Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[Pygoscelis]

Only young children believe in Santa and only a tiny minority of people believe in the other things you mentioned, whereas billions of people around the world have some sort of theistic belief. This in itself isn't necessarily evidence for the existence of God, but in my opinion it means that belief in God should be considered more seriously than the other things you mentioned.

I think it means that we should treat it with more tact and respect for those who hold religious views, not that we should give it any more credence or consider it any more likely to be true. As I think you are also saying, let's not fall prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[~Zaria~]

Greetings,

@ Pygoscelis, I have been through this entire thread, and what is apparent is that apart from mentioning that 1) you do not have the answers to many questions (and this is fine, even though it makes a conversation very difficult, to impossible), you have indeed evaded the posts that have proposed sound arguments in this discussion.

Yet, when this evasion is mentioned, you describe the person as being 'rude' 0_0


Your very first post in this thread:

How does that "answer atheism"? At best that is a statement that things used to be tighter and more organized than they now are. There are hundreds of reasons that could be.

You would have to show why it requires a god (or better yet your particular God, Allah), and you have made no attempt to do that here. So no, this isn't answering atheism in one paragraph. This isn't even one paragraph actually lol

When asked by sister Shadin:

And they are?

we still wait for a sound answer (mentioning that there are 'many other theories', but not actually elaborating on them, is of no benefit to this thread unfortunately.


You then later mention, that you cannot provide an explanation to the universe, that does not resort to a Creator:

You just demanded that I provide an explanation of the universe that doesn't resort to God of the Gaps. I told you I don't have one, and that admitting that is the proper default position.

The following statements/ questions have also been ignored along the way:

If it came from 'something'......then where did that 'something' come from? Something else? And where did that 'something else' come from? 'Something else'?.....And where did that 'Something else' come from?.....
We can continue ad lib on this course of thought, but at some point we have to end at a Source - the Creator.

Is this magic?
Such precision in all of creation.....has occurred by pure co-incidence/ chance? It can be seen over and over again, in all aspects of life......

Greetings,


Have YOU ever seen anything in life being 'created' or invented by anything less than an intelligent being?

Have you witnessed lifeless objects go on to produce something else?
Can a table produce a chair?
Can a car produce a bicycle?

Do you think these examples sound ridiculous?

Well, thats how ridiculous your above notion sounds to everyone else.

That this entire universe, with its immense beauty and diverse creations - all arising with such precision - has come about from:
- ?? a less intelligent source
- ?? a lifeless source

Even if the universe is a 'spin off from a multiverse' (as you imagine)......where did this multiverse come from?
Another multi-verse?
And where did this come from?
Another......? etc etc etc.....
Can you not understand, that for Everything in life - there has to be a starting point?

Is there Anything on earth that arises without a starting point? Name me one.

HOWEVER - you don't submit to a code made up by men lesser than yourself? you don't obey it's rules and "laws" , and meticulously ensure you don't fall foul of those people?
you ensure don't ensure your family and close ones don't fall foul of them and avoid "some punishment"?

Post 107 provided enough logical discussion, with regards to the possibilities for our existence, which you have also chosen to remain silent on:

The following article is a worth-while read:

**************************************
​

The Quranic Argument for God's Existence

.......

Things that began to exist were either:-

1. Created or brought into being from nothing
2. Self caused or self created
3. Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist
4. Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Before we proceed, the first presupposition has to be subtantiated, as it forms the basis for the Qur’an’s argument for the existence of God. This first assumption is that the universe began to exist.

Did the universe begin to exist?

To substantiate the view that the universe began to exist we can bring into our discussion a plethora of philosophical and inductive arguments:

1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events
3. Astrophysical evidence

1. The second law of thermodynamics

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). Take the following illustration of a container with gas,


when the partition is removed, the gas in one end of the container will spread to the whole of the container, going from a state of low entropy (higher temperature or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist.

Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead.

However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death?

This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.


2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end.

However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[2]


2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite.

Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

3. Astrophysical evidence

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing theory in cosmology.

It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity.

For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[4]

Although our understanding of what happened 10-43 seconds after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

“…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.”[5]

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago.

As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[6]

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite universe, for instance P.C.W. Davies questions,

“What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the physical world…or…an event without a cause.”[7]

These models include the oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models.

These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the universe, in other words they are non-infinitely extendable into the past.

Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be changed into a cosmic contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and then into a new expansion, with the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

1. Firstly there is nothing available in modern physics that would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a new expanding universe.

2. Secondly the mean mass density of the universe, derived from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required gravitational force to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe.

3. Thirdly, the second law of thermodynamics (as discussed above) implies the finitude of the universe. According to the oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of the various oscillations of expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

Since we have presented good evidence that the universe began to exist. We can now address the logically possible explanations the Qur’an presents as rationalisations of the origins of the universe.

Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes!

This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

“If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”[8]

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about.

The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity.”[9]

So, in context of some of the physicists’ definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something. It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation.

Self caused or self created

Philosophically, the universe couldn’t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself!

Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing…”[10]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum, which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that!

Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

Created or brought into being by something else that began to exist

This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn’t explain anything.

Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn’t have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”[11]

Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entity

Since something cannot come from nothing, and self creation is absurd, including the unreasonableness of the aforementioned explanation,

then the universe being created or brought into existence by an uncaused entity is the best explanation.

This concept is intuitive but also agrees with reality: whatever begins to exist has a cause or a creator.

This cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. To illustrate this better, if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place (something we have already discussed above). For example, imagine if a Stock Trader on a trading floor at the Stock Exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor, and then this investor had to check with his, and this went on forever, would the Stock Trader every buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. The Qur’an confirms the uncreatedness of the creator, God,

“He neither begets nor is born.” Qur’an 112:3

The cause or creator for the universe must be a single cause for several reasons. An attractive argument to substantiate this claim includes the use of the rational principle called Occam’s razor. In philosophical terms the principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. What this basically means is that we should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe we have no evidence to claim multiplicity, in other words more than one. The Qur’an affirms the Oneness of the creator,

“Say: He is God, [who is] One.” Qur’an 112:1

However some philosophers and scientists claim: why doesn’t the cause be the universe itself? Why can’t the cause stop at the universe? Well, the problem with these claims is that they would imply that the universe created itself, which we have already discussed, is absurd. Additionally, we have good reasons to postulate a cause for the universe because the universe began to exist, and what begins to exist has a cause.

Our argument thus far allows us to conclude that this cause or creator must be non contingent meaning that its existence is dependent on nothing but itself. If it were contingent it would be one more effect in the chain of causes. The Qur’an verifies this,

“God is Independent of (all) creatures.” Qur’an 3:97

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe. This is confirmed in the Qur’an,

“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” Qur’an 42:11

This cause must have the power to create the universe, without this ability nothing could be created. The Qur’an testifies to God’s power,

“Certainly, God has power over all things.” Qur’an 2:20

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. The Qur’an refers to God as having a will in many places, for instance,

“And God guides whom He wills to a straight path.” Qur’an 2:213

In summary, we have concluded what the Qur’an concluded over 1400 years ago, that a creator for the universe exists, that is one, has a will, is powerful, uncaused, immaterial and eternal.

Quantum Physics Undermines the Argument

A common contention to the central argument made in this essay is that the assumption – whatever begins to exist has a cause – is false. This is due to the apparent observations in the quantum vacuum that sub-atomic events behave spontaneously without any causes. In light of this common contention there are some good objections we can raise:

1. Firstly, the view that some events just happen, also known as indeterminism, for no reason at all is impossible to prove conclusively. Our inability to identify a cause does not necessarily mean that there is no cause.

2. Secondly, there are deterministic perspectives adopted by physicists to explain these so-called spontaneous sub-atomic events. For instance in the 1950s David Bohm showed there was an alternative formulation of quantum theory that is fully deterministic in its basic structure. [12] Commenting on Bohm’s theory Polkinghorne explains,

“In Bohm’s theory there are particles which are as unproblematically objective and deterministic in their behaviour as Sir Isaac Newton himself might have wished them to be. However, there is also a hidden wave, encoding information about the whole environment. It is not itself directly observable, but it influences in a subtle and highly sensitive manner the motions of the particles in just such a way as to induce the experimentally observed probabilistic effects.”[13]

What this means is that the apparent indeterminism present at the quantum level can be explained deterministically by this hidden wave that produces observed indeterministic or probabilistic effects.

However, since these two interpretations of quantum theory are empirically equivalent the choice between them will not be based on a scientific decision but on a metaphysical one. This leads to the philosophical objection to this contention.

3. Thirdly, from a philosophical perspective it is extremely difficult for these physicists (who adopt an indeterministic explanation of sub-atomic events) to justify their conclusions. This is because without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience. We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However, with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. So to accept that sub-atomic events do not correspond with causality would be tantamount of denying our own experience!


Source

^If you have a sound, logical argument in refutation to what has been mentioned above, we still await to hear of it.


You mention that atheism has:

as much solid foundation as their disbelief in any other fantastic unfalsifiable claim.

.....even though you have not been able to provide us with any indication of this.



You mention that we are:

shrugging off the alternate theories that Independent presented.

,

even though he hasnt explained how any other theories can dispute the arguments against them (as shown above)

Throughout this thread, similiar sentiments have been repeated:

No reason or evidence has been given for why a closed system requires a creator. No reason or evidence has been given for why that creator must be a sentient all powerful being we should call a God.

Yet, when evidence has been provided (as above, and including the links previously provided), it has been ignored and no attempts have been directly made to refute them.

No, but it does make a person a hypocrite to demand flexibility and open mindedness from others while proclaiming faith, certainty, inflexibility, and closed mindedness herself. If you are inflexible, then why would you mock others by accusing them of being inflexible? Is this a case of projection? My mind is open to change should really good evidence and argument proving the gods come along. Is your mind open to change as well? Do you seek to falsify your religious view or only to confirm it?

The most 'inflexibility' I have seen thus far, is from the atheists - although not possessing most answers, continue to reject/ ignore any discussion that is contrary to their notions (without even attempting to substantiate it).....or, they simply leave the discussion altogether.

To conclude, as sister Shadin rightfully mentioned very early on in this thread:

You can't state that you don't need to present evidence and at the same time in the next statement speak of 'God of the Gaps' and then further meander the post with irrelevant comments about thunder gods and harvest gods. As I stated before, there's no point discussing finite details if you don't accept the premise,

if you're going to find a flaw in the premise, then you must counter it with something more substantial than I don't have to, or catch all terms like 'God of the Gaps'

otherwise what is the point of having what should be a fruitful discussion on the subject?

best,

^ Exactly.

As demonstrated in this thread, it is not possible to have a fruitful discussion on this/ any subject if the other party is not able to provide meaningful counter-arguments.


If you/ anyone is able to provide refutations to what has already been mentioned in this thread, then God-willingly there may be benefit in proceeding this discussion further.

Regards

 

[May Ayob]

I grew up in Canada, which has religious people, but isn't as die hard as say the bible belt or Saudi Arabia. I did not meet a fundamentalist in any form until I started interacting on the internet many years ago. I came in with the false belief that there were no true theists, or at least very very few of them. I thought that people went along with God ideas as part of their culture, for social cohesion. It was shocking to me to meet people (Christians at the time) who truly, strongly, and completely believed these stories, literally. It was difficult for me to believe that was possible, and yet here were people in front of me who did exactly that, and they were not crazies, but intelligent and otherwise rational people.

I was fascinated by the phenomenon of religious belief, and I started looking into why people believe it. I looked at the effects of upbringing and culture, and the rise and fall of different religions throughout history and how they spread. I looked at how they evolved, borrowing ideas from each other, and shifting and shaping themselves over time, splitting off into various sects, etc. For example, the origin of the Catholic Church and how the bible books were selected and assembled is interesting and surprising to many.

I was especially fascinated by the psychology of religious belief and how it worked in both individuals and groups, why people would adopt such beliefs, how it benefited or harmed them, etc. I was fascinated by conversion and apostacy, social confirmity, authoritarianism, group think, tribalism, etc.

These social and psychological phenomena then all became interesting to me in their own right, outside of religious context. Patriotism and nationalism are interesting to look at, as are sports fans, etc. This all let me to my undergraduate studies in psychology and social cognition. This stuff still interests me, even though I have moved on to a different career focus now.

Although I had spent a lot of time back then reading various religious texts and listening to many religious views and experiences through this paradigm, I had not spent much time reading or thinking about Islam, having had no real exposure to it. That changed with 9/11. After 9/11 there were a lot of claims made by the media and people I spoke to and read online, and I wanted to investigate that and see what was true and what was islamophobia. That is what led me to this forum, and others which have muslim views represented on them. I have read some books, including the Quran, but I am more interested in what people actually believe and how they act on those beliefs, which is better gleamed from themselves (as they may read the books differently than I do)

Interacting with Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, brought me right back into my fascination with religious psychology. That people will protest violently over a cartoon, or pray so many times per day, or pride themselves on being "slaves" to a perceived authority figure (Allah) is pretty amazing to me.

Hmm, that's a bit long winded lol. To answer your question, yes I have read some on Islamic Monotheism. ;D

Were you raised in a religious household? or were your parents atheists as well?

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

I grew up in Canada, which has religious people, but isn't as die hard as say the bible belt or Saudi Arabia. I did not meet a fundamentalist in any form until I started interacting on the internet many years ago. I came in with the false belief that there were no true theists, or at least very very few of them. I thought that people went along with God ideas as part of their culture, for social cohesion. It was shocking to me to meet people (Christians at the time) who truly, strongly, and completely believed these stories, literally. It was difficult for me to believe that was possible, and yet here were people in front of me who did exactly that, and they were not crazies, but intelligent and otherwise rational people.

I was fascinated by the phenomenon of religious belief, and I started looking into why people believe it. I looked at the effects of upbringing and culture, and the rise and fall of different religions throughout history and how they spread. I looked at how they evolved, borrowing ideas from each other, and shifting and shaping themselves over time, splitting off into various sects, etc. For example, the origin of the Catholic Church and how the bible books were selected and assembled is interesting and surprising to many.

I was especially fascinated by the psychology of religious belief and how it worked in both individuals and groups, why people would adopt such beliefs, how it benefited or harmed them, etc. I was fascinated by conversion and apostacy, social confirmity, authoritarianism, group think, tribalism, etc.

These social and psychological phenomena then all became interesting to me in their own right, outside of religious context. Patriotism and nationalism are interesting to look at, as are sports fans, etc. This all let me to my undergraduate studies in psychology and social cognition. This stuff still interests me, even though I have moved on to a different career focus now.

Although I had spent a lot of time back then reading various religious texts and listening to many religious views and experiences through this paradigm, I had not spent much time reading or thinking about Islam, having had no real exposure to it. That changed with 9/11. After 9/11 there were a lot of claims made by the media and people I spoke to and read online, and I wanted to investigate that and see what was true and what was islamophobia. That is what led me to this forum, and others which have muslim views represented on them. I have read some books, including the Quran, but I am more interested in what people actually believe and how they act on those beliefs, which is better gleamed from themselves (as they may read the books differently than I do)

Interacting with Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, brought me right back into my fascination with religious psychology. That people will protest violently over a cartoon, or pray so many times per day, or pride themselves on being "slaves" to a perceived authority figure (Allah) is pretty amazing to me.

Hmm, that's a bit long winded lol. To answer your question, yes I have read some on Islamic Monotheism. ;D

Thanks for the lengthy reply.

The same way you are fascinated about those who believe in a Supreme Being, I, myself and those who believe in a 'Higher Power' can't fully comprehend that there are people who don't believe in any type of Supreme Being. You have studied this more than I, so i'm sure you are aware of the fact that you are, as an Atheist is in this case the anomaly. Atheism by numbers in today's North-Western Europe and it's offshoots is a new phenomenon that needs to be studied more. What are the ingredients and events that gave rise to this new phenomenon, the role the Church played, how the conflicts between Science and the Church in this part of the world shaped this. The role of colonization, nationalism, evolution, socialism, communism, ext..

If I were to guess, you are in the longest reach a 3rd Generation Atheist. Would that be a close guess?

Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
[At-Tur, 35-36]​

 

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks for the lengthy reply.

The same way you are fascinated about those who believe in a Supreme Being, I, myself and those who believe in a 'Higher Power' can't fully comprehend that there are people who don't believe in any type of Supreme Being. You have studied this more than I, so i'm sure you are aware of the fact that you are, as an Atheist is in this case the anomaly. Atheism by numbers in today's North-Western Europe and it's offshoots is a new phenomenon that needs to be studied more. What are the ingredients and events that gave rise to this new phenomenon, the role the Church played, how the conflicts between Science and the Church in this part of the world shaped this. The role of colonization, nationalism, evolution, socialism, communism, ext..

If I were to guess, you are in the longest reach a 3rd Generation Atheist. Would that be a close guess?

Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
[At-Tur, 35-36]​

I think that has mostly to do with cultural norms. I am pretty sure my father is an atheist, but he wouldn't admit it. He goes along with my mom, who is Anglican. He occasionally, but very rarely, goes to church. He basically will go when she asks him to. She goes regularly. I am not even certain that she believes it very strongly though. She calims to but I get the sense from her that she is more into the social aspect of her church friends, etc. I very rarely hear her talking about the religious beliefs themselves and I'm not entirely clear what they are for her.

Only in the past hundred years or so has it been ok to be honest about not believing in God. Even today in many places such as the US bible belt atheists are forced to hide it. They are often very shocked to meet so many other atheists. The common response is "I thought I was the only one". This is the drive behind many atheist "groups" (which is otherwise pointless), to get the message out that you can be outwardly atheist and don't have to subject yourself to religious zealots anymore.

In less fundamentalist areas of the west, well pretty much anywhere but the bible belt, you can now be outwardly atheist, and so many people are seemingly religious in name only that you have to wonder if they are closet cases. A lot of people seem to go along with religion to please what they perceive others as wanting. The fundamentalists and extremists really hate atheists so they figure the rest of religious people won't react well either, and they'd rather avoid conflict. Atheism to an atheist isn't anywhere near as near or dear as a truly religious person's religious belief, as we saw earlier in this thread. I bet that for each of you reading this there is an atheist in your immediate family or circle of friends, who will never admit it because they feel they'd have too much to lose and little to gain if they did.

I think a lot of the new norm in much of the west for atheists being ok calling themselves atheists is an unravelling of that perceived social pressure, and its really just taking a critical mass of us to admit the emperor has no clothes. Groupthink also plays a major role, and it also unravels as more people leave the group. Also, I think a major force is the drive for individual freedom, and for democracy. The more we think as individuals the less we will bow to the group norm. Eventually we dull it and then more people are comfortable leaving it. You often see for religion, as you have right here, people arguing from argumentum ad populum, the idea that if everybody else believes something you should too.

Another major contributor is the social programming of parents and families. There are exceptions, but most members of a religion grow up with that religion and pass it on to their children. And when you look at some religious beliefs, the eucharist for example, from outside the religious programming of that religion, it looks truly bizarre and it is almost certain that you would never believe it to be what they claim it is.

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

 

[Indian Bro]

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ

Proof that atheists are really ignorant (Even those that worship science)

 

[Pygoscelis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2IEvykdCpQ

Proof that atheists are really ignorant (Even those that worship science)

Proof that muslims ---- no strike that, proof that Indian Bro has no interest in discussion and only wants to attack atheists, with links completely unrelated to the text he quotes.

The correlations between education, intelligence, and religion are actually pretty complicated. My point isn't that religion is for stupid people, there are a lot of very intelligent people who believe, they just tend to believe in more personal and nuanced ways. They also justify their belief better and are harder to sway because they have invented better reasons to hang on.

This is interesting:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2012/07/does-education-mean-more-or-less.html

As is this: (for smart people)
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/

 

[Indian Bro]

Proof that muslims ---- no strike that, proof that Indian Bro has no interest in discussion and only wants to attack atheists, with links completely unrelated to the text he quotes.

The correlations between education, intelligence, and religion are actually pretty complicated. My point isn't that religion is for stupid people, there are a lot of very intelligent people who believe, they just tend to believe in more personal and nuanced ways. They also justify their belief better and are harder to sway because they have invented better reasons to hang on.

This is interesting:
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2012/07/does-education-mean-more-or-less.html

As is this: (for smart people)
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I meant, but from what I understood you said "atheism increases as education increases", I disagree. And I used the link to point out that Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist who is a firm believer of science, exposes his own ignorance whilst at the same time attempts to deface Islam. It goes to show that atheists just claim to be more educated than religious folk when in fact, they just say so to satisfy themselves even if it's not true.

 

[May Ayob]

I think it means that we should treat it with more tact and respect for those who hold religious views, not that we should give it any more credence or consider it any more likely to be true. As I think you are also saying, let's not fall prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Pardon me, I have another question,do you consider atheism to be a religion? I have a hint from your previous posts that the answer is no but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some clarification.

Another thing, areyou willing to admit that in the same way as you put it that religious views should not hold any credibility and 'should not be consider any more likely true' that the same can be applied with atheism; the mere lack of fsith in God or god(s) should also not hold any credibility nor be considered any more likely tobe true as well?.

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

I think that has mostly to do with cultural norms. I am pretty sure my father is an atheist, but he wouldn't admit it. He goes along with my mom, who is Anglican. He occasionally, but very rarely, goes to church. He basically will go when she asks him to. She goes regularly. I am not even certain that she believes it very strongly though. She calims to but I get the sense from her that she is more into the social aspect of her church friends, etc. I very rarely hear her talking about the religious beliefs themselves and I'm not entirely clear what they are for her.

Only in the past hundred years or so has it been ok to be honest about not believing in God. Even today in many places such as the US bible belt atheists are forced to hide it. They are often very shocked to meet so many other atheists. The common response is "I thought I was the only one". This is the drive behind many atheist "groups" (which is otherwise pointless), to get the message out that you can be outwardly atheist and don't have to subject yourself to religious zealots anymore.

In less fundamentalist areas of the west, well pretty much anywhere but the bible belt, you can now be outwardly atheist, and so many people are seemingly religious in name only that you have to wonder if they are closet cases. A lot of people seem to go along with religion to please what they perceive others as wanting. The fundamentalists and extremists really hate atheists so they figure the rest of religious people won't react well either, and they'd rather avoid conflict. Atheism to an atheist isn't anywhere near as near or dear as a truly religious person's religious belief, as we saw earlier in this thread. I bet that for each of you reading this there is an atheist in your immediate family or circle of friends, who will never admit it because they feel they'd have too much to lose and little to gain if they did.

I think a lot of the new norm in much of the west for atheists being ok calling themselves atheists is an unravelling of that perceived social pressure, and its really just taking a critical mass of us to admit the emperor has no clothes. Groupthink also plays a major role, and it also unravels as more people leave the group. Also, I think a major force is the drive for individual freedom, and for democracy. The more we think as individuals the less we will bow to the group norm. Eventually we dull it and then more people are comfortable leaving it. You often see for religion, as you have right here, people arguing from argumentum ad populum, the idea that if everybody else believes something you should too.

Another major contributor is the social programming of parents and families. There are exceptions, but most members of a religion grow up with that religion and pass it on to their children. And when you look at some religious beliefs, the eucharist for example, from outside the religious programming of that religion, it looks truly bizarre and it is almost certain that you would never believe it to be what they claim it is.

With the USA as the major exception, you also find that atheism increases as education and standard of living increases, and I don't think that is coincidence either. Some major reasons for believing in religions are coping-related. Religion truly can be the opiate of the masses, etc. When people need less comforting, religion can slip away. Education tends to include exposure to new ideas and less intellectual isolation, and as you become more exposed to other cultures and ideas and paradigms, you are more likely to question your own, and more likely to see it for what I say it is, part of your culture. Furthermore, as technology increases, even the uneducated gain access to other ideas and cultures and paradigms.

The fastest growing numbers on religious surveys is "none of the above", and the reason for that is multifaceted, and I think it is only going to increase. That said, I do not think religion will ever disappear entirely.

There is a lot of truth to what you have said. I took a course on World/European History, and the cultural norms of the west certainly played a role. The concepts of individualism, self-sufficiency is something you mentioned that i didn't consider earlier.

With regard to the role Education plays, I am slightly not so sure. I think it has a lot more to do with economical conditions, but that to some extent is related to Education. The United States as you mentioned is an example of that. We could also go back and look at the 'Golden Era' of Islamic Civilization. It was actually Islam, the values of knowledge stressed in the Quran and Ahadeeth, that ignited one of the greatest, if not the greatest quest of Knowledge in human history. This didn't in the least effect the convictions of the Muslims, for Science and Religion were not at odds but rather complimentary. This is a difference between the West's experiences with religion and science than that of the Muslim World. For the Muslims it was Islam that encouraged them to search for knowledge, assemble it, share it, to benefit humanity and be rewarded by Allah swt for it. It may be very difficult for a Western individual to understand when some Muslims today call for a return to Islam in-order to improve the conditions of the Muslim world, they say these people want to go back to the 7th century. This is entirely based on their understanding and experiences with religion and how it to some extent prevented scientific enlightenment.

you said; "When people need less comforting, religion can slip away."

It is very interesting you mentioned that, for this is the Qur'anic view. It is those who believe they have it all, mainly wealth and power, that seem to reject faith more. If you read the Qur'an you'll notice that the ones who rejected the Prophets were often the chiefs, the wealthy of the those societies. As someone who studied psychology, why do you think this is the case. Is it due to pride, some level of arrogance, believe that one is self-sufficient, the master of his destiny, how is the ego involved?

Here is a fascinating story that is mentioned in the Qur'an. Chapter 18.

“…Tell them as an example the story of two men: for one of them We made two vineyards and surrounded both with date-palms, and placed a field of grain in-between. Both of the vineyards (including the date-palms and grain) yielded its produce, without failing in the least therein. We had also caused a stream to gush forth in their midst. So both of the vineyards including the date-palms and grain) yielded its produce, without failing in the least therein. We had also caused a stream to gush forth in their midst.

The man had fruit in abundance, and one day he said to his friend, bandying words with him: “I am more than you in wealth, and more esteemed and stronger in respect of men.” He went into his vineyard in self-wronging (puffed up by worldly successes which had led him to conceit and unbelief). He said: “I deem not that all this will ever perish. Nor do I deem that the Last Hour will ever come. Even if (it should come, and) I am brought back to my Lord, I shall surely find (there by virtue of my own abilities and as my deserts) something even better than this as a resort.” His friend said to him, in the course of the argument with him: “Do you blaspheme (in such ingratitude as this) against He Who has created you out of dust, then out of a sperm-drop, then fashioned you into a complete man? But I believe for my part that He is God, my Lord, and none can I associate with my Lord as partner (in His Lordship-His bringing up, providing, sustaining and protecting). Alas, if you had but said, on entering your vineyard, “Whatever God wills will surely come to pass. How perfectly He creates and how mercifully He provides! There is no strength save with God.” Though you see me as less than you in wealth and children, (this is no problem at all, for it is God Who does what He will, and He is All-Compassionate toward His servants). Yet it may well be that my Lord will give me something better than your vineyard, just as He may send a calamity upon your vineyard from Heaven, so that it becomes a barren waste. Or its water sinks deep into the ground, so that you will never be able search for and find it again.”

So eventually all his produce was encompassed by ruin, and there he was, wringing his hands with grief over all that he had spent on it, when now it was all ruined on its trellises, and he could but say, “Oh, would that I had never associated anyone with my Lord as partner (in His Lordship).” And he had, apart from God, none, no troop of men to help him, nor could he be of any help to himself. For thus it is: all protective power and authority essentially belongs to God alone, the True One. He is the best to reward, and the best to determine the end of things." (Kahf 18:32-44)


Allah swt knows Best.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Pardon me, I have another question,do you consider atheism to be a religion? I have a hint from your previous posts that the answer is no but I'm not sure. I would appreciate some clarification.

Atheism, by itself, is not a religion, no.

Another thing, areyou willing to admit that in the same way as you put it that religious views should not hold any credibility and 'should not be consider any more likely true' that the same can be applied with atheism; the mere lack of fsith in God or god(s) should also not hold any credibility nor be considered any more likely tobe true as well?.

I'm sure exactly what you mean, but I think the answer is that you are correct We certainly can't prove there are no Gods.

 

[Pygoscelis]

With regard to the role Education plays, I am slightly not so sure. I think it has a lot more to do with economical conditions, but that to some extent is related to Education. The United States as you mentioned is an example of that. We could also go back and look at the 'Golden Era' of Islamic Civilization.

As you'll see in the link I posted, it gets very complicated. Yes, science did very well under the Islamic Golden Age. Science actually also did ok in some Christian times. Mendel was a priest if I am not mistaken. I think science was actually in some sense born from religion, initially meant to investigate how God works, etc, and that only later did it grow too big for the church and become a monster for them, and come up with findings that conflict with church dogma. Science and Religion can co-exist sometimes, but I think conflict between the two is inevitable if religion makes any concrete claims that are subject to empirical investigation and testing.

you said; "When people need less comforting, religion can slip away."

It is very interesting you mentioned that, for this is the Qur'anic view. It is those who believe they have it all, mainly wealth and power, that seem to reject faith more. If you read the Qur'an you'll notice that the ones who rejected the Prophets were often the chiefs, the wealthy of the those societies. As someone who studied psychology, why do you think this is the case. Is it due to pride, some level of arrogance, believe that one is self-sufficient, the master of his destiny, how is the ego involved?

Religion has a lot to offer the downtrodden, struggling, and uncomfortable. It promises you that the world was designed with you in mind, that there is some cosmic plan in all the chaos around you, and that though your life may suck now, you will be have bliss in the afterlife. Desperate people need these kinds of assurances more than comfortable people do.

You may have heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes", referring to people fearing for their lives turning to God. You may also have heard stories claiming death bed confessions of famous atheists. Of course, there are atheists in foxholes and most of those famous people death bed confession stories are false, but the underlaying idea is valid. Desperate people do more often turn to religion. But before you try to use that as proof of diety, consider that desperate people are also more likely to turn to irrational things like psychics, states of denial, etc.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Speaking of interesting apostates and closet cases, check this out: Priests who lose their faith but yet stay in the job. A very particular moral predicament as he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmHW0OX-GUs

 

[ajazz]

Assalamualykum!


Does our universe require a creator?

“ So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator . But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then for a creator?
-Stephen W. Hawking (A Brief History of Time)


But Mr. Hawking in his latest book The Grand Design himself today acknowledges that our universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing!

We also know that our universe is expanding at a tremendous pace and for anything to expand it needs boundary!!!

Well then there is a place for creator, isn't there?

Let’s begin with the axiomatic truth that anything that is created cannot be responsible for its own creation.
Your actions are not responsible for your own birth; the car you drive is not responsible for its own creation.

Not long ago scientist told us that our universe is static implying that it always existed and therefore not created.

This made atheists grin from one molar to another

But Mr. Hubble spoiled the party and presented empirical evidence that our universe is expanding and that too at a tremendous speed and we had big bang theory which states that our universe at the very beginning was just a tiny speck

Now the question was from where did this speck known as singularity came from? Because the entire natural laws that we know today breaks down at singularity.

Stephen Hawking the celebrity wheelchair genius in his book the grand design tells us that our universe was created out of nothing!

In fact scientists in an experiment have created light out of almost nothing.

We still need something to create things out of nothing , the point is our universe was indeed created and was nonexistent and therefore something created our universe.

So what must have created our universe? Let’s apply some intelligence and logic.

Let’s assume ABC created our universe now there are only two possibilities (if you now of third let me know) one is that ABC itself was created by something else and that something else was created by another something else if we go on like this we will be in an infinite regression which is illogical and impossible.

Think about Dominoes effect without the first or initial push the sequence will never start.

The other possibility is that ABC always existed which is more logical and rational conclusion.

We have to go a step further and define some characteristic, attributes and capabilities of ABC to make more sense.

1] Since ABC always existed it is truly infinite i.e. it has no beginning and no end

Our universe is finite it had a beginning and will end; therefore ABC cannot be part of our universe nothing that exist in our universe can be part of ABC. Everything that exists in our universe is subject to the laws of the nature therefore it cannot be creator of the law to which it is subservient.

2] ABC should have ability or capability to create things out of nothing.

3] Since creating things require information and knowledge, ABC Possess intelligence.

4] There can only be one ABC

You may ask where God fits in this. For that we have to define God, its attributes and characteristics.

And that God is God of Islam “Allah (s)”

In the Noble Quran Allah (swt) describes himself in chapter 112

1) Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
(Remember there can only be one “ABC”)

2) Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
(No beginning and no end i.e. always existing)

3) He begetteth not, nor is He begotten
(Un-created, always existing)

4) And there is none like unto Him
(There is nothing that exists in our universe that can be compared with Allah (swt) which makes sense because as already stated creator of the laws cannot be subjected to it)

Besides this there are at least 99 attributes known as names of Allah (swt) which describe him.

Some relevant ones are…

Allah(swt) is also known as…

Al-'Awwal-The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.

Al-'Akhir-The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.

Al-Baaqi-The Everlasting, The One that the state of non-existence is impossible for Him. (infinite)

Al-Badi-The Incomparable, The One who created the creation and formed it without any preceding example.

Beside this Allah (swt) has the ability to create things out of nothing.

“Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is.”
Noble Quran (2:117)

"To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is."
Noble Quran( 16:40)

Now all you have to do is replace ABC with Allah (swt) and you have a very logical and rational God that you can believe in.




"something from nothing, physicists are finding, may be the ultimate secret of the universe."The surprising fact is that we live in a universe that has all the characteristics of being created from nothing,"

http://tinyurl.com/6n7rwa3

The Big Bang...?
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

Noble Qur'an(21:30)


Now your turn prove that God does not exist.

 

[Pygoscelis]

But Mr. Hawking in his latest book The Grand Design himself today acknowledges that our universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing!

I don't think you read and understood the book you seem to want to quote here. Am I wrong about that? We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread.

Well then there is a place for creator, isn't there?

Yes there certainly is that possibility. Since we don't really know how this all came to be, there are lots of possibilities. It could be something we'll never even think of.

ABC itself was created by something else and that something else was created by another something else if we go on like this we will be in an[/FONT][/COLOR] infinite regression which is illogical and impossible.

Why is that impossible? We looked at this earlier in this thread. People can't wrap their minds around the concept of infinity so they laugh at it and declare it impossible. At the same time the same people seem to want to endorse a creator who is all wrapped up in infinities.

1] Since ABC always existed it is truly infinite i.e. it has no beginning and no end

Yes. Like that. You first say infinity is impossible and then you say ABC is infinite. Also, why would you imply that something with no beginning would necessarily have no end?

Our universe is finite it had a beginning and will end; therefore ABC cannot be part of our universe nothing that exist in our universe can be part of ABC. Everything that exists in our universe is subject to the laws of the nature therefore it cannot be creator of the law to which it is subservient.

If it is not manifest in our universe then how does it affect, manipulate, or interact with our universe?

Since creating things require information and knowledge

Does it?

ABC Possess intelligence.

How much intelligence? Infinite Intelligence?

4] There can only be one ABC

You said this 1 creator exists outside our universe. Why can't 2? Or 200?

It boggles me that people refuse to admit they simply don't know what they clearly don't know, have no way of knowing, and will likely never know. They've done this throughout history, inventing magical Gods to answer the unanswered with a simple God-Did-It, which of course answers nothing. People used to say God made it rain, and did rain dances, before we knew of meteorology. People blamed disease on evil spirits. People blamed earthquakes on homosexuals. Some folks just don't seem too comfortable with not knowing. Having an answer, any answer, even a completely wrong answer, is preferable to admitting ignorance eh? You gotta have faith, and believe what you want and need to be true.

 

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum

I love how atheists will argue that there was something infinite before the creation of the universe but won't accept that "something" is God, why? They don't have the answer to that, they just DON'T want to believe in a God. Their hearts have been sealed.

Salam 3laikum

 

[ajazz]

I don't think you read and understood the book you seem to want to quote here. Am I wrong about that? We saw a lot of that earlier in this thread.

Its not only Mr hawking other scientist also believe so. do some research.

Yes there certainly is that possibility.

The moment you admit the possibility you contradict yourself!
An Atheist denies the possibility of god... Remove the tag of atheism, you are no longer an atheist you are an agnostic

A truly intelligent person can be agnostic but he cannot be an atheist.


Intelligence without wisdom breeds Atheism.

Why is that impossible? We looked at this earlier in this thread. People can't wrap their minds around the concept of infinity so they laugh at it and declare it impossible. At the same time the same people seem to want to endorse a creator who is all wrapped up in infinities.

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

It is impossible because it is like running around in circle and to be in a circle you still need a starting point.

just try drawing a circle without a starting point!

Yes. Like that. You first say infinity is impossible and then you say ABC is infinite. Also, why would you imply that something with no beginning would necessarily have no end?

you have not been paying attention...

infinity cannot exist in our universe because if you add or subtract from infinity it still remains infinite.

if i have a box full of infinite oranges and another box with five oranges (finite) now if i mix both the boxes the five oranges loose their finite status only infinite amount of oranges are left on the other hand if i take out five oranges from infinite oranges box and mix them with finite box the then infinite box will still remain infinite but the oranges taken out of infinite box loose their status of infinity and become five oranges making it total of box of ten finite oranges.

Absolute infinity can only exist outside of our universe and ABC is outside of our universe.

Is this too hard for you?

The moment anything has a beginning it can no longer be classified as infinite therefore it has to be classified as finite the end is irrelevant.

anything that has had a beginning means it depends on the source that created it everything in our universe is finite and depends on something else for its existence.
we as humans depends upon food as a source the food itself depends upon soil and trees and many other factors.
therefore the existence of an finite thing for how long it can exist depends upon the source that it depends upon.

from this it is logically and rationally concluded that all things that are finite needs an originating source and this source has to be infinite.

"Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Say, "Bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!"
Noble Quran (27-64)

If it is not manifest in our universe then how does it affect, manipulate, or interact with our universe?

you need to polish your logic it has become rusty.

A manufacturer of a car does not have to be part of the car.. does he?

our universe is governed by physical and natural laws and these laws are created by Allah(s).

Do they see nothing in the government of the heavens and the earth and all that Allah hath created? (Do they not see) that it may well be that their terms is nigh drawing to an end? In what message after this will they then believe?
Noble Quran (7-185)

Does it?

This is too unintelligent question to be answered.

How much intelligence? Infinite Intelligence?

Beyond your comprehension !

You said this 1 creator exists outside our universe. Why can't 2? Or 200?

The moment you say 2 or 200 your are quantifying and anything that is quantified ceases to be infinite.

and as has been logically and rationally argued our universe can only come from something that has no end and no beginning.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I love how atheists will argue that there was something infinite before the creation of the universe

That is a possibility. I have not argued it is certain, and nor has any other atheist in this thread.

but won't accept that "something" is God, why?

I see no reason to. If there was such a something, I don't see why it would have to be your God. That is a whole additonal series of assumptions. And that no argument was made to fill that gap is one glaring omission in the OP.

They don't have the answer to that

Atheists in this thread are not the ones claiming certain knowledge.

They just DON'T want to believe in a God. Their hearts have been sealed.

I addressed that misconception earlier in this thread. I would be quite ok with believing in Gods, faries, space alien visitors, loch ness, and many other things I don't now believe in, if there was good evidence and pursuasive logical argument for them. That some theists need to assign my position as otherwise, despite what I tell them my position is, says far more about them than me. Does it threaten one's faith to acknowledge that others can openly look at the facts we have at hand and not agree with the assumptions and claims they draw?

 

[Independent]

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

The only thing you’ve really demonstrated here is how hard it is to talk about infinity. But let's have a go anyway. Taking your oranges analogy:

If the oranges are infinite, how can they be ‘inside’ a box? It doesn’t matter how infinitely big the box is, the oranges are every bit as infinite too. You can’t have both an infinite box and infinite oranges in the same universe.

You certainly can’t then add 5 more oranges to your collection because there would be no room for another box of oranges in the universe – which is already filled infinitely with oranges from the first box.

The apparent contradiction is caused because you’re using a single word – infinity – but sometimes you’re referring to an infinity of space, then time, and also mathematics. You’re jumping from one to the other as if they’re all the same. And you are treating infinity as if it sometimes has a definite number – but this can never be.

Infinity is a concept that denies quantification. As soon as you try to pin it down it is - by definition - more than that. The concept of infinity is simply the human conception of something that is 'greater' or 'more' or 'a bigger number' than whatever it is that is being imagined or thought of. Therefore it is not a number and you can't apply simple addition or subtraction operations on it (or if you do you drain the meaning from the whole equation.)

Your proof isn't mathematical, or logical - it's semantic.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Its not only Mr hawking other scientist also believe so. do some research.

It doesn't help your case to point at theoretical physicists you haven't read and understood, or to use what they say to claim certainty in theories and ideas they put forward tentatively. Hawking will be the first to admit that he is not certain, and that he is creating theory based on the evidence he has. And if you wish to claim him as an authority, then you should consider that he does not draw your further conclusions about Gods existing. He is not a theist, and certainly not a Muslim.

The moment you admit the possibility you contradict yourself!
An Atheist denies the possibility of god... Remove the tag of atheism, you are no longer an atheist you are an agnostic

I do not contradict myself. I define myself as both atheist (lacking god belief) and agnostic (believing it is impossible to know for certain).

A truly intelligent person can be agnostic but he cannot be an atheist.

If you define agnostic as one who does not know for sure, then any sane person is agnostic.

Intelligence without wisdom breeds Atheism.

How so? How do you define Intelligence and Widsom? And why would one without the other breed atheism?

And if what you say is true, then does Wisdom without Intelligence breed theism?

If people cannot wrap their minds around concept of infinity it is their problem not the concept's.

Agreed

infinity cannot exist in our universe because if you add or subtract from infinity it still remains infinite.

I don't see how that premise forces that conclusion. As Independent noted, there are different dimensions that could be infinite.

Absolute infinity can only exist outside of our universe and ABC is outside of our universe.

Is this too hard for you?

Yes it is too hard for me. I don't claim to understand infinity very well. I don't think you understand it either.

The moment anything has a beginning it can no longer be classified as infinite therefore it has to be classified as finite the end is irrelevant.

That seems to depend on how you define a starting point. Numbers start at zero and count up to infinity for example.

anything that has had a beginning means it depends on the source that created it everything in our universe is finite and depends on something else for its existence.

You don't know that.

This is too unintelligent question to be answered.

If you can't answer a question then admit you can't answer it. There is no reason to protect your ego and label what you can't handle "unintelligent".

The moment you say 2 or 200 your are quantifying and anything that is quantified ceases to be infinite.

How can you say that and then say there is no god but Allah? Is 1 not a number?

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.