Proof of God

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think this latest section of the debate shows more than anything else the huge difference in understanding that Muslims and atheists have when it comes to the meaning of words like 'science' and 'logic'. Here are some examples of what I mean by this:

Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.

Saying something like "Logically, its easy to prove the existance of God and the miracles of the Quran." shows that a fundamentally different understanding of logic is in play to that familiar to Western logicians. In the logic of Western philosophy, there is no possibility of proving god's existence or non-existence. 'God' is simply a term that has been brought into the history of ideas which has no external observable referent.

Of course it takes some openmindedness and sincere drive for the truth on one's part, as well as God Almighty's Will.

Similarly, in Western logic there's no question of being openminded - something is either true or it isn't. You can get into modal logic which takes account of possibilities and necessities, but still, being openminded has nothing to do with it. This is the case despite the fact that it's a characteristic that is often valued in humans, a consequence of the nature of logic, which is not able to place values on things.

That would be logical if we assumed that everything we know about science today is correct and perfect.

Of course, no scientist assumes this. Plus, two assumptions have been made here: that a) the Qur'an is perfect, and that b) science must live up to it, when in fact neither of these is necessarily true.

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.

This is a quote that totally baffles me. Let's assume for a moment that it was possible to prove the existence of god and the truth of the Qur'an logically, as is claimed here - surely then it would be possible to prove the existence of Adam and Eve logically? I don't understand how the belief system shown here can be considered at all coherent.

Here's another difference:

As I have, myself, a strong and sincere strength of faith in God and His Messenger, and the creation and existance of Adam and Eve is mentionned in the Quran, I know it is true. That is my proof.

I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.

This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.

Peace

 

[muslimahh]

I've highlighted the two key words. It is not possible to have knowledge of Adam and Eve, since no other human was around to witness them. Also, just because something is mentioned in a book does not make it necessarily so. To say you know something to be true simply because a book (or somebody) has told you so is no proof at all. Instead, it's the famous fallacy of the argument from authority once more.

Saying something like "what does mentioning of date and time have to do with science?" shows that the speaker doesn't understand that it's important to know when things happened in order to understand evolutionary history.

I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.

This is what makes these discussions so difficult and never-ending: on each side of the debate we're using terms that are familiar to both sides in slightly (or very) different ways. This is why we have so much confusion. Maybe we could get a thread together where we define basic terms such as the ones I've highlighted so we can discuss things on a level playing field - otherwise these discussions will get nowhere.

Peace

Very true, thats what I was trying to show when mentionning the differences between Western science and religion.

By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.

What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I hope the bottom part of this is not directed at my post. If I wasn't clear, my reason for not answering the timeline question was based on the fact that its not specifically named in the Quran so we can't be sure.

Yes, that part is clear enough.

My belief in Adam and Eve's creation is based on my establishment of the existance of God->estabilising God's flawlessness -> God sending the Quran to mankind as a Mercy and Guidance -> the flawlessness of the Quran as it is from God. Thus once one established that the Quran is sent by God and because of this it is flawless, whatever is mentionned in the book is without error. Thus, since the Quran is from God, and God is Flawless and has sent a book that is flawless, anything in that book is without fault. As the creation of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) is in this book, then it must be true. Its quite easy.

OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.

By logically I am implying the use of everyday reason, not logical philosophical methods, etc. and again, the use of all of these terms are relative.

Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

What continues to baffle me however is why theories and man-made methods are set in stone and treated like gold above anything that can be logically established through the very simple and unobstructed use of one's mind, such as the proof of God's existance. This is what I mean by simple.

Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.

Peace

 

[muslimahh]

Greetings,


Yes, that part is clear enough.



OK, so now you appear to be claiming that Adam and Eve's existence can be proved logically, even though earlier you said it couldn't. That's why I said I was baffled.

Hello czgobson (Root, where did you go?)

Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.

Well, you're free to use any definition of the word 'logically' that you wish, but to make things clearer in future, perhaps you could say you're arguing from a 'common sense' viewpoint rather than a logical one. By the way, the word 'logic' should not be used in a relative way - it has a strict usage. It's to do with identifying valid and invalid inferences used in arguments. You can find out more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

sure, point taken, thank you.

Again, since there's no such thing as a proof of god's existence, what you're saying here is not in fact as simple as you may think. Also, "theories and man-made methods" are never set in stone. They can be continually updated - that is how science works.

And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.

 

[muslimahh]

Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.


Common sense and logical thought (not official wikipedia logical equations etc ) is enough to do the trick.

 

[yasin]

i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?

religion is about faith, science is about proof.

If you're looking for proof then religion simply isnt for you.

 

[yasin]

And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about? How are we here?

NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.

And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't. So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.

So please, Mr Atheist- if not God then how did we get here? And don't say you don't know, because as humans we have a belief about everything!

 

[HeiGou]

i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?

I experience Gravity every day. Every minute of every day. And so, I am willing to bet, do you. What is more I experience the same type of gravity each and every minute of each and every day that you do. If I drop a stone, it falls at the same speed as a stone you drop. Who would deny gravity? Think of the number of ways in which your experience, or anyone else's, of God is not the same.

That is not weak. It takes courage to stand up to the idols of the tribe and say "I do not believe". Weakness to go to the temple every day when you no longer really believe just because you do not want to upset your relatives.

 

[root]

Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.

Perhaps it is this type of logic that divides us ultimately, (though the chemical in our brains and the use of certain areas of the brain also differ between believers and non believers, but that is for another thread).

if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.

I simply do not accept this point, we cannot prove that a magic teapot orbits the earth. Using your logic leaves a way to actually accept the existence of a magic teapot orbiting the earth. Surely, before we consider if something is truthfull or not we need some collaboration and by parallel we should discount a book called "Revelations of the magic teapot" since it holds a position of bias, and I feel religion does. One could simply pass that back by stating that science is biased, but I disregard that for science cannot in most cases simply make evidence up due to the peer reviewing system.

Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true. The date of Adam and Eve's existence is not given in the Quran and thus, any guess towards this can only be a human-based guess prone to mistakes.

So you believe solely on faith. Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will leave this debate now and it has been interesting, I think we have prity much established what the conclusion is.

"Proof of god lies in faith". Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will start a thread titled "The science of faith".

 

[The Ruler]

"Proof of god lies in faith". Nothing more nothing less, perhaps I will start a thread titled "The science of faith

proof of God does NOT lie in faith...do i v to say it agin?! :rollseyes

der r signs dat sum people r oblivious of n dose r da ppl dat will not open der hearts to Islam.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings muslimahh,

Read my post again please, I said without proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran you cannot as no one other human was there to witness it or document it. Logically it doesnt work unless you understand the existance of God and the proof of the Quran.

Here's what you said:

No one can logically prove the existance of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) however through logically proving the existance of God and the truth of the Quran, everything in the Quran is know to be true.

The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.

And this is exactly what I am pointing to. The fact that we continue to stick with man-made theories and methods while they are constantly changing. They are by far not the absolute truth although many feel that it is the only system to debate with.

No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?

Finally, you just stated that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven with logic. Why then are we relying on this and why then are you an atheist, if you cannot prove something that does not mean it is not there.

I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.

i wonder whether the weak minded people who say 'i havent seen God and nobody else has so he cant exist' thus disbelieve the theory og gravity and say gravity doesnt exist?

Are you making another generalisation about atheists? It's getting to be a habit with you.

If you think atheists are weak minded, I assume you believe that thinkers of the calibre of David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell were just a bunch of thickies compared to your formidable intellect...

(HeiGou has already answered your rather bizarre argument about gravity.)

And also if God doesnt exist than how did life come about?

If you're asking how life began, nobody knows. Life developed by evolving through natural selection.

NOBODY ON THIS EARTH CAN OFFER A MORE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT THAN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, FACT.

If that assertion was actually a fact, then everybody would believe in god. In fact, everyone would know that god existed.

And i can here some morons screaming evolution, well i would love to just say read about it but i know you won't.

More insults - you'll struggle to convince anybody of anything if that's your standard approach. Also, I've read lots about evolution already, so you don't need to worry on that score.

So i will explain to you that the theory of evolution was started to prove religion is true, and that you can fit all the proof of evolution on a small kitchen table.

You make an interesting point here - I always thought the theory of evolution was developed to explain biological variation, but there you go. Where have you found this information that it was actually intended to prove religion to be true? Bring on the references.

As for your claim about the small kitchen table, there's lots more evidence supporting evolution than I think you're aware of.

See here for a general outline: Evolution

(I know you'll read it, cause I know you're interested. )

So please, Mr Atheist- if not God then how did we get here? And don't say you don't know, because as humans we have a belief about everything!

That makes no difference, since there's a clear distinction between beliefs and knowledge. I've answered your question earlier on in the post.

Peace

 

[muslimahh]

Root,

I'm getting a little bit of sarcasm from your posts.

While I understand what you are saying, you yourself have said that not everything we have on earth today has an answer. Unfortunately, it seems that either you're trying to be funny by mocking what I've said so far or you have not taken a single point from what I have been posting for this past week or so. Everything you've stated here is out of context and rather than typing exactly what I have said already in this discussion out a second time, I ask you to re-read my past posts, in context and not draw conclusions that are taken from my posts quite out of context.

Let's take DNA for example. What "if" our DNA was shown to be unchanged over time, simply appearing out of the blue with considerable less DNA matching with other species, what if no amino acids or water was ever found in the vastness of space. what if our universe contained only a couple of solar systems. All this by evidence would imply that a creator could be a real possibility. We just don't see this like we don't see evidence to support world wide floods, yet 100 years ago the Noah story was taken as factual.

So you're saying if this was the case you would probably be able to establish that there is the possibility of a Creator. Look at humans themselves, we are constantly changing and perfecting our sciences anr our inventions. Why are you then limiting the power of God?

Why would only a couple of solar systems versus many prove to you that there is a Creator while the many that we have now does not? A creation is a creation. If anything there are more reasons and means to see this with the variety and complexity of life on this earth adn the makeup of space

You are arguing that the only way you would think of the possibility that God exists is if there was creation, it stayed absolutely static and there were separate strands of creation, unlinked by a common genetic-makeup and without any "ingredients" such as amino acids etc.

If anything there is a means to creation. You are looking for a sort of magical, fairytale creation where everything goes *poof* and suddenly appears. This in itself is a flawed way of thinking as it limits the power of the Creator and simplifies creation it itself.

For example if I had eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a vanilla cake by adding a little vanilla, a chocolate cake by adding a little chocolate and a coffee cake by adding some coffee beans, no big deal, its been done, but say I took eggs, milk, flour and sugar and make a cake, then some carrots, then some chicken and then some bread by only slightly changing the ingredients but keeping the same basic make-up that would make me a master chef. Thus all of this is the sign of a creator, with many species having only slight differences in genetic makeup but varying greatly.

If anything its an obvious demonstration of the Power and Ingenuity of the Creator of the Universe.

 

[muslimahh]

edit, sorry double post

 

[muslimahh]

Greetings muslimahh,


Here's what you said:



The words 'without' and 'unless' do not appear there, so perhaps you can see why I was confused. You've clarified your position now, so thank you for removing my bafflement.



No-one claims science represents absolute truth. If they did, they would be revealing that they did not understand the scientific method. Theories are updated according to new discoveries - what's wrong with that?



I rely on logic to highlight flaws in people's reasoning. Besides, it was you who claimed your poisition was logical, even though you used the word in a way that would not be recognised by any professional logician.

Hello Czgibson,

My apologies for my quick choice of words, I am glad you at least understand my position. Forums aren't the best avenues for debate.

My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.

I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.

You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists? What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian." " Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator. The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.

 

[muslimahh]

Root and Czgibson,

I enjoyed our discussion and I am sorry to say that in the coming days I will be swamped with a great amount of work (Im in my final year of university, in my last two months) I hope I have given you at least something to reflect on.

I may be able to sporadically answer other posts, just not at this intensity.


I want to end by inviting you both to accept Islam. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain and hopefully much more to think about.

Take care and I wish you both the best.

Sincerly,
Muslimahh

 

[czgibson]

Hello muslimahh,

My question on science now, is that as you are well aware that it does not fully represent absolute truth, why then do we depend in it absolutely for our beliefs? This is a facade that I myself did not understand in my previous days.

I don't depend on it absolutely for my beliefs. I use logical and philosophical reasoning too, as well as simple feelings when it comes to questions of taste and so on.

I think you would agree with me that not everything on this earth can be fully proved by logic. There are exceptions to every rule, and that itself is a sign from God.

Of course. I think spaghetti is nicer than lasagne, but I'm never going to be able to prove that to someone. Not everything even requires proof.

You point to the greatest thinkers being atheists, what about the greatest scientists?

I don't remember saying this.

What about someone like Einstein who arguably is seen as one of the greatest genuises in history? When someone is smart the slang used to be "oh hes Einstein" well "Friedrich Dürrenmatt once said, "Einstein used to speak of God so often that I almost looked upon him as a disguised theologian."

Einstein believed in a god, but not in the sort of god you believe in. Rather than being a theist, it would be more accurate to describe him as a pantheist. Here's the man himself, talking about a claim of the sort you have just made:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Another quote from Einstein:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

I couldn't agree more.

Sir Isaac Newton is also another believer in the Creator.

It's true to say Newton was a very religious man, but he was living in a time when modern science was in its infancy. If I had been alive then, pre-Enlightenment, pre-Darwin and at a time when atheism (or being suspected of atheism) was punished much more severely than it is now, I think that accepting theism would be a much more sensible course of action.

The point is that not all scientist and great thinkers think alike and a sign of intelligence does not necessarily equate to atheism.

Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.

It's been good talking to you, muslimahh, and while I can't take up your suggesting of accepting Islam, I will say that you've been an insightful debater and I wish you well with your studies.

Peace

 

[The Ruler]

Point taken, but having said that, modern philosophers are pretty much in agreement that there is no god. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.

yeh...the pilosophers are just in aggreement...bt tey dont have ny proof that God exists. all this time, you people have been asking us mulims questions like how do we know God exists and stuff.....but can i ask u onw thing...

can you in anyway prove that there is no God?

 

[mathematicci]

Yes tagrid.You have drew attention to one of the most important point about God existance.People who want to prove ttha there is no God they have to visit all time before world and after world, and they have to see all palaces.At the end if hey cannot see any proof about lackness of God they can approve it.However God's activities are appearing in everywhere and in every time.It is being appeared as Sun.But, people who peretend not to see can make only night for themselves...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

can you in anyway prove that there is no God?

Of course not - think about it rationally for one second! If you can't prove god exists then you can't prove god doesn't exist. That point is pretty obvious really, and it's been mentioned a few times already.

To use an example that root has mentioned already (on this very thread I believe), imagine I told you there was a teapot in orbit around the Earth. It's in orbit beyond the range of all our satellites, and no human spacecraft have come across it in their travels. Despite this, it is actually there, and you are unable to prove to me that it is not.

Your belief in god is based on exactly the same foundations as my (imaginary) belief in the teapot. There is no more reason to believe in one than the other.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I've refrained from posting in this thread until now, because I've commented in great detail on this subject in two earlier threads, so I'll just provide the links to those threads now:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/6568-existence-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/7938-problem-evil-temp-split-teog-thread.html
Other interesting threads:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13998-prove-quran-word-god.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/14884-reflections-some-ayat.html