The existence of God

[Abdul Fattah]

Not exactly, there's two diffrent factors. Strength was refering to the potential energy of the messenger particels rather then their range. So EM has a short range but is a strong force. While gravity has a long range but is a weak force.

Thats why the magnet cannot pick up the paperclip with EM-force, but the moon can infleunce the tides with gravity.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings and ,

Visiting the poetry forum, I came across a couple of poems that touch on some of the issues raised here, and I thought I would share them with you guys:

Allah Knows Best


...Allah tests us often

With suffering and with sorrow

He tests us not to punish us

But to help us meet tomorrow



For growing trees are strengthened

If they withstand the storm

And the sharp cut of the chisel

Gave the marble grace and form...

(http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=6999)


Science and Faith

Once Science said to Faith:

"My eye can see all that is in this world;
The Entire world is within my net.
I am only concerned with material things,
What have I to do with spiritual matters?
I can strike a thousand melodies,
And openly proclaim all the secrets that I learn."

Faith said:

"With your magic even the waves in the sea are set ablaze,
You can pollute the atmosphere with foul, poisonous gases.
When you associated with me, you were light,
When you broke off from me, your light became fire.
You were of Divine origin,
But you have been caught in the clutches of Shaytan.
Come, make this wasteland a garden once again.
Borrow from me a little of my ecstasy,
And in the world set up a paradise.
From the day of creation we have been associates,
We are the low and high tunes of the same melody."

(http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=106330&postcount=2)

Peace.

 

[Protected_Diamond]

Intresting debate, very intresting debate, masha Allah :statisfie keep it going!

 

[DaSangarTalib]

Greetings and ,

Visiting the poetry forum, I came across a couple of poems that touch on some of the issues raised here, and I thought I would share them with you guys:

Allah Knows Best


(http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=6999)


Science and Faith

(http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=106330&postcount=2)

Peace.

im glad 2 be of sum help 2 dis elerlastin and neverendin debate......discussion...wateva:brother::thumbs_up

 

[muslim dude]

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if I am repeating points that were raised elsewhere. Ma'shallah this is a very interesting thread and I wanted to contribute some points. Remember, any mistakes I make here and elsewhere are my fault and any good I state is from Allah.

In response to some of the points czgibson had raised a while ago...

The first point he mentions is one I agree with. Arguments for or against the existence of God have a history of not being convincing if you are on the other side, so to speak. People are usually reluctant to change their mind on this issue on the strength of an argument or a series of arguments. And rightly so. Belief in god is a matter of faith, which is not reached by arguments but by personal conviction (I'm assuming here. I clearly do not understand how faith in god is reached).

I like Anwar also have to disagree here. The whole reason God sent down Messengers with clear evidences is to persuade people with clear arguments.

That is why Moses (pbuh) was sent down with superior "magic" to counter the "magical" deceptions of the sorcerers of Pharaoh (Interesting to read in the Qur'an that the masters of the trade, the sorcerers who knew their craft inside out recognised that Moses (pbuh) "magic" could only have come from God).

That is why Jesus (pbuh) was sent down miracles like curing lepers, giving sight to the blind and so forth to counteract the greatest physicians of the time, the people of the Roman empire. People of that time knew the limits of medical technology and hence knew the ability of Jesus (pbuh) could have only come from God.

That is why Muhammad (pbuh), the seal of the prophets was sent with the Qur'an (Recital) to the people who were the masters of their language bar none. They recognised that no way, that the words of the Qur'an could have ever been produced by any creature (creation). So, they recognised that the Qur'an could only ever be the words of God (The Creator).

(Qur'an, Chapter 41 (Fussilat: They are explained in detail): 1 - 3)
"Ha Mim"
"A revelation from Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful"
"A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; - a Qur'an in Arabic for people who know."

(Qur'an, Chapter 12 (Yusuf: (Prophet) Joseph): 1 - 3)
"Alif-Lam-Ra These are the Verses of the Clear Book."
"Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an in order that you may understand."
"We relate unto you (Muhammad pbuh) the best of stories through Our Revelations unto you, of this Qur'an.
And before this (i.e. before the coming of Divine Inspiration to you), you were among those who knew nothing about it (the Qur'an)."

(Qur'an, Chapter 14 (Ibrahim: (Prophet) Abraham): 1)
"Alif-Lam-Ra (This is) a Book which We have revealed unto you (Oh Muhammad pbuh) in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness into light by their Lord's Leave to the Path of the All-Mighty, the Owner of all Praise."

Also, as a side note, some scholars say that there is a double sign/argument/miracle in the Qur'an for people in this day and age. Like czgibson stated, the people of the current generation has a lot more knowledge of the world we live, more so than the people of 2000 years ago.

Think of how much more we understand about the universe than people from say 2000 years ago.

The Qur'an contains facts about this world that could not have been known at the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and so further strengthens the arguments that Qur'an is the word of God. By that, I mean our generation is at such a time that can fully appreciate some of the statements in the Qur'an through new technological advances and that is indeed a special favour for us from God. Subhanallah, truly, there is no one worthy of worship but Allah, The Most Merciful, The Most Kind.

Also, what's interesting to me, is that you needed arguments from authority to prove that Ansar and Steve are human beings and are not automated bots, i.e. The Turing Test. I guess you can think of the Noble Qur'an as the "Turing Test" of an evidence of God and the proof of the messengership of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

I know you are not an automated response due to the Turing test

What I am trying to illustrate with this point is that there is no shame in saying you gained knowledge from authority. In your case, the teacher(s) that taught you about the Turing test - well unless you are claiming that you knew of the Turing Test the moment you came out of your mother's womb!

This is how people learn, from each other, especially the ones with experience and especially from the ones that gained knowledge. What the people of revealed religions say is that we gained knowledge about God from teachers specially taught by God and there is no shame in that. This type of teachers are known as prophets and they taught mankind that no one is worthy of worship but The Creator and how to worship our Creator and it is for our own benefit to worship our Creator.

(Qur'an, Chapter 96 (Al-Alaq: The Clot): 1 - 5)

"Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists)."
"He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood)."
"Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous."
"Who has taught (the writing) by the pen."
"Who has taught man that which he knew not."

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude, and welcome to the forum!

That is why Jesus (pbuh) was sent down miracles like curing lepers, giving sight to the blind and so forth to counteract the greatest physicians of the time, the people of the Roman empire. People of that time knew the limits of medical technology and hence knew the ability of Jesus (pbuh) could have only come from God.

It would be more accurate to say that some people accepted that Jesus' ability came from god. Many people did not accept this to be the case, notably the people who had him crucified.

The Qur'an contains facts about this world that could not have been known at the time of Muhammad (pbuh) and so further strengthens the arguments that Qur'an is the word of God. By that, I mean our generation is at such a time that can fully appreciate some of the statements in the Qur'an through new technological advances and that is indeed a special favour for us from God.

Are you referring to the vague "scientific" statements in the Qur'an? I've never found them very convincing, as I think I've explained on another thread.

What I am trying to illustrate with this point is that there is no shame in saying you gained knowledge from authority. In your case, the teacher(s) that taught you about the Turing test - well unless you are claiming that you knew of the Turing Test the moment you came out of your mother's womb!

I'm not sure you've understood what is meant by the phrase "argument from authority". It refers to an argument where someone says "this is the case" with no logical argument to back it up. In that situation, the only measure of the statement's truth-value is the credibility of the speaker.

On the Turing Test, no, I'm not claiming to have known about it since I was born! True, the idea was first shown to me by a teacher (one of my professors at university). I did not accept it until I had read about it and evaluated it for myself. When I did so, it was not for the reason that Alan Turing was a very clever man, and therefore we should believe everything he said; it was because it seemed reasonable to me, and a useful measure in the field of artificial intelligence.

This is different from religious claims, where there is often no corroborating evidence which we can use to judge the truth-value of a statement - we simply have to accept the word of a religious authority. For instance, none of the statements in the Qur'an about the nature of Paradise can be verified by anyone who is currently alive. If you believe them to be true, you are basing that solely on an appeal to authority - you can have no other way of knowing them to be true. Even then, I would not class beliefs about Paradise as knowledge. They are simply assertions which cannot be verified.

This is how people learn, from each other, especially the ones with experience and especially from the ones that gained knowledge. What the people of revealed religions say is that we gained knowledge about God from teachers specially taught by God and there is no shame in that. This type of teachers are known as prophets and they taught mankind that no one is worthy of worship but The Creator and how to worship our Creator and it is for our own benefit to worship our Creator.

I'm a teacher, and I can assure you that my students will not normally accept something as being true until I've proven it to them by using sources other than myself. I wouldn't be a very good teacher if I just said "this is true because I say so."

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and religion is the only area of learning I can think of where it is accepted as a matter of routine. It is, in fact, the most common justification for religious claims. In science, philosophy, history or any other discipline, it is not usually accepted as a means of attaining knowledge.

Peace

 

[Silver Pearl]

I know your comments were addressing the brother directly but I hope you don’t mind my intervention.

Jews, Christians and Muslims believed them to be direct interventions by the deity in nature. So they're not miracles, but they're similar, since in a miracle, the deity is held to have intervened in such a way as to break the laws of nature.

As Brother Ansar has indicated so on numerous times, Jews, Christians nor Muslims found such counter to be a miracle. Therefore when such argument has been refuted it is irrelevant to attempt to continue with your counterpart.

The increased scientific knowledge humanity has amassed indicates that if someone has been "raised from the dead", then they were not in fact dead. Drugs can be given to people that can slow the pulse and breathing to give the appearance of death, before they are revitalised to great applause. This is how the "zombies" of voodoo culture in Haiti are brought about.



There are natural processes that can explain the parting of the Red Sea - here's a Russian scientist giving his view of events:

Parting of the Red Sea

Now if raising the dead took place before an era where such technology was yet not discovered what defense would you use to explain such event?

Your link does not work….

In addition, I’m sure you’re very familiar with the flaws and weakness of theories, with time science improves and many of the things we thought we knew are contradicted by new understanding. Taking merely someone’s discovery and ‘his view’ simply because it backs up your ideology doesn’t always go down very well. But I’ll be interested to read the article anyways.

As for feeding thousands of people with one meal - the evidence I've seen for that is so flimsy that it's more likely that the event never actually happened.

Ah, yes I figured you’d say that, after all it is easier to deny it. However, there is that 50% that such incident took place, with time comes new discovery.

The objection is resolved according to your understanding of god, and I apologise if I've seemed reluctant to accept this. There are two concepts of god at work here: that including the free will bestowed on humanity, which you have espoused, and the classical sense, which assumes that god is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and which assumes nothing else. I've been getting confused between the two - sorry.

However, I do not believe the objection is resolved in the terms of the classical assumptions about god. You still need to resolve the objection relating to that concept before you can legitimately add other assumptions about free will and moral responsibility being given to humans by god. This is the point I've been trying to get across - not very well, it appears.

The problem that seems to be here is that you have a tendency of having a very black or white view of God. An image which does not actually fit in Islam but rather an image you have conjured based on what you knew and filled in the gaps (perhaps?). Being humans that are able to use and have free will does not contradict with an omniscient, omnipresent being. Think of it this way, If I knew what would happen tomorrow does that mean I play a part in what happens? Does that I mean I force you to do what I foresee? Do you know what will happen tomorrow? Had we not free will what would be the point of being created? You find it difficult to comprehend or perhaps have no desire to make sense of the over lap of the two ideas being one.

It is simple, they are not two separate but rather it is possible to have both.

Do you think we have free will? Ignore the fact that you may or may not believe in God. Do you believe that as humans we have free will, to do as we please?

But your understanding of god is built upon that concept! It is an augmentation of it; if an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect being is incompatible with the existence of evil, then how could a being exist which has those qualities and more?

You still hold concepts of pure and evil, good and bad and use that logicality for everything. A good being can existent that is powerful without being evil, or having such nature. Just because you have strength to do everything which we can and can’t comprehend doesn’t mean you have to have qualities of evilness. As humans we have a very limited comprehending of what is around us.

Jinns (what creation Satan originated from) and humans both were given free will, and as humans we became aware of good and bad after Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. Now Satan having sworn to stray God’s creation acts as a force of evil whisper, the source of evil (if that is how you’d like to think of it).

You're absolutely right!

So you’re deep down inside reluctant to even consider such possibility?

It is not possible to demonstrate the existence of god logically. If it were, then there would be no need for faith, and everyone would believe in god without exception.

I’m going to have to disagree with you, it is logical that smoking is bad for health, it causes cancer yet people still smoke. It is logically agreed upon that murder is bad yet people commit it. I highly doubt that even if the Existence of God was logical everyone would be obedient. Don’t underestimate human’s capability of being self-absorbed and arrogant.

I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this part of the discussion.

Do you agree that Muhammad (may Allah’s peace and blessing be upon him) was sane and truthful? Or is there still unexplained doubt?

Why would he go through all that suffering even if he was the Prophet of god? He believed what he was doing was right: you draw your interpretation and I draw mine. I think that's all that can be said.

It is something that some of us may not understand, patience was an asset that the prophet had which many of us can’t achieve. He believed in the message sent to him and to those prophets before him. Why would he not go such pain? After all he was sent a message that would send mankind to the straight path. If you knew some people close to you were about to encounter something bad if they did not follow a certain road to where ever destination they wished to go would you not do your best to drive them to safety? Would you be selfish and just consider your own pain when you know, that if you have patience that many would be save in the long run? What does Muhammad (pbuh) gain from lying?

Yes, much later. Many organisations have had humble beginnings.

Humble beginning does not even explain one third of it.

Did he claim it was entirely false? My understanding was that he retained Allah as the "top god", and simply did away with the others, keeping certain pre-Islamic traditions in order to make the transition easier. Is this not the case?

Allah (swt) is the creator alone; no partners should be associated with him as he has none. Polytheism contradicts with the fundament teaching of Islam. However, you should note that the prophet (pbuh) spread the truth without having to destroy any of the establishment of polytheism, truth stands clear from falsehood.

Peace out

rabbekh firlee if I have spoken something wrong.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Silver Pearl,

I know your comments were addressing the brother directly but I hope you don’t mind my intervention.

No, not at all.

As Brother Ansar has indicated so on numerous times, Jews, Christians nor Muslims found such counter to be a miracle. Therefore when such argument has been refuted it is irrelevant to attempt to continue with your counterpart.

What do you mean by counter? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Now if raising the dead took place before an era where such technology was yet not discovered what defense would you use to explain such event?

What technology do you mean? In Haiti they use plants which have existed for thousands of years...

Your link does not work….

Thanks for pointing this out - I've fixed it now.

In addition, I’m sure you’re very familiar with the flaws and weakness of theories, with time science improves and many of the things we thought we knew are contradicted by new understanding. Taking merely someone’s discovery and ‘his view’ simply because it backs up your ideology doesn’t always go down very well. But I’ll be interested to read the article anyways.

True. We have to take scientific theories on trust until a better theory comes along, but at any given time current scientific theories are the best we have to go on.

Ah, yes I figured you’d say that, after all it is easier to deny it. However, there is that 50% that such incident took place, with time comes new discovery.

Since it's a massively unlikely event (unless the meal was huge), I wouldn't say the chance of it having happened is 50%.

The problem that seems to be here is that you have a tendency of having a very black or white view of God. An image which does not actually fit in Islam but rather an image you have conjured based on what you knew and filled in the gaps (perhaps?). Being humans that are able to use and have free will does not contradict with an omniscient, omnipresent being.

I believe we have free will, but I don't believe there is a god. I don't understand how such a being could exist.

Had we not free will what would be the point of being created?

I don't understand this question. We are created to survive, I think.

You find it difficult to comprehend or perhaps have no desire to make sense of the over lap of the two ideas being one.

The two concepts of god that I mentioned are clearly different, no?

It is simple, they are not two separate but rather it is possible to have both.

You mean we have two simultaneous omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect beings, one who has given us free will and one who hasn't?

Do you think we have free will? Ignore the fact that you may or may not believe in God. Do you believe that as humans we have free will, to do as we please?

Yes. I am not a thorough-going determinist.

You still hold concepts of pure and evil, good and bad and use that logicality for everything. A good being can existent that is powerful without being evil, or having such nature. Just because you have strength to do everything which we can and can’t comprehend doesn’t mean you have to have qualities of evilness. As humans we have a very limited comprehending of what is around us.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Jinns (what creation Satan originated from) and humans both were given free will, and as humans we became aware of good and bad after Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. Now Satan having sworn to stray God’s creation acts as a force of evil whisper, the source of evil (if that is how you’d like to think of it).

These are all beliefs of yours that I don't subscribe to.

So you’re deep down inside reluctant to even consider such possibility?

Well, I've studied logic, and I know that faith does not enter into it.

I’m going to have to disagree with you, it is logical that smoking is bad for health, it causes cancer yet people still smoke.

It's a medical fact that was discovered using the laws of logic, yes. But when people smoke for a long time, they don't do it because they think it is a good thing to do; they do it because they are addicted.

It is logically agreed upon that murder is bad yet people commit it.

This is not a matter of logic but morality. Ethics has only a tangential relationship with logic.

I highly doubt that even if the Existence of God was logical everyone would be obedient. Don’t underestimate human’s capability of being self-absorbed and arrogant.

Now you appear to doubt that the existence of god can be demonstrated logically, whereas before you seemed to say it was a possibility. Have I understood you correctly?

If it could be logically proven, I would be a believer. However, in that situation it would not even be a question of belief, it would be knowledge.

Do you agree that Muhammad (may Allah’s peace and blessing be upon him) was sane and truthful? Or is there still unexplained doubt?

The simple answer is I don't know. See earlier in the thread for my half-formed thoughts on this, and Ansar's rebuttals of them.

If you knew some people close to you were about to encounter something bad if they did not follow a certain road to where ever destination they wished to go would you not do your best to drive them to safety?

What was the bad thing that people were heading towards?

What does Muhammad (pbuh) gain from lying?

He founded a religion, which I believe was his aim.

Allah (swt) is the creator alone; no partners should be associated with him as he has none. Polytheism contradicts with the fundament teaching of Islam.

Yes. The Qur'an is a sustained tribute to the unity of god. In that respect Islam makes far more sense than something like Christianity, to my mind.

However, you should note that the prophet (pbuh) spread the truth without having to destroy any of the establishment of polytheism, truth stands clear from falsehood.

Well, he didn't destroy the establishment of polytheism, but he did away with most of its gods for his system.

This truth you speak of only really stands out if you believe it, so for me this statement is unapplicable.

Peace

 

[Khattab]

Hi Callum,

I have one question for you after reading through the latest posts. If humans are built to survive only what are your beliefs regarding the human bieng ie the intelligence that we have ie to create, teach, think what are the purpose of these things?

Peace

 

[Silver Pearl]

Peace Callum,

What do you mean by counter? I'm not sure what you mean here.

You were trying to give an arguement that had already been refuted, not to mention the fact you have somewhat contradicted yourself. Notice that the events in which you state as being seen as a 'miracle' was never considered such, thus there is no point of arguing such a view when your statement is incorrect.

What technology do you mean? In Haiti they use plants which have existed for thousands of years...

You mean they used plants to distiniquish whether a person was dead and then came to life?

Thanks for pointing this out - I've fixed it now.

No worries

Since it's a massively unlikely event (unless the meal was huge), I wouldn't say the chance of it having happened is 50%.

No it isn't unlikely, just because we find it hard to comprehend such an event occuring does not make its probability weak.

I believe we have free will, but I don't believe there is a god. I don't understand how such a being could exist.

What part of an omnicient God do you find hard to swallow?

I don't understand this question. We are created to survive, I think.

If we were created merely to survive why the need to have such luxury? why strive to be well educated, build a family etc. Why not just feed ourselves? Doesn't quite add up do is it?

The two concepts of god that I mentioned are clearly different, no?

You find it hard to take in the fact that an all-knowing God can give us free-will?

You mean we have two simultaneous omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect beings, one who has given us free will and one who hasn't?

No, you misunderstood my point, It is One God who is all-knowing and bestowed us free-will. There is no need to clove two different images, you're still stuck on this idea of christain's teaching of God. Islam is not the same.

Yes. I am not a thorough-going determinist.

Alright...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

You still see everything as being black or white, or presume that in order for God to be acceptable to you, He must fit in your perception of him and how he is.

These are all beliefs of yours that I don't subscribe to.

Yeah, i suppose you won't agree with the laws and teaching of Islam until you believe Allah (swt).

Well, I've studied logic, and I know that faith does not enter into it.

Not really, logic certainly enters Islam *look at Ansar's post*

It's a medical fact that was discovered using the laws of logic, yes. But when people smoke for a long time, they don't do it because they think it is a good thing to do; they do it because they are addicted.

We are not assesing the consequence and addiction of smoking, simply pointing out that things are logical but humans still do it. Whether that leads them to addiction or not is quite irrelevant.

Now you appear to doubt that the existence of god can be demonstrated logically, whereas before you seemed to say it was a possibility. Have I understood you correctly?

No....

If it could be logically proven, I would be a believer. However, in that situation it would not even be a question of belief, it would be knowledge.

Exactly, you'd follow based solely on knowledge and not the logicality of it. Once again, don't underestimate humans capability of showing arrogance towards even the most clear things.

The simple answer is I don't know. See earlier in the thread for my half-formed thoughts on this, and Ansar's rebuttals of them.

Perhaps it is time we focused on this area, you have to better understand the issue, in order for their to be a clear conclusion in your view. It'd make the arguement alot simpler.....

What was the bad thing that people were heading towards?

Let your imagination answer that, however, such question was irrelevant...would you kindly like to answer it now

He founded a religion, which I believe was his aim.

That would make him a liar.....I truly believe it is important for you to grasp the character of the prophet (pbuh) so that this discussion may progress somewhere rather than go in circles.

Yes. The Qur'an is a sustained tribute to the unity of god. In that respect Islam makes far more sense than something like Christianity, to my mind.

We are getting somewhere

Well, he didn't destroy the establishment of polytheism, but he did away with most of its gods for his system.

See Ansar's comment to this....

This truth you speak of only really stands out if you believe it, so for me this statement is unapplicable.

The truth is always clear, it is a matter of not actually wanting to submit yourself to rules laid by God that blinds people from it.

Peace

 

[muslim dude]

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

czgibson, thanks for your response, especially clearing up on what you meant by "argument from authority".

I'm not you've understood what is meant by the phrase "argument from authority". It refers to an argument where someone says "this is the case" with no logical argument to back it up. In that situation, the only measure of the statement's truth-value is the credibility of the speaker.

So, in essense it is being said that you will find it hard to accept a statement from anyone without thinking about it and without any reasonable evidence, basically if someone says a statement and that is it.

Did You know, when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), that he was the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr accepted it straight away.

And we don't expect you to have the faith and certainty of Abu Bakr, after all he is As-Siddiq (ra). Most people are not like Abu Bakr (ra) but then again not many people knew Muhammad (pbuh) as well as he did whilst both of them were growing up in Makka...

"Ibn Is'haque transmitted that Muhammad bin 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Abdullah bin al-Hasin al-Tamimi narrated that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) said 'I did not invite anybody towards Allah but he stumbled over (my) words, hesitated, and thought it over except Abu Bakr who accepted it immediately without hesitation and did not wait even for a moment"

Source: pg 58 of Hayatus Sahabah (Lives of the Sahabah) vol 1, who I think stated the narration are quoted in "al-Bidayah" voll III p 26 and pg 27.

The credibility of Muhammad (pbuh) as a trustworthy and honest person was without any doubt by the people who have met him (pbuh) including these people who ended up opposing his message. (corroborating evidence can be shown if desired)

I'm a teacher, and I can assure you that my students will not normally accept something as being true until I've proven it to them by using sources other than myself. I wouldn't be a very good teacher if I just said "this is true because I say so."

Right, most of the people of the time (like your students now don't accept your word without looking at evidences) did not accept that Muhammad was the messenger of Allah (pbuh) as true until they heard what Muhammad (pbuh) bought with him (i.e. the Qur'an) and reflected upon it.

So just like you didn't accept the Turing Test just because Alan Turing was a clever man, so a lot of the companions (ra) didn't initially accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a Messenger of Allah just because he was a trustworthy man, but they heard his corroborating evidence, the Majestic Qur'an and the rest as they say is history.

They found the Noble Qur'an more than reasonable - like you expect you students to consult other sources, they knew of the best poetries by men, the best stories by men, the knowledge of this world, the nature of this world, the actions and motivations of men, eloquence - and from these existing evidences, they knew it was just impossible that the Qur'an was something other than the Word of Allah.

The Glorious Qur'an has indeed proven more than a useful measure in the field of how to live one's life and the basis of setting up a just and knowlegable society for billions of people since the revelation of the first verses.

Also you know what? God knows us better than we know ourselves and He is closer to us than our jugular vein. So not only has He stated that He will explain His existence, but also the corroborating evidence of His existence as this will increase the faith and certainty of some His creation.

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 9)
"And upon Allah is the responsibility to explain the Straight Path, but there are ways that turn aside. And had He willed, He would have guided you all (mankind)."

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 10 - 14)
"He it is Who sends down water (rain) from the sky; from it you drink and from it (grows) the vegetation on which you send your cattle to pasture"

"With it He causes to grow for you the crops, the olives, the date-palms, the grapes, and every kind of fruit. Verily! In this is indeed an evident proof and a manifest sign for people who give thought."

"And He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His Command. Surely, in this are proofs for people who understand."

"And whatsoever He has created for you on this earth of varying colours [and qualities from vegetation and fruits, etc. (botanical life) and from animal (zoological life)]. Verily! In this is a sign for people who remember"

"And He it is Who has subjected the sea (to you), that you eat thereof fresh tender meat (i.e. fish), and that you bring forth out of it ornaments to wear. And you see the ships ploughing through it, that you may seek (thus) of His Bounty (by transporting the goods from place to place) and that you may be grateful."

Fine, you may not find these evidences convincing, but at the very least it will be hard to deny that God had told you to think about the various things of this world (i.e. you don't have to worry about verifying Paradise) which can be verified (i.e. it can be verified that rain exists and that the movement of the Sun and Moon follow an established rather than random course etc) and so this is collabarating evidence that you said did not exist in the Qur'an.

It is important to divide knowledge up into "seen" and "unseen". Not only does the Qur'an talk about the unseen, but also the "seen" (as in perceivable) knowledge and this is what we would say are the collabarating evidences in the Qur'an.

These are the evidences than can be verified and you can judge the truth-value of these statements for yourself...

This is different from religious claims, where there is often no corroborating evidence which we can use to judge the truth-value of a statement - we simply have to accept the word of a religious authority.

Once the truth value of the statements referring to "seen" knowledge has been ascertained by oneself, then it means that you would accept the Qur'an as a proof of God and the word of God, thus accepting what the Qur'an refers to "unseen" knowedge (such as Paradise) at face value becames a logical conclusion.

Also, in response to the following statement:

Are you referring to the vague "scientific" statements in the Qur'an? I've never found them very convincing, as I think I've explained on another thread.

Ok, I will have to check out the other threads, but czgibson, if you notice at the end of these verses like verses 11, 12 and 13 of surah An-Nahl, it stated that the people who will fully appreciate these evidences and the language used to describe these evidences are "people who understand"...

Another way of dealing with these evidences is to reflect deeply on it as it a sign (i.e. evidence) for these "people who give thought".

 

[czgibson]

Hi Khattab,

Sorry it's taken me this long to get round to your short question!

I have one question for you after reading through the latest posts. If humans are built to survive only what are your beliefs regarding the human bieng ie the intelligence that we have ie to create, teach, think what are the purpose of these things?

I think these things help us to survive, and give us advantages which most other species do not possess, certainly not to the same level as exists in humans. (I may be doing dolphins and elephants a disservice there - that's one for the biologists!)

After all, a species which can share complex knowledge is bound to have a survival advantage over a species that cannot, don't you think?

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You were trying to give an arguement that had already been refuted, not to mention the fact you have somewhat contradicted yourself. Notice that the events in which you state as being seen as a 'miracle' was never considered such, thus there is no point of arguing such a view when your statement is incorrect.

The argument had been opposed, but not refuted. I'd like to make clear the distinction between natural events which are sometimes attributed to god, and events attributed to god which break the laws of nature, commonly called miracles.

You mean they used plants to distiniquish whether a person was dead and then came to life?

No, the drugs I referred to earlier actually occur naturally within certain plants.

No it isn't unlikely, just because we find it hard to comprehend such an event occuring does not make its probability weak.

I definitely think that weakens the probability of an event taking place. If I told you that a round square walked into a restaurant and ordered a pizza, wouldn't you say that the fact that that is difficult to understand makes it less likely that it happened?

What part of an omnicient God do you find hard to swallow?

I've had a go at explaining this earlier on in the thread.

If we were created merely to survive why the need to have such luxury? why strive to be well educated, build a family etc. Why not just feed ourselves? Doesn't quite add up do is it?

Being educated and having families have given us survival advantages in the past, and they help with the project of feeding ourselves.

You find it hard to take in the fact that an all-knowing God can give us free-will?

Since there's a lack of evidence that any omniscient being exists, I find it hard to conceive such a being doing anything.

No, you misunderstood my point, It is One God who is all-knowing and bestowed us free-will. There is no need to clove two different images, you're still stuck on this idea of christain's teaching of God. Islam is not the same.

My misunderstanding. I'm aware that Islam is purely monotheistic.

You still see everything as being black or white, or presume that in order for God to be acceptable to you, He must fit in your perception of him and how he is.

I don't have a perception of god because I don't perceive him!

We are not assesing the consequence and addiction of smoking, simply pointing out that things are logical but humans still do it. Whether that leads them to addiction or not is quite irrelevant.

It's not really irrelevant - my point was that addiction is not a matter of logic, rather compulsion.

Let your imagination answer that, however, such question was irrelevant...would you kindly like to answer it now

Why was the question irrelevant? I asked it because I don't know the answer.

We are getting somewhere

Where are we getting? It's plain to see that the Qur'an preaches the unity of god. Don't get me wrong, I believe it's a hugely important book, but that doesn't mean I believe it contains the truth.

The truth is always clear, it is a matter of not actually wanting to submit yourself to rules laid by God that blinds people from it.

So people can choose to accept the truth? That's very odd. If something is self-evidently true, I cannot choose to accept it, I simply accept it. 2 + 2 =4. That is analytically true. Denying that would be very different from not accepting Islam, which consists mostly of synthetic truths, which have to be verified according to known facts rather than the definitions of terms. Since the facts required to verify Islam (or any theistic religion) are missing, its truths cannot be verified.

Peace

 

[afriend2]

Assalamu Alaikum to all!

aw Alhamdolillah , bhai (muslim dude) im so proud of you! i always wondered why you took so long on the computer! now i know why, keep up the good work!
:statisfie
for those of you who dont know muslim dude is my brother.
:brother:
Wassalam

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

Sorry for the late reply.

So, in essense it is being said that you will find it hard to accept a statement from anyone without thinking about it and without any reasonable evidence, basically if someone says a statement and that is it.

That's what I mean, yes.

Did You know, when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), that he was the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr accepted it straight away.

So he accepted an argument from authority unquestioningly.

The credibility of Muhammad (pbuh) as a trustworthy and honest person was without any doubt by the people who have met him (pbuh) including these people who ended up opposing his message. (corroborating evidence can be shown if desired)

I don't doubt that people saw the Prophet (pbuh) as a trustworthy and honest person, but that on its own has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what he said.

So just like you didn't accept the Turing Test just because Alan Turing was a clever man, so a lot of the companions (ra) didn't initially accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a Messenger of Allah just because he was a trustworthy man, but they heard his corroborating evidence, the Majestic Qur'an and the rest as they say is history.

OK, but that obviously depends to what extent you believe the Qur'an is reliable evidence.

They found the Noble Qur'an more than reasonable - like you expect you students to consult other sources, they knew of the best poetries by men, the best stories by men, the knowledge of this world, the nature of this world, the actions and motivations of men, eloquence - and from these existing evidences, they knew it was just impossible that the Qur'an was something other than the Word of Allah.

Reading the Qur'an, I find it very hard to accept that it is anything other than a product of human endeavour. I've read books where it is hard for me to understand how a human could have produced them (such as the works of Shakespeare), but the Qur'an has never given me this impression. I'm talking subjectively now, but the case for the Qur'an having been written by god is far from proven.

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 10 - 14)
"He it is Who sends down water (rain) from the sky; from it you drink and from it (grows) the vegetation on which you send your cattle to pasture"

It's perfectly possible to understand how rain comes about without needing to bring god into it.

"With it He causes to grow for you the crops, the olives, the date-palms, the grapes, and every kind of fruit. Verily! In this is indeed an evident proof and a manifest sign for people who give thought."

Rain is proof that god exists? Sorry, that is just strange.

"And He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His Command. Surely, in this are proofs for people who understand."

What is all this nonsense about "people who give thought" and "people who understand"? The person who wrote that obviously had no understanding of how rain, day and night actually come about, and so decided to attribute it to god, so that other people who didn't understand would have a way of explaining it.

You've made a number of points that need addressing separately, so forgive me for breaking up your sentences like this:

Fine, you may not find these evidences convincing,

Correct, although I wonder why you present your "evidences" so tentatively. Do you not have confidence in them?

but at the very least it will be hard to deny that God had told you to think about the various things of this world

As far as I'm aware, god has told me nothing.

(i.e. you don't have to worry about verifying Paradise)

If I'm being asked to believe in Paradise, I'd like to have some evidence for it. Imagine I told you that after we die we all go and live in an ice cream factory on Jupiter - you'd quite rightly want some evidence for this belief. If I then told you that you don't need to worry about verifying it, you should just believe it anyway, I expect you would think I had an odd belief, and I'd be surprised if you accepted it.

[God has informed humanity of things] which can be verified (i.e. it can be verified that rain exists and that the movement of the Sun and Moon follow an established rather than random course etc) and so this is collabarating evidence that you said did not exist in the Qur'an.

Well, it's not a hugely wondrous idea to conclude that rain exists. Just because rain exists, that doesn't imply that the things which can't be verified exist too. If that were the case, I could easily make this argument:

Rain exists, therefore the ice cream factory on Jupiter exists.

Once the truth value of the statements referring to "seen" knowledge has been ascertained by oneself, then it means that you would accept the Qur'an as a proof of God and the word of God, thus accepting what the Qur'an refers to "unseen" knowedge (such as Paradise) at face value becames a logical conclusion.

It would have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with faith in authority.

Ok, I will have to check out the other threads, but czgibson, if you notice at the end of these verses like verses 11, 12 and 13 of surah An-Nahl, it stated that the people who will fully appreciate these evidences and the language used to describe these evidences are "people who understand"...

I think it should say "people who believe". If I wanted to understand how rain comes about, I would ask a scientist.

Peace

 

[CWise]

Not in relation directly to this thread but to a number:

I have read through a few of the threads posted on Digg in regards to the Islam and felt I had to comment.

The thread "Top Misconceptions About Islam" was especially true, they way in which Islam is potrayed by the media really does make me ashamed to be associated with "The Western World".

It simply comes down to western media (Government Influenced, by that I mean American, gotta hate media control...) giving the ignorent majority of society something to blame.

People are freaken stupid by nature, anything they don't understand or is different are considered 'evil', so to speak, or my favourite "the cause of the problem". Trying to teach or explain it to these stupid people is like telling a crack head that he doesn't need crack.

I am from New Zealand and consider myself an...... agnostic, but I have always considered Islam a beatiful religion and have wanted to learn Arabic for a long time, just have to get my A into G and dooo it!!!!

Anway, I felt I should comment, and that I am at least one of the 'un-stupid' people, who will do my best to change people's perception of Islam.

Thanx!!

Sam from NZ

PS (Majority of us NZers are un-stupid, i hope anyway

 

[Shadow]

^welcome to the forum Sam
maybe u shud open a thread over here

http://www.islamicboard.com/introduce-yourself/

:welcome:

 

[Silver Pearl]

Greetings to you too

The argument had been opposed, but not refuted. I'd like to make clear the distinction between natural events which are sometimes attributed to god, and events attributed to god which break the laws of nature, commonly called miracles.

I'm aware of the difference between the two. Also i don't see how Ansar merely opposed your point. I guess we are barking at the same tree but from a different direction.

No, the drugs I referred to earlier actually occur naturally within certain plants.

That is not my point, what i asked was did these people distinquish whether a person came to life after death using plant?

I definitely think that weakens the probability of an event taking place. If I told you that a round square walked into a restaurant and ordered a pizza, wouldn't you say that the fact that that is difficult to understand makes it less likely that it happened?

Not really, just because we can't mentally comprehend something does not mean it is unlikely to have happened.You must understand us humans are very limited in terms of our knowledge.

I'll ask a question, How did we come about?

I've had a go at explaining this earlier on in the thread.

Is that a code for i don't want to go through that root again?

Being educated and having families have given us survival advantages in the past, and they help with the project of feeding ourselves.

You don't need to be educated to survive, if we were created simply to survive as you suggested we'd only be programmed to work in that way. However, i'm sure you're aware that humans don't only think 'must keep alive and feed myself' It is human nature to hold on to life and not die, due to fear mostly.

Since there's a lack of evidence that any omniscient being exists, I find it hard to conceive such a being doing anything.

Lack of evidence? Look around you and tell me that all that is only came about by chance. You think chance would create such complex creatures as ourselves? or perhaps we have created ourselves?.....

I don't have a perception of god because I don't perceive him!

So to you God is nothing as he does not exist....what exists then?

It's not really irrelevant - my point was that addiction is not a matter of logic, rather compulsion.

Yeah i believe it was irrelevant as it had no relevance to the issue and was taken out of context. Smoking doesn't start off as being addiction, it starts off as being a choice, where logicality is written all over it but people ignore it, and addiction then takes place afterwards.

Why was the question irrelevant? I asked it because I don't know the answer.

Posing a question does not answer the inticial question, you should have just stated you couldn't answer....

Where are we getting? It's plain to see that the Qur'an preaches the unity of god. Don't get me wrong, I believe it's a hugely important book, but that doesn't mean I believe it contains the truth.

agree to disagree eh?

So people can choose to accept the truth? That's very odd.

No it isn't, people have the choice but it is easier to blind yourself and to not abide by rules.

If something is self-evidently true, I cannot choose to accept it, I simply accept it.

No this is where free-will comes in, one has the choice to follow the truth.


Sam-welcome aboard and thanks for your comment

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Silver Pearl,

I'm aware of the difference between the two. Also i don't see how Ansar merely opposed your point. I guess we are barking at the same tree but from a different direction.

I've claimed that events previously considered to be miracles can now be explained in a different, more complete way due to the increased knowledge we have of scientific phenomena, just as natural events like rain, which used to be explained by reference to god, can also be explained with no need for alluding to a deity. I've seen denials that this is in fact the case, but I've seen no arguments that conclusively prove I'm wrong in this claim.

That is not my point, what i asked was did these people distinquish whether a person came to life after death using plant?

The plants were used to make the person appear to be dead. They would then wake up (perhaps with the use of another plant), and the audience would be suitably impressed. So, although the witch-doctor performing the "miracle" would claim it was due to his magical powers, in fact there is a perfectly natural explanation.

Not really, just because we can't mentally comprehend something does not mean it is unlikely to have happened.You must understand us humans are very limited in terms of our knowledge.

So you're quite prepared to believe I'm telling the truth when I say that a round square walked into a restaurant and ordered a pizza? Really?

I'll ask a question, How did we come about?

Phew! That's a big question! I came about because my father impregnated my mother at a certain point in the past. If you're asking how humans came about, it's my belief that we share a common ancestor with apes (some of whom we share over 95% of our DNA with) and homo sapiens branched off from the rest of the apes just over 100,000 years ago.

Is that a code for i don't want to go through that root again?

Well, yes. I don't have an infinite amount of time.

You don't need to be educated to survive, if we were created simply to survive as you suggested we'd only be programmed to work in that way.

I've never said you need to be educated to survive, simply that education confers a survival advantage. Take a simple example: imagine two cavemen walking independently through the forest. One of them knows how to identify over 100 different species of poisonous plant. The other does not, because no-one has ever taught him about poisonous plants. Which of the two is more likely to survive in the long term?

(I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "we'd only be programmed to work in that way".)

However, i'm sure you're aware that humans don't only think 'must keep alive and feed myself' It is human nature to hold on to life and not die, due to fear mostly.

I think we do think that way at a basic level, but of course you're right that we think about lots of other things too, many of them directed to supporting this basic impulse. (I would also say that fear of death is probably the most crucial survival mechanism.)

Lack of evidence? Look around you and tell me that all that is only came about by chance. You think chance would create such complex creatures as ourselves? or perhaps we have created ourselves?.....

Howcome you've brought chance into this? I would say it all evolved - how the universe started, I don't know.

So to you God is nothing as he does not exist....what exists then?

Another massive question! What exists? Lots of things exist. The universe and everything in it. As for anything outside the universe - we have no way of knowing.

Yeah i believe it was irrelevant as it had no relevance to the issue and was taken out of context. Smoking doesn't start off as being addiction, it starts off as being a choice, where logicality is written all over it but people ignore it, and addiction then takes place afterwards.

I'll say it again - logic is never a matter of choice. Something is either logical or it's not - our feelings or decisions about it don't matter in the slightest.

Posing a question does not answer the inticial question, you should have just stated you couldn't answer....

I know - I asked a question because I didn't know the answer, you told me to answer it myself, but since I still didn't know what the bad thing was that you referred to all that time ago, I couldn't. I suppose for some reason you don't want to tell me.

agree to disagree eh?

It's looking that way.

No it isn't, people have the choice but it is easier to blind yourself and to not abide by rules.

Would you say that someone has the choice whether to accept that 2 + 2 = 4? Truth is truth - it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. If something is self-evidently true, you don't choose whether or not to accept it, you simply accept it or you find yourself in a position of error.

No this is where free-will comes in, one has the choice to follow the truth.

I strongly disagree, for the reasons I've been trying to explain. "Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the UK." Are you telling me that you're free not to believe that if you so wish?

Peace

PS Welcome, Sam. You sound like you've got some interesting ideas to bring to this discussion, and others too! Enjoy the forum.

 

[Silver Pearl]

Greetings,

I've claimed that events previously considered to be miracles can now be explained in a different, more complete way due to the increased knowledge we have of scientific phenomena, just as natural events like rain, which used to be explained by reference to god, can also be explained with no need for alluding to a deity. I've seen denials that this is in fact the case, but I've seen no arguments that conclusively prove I'm wrong in this claim.

Really? i wouldn't quite say that, what has been identified and cleared due to founding new scientific evidence which answer queries that we were unable to do so before is not the same as miracle.

How can science explain Jesus' (pbuh) birth? (note that in Islam Mary-may Allah bless her was not married or touched by any man). How can science explain how people were able to see the angle of death? How can people explain how Solomon could communicate with Jinn and control the wind? Those are factors of miracle.

However, basic simple things in life can also be seen as miracle. Science doesn't explain why, it only states How something happened....

Hence why Science won't be able to prove the non-existence of God nonetheless it may prove God’s existence.

The plants were used to make the person appear to be dead. They would then wake up (perhaps with the use of another plant), and the audience would be suitably impressed. So, although the witch-doctor performing the "miracle" would claim it was due to his magical powers, in fact there is a perfectly natural explanation.

Did the plant make the person's heart stop beating? Only then can it be considered 'death' state So care to share this plant?

So you're quite prepared to believe I'm telling the truth when I say that a round square walked into a restaurant and ordered a pizza? Really?

You go simply on creating an ideology to support your claim, I'm not saying i believe that, simply it doesn't make sense unless you're just being ambigious with what you been by circle square, one shape can be inside the other or someone could name their child circle square (why is beyond me). However, your comparison is of different issue and your hypothesis is hoping that the answer to question will make it better.

God is perfect thus although we are capable of doing bad he isn't, we have the will to do as we please. That doesn't compromise with his power...

Phew! That's a big question! I came about because my father impregnated my mother at a certain point in the past. If you're asking how humans came about, it's my belief that we share a common ancestor with apes (some of whom we share over 95% of our DNA with) and homo sapiens branched off from the rest of the apes just over 100,000 years ago.

Or could it have not been that Apes came from us? Also what are the chances that things will just randomly evolve till humans came about?

Well, yes. I don't have an infinite amount of time.

lol, me neither

(I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "we'd only be programmed to work in that way".)

what is the hoovers job? to hoover, will it clean dishes? no, it has been programmed (since you refuse to acknowledge free-will) to do just that....

I think we do think that way at a basic level, but of course you're right that we think about lots of other things too, many of them directed to supporting this basic impulse. (I would also say that fear of death is probably the most crucial survival mechanism.)

You mean everyone's goal ultimately is to survive, which tends to be expressed subconsciencely?

Howcome you've brought chance into this? I would say it all evolved - how the universe started, I don't know.

So you're saying chance and random change has nothing to do with evolving?

I'll say it again - logic is never a matter of choice. Something is either logical or it's not - our feelings or decisions about it don't matter in the slightest.

Yes it is a matter of choice, are you saying that it is not logical that smoking is bad? are you saying it is not logical to see that murder is wrong? Ultimately emotions are what clouds us from logic.

I know - I asked a question because I didn't know the answer, you told me to answer it myself, but since I still didn't know what the bad thing was that you referred to all that time ago, I couldn't. I suppose for some reason you don't want to tell me.

It isn't because i didn't want to tell you, i just felt you didn't need to know as it was irrelevant but i suppose i'll make up something and may be you could then try and answer it. Eternal sadness and agony

Would you say that someone has the choice whether to accept that 2 + 2 = 4? Truth is truth - it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. If something is self-evidently true, you don't choose whether or not to accept it, you simply accept it or you find yourself in a position of error.

Yes,

How can you define one? What is 2? Maths is one of those subjects with no real answer to why such is right. We are taught from a small age that 1+1=2 thus we have acquired such knowledge and never stopped to question it. Just like people believed for a long time that spontaneously things came about but Louis Pasteur proved the theory wrong. Don’t get me wrong. Truthfully you don’t really have much choice when it comes to maths and practicing it, that is how society works and it is something we have been taught. Such example proves nothing. 1+1=2 isn’t evidently true, as in bindery 1+1 is not 2, 2 doesn’t exist. Also had we been taught that 1+1=3 we would have also seen that as being ‘truth’




Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.

Peace