Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[May Ayob]

@Independent. Thank you, I read the thread but I'm afraid I still have some concerns but just not sure wether I can point them out here in this thread or members will consider it off topic?.

 

[Independent]

Thank you, I read the thread but I'm afraid I still have some concerns but just not sure wether I can point them out here in this thread or members will consider it off topic?.

I'm not a Mod, but I would say start another.

 

[Al-Mufarridun]

That didn't actually answer the question. Can he or can he not create a rock he can't lift?

Greetings Pygoscelis. To rephrase your question, correct me if i'm wrong but you are asking;

"Can God do something which will, in doing it, make Him no longer God?"

This question and similar ones are basically asking whether God can do unGodly things. I'm sure you'll agree such questions can't generate a reasonable discussion.

 

[May Ayob]

I'm not a Mod, but I would say start another.

I did I'm waiting for it to be approved of.

 

[~Zaria~]

You certainly have a collection of weird and wonderful websites. I don't know anything about this one without hunting but plainly, it is not primarily scientific in purpose.

There are many other possible theories that do not involve a closed system universe - wikipedia lists the following popular theories:

• Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[SUP][88][/SUP]

• Big Bang lattice model states that the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang consists of an infinite lattice of fermions which is smeared over the fundamental domain so it has both rotational, translational, and gauge symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symmetry possible and hence the lowest entropy of any state.[SUP][89][/SUP]

• Brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.[SUP][90][/SUP][SUP][91][/SUP][SUP][92][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP]

• Eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[SUP][94][/SUP][SUP][95][/SUP]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older Universe, or in a multiverse.

What does an atheist do when he is caught between a rock and a hard place?

Bring along other theories.....to try to disprove the theory that they, themselves ascribe to.
As expected.

Which is the very reason why I did not engage this discussion on a 'theory' level from the start.

Can you not realise that these are just Theories, Hypotheses, Assumptions, Estimations?
It means nothing more than this.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'? Innocent people even lost their lives for believing otherwise.
Until it was convincingly proven that the earth is indeed round.

However, there still are some groups who continue to hold firmly to the theory that the earth is flat: The Flat Earth Society
(are you guys, by any chance members of this society? They provide convincing theories as well )


In this regard, I have asked on multiple occasions for someone to bring some reproducible evidence (on a smaller scale) - as proof for what these theories propose.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....then how do you base your LIFE on these?

There is SO much more proof for the existence of a Creator......than what ANY of these theories propose.

Even IF you want to take this discussion down a 'scientific' road, you have conveniently evaded the rational, logical arguments put forward throughout this thread, as well as in the previously posted article.

Why?

Because to acknowledge that the universe is FINITE (which even the Big Bang model agrees with - and which is the MOST prevailing model at present), would mean that one would have to acknowledge a starting point to the universe.......which would lead to a Creator.
(Even, under the so-called 'multi-universe' proposal, this would be true).


So, ask yourselves why is it so hard to accept logical arguments, and so easy to continue to delude yourself into believing that you arose from a huge 'bang'.....the particles of which miraculously combined, to form diverse and complex life forms.....and that your final destination is to dust and nothing more.

Why?

Perhaps refer back to post #101, and consider the possibilities for wishing to remain in this state:

​

This system has done an incredible job in 'brain-washing' its 'followers' (even in the face of absurdities, they still chant the same mantra.)

Its time to wake up.

The choice is yours.


Regards

​

 

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings Pygoscelis. To rephrase your question, correct me if i'm wrong but you are asking;

"Can God do something which will, in doing it, make Him no longer God?"

No, I am not asking. I was using that question as an additional example of people having difficulty wrapping their minds around the concept of infinity.

 

[Independent]

I have asked on multiple occasions for someone to bring some reproducible evidence (on a smaller scale) - as proof for what these theories propose.

You are consistently answering a different question from the one posed at the start of this thread. MohammadR states the 'closed system' theory of the universe is the one and only theory. All I have to do is to show that there are others, I don't have to prove them. On the contrary - you are obliged to disprove them if you want to say there is only one theory. I'm simply making an incontrovertible statement of fact - that there are many other theories currently accepted as credible.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....then how do you base your LIFE on these?

Again, you are persisting with a misunderstanding. I am not trying to base my life on astrophysics or any other explanation of the origin of the universe. I am interested in hearing about the latest discoveries. But I'm not particularly expecting to change my understanding of morality as a result.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'?

One of many misconceptions that gets repeated on Islamic websites is that the idea of a round world originated in the Qur'an. That's not true, it was propagated in 6th century BC Greece and perhaps other places. The idea never entirely disappeared in the Greco/Middle East, although it's not clear how much it survived in western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. (By the way, it's also not true that Columbus didn't know the Earth was round. He did - he just seriously under-estimated its circumference.)

To summarise: the Bible and the Qur'an give metaphorical descriptions of origins that are beautiful in themselves, but have no scientific significance today and at no point in history helped scientists come to an understanding of the universe. It's interesting that whereas an older translator like Pickthall gives Qur'an 21.30 as: 'We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)', modern translators prefer to substitute something like 'expander' for 'vast extent'. Sometimes the word 'universe' is substituted for 'heaven'. It's impossible to believe that these translators are not influenced by trying to make it more compatible with the new Big Bang theory.

If a new theory were to replace Big Bang, will they then re-translate all over again?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Can you not realise that these are just Theories, Hypotheses, Assumptions, Estimations?
It means nothing more than this.

Yes, we know.

Do you remember the time when the prevailing theory was that the 'world is flat'? Innocent people even lost their lives for believing otherwise.
Until it was convincingly proven that the earth is indeed round.

I was not aware of this. Who killed over the earth being flat or round? Galileo got in hot water over saying the earth went around the sun. Who attacked him for that? Religious people naturally.

If you cannot, and you never will (how can one ever know what exactly happened Billions of years ago?......one has to be completely insane to think so).....then how do you base your LIFE on these?

Who is basing their lives on these? People have just noted that these theories exist and that we don't know which may be accurate.

There is SO much more proof for the existence of a Creator......than what ANY of these theories propose.

No, there isn't. That is precisely your problem.

Even IF you want to take this discussion down a 'scientific' road, you have conveniently evaded the rational, logical arguments put forward throughout this thread, as well as in the previously posted article.

No, we haven't. You have consistently and repeatedly ignored responses to your posts, and you have repeated the same bold assertions without evidence. Then you so rudely accuse others of evasion, which is mind boggling.

Because to acknowledge that the universe is FINITE (which even the Big Bang model agrees with - and which is the MOST prevailing model at present), would mean that one would have to acknowledge a starting point to the universe.......which would lead to a Creator.

No, as has been pointed out to you many times now, that is not necessarily so. You have yet to prove that it is. You showed us your difficulty understanding the concept of inifity, and you pronounced that infinity is impossible and laughable, to which I presented another case of infinity that you accept and endorse.

So, ask yourselves why is it so hard to accept logical arguments, and so easy to continue to delude yourself into believing that you arose from a huge 'bang'.....

Nobody here has said they believe that to be for sure how it all started. One guy just said that is the prevailing theory. Others of us have told you we don't even think it is how it all started, that there may have been no start, and that we simply don't know, and neither do you.

This system has done an incredible job in 'brain-washing' its 'followers' (even in the face of absurdities, they still chant the same mantra.)

Its time to wake up.

Are you talking about Islam?

 

[Ali_008]

Are invisible undedectable space aliens sitting beside you right now, watching you and taking notes? You can't disprove it. You have no solid foundation for disbelief in it. But do you worry about such a thing?

Don't even get started about the things that are invisible to the naked eye. If that was the case then subjects like microbiology, nanotechnology, astrophysics, and all of chemistry would be the biggest prank pulled on humanity. Have a look at the image below, do you think all these heavenly bodies have been detected or felt by human touch?

I have no wish to live under somebody else's theocracy with rules based on their religion instead of sound secular reasoning.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for such a government/constitution as well. Why bother picking a particular religion's rules when we ourselves can make something equally good? At the same time, we've had the most elite minds in history join and create constitutions for their countries. Yet, we find loopholes in all of them. There's not a single country that can claim that it has the perfect law & order.

And you may view it as granting justice, freedom, safety and welfare for all, but that doesn't mean we'll all see it that way. Each of those terms are pretty subjective.

I'm not pointing fingers particularly at you, Pygo; but that is what the problem of the west is. What is considered a civilized environment in the Middle East is considered "oppressive" by the west, and they even go as far as taking the initiative in turning the whole world against it. If you look at the example of Saudi Arabia, alcohol is illegal over there, so are drugs, dating is also a crime, women can't drive, women can't be seen outdoors without an abaya on, the section for men and women in a lot of areas are distinct, and other such laws. Muslims, on the whole, don't find any of those laws bad, although the ban on female drivers is something which even we dislike, but inshaAllah it seems that ban is also nearing its end. A majority of Muslims would find those laws to be perfect, and would love to raise their children in such an environment. But for the people of the west, it is oppression. Even if you ask not just the citizens, but also the immigrants of Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure even they'd agree that the law helps in fostering a healthy and disciplined society.

I agree that the terms are subjective, but again if you don't want to abide by the rules of a particular society, you have all the liberty to migrate. But you cannot deny that the laws implemented by Saudi Arabia almost guarantee that there won't be any illegitimate children born to alcoholics or drug addicts and such.

Saudi Arabia claims to be the only Islamic country on earth (which it isn't), but it is the closest resemblance of shariah we have in the world today, and thus also has a seat among countries with the least crime rate.

Then this is a perfect chance for you to show your skills again. If you, or Zaria, want to build a final proof starting with the premise that this universe is a closed system, you have to first refute all the Brane Cosmology and Eternal Inflation models.

Best of luck.

This is what I find funny about atheists. When you start talking to them even a little about science, they respond as if they are researchers or scientists working for NASA. I'd say Sister Zaria is providing enough evidence and material for you. Once you've proven her wrong, come to me then.

Indeed, but I see an important difference between a theocracy and a secular democracy. Most of the laws in my jurisdiction are fair, based on some sound reasoning, and I agree with them and support them. The few that are not fair or not to my liking I can work to change. The power, at least theoretically sits in the hands of the people, instead of sitting in the hands of those few claiming to speak for the divine.

Pygo, again, the laws of most countries are fair. But again those constitutions mostly provide reactive solutions to problems. You can blame it on the corrupt politicians, but do you really think that if every law of Canada was strictly followed by every citizen then poverty could be eradicated and crime would take a nosedive? The governments we have today are only creating laws, they are not creating the environment where application of those laws won't be darn hard.

The sharia dictates rules which create a society in which committing a crime becomes totally unnecessary, and when one still commits any crime, he/she deserves a terrible punishment.

Also the power lies in the hands of the people part. When the people don't seem to agree with the most intelligent minds of their country then that country is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Independent]

This is what I find funny about atheists. When you start talking to them even a little about science, they respond as if they are researchers or scientists working for NASA. I'd say Sister Zaria is providing enough evidence and material for you. Once you've proven her wrong, come to me then.

You've got to be kidding, string theory has to be some of the toughest science out there for a non-specialist to get their heads round. But somehow Zaria and Mohammad have managed to dispose of it!

 

[Independent]

Don't even get started about the things that are invisible to the naked eye. If that was the case then subjects like microbiology, nanotechnology, astrophysics, and all of chemistry would be the biggest prank pulled on humanity. Have a look at the image below, do you think all these heavenly bodies have been detected or felt by human touch?

The crucial word that Pygo used which you have omitted is 'undetectable'. All the things you list are 'detectable' - but not necessarily by human eyesight. It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

 

[Ali_008]

The crucial word that Pygo used which you have omitted is 'undetectable'. All the things you list are 'detectable' - but not necessarily by human eyesight. It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

The things I listed out are detectable with visual aid. Similarly, angels may require sensory and olfactory aids as well for their detection. Plus, you can't detect electron, neutrons, or protons with any aid either. You just have to believe in them, because they contribute to theories and make them sound logical.

 

[~Zaria~]

You are consistently answering a different question from the one posed at the start of this thread. MohammadR states the 'closed system' theory of the universe is the one and only theory. All I have to do is to show that there are others, I don't have to prove them. On the contrary - you are obliged to disprove them if you want to say there is only one theory. I'm simply making an incontrovertible statement of fact - that there are many other theories currently accepted as credible.

Why the Universe Cannot be Open:

Closed universe

If Ω > 1, then the geometry of space is closed like the surface of a sphere. The sum of the angles of a triangle exceeds 180 degrees and there are no parallel lines; all lines eventually meet. The geometry of the universe is, at least on a very large scale, elliptic.

In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch", by analogy with Big Bang. However, if the universe has a significant amount of dark energy that will be used as an infinite force, then the expansion of the universe can continue forever—even if Ω > 1.


Open universe

If Ω < 1, the geometry of space is open, i.e., negatively curved like the surface of a saddle. The angles of a triangle sum to less than 180 degrees, and lines that do not meet are never equidistant; they have a point of least distance and otherwise grow apart. The geometry of such a universe is hyperbolic.

Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe expands forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates.

The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

Conversely, a negative cosmological constant, which would correspond to a negative energy density and positive pressure, would cause even an open universe to recollapse to a big crunch.

This option has been ruled out by observations.

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

One of many misconceptions that gets repeated on Islamic websites is that the idea of a round world originated in the Qur'an. That's not true, it was propagated in 6th century BC Greece and perhaps other places. The idea never entirely disappeared in the Greco/Middle East, although it's not clear how much it survived in western Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. (By the way, it's also not true that Columbus didn't know the Earth was round. He did - he just seriously under-estimated its circumference.)

To summarise: the Bible and the Qur'an give metaphorical descriptions of origins that are beautiful in themselves, but have no scientific significance today and at no point in history helped scientists come to an understanding of the universe. It's interesting that whereas an older translator like Pickthall gives Qur'an 21.30 as: 'We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)', modern translators prefer to substitute something like 'expander' for 'vast extent'. Sometimes the word 'universe' is substituted for 'heaven'. It's impossible to believe that these translators are not influenced by trying to make it more compatible with the new Big Bang theory.
If a new theory were to replace Big Bang, will they then re-translate all over again?

I have not mentioned the islamic view-point with regards to the world being flat/ round (so, Im not sure why you are referring to this).

The point that was being made is:
Man is always in a state of making new 'discoveries'.....which oftentimes results in the original theory that was held, to be completely negated.
As in the case of the world being flat.

I think you will find the website: The Flat Earth Society , listed above also quite interesting.
If you browse through their 'proofs' for the earth being flat, it is apparent that anyone can make a case (in a convincing manner) for just about anything.

I am merely trying to highlight the fallibility of man, and why our reasons for our existence does not lie behind the telescope/ in a laboratory.

Imagine wasting ones life holding fast to a 'scientific explanantion' for our existence (as is the case for many atheists), which is later found to be complete nonsense.

The Creator of all has not left us to wander blindly by ourselves.

He has sent His message to us - to enable us to see past these types of falsehoods.

I am not against science - I am in a category of this field myself.
But, I do not allow 'scientific discoveries' to direct my understanding of life (as is the case for many atheists).

The meaning of life does not change - irrespective of what has already been discovered.....and what is to be discovered.

No, as has been pointed out to you many times now, that is not necessarily so. You have yet to prove that it is. You showed us your difficulty understanding the concept of inifity, and you pronounced that infinity is impossible and laughable, to which I presented another case of infinity that you accept and endorse.

Another case for infinity being??

The only one that I have 'endorsed' as being infinite is God.

Nobody here has said they believe that to be for sure how it all started. One guy just said that is the prevailing theory. Others of us have told you we don't even think it is how it all started, that there may have been no start, and that we simply don't know, and neither do you.

?? There may have been 'no start' ??

Lol. Im not going to even reply to this confusion.

It's like Zaria with her analogy of believing your own grandmother must have existed. This isn't a matter of faith - she is 'detectable' in various ways including genetics and historical record.

DNA tests do not tell you who your parents/ grand-parents are.

They merely confirm or reject the claims of parents with regards to parenthood, and that too, only on the basis of probability.

So, it is indeed a matter of trust and faith that one is telling the truth with regards to ones great great great grandparents, as an example.

 

[جوري]

I haven't been following this thread for a while now I've lost interest- going to comment quickly on the 'flat earth' thing- it was the Muslim scholar and geographer Al'Idrisi that gave Roger the II of Sicily a globe of the earth- which he crushed of course citing the world is flat - :alhumdil Muslims have always been very progressive when it comes to science!

 

[~Zaria~]

^Shukran.

Ukthi, dont get the atheists confused by discussing too many things at once (they already have enough confusion to last them many lifetimes it appears ).

Let them absorb the concept of the 'closed universe' first insha Allah

 

[Independent]

Zaria - the extract you have posted from wikipedia does not change the argument mainly because it is just that - an extract. You've simply deleted all the other theories you didn't want, including the multiverse theories. I can't think of any more ways to say that, in order for Mohammad's proof to be a proof, these theories have to not exist - and for that reason I'm not going to respond to any more posts here.

Even if a closed system universe were correct, that still doesn't necessarily lead to God - although it does require more explaining.

Secondly, I am not sure that the extract you have quoted says what you think it does. The terms 'open' and 'closed' here seem to refer to the shape of the universe, not whether it is a closed system, or whether it is cyclical etc. Also you seem to have added your own headline to the picture? At least, it's not on the page with the link you provide. In addition, by adding your highlighting to some text you have obscured the meaning. Either way, unless you can eliminate the multiverse theories, the proof is unproven.

I think you will find the website: The Flat Earth Society , listed above also quite interesting.

Funnily enough I came across The Flat Earth Society myself many years ago, when I happened to walk past their office in London. I have to say, I was delighted at the eccentricity of anyone maintaining such a philosophy in the modern age. I felt like joining - not because I agree with it, but because I admire their audacity. I love it that Britain has things like this.

Ok, if you want to be hard on them, you could take it as a demonstration of how people are capable of believing anything they like, no matter what the evidence. But then, you yourself believe in a crazy society of people beginning with a capital 'I'...

Signing off from this thread.

 

[~Zaria~]

^ I have provided the reference to the above extract, for those who wish to read the rest of the article.

And as I do with all my posts - I highlight important points, esp. when the article is of a technical nature, to assist with easier reading.

The extract is not referring to the shape of the universe.

But rather whether it is infinite in terms of space.

The following phrase, should be enough reasoning as to why all other theories (which you speak of so often), do not really matter:

The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

as well as the fact that:

Conversely, a negative cosmological constant, which would correspond to a negative energy density and positive pressure, would cause even an open universe to recollapse to a big crunch.

This option has been ruled out by observations.

Signing off from this thread.

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

SubhanAllah, your presence has enabled me to learn new things as well.


********

So, now that we have multiple reasons for why the universe is a closed system,
this would mean it is Finite,
which would imply that it had to have had a starting point.

And because nothing arises out of nothing,

We can conclude that the universe indeed has a Creator.

We refer to Him as Allah.

However, if one is not convinced that Allah is the Creator, Fashioner and Sustainer of all that surrounds them, then insha Allah, we continue take this discussion into another thread.....


Regards

 

[Ali_008]

^^ Another atheist falls prey to the truth. When they are proven wrong, they release this statement "this doesn't necessarily lead to God."

Another regular practice of theirs is exiting from threads when they can't take the argument any further.

In fact, I'm baffled at these recent posts. Independent, you were on this thread for so long just discussing theories talking about creation of the universe other than Big Bang? You are so desperate to prove Islam wrong that you are putting forward "theories" against an actual proven FACT.

In case you don't know, Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking, and universally accepted to be a fact. Anything you put forward against it will only be a "theory." A theory, after all, is an idea/belief still requiring factual backing. Big Bang is as true as gravity. If someday someone comes along, and starts saying gravity is a myth, will you joining their bandwagon as well?

 

[~Zaria~]

In case you don't know, Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking,

Shukran for this input.

Can you provide this information for us?

I have been asking this, from our atheist friends for so long, and they have not brought forth anything thus far.

As far as I am aware, the Big Bang remains a theory.

But I am more than happy to learn more, insha Allah.

 

[Independent]

Another regular practice of theirs is exiting from threads when they can't take the argument any further.

5 minutes out the door and i get an insult. Fantastic. This, I will respond to.

You are so desperate to prove Islam wrong that you are putting forward "theories" against an actual proven FACT.

Wrong and offensive. Does Islam depend on the veracity or otherwise of the Big Bang theory? If i or anyone else disproves Big Bang, does that disprove Islam? No? Then why say this.

Big Bang is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by Stephen Hawking, and universally accepted to be a fact.

Stephen Hawking is a scientist i admire greatly, but that doesn't mean he has the last word. And before you start claiming his endorsement for your position, you should read this quote from his latest book:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

​

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory held by most astrophysicists - just as evolution is the prevailing theory held by most biologists. Do you think evolution is a fact?

Anything you put forward against it will only be a "theory."

What you don't seem to have realised is that the Big Bang and the multiverse are not mutually exclusive theories. Both can be true. The importance of the multiverse, in respect of this thread, is that it means our universe is not a closed system and that its beginning, and its end, is not the end or the beginning of everything.