I'd like to start of this discussion with my point of view on the existence of God.
First of all, while I do believe that the existence of God is something that can be recognized by all human beings, I don't believe someone can 'prove' the existence of God and guide an atheist to theism. Atheists ask for proof of the existence of God, and they ask that, if God truly exists, why doesn't He simply demonstrate His existence to the world by sending some sign down from heaven etc. Such a mentality is described in the Qur'an by God, revealed over 1400 years ago:
26:1-8. Ta. Sin. Mim.
These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.
It may be thou frettest thy soul with grief, that they do not become Believers.
If (such) were Our Will, We could send down to them from the sky a Sign, to which they would bend their necks in humility.
But there comes not to them a newly-revealed Message from ((Allah)) Most Gracious, but they turn away therefrom.
They have indeed rejected (the Message): so they will know soon (enough) the truth of what they mocked at!
Do they not look at the earth,- how many noble things of all kinds We have produced therein?
Verily, in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe.
Thus, God mentions that He could easily send a sign that would cause them all to have faith, yet that would eliminate the test in life. We are being tested to see if we will turn to our own hearts and realize the signs of God.
It is perfectly acceptable to conclude the existence of God from His signs. Consider an analogy.
Members reading this post have concluded that the I, the author of this post, am a real person based on the signs of my existence. Yet, you have no proof that I am a real person and not merely an automated response, nor a figment of your imagination, nor that you are hallucinating as you read my post, nor that your computer has been infected with a virus that randomly displays characters on your screen in a forum post, forming the body of my message.
Yet, you know that there is a human being that has typed this post, and you know this based on various signs of my existence. The fact that I interact, the fact that I respond, the fact that I create posts and make a visible impact on the forum, the fact that I display human considerations and thoughts etc.
Simialrly, thesists conclude the existence of God.
I want to make it clear that I am not going to set out to prove the existence of God to our atheists. I can't give them faith, only God can, as He mentions in the Qur'an:
28:56 Thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.
And who are those who God guides?
42:13 The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, difficult is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him).
So God guides those who turn to Him. The problem is that human beings, in their arrogance never thank God for the blessings He bestowed upon them. The only time they turn to God is when they suffer from a tragedy, the death of a loved one, then they realize that they are vulnerable and in need of God's protection. So many people only come to religion when they face massive problems and have to turn back to the same Creator the denied. They beg for the love with earlier they had rejected.
Many many people only convert when they realize they are in trouble. It is unfortunate that people foolishly wait for tragedy to turn them to God.
But why would God guide someone who does not turn to Him for guidance?
Coming back to the existence of God, the way I see it, there are many signs of the existence of God. Theists offer several proofs which I shall point out later on. However, the atheist seems to think that it is satisfactory to simply reject the proofs of God's existence, without any need for proofs of God's absence. Such a view is illogical, since believing that God does not exist is a belief like any other, and it must be supported with evidence. Yet an atheist can bring absoloutely no strong arguments to prove that God does not exist, so they operate within a vaccuum of evidence. Atheism is consequently a very weak position because it advocates a possibility like advocating that one's friend does not exist but is merely a robot created by extraterrestrial life forms. Sure, its possible, but its not likely to be taken seriously by anyone.
When I brought up this point in a previous debate with an atheist, he thought he could refute my point by challenging me to prove that an invisible pink unicorn does not exist, which he felt is analogous to asking an atheist to prove that God does not exist. I answered that I really did not need to prove the non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn since it has no affect on me. Thus, I would entertain the possibility if it was supported by some arguments the way theists support the existence of God, but I wouldn't reject the existence of an invisible pink unicorn if I cannot argue against its existence by providing proof of its absence.
But even if I accept the presence of an invisible pink unicorn, it makes no difference because I would switch then to religious arguments and analyse a belief in an invisible pink unicorn just as I would examine any other religion. The concept itself is contradictory because as soon as something is invisible, it cannot be considered pink since colours are the result of visible light energy released from electrons dropping in energy levels. And we would have to get into a discussion on the attributes of this creature as well. Consequently, it may prove similar to the Christian belief in a triune God, which I reject as self-contradictory.
So the problem still remains for atheists to prove the non-existence of God.
The other point I'd like to make is that atheists claim to reject the metaphysical world and all concepts beyond matter. Yet, they themselves have found that such a method is inadequate in explaining the universe, thus they have had to invent abstract concepts to cover up for their use of metaphysical factors in the universe. For example, we often hear the terms force, energy, and power in physics, but can anyone explain what these terms really are? Are they not concepts beyond the physical world? What is the source of all energy?
I'll leave it at that for now.
Last edited by Ansar Al-'Adl; 08-05-2005 at 08:10 PM.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
So are we all agnostics to a greater or lesser extend?
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.
Indeed my previous statement sounds pretty agnostic:
Well, I am convinced that I follow God in the way he wants me to, I believe I do, I trust that I do ... but I don't know.
Regardless of what others may tell you, I think none of us know!
We won't know until the time of our death ... and then we will all know the whole truth.
Peace
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
This would be my distinction. The agnostic position is that some things are unknowable. This is regards to clear evidence and facts. OK we got that. I think from some of the replies, we all have some level of doubt.
But you got to take you shot/guess about how things work. A person who calls himself a pure agnostic refuses to do this. Once you do take a guess you are either an atheist or theist, with differing levels of conviction.
There are people (or person) on this board who catagorize themselves as agnostic, but tend to believe there is some kind of god (I forget who it is). Now are we the same position since I'm a weak (agnostic) atheist?
Personally, there is 0% doubt in my mind that Allah exists. I just know that he does. It's not something that I can explain and those atheists and agnostics amongst you might think I'm crazy, but I'm really not. I am absolutely 100% sure that Allah exists. I know it!
Last edited by Uthman; 06-13-2008 at 08:04 PM.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
This would be my distinction. The agnostic position is that some things are unknowable. This is regards to clear evidence and facts. OK we got that. I think from some of the replies, we all have some level of doubt.
But you got to take you shot/guess about how things work. A person who calls himself a pure agnostic refuses to do this. Once you do take a guess you are either an atheist or theist, with differing levels of conviction.
There are people (or person) on this board who catagorize themselves as agnostic, but tend to believe there is some kind of god (I forget who it is). Now are we the same position since I'm a weak (agnostic) atheist?
Thanks.
Yeah I guess I can agree to you at some point however I wouldn't go to far as to say that an agnostic has no inclination to either side, because that would be practically impossible. So instead I would suggest that small inclinations either way are allowed for agnostics. Problem is then where do you draw the line (like Whatsthepoint just pointed out)?
Personally, there is 0% doubt in my mind that Allah exists. I just know that he does. It's not something that I can explain and those atheists and agnostics amongst you might think I'm crazy, but I'm really not. I am absolutely 100% sure that Allah exists. I know it!
Not even a tinee doubt? It's good to be open to new ideas. Heck, I'm not 100% sure god doesn't exists and definitely open to any evidence that points towards one.
Not even a tinee doubt? It's good to be open to new ideas. Heck, I'm not 100% sure god doesn't exists and definitely open to any evidence that points towards one.
I guess this depends from one Muslim to another. If you're interested in this, there's a thread about this here. According to the poll; the majority never or sometimes have doubts. I wasn't the majority. I often have doubts. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. How long does your mind need to entertain a thought before you can call it a "doubt"? Are we talking about a quick thought that gets refuted by your own logic immediately afterwards, or are we talking about something you don't have an answer to and is pushed in the back of your mind and comes out to say hi every once in a while.
Not even a tinee doubt? It's good to be open to new ideas. Heck, I'm not 100% sure god doesn't exists and definitely open to any evidence that points towards one.
I tend to agree with you.
I cannot imagine that anybody who actively engages with his faith, who reads, ponders and discusses spiritual/religious/theological matters, does not have at least times of questioning and doubt.
I think questioning is a very healthy thing ... can following a religion blindly without a conscious and informed decision be a good thing, I wonder?
People who claim to never have doubts or questions tend to make me a little suspicious ... either that or they are just more godly and saintly than me!
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Not even a tinee doubt? It's good to be open to new ideas. Heck, I'm not 100% sure god doesn't exists and definitely open to any evidence that points towards one.
There are times when I briefly do have doubts but that is very rare. The vast majority of the time I am completely sure that he exists and the idea of him not existing just does not even enter my mind at all. I really don't know how to explain the fact that it is more than just a belief for me. It is sure knowledge. Quite clearly, atheists and agnostics do not have this experience.
Btw, be assured that I am absolutely 100% open to new ideas.
Last edited by Uthman; 06-13-2008 at 09:38 PM.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Interesting. No doubt at all? Was it as though you knew he existed?
I didn't have a doubt in that I knew he existed but when I had questions, I just concluded that he was different or weird. The only doubt I had was what was god's first memory since I couldn't imagine something going back for eternity. Though as an atheist, that question turns to why is there something rather than nothing since it's kinda the same thing.
Looked at most of the slideshow and listened to 5 minutes of the Atheism and Materialism recording and I've lost count of the number of points I wanted to make.
First things first I suppose, the definition of atheism.
The prefix 'a' (or 'an') is from the Greek meaning 'absence of', therefore atheism can be defined as the absence of a theistic belief, though it has come to also mean the rejection of theistic belief.
agnosticism:
Thomas Huxley invented the term and said the following about it:
"it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
In my opinion, if someone were to assert "we cannot possibly know whether God exists or not", they would cease to be an agnostic because this is a belief not founded in logic or evidence. This is unless the definition of God included in his attributes the state of being unknowable in which case the agnostic would just be stating the obvious.
--
In your recording you say that science cannot go beyond the natural world, but you are making the assumption and claim that such a thing as the supernatural world exists. Where is the evidence that it does?
Quoting the Quran to prove the Quran isn't going to help.
The brother mentioned in another lecture that it's not valid to use one book and using merely quotes from the same book to proove it. And he didn't use that method, rather he used proofs which are present in the Qur'an. So, he didn't use the ayats such as: "This a book revelead from Allah" but he used logical arguments present in the Qur'an.
Where is the evidence that it does?
Listen to the lecture please. You listened only to the first five minutes, the brother did mention a lot of points refuting atheism.
In times of difficulties don't ever say, "Allah, I have a big problem!", say "Hey problem, I have a big Allah!"
In my opinion, if someone were to assert "we cannot possibly know whether God exists or not", they would cease to be an agnostic because this is a belief not founded in logic or evidence.
Whatever Huxley may or may not have in mind the belief in quotes pretty much currently defines an agnostic, at least as that word is used today. Strictly speaking agnosticism is the "doctrine that only material things can be known, and hence knowledge of God, or for that matter anything supernatural, is impossible". There is no requirement that I am aware of for "logic or evidence"; indeed the doctine denies relevant logic or evidence is possible.
Whatever Huxley may or may not have in mind the belief in quotes pretty much currently defines an agnostic, at least as that word is used today. Strictly speaking agnosticism is the "doctrine that only material things can be known, and hence knowledge of God, or for that matter anything supernatural, is impossible". There is no requirement that I am aware of for "logic or evidence"; indeed the doctine denies relevant logic or evidence is possible.
How does one know things without logic or evidence in a natural world?
I thought I'd covered the unknowable thing with the line after the one you quoted. If God is defined as unknowable then yes it makes perfect sense for one to claim that God is unknowable, but it doesn't really say anything about the person making the claim. You could believe that God is supernatural and unknowable and be a theist by belief.
Abdu-l-Majeed: I'll listen to it all, but it's no good making up definitions and then breaking them down. Of course the denial that there is the possibility of a God is just as flimsy as belief in a God when it comes down to evidence. The only thing you should take from that is that both are equally as pointless.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks