Proof of God

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace yasin;

Trying to convince someone of the existence of God can seem very frustrating and maybe we should bear in mind the observations of St. Thomas Aquinas about 800 years ago

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

I sense those words are equally as valid today.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[HeiGou]

you my good friend can burn in hell for what you've said.

I like to think I will burn in Hell for much more than just asking a question. So let me ask you the obvious question - why is it you think my asking a question will have me ending up in Hell?

I hate people like you lavishing to make such horrid statements seem true.

If you had taken some time you may have noticed it was not said with the intent you seem to think it is. What is the difference between a Muslim saying "All kafirs are..." and the media saying "All Muslims are..."? Why is it wrong to say Muslims are responsible for all the terrorism in the world but it is not wrong to say all Kafirs are responsible for all the fitnah in the world?

There have been billions of Muslims in this world, not even 1% of them would be considered a terrorist.

Last time i checked 1% was not a majority.

Stop making nasty damaging violence provoking statements like that

I did not use the word majority. I did not say what you think I did.

What violence do you think I am provoking?

 

[HeiGou]

you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.

You have never read the Quran, FACT.

I find the Quran impossible to read as it happens. I have browsed. I assume Muslims do not read it either, but study it, recite it, or something.

So how can someone like you decide what it does or not contain, and dont lie and say that you have read it.

I have never said I have picked it up and read it from cover to cover. You are, of course, missing my point. It is unimportant what it contains, what matters is what Muslims have thought it contains. Did any Muslim think it contained a reference to the Big Bang before Dr Buicalle told them it did? Not that I know of. If I am wrong I would love to hear of one. Which Muslim thought the Universe was some 3.5 billion years ago because the Quran told them it was before the West decided it was?

If you want names of the scientists do a Google search, it's not my place here to spoon feed everything i say to people that dont want to believe it.

If I did a google search on scientists and Islam I expect that I would get a lot of historical stuff and not a few sites that I would be prohibited from posting here. I doubt that I would get much on any Muslim scientists who believed that the Quran contained scientific miracles before, say, 1970.

You have a very closed mind and it is obvious from your half heart attempts at rubbishing solid facts.

What solid facts?

 

[muslimahh]

Really funny how those not believing in God are not presenting any arguments towards their position.

If you go by the rules of the scientific method, which all non-theist arguments usually revolve around (the tenants of science) you would require a null-hypothesis,

thus a hypothesis would be : - there is a God
the null hypothesis would be - there is no God

A hypothesis cannot be proven, rather it is nullified should the null hypothesis be supported by evidence



Evidence supporting the existance of God is all around us, life, symbiosis of differings species, animals, humans, nature, temperature and all of the complexities we see all around us. That which does not support it, and thus supporting the null hypothesis, arguably is the process of evolution, the big bang etc. (although these can still be supported by stating that this is the means by which God Almighty maintains and creates life) however, unfortunately for the null hypothesis, and as I have constantly pointed out, each of these arguments still do not account for the creation of the initial ingredients required for this process...i.e. the life elements Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen for evolution or that small compressed speck that atheists argue caused the big bang.

And yet, when I ask: where did these come from, I either get no reply or "we don't know" ...

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi czgibson and HeiGou,
It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.

Regards

 

[root]

Yes, let's continue with the teapot example. My questions for you:

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot? Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something? Is it man-made? Do we know how it got into orbit? Do we know how long it has been in orbit?

After we get through these questions we will find that either the concept of your orbiting teapot is illogical, or it is inconsequential to our lives.

The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?

Because it is a teapot

Is it man-made?

No.

Do we know how it got into orbit

No

Do we know how long it has been in orbit

No

 

[HeiGou]

It would be nice if either of you could give me a response to my points on the orbiting teapot.

Sorry, haven't been reading about the flying tea pot. But I'll make an effort to catch up.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?
:rose:eace:

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Oh and i'd like to remind all sides to remain polite towards each other, and avoid being rude about peoples views. Everyone is entitled to one after all.
:rose:eace:

 

[HeiGou]

Can I ask a question? Sorry if someone else has already asked it!
If the big bang was the sole cause of the universe's existence, then what was there before the big bang, and how did it it get there?

According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.

 

[nishom]

According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.

If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.

Then what caused that force? Another prior force? An infinite regress of forces?

Why add an extra cause?

Peace

 

[HeiGou]

If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.

Scientists use terminology a little differently to other people. A theory is more to a scientist than it is to a lay person. Here it is the best explanation for the observed facts. If you reject the Big Bang as a theory, and some do, then you need to explain whatever facts are left over. The Big Bang has done quite well. Simply saying "Well God made it that way" is excellent as an explanation but is not very useful.

Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.

Nothing caused the Universe to exist as a singularity as far as I know. It just was. More feasible? But you are simply creating a bigger problem - who created that creative force? You can insist that the first creative force was the First Cause that had no creator, but why not just apply that to the whole Universe at the time of the Big Bang and reduce the complexity of the theory?

 

[root]

The "Big bang" theory states that the universe came to be from a "big bang", (A really loud explosion) which science predicted then found and not visa verser. The prediction of the big bang came from einstien's famous equation, why and how the really big explosion occured is the mystery to which we have a number of options ranging from simply nothingness to "other sides of black-holes meaning matter in matter out" to my personal favourite of two universes colliding within a mutiverse scenario. Of course one could just say it was created by god, which I think by far is the weakest hypothosis here.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't think so. If we are introduced to a concept then we must first examine the concept itself as part of our discussion on its validity.

If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.

Now we run into definition issues. Why do you call it a 'teapot' if it has never been used as such as far as anyone knows. Why not call it a "teapot-shaped object" ?

This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?

Yes or no? If yes, then was it originally designed as a teapot and somehow got lost in space? If no, then why do you call it a teapot?

It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.

I think it does. If you are going to claim that there is an invisible, untedetectable entity that exists in an alternate dimension, I won't deny it, I'll just say it is inconseuqential and continue my life. But God is not inconsequential if He exists.

If he exists and everything humans have ever said about him is true, then yes, this is correct. But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false. It is up to me to support my claim that the teapot is there, just as it is up to the theist to support their claim that god exists.

Here is the originator of this idea, Bertrand Russell. As you can see, I got it wrong by saying the teapot is orbiting the Earth, but the point remains the same:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Russell takes the idea further than I have, and his quote is dated by the mention of the psychiatrist. Bearing in mind that atheism is no longer considered to be a symptom of mental illness, and imagining that Russell's description of the situation regarding the ancient authority of religious teapot lore were actually in place, would you deny it then?

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings Root,
Thanks for joining in.

The question about the teapot is a philosphical one like God. Belief in the teapot on the basis that you cannot prove the claim to be false? Your answers are?

My answer is that either we will find such a concept incoherent/contradictory in which case it doesn't exist, or inconsequential in which case it doesn't matter if it exists.

Because it is a teapot

No.

If it's not man-made then how is it a teapot? What is it made of? Is it just some debris that looks remarkably like a teapot?

No



No

Do we know if it still exists in orbit?

Hello Callum,
I hope I don't get your responses confused with root's.

If it's thinkable then it's a valid concept.

Right. By 'thinkable', I would take that to mean that it must be logically coherent.

This is quite an odd objection. Brand new teapots have never been used by anybody for storing and pouring tea, yet they are still teapots, are they not?

What is a teapot? It is a pot with a handle, spout and lid in which tea is brewed and from which it is poured. If I draw a picture of teapot and cut it out - does that count? If I make a teapot-like shape out of cardboard, does that count?

It really doesn't matter whether it's man-made, or what its past history is. My hypothetical assertion is that it's there, that is all.

I think it does. Unless you are attributing supernatural powers to this teapot then it had to have a source. Is this a teapot-god which has existed from eternity or is it just a teapot? You told me it was the latter. So if it is a teapot, that means it is a manmade object designed and manufactured for pouring tea and it has somehow gotten into orbit without being destroyed. That means it must have gotten into orbit at some point in time after the manufacture of teapots. How could it get into orbit? Can you offer a logical explanation for that?

But the point is that although you won't deny it, it is in fact impossible for you to prove my assertion to be false.

Let's take a claim that is more clearly impossible to prove false, for a moment. Take the claim that there is an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. I can't prove that to be false. But I can't deny it either. I just say it is inconsequential to my life. The problem is that an atheist does deny the existence of God, a concept that is neither logically incoherent nor inconsequential. And there is no basis for such a denial. Being agnostic is one thing, but being atheist is another.

The quote from Russell is essentially the same idea. If one asserts that there is a teapot between earth and mars, they need to provide some sort of coherent explanation concerning its existence. Not proof of its existence, but a coherent explanation. So for a teapot, they need to explain if they mean that it is identical in substance and design to those manufactured on earth. and they need to suggets a possible explanation for how it got there. If they can't then through proof by contradiction, we can negate the existence of such a teapot.

Regards

 

[anis_z24]

If we take this to be the truth why is it that in science academia, many refer to what you have described as the big bag THEORY. In this case there is nothing sufficient to prove the THEORY.
Also, what caused, the universe to be squeezed........? If there was nothing before the big bang, supporters of this view are saying that the world came into being from nothing. Isn't it more feasible that there was a creative force behind the universe. maybe a force that caused what you have described.

Salam
the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


{21.03} Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

According to Einstein space and time are intimately linked. At the moment of the Big Bang all the Universe was squeezed into a tiny point - a singularity. This means that in fact time was also "squeezed" into that singularity as well. So before the Big Bang there was no time and hence nothing before the Big Bang. It is only with the Big Bang that the Universe explodes and beings expanding that time has some space to exist in.

This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?

Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Salam
the theory is true, but it has been explained wrong.
Nothing happens on its own as the theory states.


{21.03} Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Its in the Quran. and we know with Allah time is not like it is to us.

Subhan-Allah.....

 

[HeiGou]

This doesn't make sense *confused*. So what caused the the big bang to happen all by itself, didn't it need something to trigger it.... did all that get there by itself?

That is an excellent question. Scientists are still working on these issues. Perhaps you might like to tell us what the Quran says about brane theory?

Scientists laugh at us for believing in Allah, when tehy believe that the whole universe happened by chance. I wonder what the chances of a single cell organism popping out of thin air are, let alone the whole universe.

Except single cells did not pop out of thin air by chance. They built on a billion years or so of existence and slow evolution. What are the chances of that?