Is There Evidence of Allah's Existence?

[GuestFellow]

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.

No really. It's touched upon at school but not in significant detail. I'm basing this on my experience.

 

[جوري]

Everything in science is only a theory

Some theories are demonstrable with data and numbers and some are far fetched. Nothing is 100% in science and we can never set out to prove anything in science in fact if you'd like to read on your private time about the null hypothesis types I and type II errors, P values & confidence intervals. The scientific method CAN'T be applied to all theories. I can apply with numbers and experimentation pulmonary lung functions for instance but I can't use same or similar application to decide whether someone is schizoid, schizotypal, schizophreniform, of plain schizophrenic.
So they don't stand on equal footing and especially the ones dealing with evolution and origins of life. If you take a genetic course and learn specifically the chapters on mutations you'd see clearly what many of us try to argue scientifically against but to no avail, there's no room for Pseudo science the same way you make no room for God.

peace

 

[observer]

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?

I'm not sure what trying to speed up evolution would prove (ignoring whether or not it would be possible), but there is plenty of evidence of evolution in the fossil record and more. We know it takes incredibly long time periods to occur and the evolution idea is tainted by "we came from monkeys" arguments which it absolutely does not say.

 

[جوري]

of evolution in the fossil record and more

fossil records tell us nothing other than said species existed. They don't showcase how a framshift, nonsense, missense mutation etc. etc for instant over an 'incredibly long period of time' turned an ape into a man or a coelacanth into a tiger. You use 26 letters to make seemingly endless words that have no relation to one another save the usage of syllables and by same token the alphabet for species involves the same building blocks to give a seemingly endless number of combinations. We share 50% of our genetics with bananas, it doesn't make us half fruit!

best,

 

[Hulk]

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.

I don't expect you to accept revelation as for now it seems to me that you don't even accept reason.
Do you believe that for something to exist, your senses must be able to perceive it?
Do you believe that the universe and everything in it has no source?

 

[observer]

They don't showcase how a framshift, nonsense, missense mutation etc. etc for instant over an 'incredibly long period of time' turned an ape into a man or a coelacanth into a tiger.

Do you say that because of the scientific evidence or because of your religion? I mean to say, that the evolution of man for example is well documented through the fossil record. It is not complete, it is far from complete, but it informs us of the process and experiment and observation fits the theory. In the future the theory may change, that's how science works.

So do you reject the evidence on the basis that it is scientifically unsound or that it doesn't agree with your religion?

 

[observer]

I don't expect you to accept revelation as for now it seems to me that you don't even accept reason.

I think that's unfair.

Do you believe that for something to exist, your senses must be able to perceive it?

Absolutely not.

Do you believe that the universe and everything in it has no source?

I don't know. We know a lot up to a fraction of a second after the big bang - anything before that is up for grabs at the minute!

 

[جوري]

Do you say that because of the scientific evidence or because of your religion? I mean to say, that the evolution of man for example is well documented through the fossil record. It is not complete, it is far from complete, but it informs us of the process and experiment and observation fits the theory. In the future the theory may change, that's how science works.

I say so because I examined all the evidence and I'd have no problem accepting evolution given that we don't know how God created or the process of creation:
18:51 to top

Sahih International
I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves,

if God created us in some form and then evolved said form or whatever means I don't know per religion, but per science the evidence doesn't add up!


​

So do you reject the evidence on the basis that it is scientifically unsound or that it doesn't agree with your religion?

As stated above it is unsound. What does 'documented through fossil record' mean to you? You should weave a picture of your understanding of that not simply put exhibit A next to exhibit B and be all like voila 'evolution'

peace

 

[Hulk]

I think that's unfair.

I'm sorry you feel that way it is only based on my fallible observation based on what you have said so far in this thread.

Absolutely not.

So what is your reason for not believing in a Creator? Because there is no "scientific evidence"?

I don't know. We know a lot up to a fraction of a second after the big bang - anything before that is up for grabs at the minute!

What does your reason(which you accept) tell you?

 

[observer]

What does 'documented through fossil record' mean to you.

Something like this http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Again, I don't say, and nor do proper scientists, that this is the be all and end all of theories. This theory will change. It is, however, the best theory we have. If you believe a religious origin then fine, but that is a faith based proposition.

 

[observer]

So what is your reason for not believing in a Creator? Because there is no "scientific evidence"?

Exactly, no evidence.

What does your reason(which you accept) tell you?

It tells me to wait until we know more, that we need to observe more, experiment more and create new, stronger theories.

 

[جوري]

Something like this http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Again, I don't say, and nor do proper scientists, that this is the be all and end all of theories. This theory will change. It is, however, the best theory we have. If you believe a religious origin then fine, but that is a faith based proposition.

Yes I am familiar with that website, as stated it isn't technical, it doesn't demonstrate the process for me, just states said means do this but in actuality they really don't!

 

[observer]

Yes I am familiar with that website, as stated it isn't technical, it doesn't demonstrate the process for me, just states said means do this but in actuality they really don't!

Yeah it's designed for the layman (like me). I think it does a good job of explaining though.

As an aside, I think that if there is a god then the evolution story and the wide variety of human ancestors that we've discovered only makes him/her more interesting!

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Exactly, no evidence.



It tells me to wait until we know more, that we need to observe more, experiment more and create new, stronger theories.

observation is good but it must be accompanied by piety.

stay away from what you know in your heart is wrong as you observe the you will come to the realisation which we have. this doesnt mean just no alcohol/fornication it means abstention from all vices

 

[observer]

observation is good but it must be accompanied by piety.

stay away from what you know in your heart is wrong as you observe the you will come to the realisation which we have. this doesnt mean just no alcohol/fornication it means abstention from all vices

But if I can't accept your God, why would I accept your God's definition of what is pious?

For example, I love a nice beer but I wouldn't rob someone. I think of myself as pretty pious but your god would send me to hell.

 

[Hulk]

Do you believe that for something to exist, your senses must be able to perceive it?

Absolutely not.

So what is your reason for not believing in a Creator? Because there is no "scientific evidence"?

Exactly, no evidence.

The above shows that you are still in a frame of mind where you believe that in order for something to exist, you must be able to perceive/experience it with either one of your five senses. Talk to a child and ask them if they believe they have a great great great great great grandfather, they will likely say yes as through reason they deduce that their parents must have their own parents and so forth. This is the problem a lot of atheists have placed themselves in while under the delusion that they are the "logical" ones.

All the best to you and I hope you will not allow yourself to be emotionally attached to an erroneous understanding. There is nothing to gain in defending an erroneous understanding except saving one's own pride at the price of knowledge. If truth is what one seeks then it doesn't matter on whose side it is on.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

But if I can't accept your God, why would I accept your God's definition of what is pious?

For example, I love a nice beer but I wouldn't rob someone. I think of myself as pretty pious but your god would send me to hell.

if you already had a religion i wouldnt ask you this but why not try the islamic form of abstinence?

couldnt hurt you to see how a month goes right?

 

[M.I.A.]

But if I can't accept your God, why would I accept your God's definition of what is pious?

For example, I love a nice beer but I wouldn't rob someone. I think of myself as pretty pious but your god would send me to hell.

i lol'd.

i mean why be any definition of good?

...especially if there is no reward.

and even then where do you draw the lines between good and bad?

its a huge grey area.

but somewhere in your head you have to know what your doing.


i mean even without any belief in an afterlife you could try to be "good" as a social experiment.

see if your friends and family notice.

how people react to your "good"

..and just carry on being a scientist.. ask your own questions.


(but why pretend to be someone else if you are comfortable in your own skin?)

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

imho challenging people's beliefs is not the easiest way to change an opinion. its like those chinese finger trap's.

but putting religion into any other sort of social context is extremely hard to do.

but i guess that allah swt makes of us what he wills.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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.

Yes, that is gravity at work. But that is not the Theory of Gravity at work. The theory of gravity isn't that things fall down. The theory of gravity, which is actually not fully explained and has a lot of holes in it, is the attempt to explain WHY this happens.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The above shows that you are still in a frame of mind where you believe that in order for something to exist, you must be able to perceive/experience it with either one of your five senses. Talk to a child and ask them if they believe they have a great great great great great grandfather, they will likely say yes as through reason they deduce that their parents must have their own parents and so forth. This is the problem a lot of atheists have placed themselves in while under the delusion that they are the "logical" ones.

What if we asked Adam's kids if he had grandparents. He'd by this logic have to reach the same conclusion.

Note that Observer isn't saying that he knows your god does not exist. He is saying that he doesn't know and that he doesn't see any good reason or evidence to make him believe. I don't either.

And just because we can't disprove your unfalsifiable claim does not make it unreasonable for us not to accept it. This gets even moreso when you go beyond a mere creation force and go on to a sentient creator being, and then onto one that wrote a book, that wants us to do certain things and not others, that wants us to worship it, etc. I see no reason to accept your supernautral beliefs as true anymore than greek mythology or Iriqois mythology. We understand they are your customs, cutlure, and beliefs, but you can't expect us to accept them just because you do.

There is nothing to gain in defending an erroneous understanding except saving one's own pride at the price of knowledge. If truth is what one seeks then it doesn't matter on whose side it is on.

Is this your way of telling us you are leaving Islam?