Atheism

[IceQueen~]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God....... does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

yup, and the other proof for the big bang is the cosmic background radiation!

 

[Ghazi]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God....... does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

intresting... Cool avatar btw.

 

[root]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

probably, but what actually is the big bang other than a massive explosion and then expansion?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe...

Which universe? Let's face it we still cannot say how old the universe actually is, if more universes exist elswhere. We don't even know if time began at our last big band as we cannot assume anymore their was only one big bang.

how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order...

Who said it was created from nothingness, where is the clear proof?

the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse. i cant remember the scientists who said this but eh said if you can find proof of a point of creation he would believe in a God.......

"our" universe you mean, where did you get that source from?

does not einstines special theory of relativity state thst the universe is expanding therefore if you reverse the expansion the universe would come to a single point of creation?

I think your on about a possible "Big Crunch". The bottom line here is that we just can't say with any certainty as to the origins of the universe to start claiming "evidence" from it..... As for proof of creation, it's based on assumptions and not even a probability. At one point in time and currently I guess, a single entity universe really could have supported your position. In my mind logically I think a single universe would probably implicate a form of creation since I accept you would have 1 chance and one chance only to hit the sweet spot, any indication of multiple universes put paid to that:

This will be of interest I think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1768191,00.html

A snippet:

The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory. The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many.

The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs

Regards

Root

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

On the two arguments for god's existence that were mentioned: these are standard arguments that have been around for centuries, and you can read more about them here:

The cosmological argument

The teleological argument

These arguments may be convincing to believers, but they are generally unconvincing to non-believers. To cut a long story short, philosophers since Kant have been basically unimpressed by them.

the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse.

This is a modern variation of the teleological argument known as the 'fine-tuned universe' argument. You can read more about it here:

The anthropic principle and fine-tuned universe arguments

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think it is pointless to continue commenting on the mistranslations of Qur'anic verses, since it is quite clear to all of us that they are farfetched. Brother Abd'Majid made a mistake and he realises it; there isn't a need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I agree, but this raises what I think is an important point. No disrespect to Abd'Majid, who has owned up to his mistake in an honourable fashion, but this kind of thing is symptomatic of the kind of uncritical acceptance that poorly constructed arguments often receive from some religious people. Just because an argument supports your point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good argument. On this forum, the respect and admiration that the Harun Yahya website receives constitute another example of this.

Peace

 

[Hijaabi22]

Is there evidence to support the existence of a Creator?

EHHHHHHHHH A MUSLIM BRO ASKIN THIS???????:? :? :?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

EHHHHHHHHH A MUSLIM BRO ASKIN THIS???????:? :? :?

I assume it's a hypothetical question. I don't think there's any reason to question Ansar's faith.

Peace

 

[Trumble]

is not the big bang theory a good start of some evidence?

because according to the theory there was nothing, then an explosion, then there was the universe... how can the universe be created from nothingness and not be so choatic and in such a perfect order... the universe is in such a precise order that 0.000000000000001 or whatever the universe would collapse.

The figures relate to the value of certain scientific constants and are indeed impressive, but we really do not know how possible, if indeed it was possible at all, that things could turn out other than they did. We also have no idea whether an infinity-minus-one number of such events did occur where things were different and they did "collapse" as a consequence... and no way of ever concievably finding out. Or whether every possible outcome occured simultaneously. And so on.

As has already been pointed out, the actual probability the Big Bang occured producing the sort of universe you describe (assuming it ever did) was not 0.000000000000001, or whatever, but 1. It occured, otherwise we would not be posting here speculating about it. The big question (or biggest - they are all pretty big!) is WHY it happened. God is as good an answer as any IMHO, but there is nothing to suggest any sort of "proof" of God's existence.

 

[root]

Hi All.

Pausing for reflection over two points raised in the past and nwe Scientific discovery to guage who and the end of the day is being supported or not:

Ansar:
That is simply a general rule. We haven't found any terrestrial planets outside our system but we have found hundreds of gaseous planets.

With all the factors to consider, the bottom line is that it is quite obvious that the perfect conditions we see on Earth are not random. They must have been selected.

Ansar, quite rightly pointed out that we had not found any planets other than Gas bags:

Alas, this is no longer true now that a number of them have been discovered outside our solar system.................

If you would like a creationist response, see:

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis ) were human beings who suddenly appeared 100,000 years ago in Europe, and who disappeared, or were assimilated by mixing with other races, quietly but quickly 35,000 years ago. Their only difference from modern man is that their skeletons are more robust and their cranial capacity slightly bigger.

http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html

source:http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/650-atheism-7.html?highlight=neanderthals

Anyone following this thread will know that a number of Mitochondrial DNA had been extracted which supported the idea that Neanderthals were not human and a species in their own right.

Now we have extracted nuclear male Y chromozone.

This nuclear DNA is what really drives an organism's biochemistry.

Preliminary analysis shows the bundle of DNA responsible for maleness in the Neanderthal - its Y chromosome - is very different from modern human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes; more so than for the other chromosomes in the genome.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4986668.stm

Again, the evidence fully supports the idea that Neanderthals were indeed a seperate species.

 

[barb]

Marge1-- I appreciate the quick summary and offer of more deatail--------however-------------I just finished reading the "official" definitions via the Wikipedia link provided by czgibson, and, I think my head is about to explode. Barb

 

[syilla]

i always wonder... is trumble and hei go is the same person?

anyway...

heigou : i'll make dua for you that Allah will give u hidayah and open your hearts to convert to Islam...ameen... ;-)

 

[HeiGou]

i always wonder... is trumble and hei go is the same person?

There's an interesting question. I wonder why anyone would assume that - do we sound alike?

For the record, I can assure you I am not Trumble. Although I would not like to speak for Trumble. Maybe he is me?

heigou : i'll make dua for you that Allah will give u hidayah and open your hearts to convert to Islam...ameen... ;-)

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate the intention behind that.

 

[Trumble]

There's an interesting question. I wonder why anyone would assume that - do we sound alike?

For the record, I can assure you I am not Trumble. Although I would not like to speak for Trumble. Maybe he is me?

Not the last time I looked! Maybe we were brothers in a previous life, or something. Or maybe great minds just think alike! ;D

 

[Fishman]

I believe that it is impossible to prove God using observations of the universe, but it is possible to prove God using a religious Book. That Book is the Quran.

I don't understand why people believe in God without believing in religion. To me that's unfalsifiable.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't understand why people believe in God without believing in religion. To me that's unfalsifiable.

And you think the existence of god is falsifiable?! Please do explain.

Peace

 

[Fishman]

Greetings,


And you think the existence of god is falsifiable?! Please do explain.

Peace

religions are falsifiable, God on His own is not. there is no test to determine a God-made universe from one that appeared on it's own (not that that's possible), but you can test whether a religion is correct or not. I know scientology (no offence to scientologists), for example, is not correct because it claims that Hawaii existed 75 million years ago, when it didn't (not to my knowledge anyway).

 

[HeiGou]

religions are falsifiable, God on His own is not. there is no test to determine a God-made universe from one that appeared on it's own (not that that's possible), but you can test whether a religion is correct or not.

Of course there are tests to determine a God-made Universe or not. The very first experiment of the Royal Society was to weigh a man as he died to work out how heavy his soul was. The problem is that a lack of a result cannot disprove the existence of God. If an experiment proved God existed, and such a test is theoretically possible, then believers would be totally behind it. But any number of experiments that do not prove He exists mean little. Maybe we have not got the experiment right yet.

And the experience of "proving" religions is that when faced with overwhelming evidence that they cannot deny or suppress, most religions will quietly adopt those claims and deny that they were ever opposed to them. So in effect it is impossible to disprove any religion.

 

[primitivefuture]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[HeiGou]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Which was, I think, my point.

However at some point you have to accept that massive induction amounts to something like proof. Otherwise we would have to accept I might have fairies in the bottom of my garden.

 

[root]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What a crazy world we would live in if your statement rung true, perhaps one of the sanities of science is that it requires falsification.

Within all religous circles I can quite beleive this is the case and the means by which they claim all types of unsubstantiated claims. When it comes to logic, that statement simply does not hold any water.

This is a good reason why a scientific theory must be falsifiable. If someone beleives in little green men that live on the planet mars that are quite camera shy, I am not exactly going to support his hypothosis on the basis that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Logically, the scientific position would support the theory that the little green men don't exist. To falsify this theory one simply has to prove little green men on mars exist. However, the theory that little green men do exist is not falsifiable since nobody has observed them.

So the scientific theory that God does not exist is the current scientific position. All you have to do is prove God does exist and go collect your nobel peace prize.