GOD in the eyes of Science: Possibility or Necessity

[IbnAbdulHakim]

circular logic, just what is that? And whats your logic?

 

[wilberhum]

circular logic, just what is that? And whats your logic?

Circular Logic The term is usually not used to describe the broader fallacy that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is as much in need of proof as the proposition itself. The more accepted classification for such arguments is as a fallacy of many questions.

Example: I can prove the world if flat. My father told me so and my father always tells the truth.
The falicy is that there is no proof that "my father always tells the truty". So I'm using an unproven as proof.

My logic I like the kiss method. I value things that make sence. and don't those that don't.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic

 

[wilberhum]

lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic

Just a bigger circle. All base in faith.

 

[Woodrow]

I suspect Brother Abd'Majid, was using a touch of sacasism.

lol in that case i guarantee im not using circular logic

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I suspect Brother Abd'Majid, was using a touch of sacasism.

lol and why do you say that respected brother

 

[wilberhum]

Well enough, I'm right and no I'm right.
An excellent question has been asked and never answered.
I would love to see some responses to this.

Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable.

 

[iLL_LeaT]

my idea is that God prevails over science. Is that so hard to grasp?

An interesting question just popped into my head. It’s a little off subject, but…

To you, would God still prevail over all if he came out and said that he existed, but (there’s always a “but”) there isn’t actually an afterlife.

I guess my question is:

Would God still prevail over all if he said there was no hell or heaven, just nonexistence after life?

Or

If God said, “Heaven is completely full, everyone from this point in time will go to hell,” would God still prevail over all?

(Whatever question is scarier to you. Personally nonexistence is scarier then hell.)

I hear that some Jehovah Witnesses don’t give a rat’s ass about Jesus, the Father, or the Holy Spirit. Even though they believe there religion is true, because they think that heaven only fits so many people in it, and it’s full. They still go to church, but they don’t pray, and they don’t take communion, ever. (could be a roomer)

 

[Woodrow]

Agreed Wilburhum;

Originally Posted by iLL_LeaT
Can I ask everyone a question?

What is it that is making this such a heated conversation?

I personally don’t see why saying faith is not fact is so devastating to the faithful. It’s not saying anyone is wrong. It’s just saying that it can’t be physically proven with tests.

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

Something not being “provable” shouldn’t affect faith because it’s faith.

Something not being “provable” does not make it false.

(And if you feel your religion needs to be provable) Something not being “provable” now, does not mean it will never be provable

Now putting on my old retired psychologist hat. The most simple explanation is that in regards to faith many of us have a series of hidden beliefs. A hidden belief is one we were not taught, it is a belief that developes from our understanding of what we see as self evident beliefs.

The funny thing is we are not aware of what our hidden believes are. They have never been successfully challanged or questioned. When a hidden belief is questioned or challanged, we have no taught memory as to how come we believe it. We simply believe it. We have no background to prove it, our human reaction is to then respond from an emotional level and the debate is gone.

Ill-Leat, one of the best statements of the day I attribute to you:

If you know that your faith is true, then nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, even if it’s not provable.

That is all any of us needs to know.
The reasons of my own Faith are of value only to me. I need not worry that others do not believe the same, I am only responsible for why I believe.

 

[i_m_tipu]

i_m_tipu

Because you are not interested in an answer. Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything, standard answer. God.

now i understand u and i both may not used to answer

Your reply will be the standard no thought, no insite, no anything

hmm....
i thought i give some thought early:?

you will not answer me straight forward question

Talking of our creator is not a straight forward thing.

I can give a example

Let say…
Someone created a calculator or anything. Does it possible for a calculator or that thing created by human talk about the human.
…...never
and if that calculator starting to think why i have no knowledge about the human.
does not it's looks silly

Allaah (swt) created us as a best creature on universe.
Does not mean u have the knowledge of our creator.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think agnosticism is the most misunderstood concept in the world.

There are always misleading statements like:
The word agnostic comes from the Greek 'a' (without) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).
And
When asked "Does god exist?" an agnostic will say "I don't know".
Unless you keep that statement relative to proof.

Eh? What's misleading about these statements? They're absolutely true. Having knowledge of something implies proof, or, at the very least, evidence.

An agnostic can believe that god exists or not.

In these cases the person would be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; both of these positions are different from a simple agnostic.

Peace

 

[wilberhum]

Czgibson
Having knowledge of something implies proof, or, at the very least, evidence.
True but having no knowledge does not stop belief. That is the error that many make.
In these cases the person would be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; both of these positions are different from a simple agnostic.
True again. I am an agnostic theist. Agnostic theists and agnostic atheists have come to an improvable conclusion, a simple agnostic has not.

 

[wilberhum]

i_m_tipu

Talking of our creator is not a straight forward thing.

Taking any side about anything that has no proof is not straight forward.
That comes back to my original point.
There is no proof.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?

 

[wilberhum]

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?

What does this have to do with anything?
Is this a "Scientific fact about god"?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

What does this have to do with anything?
Is this a "Scientific fact about god"?

it would give us an understanding of what we're discussing.

Lets see if its possible to define God through science, well now:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?

 

[wilberhum]

it would give us an understanding of what we're discussing.

Lets see if its possible to define God through science, well now:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?

I think you have just agreeded with me. "its not possible to define God through science".

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I think you have just agreeded with me. "its not possible to define God through science".

you are welcome to think that, even though i dont agree but please answer my question:

what is the chance of an ant understanding the likes of a human?

Just how much of the human capabilities and traits can the ant understand?

 

[wilberhum]

you are welcome to think that, even though i dont agree but please answer my question:

Still don't agree? What would it take to convince you that there is no Scientific fact about god? You have never given a valid answer. Maybe the fact that you have no valid answer does not impact your indefenceable defence.
To the silly question. No an ant can not understand. At least untill they evolve a larg brain like we have.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Still don't agree? What would it take to convince you that there is no Scientific fact about god? You have never given a valid answer. Maybe the fact that you have no valid answer does not impact your indefenceable defence.

*sighs* for the last time the Quran is upto date with all the latest science ! Even the fact that a flies wing contains antidote was mentioned by the prophet saws !

To the silly question. No an ant can not understand. At least untill they evolve a larg brain like we have.

That comparison seemed silly didnt it? And here we are trying to compare science to God, dont you realise how ridiculous it seems?