Atheism

[Sabi]

,

The above argument is working on a fallacy. All scientific hypothesies require falsification. True. All hypotheses are essentially nothing more than a stab in the dark which then must be disprooved in order to be disregarded. Correct. This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed. The world of technology as we know it today is running on very many working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is only considered working until it is fount to be false, at such times a new hypothesis must be found to explain all the data.

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

Quantum mechanics works in exactly the same way. There are hypotheses which are favoured because they explain all the phenomena in their sphere of influence and there are others that have long since been thrown out of the window because although they may worked in limited environments they simply could not explain all phenomena.

Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence. And most working hypotheses today will only work as long as there is absence of evidence to the contrary, but as soon as evidence to the contrary emmerges, then the working hypothesis will be thrown out of the window ONLY IF a suitable alternative is found. Until that time, it will continue to be used simply because it works most of the time, and explains most things, though that "working" hypothesis will only be considered apparently working, and not really working.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis. If The argument is for example that a perfect god that can not change its rules and then has to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy a rule which it being omniscient knew that none other could satisfy then there are obvious flaws in that concept of god, and absolutely it negates itself as a working hypothesis. I think this is the kind of God most atheists do not believe in., But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

All that is needed is education in Tawheed and it will all make sense root. But don't believe me, get a book on islamic theology and tawheed and educate yourself in this matter. One can not refute a hypothesis while remaining ignorant of it. That is simply not scientific. If there is a hole in the working hypothesis explain it. It might be because you have not understood the tawheed, or it might be that you really and truely have found a hole that the hypothesis does not cover, in which case I for one wouild most certainly like to know about it, since I have been searching for one for nearly 15 years and have not found it yet. I am not joking.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses. You must present a working hypotheses, since it is unscientific (remember that science means knowledge, and hence it is not in the interest of knowledge) to say that one does not need to have an explanation, (while to accept that things simply are the way they are is in fact to believe in the God described in the Torah for example). It might be a technologist's or engineer's perspective on things, but it is most certainly not a scientific standpoint.

God Bless you with Guidance.

:brother:

 

[root]

Greetings Sabi. (All Quotes by Sabi)

The above argument is working on a fallacy. All scientific hypothesies require falsification. True.

True, additionally ALL theories and anything related to scientific issues require falsification, it's misleading to say that only an hypothosis requires falsification.

All hypotheses are essentially nothing more than a stab in the dark which then must be disprooved in order to be disregarded. Correct.

Disagree. An hypothos is is a tentative explanation. We have a set of hypotheses, each of which is consistent with the facts so far, but we expect some of the hypotheses to be ruled out as additional facts come in. This is far removed from a "stab in the dark" which I would phrase as a guess.

This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed. The world of technology as we know it today is running on very many working hypotheses. A working hypothesis is only considered working until it is fount to be false, at such times a new hypothesis must be found to explain all the data.

I think you have a very black & white attitude to science. How about a working hypothosis in technology changes as new discoveries require it, this does not mean a new hypothosis needs to be thought up, the current one could be ammended to explain the new data.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

You have made a number of assumptions here and simply made a prediction based on your own faith that God exists. Consider, a unifying theory (which i doubt will be attained in our lifetime) that suggests God does not exist. Further, perhaps we find a creator of the universe as an intelligent species billions of years old who created this universe as a test model for themselves and have no knowledge of us. Would you accept them as God?

Quantum mechanics works in exactly the same way. There are hypotheses which are favoured because they explain all the phenomena in their sphere of influence and there are others that have long since been thrown out of the window because although they may worked in limited environments they simply could not explain all phenomena.

Any scientific field works the same way, from the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics right through to evolution. Quantum mechanics in itself is not an hypothosis, but ideas within quantum mechanics will be. Same for evolution and the relativity. They are all solid theories that within them have a number of hypothosis.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis.

I stronly disagree with this quite arrogant notion. The fact of the matter is that an hypotosis for God existing as an hypothosis cannot use as part of the hypothosis a "supernatural" explanation which invalidates it as a scientific hypothosis. This is not arrogance but a set criterea for what is and is not of scientific value.

If The argument is for example that a perfect god that can not change its rules and then has to sacrifice itself to itself in order to satisfy a rule which it being omniscient knew that none other could satisfy then there are obvious flaws in that concept of god, and absolutely it negates itself as a working hypothesis. I think this is the kind of God most atheists do not believe in., But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

I doubt that, Islam uses the "supernatural" which invalidates itself as scientific.

This is why scientific facts are not so many, but working hypotheses are very many indeed.

I disagree, science does not work with facts since facts in a scientific context is absolute proof which is beyond science. Only religion offers absolute proof or at least claims as much.

It has never been science to claim that one does not need a working hypothesis. Since "There is a God" works it can not be discarded until a suitable alternative which explains all things (i.e. the grand unifying theory) is derived. But then the grand unifying theory would be nothing more than an explanation of what God is.

I disagree on the basis that religion use the "supernatural" to support your hypothosis, additionally the current scientific data does not support your position.

All that is needed is education in Tawheed and it will all make sense root. But don't believe me, get a book on islamic theology and tawheed and educate yourself in this matter. One can not refute a hypothesis while remaining ignorant of it. That is simply not scientific. If there is a hole in the working hypothesis explain it. It might be because you have not understood the tawheed, or it might be that you really and truely have found a hole that the hypothesis does not cover, in which case I for one wouild most certainly like to know about it, since I have been searching for one for nearly 15 years and have not found it yet. I am not joking.

Faith based literature use the "supernatural" which is unscientific, accusing me of ignorance because of this does not strengthen your hypothosis.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses. You must present a working hypotheses, since it is unscientific (remember that science means knowledge, and hence it is not in the interest of knowledge) to say that one does not need to have an explanation, (while to accept that things simply are the way they are is in fact to believe in the God described in the Torah for example). It might be a technologist's or engineer's perspective on things, but it is most certainly not a scientific standpoint.

That may well be. Science and the supernatural does not go together and in my opinion simply stifles the promotion and achievement of knowledge.

God Bless you with Guidance.

Thank-you.

 

[Sabi]

science does not work with facts since facts in a scientific context is absolute proof which is beyond science

I almost agree with very strongly with you here, except to do so would lead me into the realm of absolutes.

Science and the supernatural does not go together and in my opinion simply stifles the promotion and achievement of knowledge.

I agree wholeheartedly, but by Super-natural I am presuming that you mean those things which can not be empirically measured. Since current scientific data can not be brought into this (as is the case with many areas of ongoing research) as it is lacking, then we need an hypothesis which does not rely upon the supernatural. At the risk of being absolute, I do agree with you very strongly on this.

And yet there are many Hypotheses in the world which call for the existence of something for which as of yet we do not have the instruments to measure. These are simply explanations, and they may work very well as explanations, that is until evidence comes along which is outside the sphere of that explanation, requiring at the very least as you rightly put it a re-working of the hypothesis if possible or as has indeed become the case in numerous fields a revolutionary approach and brand-new hypothesis in the interest of simplicity (remember that complex and convoluted is never so popular among scientists). Alternatively of course scientific data may come along which supports the hypothesis, then everyone is happy for a while.

No one can deny that the tentative explanation has often been a stab in the dark, in fact this is where creativity comes into science, and is even needed. Since there are infinite possibilities out there, we can never be sure that the explanation we will take a stab at will cover all the variables that truely exist, only the variables that we have discovered so far. This is where hypotheses come from.

I do indeed have a very black and white attitude to science (knowledge) thank you very much for picking up on that. For me, there are explanations that work, and there are explanations that do not. As soon as I discover that one of the explanations that has worked no-longer works in every case, then I need to find a new explanation. The rules of Knowledge are indeed black and white, or at least this approach is one that has not let me down so far. Of course I do not put my faith in this approach at the expense of all else, so it would not perturb me in the slightest if I discovered that this approach was flawed.

When I said the grand unifying theory would simply be a description of God, I am not making any assumption at all. All I am saying is that "I" will be happy with whatever explanation is come up with, as long as it really does explain everything, and does not leave me with another question, "yes but where did they come from?" If the answer is "They just always were", then as I mentioned before, that is the description of God in the Torah, so although we will certainly know more, the basic working hypothesis of that kind of God will only be re-enforced as a positive theory.

It is not arrogant to say that someone who dismisses a hypothesis on evolution may well be doing so only because they have not made themselves familiar with the ins and outs of that theory. I.E. their ignorance of the ins and outs may well be what has led to their dismissal of the explanation. Likewise it is not arrogant to say that anyone who dismisses any hypothesis may well be doing so because of their ignorance of that hypothesis. The clues to whether or not they are indeed ignorant of the tentative explanation will be in the language they use (e.g. a phrase like "islam uses the supernatural"). Basically it is easy for a doctor in the subject to identify an expert bluffer even if those with bachelor's degrees have the wool pulled over their eyes that the bluffer really does have some inkling of what they are talking about. My attitude is that the person would not be bluffing unless they were a baffoon/clown/joker (i.e. for their own personal entertainment) or unless they had a genuine interest in the subject (in which case they really should be encouraged to read more on that subject, as they might become the greatest scholar in that field). Tawheed is a process of logical elimination. Judging by your mind so far you may well really enjoy it, so I do recommend you get a good book about it. Islam does not make use of the supernatural any more than quantum and string theories do.

:brother:

P.S.
This is not important but perhaps you might appreciate a little constructive feedback.

You have made a number of assumptions here...

If I give a poor grade because I declare there to be too many assumptions a student may well challenge me and if it is discovered that I have not taken the care to understand what the student is really trying to say then I will loose the case, and will have to re-mark. The second time around I would have to say "your writing is unclear here" and ask for clarification. But I can not hide behind such a comment if the fault was not in the student's writing, but in my unwillingness/inability to comprehend then I will be in trouble again. It is not easy to be a lecturer.

 

[HeiGou]

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

I see two problems, the first is it does not so much as deal with it as insist that the question is beyond understanding. Everything is the work of God and so the whys and hows cannot be understood. The second is that the claim "There is an Invisible Pink Unicorn" is as much a valid working hypothesis as yours and it also deals with all the available evidence (as She created the Universe last Tuesday).

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

On the large scale that is true. There are questions to be answered. But on the small scale, on the level of individual problems, it works very well as a working hypothesis. If we see some Haitians, gay people and people who have had blood transfusions come in with strange diseases, we should go on to discover HIV, not say this is God's doing and there's nothing to be done.

It is possible that some people might believe that they have a problem that would cause the currently working hypothesis that there is a God to be flawed, but this is probably due to their ignorance of the details of that hypothesis.

It is hard to know what possible further details of the working hypothesis there are that people do not understand. It is more likely that God is kept as a "God of the Gaps" - to cover those parts of science where ignorance is common and our understanding limited.

But the islamic concept of God is perfectly plausible as far as I have understood it. I have yet to meet a person who once they have come to understand it could try and claim that it was not a good working hypothesis.

I do not deny the plausibility of the Muslim God or the Christian God or the Hindu Gods or any other. I deny their usefulness to solving science problems. From that point of view, no matter what personal benefits we feel from God, God is not a good working hypothesis.

But if we are to be absolutely honest, There is no God simply does not work as a hypothesis and will never be acceptable scientifically, since science only exists upon working hypotheses.

Actually it does work perfectly well as a hypothesis and has been an enormously productive one too. On what possible grounds could you deny it?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

"There is a God" is a working hypothesis which is yet to be disprooved, because it deals with all the available evidence.

How could this proposition be disproved? Do you contend that it is falsifiable?

"There is no God" does not yet stand as a working hypothesis because it does not explain all the phenomena.

It doesn't explain where the universe came from, for example, but it can be used as the basis for a materialist explanation of how religion arose (a la Durkheim). Plus, of course, it's falsifiable. If god were to be discovered tomorrow, this proposition would have been proven wrong. As a result, this is the default position for mainstream science until contrary evidence arrives.

Peace

 

[primitivefuture]

It doesn't explain where the universe came from, for example, but it can be used as the basis for a materialist explanation of how religion arose (a la Durkheim). Plus, of course, it's falsifiable. If god were to be discovered tomorrow, this proposition would have been proven wrong. As a result, this is the default position for mainstream science until contrary evidence arrives.

The probability of the universe and life being created by chance is SO small that its only logical to reject the hypothesis.

 

[Fishman]

Hey, great post Sabi (your way of life says 'Sabian', what does that mean?), we need more people who can make decent attempts to refute atheism. All we usually have is the 'fine-tuning' argument, which is not that good.

Brother primitive future, you can't know how likely it is for the universe to have come into existance. Using science, you cannot know about what caused the big bang. Science tells you the how, the when and the where, and Allah tells us these things too, along with the why.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The probability of the universe and life being created by chance is SO small that its only logical to reject the hypothesis.

Then why do so many logicians accept it?

Look, nobody knows how the universe came to be. How can you talk about the probability of it arising by chance being small? Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by chance, and secondly, the universe is here, so the probability of it arising is precisely one.

Peace

 

[Fishman]

Greetings,


Then why do so many logicians accept it?

Look, nobody knows how the universe came to be. How can you talk about the probability of it arising by chance being small? Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by chance, and secondly, the universe is here, so the probability of it arising is precisely one.

Peace

I wouldn't say no-one knows. You can find that out by looking at the true religion.

And about God's falsifability, God is not falsifiable, and religions are. If we found out that there was really no beginning to the universe, then loads of religions would be falsified, including mine.

Would you believe that your friend was an alien who was unidentifable from a human, just because he said he was? No, you wouldn't, would you? That's like believing in God through faith alone.
But would you believe that your friend was the same alien as above if he gave you the engine of his spacecraft as evidence? Yes, because he has given you good, falsifiable evidence.
And that is like following the true faith, Islam. If you want to discover Allah, read the Quran, and pray for guidence (come on, it won't hurt, you're an atheist who doesn't believe he will be punished for it, aren't you?)!

By the way, a multiverse is just as unfalsifiable as God. And that's one of the things atheists use to disprove fine-tuning (which isn't a very good argument in itself).

 

[root]

Thanks for the response Sabi.

Islam does not make use of the supernatural any more than quantum and string theories do.

I really do question this. Allow me to bring up just one point (I have many) but I will use one simply as an example

Splitting of the moon

Islam takes this "miraculous" event literally. Now logically I know this not to be the case, no hypothosis can support it because it envokes a supernatural being AKA Allah.

Anything or anyone employed as a method of describing acts outside of the laws of the natural world is a supernatural entity or force. Yet, the paradox is that you yourself denies Islam employs a supernatural entity.

Quantum Physics does not employ supernatural entities or forces and nor does string theory or more specific "M" theory. Unless of course you can enlighten me by how Islam proposes the moon was split in two other than Allah which scientifically is a supernatural entity. No current theory or hypothosis currently known to science employs this as a method of interpreting the available data. Of, course I could even suggest that the splitting of the moon does not even have any observable data to which we could even begin an hypothosis. Other than the writings of a faith based religous book, though I don't mean to sound derogative by any means.

If I give a poor grade because I declare there to be too many assumptions a student may well challenge me and if it is discovered that I have not taken the care to understand what the student is really trying to say then I will loose the case, and will have to re-mark. The second time around I would have to say "your writing is unclear here" and ask for clarification. But I can not hide behind such a comment if the fault was not in the student's writing, but in my unwillingness/inability to comprehend then I will be in trouble again. It is not easy to be a lecturer.

A lot of wisdom is contained in your words, I absolutely agree, A failed student has a failed teacher. The assumptions were that the roads would lead back to Allah.

Fishman - I am not convinced you fully understand what "falsifiable" actually represents within a given theory.

 

[Fishman]

Fishman - I am not convinced you fully understand what "falsifiable" actually represents within a given theory.

The splitting of the moon is a matter of faith. Just like the existance of Jinn. I don't expect to find any evidence outside of the Quran and authentic Hadith that would convince an atheist like you (or like I once was).

Falsifiablity means whether something can be proved wrong or not.
If I said 'it is day', then that can be proved wrong. It is falsifiable.
If I said 'it is night', then that can also be proved wrong.
If I said 'it is day or night', that is not falsifiable, because it cannot be proved wrong.
You can't argue with this explanation, because I found it on a site made by scientists, Evowiki.

Now, if I said 'the fine-tuning in the universe is created by God', that is unfalsifiable, because it cannot be proved wrong.
If I said 'the fine-tuning in the universe is because of a multiverse', that is also unfalsifiable, since a multiverse cannot be disproved.

 

[Sabi]

Hey, great post Sabi (your way of life says 'Sabian', what does that mean?), we need more people who can make decent attempts to refute atheism. All we usually have is the 'fine-tuning' argument, which is not that good.

Jizakallah Khair Fishman

You can read more about "Sabianism" (or Sibghatullah as it is properly called) here http://www.sebomenoi.com but from what I can gather in your title "almost a muslim" you too are already a Sabi. Agnosticism is absolutely fine, but Atheism is a belief system and is as flawed as any other. All we can say is that our knowledge is limited. Things are the way they are ultimately because there is an order to the universe. Therein I have found what I think God is, but I won't pretend I have any special Gnosis, that is not the Sabi way.

I like what you say about asking sincerely from ones heart for guidance. I know a former atheist who was a horrible man who did just that. Subahanallah its unbelieveable. And here I am still struggling because I have some inkling of belief anyway. Sometimes I think Atheists have it easy, all they have to do is ask Allah for guidance with sincereity.

Salaam

 

[Fishman]

Jizakallah Khair Fishman

You can read more about "Sabianism" (or Sibghatullah as it is properly called) here http://www.sebomenoi.com but from what I can gather in your title "almost a muslim" you too are already a Sabi. Agnosticism is absolutely fine, but Atheism is a belief system and is as flawed as any other. All we can say is that our knowledge is limited. Things are the way they are ultimately because there is an order to the universe. Therein I have found what I think God is, but I won't pretend I have any special Gnosis, that is not the Sabi way.

I like what you say about asking sincerely from ones heart for guidance. I know a former atheist who was a horrible man who did just that. Subahanallah its unbelieveable. And here I am still struggling because I have some inkling of belief anyway. Sometimes I think Atheists have it easy, all they have to do is ask Allah for guidance with sincereity.

Salaam

What I mean by 'almost a Muslim', is that I really want to revert to Islam, but just haven't told my parents and family yet. Insha'Allaah, I will be a Muslim soon.
Yes, atheism is just as flawed as any of the false religions, I used to be one, until I discovered Islam about one year ago.

 

[Sabi]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago. As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is. All I know is that believing that tradition is not an article of Islam as far as Sabis have understood it. Without doubt new truths can be discovered in any traditional story every day. That is where the value of such stories are, not in believing physical events (though as I said at first, the moon rock is an alarmingly accurate physical interpretation, though I do not usually like to look for such examples).

:brother:

 

[Sabi]

What I mean by 'almost a Muslim', is that I really want to revert to Islam, but just haven't told my parents and family yet. Insha'Allaah, I will be a Muslim soon.

LOL my parents still think I am just confused. Isn't it funny how Transvestites can come out of the closet, but Muslims have to stay in the closet these days.

Yes, atheism is just as flawed as any of the false religions, I used to be one, until I discovered Islam about one year ago.

MashaAllah. congratulations.
:brother:

 

[HeiGou]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago.

Really? What is this evidence?

As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is.

I think you may find many Muslims around here do not think that an allegorical understanding of that hadith is permissible. They will insist on taking it quite literally I believe. After all they killed a guy in Iran for saying Muhammed did not perform that miracle.

 

[Fishman]

In the Quran it talks about some of the moon being broken off from the rest of it as a sign of the approaching last day (which is an allegorical length of time between 100 and 50,000 or even more years as we reckon them -the time frame is not important). Personally I think the fact that one can go to a museum and see the moon rock is evidence that this happened not that long ago. As for the traditional explanation of this verse referring to a miracle, I personally would not be able to become a Muslim unless an allegorical understanding of that traditional story were permissable. I am not even sure how Sahih that hadith is. All I know is that believing that tradition is not an article of Islam as far as Sabis have understood it. Without doubt new truths can be discovered in any traditional story every day. That is where the value of such stories are, not in believing physical events (though as I said at first, the moon rock is an alarmingly accurate physical interpretation, though I do not usually like to look for such examples).

:brother:

But don't the Hadith talk about the moon splitting at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? The moon-rocks came to Earth much later. There is also some crazy stuff going around that the moon was physically torn in two (most Muslims now believe that it was like a miraculous illusion, shown to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions), citing 'strange' cracks in the moon as evidence.

Can you sum up the relationship between Islam and Sabiansim in a few words? What you say makes it sound like the two are closely connected.

 

[Sabi]

But don't the Hadith talk about the moon splitting at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? The moon-rocks came to Earth much later. There is also some crazy stuff going around that the moon was physically torn in two (most Muslims now believe that it was like a miraculous illusion, shown to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions), citing 'strange' cracks in the moon as evidence.

As I tried to indicate, I hope that the hadith on the subject means that the miracle was allegorical or some kind of amazing illusion, because such an event would not have escaped the watchful eye of the star gazers all around the world at the time. I agree with you that there are a lot of crazy ideas floating around which are an embarrassment to the scientific heritage muslims should be proud to be a part of. I hope HeiGou is wrong in the assumption about other muslims here otherwise you and I are in trouble.:rollseyes

Can you sum up the relationship between Islam and Sabiansim in a few words? What you say makes it sound like the two are closely connected.

I think that the simplest way of putting it is to say that when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) used to go to the caves prior to his inspiration, he was doing what Sabi`ah Hunafa` do. Because of this a lot of Pagans used to think that He and his companions were Sabians. If you have anymore questions about Sabis how about posting them here http://www.islamicboard.com/depth-islam/3610-tafsir-al-quran-what-sabian-4.html so that this present thread does not go off-topic.

:brother:

 

[root]

It would seem to me that Islam has controversy within itself;

Seven Heavens

some muslims on this forum beleive that the seven heavens is a miraculous revelation to the seven atmospherical layers of our planet, other muslims here disagree.

Splitting of the moon

Some muslims here subscribe to it being a miraculous event and again other muslims here (such recently in this thread) don't give it as much support as the others.

 

[primitivefuture]

root, what is the p-value of a completely random cellular mutation?