God Doesnt exist because we havent and cant see him?

[wilberhum]

That explanation was not an arguement for the existance of God, just a refuatation that the original comment that "God being just and creating unjust on the Earth" contradicts the characteristic bought by religion, because not all agree to that statement, or see it that way par say.

Also it should be noted that, even if one doubts a religion (in terms of what it has said about anything, including God), that should not be used as a counter-arguement for Gods existance, many people beleive in God and not a religion. You can at best say that the religion is wrong to assume God is just, but never God doesnt exist, if you get what Im saying.

I do totally get what you are saying. :thankyou:

many people beleive in God and not a religion.

So true, you are talking to one. :giggling:

Peace
Wilber

PS: I have been meaning to tell you, I love your "Get Real".

 

[Md Mashud]

Yep, most are fascinated at the sig!

 

[جوري]

The existance of god is not proveable
IMHO

I used that same logic today... I was walking on Madison and my olfactory sensed the aroma of warm apple pie... it is unheard of.. no one bakes on Madison-- I saw it by a deserted window pane.. I thought to myself.. this orphan pie, what is its purpose there? I must walk over and grab it.. I just see it lying in all its glory.. a piece of perfection...it belonged to me as I saw no one baking it, no one buying the apples, or the crust or slaving over putting it together.. I don't see an oven and no one brought it over to let it cool off and waft into the breeze-- besides I see its burnt around a few edges which is such a great flaw.. after all anyone that slaves all day over a pie wouldn't allow it a certain imperfections..
Yes the pie self-assembled on its own volition..
the 9 inch double crust, the 3/4 cup white sugar the 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour the 1/8 teaspoon salt , the 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon the 1/4the teaspoon ground nutmeg the 6 tart apples - peeled, cored and sliced itself, the 2 tablespoons butter were but the products of a series evolutionary steps by which all these ingredients came about and self-assembled then the oven Preheated itself to 450 degrees F, then Baked itself in for 10 minutes. and then Lowered its own temperature to 350 degrees F and baked itself an additional 40 minutes. then flew over by the window pane.. in quietude not letting us into its secret assembly..
Why are you there pie?
two people argued
a pie doesn't just appear
another guy.. it is very possible.. and I'll go on further to say the pie is evil.. why can't the pie be evil? I see a couple of burnt edges too.. what is the meaning of this?
A group of sages assembled trying to comprehend the odd event..
it made the news paper
a pie unattended on Madison

yet it seems it is man's lot to be in a place of mystery wrapped in an enigma..

 

[Md Mashud]

I used that same logic today... I was walking on Madison and my olfactory sensed the aroma of warm apple pie... it is unheard of.. no one bakes on Madison-- I saw it by a deserted window pane.. I thought to myself.. this orphan pie, what is its purpose there? I must walk over and grab it.. I just see it lying in all its glory.. a piece of perfection...it belonged to me as I saw no one baking it, no one buying the apples, or the crust or slaving over putting it together.. I don't see an oven and no one brought it over to let it cool off and waft into the breeze-- besides I see its burnt around a few edges which is such a great flaw.. after all anyone that slaves all day over a pie wouldn't allow it a certain imperfections..
Yes the pie self-assembled on its own volition..
the 9 inch double crust, the 3/4 cup white sugar the 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour the 1/8 teaspoon salt , the 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon the 1/4the teaspoon ground nutmeg the 6 tart apples - peeled, cored and sliced itself, the 2 tablespoons butter were but the products of a series evolutionary steps by which all these ingredients came about and self-assembled then the oven Preheated itself to 450 degrees F, then Baked itself in for 10 minutes. and then Lowered its own temperature to 350 degrees F and baked itself an additional 40 minutes. then flew over by the window pane.. in quietude not letting us into its secret assembly..
Why are you there pie?
two people argued
a pie doesn't just appear
another guy.. it is very possible.. and I'll go on further to say the pie is evil.. why can't the pie be evil? I see a couple of burnt edges too.. what is the meaning of this?
A group of sages assembled trying to comprehend the odd event..
it made the news paper
a pie unattended on Madison

yet it seems it is man's lot to be in a place of mystery wrapped in an enigma..

I had a laugh, good stuff! That bolded part was the icing on cake

Not somthing I would use to disprove atheism, but hey I find its humerous =).

You really outdone yourself, this is a masterpeice!

 

[Isambard]

Only people I see who make said arguement are online atheists who frequent less than admirable online boards. Using that as a basis to determine "atheist thought" is silly. Unless you also wish to take my theory that Muslims believe the McNugget is really made from people.

 

[Trumble]

There are valid arguements for the existance of god.
There are valid agruements for the non-existance of god.

I think maybe we could do with a little hair-splitting for once, as it does rather get to the root of the problem... or at least demonstrates why arguing about it will get nowhere.

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion logically (in the proper sense of the word) follows from the premises. A sound argument is one where not only is that true, but all of the premises - including any implied ones - are also true. There are indeed several valid arguments both ways. There are also 'sound' ones both ways if you accept their premises as true. As theists and atheists will never agree on which premises are true it is pointless waffling about 'logic'. BOTH sides have perfectly logical arguments, but in the eyes of the other 'side' they can never be sound. As the essential premises are metaphysical/ontological and, essentially, a matter of opinion, it all comes down to belief, not 'logic' or 'proof'.

 

[جوري]

I had a laugh, good stuff! That bolded part was the icing on cake

Not somthing I would use to disprove atheism, but hey I find its humerous =).

You really outdone yourself, this is a masterpeice!

It wasn't meant to establish or confute anything.. it was of the same gauge as the ratiocination reached by the original poster to whom this was a reply!

But thank you.. sometimes I crack me up too it is scary ;D

 

[جوري]

found this by bro. Ansar.. so brilliant masha'Allah.. I wonder why he doesn't participate on the forum anymore? the newbies must have a deadening effect on him? ;D
a bit of a deviation from the topic at hand.. but I believe serves to answer some of the ultra absured questions atheists come up with!

Question: Can God create a stone large enough that even He can't lift?

Answered by Ansar Al-'Adl

Atheists attempt to use this question to prove that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory. But the problem here is a contradiction in terms. This issue becomes even more clear when we examine a related question: "Can God create an uncreated being?" The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is in the questioner's terms, not any lack in God's potential. The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory here, but it is the questioner's terminology and not the omnipotence of God.

The same is true when we come to the case of create a stone which cannot be lifted. Aside from the problem that we are placing an infinite unrestricted being under the finite restricted laws of our universe, the concept of the stone is self-contradictory. Basically, such a stone could not exist. When one asks if God could create such a stone, one would normally identify the properties of such a stone. But here we haven't been given absoloute properties, but instead we've been given properties of the stone relative to God's properties. The questioner has identified the potential stone as something so big that God couldn't lift, so even though we already know that there is nothing God cannot lift, they have used that as an attribute for the stone. Automatically, the concept of such a stone is nullfied. Now, when they ask could God create such a stone, the answer is no, but that doesn't imply a lack of potential on the part of God. Instead, it reflects the fact that the concept of such a stone is illogical, unreal, inadmissable. It is very similar to asking if God can die. Well, death isn't an ability, its the inability to live. The immortal cannot die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a task that He can't complete because such a task is merely a figment of one's imagination and could not exist.

You're basically asking, if God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something? The question is illogical and self-contradictory because the argument contradicts the premise. Once you have already established that God can do anything, then that's a set attribute and part of His nature. Therefore, He can do anything that is consistent with His nature, anything that is absolute.

Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldn't be 1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.

The question also reminds me of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existant and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Shaykh Ibn Abil-'Izz (d. 1389CE) also answered this question in Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyyah (p.137), in his discussion of the following verse:
And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of those with intelligence. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.

This also serves as a reply to the question posed by some: 'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people. And not all that the mind conjures-up has an existence that is possible, nor is it always termed 'a thing.'
Hopefully that makes the issue clear.

 

[Md Mashud]

realised I forgot to touch on one of your points. This is referring to

What I was trying to say was.
Pro - The universe needs a greater.
Con - Well then by the same logic god needs a creater.

I just came to a problem that is, using that logic, God needs a creator. I am here to explain why not .

The universe, is not in the metaphysical state, its in the matter, physics, forces and energy as we can understand today scientifically. The state that the universe is in, materialistic, means that is must be created (to conserve many laws of science).

However, same cannot be said about God. We never put the limit that God has any materialistic or physical characteristics - which could deem him to have to be created to abide by laws. Nothing about God do we state which can conflict or has anything to do with any scientific laws that we know of yet - God is metaphysical.

Does metaphysical mean that is contradicting science? No, rather its an area we do not have the capability to go into , modern science does not disprove that existance cannot exist in a different state to ours, infact does make sense that there could be other realms of existance - at the end of the day if ours realms of existance could exist why not others right?

It is infact, that due to the materialistic/matter based nature of the Universe and the scientific logic that it must have a beginning due to scientific laws it must abide from conservation of energy to quantum mechanics, that we could only come to the conclusion that - if anything was to be created, the original thing that was created must have been created by somthing which is not in the realm of science we know infinite time ago- That is the phsyical/matter based science, being the Universe.

The loop must end somewhere to such an existance not being limited to such materialistic qualities because if there was no beginning to the beginning of materialistic/matter based creations as we know then nothing would exist at all.

I know this is a bit confusing, but I hope it gives a rough idea what Im trying to preach .

 

[Trumble]

but I believe serves to answer some of the ultra absured questions atheists come up with!

Hardly. It takes rather more than an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible to demonstrate a 'fallacy', particularly in the context of this particular question.

Neither are the questions you refer to 'absurd'; the omnipotence paradox has never been 'resolved' other than by selecting the definition of 'omnipotence' used very carefully. Which is, with reference to my last post, the reason it is something else atheists and theists are unlikely to agree on.

 

[ranma1/2]

Don't make up lies. There is no such thing as contradiction of science and Islam and I challenge you to show the proof in future when making such arguements because Im sure you would be refuted very quickly. To even a greater extend, science and existance of God perfectly work without contradiction and having read so much into it, nothing yet has challenged this claim.

lets see.. hmm. science says we evolved quran says some entitiy made us out of clay.

 

[ranma1/2]

...Unless you also wish to take my theory that Muslims believe the McNugget is really made from people.

dont be silly everyone knows there is no meat in McNuggets what so ever...

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

You can see him, but you must be pure of heart.

 

[Md Mashud]

lets see.. hmm. science says we evolved quran says some entitiy made us out of clay.

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.

Lets be a bit more observant there. Science does not say we evolved, never has and probably never will. Evolution is just a theoretical model, which to this day has not been proved. 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).

There is a difference between a scientific theory, which is even argued against by top scientists, compared to scientific FACTS. Get it right. When did you see a book on fact of evolution? Never, its theory of evolution. 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. If you think only religion says evolution is wrong, then you have been living in a hole, the amount of debates, readings Ive done on that, it is clear that the reason people believe it as fact is for the same reason as Darwin, not because it was fact, but merely it helped him to believe it was fact! Way too many scientists completely laugh this out, to take it seriously still as fact is a flaw in ones brain.

For a further insight, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50bAUtu50uc, only 38 minutes.

This is one from Dr Zakir Naikh, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-_BDLNfcOc (6 mins 31, if your lazy) and/or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwv0Px3MRvk. Won't take more than 20 minutes.

You can read about it in more detail if you wish, Im sure many sources exist. To this day, I never seen anything factful to make such a contradiction yet to Quran. Any theory can make contradiction to anything, unless its fact I cannot strip anything of credibility until then.

I will end this paper with the statement, that Quran is the word of God and creation around us, is the work of God. If the source of both is same, then there can not be any discrepancy in the two, one has to confirm the other. One is theory and other is the practical, therefore nothing in Science is against Quran. As we have seen today science actually confirms what Quran had already said. Scientists are only discovering the laws of the creator, because everything in nature is caused, by secondary causes, regulated by the primary cause, the creator.

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.

 

[جوري]

this has been played here ad nauseam...
you mess with people's 'vague ideas' in which some sort of confidence has been placed and you are due for a tirade... evolution has after all become a constitutional part of atheist beliefs, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
in a sense these people have found a demi God in quasi science-- and you assult him by oppugning some of their 'logic'.. again, they are human and bound by the human condition.. it is simple transference and it is simple displacement... even if they slap 'logic' on the heading!

 

[جوري]

Hardly. It takes rather more than an unsubstantiated claim that something is impossible to demonstrate a 'fallacy', particularly in the context of this particular question.
.

Perhaps you care to point out its aesthetically inconsistent flaws, instead of being colorfully verbose and ineffective?

 

[wilberhum]

Edit
Question answered.

 

[Trumble]

Perhaps you care to point out its aesthetically inconsistent flaws.

I rather thought I already had.

'Can Allah create a stone that He is unable to lift?' The argument being that if Allah cannot create such a stone, He is not all-powerful; but if He can, then likewise He is not all-powerful. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that such an affair is, in itself, impossible and exists only in the minds of certain people.

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.

 

[جوري]

I rather thought I already had.

Not with any sort of dexterity I am afraid!
I don't think you got it well out of your system the first time around, and here is a chance to purge in his absentia.. a well and good opportunity to disport more of that circular logic, I am afraid is just not cutting it! :-\

 

[Isambard]

Not with any sort of dexterity I am afraid!
I don't think you got it well out of your system the first time around, and here is a chance to purge in his absentia.. a well and good opportunity to disport more of that circular logic, I am afraid is just not cutting it! :-\

Care to expand?