Prove Allah exists

[sim10]

So should I assume then that you are treacherously avoiding answering my questions?

Obviously he's avoiding answering peoples questions, many people on this topic gave some really good points, particularly τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ..I believe he got stumped there. He's just choosing to "answer" certain things anyone that baffles or makes valid points against him, he seems to ignore.

 

[Zafran]

You said: "your assuming that there is no creator - your opnion on natural things not being created is also an assumption. You also make the assumption that there is no intelligence behind natural things"

If there is no creator behind natural things, than we can presume there is no creator behind the universe, because it too is natural.

You see know your making assumptions - and not sticking with your principles that you laid out before - this is what you siad before

2. The analogy he uses fails because he is assuming there has to be a creator, there doesn't. Objects and machines have creators, but those things are unnatural (they don't occur in nature, people have to make them.) The universe is natural. We can see natural things grow and there is no intelligence behind it. It is just a natural phenomenon. The universe is natural as well, so why assume there was a conscious being behind its creation?

so its wrong for someone to assume that there is a creator or that the natural world is created - but its fine for you to assume that there is no creator and that the natural world is not a creation??? whats with the doubles standards?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

My definition of natural: Something occurring spontaneously in nature, something was not created by a sentient being.
The big bang was also natural, so no, the universe being created by the big bang does not contradict my definition.
Living creatures are formed by different elements, those elements are naturally occurring, that doesn't contradict my definition of natural either.

Yes it does. According to your definition you are un-natural as you were "created" by your mother and your father - as there is no law of science which said that they must create you - there for according to your definition you are
un-natural.

I find it funny that you seem to love so much a way of thinking which views your own existence as un-natural. By the
way - this type of thinking leads us to associating the prefix "un" to things instead of using the word itself - as to make us believe that there is no word for the opposite thing. Let me give you an example...

What is the opposite of "rational" ...According to you it is "irrational" but no ...according to me it is "intuitive"

What is the opposite of "natural"....According to you it is "un-natuaral" but no...according to me it is "miraculous"

You see - this makes me stronger than you because I have a bigger vocabulary than you - and thus more flexibility and more strength of mind - which you deprive of yourself.

There are no scientific miracles in the Qur'an, to put it bluntly. All you need is a little skepticism and to do a little research and you will see that they have non-divine explanations.
How do you explain the incorrect science in the Qur'an? Such as semen being created between the backbone and ribs? (Semen is created in the testes, below the ribs.)

It's not anti-islamic book, it's an anti-religion book. It takes on all religions. I think you should read it, despite the fact that you think it's anti-islamic.

My point about Francis Bacon's quote is that in the 1500's there was A LOT that we didn't know. Which to most people could only be explained by god. Take someone like Francis Bacon and put him the modern world and educate him on all we know now, and there's no guarantee that he would still be a theist. That's my point.

Ahhm. This is so funny...amusing People are so amusing sometimes...

let me show you something...this book that you are so proud of...it was written in English
right? This means that it consists of the letters, the alphabet...

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

How beautiful...now, may I ask you a question...who gave us this alphabet?...I find it
very interesting...did you develop it? Did it come to us naturally? Did the knowledgeable
psedou-scientist that you mentioned invent them in his fancy laboratory?

No. None of us did - it just is. Perfect language which can express every idea you want
wether it be these sentences or any of the "scientific achievements" you are so proud of.

In fact, it won't be hard to say that language is a greater thing than any human achievement I know of as we can express with it anything we can possibly go through...

Yet...I do not know anybody who has any idea from where do the languages come from?....Good question no? And a very mysterious
one indeed because to the best of my knowledge - you have not needed to invent a word in
your life - they were all here one you came - and neither do we...think about it next time
that you say something - because your own words are not yours.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Yes.
And the very same Christian and Jewish myths that the Qur'an copied from are themselves copies of the pagan myths that predated Christianity and Judaism.

And much of the science in the Qur'an was plagiarized from ancient Greek texts. The Qur'an even copied the science that the Greeks got wrong, such as the semen thing I pointed out, which you so conveniently ignored.

Ahhm...you know what I think. I would think like that.

If there is "hidden knowledge" in these books. I would actually think that it won't be upfront and would be hidden as some people are very disrespectful and vain and do things out of egoistic drives. However, religion is all about modesty. So I would
believe that if such things exist...they would be very hidden for people who are modest and take their time to
deal with things out of appreciation...while for those who would not it would seem reasonable to me to believe
that there would be "sucker points" to hang out all sorts of reasons to put their simple minded ideas on...

but yet....it seems quite reasonable...

 

[Pygoscelis]

Atheism is pretty much a belief system, you believe that God doesn't exist, you get organized, you make pamphlets of your doctrine and posters on buses

I hate to break it to you but another zealot extreme doesn't render null the others!

it is a question of logic which I suspect isn't your strong suit just given your very sophomoric arguments here..

all the best

Atheism is as much a belief system as bald is a hair colour. A lot of people on here seem to think that Atheism is a system of beleifs. It isn't. It is at most one belief (depending on which definition of atheism you are using - the other definition says its a lack of one belief). Dawkins & Company are more a political movement, a backlash to religion, than a religion itself. It excludes the vast majority of atheists (as Dawkins himself will readily admit), and discourages faith.

I think people want to see atheism as a religion so they have something to attack. But unfortunately for them, unlike in religions there is no code or dogma to atheism, no set of beliefs all atheists are to share and adhere to. Addressing one atheist's views doesn't address another atheists views.

That's why (despite what this poster seems to want us to think) atheists don't have a unified agenda and don't have a big group and rallies and meetings. They only unite in backlash to when religion goes too far, and beyond that they fragment instantly - because there is nothing else to unite them. They will differ widely on every other point (including how to deal with theists - here is a very big debate right now amongst various atheists as to if Dawkins/Hitchens' approach does more harm than good)

 

[Pygoscelis]

So where is your proof? Produce your proof if you are truthful! Prove me that Quran is of non-divine origin!

This is really no different than "prove god doesn't exist", which of course can't be done. Even if I could identify who wrote the Quran and when and where he got his ideas from etc, you'd always be able to say that Allah meant that to be the way it happened and ultimately it is from divine source. So at the end of the day, the claim is pointless. The "prove me wrong" thing doesn't work here, not when your hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

I have not joined this thread until now (which I presume to be its final pages) because this kind of thread is usually pointless. You either believe in God or you don't. If you do, you believe on faith, you start with the "God exists" assumption. You don't work to God existing through reason and argument, you use reason and argument to justify your assumption that God exists. And since we come to the table with opposite assumptions, this kind of thread never gets anywhere.

 

[Masuma]

Yes.
And the very same Christian and Jewish myths that the Qur'an copied from are themselves copies of the pagan myths that predated Christianity and Judaism.

And much of the science in the Qur'an was plagiarized from ancient Greek texts.

Now prove it! I challenge you! Produce your proof if you are truthful!
And I'll try to refute all this falsehood. Okay?

And if it is proven to you that Quran is not copied but has only one Divine Source i.e. ALLAH, then will you believe?

The Qur'an even copied the science that the Greeks got wrong, such as the semen thing I pointed out, which you so conveniently ignored.

The truth is I didn't! ;D I was just waiting for the moment when you'll say that Quran has been copied and blah blah and then will explain to you about this. Now you prove how the Quran has been copied and I'll prove to you inshAllah INSHALLAH that it has not been. So deal?

PS. Can you answer this for me: Who wrote the Qur'an ?

Sure sure, that is all what I'm going to do from now onwards but on one condition; you meet the challenge I put forward!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Here is a question for you to ponder: Why would an all powerful God communicate his word through writing, which had to be replicated and interpreted and carried to new lands? Why not just place in the minds of us all at creation whatever it is he wants us to know? If you accept the premise that he exists and that the holy book is his word, then that he did the former instead of the latter either seems to indicate he didn't intend to be well understood by all (or even heard by all), and intended the resulting tension between the various religions and sects. An all powerful God certainly could have avoided all the religious conflict we have in this world (and could have prevented atheism too), simply by making us know his word. So why didn't he? Why do we have to read some book and listen to some preacher?

 

[Masuma]

This is really no different than "prove god doesn't exist", which of course can't be done. Even if I could identify who wrote the Quran and when and where he got his ideas from etc, you'd always be able to say that Allah meant that to be the way it happened and ultimately it is from divine source. So at the end of the day, the claim is pointless. The "prove me wrong" thing doesn't work here, not when your hypothesis is non-falsifiable.

I have not joined this thread until now (which I presume to be its final pages) because this kind of thread is usually pointless. You either believe in God or you don't. If you do, you believe on faith, you start with the "God exists" assumption. You don't work to God existing through reason and argument, you use reason and argument to justify your assumption that God exists. And since we come to the table with opposite assumptions, this kind of thread never gets anywhere.

Believe me pygoscelis, I don't mind if the thread is closed down because to tell you the truth, it's really time consuming and some people here are just for an argument and not for UNDERSTANDING, so that does make the point of discussion useless. But I'm just trying my luck here. If I can become a source for someone's help then it would be my pleasure! :statisfie

Now as far as the allegation is concerned which Freethinker laid against Quran, so now the burden is upon him to prove his point to be right.
And if your so concerned about it, why don't you help your lil brother out. I won't mind!

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

this kind of thread is usually pointless. You either believe in God or you don't. If you do, you believe on faith, you start with the "God exists" assumption. You don't work to God existing through reason and argument, you use reason and argument to justify your assumption that God exists.

Ahhm...this is simply not true. Just a silly lie those who do not want to see humanity becoming
universally religious - a lie which very efficiently convinces the foolish...

Proving is the most foolish and empty verb ever invented. Human beings cannot prove anything.
The only thing we can do is having experience - frankly, those who are stuck on "proving" things
are the ones with the least experience possible because they just sit in their offices and never
learn anything substantial about life.

since we come to the table with opposite assumptions, this kind of thread never gets anywhere.

This is again not true. People do change their minds assuming they are interested in the TRUTH which is very simple to explain and is what people should be interested in. If one is interested in throwing out "opinions" than that is futile and leads to nothing.

However - most people are simply not interested in the truth as they are AFRAID of it ... On the one hand I understand them on the other hand the price we pay for this foolishness is unbearable (take into account the wars, misery and pollution which are overall un-required...)

 

[Pygoscelis]

Now as far as the allegation is concerned which Freethinker laid against Quran, so now the burden is upon him to prove his point to be right.

I have not been following the thread page by page but if the allegation is that the Quran is not the word of God, or that God doesn't exist, as I just stated, that can't be proved. You can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim (that the quran is the word of Allah) or that Allah exists. That doesn't do anything at all to prove he does exist or that it is though. This point is why things like the "Flying spaghetti monster" were created (as an analogy - you can't prove the FSM doesn't exist either - doesn't give you any reason to accept it does).

 

[Pygoscelis]

This is again not true. People do change their minds assuming they are interested in the TRUTH which is very simple to explain and is what people should be interested in. If one is interested in throwing out "opinions" than that is futile and leads to nothing.

I recommend the research of Bob Altmeyer and Bruce Hunsberger. They did a lot of scientific study on the question of how people are converted from one religion to another (or to religion in general). It isn't because they methodically and logically look through the "evidence". It is because of social pressures, emotional needs, major life events, promises of reward and threats of punishment (heaven and hell are only one example), etc.

 

[Masuma]

I have not been following the thread page by page but if the allegation is that the Quran is not the word of God, or that God doesn't exist, as I just stated, that can't be proved. You can't falsify an unfalsifiable claim (that the quran is the word of Allah) or that Allah exists. That doesn't do anything at all to prove he does exist or that it is though.

Now it is you who is presuming that it is an "unfalsifiable claim"! ;D See, I told you people that Atheist assume many, many things too!

Quran is "not the word of God" is an allegation! And it can be proved right or wrong. Now of course pygoscelis, I understand that YOU don't know how to prove your point here! So if you don't know about something, why to then speak about it? I am just challenging you two to prove to me that Quran is "not the word of God" but of course if you don't know, you can obviously chicken out!

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Here is a question for you to ponder: Why would an all powerful God communicate his word through writing, which had to be replicated and interpreted and carried to new lands? Why not just place in the minds of us all at creation whatever it is he wants us to know? If you accept the premise that he exists and that the holy book is his word, then that he did the former instead of the latter either seems to indicate he didn't intend to be well understood by all (or even heard by all), and intended the resulting tension between the various religions and sects. An all powerful God certainly could have avoided all the religious conflict we have in this world (and could have prevented atheism too), simply by making us know his word. So why didn't he? Why do we have to read some book and listen to some preacher?

Ahh. Now you are improving Good questions...

This is a very good question indeed...

you see...Allah is all powerful...However, you as a part of Allah's world are not...
If Allah would just "place in your mind what he wants you to do", like you said, your
mind would explode like a water melon...

However, Allah, in his mercy, first of all - wanted us to exist, second of all, and this
is the remarkable thing, guided (and guides throgh the world of the Prophet SAW)
us so that we can evolve and gradually learn "what it is he wants from us", in your
words, if you want...

Now, if you think about it, a book is actually quite a unique thing. In fact, one might think
that it is perfect for this purpose. You see, for a person from the outside, a book is just
a book. You have to read it in order to have some understanding of what is inside it. However,
the level of the understanding depends on the level of the reader. Therefore, a simple person
would find simple things while other people would find different things...all according to the level
of what the reader could take...

Also, and this is maybe the most relevant answer - it is a lesson in modesty which is one of the most important attributes for one to have.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I recommend the research of Bob Altmeyer and Bruce Hunsberger. They did a lot of scientific study on the question of how people are converted from one religion to another (or to religion in general). It isn't because they methodically and logically look through the "evidence". It is because of social pressures, emotional needs, major life events, promises of reward and threats of punishment (heaven and hell are only one example), etc.

Why would I be interested in something like that?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Now it is you who is presuming that it is an "unfalsifiable claim"! ;D See, I told you people that Atheist assume many, many things too!!

How could it be falsified? Is there really anything that could be discovered or anything that could be said that could disprove the existence of God or that a holy book is not that God's inspired word? I very much doubt it. Every time something new comes up that conflicts with a religion it just moves the goal posts. So if you actually for the first time in religious history have something in mind that would disprove your God entirely, I'd love to hear it. If not, it is unfalsifiable and pointless.

 

[Pygoscelis]

.
If Allah would just "place in your mind what he wants you to do", like you said, your
mind would explode like a water melon...

So why don't the prophets' heads explode like watermelons? And why doesn't your head explode like a watermelon while reading the Quran? Or does that not give you his complete word?

And if he is our maker, why would he design our heads to be unable to contain his word without exploding, unless he slowly brought us to it? Why does the gradual application of it not also make our heads explode?

Does this slow gradual coming to his word refer to peoples or individuals? Does a child have to be careful how fast he seeks to learn God's word? Will his head explode like a watermelon if he tries to learn to fast?

Why did God write just "one true word" instead of giving the same tome to everybody on earth? These holy books have to be carried from land to land and from people to people. Could he not foresee that others would develop their own (presumably false) "one true word" and that tension and war would result?

Could he not have come up with something less prone to error and misinterpretation?

Can his perfect word even be expressed in written language? Language has its limitations. Does reducing God's word to human language not harm it?

Now, if you think about it, a book is actually quite a unique thing. In fact, one might think
that it is perfect for this purpose.

I would argue it is a terrible thing for this purpose. It is a means of communication that humans may be restricted to. But certainly an all powerful God could do better.

You have to read it in order to have some understanding of what is inside it. However,
the level of the understanding depends on the level of the reader. Therefore, a simple person
would find simple things while other people would find different things...all according to the level
of what the reader could take...

So God intends only the most literate to truly understand his word? He wants everybody else to have only an idea of it? That is a new idea I think.

Also, and this is maybe the most relevant answer - it is a lesson in modesty which is one of the most important attributes for one to have.

Modesty? Or misunderstanding and error and resulting tension? Why would getting the word planted in your head make you less modest?

Did god intend all this confusion and tension and wars between religions? Did God intend the witch trials, the inquisition, 9/11, honor killings, suicide bombers, slaughter of infidels, etc? Wasn't that all a misreading of his word? Or a lack of having his word? Couldn't he have prevented it all with better communication?

hrm maybe I should have made this a topic of a separate thread. But this one looks like its dead as to its original topic.

 

[Masuma]

How could it be falsified? Is there really anything that could be discovered or anything that could be said that could disprove the existence of God or that a holy book is not that God's inspired word? I very much doubt it. Every time something new comes up that conflicts with a religion it just moves the goal posts. So if you actually for the first time in religious history have something in mind that would disprove your God entirely, I'd love to hear it. If not, it is unfalsifiable and pointless.

Seriously Pygoscelis, your making me laugh! Look how innocently your asking ME to help you prove that Quran is not the word of God! I'm not falling for that trap, if that is one.

And this further proves that you really don't have any means to prove your point to be true. So your busted and why don't you now rest a little bit or go to some other thread with your ill-logicality?!

Simple as it is, if I say that Bible is not the word of God, then I'll have to prove that HOW it is not the word of God, which I'll some day inshAllah do if I live that long.

Same is the case with Freethinker. He said that Quran is not the word of God, so I;ve challenged him to prove it to me that HOW it is not the word of God!

So please, I'm sort of tired talking to you and now will have to simply ignore you. So please don't mind!

 

[Pygoscelis]

I said from the outset that I can't prove the Quran isn't the world of God to the satisfaction of a Muslim. Nor can you prove the bible is not the inspired word of God to the satisfaction of a Christian. Oh I'm sure you can imagine yourself doing it, but if you try, even if you come up with something you think is rock solid, they will just move the goalposts . You will do the same re the Quran. That you can't show how your claim could be falsified shows it to be an unfalsifiable claim. If I say "The world is flat" or "The sun goes around the earth", those are falsifiable claims. People can look into it and prove me wrong (and they have). When I say "The Flying Sphaghetti Monster inspired Dr. Seuss", they can't disprove that, it is not falsifiable and it is therefore a matter of faith (and argument is pointless).

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I like these questions!!! Finally some fun in this forum!

So why don't the prophets' heads explode like watermelons? And why doesn't your head explode like a watermelon while reading the Quran? Or does that not give you his complete word?

And if he is our maker, why would he design our heads to be unable to contain his word without exploding, unless he slowly brought us to it? Why does the gradual application of it not also make our heads explode?

There are many different questions here. I will try to answer

1. The prophets are unique individuals. Also, for the prophets it included intense physical and mental stress which is unimaginable.

2. Regarding to why my head does not explode. Well, first of all you seem to not have read my answer. This does not happen because what I take from a book is only what I can handle. Let me give you an example. It is like a king opening to you the doors to his treasury and telling you that you can take what ever you can carry. One person would be able to take only little and some would be able to take much. But nobody would be able to take even a small portion of the treasury itself as it is infinite.

3. Well, Allah did not design your head like that because if it would it would violate your existence. You are a human. If he would design you like that you would not be human but rather closer to an angel. Angels exist and can take more than you can take. However, humans are not angels and angels are not humans and each has his place, importance and role in existence.

4. Anyway. Before you are worthy to deserve everything why don't you show that you at least want "a little"? What have you done to justify that you deserve this benefit? Do you think that you deserve free gifts?

Does a child have to be careful how fast he seeks to learn God's word? Will his head explode like a watermelon if he tries to learn to fast?

See (2).

did God write just "one true word" instead of giving the same tome to everybody on earth? These holy books have to be carried from land to land and from people to people.

I am not sure that I understand what you mean. Did you have to carry anything on your back? I think that you personally are free to go and buy what ever book you want in the bookstore.

Could he not have come up with something less prone to error and misinterpretation?

I do not know what you mean. Error and misinterpretations is not the same thing. What is a misinterpretation anyway? You are free to read a book in what ever way you want - and what ever interpretation you would make out of it would be what you will get from the book at the end of the day...As for errors. I find it really hard to understand how and why you speak of errors if you do not know what is a correct thing. Without having a notion of what an error might how can you even ask about errors so to me it sounds as if you are shooting in the dark.

his perfect word even be expressed in written language? Language has its limitations. Does reducing God's word to human language not harm it?

Language has no limitation and I am not familiar with the concept of "human" language. Humans use language however I do not see anything in it which makes it human. Language has no limitations as far as I understand.

So God intends only the most literate to truly understand his word? He wants everybody else to have only an idea of it? That is a new idea I think.

No. It is not for me to say what Allah intends. However, as far as I understand human responsibility it is the
responsibility of those who understand to explain to those who do not yet understand as to make sure that
everybody benefits.

Did god intend all this confusion and tension and wars between religions?

Who am I to know. But yet - it does depend on us you know. If people would have been more mature I do not think that it would have been needed.

Did God intend the witch trials, the inquisition, 9/11, honor killings, suicide bombers, slaughter of infidels, etc?

See the answer above. I mean, look at today. One does not need to be prophet to see that in the near future (and also now) things like this might happen. But - what are you or anybody else doing to prevent that today? Not much. People can't just wayne on why this and this happened while not doing much to prevent the atrocities of their own generations...

Anyway, these question about events in which many people have died are not so interesting to me because people love to talk about it and be all excited about it but when I look around me I do not see people caring for their own lives so much...so why fake it?