Is There Evidence of Allah's Existence?

[GuestFellow]

No. Creation cannot come from nothing, and the Creator is not creation.

Well you summed up everything I was trying to say.

I think atheists/agnostics and even theists sometimes reduce the standard of God to our level. Some even give God human characteristics.

 

[observer]

I think atheists/agnostics and even theists sometimes reduce the standard of God to our level. Some even give God human characteristics.

Does the Quran not give human attributes to God? Mercy, anger and so on?

 

[GuestFellow]

Does the Quran not give human attributes to God? Mercy, anger and so on?

Yes but that's because to give Muslims an idea of what God is like. Since he is beyond our comprehension, that is probably why human characteristics are used to enable us to have an idea of what he is like. However those human characteristics should not be applied literally.

Some people reduce God's standard to a low level which can be borderline shirk. Some people believe God has human features or has relatives.

 

[observer]

Additionally, one has to reflect upon the characteristics of creation in terms of creatures and even law of the universe such as the speed of light/sound/etc. Do you think that these traits were out of nothing?

Well, "we don't know is the scientific answer". The problem with many religious adherents is that they accuse atheists of not having the answers as if that's a bad thing; we don't, we're looking for them. I hope someday we find them.

As for something coming from nothing, science is starting to suggest that this is perfectly possible. It also suggests that our concept of "nothing" is wholly inadequate.

My problem with the religious viewpoint is that it seems to say "We don't know the answer to this, so God must have done it." I can't accept that reasoning.

 

[جوري]

Does the Quran not give human attributes to God? Mercy, anger and so on?

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: There is a hadeeth narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in which he forbids saying “May Allaah deform your face”, and says that Allaah created Adam in His image. What is the correct belief with regard to this hadeeth?​

He replied: This hadeeth is proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), in which he said: “If any one of you strikes (another), let him avoid the face, for Allaah created Adam in His image.” According to another version: “In the image of the Most Merciful.” This does not imply resemblance or likeness. What is meant, according to the scholars, is that Allaah created Adam with the ability to hear and see, and to speak when he wants. These are also attributes of Allaah, for He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and He speaks when He wants, and He has a Face, may He be glorified and exalted. But it does not mean that there is any resemblance or likeness. Rather the image of Allaah is different from that of created beings. What is meant is that He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and He speaks when He wants, and He created Adam also able to hear and see, with a face and hands and feet. But man’s hearing is not like Allaah’s hearing, his seeing is not like Allaah’s seeing, his speaking is not like Allaah’s speaking. Rather Allaah has attributes that befit His majesty and might, and man has attributes that befit him, attributes that are finite and imperfect, whereas the attributes of Allaah are perfect, with no shortcomings, infinite and without end. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Seer” [al-Shoora 42:11] “And there is none co‑equal or comparable unto Him” [al-Ikhlaas 112:4] So it is not permissible to strike the face or say “May Allaah deform your face”. End quote. Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh, 4/226

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20652

 

[GuestFellow]

The problem with many religious adherents is that they accuse atheists of not having the answers as if that's a bad thing; we don't, we're looking for them. I hope someday we find them.

There is nothing wrong with not having the answers. Science is about explaining how things work, but it cannot address everything. I think people have to be reasonable here.

As for something coming from nothing, science is starting to suggest that this is perfectly possible.

Do you have evidence for this? If you don't, then that's fine. I'm not saying your wrong. We don't have access to suitable references at all times.

My problem with the religious viewpoint is that it seems to say "We don't know the answer to this, so God must have done it." I can't accept that reasoning.

Well how would you define a reason?

 

[جوري]

My problem with the religious viewpoint is that it seems to say "We don't know the answer to this, so God must have done it." I can't accept that reasoning.

That is your problem alone along with other atheists. What you'd classify as science today which differs from what science was 200 years ago and certainly different still if there's still life two hundred years from now doesn't offer answers to the most basic of questions, isolating the gene that causes schizophrenia for instance, a cure for the common cold, the Usage of immunoglobilin D and the list goes on and on, yet pretends to offer an explanation to the origin of life and evolution of man from which the masses are meant to hang their hopes and beliefs?
and no the concept of spontaneous generation is long dead!
There should be no room for pseudo science or poetic science, and since you offer no viable explanation for the tough question then there really shouldn't be the slightest rudimentary remark as to why many subscribe to 'God Must have done it' Frankly life is too short and bizarre to subscribe to some random beliefs as dreamt up by an atheist.

best,

 

[Hulk]

Well, "we don't know is the scientific answer". The problem with many religious adherents is that they accuse atheists of not having the answers as if that's a bad thing; we don't, we're looking for them. I hope someday we find them.

As for something coming from nothing, science is starting to suggest that this is perfectly possible. It also suggests that our concept of "nothing" is wholly inadequate.

My problem with the religious viewpoint is that it seems to say "We don't know the answer to this, so God must have done it." I can't accept that reasoning.

Then one has to define one's idea of nothing. If by nothing you mean empty space then that is still something. And if by nothing you mean absolutely nothing not even space then you have to wonder what caused it to change. Either way there is a source.

As for "We don't know the answer to this, so God must have done it.".
Well the problem with that is that you blanket all theists with that frame of mind. I think many muslim scientists(or muslims in general) would disagree. Understanding how something works does not negate that it has a source.

And to add:
Islam places great importance in seeking knowledge. If TRULY seeking knowledge leads one to disbelieve that surely this wouldn't have been encouraged. So that itself is worth reflecting on.

 

[observer]

Do you have evidence for this? If you don't, then that's fine. I'm not saying your wrong. We don't have access to suitable references at all times.

Yes and no! It's a horribly complex area and I'm merely an interested amateur. Essentially, what I'm talking about here leads from Heisenberg's work and we see now with the idea of "vacuum energy" or "vacuum particles" where energy/particles (the same thing, essentially) appear to come from nothing.

As I said, this might really be something from nothing or it could be that what we think of as nothing is completely flawed. Time will tell (hopefully, I'm an optimist )!

 

[observer]

Then one has to define one's idea of nothing. If by nothing you mean empty space then that is still something.

We may well have to redefine what "nothing" is. I certainly can't do it!

 

[جوري]

Then one has to define one's idea of nothing

There's NO idea here. We didn't always exist on this earth per science, so per science as well they should put together the zillions of biochemical and physiological pathways & reactions all the way to a complex being with higher reticular function in two separate sexes across the species and make it so it is applied and empirical and reproducible for that is truly how science works. They don't like 'God of the gaps' and likewise we don't like pseudo science.These are their beliefs no more no less and I am not big on substituting one belief for another because it is en vogue!

 

[observer]

and no the concept of spontaneous generation is long dead!
There should be no room for pseudo science or poetic science,

No I don't mean spontaneous generation but vacuum energy / particles. Pseudo science it certainly is not - whether it's right or wrong remains to be seen; that's the beauty of science!

 

[Hulk]

There's NO idea here. We didn't always exist on this earth per science, so per science as well they should put together the zillions of biochemical and physiological pathways & reactions all the way to a complex being with higher reticular function in two separate sexes across the species and make it so it is applied and empirical and reproducible for that is truly how science works. They don't like 'God of the gaps' and likewise we don't like pseudo science.These are their beliefs no more no less and I am not big on substituting one belief for another because it is en vogue!

I can imagine it now.. "By nothing we mean something"

 

[جوري]

No I don't mean spontaneous generation but vacuum energy / particles. Pseudo science it certainly is not - whether it's right or wrong remains to be seen; that's the beauty of science!

You failed to showcase how vacuum energy brings about life, beings, higher reticular function in a positive forward fashion. Yes science is beautiful, it is a way for us to describe the world we find ourselves in and deal with some of its problems. NO more NO less!

best,

 

[observer]

You failed to showcase how vacuum energy brings about life, beings, higher reticular function in a positive forward fashion.

I fear that that task may be beyond me!

 

[جوري]

I can imagine it now.. "By nothing we mean something"

Fact of the matter is, most atheists are self described scientists even though science isn't their field of study and it is fine not everyone who goes through academia is brilliant or vice versa, they're also self described 'free thinkers' - which again I think is probably a method to make themselves ok with their life style choices... What I absolutely abhor however, is the intellectual bullying and false self aggrandizement because you know when we get down to the nitty gritty they answer jack of the tough questions. As I stated I am not personally interested in pseudo science or science from which no plausible and replicable inference can be made!

 

[جوري]

I fear that that task may be beyond me!

Hats off to you then & thanks for your honesty!

 

[GuestFellow]

Yes and no! It's a horribly complex area and I'm merely an interested amateur. Essentially, what I'm talking about here leads from Heisenberg's work and we see now with the idea of "vacuum energy" or "vacuum particles" where energy/particles (the same thing, essentially) appear to come from nothing.

As I said, this might really be something from nothing or it could be that what we think of as nothing is completely flawed. Time will tell (hopefully, I'm an optimist )!

Fair enough. It is hard for me to comprehend for something to come from nothing.

Fact of the matter is, most atheists are self described scientists even though science isn't their field of study and it is fine not everyone who goes through academia is brilliant or vice versa, they're also self described 'free thinkers' - which again I think is probably a method to make themselves ok with their life style choices... What I absolutely abhor however, is the intellectual bullying and false self aggrandizement because you know when we get down to the nitty gritty they answer jack of the tough questions. As I stated I am not personally interested in pseudo science or science from which no plausible and replicable inference can be made!

I would say from my experience some atheists view science as an ideology when really it's just a means to explain how things occur. Then these explanations are used to solve problems. Science is neutral. It does not take sides.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

you know on this topic i recently had a shocking discussion with a colleague of mine

i kept on telling him to go back to the beginning where the first of anything ever came into existence and to give me an answer as to how that came into existence but he still refused to say god instead he kept saying " random chance" in order for there to be random chance there has to be somthing to give cause to the chance.


i couldnt believe how blind people can be. was honestly shocked

 

[observer]

What I absolutely abhor however, is the intellectual bullying and false self aggrandizement because you know when we get down to the nitty gritty they answer jack of the tough questions. As I stated I am not personally interested in pseudo science or science from which no plausible and replicable inference can be made!

I think it's unfair to say that science fails because it doesn't have all the answers; it doesn't claim to, it merely tries to answer the questions. I'm not sure why you use the word pseudo-science, or why you think that these kinds of theories are not plausible or replicable? 100 years ago quantum physics seemed utterly ridiculous. Now, our world could not function without it.

I think generally that the religious and the atheistic are looking for answers, they just find them in different places - religion in scripture and atheists (some of them anyway) in experiment and observation.