Muslims vs Atheists [our foundations in debate]

  • Thread starter Thread starter - Qatada -
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 37
  • Views Views 13K
- Qatada -

- Qatada -

Spread this Avatar!
Messages
11,349
Reaction score
2,692
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
:salamext:



Muslims vs Atheists


I'm just going to post some small posts below which will be some foundations for Muslims insha Allah, so they know where they stand in debate against atheists and some agnostics (who may believe in God but not a religion.)


if i stop posting all of a sudden, u can find them all here insha Allah:

http://idawah.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6



The main issues discussed will be the Big Bang, Evolution [what's acceptable/valid in it and what isn't], and proofs that we didn't evolve off monkeys [using science.] And some extra arguments against atheism which we usually encounter (i.e. Miller's study etc.). Most of the posts will be short and to the point insha Allah.

I'll try to quick link to the main posts on this main post if i'm still able to add to [this post] insha Allah for quick navigation.



MODS: please delete any comments which cause debate, since this thread is for informational purposes [specifically for Muslims].
 
is'nt there anything more to it
????????????????????
i really wanted to go ahead wid this topic
 
The main issues discussed will be the Big Bang, Evolution [what's acceptable/valid in it and what isn't], and proofs that we didn't evolve off monkeys [using science.] And some extra arguments against atheism which we usually encounter (i.e. Miller's study etc.). Most of the posts will be short and to the point insha Allah.

I'll try to quick link to the main posts on this main post if i'm still able to add to [this post] insha Allah for quick navigation.


Big Bang; Post 22 , 23 onwards.

Evolution - whats accepted and what isnt. Post 14, onwards. We're not monkeys - Post 16/17,18,

Flaws in Millers study: Post 17

Arguments in Support of God - post 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 26



NOTE: This thread isn't for debate between Muslims & Non Muslims, so i ask the moderators to delete any posts which go against this.
 
Last edited:
:salamext:


Domino Theory


Imagine a row of dominoes lined up in a row (they're the creation), the first 1 in that row needs to be pushed by a force in order for the rest to fall.

That first force will be a push of a human (or anything putting weight or pressure against the 1st domino), and after that first push - all the other dominoes will fall in order.


That's a good comparison as to how the beginning of the universe (or the creation) is dependant upon another force [i.e. God] to allow the universe to 'begin' (with events one after the other/dominoes falling one after each other) and continue to be sustained.

(Atheists don't know what caused the universe to begin, and anything they say is not based on evidence but based on personal opinions only. Because they do not know what was 'before' the universe or big bang, and they have no solid proof for their opinions.)
 
:salamext:


Agnosticism is the beginning point in debate, not atheism


When you're in debate, especially with atheists about different topics - you need a starting point.


They will say that the starting point of the debate is that there is no God, so you have to prove that there is one in order to convince them.




But this isn't true at all:
Some will even claim atheism isn't even a paradigm but the default starting position. They are obviously wrong, Agnosticism (believing that there can be a God) is the default starting position. Atheism is negatively biased towards the existence of God whereas theism (relligion) is positively biased.


The difference is, at least the theists acknowledges that their view is a belief.


http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm

[This is A Muslim site who is an ex-atheist - he has some really good articles mashaAllah.]



​

That's a really good point to make, since the person who believes in God knows and says that they know they require faith to believe that He [God] exists.

From there, all you need to do then is to explain why you feel Islam is the correct religion from all the rest (every person has their own reasons for accepting islam.) Since the default starting point in the debate is agnosticism, not atheism.
 
Last edited:
:salamext:


Who 'created' God?


If they ask who created God - tell them we take Allah as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. The whole reason why we are forbidden to worship other than God is because they themselves are created, yet He is not. This is our belief, and it is a much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer as to who caused the beginning of all events.


Because we cannot see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence' - as the debate argument goes. There can be someone behind a door and although you can't see him, it isn't proof that he isn't there.

We cannot see emotions physically, but we see their product; tears, smile etc. The hormones in our body cause us to get these feelings, however the feelings cannot be physically seen except through their product i.e. tears, laugh etc.


Similarly, we see the universe around us, and how it is sustained and controlled for so long - & we believe that this is the product of an All Powerful, Knowing and Wise Creator. This is our belief.



Why doesn't God show Himself then?

Allah tests us and sends guidance to us -Will we obey Him (by doing good and abstaining from evil) without seeing Him? This is part of our test. If Allah was clearly watching us, while we watched Him - then none of us would even feel inclined to sin out of awe and fear for Him.

We know it requires faith to believe in Allah without seeing Him. Yet there are many signs (aayaat) that He has given us which help us in accepting and strengthening in this faith.



He KNOWS that we can believe in Him without seeing Him

We don't need to see God to believe in Him, and that's why the majority of mankind believes in Him. So if someone was to question why we can't see Him, then we say that we are ABLE to believe in Him without seeing Him, and the majority of mankind believe in Him. We believe this is because He created mankind this way, upon a fitrah [natural disposition] in which we know that a Higher Power exists and controls.


So if this majority are able to, then similarly - you are able to aswell. So if someone questions why Allah doesn't show Himself if He wants us to believe in Him, we say that He KNOWS that we can believe in Him without seeing Him, and that's why He doesn't have to show Himself to us in this life.


He sends Messengers' with undeniable signs to show us that they are truly sent from God, informing us of the clear message.

Then He will reward the believers and good doers by letting them see His Majesty on the Day of Judgement, and He will punish those who rejected Him, by never letting them see Him, because they rejected His Promise in this life.

Now there would be 2 reasons why someone denies the Lord of the Worlds, it's either because he is closed minded, or he has not reflected upon the signs of Allah. For the former, there is nothing we can do to convince them, for the latter - Allah informs us;

We will show them Our Signs on the horizon and within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth" (Quran 41:53)








Signs


Some signs which come to mind is how Allah caused the earth to be in the EXACT correct location, so its not too hot, nor too cold for life to survive. So the water on this planet is not total ice, nor boiling hot, but just right for living beings to drink from.

Another sign is how Allah brings the dead earth back to life, by sending down rain. So all sorts of different fruits, plants, colours, come out of the earth. Some which we eat from, some which the animals eat from. Then we eat from them animals, i.e. cows eat grass, we drink the milk from the cattle. Birds eat from trees, and we eat their meat. Salt comes from mountains, while sugar comes from sugar canes. Spices grow from the earth. All of different flavours and tastes, a mercy from the Lord of the Worlds. Silkworms eat from the leaves, and they give us silk. Sheep eat from the grass, and we keep their wool for our clothing. Cotton also comes from plants.

All these provisions [rizq] are not in our control, we do not produce them. We hardly have any control over them, many grow naturally. Yet the majority of mankind is ungrateful. But if these mercies were removed from us, then who would we have to save us? to provide for us? None, but the one who caused them to grow in the first place. So believe in Him, or He will punish you for your ungratefulness, but believe in Him, and He will give you more good, in this life and the next...



Aayaat (Signs)


The word 'aayaat [plural]/aayah [singular]' (in arabic) which is commonly translated as 'verse' by many people isn't as accurate as you may think.

The word aayah/aayaat actually mean's 'sign/s.'



Now some people try to attack the Qur'an and Sunnah and claim that it's not 'proof' that it is from God, or other concepts which require faith.


Muslims might respond that the Qur'an and Sunnah prove that God exists, but then people who deny the Divine sources of Qur'an and Sunnah may attack back and ask whether the person can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell God. And if we are not able to - then that is not 'proof.'



Other words mentioned in the Qur'an as signs are 'bayinaat' - which comes from the root word Bayna - which means 'between.' So the bayinaat which God gave to His Messengers' would be a sign between both parties - the disbelieving and believing - to show a miracle which no-one could surpass at any time in history, except a Messenger of God.

Even magicians could not surpass this level. And there are many miracles such as the miracles of Moses allowing his people to pass through the Nile, the cures which Jesus son of Mary was able to perform, i.e. wiping the eyes of a blind man with his hand (and no extra tools) and the blind man seeing again. Or even the miracle of the Qur'an revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) - none has ever been able to come up with anything similar to it in any time of history, and the challenge remains open till today - to produce a minimum of just 3 verses to match it. If it wasnt from the Lord of the Worlds, then why isn't anyone to compete with it in any way?*

Indeed all these are signs from the Most High, the Wise.




So looking back at the concept of aayah/aayaat or bayinaat - we see that Allah has given us many signs which help us come closer to a conclusion.
Imagine going on a journey, there will be lots of signs/aayaat as you pass by - you can choose to follow the signs and reach your destination, or you can deny them and prefer your own way. Even though the signs are for your benefit, no-one should force you to follow the correct path. But they should be sincere and kind hearted enough to warn you that you are heading the wrong way.


Going down the wrong path will take you to the wrong destination - simply because there is only one way to get to the correct destination - & this is by following the signs which are given to you.
​

Is then one who walks headlong, with his face grovelling, better guided,- or one who walks evenly on a Straight Way?

[Qur'an 67:22]
 
The reason why God is God is because He is perfect.


In arabic, an illaah is anything which is worshipped. Worship consists of being a slave (abd), and doing anything which your master commands you (ibaadah.)


The only true illaah who can be obeyed is the One who is Perfect, this is why Islam does not permit the worship of the creation.

That's why, God is known as Al-Illaah (Allah) - the One and only true God.



Since God is not like His creation in any way, and He is Perfect. There is none similar or like Him in any way - this is a sign of His Uniqueness. So none shares His Power, Knowledge, Wisdom, or any of His Attributes.


For One to be Perfect, they can not have an equal in any way. So those who claim that God is similar to His creation - they are contradicting this concept.



There are 2 extremes throughout the many different religions in the world;
1) This is the extreme in which 'god is similar to the creation.'

This is the claims of some christians who say Jesus son of Mary is God or the ancient Greeks who claimed that god had a family, or others who say that we can serve idols because these idols are 'god'. They use the claim that 'everything is God' because the creation is within God himself!

However, this is false because if humans, idols or the creation was God - then doesn't the Big Bang explain that the universe had a beginning?

Also, some claim (i.e. in some aspects of hindusim) - God came to life by the energy of 'Om' - so if God had a beginning, then can that really be an attribute of One who is perfect? Doesn't Perfection imply that One is not dependant upon another? (i.e. in this context, 'god' is dependant upon that energy source.)


So how can God be God if He has human attributes? This is falsehood, because the only reason why God is God is because He is NOT similar to His creation.



2) The other extreme is that there is none like God, therefore God cannot have any attributes. This includes many religions like Sikhism, and even some Islamic sects which strayed such as the Mu'tazilah [the philosophers.]

These people attempt to defend God but because of this extreme caution, they argue that He has no attributes. So they deny that God has Knowledge, Wisdom, Control etc. because all these attributes - the creation has them also.

The above is another extreme.



​
Islam is the answer to all the confusion that has occured throughout history;


The answer is in the Qur'an;
There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

[Qur'an Ash-Shura 42:11]

​


He has many Attributes, but there is none Like Him in sharing these attributes.

So when He is the Seer, Hearer, Knower, Powerful etc. - He is in reality all of these, however - there is none like Him in these attributes in any way. We do not know the 'howness' of these Attributes, but we accept them as they are. We cannot comprehend God, so we accept them without knowing the details.

So His eyes are not like human eyes, and whatever He has said about Himself - we accept without distorting its meaning. (because some sects say that these attributes are different to what they're apparent [dhahir] meaning is - which made them reject what Allah said about Himself.


This is God's Perfection, a perfection which people throughout history have differed about. And this Qur'an was sent down to unite mankind on what they differed.



And Allah knows best.
 
Some points which might be useful to consider and reflect on against Atheism


Allah has caused the universe to form and sustains it so that life can survive within it. And that humans can easily recognise, and even accept this concept, thats why the majority of mankind has accepted the concept of God [even though there were other more 'convincing' arguments in the past (than the modern argument of chaos causing control) like the universe being eternal (which has now been refuted by science.) etc].

Since the majority of mankind has accepted this fact throughout history (of God), its a sign which further strengthens our belief in the fitrah - hence encouraging our belief of islam being truthful.


Then since we recognise and understand God, even without seeing Him, it is human nature [the fitrah] to believe God is Perfect in every way. And that's why humans by nature usually reject explanations of God which aren't perfect. i.e. that God is 'born' or 'dies' or that He has equals or family etc. Since He has no equals in any way and is free from imperfection. People might say that perfection is subjective, but for each claim put forward against Him - one can explain using logic how His Attributes are Perfect.


So by atheists saying that if they saw God they would believe, then if His aayaat are enough for others to believe in Him - then there will also be sufficient aayaat for this person to believe in Him.

If this person rejects Allah because He cannot see Him, then they should know that humans can believe in things without seeing them, based on pure logic and understanding. And if they don't have such an open mind to even accept such a concept to be a possibility, then they are way more closed minded than any theist.




Some people might say that the idea of 'perfection' is subjective, we reply that we can prove using logic that God is perfect.

Others might say that God is imperfect because of attributes such as anger, here is a reply to an example like that;
Anger

Some people might argue that anger is a sign of weakness because being angry is due to a lack of control.

The response to this is that indeed anger is a sign of weakness when it is due to a LACK of control. Lack of control means that the one projecting the anger is not being just when showing this anger, which usually leads to injustice on their part.


But Allah is Al 'Adl [the Just] - so when He is angry - He is still just. His anger is His displeasure at His servants disobedience to His commands, because He knows what is better for His servant, more than the servant knows for himself.


Then some might say that Allah knows the future too, so why should He get angry - if He knows that they would do the sin anyway?

The response is that if you knew there was evil or hardship, and that there would be good through it in the future - you may still be sad in the present, although you know that there will be some good through it. (i.e. when you face a hard trial, you know that the believers sins will be forgiven due to the hardship - but at the moment of hardship - they may find sadness or grief.) So Allah knows what will happen in the future - but at the moment of sin, Allah is displeased with the action of that slave. That's why He is the All Knowing ('Aleem) - yet displeased when people sin.
 
Question:
If God is so kind and loving, why does He allow evil to occur on the earth?

Answer:

God is the Kind, Loving, yet He is also the Most Wise. He says in the Qur’an (translation of the meaning):

..It is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

[Qur'an 2: 216]
​
We see from this verse that since we are only humans, we are limited to the present. We might face some trouble and think that we can never come out of it, imagine this scenario;

A man works for a service where his job is to torture people without a just cause (probably thinks it easy money), now imagine he gets caught by another party and they start to torture him to get some information from him. – At this moment in time, he is facing a real hard time and like any human, he’s thinking why he never went home early today so he wouldn’t be caught and face this torture? – Anyway, after a few hours of torture they release him (maybe he just doesn’t have any secret info.) He goes back home and remembers all that he faced and reflects on how the people he tortured must have felt. Because he realises the severity of what he went through, he feels that he’s not doing the right thing by torturing others either – so he quits his job and doesn’t ever torture people again, rather he starts to help the police so that they can prevent this kind of evil from occurring in the future by other people.​


Now looking at his scenario, if he never had faced this evil – he wouldn’t have stopped doing his evil either, rather he’d continue and there would be more harm through that. But since we’ve read the future and outcome of that evil, we see that there was a greater good which occurred through this evil that he had faced. Similarly, it is God who is the All-Knowing, and therefore He places people under similar situations so that they do submit to Him and do good – while doing so out of their own free will.

Another good scenario is this; You wake up in the morning and realise that you got up 10mins late for work, you're really frustrated that it was in your destiny that you woke up late. So you get up and leave the house, as you drive down the main road - you see that there's been an accident just a few cars ahead of you. Ask yourself - if you had woken up 10mins earlier, maybe you would be that person who had just died?



In regard to people being rewarded or punished eternally in the afterlife, then the response is that the person has a choice of being obedient or disobedient in this temporary life, and since the afterlife is eternal - then by choosing the correct choice in this life - they'll be given an eternal life of whatever path of consequence they chose for their ownselves [i.e. of pure good or pure punishment in the hereafter.]

So none will be dealt with unjustly. Since they will have been warned of the consequences of their actions in this life. If they were not truly warned [i.e. no Messenger was sent to them] - then they will be tested on the Day of Judgement.

Because Allah says (translation of the meaning):

 And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning). [Qur'an Isra 17:15]
 
Question
If God is so perfect, why does He need us to worship Him?



Answer:

First of all, what is worship? Worship is to do an act which Allah/God loves, whether its praying to Him, helping the needy, helping society become a better place, even small factors such as feeding your family and providing for them - with the intent of pleasing Allah.

Allah/God isn’t in need of our worship, but we as His creation are in need of His worship. We see as humans today that there is a great amount of evil that is widespread on the earth, people kill each other unjustly, loot each others wealth, taking the rights of people without any just cause. Now if the people were aware, and 100% certain without doubt that God is watching over them and that He would either punish them a severe punishment or reward them a great reward according to what they did do in this world, there would be a lot less evil, and much more harmony and peace on the earth.

So God isn’t in need of us or our worship, but we clearly see that there is a great deal of corruption when people do not worship God. Having a healthy fear of Gods punishment, hoping for His reward and Mercy, and loving Him for everything He has given us (sight, hearing, health, sustenance etc.) are all acts of worship – if these were instilled into the people, it would give everyone a balanced life in all aspects.
It would humble those who have been given authority and great wealth, aswell as give respect and kindness to those who may be given less in worldly riches. The rich would give a share of their wealth to the poor, hoping for reward from God, and the poor would be thankful for that. The family ties would be upheld, people would be pleased with that because they would be sure that this is what God wants, and they would hope that God would be pleased with them for that – and this would strengthen their love for God, aswell as God’s love for them, which would mean that God would give them an easier life in this world, and the one to come. If anyone ever thought of harming someone who had no right of being harmed, they could remind them of the punishment of God against injustice, which would make that person think twice before doing that evil.

From the above we see that all the aspects of worship which God orders us to perform are for the betterment of humanity aswell as ourselves, God never orders us to do something harmful for us unless the benefit is much greater than the harm.





Okay, that makes sense, but what about praying and fasting then? Why does God need you to pray to Him 5 times a day if He isn’t in need of your worship?

We fast – specifically in the month of Ramadan – in order to learn self-restraint, even when no-one is around we learn that God is watching over us, which will prevent us from committing evil and shameful deeds whether done in public or private. This is something praiseworthy no matter what way you look at it.
About the prayers, when we pray to God 5 times a day, the main central theme of the prayer is for our own benefit. If we look at what we recite, we praise God at the beginning, and then this is when the important part comes;
All Praise is to God, Lord of the Worlds.

The Most Compassionate, Most Merciful.
Lord of the Day of Judgement.
You Alone we worship, you Alone we ask for Help.
Guide us to the straight path.
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.

[Qur’an - Al Fatihah Chapter 1]



​
Since praising Allah/God is a means of gaining His pleasure, then we praise Him and then invoke (pray to) Him after that, yet He is not in need of us praising Him since He is the self sufficient, free of all wants.

Back to the prayer, we see that the main central theme of our prayer is to actually invoke God and ask Him for our guidance, and as we finish the prayer – we continue praying for the believers. Again, this doesn’t harm or benefit God in the least, however – He loves His servants and wants us to surrender and submit to Him [literal meaning: Islam, one who submits – Muslim] out of our own freedom of choice. Then He is willing to reward us for being grateful, or punish those who were ungrateful and belied Him and His signs.
 
Destiny, a quick explanation on where Muslims stand

Allah knows His creation, He knows the past, present and future. That's His perfection. We believe in this.


So we sometimes get the question - what's the point of our creation if God already knows what's going to happen to us?

We simply say that God knows, but He also sent us the Criterion between wrong and right, truth and falsehood, and He ordered us to believe and do good - He informed us of the consequences of doing bad. We don't know whether we are successful in the next life (even though Allah does know) - that's why we have to strive to do the good in order to recieve the good (i.e. reward and pleasure of Allah.) If we don't believe and do good, then we have been warned of its consequences (i.e. the punishments etc.)


We believe in all the guidance sent by Allah, so since He informs us that He knows the future, and that we need to believe in this to be successful - we accept that. Since He informs us that we have to be obedient to be successful - we accept that. If we believe and obey, That's what makes us successful, in this life and the next.


Our pious predecessors (the salaf) would say that there is neither compulsion (i.e. you have the choice to do good or sin), nor total free will (i.e. you can't choose where you'll be born etc.) - but there is something between the two.



this might also be useful;
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/fourdimensionalism.htm

also read surah layl [92] for a simple explanation and understanding - of how your intentions, deeds and sincerety in wanting to follow a path lead you to your chosen destination.
 
By chance?!


Alot of Muslims get confused because alot of atheists act all confident when you ask them how the first cell 'came to life by chance', or how the planets came into the position for living things to survive 'by chance'.

You would probably say 'it couldnt have been controlled by chance, just look how everythings working perfectly' right? And that it could only happen except if God willed it.


Now alot of atheists act all confident, but they're really fooling alot of people. Alot of people actually think that the atheist knows more than me so i wont even attempt to question them.


But the weakness of the atheist argument is this, they say "If the earth had been in the position to sustain life, then life could have only come into existence, and thats the reason why we're surviving today"


So in other words they're saying that if everything had happened by chance, thats the only way life could have become existent. [They will talk about the different forces (i.e. gravity etc) in the universe which caused the different planets to form, but this still isn't controlled by anyone [according to them] - so its still 'chance']


We say God created the earth for us, placed it in the right place, and made it in a way so humans and living things could survive within it.


The only difference between both arguments is that we require belief that God who has control and power was able to do it, whereas they have to believe in something which they don't have proof for either, but something which they have to put blind faith in, that it happened 'by chance.'


So if they attack you for having faith in God without seeing Him in this life, tell them that they have blind faith in 'chance' - and guess what? They can't see 'chance' either.
 
One really important thing for Muslims to know is that we know that we require faith to believe in Allah, and Allah says (translation of the meaning):

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

[Qur'an Al-baqarah 2: 2-3]

​
And you believe in Allah because you believe Allah caused the creation to occur - even though you know you can't see him (in this life, but the believers will see him clearly in the next life.) The atheist doesn't have to believe you, but it is your defense [your duty is just to convey the message - not convince], and there is nothing wrong with your arguments - you just need that confidence! So put your trust in Allah.
__________________
 
asalaam alaikum

Micro Evolution (the small evolution) doesn't contradict Islamic teachings. For example, if there are 2 giraffes - 1 with a small neck and 1 with a long neck - its more likely the long necked one will survive if there are taller trees. So this rule of survival does not contradict Islam, so long as you believe that it is a pattern in Allah's creation. Meaning - the taller giraffe's descendants are more likely to survive [since they will be taller] compared to the shorter necked species.



Macro Evolution (the big evolution [where species become from 'one to the other'] is discussed here:

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm


He says:
To making comparisons, some try to enter the fossil record as proof for common descent, the argument goes, that fossils show up in certain layers of ground which in term are linked to certain eras in time. If you then make a timetable of which time the fossilized creatures lived in, it matches the timetable that common descent proposes. Well first of all, that's hardly any proof, all it does is proof which creatures lived at which time, it doesn't proof which evolved into which. Creationists might just as well claim that this proves when certain animals were created. The fossil record does not favor common descent over creation. In fact quite the opposite can be said, the fossil has many issues that reflect bad on common descent. Like the cambrian explosion. and era where there's a sudden high concentration of entirely new species, as opposed to the slower pace of other eras. Another problem are the large number of missing links. There are so many proposed intermediate species missing, that some scientists have started suggesting that rather then a slow step by step evolution, there must have been "jumps" to. But that's of course very unlikely. A mutation that carries benefit is in itself unlikely, many mutations at once that carry some benefit is close to impossible. Other than that it needs to be noted that there's a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of dating fossils. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's all a hoax, but it does need a lot of work.
​

 
"If it happened..."


The issue of life being formed through the means of abiogenesis (life coming from non life) doesn't have to be true. Scientists can't prove that this is how life originated on earth.

All they can argue is that if abiogenesis took place, then that can be an explanation for how life began on earth.



The big word in that sentence is 'if', because it's just a claim of there's. Even if they use studies to prove that abiogenesis can take place, it doesn't mean that this has to be the method for the origin of life on earth.


Creation indeed does require faith, but the concepts of life coming into existence by abiogenesis is only a concept, which 'if it were to occur' caused life to remain on earth. So basically, if the theory did happen - then that's how life survived on earth. However, the theory in of itself is questionable, so it can't be fact.



We can say its not true, they can say its true. But none of us can prove that a cell came to life during the early earth period. They can only say 'If it happened... thats how life started on earth.'
__________________
 
why are humans so much like other animals if they didn't evolve off them?


humans are created from earth, according to the evolution theory - animals also came and were produced from this earth. we say God allowed it to occur, and it happened by His will & control. He created humans the way He wanted (this is explained in the Qur'an), and since alot of explanation isn't given about how animals were formed - the issue of them evolving over time doesn't contradict Islamic teachings.



why are they and we so similar physically? because they and we were created/produced from similar materials - the (chemicals of the) earth and water.


why are their and our behaviours so similar? animals were on the planet before humans, scientific research shows this. humans lived on the planet and they also interacted with the animals during their lifetimes, they learnt survival techniques off these animals, they learnt hunting and many other world techniques by watching what animals do and progressing on that.


Those are the similarities. ^





The difference between humans and animals is that Allah/God has given humans an intellect, He has given humans the ability to understand wrong and right, to think ahead into the future, and He has given them many blessings so they have control over a great deal of His creation.

But this doesn't come for free, He has made us responsible for all that He has given us. The more we have, the more we're held responsible for. So Allah sends us guidance to give us a Criterion between right and wrong, truth and falsehood etc. We as humans have the choice to accept the guidance or reject it.


Those who accept the guidance and follow it - then they will have a life of goodness, and high morality in this life, and a greater reward in the life to come. Whereas those who reject the guidance, then they will continue following their vain desires EXACTLY like the animals, without any aid or light to guide them in their ways. So they will be equal to the animals, made from the same materials, doing the same things.. but without a beneficial purpose.

They have hearts wherewith they understand not, they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. [Qur'an 7:179]



Those who accepted the guidance, they learnt higher morals, rules and even worldly advances through the guidance which Allah sent to the Messengers' - messages to unite the people on where they differed. This guidance raised these people from being like lost animals, to the most honorable and helpful people to humanity and creation.

These Messengers' were sent to the people to warn them of the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for them in the sight of God, since they have the choice of doing right and wrong, and have the concept of understanding consequences for their actions. We will return to Him who will inform us of all that we used to do, and none will be dealt with unjustly on that Day.

Those who did believed and did good, will be given good, but those who turned away and did evil - then they won't be punished except for their own evil deeds.


also read;
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cf...sub_cat_id=792
 
Monkey Skulls are primitive Humans?!


Here's a discussion on some examples of skulls scientists have found, and how they thought they were monkeys evolved into humans, and how it was found out that these weren't really evolved; but simply humans or monkeys. He says:


The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:
* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago

* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago

* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago



The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.
* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.


* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assuùme they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.


​
Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there.


http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
 
Are monkeys related to humans because they have a similar immune system?


The atheists then argue that some monkeys have similar immune systems to humans, and this might be a link to how they're related to each other. But the response given by the same brother is:

Yeah there are some interesting things to say there. For example, humans are more vulnerable to pig diseases as opposed to monkey diseases, so are we closer to pigs than to monkeys on the alleged tree of evolution or is their a flaw in their argument?

Also immune system is only partially DNA-Dependant, part of the immune grows as we develop based on our environment. So any similarities could just as well be environment-based as opposed to DNA based. This shows again you cannot really debate evolution unless you're looking at DNA. Problem is though, we still haven't figured out DNA, we might have already decoded it, but there's so many genes we don't know the function of, so many things we haven't figured out. The science is way to immature to have this debate.




'Common Ancestor'


There is a point in debate where atheists try to say that we are born with a common ancestor to monkeys. i.e. that we didn't evolve off each other - but that humans and monkeys had a forefather who was the 'same' - that's why we're so 'similar'.


The response to this is quite simple; There is NO PROOF for this concept whatsoever. (any fossils they used to support this theory have been shown to be humans in history and not any 'common ancestor' or monkey.) Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same 'common ancestor'.

So its false, and atheists only resort to this idea out of desperation or ignorance.
 
<b>
Miller's Study​
</b>(don't talk about this with atheists until you know the basics on evolution and until you know about the study itself.)


Bro steve discussed abiogenesis and the biases that Miller had in his study:


In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances (carboxylic acids, and tar) harmful to life were mixed with it. (so they will cause harm to the living creature or the end product.) Next to that the experiment does not account for all required amino acids to make proteins, and the experiment also does not explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. (There's a whole range of different structured amino acids that are necesairy, only a small number of them were formed.)


Furthermore, there were both left handed as right handed isomers, whereas only one type is common in biology.


[...]


But that's just the beginning next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of criticism can also be formed as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. It's quite destructive. No oxygen however, means no atmosphere and also no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it.

And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

If there really was organic living cells on the planet at one time, there was no Ozone layer to protect them. So the cells would be bombarded with UV rays which would destroy the living cells. So the chance would be extremely low [it would be the fraction of 1 over 10, to the power 300 - 300 zeros after it)] whereas in mathematics, 1 over 10 to the power 50 (50 zeros after it) is an impossible probability.

So the probability of a cell coming to life by non life is more impossible than impossible itself! [Let alone the possibility of it surviving and forming into other more complex organisms for such a long time period without being destroyed on a chaotic planet (the earth had alot of volcanic eruptions and chemical reactions [causing destruction] at that time)!]


More can be read here;

http://idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=738


 Another argument in studies such as these are that the scientists can't produce the cells own DNA/RNA [the most important part of the cell i.e. its data] - so they use some which is already existant (probably from another cell), and they also use materials which Allah has already created - so they're not really creating a cell from nothing [like Allah did]. Therefore they're arguments are quite weak.
 
Last edited:
Can God create a stone He cannot lift?

Question: Muslims say that Allah is capable of anything (huwa 'ala kulli shay’in qadeer). Therefore, is Allah, for instance, capable of creating a heavy stone that He will not be able to lift? Knowing that if Allah is capable of creating such a stone, that would make Him incapable of doing one thing (lifting this stone). On the other hand, if He is incapable of creating that kind of stone, that will contradict the Koran where it says He is capable of anything. I don't know how to answer this argument. Your help is needed.


Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
This argument is a classic example of sophistry. It is a nonsense argument that merely sounds like it make sense. This type of argument occurs when the sentences work grammatically but have no intelligible meaning, since the meaning conveyed by the sentences is self-contradictory. It is an old philosopher’s trick. The argument looks sensible on the surface, but contains a logical fallacy.


When we talk about lifting a stone, we are merely referring to moving it form one point in space to another. Of course, we cannot doubt that Allah has the power to cause a stone to be in any point in space that He wishes.

We need to understand what the argument is really saying. When someone proposes that “He cannot lift it”, he is essentially proposing that He is incapable of something – in this case of having the stone move to a different point in space. The argument is really only proposing His being capable of being incapable!


Therefore, by removing the words “stone” and “lift” from the argument, we get to the essence of the argument, which we can express as follows:
Muslims say that Allah is capable of all things.

Therefore, is Allah capable of being incapable?

If he is capable of being incapable, then he is incapable of something.

If he is incapable of being incapable, then he is incapable of something.
​
You see, once we remove the words “lifting a stone” form the argument and get down to its bare bones, it becomes clear to us just what a silly, nonsensical argument it really is.​
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top