Inexperienced Muslim's Argument against Atheist Professor

[جوري]

lol.. come on now, you don't honestly expect me to go to another thread to find a reason behind the quote he quoted?.. this is nuts.

Anyhow.. I dislike that harpy myself and immensely. I hope that she is a psychologist and not a psychiatrist. I'd hate to think that there are malicious MD's out there, it would be a personal disappointment.
She is also abusing her position, which automatically casts her and her profession in a very negative light.. but we should leave that to the other thread!

 

[ajazz]

"researchers says the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...se_030103.html

and anything that ages, had a beginning, if you don't agree than prove it otherwise
Hence anything that has beginning will end and was created
(Entropy )

now the universe had a beginning


so from where this starting point came about?

either it was created by some one or it came out of nothing.

but according physics

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter. But it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space which contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, supposing such a region existed, it would still not be "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

since there is no such thing as nothing


now the other possibility left is, universe was created by someone

but this someone has to be special
this someone has to have special powers and attributes
this someone has to be outside the time

Here the definition of Allah in Islam.
read them carefully


Al-'Awwal
The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.

Al-'Akhir
The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.

Al-Mutakabbir
The Majestic, The One who is clear from the attributes of the creatures and from resembling them.

Al-Khaaliq
The Creator, The One who brings everything from non-existence to existence.

Al-Qayyoom
The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end.


Al-Ghaniyy
The Self-Sufficient, The One who does not need the creation.

Al-Badi^
The Incomparable, The One who created the creation and formed it without any preceding example

Al-Baaqi
The Everlasting, The One that the state of non-existence is impossible for Him.

now if you have a rational and logical mind

then yes, only an entity such as Allah
can create the universe

we Muslims believe universe was created by Allah and it was created out of nothing by Allah !!!.



According to Aristotle (atheist)

On Longevity and Shortness of Life
By Aristotle

Opposites destroy
each other, and hence accidentally, by their destruction, whatsoever
is attributed to them is destroyed. But no opposite in a real substance
is accidentally destroyed, because real substance is not predicated
of any subject. Hence a thing which has no opposite, or which is situated
where it has no opposite, cannot be destroyed.


Read full article here:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/longev_short.1b.txt


Az-Zaahir (The Manifest)

The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies.

And there is none like unto Him. (Quran,, 112)


Hence if something exists which has absolutely no opposition, then
Such thing cannot be destroyed and logically a thing which cannot be destroyed
Must have always existed.

We know universe exist and it also has opposition which is time
And scientist tells us the one day universe will be destroyed
Hence anything that has beginning will end and was created

And only an entity that has attributes which Allah has, is capable of creating universe
Now that we know the definition of Allah

You must acknowledge he is the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Physicists describe grim end of the world

The good news is that the end is not near. The bad news is that when it does come, it's not going to be pretty.


stars will begin to die off as they burn up their nuclear fuel and the firmament as we know it ceases to shine.

"If you wait long enough," Adams says, "all of the stars in the universe will eventually run out of fuel and burn out."


http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/




when the heavens cleave asunder; and when the stars disappear and when the seas commingled; and when the graves be over-turned; Then shall every soul know what it hath sent forth and left behind.” (82:1-5). In Suras Al-e-Imran, The Cattle,

 

[Trumble]

so from where this starting point came about?

either it was created by some one or it came out of nothing.

but according physics

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter. But it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space which contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, supposing such a region existed, it would still not be "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

since there is no such thing as nothing


now the other possibility left is, universe was created by someone

I see. So your argument is;

1. A necessary condition of a word referring to anything that actually exists is that that word must have a technical sense in physics.

2. The word 'nothing' is not used in any technical sense in physics.

3. 'Nothing' therefore does not exist.

4. Hence the universe cannot have come from nothing.


OK, then. Try this one.

5. The word 'God' is not used in any technical sense in physics.

6. God therefore does not exist.

7. Hence the universe cannot have been created by 'God'.


Which leads us to (I'll make the assumption "someone" equals 'God' in this context);

8. "either it (the universe) was created by (God) or it came out of nothing".

9. But neither nothing or God exist.

10. Hence the universe cannot exist.

11. So who the heck is typing this?

Am I missing something? Other than the usual hopeless mess when people try to mix religion with science, that is?

 

[ajazz]

I see. So your argument is;

1. The word 'nothing' is not used in any technical sense in physics.

2. 'Nothing' therefore does not exist.

3. Hence the universe cannot have come from nothing.


OK, then. Try this one.

4. The word 'God' is not used in any technical sense in physics.

5. God therefore does not exist.

6. Hence the universe cannot have been created by 'God'.


Which leads us to (I'll make the assumption "someone" equals 'God' in this context);

7. "either it (the universe) was created by (God) or it came out of nothing".

8. But neither nothing or God exist.

9. Hence the universe cannot exist.

10. So who the heck is typing this?

Am I missing something?

Hmmm....really confused Buddhist

Go back and read the post carefully again
May be you will get enlightenment from the triple gem.



By the way can you prove absolute nothing can exist?

Just give it a try!

The problem with you people is that as soon the word god is said your neurons get short-circuited your logic goes in a tailspin and rationality goes for vacation

There is a simple and logical explanation

Since universe had a beginning, what was there before the beginning?



Nothing cannot exist hence there was something?

And this something has to be out side the physical laws including time
This something had to have always existed


And from this something came out beginning of the universe

This something is god and mind you not just any god

This god needs to be defined so that the explanation becomes more rational and logical.

let me define god that is Allah

And you will find that Allah (swt) is the most logical entity who is capable of creating the universe


Here are the attributes of Allah (swt)


Al-'Awwal
The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.

Al-'Akhir
The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.


Az-Zaahir (The Manifest)

The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies.

Al-Khaaliq
The Creator, The One who brings everything from non-existence to existence.

Al-Qayyoom
The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end.


As-Samee^
The All-Hearing, The Hearer, The One who Hears all things that are heard by His Eternal Hearing without an ear, instrument or organ.

Al-Baseer
The All-Seeing, The One who Sees all things that are seen by His Eternal Seeing without a pupil or any other instrument.


Al-Qayyoom
The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end.

Al-Haqq
The Truth, The True, The One who truly exists.



Scientist cannot give any explanation of how the beginning came about

But Allah (swt) gives us

The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it : "Be!" - and it is.
( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #117)


But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?
( Maryam, Chapter #19, Verse #67)

Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs): He adds to Creation as He pleases: for Allah has power over all things.


Once Allah created the beginning, with it he created the physical laws and time which started its course and is still going on till Allah (swt) wills

Using this physical laws man has arrived at a conclusion at how this particular universe was at the beginning but he cannot go beyond this beginning because the physical laws that he is using to arrive at the conclusion did not exist before the beginning of this universe
Hence scientist can never arrive at the concept of god using only the physical laws of this universe

But once you acknowledge the existence of god other questions may start popping up but all these questions can be satisfactorily answered.
Science alone can never answer all the questions

There are other issues
Like how do you decide what is right and what is wrong.

Is stealing wrong?
If yes why?
If no, why?
Which science book explains us that stealing is wrong?


If I know I cannot get caught and does not feel guilty is it ok to steal, kill, cheat?

Is sex with ones own mothers and sisters right?
If not, why?

Some people are ok with such idea, so is it ok?

Who decide what is morally right and morally wrong?


every organ,every cell in your body serves a purpose
what is the purpose of you life?
you just die and vanish?



Do you get enlightened and get all your answer if you sit under a tree and mediate?

Islam is the only religion which spells out in detail how to govern, the economic system, what is morally acceptable and unacceptable,
What is right and what is wrong.
What are the Rights and duty of individuals, husband, wife, mother father, relatives even animals

Only Allah (swt) can tell us this because he is our creator and knows everything

People who do not believe in god will have their own sets of individual rules and morals because they have no guidance all the guidance they get is from theorem and statics and observations and conclusions.

.


.(Allah knows best)

 

[Trumble]

Hmmm....really confused Buddhist

I'm afraid it is you who are confused... which hopefully my post pointed out. I note you chose not to answer it with anything substantive... which considering your 'logic' manages to prove God cannot exist is perhaps not surprising!

Go back and read the post carefully again

I read it carefully the first time, thank you. But I don't think you did.

By the way can you prove absolute nothing can exist?

Can you prove it can't? Regardless, I can demonstrate that it does. What you have ignored is that 'nothing' is contextual. Imagine you ask a small boy what his best friend gave him for his birthday. Terribly upset, he replies "nothing". You know what he means, the absence of the contextual something, i.e. a present. He knows what he means, and to him the 'nothing' is very tangible indeed. It exists.

Your context for 'nothing' was as a technical term used (or not used, in this case) in the science of physics or, being charitable, "the laws of physics". However, you need to justify that context. You will find that impossible for two reasons. The first is that you are assuming that those same laws of physics (determining the nature of that matter and those fields)were in place before the universe was created as, according to you, 'nothing' could only exist in their absence. There is, however, no reason to believe they did exist and it is far more likely they came into existence when the universe did... indeed it's a favourite of the intelligent design crowd to point out that had the universe kicked off with an even slightly different set of laws, values for constants etc., then planets and life could never have formed. Putting a pre-universe 'nothing' in the context of the existing universe is therefore absurd; none of those objects, fields, matter or quantum mechanics existed.

The second reason is that if you assess 'nothing' in that particular context, to be consistent you have to assess God in that context as well. That you fail to do, indeed you define God in terms of one huge get-out-of-jail-free card with regard to the laws of the universe. The argument then collapses as if you can define God in those terms you can define anything else in those terms as well. For example, the universe itself might have a particular 'special power and attribute'.. that of being able to spontaneously pop into existence. Is that any less likely than the existence of a God that somehow has always existed? Nope.

The problem with you people is that as soon the word god is said your neurons get short-circuited your logic goes in a tailspin and rationality goes for vacation

Grow up, and try addressing the argument.

There is a simple and logical explanation

Since universe had a beginning, what was there before the beginning?

Nothing cannot exist hence there was something?

And this something has to be out side the physical laws including time
This something had to have always existed

We have already shown that 'nothing' can exist... your argument showing it cannot is feeble. Logical games aside, however, a cosmologist would not even agree with the choice you present as fact; most believe that the universe came not from 'nothing' but from a singularity (go look it up). We know very little about singularity, and may never be able to know more about it as at the critical point it disappears of the radar of general relativity . What we particularly don't know is whether time, causation and 'beginning' have any meaning, hence whether a 'something' was needed or what properties it needed to have.. or whether even the idea of anything having properties makes any sense at all.

And you will find that Allah (swt) is the most logical entity who is capable of creating the universe

Of course, but you are totally begging the question. If the universe was created, God is the only creator that fits the bill.. particularly as that creator is assumed to be God by definition! But you have not shown it was 'created'.

Science alone can never answer all the questions

We can agree on that, anyway. It is you clinging to 'science' for support, not me.

There are other issues
Like how do you decide what is right and what is wrong.

Is stealing wrong?
If yes why?
If no, why?
Which science book explains us that stealing is wrong?


If I know I cannot get caught and does not feel guilty is it ok to steal, kill, cheat?

Is sex with ones own mothers and sisters right?
If not, why?

Some people are ok with such idea, so is it ok?

Who decide what is morally right and morally wrong?

I could put up a complex psychological and sociological argument to answer that, but let's keep it simple and stick to religion. All of those things are morally wrong according to Buddhism, which can explain in very simple terms why they are wrong - they result in suffering, and the objective of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. Buddhism does not accept the existence of a creator, omnipotent God. QED.

every organ,every cell in your body serves a purpose
what is the purpose of you life?
you just die and vanish?

Who knows? Why does life have to have a purpose? Even if it does, the most common scientific thought is that it is to perpetuate the gene pool.. and most people help do that before they die. Purpose achieved.

Islam is the only religion which spells out in detail how to govern, the economic system, what is morally acceptable and unacceptable,
What is right and what is wrong.
What are the Rights and duty of individuals, husband, wife, mother father, relatives even animals

One reason I view its supposed divine origin with such suspicion. It simply is not necessary to 'spell out' those details; we are quite capable of figuring them out for ourselves. Supposed 'divine authority' is, however, a great way of getting people to do what you think they should do.

People who do not believe in god will have their own sets of individual rules and morals because they have no guidance all the guidance they get is from theorem and statics and observations and conclusions.

Simply untrue. Rules and morals arise because they emphasise the conduct that best allows societies (from basic family groups, to early agricultural communities, to the huge cities of today), and the individuals within them, to best survive and then thrive. Take 'stealing'. Overall, everyone is better off if nobody steals from others as stealing would obviously lead to violence, blooshed, death, insecurity, lack of motivation to work knowing others would steal the result of your labours, etc, etc. Hence not stealing becomes 'moral' and is enforced in both informal and formal 'rules'. It doesn't take divine intervention to come to that realisation, just common sense and practical experience.

 

[Isambard]

Since universe had a beginning, what was there before the beginning?

Correction, the current incarnation of this universe. As far as Im aware, matter cannot be created or destroyed.

But for the sake of arguement, Ill ignore my own correction.

The answer is thus "I dont know"

Nothing cannot exist hence there was something?

Nothing is lack of existance. Thus the two or mutually exclusive

And this something has to be out side the physical laws including time

Umm why?

This something had to have always existed

How do you know?

And from this something came out beginning of the universe

How do you know what transpired before a universe existed?

This something is god and mind you not just any god

Why is it a god, and why not 'just any god'?

This god needs to be defined so that the explanation becomes more rational and logical.

It certainly does as it would appear anything you dont know = god. And God-of-the-gaps is very unconvincing


Al-'Awwal
The First, The One whose Existence is without a beginning.

Al-'Akhir
The Last, The One whose Existence is without an end.

You just violated your own arguement that everything comes from something


Az-Zaahir (The Manifest)

The One that nothing is above Him and nothing is underneath Him, hence He exists without a place. He, The Exalted, His Existence is obvious by proofs and He is clear from the delusions of attributes of bodies.

If we followed your own arguement, then God would need a meta-god to create him. This quote damages your claims.

Al-Khaaliq
The Creator, The One who brings everything from non-existence to existence.

How are you sure it isnt Vishnu?

Al-Qayyoom
The Self-Subsisting, The One who remains and does not end.

Scientist cannot give any explanation of how the beginning came about

They couldnt tell us where lightning came from either. Guess that means we shouldve just gave up and praised Zeus no?

But Allah (swt) gives us <snipped for brevity>

So because a book tells me it knows (yet offers no evidence), I should believe it eh?

Once Allah created the beginning, with it he created the physical laws and time which started its course and is still going on till Allah (swt) wills

I think you mean until mathmatics allow.

Using this physical laws man has arrived at a conclusion at how this particular universe was at the beginning but he cannot go beyond this beginning because the physical laws that he is using to arrive at the conclusion did not exist before the beginning of this universe
Hence scientist can never arrive at the concept of god using only the physical laws of this universe

A scientist cant arrive to God thru logic or deductive reasoning either.

But once you acknowledge the existence of god other questions may start popping up but all these questions can be satisfactorily answered.
Science alone can never answer all the questions

Having an answer doesnt make your answer correct

There are other issues
Like how do you decide what is right and what is wrong.

Is stealing wrong?

Fuzzy abstracts are worthless, define stealing

Which science book explains us that stealing is wrong?

Any book dealing with social evolution

If I know I cannot get caught and does not feel guilty is it ok to steal, kill, cheat?

Cultural conditioning. Or do you believe atheists commit higher crime rates than theists?

Is sex with ones own mothers and sisters right?
If not, why?

Look up inbreeding

Who decide what is morally right and morally wrong?

Whatever is agreed upon by the majority or community.

every organ,every cell in your body serves a purpose

What about cancer cells?

what is the purpose of you life?

There is no objective purpose
you just die and vanish?

yes

Do you get enlightened and get all your answer if you sit under a tree and mediate?
No. But thinking about something is better than blindly following a book just because it tells you it itself is correct.

Islam is the only religion which spells out in detail how to govern, the economic system, what is morally acceptable and unacceptable,
What is right and what is wrong.
What are the Rights and duty of individuals, husband, wife, mother father, relatives even animals

And it does those in a bizarre way or in an obselete manner. Check out my thread on Shariah and economics.

Only Allah (swt) can tell us this because he is our creator and knows everything
Then he isnt a very smart creator God is he to give you a crappy economic system is he?

People who do not believe in god will have their own sets of individual rules and morals because they have no guidance all the guidance they get is from theorem and statics and observations and conclusions.

Yes. Logic and reasoning are your friends.

Care to try again without resorting to logical fallacies?

 

[boriqee]

Hey guys like the title says, I always try to debate with my teacher after class on things in philosophy but when we inevitably get into religion, because I cite that as my reasons for not doing things like killing and giving stuff to the poor, he starts off by saying that the Quran has errors like the setting the sun in a certain place, claiming taht Allah says taht all christians are my enemy, saying that the Quran claims that the earth was created before the stars and that the universe was made in six stages and that it was smoke in the begiinning then saying taht these are inaccuracies. He always finishes off by saying that we don't need God to tell us what is right and what isnt ( I tried to tell him taht this was moral relativism, taht those "inaccuracies"" he claims to point out are not what the Quran says) and today told me that in one part of the Quran God says that he would smite anyone who says he doesnt exist and started saying to the sky "God does not exist" then saying that nothing happened. By the way for you christians he claimed Jesus ( he is an ex- christian) was schizophrenic.


I know I am rambling alittle but I know in my heart that he is wrong but I really need help in responding to this stuff, especially the "we dont need God" part

Thanks brothers and sisters!

why bother. sincerity is the key of open-mindedness.because both areh tep rerequisites of adhering to the truth when it coms to them. it seems both are absent fro him, so why bother. as one of out scholars said when questioned 'aren't you going to respond" he said "if i had to throw rocks to every howling dog in yemen, there would be no rocks left in yemen"

 

[starrryeyes]

im afraid I do not have the knowledge to help you in a debate with this proffessor but I think that you could discuss the ethics in his approach. It is not very proffessional for a teacher to be refuting and ridiculing your faith. Certainly he has the right to question but if you do not have the knowledge to counter his enquiries he should leave you be. I am not a muslim but regardless of the inaccuracies he mentioned there are inaccuracies in every scripture. The reason they are followed is because they offer moral guidelines perhaps ask him why he would follow Kant, Mill or Bentham at the end of the day it is probaly because the moral guidelines resonate with him as Islam probably resonates with you. You have every right to prove there is no God as much as prove there is one

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

im afraid I do not have the knowledge to help you in a debate with this proffessor but I think that you could discuss the ethics in his approach. It is not very proffessional for a teacher to be refuting and ridiculing your faith. Certainly he has the right to question but if you do not have the knowledge to counter his enquiries he should leave you be.

Like AntiKarateKid says in the original post:

I always try to debate with my teacher after class on things in philosophy

It's not the teacher who has started it. If it was, and he was just ridiculing people's religion with no provocation, then it might well be right to question the ethics of his approach, but if you ask a philosophy professor for his opinion on something, there's no justification for getting upset when he gives it to you.

Peace