and there were separate strands of creation, unlinked by a common genetic-makeup and without any "ingredients" such as amino acids etc.
If anything there is a means to creation. You are looking for a sort of magical, fairytale creation where everything goes *poof* and suddenly appears. This in itself is a flawed way of thinking as it limits the power of the Creator and simplifies creation it itself.
For example if I had eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a vanilla cake by adding a little vanilla, a chocolate cake by adding a little chocolate and a coffee cake by adding some coffee beans, no big deal, its been done, but say I took eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a cake, then some carrots, then some chicken and then some bread by only slightly changing the ingredients but keeping the same basic make-up that would make me a master chef. Thus all of this is the sign of a creator, with many species having only slight differences in genetic makeup but varying greatly.
If anything its an obvious demonstration of the Power and Ingenuity of the Creator of the Universe.
The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.
No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?
I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.
Hello Czgibson,
My apologies for my quick choice of words, I am glad you at least understand my position. Forums aren't the best avenues for debate.
My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.
I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.
You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists? What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." " Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator. The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.
I enjoyed our discussion and I am sorry to say that in the coming days I will be swamped with a great amount of work (Im in my final year of university, in my last two months) I hope I have given you at least something to reflect on.
I may be able to sporadically answer other posts, just not at this intensity.
I want to end by inviting you both to accept Islam. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain and hopefully much more to think about.
My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.
I don't depend on it absolutely for my beliefs. I use logical and philosophical reasoning too, as well as simple feelings when it comes to questions of taste and so on.
I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.
Of course. I think spaghetti is nicer than lasagne, but I'm never going to be able to prove that to someone. Not everything even requires proof.
You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists?
I don't remember saying this.
What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian."
Einstein believed in a god, but not in the sort of god you believe in. Rather than being a theist, it would be more accurate to describe him as a pantheist. Here's the man himself, talking about a claim of the sort you have just made:
format_quote 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.
Another quote from Einstein:
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
I couldn't agree more.
Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator.
It's true to say Newton was a very religious man, but he was living in a time when modern science was in its infancy. If I had been alive then, pre-Enlightenment, pre-Darwin and at a time when atheism (or being suspected of atheism) was punished much more severely than it is now, I think that accepting theism would be a much more sensible course of action.
The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.
Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
It's been good talking to you, muslimahh, and while I can't take up your suggesting of accepting Islam, I will say that you've been an insightful debater and I wish you well with your studies.
Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
yeh...the pilosophers are just in aggreement...bt tey dont have ny proof that God exists. all this time, you people have been asking us mulims questions like how do we know God exists and stuff.....but can i ask u onw thing...
Yes tagrid.You have drew attention to one of the most important point about God existance.People who want to prove ttha there is no God they have to visit all time before world and after world, and they have to see all palaces.At the end if hey cannot see any proof about lackness of God they can approve it.However God's activities are appearing in everywhere and in every time.It is being appeared as Sun.But, people who peretend not to see can make only night for themselves...
Of course not - think about it rationally for one second! If you can't prove god exists then you can't prove god doesn't exist. That point is pretty obvious really, and it's been mentioned a few times already.
To use an example that root has mentioned already (on this very thread I believe), imagine I told you there was a teapot in orbit around the Earth. It's in orbit beyond the range of all our satellites, and no human spacecraft have come across it in their travels. Despite this, it is actually there, and you are unable to prove to me that it is not.
Your belief in god is based on exactly the same foundations as my (imaginary) belief in the teapot. There is no more reason to believe in one than the other.
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
) is enough to do the trick.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks