Is there a Creator ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nakisai
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 54
  • Views Views 11K
YoussefinOrange said:
And who can make the deaf hear, but Allah (SWT)? He guides whom He pleases, and leaves in error whom he pleases.

Assalaamu alaikum
Click to expand...
So true.
 
But I am missing some key points in many arguments.

One thing I see a lot from everyone is the phrase "man creates ____" or man created ____.

Since when? Man can't create anything. In fact, we can barely preserve what we already have of natural resources, the source of all our material things.

Secondly, there is no need for any of us to get worked up over this subject. Don't call eachother names... if we are going to get any information exchanged here, keep emotions away please.

I am so happy to be a Muslim because I have the peace of mind that comes with having access to a manifest proof from Allah (SWT) through the Qur'an.

The only reason anyone would not be Muslim is if he did not know enough about Islam, and that is the fault of only that person, and only they will accept the consequences of their denial.

'Authu billahi min sharri shaytan al rajime
If you don't believe in Allah, and the Last day, and his Messengers, then wait. Surely we too are also waiting.

Salaamu Alaikum
 
The only reason anyone would not be Muslim is if he did not know enough about Islam, and that is the fault of only that person, and only they will accept the consequences of their denial.
Click to expand...

Quite an arrogant view you have thier
 
root said:
The very beginning being what exactly? To make the comparison you are making is at odd's with what you are saying!
Click to expand...
How so?

Ansar has recently said that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive necessarily. There has to be a starting point for the evolution, and that starting point was created. It did not simply come into being of its own accord.
 
How so?

Ansar has recently said that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive necessarily. There has to be a starting point for the evolution, and that starting point was created. It did not simply come into being of its own accord.
Click to expand...

But your premis then is to accept that evolution of man is real, and that we evolved into man and thus man was not created. Or man evolved in his form following a "blue print" of creationism.
 
root said:
But your premis then is to accept that evolution of man is real, and that we evolved into man
Click to expand...
So? This thread topic is about if there is a Creator, not if Darwinian theory is correct.

and thus man was not created.
Click to expand...
No... As was said earlier, evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Or man evolved in his form following a "blue print" of creationism.
Click to expand...
And why not? Following on from Muhammad's point about evolution on a microscopic level, the genetic material needs an origin of some sort. Things do not simply appear out of nothing. Something must have caused them to exist. That something must have been a Creator.

If you think not, then we are extraordinarily lucky creatures to have survived this long.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to spam but.....

Allah didn't create man through evolution but man was a separate creation right?
 
Allah didn't create man through evolution but man was a separate creation right?
Click to expand...

From what we know of ancestory evolution. Their is nothing at all to remotely support man as being "unique" or part of a seperate entity. Though I personally have a hunch that the origin of life is not even on this planet but in the cold vacuum of space itself.
 
root said:
From what we know of ancestory evolution. Their is nothing at all to remotely support man as being "unique" or part of a seperate entity. Though I personally have a hunch that the origin of life is not even on this planet but in the cold vacuum of space itself.
Click to expand...
That notion is so cool. It makes us all feel like a population of Supermen.

Except instead of Kryptonite, we have arsenic.

Or garlic if you're Michael Howard.
 
From what we know of ancestory evolution. Their is nothing at all to remotely support man as being "unique" or part of a seperate entity. Though I personally have a hunch that the origin of life is not even on this planet but in the cold vacuum of space itself.
Click to expand...
Ansar made a statement about that God could have created men through evolution and the question was directed to him and I think he already have answered that.
 
Ah, I see.

Well, we could say "man created God"!!!!!!

But deliberate dishonesty aside, there's still a difference in mindset between science and more genuine kinds of religion. Differing definitions of 'faith' and 'truth' are big parts of it.

In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.

In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to "have more faith" that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of 'letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence' is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he's murdered them.

Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It's their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they're already right, pretty much, close enough.

If a scientist says "I have faith this theory is true," he doesn't or shouldn't mean it in the religious sense of "I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don't try to change my mind, here I stand."

Instead, he means or ought to mean "I've tested this theory, and I've seen the results of other people's tests, and I'm as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted."

Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like 'faith' and 'truth'. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than "probably close enough," scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.
 
Last edited:
[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

[39:18] They are the ones who examine all words, then follow the best. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence.
 
[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.
Click to expand...

As a small point to what you state. How do you verify for yourself the splitting of the moon?
 
well Muezzin said once "There is no evidence I dreamt about pancakes last night but it stll happened".

You can't scientifically prove a miracle or a something like a spiritual happening.

Ansd I ask a lot of guys especially Ansar.as i believe in the Quran I accept it.Not blindly though.There was a thread about this in basics of Islam where I asked questions.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top