Prove Allah exists

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Minimal research will show you that the universally accepted theory among people with the slightest idea what they are talking about is that such 'evolution' (specifically from the Cumae variant) is exactly what did occur. Amazingly, this theory came about from the study of just such 'notebooks', or at least their equivalents in stone tablets!

I will answer you, hower putting aside your choice of words refarding minimal research which you said even though I am sure you have not inspected these stone tablets by yourself and have no real access to such tablets...

People would just believe in anything...

as long as it is not Allah people in the modern world would be willing to buy just into anything.

I might not be in the sharpest person but I know a bit about human nature and I find it much more reasonable that somebody would fake tablets like this so that everybody would think that he is smart and knowledgable - this fits much more human nature as in reality people can't care least about honesty and truthful reasearch and are in generaly very fake...

so you want me to believe something just because somebody shows me some stone with scribbles on it? I am sorry I do not know much about stones and scribbles and it teaches me nothing ..I know about people and I know that people are hardly capable of deciding for themselves what to eat for lunch so you want to tell me that they are capable to come up with Latin, Greek and Arabic? Sorry, I do not buy that....

 

[Trumble]

I might not be in the sharpest person but I know a bit about human nature and I find it much more reasonable that somebody would fake tablets like this so that everybody would think that he is smart and knowledgable - this fits much more human nature as in reality people can't care least about honesty and truthful reasearch and are in generaly very fake...

Are you seriously suggesting that every scholastic enterprise that doesn't happen to agree comfortably with your own view of reality must be some sort of 'fake'? There is not even any serious dispute on this matter, as far as I am aware. Surely, in terms 'human nature', the word that really comes to mind in your case is 'denial'?

so you want me to believe something just because somebody shows me some stone with scribbles on it?

You are quite happy to believe something because somebody shows you a piece of paper with scribbles on it. It's called the Qu'ran. Any status you believe it may have beyond just scribbles on paper you must have assigned to it either on the basis of those scribbles, or on the basis of what somebody else told you.

I know about people and I know that people are hardly capable of deciding for themselves what to eat for lunch so you want to tell me that they are capable to come up with Latin, Greek and Arabic? Sorry, I do not buy that....

Some people can't. Others though can write great literature, compose mighty symphonies, make great scientific discoveries... and even actively invent new languages rather than just talking part in their gradual evolution. Ever heard of Esperanto?

I can't understand your seemingly desperate need to demean your own species just to be able to assign some of its most notable achievements to God. Even from your own perpective it makes no sense, as surely just with gifts for literature, mathematics and philosophy, God could also gift souls with a talent for linguistics?!

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Are you seriously suggesting that every scholastic enterprise that doesn't happen to agree comfortably with your own view of reality must be some sort of 'fake'? There is not even any serious dispute on this matter, as far as I am aware. Surely, in terms 'human nature', the word that really comes to mind in your case is 'denial'?

I have not yet seen a scholarlistic effort. Any attempt to explain the world by reaserch which is mixed with ego and economical intrests is bound to be wrong and
nothing good can come out of it in the long run.

You are quite happy to believe something because somebody shows you a piece of paper with scribbles on it. It's called the Qu'ran. Any status you believe it may have beyond just scribbles on paper you must have assigned to it either on the basis of those scribbles, or on the basis of what somebody else told you.

First of all you are being disrespectful. Second of all the Quran has to do with my life and he guides me and tells me how to live it. Third of all and beyond anything although the
quran is ink on paper as is any book which we humans read it is quite clear to me that this book is from Allah and you are welcome to read it and to check it out for yourself. Contarary to you also - I absolutly do not base my lifes belief on what others have told me.

Some people can't. Others though can write great literature, compose mighty symphonies, make great scientific discoveries... and even actively invent new languages rather than just talking part in their gradual evolution. Ever heard of Esperanto?

I have never met these people. In fact most of the people I know have never written a symphony or a literature masterpiece but are rather ordinary human beings. In fact
it is you that believe in super natural things and not me. Also, you want me to base my whole belief in linguisitics on Esperanto? Creating a language might be the easy part
but making the people speak it is much harder - as you can see. Do you know anybody who speaks Esperanto? I do not - yet I know enoguh people who speak Arabic, English
and Greek - what - the greek inventors where more efficent and charismatic?

I can't understand your seemingly desperate need to demean your own species just to be able to assign some of its most notable achievements to God. Even from your own perpective it makes no sense, as surely just with gifts for literature, mathematics and philosophy, God could also gift souls with a talent for linguistics?!

Of course I do not demean people. People have great gifts and achievments for making war, crulety and to not see things which are in front of their eyes and indeed there
is nobody who does these things better than us. If somebody has a talent in any field of human activity and he would wish to use it to praise Allah and to spread belief
in Allah around the world he is most encouraged to do so - but if he does not and does not give credit to Allah for his talents then I think it is not ok and also a bit wicked.

 

[Trumble]

I have not yet seen a scholarlistic effort. Any attempt to explain the world by reaserch which is mixed with ego and economical intrests is bound to be wrong and
nothing good can come out of it in the long run.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying, by extension that you don't 'believe' in gravity because you didn't happen to be passing when an apple dropped on Sir Isaac Newton's head? What ego and economic interests are you talking about? As I said, it is not as if this topic is like evolution or abiogenesis where there is some actual dispute.

First of all you are being disrespectful. Second of all the Quran has to do with my life and he guides me and tells me how to live it. Third of all and beyond anything although the
quran is ink on paper as is any book which we humans read it is quite clear to me that this book is from Allah and you are welcome to read it and to check it out for yourself. Contarary to you also - I absolutly do not base my lifes belief on what others have told me.

I had no intention of being disrespectful, and apologise if I came across that way. But you have said nothing that contests my point. Of course you believe the Qur'an comes from Allah, but you can only have reached that belief either by reading it yourself, or from what others told you, or a combination of both; there are no other possibilities. Exactly the same is true of every other muslim, bar obviously the Prophet himself.

I have never met these people. In fact most of the people I know have never written a symphony or a literature masterpiece but are rather ordinary human beings.

Of course, but surely a glance through any bookshop or music store provides convincing empirical evidence that such people do exist? Most of them were and are ordinary human beings too, they just have one special talent. Most do for something or other.

Creating a language might be the easy part but making the people speak it is much harder - as you can see. Do you know anybody who speaks Esperanto? I do not - yet I know enoguh people who speak Arabic, English and Greek - what - the greek inventors where more efficent and charismatic?

Actually, Greek was generally only spoken as a first language by Greeks. It's widespread adoption was mostly as a lingua franca, and that came about for a variety of reasons, not least that the Greeks travelled and traded a lot. A far better comparison today is not Esperanto but English, in that there are some careers for which a knowledge of that language is essential whichever country you come from. The reason for that is simply a certain combination of historical circumstances, not any superiority of the language itself (it's actually an awful one to learn compared with some others) or divine intervention.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying, by extension that you don't 'believe' in gravity because you didn't happen to be passing when an apple dropped on Sir Isaac Newton's head? What ego and economic interests are you talking about? As I said, it is not as if this topic is like evolution or abiogenesis where there is some actual dispute.

1. No. I indeed do not believe in the theory of gravity but not by extension of this idea but rather in an independent way. I
do not believe in it simply because it is incomplete and wicked.

2. I do not know what you mean that there is no-dispute. The issue of evolution is fashinable and people have sticked to it
in the last 200 years or so but actually from a religous point of view almost all of the scientific mindset is completely off
track and leads to dangerous conceptions of life.

I had no intention of being disrespectful, and apologise if I came across that way. But you have said nothing that contests my point. Of course you believe the Qur'an comes from Allah, but you can only have reached that belief either by reading it yourself, or from what others told you, or a combination of both; there are no other possibilities. Exactly the same is true of every other muslim, bar obviously the Prophet himself.

I do not understand why you bring this argument as it is simply not the case. Regarding the Quran it is simply easy for me and clear to see that it is a book written by Allah and I
do not understand why anybody would think otherwise.

Of course, but surely a glance through any bookshop or music store provides convincing empirical evidence that such people do exist? Most of them were and are ordinary human beings too, they just have one special talent. Most do for something or other.

From a scientific point of view this is a wrong deduction as just by the fact that I go to a book store and see there the words "Tolstoy" or I see on a CD the words "Mozart" does
not imply that it has been written or composed by a person. If I would have met Tolstoy ot Mozart and seen it with my own eyes I would have believed that they wrote it but I haven't had the chance to see even a mildly talented person in my personal life definentaly not in this level. So if one wants to be sceintific you need to work according to the right standarts.

Actually, Greek was generally only spoken as a first language by Greeks. It's widespread adoption was mostly as a lingua franca, and that came about for a variety of reasons, not least that the Greeks travelled and traded a lot. A far better comparison today is not Esperanto but English, in that there are some careers for which a knowledge of that language is essential whichever country you come from. The reason for that is simply a certain combination of historical circumstances, not any superiority of the language itself (it's actually an awful one to learn compared with some others) or divine intervention.

I won't know about that because again what you are talking about is about something that happened 2000 years ago or more which is much more than any human being can seriously know. Also taking into account that 99% of the people until 100 years ago did not know how to read and write to the best of my understanding - this makes all these historical fairy tales not so interesting.

 

[CosmicPathos]

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?

I'd say these are not good questions, not at all.

All-powerful God communicated His word through writing just because He wanted it that way. Just because you think placing His word in our minds is better than placing in a book form, it does not mean that it indeed is better, especially since you have not backed your claim up by any scientific evidence that things can be easily following if they are built into our neurons as we are born compared to if we learn them over our life through reading books. In other words, we have certain instincts which are not acquired. You have not yet shown scientifically that these instincts can be relied upon 100%.

Just because God allowed 9/11 to happen lets say, it does not mean God does not exist. Which is what you are arguing by saying "why did not God stop 9/11? Since He did not, He does not exist in the first place." Why would God need to stop 9/11? Just because people died? Well He takes away lives of people anyways, be it natural death from aging or accidental death at the prime of youth.

I believe that God willed 9/11 and whatever has occurred in this world and universe so far. Certainly my conception of God is quite different from yours. And you being a mulhid (atheist) kaafir is also the Will of God. He chose to base His will on what He knew in advance of what you will do.

 

[Trumble]

All-powerful God communicated His word through writing just because He wanted it that way. Just because you think placing His word in our minds is better than placing in a book form, it does not mean that it indeed is better, especially since you have not backed your claim up by any scientific evidence that things can be easily following if they are built into our neurons as we are born compared to if we learn them over our life through reading books. In other words, we have certain instincts which are not acquired. You have not yet shown scientifically that these instincts can be relied upon 100%.

What is the relevance of 'scientific evidence'? I thought we were talking about God, and you yourself claim He is omnipotent. Surely if He needed those instincts to be 100% reliable he would just have to engineer them so that they were?

 

[جوري]

What is the relevance of 'scientific evidence'? I thought we were talking about God, and you yourself claim He is omnipotent. Surely if He needed those instincts to be 100% reliable he would just have to engineer them so that they were?

what would be the point of life if everything was predetermined from our point of view?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

LOL! Really? LOLOL!

I find it hilarious when people start using evolution as a FACT rather than a conjured theory to explain what they can't prove! It's called the THEORY of Evolution, not fact. Why don't we just paste em all the links where this topic was covered?

I hardly think we poofed out of nowhere? And you would actually believe such garbage? Every process has a beginning or something giving it the initial push. Yes even your precious BIG BANG theory. Sorry to say but chaos never gave you organization. If you were to say yes and said this to any layman and/or intelligent being, alone and aside from this topic, they would think you're nuts!

 

[revert2007]

1. It's impossible to prove a negative. Since you are making the claim (that god exists) the burden of proof is on you.
But I do have an argument, here it is:

God supposedly gave man free will.
People whom are mentally ill or mentally retarded have limited control over their actions or impulses.
A mentally ill person in a comatose state or just a normal person in a coma have no free will.
Being that not everybody has free will over the actions of their bodies or the thoughts in their heads not all people were given free will.
If all people do not have free will then god could have not given all people free will.
We only sin because we have free will but since all people do not have free will sin does not exist

First of all welcome to this forum.Well for your question yes it is true that The Creator gives free will to all of us.As for you question to those who are retarded or mentally ill and cannot receive Allah's word,they will be judged on the day of judgement.as mentioned in hadith,a neck will come out fo teh hell fire and Allaah will ask these retarded or mentally ill people to jump into the hell.Those do not believe in Allah will not jump but those believe in Allaah will not hesitate to jump and they will be safed from hell in sha Allah.

For children of any religion who died before the age of puberty enters paradise as children before puberty are sinless and as the nature everyone born Muslim as Islam stands for submisson to one God and those practice this are called Muslims.

Well in this world anything can be proven either negative or positive in sha Allah.When Muslims say God exist,they can bring millions of evidences right before you yet it will be useless for you as your mind setting is that God doesn't exist.

If your are questioning in the manner of learning and want to be guided to the truth,you will get your answer in sha Allah.If you are here to debate and use us as your punching bag,well you will not going to learn anything.

 

[Pygoscelis]

All-powerful God communicated His word through writing just because He wanted it that way.

That is a given. We're accepting the premise that he is all powerful and could do it any way he wanted. That he did it this way means he wanted to do it this way. Which means he wanted everything that came from doing it this way. He limited his message to human language (and just one of them) and gave it to one prophet in one small area of the world. He then had that one prophet spread his message to far lands and to people with different languages and other competing (false) gods. It resulted in a world where his true word is but one of dozens of messages claimed to be that, and where his very existence is believed by only some people and other gods (who he explicitly doesn't want us to worship) are believed in by others. Even those who do know his word to be the true word fight with one another over how to interpret it properly. We have had tension, strife, atrocity, and hatred due to people following what they truly believed (mistakenly) to be his word. As you said, he wanted it this way.

He could have avoided all of the above and simply have made us all know what he wants. There would be no atheists. No Kaafir. No competing interpretations of the Quran. Just perfect knowledge of what was expected of us. Sure, some still may defy Allah, but they'd very few, and assuming he's a good God, they'd be justly punished. He opted instead to intentionally confuse people and ensure his message would not reach all, and not be believed by most that it does reach, and then to punish them for this. As you said, Allah intends me to be an atheist. So why does he punish me for being what he intends me to be? How do you reconcile that with a God that is good?

Why would God need to stop 9/11? Just because people died? Well He takes away lives of people anyways, be it natural death from aging or accidental death at the prime of youth.

I don't ask "why did God not stop 9/11?". I agree with you in asking "Why would God stop 9/11"? I see no reason to assume that if there is a God, he's benevolent or kind, or cares about humanity. Perhaps he created us as toys, to prod and play games with for his amusement. That would certainly fit with his not stopping (and maybe even causing) 9/11, hurricanes, and earthquakes. It would also fit with his choice to confuse everybody about his message and then judge them on it.

So if you believe God is evi (or non-benevolent)l, why do you worship him?

And if you believe God is good (or benevolent), then both these questions remain for you to answer. Why does he intentionally confuse people as to his message and then judge them on it (my question), and why does he allow evil/suffering (your question).

Just because you think placing His word in our minds is better than placing in a book form, it does not mean that it indeed is better, especially since you have not backed your claim up by any scientific evidence that things can be easily following if they are built into our neurons as we are born compared to if we learn them over our life through reading books.

He's God. He created us. He can make us know whatever he wants. Human brain chemistry is his creation. If it limits our ability to understand him, its because he wants it to.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I find it hilarious when people start using evolution as a FACT rather than a conjured theory to explain what they can't prove! It's called the THEORY of Evolution, not fact.

Its also called the Theory of gravity, not fact. Cool thing about science is that it never claims to be 100% certain of anything. There is always room for improving or replacing the prevailing theory. Evolution is our current best guess. It fits the data better than anything else. We're perfectly happy to replace it though if something comes along that fits the data even better.

I hardly think we poofed out of nowhere?

Don't you? That seems to be exactly what creationists believe. That God spoke some magic words and we poofed out of nowhere.

Personally, I don't claim to know the ultimate origin of the universe (if it does indeed even have an origin hasn't hasn't existed forever in one form or another).

 

[marwen]

Evolution is our current best guess. It fits the data better than anything else. We're perfectly happy to replace it though if something comes along that fits the data even better.

Evolution is a theory. The Creation theory is another theory. What makes the evolution theory the best guess ? and how does it fit the data better : What data ?
The Evolution Theory does not really explain the origin that all species evolved from : the first cell, the first atom : where does it come from : it poped from nowhere ?
For me nothing makes the evolution theory more convincing, unless you come with an atheistic way of thinking. i.e you're sure that God doesn't exist and therefore the creation process did/does not occur.

For me what makes the evolution theory more acceptable is because natural science teachers in high school are learning us the evolution theory again and again and forgot to tell us that it's a non-proved theory and may be wrong. So we kind a programmed by the evolution theory. I'm not saying it's wrong but as you all said : it's a theory, which is unfortunately not proved yet.

Don't you? That seems to be exactly what creationists believe. That God spoke some magic words and we poofed out of nowhere.

If you want to think logically, there is always an original state where something poofed from nowere. The idea of continuous universe(s) (universe always existed, or come from already existing universe) are to consider if you want to think illogically.

 

[Trumble]

what would be the point of life if everything was predetermined from our point of view?

What makes you think it has to have a point?

Regardless, the issue is easy enough to get around. It would be perfectly possible for an omnipotent God to 'program' a full understanding of what the rules should be without prejudicing the free will needed in deciding whether to follow them, although I suppose that process would no longer be 'instinctive'.

Evolution is a theory. The Creation theory is another theory. What makes the evolution theory the best guess ? and how does it fit the data better : What data ?
The Evolution Theory does not really explain the origin that all species evolved from...

The theory of Evolution makes no claim to such an explanation, which perhaps explains your misunderstanding. For the theist there is no reason to reject the idea that God was responsible both for that first 'spark' of life and for the subsequent evolutionary process.. a process for which, incidently, the perhaps more evidence than any other scientific theory, ever. Personally, I find that far more convincing than obvious creation fables and associated scientific impossibilities. An atheistic viewpoint is not required.

it's a theory, which is unfortunately not proved yet.

NO scientific theory can be. They can only be disproven. If evolution is a 'guess', then so is gravity.

If you want to think logically, there is always an original state where something poofed from nowere. The idea of continuous universe(s) (universe always existed, or come from already existing universe) are to consider if you want to think illogically.

One is no more 'logical' or 'illogical' than the other.

 

[Ramadhan]

Regardless, the issue is easy enough to get around. It would be perfectly possible for an omnipotent God to 'program' a full understanding of what the rules should be without prejudicing the free will needed in deciding whether to follow them, although I suppose that process would no longer be 'instinctive'.

What makes you think God has not 'programmed" a full understanding of the best rules to live the life and also gifted capacity to live the life according to the rules?
We certainly know that we have free-will to live the life.

On a side note, I am glad no more flying spaghetti monster is brought into discussion.
That's a step forward.

 

[marwen]

NO scientific theory can be. They can only be disproven. If evolution is a 'guess', then so is gravity.

How that ? do you mean scientists make theories and they believe their theories are impossible to prove, they can at most be disproved ?
For you a scientific theory is either wrong or impossible to prove ? Is that applicable to all theories that can exist ? So the whole science will be a fiction.

I think you're wrong here. A theory is a 'guess'(a claim) made after observation and reasoning. This guess can be wrong and can be true. It can be proved or disproved using real evidences (real objects) or logical and mathematical demonstration.

Saying that "the earth is round" (a sphere) was a theory. That theory was proved by real evidence : a trip around the globe by boat was the real evidence.

Saying that "the earth revolves around the sun, and not the opposite" was a theory. That theory was proved by physics calculations and today by astronomical instruments.

A list of Einsteins' theories (relativity, curve trajectory of light, etc.) are being proved for true as technology is progressing.

Some other theories have been disproved.

A theory can be proved, so it becomes a fact. And it can be disproved so it becomes false and rejected.

A theory that is neither proved nor disproved is not an argument or a subject of discussion until it is proved or disproved, unless you're working on proving it.

 

[DuncG]

marwen,

Well, I hope Trumble doesn't mind if I steal some thunder, but one point I always find important in discussions about proof is whether you're talking about absolute proof or using proof in a colloquial sense meaning 'provide evidence for'. In the colloquial sense, science provides 'proof' for a Theory every time it discovers a new fact that fits that Theory. But in the absolute sense no Theory can be 'proven' because it is impossible to know whether you've discovered every single possible fact in the Universe relevant to the Theory in question - there could always be another facet of reality out there waiting to be discovered that doesn't fit. Now, I'm not sure in which sense you're using the term 'proven' because you also mention logical and mathematical proofs, which use the term in its absolute sense.

But, even in the colloquial sense of the term, if you come across a fact that doesn't fit a Theory then you know the Theory is incomplete - even if you don't have absolute knowledge of all possible facts. That's why it is usually said that Theories cannot be (absolutely) proven, yet they can be (absolutely) disproven.

So, in an absolute sense, science can never be sure if it's correct. Thus, it could be termed 'fiction', but only if you redefine fiction to mean everything that isn't absolutely correct - in which case almost all court verdicts could be described as 'fictions' too due to the lack of absolute evidence. More usefully, science can be seen as a methodology that constantly spirals inwards, closer and closer towards the absolute truth. Whether it's ever actually possible to obtain absolute truth will probably only be known if we ever get there.


Which leads back to the subject of this thread. Most theists proclaim that they 'know' the 'absolute' truth. From a rational perspective, as that described for science, above, the corollary of this statement is that someone who knows the absolute truth must be aware of every possible fact in the Universe. If they don't, then there is no way for them to be sure that there aren't facts that can be found that would disagree with the 'absolute' truth they are proposing. How, then, is it possible to claim to know absolute truth?

One way religion tries to claim this is by simultaneously claiming the absolute truth, while claiming that the absolute truth is 'unknowable' - if something is 'unknowable' then no observed fact could ever be used to demonstrate that it isn't the absolute truth. How many times has it been asserted on this board that God or Islam is the absolute/ultimate truth yet that God is beyond our capacity to understand? These two claims are mutually exclusive in an epistemological sense: how is it possible to claim that something that cannot be understood is the absolute truth? By definition, you cannot come to any absolute conclusions to things that are even partially, let alone completely incomprehensible. The religious 'answer' to this inherent irrationality is to 'have faith', or, in other words, to ignore the inherent contradiction and accept the assertion with no qualification - but this provides no satisfactory, rational solution (although it may be a very appealing emotional solution).

I would like to see if this contradiction can be resolved, but I haven't found a solution yet in any of the religious writings I've been over that make these claims.

 

[Masuma]

But in the absolute sense no Theory can be 'proven' because it is impossible to know whether you've discovered every single possible fact in the Universe relevant to the Theory in question - there could always be another facet of reality out there waiting to be discovered that doesn't fit. Now, I'm not sure in which sense you're using the term 'proven' because you also mention logical and mathematical proofs, which use the term in its absolute sense.

leaving the rest of the post for brother marwen to answer, ...what are you talking about here, man?!

Didn't you ever hear that there are "laws of science?"

Laws can never ever be dis proven because now they are the LAWS!

 

[جوري]

What makes you think it has to have a point?

Regardless, the issue is easy enough to get around. It would be perfectly possible for an omnipotent God to 'program' a full understanding of what the rules should be without prejudicing the free will needed in deciding whether to follow them, although I suppose that process would no longer be 'instinctive'.
.

Because everything has a point and the opposite of not having a point in this case would simply not to exist.. the mere fact that you exist is already a point and with a point of origin (still unaccounted for) so it isn't an easy issue to get around. I do believe and think that it is instinctive for us to understand morals and the universal code in a generalized and a very crude fashion, but religion merely refines it so that the lines aren't so blurry.. I think an atheist (and because I have tread those lines myself) has to convince his/herself that there is no point and there are no instinctive rules but it takes effort to go against those forces that drive you and once you are actually there, then it is a sorry day (imho). Either way I believe that, a certain percentage would still not be happy with that and ask why not this, why that..

It is the nature and psychology of man and I believe these verses from the noble Quran sum it up beautifully..

Results أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الْإِنْسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُبِينٌ [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]{77}[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 36:77] Hath not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed? Yet lo! he is an open opponent.[/SIZE]
وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلًا وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ ۖ قَالَ مَنْ يُحْيِي الْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]{78}[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 36:78] And he hath coined for Us a similitude, and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away?[/SIZE]
قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا الَّذِي أَنْشَأَهَا أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]{79}[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 36:79] Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation,[/SIZE]

 

[marwen]

marwen,

Well, I hope Trumble doesn't mind if I steal some thunder, but one point I always find important in discussions about proof is whether you're talking about absolute proof or using proof in a colloquial sense meaning 'provide evidence for'. In the colloquial sense, science provides 'proof' for a Theory every time it discovers a new fact that fits that Theory. But in the absolute sense no Theory can be 'proven' because it is impossible to know whether you've discovered every single possible fact in the Universe relevant to the Theory in question - there could always be another facet of reality out there waiting to be discovered that doesn't fit. Now, I'm not sure in which sense you're using the term 'proven' because you also mention logical and mathematical proofs, which use the term in its absolute sense.

But, even in the colloquial sense of the term, if you come across a fact that doesn't fit a Theory then you know the Theory is incomplete - even if you don't have absolute knowledge of all possible facts. That's why it is usually said that Theories cannot be (absolutely) proven, yet they can be (absolutely) disproven.

So, in an absolute sense, science can never be sure if it's correct. Thus, it could be termed 'fiction', but only if you redefine fiction to mean everything that isn't absolutely correct - in which case almost all court verdicts could be described as 'fictions' too due to the lack of absolute evidence. More usefully, science can be seen as a methodology that constantly spirals inwards, closer and closer towards the absolute truth. Whether it's ever actually possible to obtain absolute truth will probably only be known if we ever get there.


Which leads back to the subject of this thread. Most theists proclaim that they 'know' the 'absolute' truth. From a rational perspective, as that described for science, above, the corollary of this statement is that someone who knows the absolute truth must be aware of every possible fact in the Universe. If they don't, then there is no way for them to be sure that there aren't facts that can be found that would disagree with the 'absolute' truth they are proposing. How, then, is it possible to claim to know absolute truth?

One way religion tries to claim this is by simultaneously claiming the absolute truth, while claiming that the absolute truth is 'unknowable' - if something is 'unknowable' then no observed fact could ever be used to demonstrate that it isn't the absolute truth. How many times has it been asserted on this board that God or Islam is the absolute/ultimate truth yet that God is beyond our capacity to understand? These two claims are mutually exclusive in an epistemological sense: how is it possible to claim that something that cannot be understood is the absolute truth? By definition, you cannot come to any absolute conclusions to things that are even partially, let alone completely incomprehensible. The religious 'answer' to this inherent irrationality is to 'have faith', or, in other words, to ignore the inherent contradiction and accept the assertion with no qualification - but this provides no satisfactory, rational solution (although it may be a very appealing emotional solution).

I would like to see if this contradiction can be resolved, but I haven't found a solution yet in any of the religious writings I've been over that make these claims.

good point.

But look, if we're gonna play the philosophical game of nothing is absolutely true, we'll never get out. You'll probably be unsure about if you really exist or not, and if your five senses are giving you the true image of reality. You'll be not sure if you ate pizza yesterday, and if you're really drinking real tea right now. And probably you'll lose your job because you don't believe it's your real boss who is talking to you.

There should be some starting points : you can call them axioms, which are conventionally true facts, and used to prove other ideas. These axioms are admitted as true : like "1+1=2", "for every integer N, there exists another successor N+1", "through 2 points we can draw just one segment", etc.

But I'm not talking about if a theory here or there is absolutely true. I'm saying It'll be enough if a theory is proved for me using evidences that I admit as true evidences.

And muslims are not claiming they have absolute truth. Muslims accepted some ideas as true based on evidences they consider as true.