The 'God of Gaps' Arguments

[Ahmad H]

I agree the God of the gaps argument is flawed, Frazer. No one can prove God just by using the unknown to say, "There is a God!" It is flawed because Islam says God is One, but someone else can say, "This is God! This is God! Or this one is also!" So there could be either none, one, or many gods according to anyone's fancy. It is certainly flawed, and anyone here who is Muslim who thinks it works is severely flawed in their logic too. In fact, that kind of logic for faith is nimble and is really for the naive.

Religion, specifically Islam and any other revealed religion from Allah, are all based on the proof that God exists, because there is a Prophet who came that communicated with Allah. This communication could be claimed by anyone as well, so how do you know that the set of rules laid by that religion are true, that the God behind that Prophet is true, and that the Prophet in question is true as well?

To ascertain the truth of Islam, you have to ask yourself this:
-Is the Prophet a truthful man himself?
-If so, then how do we prove his claim is true?
Assuming he is true, which we will take history for its word, then we would know his claim is true because what he says can be verified from observation.
For example, the Prophet said such and such will happen in this much time, then it happens. Or the Prophet of God knew the state of a person's heart even though he can't actually know that unless God told him. Or the Prophet of God knew exactly what a man and his family did secretly with no one watching them, and he relates it to them. Or he prophesies exactly how an event transpires, even though it is impossible for him to control such an event and the likelihood of that occurrence is so small that the prediction of it could only have come from such an All-Knowing and All-Seeing Being.

In essence, Allah has attributes, and the Prophet of God demonstrated these attributes by showing that God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing. He knew who planned what, countered these plans, and acted accordingly. He predicted the outcome of events years before, even though no one could know the outcome. These instances are many and they require careful study and deliberation. To tell them all here is not in my place, since I am not yet knowledgeable enough to narrate them accurately without the proper sources. It would take me hours to compile something proper, and it would also require great insight regarding such events. Speak to one in person about it or research yourself sometime with our help if need be.

My point is, the faith of Islam is based on revelation. The Prophets of God received revelations which proved God is there. These signs can be witnessed today as well. For example, the Big Bang theory was discovered during the mid 20th century. Yet, the Holy Qur'an said 1400 years ago:

21:30 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?

This verse is speaking to people like you, Frazer. You, being a disbeliever, should observe that when the people of today, the scientists who are disbelievers in God, discovered that the universe came from the Big Bang, then Allah is addressing you saying, "Do not the Unbelievers see" meaning, by scientific observation and inferential knowledge, "that the heavens and the earth were joined together" there was some force locking the homogeneous matter which eventually made up the universe (the heavens and the earth), which is the so-called single point, which is infinitely dense and hot, "before we clove them asunder?", meaning, they, the disbelievers, see through their inferential knowledge that before this vast creation came to this state, that it was in a single point that then expanded outwards and went through an opposite motion. Rather than it clogging together like a sewed up mass, it was un-sewn, and it expanded outwards. "We made from water every living thing", meaning, every living thing in this universe, the heavens and the earth, is made out of water. This is the mantra that scientists keep saying in their search for life in this vast universe, "where there is water, there is life". So, Allah then says, "Will they not then believe?" This means, that after having heard this Ayah (sign, revelation) of Allah Himself, revealed to His Prophet 1400 years before it became scientific evidence that the universe started from a single point, and that it expanded, and that everything living is made out of water, will they not then take this to heart and have faith? Will the disbelievers not see that Allah could be the only One Who knew that all of this happened in the ancient past when no one could have ascertained this?

Furthermore, in the same breath, the statement here could only have been from Allah, since the creation of the universe and the knowledge required to spot life anywhere is given. This could not have been said with so much certainty from anyone, unless they heard this from the All-Knowing, All-Aware, the Creator. These are revelations from Allah Himself.

In this same Book, another miracle left for the modern world to witness is given when we see yet another discovery which is told already 1400 years ago:

51:47 With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

The verb used at the end is "la musi'oon", which means, "We are actively extending the vastness". This is speaking about the Heaven, which is the universe itself. The expansion of the universe was only discovered recently, again, in the 20th century. All of these miracles are for people such as yourself who doubt the existence of God, because they can only believe what they see with observation.

Therefore, Allah is telling you that despite your disbelieving in Him through observation, what you are actually observing is what He created. He has laid His claim to it a very long time ago.

This should remind you of a picture of art. When a person sees a picture of art and there is no indication of who drew it, then a person normally identifies it by an artist when they have a signature on it. So, Allah has put His signature forth to us by telling us, that He created this beautiful universe. He is the One Who did it, and here is what it is. The ancient Arabs did not have to fully grasp these meanings, but we see them now. The Qur'an is meant for all times. It's miracles are being witnessed even now. The revelation of the Qur'an is the miracle which keeps on giving. If you search through it and try to understand it, then you will see what I mean.

Earlier, you mentioned that the God of the gaps is that we do not know all the species on earth, so God must have made them. This is not how Muslims should look at it. Islam is investigative. Allah has told us many things for which we can have continual signs. The example here stems from the following verse:

51:49 And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

13:3 And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnain (two in pairs - may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two varieties, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big). He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidence, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect.

This does not mean that we know all of these pairs. How do we know that His creation has such pairs? By investigating. Because we cannot verify this until later:

36:36 Glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces, as well as of their own (human) kind (male and female), and of that which they know not.

"and of that which they know not" means that Muslims should endeavor to witness these signs. We must go out, search for these fruits, these animals, these insects, these birds, etc. Everything which has some sort of pair, identify it, and witness His miracle, and His signs that yes, He created all of these pairs. And every time we find more, then we are witness to the truth of this revelation. We also know even better with those observations, that it is only Allah Who could have stated this. How could an illiterate Prophet from Arabia who had no science education be aware of this? There is a reason why Allah chose him as a Prophet. He did not know as much as others did. That in itself is further proof.

These arguments are that: -God stated something, we cannot confirm the truth of this yet, we confirmed the truth of the statement, therefore God said it, therefore God exists.

We bridge that gap of knowledge of which God made a statement of 1400 years ago, and so we witness a miracle. It proves the truthfulness of the Qur'an. Besides scientific proofs, there are many prophecies fulfilled, but I will not get into that here.

 

[Futuwwa]

Thats a good question, I think an experience alone wouldn't be enough, there would be a possibility that I was having some sort of hallucination or even some other sort of concious thought or intelligence was playing tricks with me, how would I know? I think I would also need some sort of explanation of how God and the universe really work, religion has failed to convince me of this.

So you want evidence but haven't even decided what would constitute suffient evidence in the first place.

Well, here's evidence: the existence of the universe. It's consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is originated by an omnipotent deity that is the first cause of everything. Bam, there you have it, empirical evidence for the existence of God!

If you protest by stating that there are other possible explanations, well, you would be correct. But that is the case with all theories. There is no such thing as positive empirical evidence for a specific theory. There is only evidence that is consistent with a specific theory and evidence which is not consistent with it, and for each body of empirical evidence, there is (in principle) an infinite number of theories consistent with it.

When you said that God is not the only thing that has been used to plug gaps I was assuming you were referring to science.
Religion and Science are different subjects but they're almost unavoidable when it comes to debating the big questions.

The gap-plugging goes typically something like this: "I don't know, but I'm sure modern science will find an explanation that is consistent with my worldview sooner or later. And even if it doesn't, I'll just assume there is one anyway." That's very much this "faith" thing atheists often like to deride.

Religion and science are only unavoidable if one is clueless about the epistemology of either or both. The currently prevailing philosophical paradigm of science is to use philosophical naturalism as a working assumption. It has the advantage of keeping the theories testable and falsifiable, but also renders it incapable of, regardless of whatever scientific discoveries are made, providing any kind of indication of philosophical naturalism being true. That was the assumption from the start, and thus if you think you have proven it true, you have committed a circular argument.

 

[Frazer]

I agree the God of the gaps argument is flawed, Frazer. No one can prove God just by using the unknown to say, "There is a God!" It is flawed because Islam says God is One, but someone else can say, "This is God! This is God! Or this one is also!" So there could be either none, one, or many gods according to anyone's fancy. It is certainly flawed, and anyone here who is Muslim who thinks it works is severely flawed in their logic too. In fact, that kind of logic for faith is nimble and is really for the naive.

Religion, specifically Islam and any other revealed religion from Allah, are all based on the proof that God exists, because there is a Prophet who came that communicated with Allah. This communication could be claimed by anyone as well, so how do you know that the set of rules laid by that religion are true, that the God behind that Prophet is true, and that the Prophet in question is true as well?

To ascertain the truth of Islam, you have to ask yourself this:
-Is the Prophet a truthful man himself?
-If so, then how do we prove his claim is true?
Assuming he is true, which we will take history for its word, then we would know his claim is true because what he says can be verified from observation.
For example, the Prophet said such and such will happen in this much time, then it happens. Or the Prophet of God knew the state of a person's heart even though he can't actually know that unless God told him. Or the Prophet of God knew exactly what a man and his family did secretly with no one watching them, and he relates it to them. Or he prophesies exactly how an event transpires, even though it is impossible for him to control such an event and the likelihood of that occurrence is so small that the prediction of it could only have come from such an All-Knowing and All-Seeing Being.

In essence, Allah has attributes, and the Prophet of God demonstrated these attributes by showing that God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing. He knew who planned what, countered these plans, and acted accordingly. He predicted the outcome of events years before, even though no one could know the outcome. These instances are many and they require careful study and deliberation. To tell them all here is not in my place, since I am not yet knowledgeable enough to narrate them accurately without the proper sources. It would take me hours to compile something proper, and it would also require great insight regarding such events. Speak to one in person about it or research yourself sometime with our help if need be.

My point is, the faith of Islam is based on revelation. The Prophets of God received revelations which proved God is there. These signs can be witnessed today as well. For example, the Big Bang theory was discovered during the mid 20th century. Yet, the Holy Qur'an said 1400 years ago:

21:30 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?

This verse is speaking to people like you, Frazer. You, being a disbeliever, should observe that when the people of today, the scientists who are disbelievers in God, discovered that the universe came from the Big Bang, then Allah is addressing you saying, "Do not the Unbelievers see" meaning, by scientific observation and inferential knowledge, "that the heavens and the earth were joined together" there was some force locking the homogeneous matter which eventually made up the universe (the heavens and the earth), which is the so-called single point, which is infinitely dense and hot, "before we clove them asunder?", meaning, they, the disbelievers, see through their inferential knowledge that before this vast creation came to this state, that it was in a single point that then expanded outwards and went through an opposite motion. Rather than it clogging together like a sewed up mass, it was un-sewn, and it expanded outwards. "We made from water every living thing", meaning, every living thing in this universe, the heavens and the earth, is made out of water. This is the mantra that scientists keep saying in their search for life in this vast universe, "where there is water, there is life". So, Allah then says, "Will they not then believe?" This means, that after having heard this Ayah (sign, revelation) of Allah Himself, revealed to His Prophet 1400 years before it became scientific evidence that the universe started from a single point, and that it expanded, and that everything living is made out of water, will they not then take this to heart and have faith? Will the disbelievers not see that Allah could be the only One Who knew that all of this happened in the ancient past when no one could have ascertained this?

Furthermore, in the same breath, the statement here could only have been from Allah, since the creation of the universe and the knowledge required to spot life anywhere is given. This could not have been said with so much certainty from anyone, unless they heard this from the All-Knowing, All-Aware, the Creator. These are revelations from Allah Himself.

In this same Book, another miracle left for the modern world to witness is given when we see yet another discovery which is told already 1400 years ago:

51:47 With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

The verb used at the end is "la musi'oon", which means, "We are actively extending the vastness". This is speaking about the Heaven, which is the universe itself. The expansion of the universe was only discovered recently, again, in the 20th century. All of these miracles are for people such as yourself who doubt the existence of God, because they can only believe what they see with observation.

Therefore, Allah is telling you that despite your disbelieving in Him through observation, what you are actually observing is what He created. He has laid His claim to it a very long time ago.

This should remind you of a picture of art. When a person sees a picture of art and there is no indication of who drew it, then a person normally identifies it by an artist when they have a signature on it. So, Allah has put His signature forth to us by telling us, that He created this beautiful universe. He is the One Who did it, and here is what it is. The ancient Arabs did not have to fully grasp these meanings, but we see them now. The Qur'an is meant for all times. It's miracles are being witnessed even now. The revelation of the Qur'an is the miracle which keeps on giving. If you search through it and try to understand it, then you will see what I mean.

Earlier, you mentioned that the God of the gaps is that we do not know all the species on earth, so God must have made them. This is not how Muslims should look at it. Islam is investigative. Allah has told us many things for which we can have continual signs. The example here stems from the following verse:

51:49 And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

13:3 And it is He Who spread out the earth, and placed therein firm mountains and rivers and of every kind of fruits He made Zawjain Ithnain (two in pairs - may mean two kinds or it may mean: of two varieties, e.g. black and white, sweet and sour, small and big). He brings the night as a cover over the day. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidence, lessons, signs, etc.) for people who reflect.

This does not mean that we know all of these pairs. How do we know that His creation has such pairs? By investigating. Because we cannot verify this until later:

36:36 Glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces, as well as of their own (human) kind (male and female), and of that which they know not.

"and of that which they know not" means that Muslims should endeavor to witness these signs. We must go out, search for these fruits, these animals, these insects, these birds, etc. Everything which has some sort of pair, identify it, and witness His miracle, and His signs that yes, He created all of these pairs. And every time we find more, then we are witness to the truth of this revelation. We also know even better with those observations, that it is only Allah Who could have stated this. How could an illiterate Prophet from Arabia who had no science education be aware of this? There is a reason why Allah chose him as a Prophet. He did not know as much as others did. That in itself is further proof.

These arguments are that: -God stated something, we cannot confirm the truth of this yet, we confirmed the truth of the statement, therefore God said it, therefore God exists.

We bridge that gap of knowledge of which God made a statement of 1400 years ago, and so we witness a miracle. It proves the truthfulness of the Qur'an. Besides scientific proofs, there are many prophecies fulfilled, but I will not get into that here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that the Quran (for you at least) has shown itself to be consistent with how you experience life. Self-evident.

Surely you must see the people of other religions, occultist, astrologers etc. making those same connections and question wether this is enough to justify belief.

There is a common saying, correlation doesn't equal causation. If an ancient text speaks of a great flood and we then either experience a great flood or find evidence of a great flood is this enough to conclude that the only explanation is the work of divine intervention?

We have to use the term 'proof' correctly it is not the same as 'reason'. If I came home and there was dinner on the table I would have reason to believe my wife cooked it but it wouldn't be 'proof'. Likewise I think you have reasons in which you believe in God I don't think we can call it proof.

So you want evidence but haven't even decided what would constitute suffient evidence in the first place.

Well, here's evidence: the existence of the universe. It's consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is originated by an omnipotent deity that is the first cause of everything. Bam, there you have it, empirical evidence for the existence of God!

If you protest by stating that there are other possible explanations, well, you would be correct. But that is the case with all theories. There is no such thing as positive empirical evidence for a specific theory. There is only evidence that is consistent with a specific theory and evidence which is not consistent with it, and for each body of empirical evidence, there is (in principle) an infinite number of theories consistent with it.



The gap-plugging goes typically something like this: "I don't know, but I'm sure modern science will find an explanation that is consistent with my worldview sooner or later. And even if it doesn't, I'll just assume there is one anyway." That's very much this "faith" thing atheists often like to deride.

Religion and science are only unavoidable if one is clueless about the epistemology of either or both. The currently prevailing philosophical paradigm of science is to use philosophical naturalism as a working assumption. It has the advantage of keeping the theories testable and falsifiable, but also renders it incapable of, regardless of whatever scientific discoveries are made, providing any kind of indication of philosophical naturalism being true. That was the assumption from the start, and thus if you think you have proven it true, you have committed a circular argument.

You haven't got empirical evidence for the existence of God, you are simply repeating the God of Gaps argument, you are explaining the existence of God with the existence of the universe and at the same time explaining the existence of the universe with the existence of God. A text book circular argument. If you are attempting to explain the universe with God you must first explain the existence of God in order for it to serve as an explanation and vice versa. You can't solve a mystery with another mystery.

If there is something I cannot explain I will use the knowledge of things I know to be possible and probable and come to a rational conclusion, that is not faith. Faith is basically hoping it is the explanation you want it to be despite lacking the evidence or reason to do so.

 

[ardianto]

Science and religion are two separate things. But they can 'walk together'.

When I was kid my dad gave me a book about ancient human that published by LIFE. Then I started learn about kind of human that lived long time ago, from those who walk like ape into those who walk like human and had primitive civilization. And I also visited geological museum and learned about basic geology.

Did ancient human really exist?. The evidence for it are too much and very strong to be denied. Yes, I can't deny that the ancient human did really exist.

So, is it mean I believe that I am descendant of ape-like creature and not descendant of prophet Adam (as)?. No!.

I did not make a conclusion that I am descendant of ancient human because I knew that science is not stuck at one point, but always expanded. There will be new discoveries day by day. So, rather than I believe one and reject the other, I chose to synchronize science and religion in one question "If I am a descendant of prophet Adam (as), then why there were ancient human that lived before his time?". And I believe, one day I will find the answer, at least in the hereafter.

Yes, science and religion can walk together without contradict each other. Even from science I can see the sign of greatness of Allah.

"And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth - all from Him. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought."
(Al-Jathiyah: 13)

Be open minded, and you will find the sign of greatness of Allah.

 

[Ahmad H]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that the Quran (for you at least) has shown itself to be consistent with how you experience life. Self-evident.

Surely you must see the people of other religions, occultist, astrologers etc. making those same connections and question wether this is enough to justify belief.

There is a common saying, correlation doesn't equal causation. If an ancient text speaks of a great flood and we then either experience a great flood or find evidence of a great flood is this enough to conclude that the only explanation is the work of divine intervention?

We have to use the term 'proof' correctly it is not the same as 'reason'. If I came home and there was dinner on the table I would have reason to believe my wife cooked it but it wouldn't be 'proof'. Likewise I think you have reasons in which you believe in God I don't think we can call it proof.

You didn't get the part about revelation. Revelation is the communication between God and man. It is not a connection or a "cooked up" proof.

Revelation is not reason. Reason does not lead to the belief in God. Reason can only surmise if there is a God or not. If reason lead to the belief in God, then people thousands of years ago would have inferred that God exists.

Religion is based on revelation. Islam is based on revelation. Unless you familiarize yourself with this phenomena, your reasoning discussion is only based on conjecture.

Your conjecture lies in that you think astrologers and occultists are in the same rank as people of religion. If that is the case, why don't we group alchemists in the same group as scientists? No difference to me. Both groups did experiments. Sounds ignorant right? It is just about as ignorant as your understanding of revelation.

Study the phenomenon of revelation first. That is the correct line of questioning. Religion is not based on reason. Pure and simple. Reason does not lead you to God, it is God Who leads you to Himself.

 

[Frazer]

Science and religion are two separate things. But they can 'walk together'.

When I was kid my dad gave me a book about ancient human that published by LIFE. Then I started learn about kind of human that lived long time ago, from those who walk like ape into those who walk like human and had primitive civilization. And I also visited geological museum and learned about basic geology.

Did ancient human really exist?. The evidence for it are too much and very strong to be denied. Yes, I can't deny that the ancient human did really exist.

So, is it mean I believe that I am descendant of ape-like creature and not descendant of prophet Adam (as)?. No!.

I did not make a conclusion that I am descendant of ancient human because I knew that science is not stuck at one point, but always expanded. There will be new discoveries day by day. So, rather than I believe one and reject the other, I chose to synchronize science and religion in one question "If I am a descendant of prophet Adam (as), then why there were ancient human that lived before his time?". And I believe, one day I will find the answer, at least in the hereafter.

Yes, science and religion can walk together without contradict each other. Even from science I can see the sign of greatness of Allah.

"And He has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth - all from Him. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought."
(Al-Jathiyah: 13)

Be open minded, and you will find the sign of greatness of Allah.

So you are overlooking the evidence in front of you and hoping evidence which fits in with your religion will surface one day?

You didn't get the part about revelation. Revelation is the communication between God and man. It is not a connection or a "cooked up" proof.

Revelation is not reason. Reason does not lead to the belief in God. Reason can only surmise if there is a God or not. If reason lead to the belief in God, then people thousands of years ago would have inferred that God exists.

Religion is based on revelation. Islam is based on revelation. Unless you familiarize yourself with this phenomena, your reasoning discussion is only based on conjecture.

Your conjecture lies in that you think astrologers and occultists are in the same rank as people of religion. If that is the case, why don't we group alchemists in the same group as scientists? No difference to me. Both groups did experiments. Sounds ignorant right? It is just about as ignorant as your understanding of revelation.

Study the phenomenon of revelation first. That is the correct line of questioning. Religion is not based on reason. Pure and simple. Reason does not lead you to God, it is God Who leads you to Himself.

These so called revelations are what I was talking about, the only way to test whether someone has received a revelation from God is to see whether there message correlates with what is happening, happened or about to happen. It may well correlate but this isn't 'proof' that the message came from God until we can a) eliminate all other possibilities and b) demonstrate that a God even exists, if you are using the revelation to prove God exists you are creating a circular argument whereby the alleged revelations prove there is a God and at the same time God explains the revelation.

 

[ardianto]

So you are overlooking the evidence in front of you and hoping evidence which fits in with your religion will surface one day?

I don't seek evidence, but I found evidence without I tried to find it. I don't look around and asking"where is the evidence of God existence?", but I often see something and suddenly realize, this is the evidence of the greatness of God.

In example. When I was young I learned to make fiberglass stuff. One thing that I've learned from this was, I need a good mold. One day when I would make a fiberglass stuff I held the mold, and suddenly I realize something when I saw that mold and my hand. I knew that I need a mold to make the fiberglass stuff get the form that I want, but how could I grew from cell into a human in perfect form without a mold?. That was the time when I realize, there is an "invisible power" that formed me.

God can't be found by someone who tries to find Him, but God will come to the heart of anyone who open the heart for Him.

 

[Frazer]

I don't seek evidence, but I found evidence without I tried to find it. I don't look around and asking"where is the evidence of God existence?", but I often see something and suddenly realize, this is the evidence of the greatness of God.

In example. When I was young I learned to make fiberglass stuff. One thing that I've learned from this was, I need a good mold. One day when I would make a fiberglass stuff I held the mold, and suddenly I realize something when I saw that mold and my hand. I knew that I need a mold to make the fiberglass stuff get the form that I want, but how could I grew from cell into a human in perfect form without a mold?. That was the time when I realize, there is an "invisible power" that formed me.

God can't be found by someone who tries to find Him, but God will come to the heart of anyone who open the heart for Him.

This is another example of the argument that the creation proves there is a creator. In the context of man-made items such as your molded fiberglass stuff, a car, television etc. this makes sense but in the context of life, planets, gravity etc. it doesn't.

 

[ardianto]

This is another example of the argument that the creation proves there is a creator. In the context of man-made items such as your molded fiberglass stuff, a car, television etc. this makes sense but in the context of life, planets, gravity etc. it doesn't.

It's because you don't open your heart for God.

 

[Scimitar]

Fraser, does love exist? How can we measure it? Scientific questions which cannot be answered by science - see what I am doing here Fraser?

Your whole premise of "God of the gaps" is quite possibly one of the most flawed scientific arguments ever to be regurgitated on this forum.

If we cannot even define love scientifically in this modern age - you should surely realise that the bigger question of "define God" is a fallacy in your understanding. Learn to walk before you run, yes?

When it comes to matters of spirituality and practicality, Muslims see the evidence of God all the time. For Muslims, being spiritual is not the westernised mumbo jumbo which theorises silly whimsical ideas like it's a game, no. In Islam, spirituality is coupled with practice of the laws which God has set out... it is in walking this path that the evidence of God's existence, manifests to the believer... taking faith little by little, to the championed ledge of conviction.

When asked to prove it to another, all we can say is "if you haven't walked in the way of God, you will never know HIM".

And really mate, that's the be all and end all.

Your arguments are coming from a position of ignorance - I just hope you can recognise it.

Scimi

 

[Frazer]

It's because you don't open your heart for God.

Whether or not I open my heart to God doesn't make your previous post valid.

 

[Scimitar]

it makes my previous post valid. Just read.

Scimi

 

[Frazer]

Fraser, does love exist? How can we measure it? Scientific questions which cannot be answered by science - see what I am doing here Fraser?

Your whole premise of "God of the gaps" is quite possibly one of the most flawed scientific arguments ever to be regurgitated on this forum.

If we cannot even define love scientifically in this modern age - you should surely realise that the bigger question of "define God" is a fallacy in your understanding. Learn to walk before you run, yes?

When it comes to matters of spirituality and practicality, Muslims see the evidence of God all the time. For Muslims, being spiritual is not the westernised mumbo jumbo which theorises silly whimsical ideas like it's a game, no. In Islam, spirituality is coupled with practice of the laws which God has set out... it is in walking this path that the evidence of God's existence, manifests to the believer... taking faith little by little, to the championed ledge of conviction.

When asked to prove it to another, all we can say is "if you haven't walked in the way of God, you will never know HIM".

And really mate, that's the be all and end all.

Your arguments are coming from a position of ignorance - I just hope you can recognise it.

Scimi

Yes love exists but no we do not have a unit of measurement for it.

If the God of Gaps arguments are valid then explain why, you can't you just keep giving more examples of God of Gaps arguments. When I try to explain to you there is a logical fallacy, you turn around and say I'm the one being illogical, your argument is going round in circles here, getting nowhere.

There are very concise explanations for why we feel love but they don't conclude that 'God did it' so its no surprise you are not familiar with it.
Regardless of this, you are trying to use an example of something we all really do feel but may fail to define as an analogy of how we should view God. They are not same, we shouldn't view them in the same way and they are not similar enough concepts to use as an analogy.

I recognise my own ignorance of how life and the universe began and therefore choose not to jump to rash conclusions such as magical beings.
You on the other hand choose an appealing conclusion over no conclusion despite your own ignorance. Which in itself is ignorant.

 

[OmAbdullah]

Frazer, What is the point of attacking peoples belief in god/s? Is it for political purpose's? Are you one of those UN Marxists trying to make the world in your image? A godless world where there is nothing to worship but the State and the State funded scientists? Scientists that rave on about "global warming" when we are actually heading into an Ice Age. And now they call it "climate change" even though they need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make such claims, as data has only been monitored since the last hundred years or so.
People do not know what god/s actually is/are. All they know is that they are divine beings beyond their comprehension so how can they be scientifically denied?
The Creator or Creators cannot be scientifically denied.

The Creator is the only ONE GOD. This is very important point about the Muslim belief which is called Tawheed. Tawheed means to believe in absolutely One God Who is Single and Unique. As a Muslim you shouldn't say: "creators", nor "gods."

 

[Ahmad H]

These so called revelations are what I was talking about, the only way to test whether someone has received a revelation from God is to see whether there message correlates with what is happening, happened or about to happen. It may well correlate but this isn't 'proof' that the message came from God until we can a) eliminate all other possibilities and b) demonstrate that a God even exists, if you are using the revelation to prove God exists you are creating a circular argument whereby the alleged revelations prove there is a God and at the same time God explains the revelation.

A) What do you mean by eliminating all other possibilities?
B) How is this circular reasoning?

How else do you know of a God Who is invisible to you unless He speaks to you? If He spoke with someone, then what ways do you propose that are better for Him to prove that He is there?

So if a man is behind a screen, we hear his voice, then we cannot claim there is a man there even though we hear his voice? We HAVE to see him? Is it circular reasoning to say that we want to know if a man is behind a screen, then we hear him and confirm who he is?

Again, tell me, when someone is invisible and All-Powerful, then how do you propose that they communicate with us that they are there when they don't show themselves to us? I'd really like to hear what you have to say on that. Because revelations from God is the only way for Him to communicate with us.

 

[Scimitar]

Yes love exists but no we do not have a unit of measurement for it.

This is where you trip up isn't it?

If the God of Gaps arguments are valid then explain why, you can't you just keep giving more examples of God of Gaps arguments. When I try to explain to you there is a logical fallacy, you turn around and say I'm the one being illogical, your argument is going round in circles here, getting nowhere.

so, because you fail to see the comparison between equating Love and equating God - it's somehow a circular argument... hmmm, Ok, I'll humour you this one time. Let's read on, shall we?

There are very concise explanations for why we feel love but they don't conclude that 'God did it' so its no surprise you are not familiar with it. Regardless of this, you are trying to use an example of something we all really do feel but may fail to define as an analogy of how we should view God. They are not same, we shouldn't view them in the same way and they are not similar enough concepts to use as an analogy.

So what you have said is: If one doesn't believe in love, he may be inclined to think love doesn't exist and therefore a delusional concept... interesting.

So if one feels love then love exists. Delusions? Look, how many billions of people today are atheist? Not many... its a relatively small figure, atheists live on the fringe of global society, in that sense - so you'd be the minority view here.

The majority view is that God exists.

I recognise my own ignorance of how life and the universe began and therefore choose not to jump to rash conclusions such as magical beings. You on the other hand choose an appealing conclusion over no conclusion despite your own ignorance. Which in itself is ignorant.

You don't know anything about me.

Though I am ashamed to say it, I apostated once - for years and years, and came back to Islam after investigating every faith i could get my hands on... didn't want to, but when faith enters the heart, ones internal vision expands and one is better able to see the signs of HIS magnificence in all creation.

But without that - we see nothing... you see nothing.

You'd prefer to quantify God in a very material way, which can never happen - that itself is atheist dogma.

Scimi

 

[Futuwwa]

You haven't got empirical evidence for the existence of God, you are simply repeating the God of Gaps argument, you are explaining the existence of God with the existence of the universe and at the same time explaining the existence of the universe with the existence of God. A text book circular argument. If you are attempting to explain the universe with God you must first explain the existence of God in order for it to serve as an explanation and vice versa. You can't solve a mystery with another mystery.

Please try to pay attention, this does in no way address anything of what I said. I have not committed a God of the Gaps. If you think I have, please quote the part where I say that there is no other explanation for the existence of the universe than God. In fact, I think I said the exact opposite, in order to demonstrate that there is no such thing as positive empirical proof.

And besides, for someone who attempts to refute the Cosmological argument, you are woefully unaware of how the argument even goes in the first place. In it, God is the ultimate cause, that which is fundamental and simply exists, and which everything else follows from.

If there is something I cannot explain I will use the knowledge of things I know to be possible and probable and come to a rational conclusion, that is not faith. Faith is basically hoping it is the explanation you want it to be despite lacking the evidence or reason to do so.

Rational. You keep using that word without providing any substantiation for why any particular position would be more rational than any other.

 

[Scimitar]

Fraser,

it beats me that you'd want "empirical evidence for God" when all believers know that God doesn't exist in our space time continuum - how can anyone quantify the unquantifiable?

Look bro Fraser, I'll say it again in the hope that it will sink in: God does not exist in our space time continuum... HE is outside of it. Scientists are limited to this planet and what little they know about space - they really don't know much at all - so before you go ask for "empirical evidence for God" - I'd ask you and your click to develop inter-dimensional travel that can take us outside of our own universe... when you and your click can do that, ask that question again - it will warrant a better response from us here.

Until then, don't ask questions which have already been answered - exactly the same way - over and over again.

It's really simple Fraser - if you were a goldfish, swimming in a goldfish bowl, and that's all you knew, you'd be quick to say "there's no such thing as a human being, my food just drops in on me every day at the same time" - not knowing that there is a human being who is feeding you dried shrimp every day...

... see my point? I really hope you can grasp this simple comparison. You don't have to make things complicated when they really aren't.

God hasn't made it hard for you to know HIM, bro Fraser, it is your own self that is making it hard for you to know HIM.

God bless,

Scimi