Atheism

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Is there evidence to support the existence of a Creator?

 

[*s*]

Well of course there is evidence - his signs are everywhere, for all to see. Without Allah our creator there would be nothing.

 

[Khattab]

Of course like *s* says we see it in Allah's signs or is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life, the way everything comes from the earth, the shelter, food, clothes etc. Stone and rocks to help build our houses, food of all sorts that all give pleasure when tasted, fruit the way they are perfectly protected in shells or skin, spices and herbs of all sorts, milk from the cow for us and for its siblings, as well as its meat for eating like many other animals, the human (women) even have breast milk for there baby, the way there are cures for mankind from all kinds of illness from plants, honey etc "Verily In This Is A Sign!". Our clothes made from wool, silk etc. The way there is enough time in the day to do ones work without pushing to hard and enough hours at night to sleep, there isnt light fo say 30 hours and dark for 30 hours it all follows a fixed rotation, the way the earth is held up and spins to sustain life. The beautiful landscapes with flowing rivers and kinds of flowers. The way where no one looks exactly the same even identical twins have slight diffrences from each other, the way all our fingertips are diffrent so to identify who is who (ie police take finger prints of criminals).

The athiest says its all one big coincidence, but for all if you reflect you will see it yourself the majesty of Allah (SWT)!

 

[root]

Misconceptions the world over

It's always nice to know that you know so much about atheism!!

is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life,

This is simply wrong, non-facto

The athiest says its all one big coincidence

No we don't

Without Allah our creator there would be nothing.

You cannot prove this.

 

[Rehmat]

.....You cannot prove this.

Hmmmmmm!

That reminds me this story:

Isaac Newton, had invited a scientist-friend of his, a man who professed atheism to dine with him. Seeking to corner his friend with his own arguments, Newton placed a model of the solar system on his table and invited his friend to view it. Upon examining it, Newton’s friend exclaimed, “what a marvellous craftsmanship!” Who fashioned this exquisite model?” Newton replied casually, “This model has no maker, it materialised from nothing.” Disbelief written large on his face, the friend asked, “What do you mean?” To this, Newton smiled and replied, “How can you my friend, insist that this model has to have a maker, while vehemently denying the existence of a divine Creator?”

Moral: If a model of the solar system must have a creator then what about the gigantic solar system itself? Let us worship that Creator who has created you and me.

 

[Genius]

There is no evidence of God, yet there is no evidence that he doesn't exist, so scientifically its impossible to determine whether he exists or not.

Our belief in God, stems from articles of faith. Some may read the Quran and be convinced of the existence of Allah, others may study the attributes of the Prophet and be convinced of the existence of God, others may have a spiritual experience etc etc.

Atheists don't believe in God because they only believe in stuff that has been proven in the context of Scientific principle's, A true Muslim, Jew, christian believes in God because he/she believes that God is above all scientific principles.

Theres no point in athiests trying to prove there is no God scientifically, because Scientifically speaking what remains unproven is a possibility, until Science has proven that there is no God athiest thinking remains a theory.

Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.

 

[Khattab]

It's always nice to know that you know so much about atheism!!



This is simply wrong, non-facto



No we don't



You cannot prove this.

Please enlighten me to your beliefs then and how all these things came about, thanks.

 

[Rehmat]

...Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.

That's funny!

Dr. Keith Moore, Professor of Anatomy and Chairman of the Department, Faculty of Medicine, at the University of Toronto, 1982 staes that "the study of how the human embryo develops in the mother’s womb could not progress significantly without the use of microscopes. Microscopes were not invented until the 17th century CE, and were not used in this field of study until the 18th century. Therefore, when I studied certain statements in the Qur’an on this subject, I was amazed at the scientific accuracy of these statements which were made in the 7th century CE."

Professor Moore was refering to Qur'anic verse 39:6, which states that Allah made us in the wombs of our mothers in stages.

The realization that the embryo develops in stages in the uterus was not discussed or illustrated until the 15th century CE. The staging of human embryos was not proposed until the 1940’s, and the stages used nowadays were not adopted worldwide until a few years ago.

So, how did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) knew this scientic discovery 1400 years ago? Even if one FOOL himself that the Prophet (pbuh) was a "Rocket scientist" :thumbs_up

 

[kadafi]

Muslims should not use Science as a means to prove the existense of God either, cos that is impossible, no one can say the 'moon works perfectly so that proves there is a god' cos that is just an assumption. Science should only be used to understand God's creation rather than understanding god himself.

bro,

I disagree with that statement. As you noted in your post; science should be used to understand God's creation rather dan understand God himself. If a individual proclaims that the Moon is at the right size, and thus God exist. Then he/she is using the Creation of God and the laws to identify the existence of God. This doesn't indicate that he/she is tryin' to
understand God but to understand His Creation. Understandin' God is simply absurd since we humans only possess finite comprehension. We can only grasp what He revealed to us which is the Glorious Qur'an.

So by understandin' His Creation, you will automatically acknowledge his Existence. Allah SWT did not create the universe without a purpose.

"Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between! that were the thought of Unbelievers!" (38: 27)

"(God) is the One who spread out the earth and set therein mountains standing firm and rivers. For every fruit He placed two of a pair. He covers the day with the night. Verily in this there are Signs for people who reflect." (13:3)

Wa'salaam

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Interesting...

The classic argument for the existence of God is Intelligent design argument. that is, that the universe has been created in so much detail and complexity that could not be possible without a creator. Atheists however do not find this very convincing.

Concening science...

Has anyone heard of the notion of a massless lightcone being in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanincs? Is this not similar to the religious notion of God?

 

[root]

Intelligent Design

the theory of Intelligent design has a slight arrogance about it though. I have two points on this in that firstly, your proof for intelligent design is that you exist?

Secondly, The Earth "Evolved" so at what point do you believe in intelligent design since our planet does not show intelligent design but a mathmatical probabiltity.

Thirdly, if the Qur'an accepts that their probably is other life out their and they proportion this to a "Bridging" of creation (stages). How did the intelligent designed man suddenly appear on the planet. Science can prove that life can be brought to this planet, but Islamic creationists cannot even begin to understand how Adam & Eve got here, the paradox of bridging is something I don't understand and indeed struggle with. Also, we are homosapian and different from neandothol since we know that neandothol man was not homosapian who came first in your eyes, neandothol's or homosapians?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I have two points on this in that firstly, your proof for intelligent design is that you exist?

Not only us, but the complexity we find in ever system in the universe is a testmony to the power of the Creator.

Secondly, The Earth "Evolved" so at what point do you believe in intelligent design since our planet does not show intelligent design but a mathmatical probabiltity.

Not sure what you mean here. Intelligent design existed since the start of the iunivers. Down to the chemical reactions with atoms, we find amazing complexity. The study of Quantum Mechanics is a testimony to that. A very interesting field of science, speaking of which, no one has responded about the massless light cone being - God.

Science can prove that life can be brought to this planet, but Islamic creationists cannot even begin to understand how Adam & Eve got here, the paradox of bridging is something I don't understand and indeed struggle with.

Do you mean when did God place Adam and Eve on Earth? It could have been anytime in Earth's history. And there are different theories, some from the Muslim creationists, and others from the Muslim evoloutinists.

Also, we are homosapian and different from neandothol since we know that neandothol man was not homosapian who came first in your eyes, neandothol's or homosapians?

If you would like a creationist response, see:
http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html

Salaam

 

[Sahabiyaat]

in my opinion....this may not be relevant to wat u brothers r talking about but i wud just like to say.. its intresting to see scientists....who discover amazing and accurate things...cuming up with a theory such as the big bang...lol its till makes me laugh.

"The classic argument for the existence of God is Intelligent design argument. that is, that the universe has been created in so much detail and complexity that could not be possible without a creator"

the above statment is ideal in opposition to the big bang theroy....the complete order of the universe,the mechanisms of the human eye..the entire ordered functions of our existing world..r far too complex...to begin from a clash of atoms.however the correct clash of atoms..ordered by a creator...thats a different matter.....and where did those very atoms come from root ?...


root is an atheist ?

 

[Uthman]

Sister the Qur'an does support the big bang theory or perhaps I misunderstood your post

By the way, Root has left the forum. That was rather unfortunate as he/she/it didn't have the chance to learn much,

 

[Uthman]

Have you giys ever heard of the teleological and cosmological argument in favour of the existence of God? If not then Inshallah I'll explain

 

[Uthman]

I'll present the philosophical arguments anyway inshallah.
The Cosmological argument gives the idea of 'cause and effect'. It states that everything that exists has a cause for its existence and then applies this logic to the universe:

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.​

Like most of the purported proofs of the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms. Two forms of the argument will be discussed here: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal “argument from contingency”.​

The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument. In order to explain what this objection is, and how the two arguments evade it, a simple, generic statement of the cosmological argument will be necessary. This statement is as follows:​

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.​

This argument is subject to a simple objection, which arises in the form of the question “Does God have a cause of his existence?”
​

If, on the one hand, God were thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe wouldn’t get us anywhere. Without God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us.
​

If, on the other hand, God were thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God were thought to be an uncaused being, then this too would raise difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would be a counterexample to premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of his existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the simple cosmological argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the cosmological argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might be such a thing. The existence of an uncaused God would thus render the simple cosmological argument unsound, and so useless as a proof of the existence of God.​

Each of the two forms of cosmological argument discussed here is more sophisticated than the simple cosmological argument presented above. Each of the two cosmological arguments discussed here draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason why the existence of the universe stands in a need of an explanation while the existence of God does not. Each therefore evades the objection outlined above.​

In the case of the kalam cosmological argument, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Everything that has a beginning in time, the kalam cosmological argument claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.​

In the case of the argument from contingency, the distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the existence of the universe is contingent, i.e. that the universe could have not existed. Everything that exists contingently, the argument from contingency claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, whose existence is not contingent but rather is necessary, is consistent with this claim, and so does not present the problem encountered in the discussion of the simple cosmological argument above.​

Each of these two forms of the cosmological argument, then, evades the objection introduced above in a distinct way. The two arguments are therefore distinct, and so warrant individual assessments.​

​

The teleological argument is often known as the argument from design:
​

The Teleological Argument

Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. Their name is derived from the Greek word, “telos”, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance.
​

The classical statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley. Paley likened the universe to a watch, with many ordered parts working in harmony to further some purpose. The argument as he constructed it is thus an argument from analogy.​

Modern teleological arguments look somewhat different to that constructed by Paley. Modern teleological arguments focus on the “fine-tuning” in the universe. Whether they are successful is therefore a question distinct from the question as to whether Paley’s argument is successful. The two types of teleological argument therefore require investigation separately.
​

Although teleological arguments are often referred to as “arguments from design”, those who oppose such arguments sometimes take offence at this. Noted sceptic Anthony Flew, in particular, has criticised this name.​

Flew grants that if the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it. This appears to be a simple linguistic truth, on a par with the truth that if something is being carried then there must be something else that is carrying it.​

What Flew disputes, and what he takes to be the centre of the discussion concerning the teleological argument, is whether the universe does indeed contain design. Paley’s watch analogy, and the evidence of fine-tuning, are not intended to demonstrate that the design in the universe is the work of an intelligent agent, but rather are intended to demonstrate that the order in the universe is indeed design. Flew therefore suggests that we speak not of “arguments from design” but of “arguments to design”.
​

​

​

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thanks Osman! Where did you get those from?

 

[Chuck]

Here is an interesting view, and I don't believe that it will convert an atheist, and I don't intend to make anyone believe in God through this article, but I believe that the article provides good insight into this topic:

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by the writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?”

The video draws from a discussion last May in New York organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

 

[Uthman]

Thanks Osman! Where did you get those from?

I got them from here. It's got some arguments for the existence of God as well as atheism.

Chuck,

Welcome! You're here! Yay! That was an interesting view. Islam and science go hand-in-hand as has been discovered. Yet some still refuse to believe. I don't think it was about Islam but one day I reckon science will prove the existence of God. :beard:

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Thanks Ozzy! Welcome Br. Chuck! Spread your knowledge! Masha'Allah.