× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Proof of God

اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ - لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَاَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ وَلِلَّهِ الْحَمْد - اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ - لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَاَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ وَلِلَّهِ الْحَمْد - اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ - لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَاَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ اَللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ وَلِلَّهِ الْحَمْد - اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ كَبِيرًا وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ كَثِيرًا وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيلًا
20 Sunnah to do on 'Eid

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 269

Thread: Proof of God

  1. #1
    Array Protected_Diamond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Dunya
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,569
    Threads
    172
    Reputation
    2972
    Rep Power
    82

    Proof of God (OP)


    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?
    Proof of God

    “Whoever puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is Allah for him.”

  2. #141
    Eric H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    uk
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    3,166
    Threads
    28
    Reputation
    48956
    Rep Power
    108
    Likes (Given)
    3738
    Likes (Received)
    2347

    Re: Proof of God

    Report bad ads?

    Greetings and peace yasin;

    Trying to convince someone of the existence of God can seem very frustrating and maybe we should bear in mind the observations of St. Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago

    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

    I sense those words are equally as valid today.

    In the spirit of searching for God

    Eric

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #142
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by yasin View Post
    you my good friend can burn in hell for what you've said.
    I like to think I will burn in Hell for much more than just asking a question. So let me ask you the obvious question - why is it you think my asking a question will have me ending up in Hell?

    I hate people like you lavishing to make such horrid statements seem true.
    If you had taken some time you may have noticed it was not said with the intent you seem to think it is. What is the difference between a Muslim saying "All kafirs are..." and the media saying "All Muslims are..."? Why is it wrong to say Muslims are responsible for all the terrorism in the world but it is not wrong to say all Kafirs are responsible for all the fitnah in the world?

    There have been billions of Muslims in this world, not even 1% of them would be considered a terrorist.

    Last time i checked 1% was not a majority.

    Stop making nasty damaging violence provoking statements like that
    I did not use the word majority. I did not say what you think I did.

    What violence do you think I am provoking?
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  5. #143
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by yasin View Post
    you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.

    You have never read the Quran, FACT.
    I find the Quran impossible to read as it happens. I have browsed. I assume Muslims do not read it either, but study it, recite it, or something.

    So how can someone like you decide what it does or not contain, and dont lie and say that you have read it.
    I have never said I have picked it up and read it from cover to cover. You are, of course, missing my point. It is unimportant what it contains, what matters is what Muslims have thought it contains. Did any Muslim think it contained a reference to the Big Bang before Dr Buicalle told them it did? Not that I know of. If I am wrong I would love to hear of one. Which Muslim thought the Universe was some 3.5 billion years ago because the Quran told them it was before the West decided it was?

    If you want names of the scientists do a Google search, it's not my place here to spoon feed everything i say to people that dont want to believe it.
    If I did a google search on scientists and Islam I expect that I would get a lot of historical stuff and not a few sites that I would be prohibited from posting here. I doubt that I would get much on any Muslim scientists who believed that the Quran contained scientific miracles before, say, 1970.

    You have a very closed mind and it is obvious from your half heart attempts at rubbishing solid facts.
    What solid facts?
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  6. #144
    muslimahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    92
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    112
    Rep Power
    76
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: Proof of God

    Really funny how those not believing in God are not presenting any arguments towards their position.

    If you go by the rules of the scientific method, which all non-theist arguments usually revolve around (the tenants of science) you would require a null-hypothesis,

    thus a hypothesis would be : - there is a God
    the null hypothesis would be - there is no God

    A hypothesis cannot be proven, rather it is nullified should the null hypothesis be supported by evidence



    Evidence supporting the existance of God is all around us, life, symbiosis of differings species, animals, humans, nature, temperature and all of the complexities we see all around us. That which does not support it, and thus supporting the null hypothesis, arguably is the process of evolution, the big bang etc. (although these can still be supported by stating that this is the means by which God Almighty maintains and creates life) however, unfortunately for the null hypothesis, and as I have constantly pointed out, each of these arguments still do not account for the creation of the initial ingredients required for this process...i.e. the life elements Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen for evolution or that small compressed speck that atheists argue caused the big bang.

    And yet, when I ask: where did these come from, I either get no reply or "we don't know" ...

  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #145
    Ansar Al-'Adl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    4,680
    Threads
    188
    Reputation
    16661
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    75

    Re: Proof of God

    Hi czgibson and HeiGou,
    It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.

    Regards
    Proof of God

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
    "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]


    Visit Ansâr Al-'Adl's personal page HERE.
    Excellent resources on Islam listed HERE.

  9. #146
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: Proof of God

    Yes, let's continue with the teapot example. My questions for you:

    Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot? Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something? Is it man-made? Do we know how it got into orbit? Do we know how long it has been in orbit?

    After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.
    The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?

    Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?
    Because it is a teapot

    Is it man-made?
    No.

    Do we know how it got into orbit
    No

    Do we know how long it has been in orbit
    No
    Last edited by root; 03-07-2006 at 01:29 PM.

  10. #147
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl View Post
    It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.
    Sorry, haven't been reading about the flying tea pot. But I'll make an effort to catch up.
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  11. #148
    MinAhlilHadeeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,888
    Threads
    276
    Reputation
    38979
    Rep Power
    105
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Re: Proof of God

    Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
    If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?
    :rose:

  12. #149
    MinAhlilHadeeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,888
    Threads
    276
    Reputation
    38979
    Rep Power
    105
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Re: Proof of God

    Oh and i'd like to remind all sides to remain polite towards each other, and avoid being rude about peoples views. Everyone is entitled to one after all.
    :rose:

  13. Report bad ads?
  14. #150
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~ View Post
    Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
    If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?
    According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  15. #151
    nishom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    214
    Threads
    82
    Reputation
    587
    Rep Power
    76
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by HeiGou View Post
    According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.

    If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
    Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.

  16. #152
    czgibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    3,238
    Threads
    37
    Reputation
    15764
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    589
    Likes (Received)
    284

    Re: Proof of God

    Greetings,
    Quote Originally Posted by nishom View Post
    Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
    Then what caused that force? Another prior force? An infinite regress of forces?

    Why add an extra cause?

    Peace

  17. #153
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by nishom View Post
    If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
    Scientists use terminology a little differently to other people. A theory is more to a scientist than it is to a lay person. Here it is the best explanation for the observed facts. If you reject the Big Bang as a theory, and some do, then you need to explain whatever facts are left over. The Big Bang has done quite well. Simply saying "Well God made it that way" is excellent as an explanation but is not very useful.

    Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
    Nothing caused the Universe to exist as a singularity as far as I know. It just was. More feasible? But you are simply creating a bigger problem - who created that creative force? You can insist that the first creative force was the First Cause that had no creator, but why not just apply that to the whole Universe at the time of the Big Bang and reduce the complexity of the theory?
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  18. #154
    root's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,348
    Threads
    36
    Reputation
    774
    Rep Power
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Re: Proof of God

    The "Big bang" theory states that the universe came to be from a "big bang", (A really loud explosion) which science predicted then found and not visa verser. The prediction of the big bang came from einstien's famous equation, why and how the really big explosion occured is the mystery to which we have a number of options ranging from simply nothingness to "other sides of black-holes meaning matter in matter out" to my personal favourite of two universes colliding within a mutiverse scenario. Of course one could just say it was created by god, which I think by far is the weakest hypothosis here.

  19. Report bad ads?
  20. #155
    czgibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    3,238
    Threads
    37
    Reputation
    15764
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    589
    Likes (Received)
    284

    Re: Proof of God

    Greetings,
    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl View Post
    I don't think so. If we are introduced to a concept then we must first examine the concept itself as part of our discussion on its validity.
    If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.

    Now we run into definition issues. Why do you call it a 'teapot' if it has never been used as such as far as anyone knows. Why not call it a "teapot-shaped object" ?
    This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?

    Yes or no? If yes, then was it originally designed as a teapot and somehow got lost in space? If no, then why do you call it a teapot?
    It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.

    I think it does. If you are going to claim that there is an invisible, untedetectable entity that exists in an alternate dimension, I won't deny it, I'll just say it is inconseuqential and continue my life. But God is not inconsequential if He exists.
    If he exists and everything humans have ever said about him is true, then yes, this is correct. But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false. It is up to me to support my claim that the teapot is there, just as it is up to the theist to support their claim that god exists.

    Here is the originator of this idea, Bertrand Russell. As you can see, I got it wrong by saying the teapot is orbiting the Earth, but the point remains the same:

    Quote Originally Posted by Russell
    Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
    Russell takes the idea further than I have, and his quote is dated by the mention of the psychiatrist. Bearing in mind that atheism is no longer considered to be a symptom of mental illness, and imagining that Russell's description of the situation regarding the ancient authority of religious teapot lore were actually in place, would you deny it then?

    Peace

  21. #156
    Ansar Al-'Adl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    4,680
    Threads
    188
    Reputation
    16661
    Rep Power
    94
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    75

    Re: Proof of God

    Greetings Root,
    Thanks for joining in.
    Quote Originally Posted by root View Post
    The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?
    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.

    Because it is a teapot

    No.
    If it's not man-made then how is it a teapot? What is it made of? Is it just some debris that looks remarkably like a teapot?

    No



    No
    Do we know if it still exists in orbit?

    Hello Callum,
    I hope I don't get your responses confused with root's.
    Quote Originally Posted by czgibson View Post
    If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.
    Right. By 'thinkable', I would take that to mean that it must be logically coherent.

    This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?
    What is a teapot? It is a pot with a handle, spout and lid in which tea is brewed and from which it is poured. If I draw a picture of teapot and cut it out - does that count? If I make a teapot-like shape out of cardboard, does that count?

    It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.
    I think it does. Unless you are attributing supernatural powers to this teapot then it had to have a source. Is this a teapot-god which has existed from eternity or is it just a teapot? You told me it was the latter. So if it is a teapot, that means it is a manmade object designed and manufactured for pouring tea and it has somehow gotten into orbit without being destroyed. That means it must have gotten into orbit at some point in time after the manufacture of teapots. How could it get into orbit? Can you offer a logical explanation for that?

    But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false.
    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.

    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. 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.

    Regards
    Proof of God

    The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
    "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]


    Visit Ansâr Al-'Adl's personal page HERE.
    Excellent resources on Islam listed HERE.

  22. #157
    anis_z24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    272
    Threads
    21
    Reputation
    176
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by nishom View Post
    If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
    Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.
    Salam
    the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
    Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


    {21.03} Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.

  23. #158
    MinAhlilHadeeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,888
    Threads
    276
    Reputation
    38979
    Rep Power
    105
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by HeiGou View Post
    According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.
    This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?

    Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.

  24. #159
    MinAhlilHadeeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,888
    Threads
    276
    Reputation
    38979
    Rep Power
    105
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    15

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by anis_z24 View Post
    Salam
    the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
    Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


    {21.03} Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

    Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.
    Subhan-Allah.....

  25. Report bad ads?
  26. #160
    HeiGou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    1,977
    Threads
    44
    Reputation
    -2304
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Proof of God

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~ View Post
    This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?
    That is an excellent question. Scientists are still working on these issues. Perhaps you might like to tell us what the Quran says about brane theory?

    Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.
    Except single cells did not pop out of thin air by chance. They built on a billion years or so of existence and slow evolution. What are the chances of that?
    Proof of God

    Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal

  27. Hide
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Hey there! Proof of God 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. Proof of God
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. proof of god?
    By sugaray21 in forum Clarifications about Islam
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 02:20 AM
  2. I need proof
    By AnonymousPoster in forum Advice & Support
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 09:56 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 09:42 PM
  4. What is the Proof ??
    By asadxyz in forum Clarifications about Islam
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 05:03 PM
  5. No proof...?
    By Al-Zaara in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-19-2006, 09:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create