Is There Evidence of Allah's Existence?

[observer]

Fair enough. It is hard for me to comprehend for something to come from nothing.

I think if anyone said they could comprehend that then they'd be lying! But you've got to love a mystery

 

[Pygoscelis]

you know on this topic i recently had a shocking discussion with a colleague of mine

i kept on telling him to go back to the beginning where the first of anything ever came into existence and to give me an answer as to how that came into existence but he still refused to say god instead he kept saying " random chance" in order for there to be random chance there has to be somthing to give cause to the chance.


i couldnt believe how blind people can be. was honestly shocked

It always surprises me how few people will simply admit the truth: They Don't Know.

Why they feel the need to invent or latch onto quick explanations for what they don't know is something I've never been able to understand. If you don't know something, that doesn't mean it was random chance. If you don't know something, that doesn't mean God Did It. If you don't know something it means you don't know something.

We don't know how reality came to be or if it came to be (as opposed to always having been). Science can come up with theories, but it can't ever know with certainty. Religious people can have faith that a creator God is the answer, and so long as they present unfalsifiable claims that's all it can ever be: Faith.

 

[observer]

Fact of the matter is, most atheists are self described scientists even though science isn't their field of study

I think that's fair, although I think most atheists would describe themselves as "lovers of science" rather than "scientists". I love science, but I'm no scientist! I don't fully understand much of what I read but it boggles the mind and that's what I love.

 

[جوري]

I think it's unfair to say that science fails because it doesn't have all the answers; it doesn't claim to, it merely tries to answer the questions. I'm not sure why you use the word pseudo-science, or why you think that these kinds of theories are not plausible or replicable? 100 years ago quantum physics seemed utterly ridiculous. Now, our world could not function without it.

I work with science everyday and I see its short comings. I have already stated it is a way for us to understand the physical world deal with some of its problems. I believe you are reiterating something I have already stated but with a twist of unfairness which I think is quite accurate and quite fair. I don't desire to have faith in science I desire facts and only facts & data!

I think generally that the religious and the atheistic are looking for answers, they just find them in different places - religion in scripture and atheists (some of them anyway) in experiment and observation.

Not really. Religious find the answers in everything or desire to look for answers in everything whereas the atheists are of one track mind and put all their beliefs in something where there is no room for a belief system.
I don't go tell a pt. I believe you've pancreatitis, or I believe you've an aortic dissection.. how horrifying would that be? Would you seek treatment, major surgery based on a belief?
I think a little honesty needs to be exercised from atheists if they hope to be taken more seriously.

best,

 

[GuestFellow]

you know on this topic i recently had a shocking discussion with a colleague of mine

i kept on telling him to go back to the beginning where the first of anything ever came into existence and to give me an answer as to how that came into existence but he still refused to say god instead he kept saying " random chance" in order for there to be random chance there has to be somthing to give cause to the chance.


i couldnt believe how blind people can be. was honestly shocked

They may think they have the answers but are unable to convey their thoughts. That can happen.

 

[observer]

I don't go tell a pt. I believe you've pancreatitis, or I believe you've an aortic dissection.. how horrifying would that be? Would you seek treatment, major surgery based on a belief?

Yes, but that's a perfect example of where experiment and observation work to tell the doctor what the problem is. That's science right there.

 

[Hulk]

Many of us love science but some atheists misplace by thinking that the only way to arrive to a conclusion is through science, tossing reason out the window.

 

[جوري]

Yes, but that's a perfect example of where experiment and observation work to tell the doctor what the problem is. That's science right there.

It is a matter of risk assessment that perhaps I am not conveying to you properly. If you perform surgery based on beliefs there are consequences major ones. So you take precautions, that is the logical thing to do, you cross your T's and dot your I's. There's no lackadaisical approach to major surgery or major treatment and likewise there should be no lackadaisical attitude toward life, given its shortness and absurdity, we certainly spend more time dead than alive it would be terribly disappointing to go into the next phase based on a silly belief or assumption that we're naught but mere physical beings who expire to plant fertilizer and not accountable for anything we do while on this earth.

best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

I think that's fair, although I think most atheists would describe themselves as "lovers of science" rather than "scientists". I love science, but I'm no scientist! I don't fully understand much of what I read but it boggles the mind and that's what I love.

Depends on how you define "scientist". Science is not an area of study so much as an approach to solving problems. If you follow the scientific method, make and test and falsify a hypothesis, you could be called a "scientist". You wouldn't be a professional of course, but you would be a "scientist" in that sense of the word.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

It always surprises me how few people will simply admit the truth: They Don't Know.

Why they feel the need to invent or latch onto quick explanations for what they don't know is something I've never been able to understand. If you don't know something, that doesn't mean it was random chance. If you don't know something, that doesn't mean God Did It. If you don't know something it means you don't know something.

We don't know how reality came to be or if it came to be (as opposed to always having been). Science can come up with theories, but it can't ever know with certainty. Religious people can have faith that a creator God is the answer, and so long as they present unfalsifiable claims that's all it can ever be: Faith.

i respect that very much. but how does not knowing turn into disbelief and a blind belief in the discoveries made by science.

why has it become so ridiculous for a person to simply say that they find the theory of evolution to be too weak to accept or that scientific findings may exhude confidence but still be false. why is it ridiculous when i say that i find it easier to accept that the quran is a miracle from god because it is a language and format that has never been challenged during the peak of genius in the arabian poets society?

to me that stronger evidence trumps the weaker evidences produced by science. to me...

 

[observer]

It is a matter of risk assessment that perhaps I am not conveying to you properly. If you perform surgery based on beliefs there are consequences major ones. So you take precautions, that is the logical thing to do, you cross your T's and dot your I's. There's no lackadaisical approach to major surgery or major treatment and likewise there should be no lackadaisical attitude toward life, given its shortness and absurdity, we certainly spend more time dead than alive it would be terribly disappointing to go into the next phase based on a silly belief or assumption that we're naught but mere physical beings who expire to plant fertilizer and not accountable for anything we do while on this earth.

Ah OK, I see what you're saying. To be honest, I'd love it if there was a god. I really would, the idea that this isn't all there is is incredibly appealing. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing to convince me that there is, so I'm happy to do my best whilst I'm here, try and be good and leave having tried to make the world a little bit better. If there is nothing more, I'm fine with that.

If I started to follow religion just in case, as in Pascal's wager, I'd be being dishonest to myself and helping no-one.

 

[جوري]

and I can respect that, this is what your belief system has lead you to become. You've free will to live this life as you please & choose. There's no compulsion in religion.

peace,

 

[observer]

Depends on how you define "scientist". Science is not an area of study so much as an approach to solving problems. If you follow the scientific method, make and test and falsify a hypothesis, you could be called a "scientist". You wouldn't be a professional of course, but you would be a "scientist" in that sense of the word.

Yeah I suppose that's true. I suppose I'd class myself as a wannabe!

 

[Pygoscelis]

i respect that very much. but how does not knowing turn into disbelief and a blind belief in the discoveries made by science.

It shouldn't. Discoveries made by science should never be accepted by blind belief. They should be replicated, tested, modified, and replaced as better information and more data comes in. That's how science works.

why has it become so ridiculous for a person to simply say that they find the theory of evolution to be too weak to accept or that scientific findings may exhude confidence but still be false.

It isn't ridiculous. But I'd have to wonder if the person saying that has indeed reviewed all the evidence. If they have and still it wanting, I can respect that.

 

[GuestFellow]

It isn't ridiculous. But I'd have to wonder if the person saying that has indeed reviewed all the evidence. If they have and still it wanting, I can respect that.

Is it reasonable for lay people to review all the evidence? That's going to be tough work and time consuming. I don't think the majority of the population understand how evolution works.

 

[Hulk]

Below is part of the book "Maariful Quran"
It describes the three sources of knowledge, hopefully the atheists will read it and realise that science is not the only way to arrive to a conclusion. Even if you reject revelation, there is still reason. And it is with reason that one can understand that the universe has a Creator. Atheists who think that their five senses can perceive everything in existence clearly don't actually understand science (tried listening to something above 20kHz?)

The three sources of knowledge

1. Senses (science to some)
2. Reason
3. Wahy (Revelation)

The arrangement between these three sources of knowledge is such that each one has its limits, and a particular sphere of activity beyond which it does not work. In natural sequence, the knowledge of things man collects through his senses cannot be deduced through bland reason. For instance, you know by seeing a wall with your eyes that its colour is white.


But, should you close your eyes and try to find out the colour of that wall on the sole strength of your reason, this will then be impossible. Similarly, the knowledge of things that comes through reason cannot be discovered by senses alone. For instance, you cannot find out as to who made that wall by simply seeing it with your eyes or touching it with your hands. Not at all, you rather need reason to arrive at that conclusion.


In short, reason gives no guidance as far as the five senses work efficiently, and when the five senses become helpless, reason starts functioning. But, even the guidance given by this reason is not unlimited. This too stops at a certain limit. Then there are things the knowledge of which can neither be acquired through senses nor through reason.


For instance, to find out about this very wall, as to what manner of its use will please Allah Almighty and what manner of its use will displease Him, is possible neither through senses nor through reason. In order to give man the answer to such questions, the source that Allah Almighty has prescribed is what is known as Wahy. And the method it follows is that Allah Almighty selects one of His servants, ordains him as His messenger and to him He reveals His Word. This Word is Wahy.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

a lot of people around me recently, at work, have ben comparing the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity.

i dont get it. you can drop a pencil and tell me, this is gravity at work.

but even if you show me A catterpiller turning into a butterfly or a chameleon adapting to nature that doesnt prove evolution because how do we know that those creatures werent created and designed in that manner.

i remember in schhool evolution was taught as a simple theory but adaptation and survival of the fittest was taught as fact which is part of nature. now it seems like they are merging everything under the banner of evolution in an attempt to reduce the faith people once held in an all-wise creator who created his creatures j
with such sophistication that such means were possible.


fprgive this rant, expressing my mind a bit here. thank you for listening

 

[observer]

For instance, to find out about this very wall, as to what manner of its use will please Allah Almighty and what manner of its use will displease Him, is possible neither through senses nor through reason. In order to give man the answer to such questions, the source that Allah Almighty has prescribed is what is known as Wahy. And the method it follows is that Allah Almighty selects one of His servants, ordains him as His messenger and to him He reveals His Word. This Word is Wahy.

I've got no problem with senses and reason, but I can't accept revelation. Your argument can never persuade an atheist because it appeals directly to religion. It's like when someone tries to show the infallibility / divinity of the Bible or the Quran by quoting the Bible or the Quran.

 

[observer]

i remember in schhool evolution was taught as a simple theory

Everything in science is only a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean a sketchy idea. We use the word "theory" to denote that this is currently our best possible understanding, but that it is open to change. There is not one scientist who believes that evolution is fully described. We do, however, know that it works thanks to observation and experiment.

The idea that it was God who did it cannot be tested and, as such, is infallible. This is not a problem if you have faith, it is if you don't.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Everything in science is only a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean a sketchy idea. We use the word "theory" to denote that this is currently our best possible understanding, but that it is open to change. There is not one scientist who believes that evolution is fully described. We do, however, know that it works thanks to observation and experiment.

The idea that it was God who did it cannot be tested and, as such, is infallible. This is not a problem if you have faith, it is if you don't.

i realise this, is why i said "simple" theory. dont you feel that it has far heavier emphasis these days? it makes me very uncomfortable.

evolution can never be tried and tested. can it? this may be my ignorance but has anyone ever attempted to speed up evolution in an organism?