God Doesnt exist because we havent and cant see him?

[noodles]

I rather thought I already had.



As I said, an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible. Why is it impossible? You or I could create (as in build) something we cannot lift. So surely God can? Except that being omnipotent He can't.. and hence the paradox. It cannot be solved simply by claiming the scenario is 'impossible'.. for other beings it clearly isn't, and therefore in making that claim you must also be making fundamental and equally unsubstantiable claims about the nature of God. Or, at the very least, making assumptions as to the precise meaning of 'omnipotent' which involve taking some liberties with regard to the dictionary definition... as I said it is around the precise meaning of the word in this context that most scholarly musings on the topic are centred.

The flaw is not "aesthetic", it is fundamental. That is why the paradox remains a paradox and the "ultra absurd" questions are perfectly reasonable - albeit as unproductive as the answers given to them. I don't see the problem.. it is unreasonable to expect any theist to do a better job than Ansar in 'explaining' the paradox when there seems no possible way of doing so without making assumptions that are not open to challenge because their truth or otherwise can never be demonstrated, or are simply a matter of opinion. It's a little philosophical conundrum, not a 'killer' argument for the non-existence of God.

I rather think your argument isn't very perceptive and there is a reason I say that.

But before I go any further let me point out somethings.


I think you may agree that you and I are different from one another and also from the rest of the world. I'd also point out that no two human beings are the same. Twins, Triplets, Quadruplets, however many you have alike, they are each their own person. Even if they look alike, their intellect may not. Nor are their experiances similar. Yet we often find ourselves comparing ourselves to one another. Why? you may ask. Some may conclude, that it is to better ourselves, and others may deduce that we do so to feel better of ourselves.

Regardless, we compare because it is embedded in us to do so.

Anyway, that aside.

The problem with the paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?" is that we are so used to viewing ourselves and others through one lens that often times we fail to examine the problem any other way. You've compared God to a human being. That is perhaps your biggest mistake for failing to grasp our understanding of Allah.

Perhaps if you look at it in one way, you can say that prehistoric men (that term doesn't mean anything to me, but it may mean something to you) had greater strength than any humans present today because they had to do lifting on a daily basis and their physique and brute force was immense. The same cannot be said in the present day (just exclude the weight lifters etc.) Today, strength isn't anything. Rather in the contemporary world, Ideas are what we value. Innovators are the money makers of today. Can you not imagine a designer building a device to lift this object that even he can't lift? Sure he didn't use his strength because he didn't need to, he used his brain.

In Islam, it is silly to attribute any human characteristic with the almighty, because the titles we produce can never befit him. He is so much more than that. However, for the sake of human understanding, He himself has given attributes that we may understand.

Anyway, that is my take on the matter at hand.

Salam

(P.S sorry for rambling in the beginning, I don't really know what point I was trying to make, but I'll just keep it up there and also do excuse my grammar)

 

[جوري]

Care to expand?

Perhaps it would do a world of difference if you'd glance over said post, written by br. Ansar draw some abstracts from the general idea(s) inferred and derived in that specific topic; then make the request for expansion? What do you think? There is nothing more irritating than insinuating yourself in the middle of a topic with non specific requests!

peace!

 

[Isambard]

Perhaps it would do a world of difference if you'd glance over said post, written by br. Ansar draw some abstracts from the general idea(s) inferred and derived in that specific topic; then make the request for expansion? What do you think? There is nothing more irritating than insinuating yourself in the middle of a topic with non specific requests!

peace!

I have read it and Trumble offered a good rebuttle. Perhaps you should re-read his post and give it some consideration before tossing it aside. If there is some flaw in his thinking, point it out.

 

[kwolney01]

I don't understand how people can give that excuse for not beliving in God. Just because we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't see air but we know it exists..we can't see love we know that exists...

 

[جوري]

I have read it and Trumble offered a good rebuttle. Perhaps you should re-read his post and give it some consideration before tossing it aside. If there is some flaw in his thinking, point it out.

I believe Br. Ansar has explored the topic from all facets and covered it more than adequately.. the mere fact that trumble bothered only with the first paragraph which he felt he could pounce on hardly qualifies it as a 'rebuttal'. we'd regard it with some consideration if he'd bothered point out the flaws in the whole not in part. Further the delivery of his whole confutation is ill-chosen or rather I should say well-chosen? since he found this time opportune to controvert and not when the original topic was presented.. rather amusing as I see him on of the original posters on that particular thread.. http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/27727-can-allaah-create-god-like-himself.html#post466313
again leaves me with one impression which is the need to purge himself for being confounded the first time around. From what I see the thread is still open and no one is stopping him from challenging the original poster rather than take the timid approach out!

by the way did he elect you to speak on his behalf by proxy? if we are going to speak of 'consider' and 'toss aside', one should expect that you expend some effort in the whole process-- like critiquing the original post in whole, instead of hiding behind someone else's descending prolegomenon? .. don't you think?
There is such a thing as being extraneous, that is where trumble's fell.. as I didn't see anything in it, that merits a 'rebuttal'!

 

[Trumble]

You've compared God to a human being. That is perhaps your biggest mistake for failing to grasp our understanding of Allah.

I did not compare anything with anything. I did point out that for the paradox to be 'answered' it is necessary to explain why God is different in this respect, and to do so without making assumptions that are wide open to challenge. Hence my repeated comments on the working definition of "omnipotent". Just saying He is different without specifying how "doesn't cut it" as PA would say, as a response to a philosophical argument.

the mere fact that trumble bothered only with the first paragraph which he felt he could pounce on hardly qualifies it as a 'rebuttal'. we'd regard it with some consideration if he'd bothered point out the flaws in the whole not in part.

My argument is general and applies to rather more than the one paragraph I quoted.

 

[ranma1/2]

The Quran has no evidence for the theory of evolution. As muslim, we do not accept theory of evolution, for the same reason many scientists don't.

Because it goes against your religion?

Lets be a bit more observant there. Science does not say we evolved, never has and probably never will.

Correct, its not living, so perhaps I should say that the scientific community says we evolved., im pretty sure you knew that but I guess I have to be detailed with you.

Evolution is just a theoretical model, which to this day has not been proved.

It sounds as if you need to understand the word theory better. No theory is every proven. Also the Theory of evolution has not been proven “how evo works.” Evo itself “is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. More specifically the chang of allele in a population.” is a fact.
Similarly the theory of gravitation are also theories and also not proven. Likewise gravity itself “ that objects with mass attract each other” is a fact.

Its just as silly as the strings theory - Its alot of mathematics which they moulded to work, it means nothing (I would definatly tell you to look at the string theory, just to see what people can do these days to produce a theory, which after analysis goes to say how stupid it is, its a bit like the bible code, nothing but a coincidence of numbers and no basis on fact).

This here pretty much shows your point of view. “I don’t understand it so bah…”

….. Its a theory with so many missing links, more holes in it then a truck of Polo's even according to the majority census of scientists, to think that it can be used to contradict anything, even religion, is illogical.

It doesn’t matter if we had no fossils, it is still supported by evidence. Fact, the theory is accepted by the scientific community, many a peer reviewed paper has been written on it supporting it. “none against it that I can think of” So yes, it can be used to contradict creationism.

If you think only religion says evolution is wrong, then you have been living in a hole, …

Oh im sure many a person can “Say its wrong” but no one has proven its wrong or given evidence. Im still waiting for evidence that its wrong… But im sure the EAC is preventing peer reviewed papers from showing up.

So I still wait for you on the challenge, show me where Islam contradicts science, and unproved discredited theories is not science, I will wait for this till the last breath I take.

Well the theory of evolution has not been discredited and I am pretty confident it never will.

 

[wilberhum]

I don't understand how people can give that excuse for not beliving in God. Just because we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't see air but we know it exists..we can't see love we know that exists...

That was my point. If you look through the posts, no one makes that claim. :-\
The author is fighting wind mills. :skeleton:

 

[Md Mashud]

Because it goes against your religion?

No. If this was the reason, then every scientist would accept evolution, but they don't and I can tell you its not on the basis of religion or contradiction on any of their belifs but due to not being convinced by the theory itself.

So when a scientist thinks that evolution theory is wrong - does it make the scientist wrong? He can't be, because their is no fact to say he's wrong, similar to the Quran. It would be similar to alt of years ago, that if someone said the Earth was not the center of the universe, people would call him crazy and wrong - because at the time they had a THEORY that it must be in the center! See how wrong it is now?

This here pretty much shows your point of view. “I don’t understand it so bah…”

Don't assume more then you know.

Well the theory of evolution has not been discredited and I am pretty confident it never will.

Yes it has.

Fact, the theory is accepted by the scientific community, many a peer reviewed paper has been written on it supporting it. “none against it that I can think of” So yes, it can be used to contradict creationism.

Further makes me believe that you have been reading on the propaganda of things! Never heard anything against it? Your surely joking, theres only a tonne? These days alot of things are supported, even that humans actually can make a difference to global warming. Evolution itself is a politicaly motivated theory (goes back to the battle between christians and scientists) rather then a scientific one. If you have fudning and people willing, you can make people make anything seem true.


It still is a theory and thus science does not contradict the Quran as it is still just a theory. I could just make up a theory which contradicts gravity, but would that mean gravity is wrong?

Correct, its not living, so perhaps I should say that the scientific community says we evolved., im pretty sure you knew that but I guess I have to be detailed with you.

You made my point clear here. If Quran contradicted the SCIENTIFIC community (I should mention not the whole) - this is different from contradicting science... Scientists believe in lots of things, since the eary days, alot of which were wrong, some right. One day even that the world was flat or the Earth was at the center of the Universe! So your point again, that science contradicted Quran is alot of breeze.

So, Im still waiting for real science that contradicts the Quran from you, not theories. To give examples, I know some people belive that the universe is 6000 years old, Id say thats a scientific contradiction. If someone preached that gravity is 6m/s² on Earth, Id say thats a scientific contradiction.

 

[جوري]

My argument is general and applies to rather more than the one paragraph I quoted. Perhaps you did not actually read it? I'm afraid I no longer have much regard for your opinion. Possibly because, as here, your own habit of hiding your own inability to respond to the relevant point behind a smokescreen of arrogance and insult is getting very, very, tiresome.

points of relevance? fresh coming from someone who sits on the web all day looking to refute research in which basic precepts are lost to him... How much did you read of the 47 page PDF file before quickly looking for a source to debunk it?
I am afraid you've stumbled upon an adequate appraisal of your own characteristics for a change. When you come up with something of substance, can we then read.. I am afraid we too get tired of your fatuous self-aggrandizing episodes... No one has asked you for a review of the original post.. I am afraid it wasn't even addressed to you... If you feel inferior to Ansar and wish to dispute him, I suggest you do it directly rather than by proxy. Maybe then your 'points of relevance' will carry more weight!

 

[wilberhum]

edit
Woops, that button is quick reply.

 

[Sheba]

Does God exist?

If a document can be produced that is in excess of 1400 years old. The author calls Himself God and it can be verified as factual.

Is 100's of years ahead of it's time and is proven both scienticificaly, medically and verified by the science of mathamatics. Could this possiblily be evidence that God really does exist?

Sheba

 

[Isambard]

No. If this was the reason, then every scientist would accept evolution, but they don't and I can tell you its not on the basis of religion or contradiction on any of their belifs but due to not being convinced by the theory itself.

Which scientists? And what exactly is it about the theory you find in error?

So when a scientist thinks that evolution theory is wrong - does it make the scientist wrong? He can't be, because their is no fact to say he's wrong, similar to the Quran. It would be similar to alt of years ago, that if someone said the Earth was not the center of the universe, people would call him crazy and wrong - because at the time they had a THEORY that it must be in the center! See how wrong it is now?

That was mroe due to the church trying to control findings...and setting those who disagreed to be set on fire.

Don't assume more then you know.



Yes it has.


Such as?

Further makes me believe that you have been reading on the propaganda of things! Never heard anything against it? Your surely joking, theres only a tonne? These days alot of things are supported, even that humans actually can make a difference to global warming. Evolution itself is a politicaly motivated theory (goes back to the battle between christians and scientists) rather then a scientific one. If you have fudning and people willing, you can make people make anything seem true.

How is it a politically motivated theory? If anything, if someone could disprove evolution, they would get rich for such a monumental discovery. The closest so far is psedo-scientists twisting findings to get large sums of money from faith based groups. If a scientist could write a paper that isnt destroyed by peer evaluation, that scientist would be very very famous


It still is a theory and thus science does not contradict the Quran as it is still just a theory. I could just make up a theory which contradicts gravity, but would that mean gravity is wrong?


what is your take on this?

[67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.


[15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders;
[15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil:
[15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits. What do you make of it?

You made my point clear here. If Quran contradicted the SCIENTIFIC community (I should mention not the whole) - this is different from contradicting science... Scientists believe in lots of things, since the eary days, alot of which were wrong, some right. One day even that the world was flat or the Earth was at the center of the Universe! So your point again, that science contradicted Quran is alot of breeze.

Thats nice, but science never claims to be the unmovable truth. It by its very nature is tentative, unlike the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes some really out there claims as well like the one I mentioned above.

So, Im still waiting for real science that contradicts the Quran from you, not theories. To give examples, I know some people belive that the universe is 6000 years old, Id say thats a scientific contradiction. If someone preached that gravity is 6m/s² on Earth, Id say thats a scientific contradiction.

Is there a set number that would you like? And mind if I lumped in some historical ones?

 

[Md Mashud]

[67.5] YUSUF ALI: And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.


[15.16] YUSUF ALI: It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders;
[15.17] And (moreover) We have guarded them from every cursed devil:
[15.18] But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits. What do you make of it?

I am not a mutjahid. There must be the original arabic firstly, secondly I won't assume

Seems to say that meteors are lamps flung at evil spirits

We can make a new religion if we base it on translations.

So its better to find what an islamic scholar to give tafsir on the texts, I am not allowed to make out what I think it means... The texts to us can be infinitly ambigious, especially as we are not experts at arabic and secondly that its not even in Arabic to begin with, if you understand what I mean.

I was looking on the lines of more that, Islam undoubtedly stated X, which contradicts scientific fact Y.

Thats nice, but science never claims to be the unmovable truth. It by its very nature is tentative, unlike the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes some really out there claims as well like the one I mentioned above.

See above, again, my point is, there wasn't a scientific contradiction, maybe scientists disagreed with it but thats opinionated.

That was mroe due to the church trying to control findings...and setting those who disagreed to be set on fire.

edit: N/c?

Which scientists? And what exactly is it about the theory you find in error?

Please, don't ask me to babysit you on basics. Did you really think that the majority of scientists accepted evolution as an answer, or even credible? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8 <-- This isn't suppose to be the grand answer, but its a funny clip, and I think you can clearly see with your eyes that a scientist appears to not agree with evolution, while another does. If you are talking of if those who disregard are high status or not? Well thats even more of a researchful task to produce to you. Id rather you look into it. The point is, if this was scientific fact, no one would refute it and if anyone does, be it Quran scientist or a Bush, you can't say they are wrong in any sense, they just contradicted an opinion not a fact.

How is it a politically motivated theory?

Read up on history.

 

[Isambard]

Interesting you should mention Kent Hovind as a "scholar".

Let his unquentionable character speak for itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyHuSlL3yY

And here is "Dr." Hovind getting pwned by his own garbled quotes he twisted from Darwin and pointed out by Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4&NR=1

And here is further pwnage for your enjoyment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wglbviUuXjg&NR=1

Before I forget, you may want to check this out
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

Pretty informative stuff.

 

[Md Mashud]

Interesting you should mention Kent Hovind as a "scholar".

I did no such thing.

This isn't suppose to be the grand answer

This referred to that - I don't even know the scientists, but I just recall one disagreeing with the theory (this one stuck to mind, it goes to show how scientists are quite dumb, I mean look how Ali G played them all, thought it was hilarious). I don't say he is a great scientists - but the ideology behind it is that - scientists do agree = its not really scientific fact - u can take it as an anecdotal arguement point of view.

I don't know what your plan is with those posts, but I must comment on the

pwnage

I like the style ^^.

Btw, I did make a quick note, about the evolution of the eye. Quran does not deny, the gradual changes/adoptions if you will, of the same animal/creature - like the beak of a bird, or the feet of a horse, rather the apes-->human thing and things alike... We don't agree that the human however had evolutions/adoptions of itself, or through transitions from other animals.

 

[Isambard]

I did no such thing.



This referred to that - I don't even know the scientists, but I just recall one disagreeing with the theory. I don't say he is a great scientists - but the ideology behind it is that - scientists do agree = its not really scientific fact.

I don't know what your plan is with those posts.

To show he isnt a scientist, merely a moron masquarating as one

Btw, I did make a quick note, about the evolution of the eye. Quran does not deny, the gradual changes/adoptions if you will, of the same animal/creature - like the beak of a bird, or the feet of a horse, rather the apes-->human thing and things alike... I think people think that Quran denies some adoption creatures altogether, which I have never heard of.

Could you expand?

 

[Md Mashud]

Could you expand?

On what point?

 

[Isambard]

On what point?

Your last point, 'apes/humans and things alike'. Sry was, a bit vague

 

[Md Mashud]

Your last point, 'apes/humans and things alike'. Sry was, a bit vague

Thinking about it now, I have never ever heard anything regarding animal species that transitioned (i.e. the claims of fossil). The Quran is not a science book as you know, so it did not talk about what did what, the conflict to people came when certain verses talked about the coming of man, in a way which can be described as non-evolutionary, if you know what I mean.

As far as I know, their hasn't been mention of animals and evolution, nor any ayat stating "EVOLUTION IS WRONG" or the such. So what we live by is that, apes did not turn into human. If anyone knows any more specifics on it, please bring it up, as I am not a master of arabic or Quran to convery exactly what the Quran has said on the matter.

Usually, Islamic scholars won't detail into this, on that it is just a theory (evolution) and so whats the point of discussing it, it would bear no effect on Islam as a theory can contradict anything it likes, people, science, religion, it won't matter until it becomes a fact.

I will like to quote some statements in an article:

Of what significance is this to Muslims? In point of religion, if we put our scientific scruples aside for a moment and grant that evolution is applicable to something in the real world; namely, the mollusks of Lake Turkana, does this constitute unbelief (kufr) by the standards of Islam? I don't think so.

With respect to evolution, the knowledge claim that Allah has brought one sort of being out of another is not intrinsically impossible ((a) above) because it is not self-contradictory. And as to whether it is (b), "impossible because of Allah having informed us that it cannot occur", it would seem to me that we have two different cases, that of man, and that of the rest of creation.

and

Other Species
As for other cases, change from one sort of thing to another does not seem to contradict revelation, for Allah says,
"O people: Fear your Lord, who created you from one soul [Adam, upon whom be peace] and created from it its mate [his wife Hawa], and spread forth from them many men and women" (Qur'an 4:1),
and also says, concerning the metamorphosis of a disobedient group of Bani Isra'il into apes,
"When they were too arrogant to [desist from] what they had been forbidden, We said to them, 'Be you apes, humiliated'" (Qur'an 7:166).
and in a hadith, "There shall be groups of people from my community who shall consider fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful: groups shall camp beside a high mountain, whom a shepherd returning to in the evening with one of their herds shall approach for something he needs, and they shall tell him, 'Come back tomorrow.' Allah shall destroy them in the night, bringing down the mountain upon them, and transforming others into apes and swine until the Day of Judgement." (Sahih al-Bukhari. 9 vols. Cairo 1313/1895. Reprint (9 vols. in 3). Beirut: Dar al-Jil, n.d., 7.138: 5590). Most Islamic scholars have understood these transformations literally, which shows that Allah's changing one thing into another (again, in other than the origin of man) has not been traditionally considered to be contrary to the teachings of Islam. Indeed, the daily miracle of nutrition, the sustenance Allah provides for His creatures, in which one creature is transformed into another by being eaten, may be seen in the food chains that make up the economy of our natural world, as well as our own plates.

If, as in the theory of evolution, we conjoin with this possibility the factors of causality, gradualism, mutation, and adaptation, it does not seem to me to add anything radically different to these other forms of change. For Islamic tenets of faith do not deny causal relations as such, but rather that causes have effects in and of themselves, for to believe this is to ascribe a co-sharer to Allah in His actions.

and a conclusion of:

To summarize the answer to your question thus far, belief in macro-evolutionary transformation and variation of non-human species does not seem to me to entail kufr (unbelief) or shirk (ascribing co-sharers to Allah) unless one also believes that such transformation came about by random mutation and natural selection, understanding these adjectives as meaning causal independence from the will of Allah. (note this is not denying that natural selection/random mutation could not occur, but that it cannot be used to say that it can explain life God-independantly - so rather that they were God agented)

Summary of Islamic Conclusions
Allah alone is Master of Existence. He alone causes all that is to be and not to be. Causes are without effect in themselves, but rather both cause and effect are created by Him. The causes and the effects of all processes, including those through which plant and animal species are individuated, are His work alone. To ascribe efficacy to anything but His action, whether believing that causes (a) bring about effects in and of themselves; or (b) bring about effects in and of themselves through a capacity Allah has placed in them, is to ascribe associates to Allah (shirk). Such beliefs seem to be entailed in the literal understanding of "natural selection" and "random mutation," and other evolutionary concepts, unless we understand these processes as figurative causes, while realizing that Allah alone is the agent. This is apart from the consideration of whether they are true or not.
As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else.

source, I Can't Quote it all BUT its a good read if you have time, is a modern approach and not just a "its a theory, you have no proof, shutup" article: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

So, from what I gather, Quran denies that apes >> Humans, in simple terms. Every other branch of evolution, has not been touched upon on the Quran, which would mean that evidences such as fossil, cannot not really contradict Quran.

It also mentions that, any adaptations/evolution that does occur - does not make that God-Independant as it is not the absolute - and the means for it to occur to begin with was God, God being the agent.

If anyone wishes to correct me please do, I would not like to claim total confidence.