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]
Okay, fair enough. Now I only asked about the source of energy, but you brought in the 'source of life' into the question as well, so I'm curious as to what you meant by that exactly.
I simply mean that if something did indeed create life, or was the original source of life, then that thing is a mystery.
Also, we have agreed now that A is the mysterious creator and sustainer of the universe, right?
Yes, we have invented a hypothetical metaphysical concept called A which we have designated as being the mysterious creator and sustainer of the universe.
Now, logically, would A not also have to be eternal?
Not necessarily. We can say nothing about how A originally came to be, nor can we be certain that the universe itself will last forever. The answer to the question "will the universe last forever?" has to be "nobody knows". It will either end at some point (which I believe is the Islamic point of view - or does that just apply to the Earth?) or it will last indefinitely; which of these is true is impossible for us to determine. Also, if the universe were to disappear, this would tell us nothing about whether A continued to exist or not. A could have disappeared, malfunctioned or else decided to stop sustaining life and energy, or there could be another explanation. At this stage, so many variables are possible that it is impossible for us to use pure logic to determine whether A would be eternal or not.
or there could be another explanation. At this stage
Ah yes, Hypothosis. Like the multiverse being recycled by blackholes since we don't actually know what lies on the "Other Side"!
That notion aside, it's the same as the ID theology of the watch in the sand. One wonders who made the watchmaker that made such a perfectly designed piece, like a droplet of water thrown out of my kitchen on a winters night. I wonder if the Crystal claimed me as the intelligent designer of such complexity as an ice crystal or was it a chemical reaction without a need for random probability.
Ah yes, Hypothosis. Like the multiverse being recycled by blackholes since we don't actually know what lies on the "Other Side"!
Yes, exactly - the discussion Ansar and I are having about A is entirely hypothetical.
That notion aside, it's the same as the ID theology of the watch in the sand. One wonders who made the watchmaker that made such a perfectly designed piece, like a droplet of water thrown out of my kitchen on a winters night. I wonder if the Crystal claimed me as the intelligent designer of such complexity as an ice crystal or was it a chemical reaction without a need for random probability.
I like your idea about the ice crystal, but I don't really see how what I said is linked to the watchmaker argument...?
Well in a way the ice cristal does show creation. It might have been formed through a totaly explainable scientific proces, but one can still marvel at how some charesteristic inhereted both in natural law and in waterdrups were "just" wright for this beautiful phenomenom to take place...
I simply mean that if something did indeed create life, or was the original source of life, then that thing is a mystery.
But are you just using this to elaborate on the point of the source of energy being the course of all existence and therefore the source of life? Or are you making an independent point about that which gives life to dead matter? I just wanted to clarify.
Not necessarily. We can say nothing about how A originally came to be, nor can we be certain that the universe itself will last forever.
What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?
Also, maybe you could also explain to me how and why you feel that A sustains the universe, I'm interested in that point as well. :brother:
Yes, exactly - the discussion Ansar and I are having about A is entirely hypothetical.
By that do you mean that its built on a supposition or that its simply discussed through logic? If you mean the former, then I'm not sure what has been assumed here.
Thank you for this interesting dialogue.
Regards
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
But are you just using this to elaborate on the point of the source of energy being the course of all existence and therefore the source of life? Or are you making an independent point about that which gives life to dead matter? I just wanted to clarify.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The "course" of existence? Do you mean "source"?
What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?
With regard to your main argument here, the simple answer is I don't know. That's why I call it a mystery.
Some sources of energy do "come into existence", such as the sun and all the stars, which we know have a life cycle. Energy itself, though, must have existed as long as the universe. Where it came from originally is unknown. As to whether this source of energy stretches back infinitely in time, or came into existence itself at some point, again, nobody knows.
With regard to your question here about the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe, you're right in your implication if I understand you correctly: it is presumably almost possible to imagine A continuing to exist should some great calamity befall the universe and bring it to an end. Almost possible to imagine A without the universe. But once you start talking about something outside the universe, there's a severe difficulty because the universe is simply "all that there is."
Also, maybe you could also explain to me how and why you feel that A sustains the universe, I'm interested in that point as well. :brother:
Yes, I think I made a mistake there - I was thinking that energy itself sustains the universe, so therefore the source of it indirectly sustains the universe; however, there are obviously parts of the universe, and items within it, that do not require energy to continue existing. It would be more accurate to simply say that energy sustains life.
By that do you mean that its built on a supposition or that its simply discussed through logic? If you mean the former, then I'm not sure what has been assumed here.
Well, it's hypothetical from my point of view, since we're talking about something, A, which I claim to be unknown. That is the supposition, and we have been discussing its logical ramifications.
Thank you for this interesting dialogue.
Thanks to you too. I always enjoy thought-experiments - they're good for the mind, like chess or crossword puzzles.
Steve - Well in a way the ice cristal does show creation. It might have been formed through a totaly explainable scientific proces
I think you mean basic chemistry
Steve - but one can still marvel at how some charesteristic inhereted both in natural law and in waterdrups were "just" wright for this beautiful phenomenom to take place...
Yes, one could also throw 300 magnets in a bin and shake the bin then marvel and the amazing complaxity in the way that all the magnets bonded and created a "Complex Structure". But am I the creator of such a complex structure that is so improbable to repeat itself entirely matching the pattern that the magnets must have been placed together by a creator..............
Ansar Al Adl - What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?
Are you not simply trying to state Einstiens E = MC(Square) model. Matter comes from raw energy, and matter can turn into raw energy. This theory paved the way to Nuclear Explosions and left a prediction, the prediction was that if E = MC (Square) was correct then scientists needed to look for the remains of a massive unimaginable explosion as the birth of the universe. This prediction of such was later confirmed when we found the faint echoes of the "Big Bang".
if the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?
As an Hypothosis then yes, but also one needs to consider a "Life and death" approach that is eternal. Destroying Matter causes energy, energy causes matter thus the loop begins.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The "course" of existence? Do you mean "source"?
Yes, My mistake.
Some sources of energy do "come into existence", such as the sun and all the stars, which we know have a life cycle.
But here you are using 'source' in a different sense. We know that these are simply transforming energy from one form into another. its related to root's point:
format_quote Originally Posted by root
Are you not simply trying to state Einstiens E = MC(Square) model. Matter comes from raw energy, and matter can turn into raw energy. This theory paved the way to Nuclear Explosions and left a prediction, the prediction was that if E = MC (Square) was correct then scientists needed to look for the remains of a massive unimaginable explosion as the birth of the universe. This prediction of such was later confirmed when we found the faint echoes of the "Big Bang".
e=mc^2 represents the fact that matter contains energy. So these aren't exactly 'sources' in the same way that A is.
Energy itself, though, must have existed as long as the universe. Where it came from originally is unknown. As to whether this source of energy stretches back infinitely in time, or came into existence itself at some point, again, nobody knows.
What other plausible explanation can there be? If we agree that there is a source of energy, then such a source could not have come into existence because then it would need a source for its energy as well. Hence, it only seems logical to me that the source would stretch back infinitely in time. Could you explain any alternative?
But once you start talking about something outside the universe, there's a severe difficulty because the universe is simply "all that there is."
Good point. This means that our definition is restricted to the observable universe.
Well, it's hypothetical from my point of view, since we're talking about something, A, which I claim to be unknown. That is the supposition, and we have been discussing its logical ramifications.
Althogh A is unknown, we know it exists in some way or another.
Peace
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
In that case I would say I was expressing the first of your options.
But here you are using 'source' in a different sense. We know that these are simply transforming energy from one form into another. its related to root's point:
e=mc^2 represents the fact that matter contains energy. So these aren't exactly 'sources' in the same way that A is.
Yes, you're clearly referring to an ultimate or original source of energy, whereas the sun etc. are what I called "by-products" of the original mysterious source of energy.
What other plausible explanation can there be? If we agree that there is a source of energy, then such a source could not have come into existence because then it would need a source for its energy as well. Hence, it only seems logical to me that the source would stretch back infinitely in time. Could you explain any alternative?
Earlier on, in the same post where you labelled A you said this:
We know that A must have existed prior to the creation of the universe
For some reason this part didn't register fully the first time I read your post, which perhaps explains why you didn't see the relevance of my reference to the lifespan of the universe. We were assuming different things, and I apologise for the confusion. (I'm normally quite an attentive reader, honest!)
Anyway, I'm not sure I accept this point, for the same reasons I gave about not being able to talk about something outside the universe. As you've agreed to limit the scope of this discussion to the observable universe, does this assumption still stand? I don't see how it can.
Althogh A is unknown, we know it exists in some way or another.
Yes, absolutely. There must be an ultimate source of energy - I think the best guess on offer currently is the Big Bang, estimated to have happened 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago. What happened before that is anybody's guess, as I see it.
Ansar, could I invite a response from you on this materialistic explanation of the origin of god-belief, originally given by me in a response to Aqib?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqib
Studies of cultural anthropology and social history also bear out man’s yearning for a Spiritual Unity.
This is broadly true. However, many anthropologists give a different explanation for the origin of this belief than you do. Many think that the god-belief is a result of fear, particularly fear as a result of being unable to explain natural phenomena. Primitive people living thousands of years ago would not understand why their citizens or crops would suddenly die, as they had little or no understanding of disease and infection; they would not understand why the seasons occur, since they had no understanding of planetary motions or climatology. These and many other inexplicable, unpredictable events might well have caused them to think that they were at the mercy of some higher power, rather than the forces of nature, and, what is more, that this higher power was to be feared, supplicated, worshipped. This belief would have been beneficial for the community, since it would encourage a strong group bond. It would also be useful for the leaders of the community, as a highly effective method of social control. (Incidentally, some anthropologists believe that the cycle of the seasons explains the prevalence of another common belief in primitive religions: that of the death and resurrection of the god. This belief is well known in certain contemporary religions too, though not Islam).
What I'm saying here is the gist of a particular (fairly widespread) anthropological view. It is the one I subscribe to - what do you think?
Greetings to all,
I'd like to resuscitate this thread, because there's one aspect of the debate that we haven't really touched on yet. It is the problem of evil. Theists often say that atheists are happy to attack the standard "proofs" of the existence of god without providing arguments of their own. I believe that the problem of evil is the strongest argument in the atheist's favour. Here is the oldest known formulation of the problem, attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE):
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
I do not believe that this argument has ever been answered satisfactorily. Often, theists will give an answer involving the ideas of a test or a punishment. But why would god test us? Is he insecure? Why are god's "punishments" so indiscriminate (think of the huge variety of people who perished as a result of the tsunami - were they all irredeemable sinners?)?
Many questions surround this topic. Can anyone clarify the theist's position on this question?
By Design, If God did indeed create man. Then he is also the intelligent designer for famine, disease, Tsunami's and everything else capable of killing man.
In reflection the willful distruction of lives by mass is an act of evil.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
I think root's got a good point - any theist who accepts intelligent design theory must also accept that god created tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, disease and everything else in his gruesome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. This is one of the reasons why god has always seemed to me to be a very nasty character indeed.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Ah, good point. However, as a muslim, I perceive these events described as a form of test. E.g. It is God's way of testing us.
I can see what you mean. The Government could raise tax levels very high and in order to avoid an outcry from it's subjects can claim that they are giving us a hard life because God is testing us!
As for a test. Why does he seem to test his most loyal the most often and hardest yet allow the kuffaars to have a relatively easy time of it....... I can only think religously that is probably because Muslims will have the better life after death and the Kuffaars are in for an eternity of the nasty place "hell". But in YOUR opinion will God send a Christian or a Jew to hell.
What is god testing us for? Is it to determine who is faithful and who is not? If he already knows in advance everything that will happen, what is the point of the test?
What is god testing us for? Is it to determine who is faithful and who is not? If he already knows in advance everything that will happen, what is the point of the test?
In a school test, any good teacher more or less knows how each of his students will do. Yet, they don't know exactly the percentage that the student will achieve.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
In a school test, any good teacher more or less knows how each of his students will do. Yet, they don't know exactly the percentage that the student will achieve.
A good point, Osman, but the knowledge god is credited with having far exceeds knowling "more or less" what will happen. In fact, god is said to be omniscient - he apparently knows absolutely everything. In the light of this, I can't see the need for a test.
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