Proof of God

[The Ruler]

It has never been observed,

hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...:rollseyes

 

[afriend]

hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...:rollseyes

good point sis.....

Nice 1

ok, now lets hear what they got to say.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace czgibson and root,

I was probably agnostic for about thirty years and during that time I came into contact with people of various faiths, but none of their messages seemed to have any affect on me. I suppose I was in my late forties when I tried to find out for myself if there is a God or not, and over a period of a couple of years I read a whole collection of books on different religions, evolution, and the creation of the universe.

At some point I just stopped to think that I had this huge amount of information in my head, I had written loads of notes and I still had to admit to myself I didn’t have a clue.

It wasn’t until I was speaking to my brother in law about why he believed in God and why he went to the Baptist Church, his reply was quite profound for me there were no lectures on scriptures, he simply said if you want to find God you have to do SOMETHING.

He did not tell me what to do, he just left it at that, the more I thought about his words the more I sensed I had to do something.

Faith in God is a strange concept for non-believers, but at some point in your life whether it is tomorrow or twenty years time you may just get this urge to search for God.

Faith constantly inspires me to do things, the more I do the more I seem to have a greater certainty that a loving God exists.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Take care

Eric

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

hmmmm...scientists has not observed anything...they havent observed the big bang, nr have they observed apes gradually turning into humans...

They've observed lots of things. Sure, no-one was around to witness the Big Bang - it's a hypothesis based on observations of its effects. Similarly, the transition from primitive apes to modern apes and humans has been suggested because of the similarity of our genetic sequences, combined with evidence from the fossil record.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Callum,
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.

How do we prove something, like God, does not exist? Here's an example of a proof that a triune Deity cannot exist:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/is-trinitarian-ontology-coherent/

Peace.

 

[bezimany 071]

well, the two two seas.

The fresh water sea, and the Salty water sea, they will never meet or mix.

Somewhere in the pacific ocean.

Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth



The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°)

Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.

The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress. God has said:

He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)

But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:

He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)

One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water.



Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water

This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).


for more where this came from check out the website this information was copied from:
http://www.islam-guide.com/

ma salaama
bez

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

Your questions are beside the point. This is a thought experiment, it's not something based on reality. However, the point is that it could be real, we just have no way of knowing for certain.

Why do you call this orbiting object a teapot?

Because that's what it is.

Has it ever been used as a teapot by astronauts in a space station or something?

Not as far as anyone knows.

Is it man-made?

Probably.

Do we know how it got into orbit?

No.

Do we know how long it has been in orbit?

No.

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.

I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.

How do we prove something, like God, does not exist? Here's an example of a proof that a triune Deity cannot exist:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/is-trinitarian-ontology-coherent/

An interesting article, although it's really a very straightforward matter to prove that a trinitarian god is logically incoherent. I would do it along the same lines as the article, although I disagree with one small point:

This is a definition of God that Jewish-Islamic theism can easily accept without any major difficulties, for this is the common understanding of God in Western theism.

The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.

That point aside, the article says nothing I would disagree with. However, it is somewhat orthogonal to the discussion we're having now. That article is based on the argument of logical incoherence, where as the line I'm following now comes down to the question of the burden of proof.

Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.

Peace

 

[DaSangarTalib]

i suppose all these miracles time after time just magically happened too, similar to how the universe was formed right?

i suppose you gonna deny these miracles, the signs that prove Allah does Exist

STONE MAKING SAJDAH TO ALLAH AZA'WAJAAL, RESEMBELING A HUMAN BEING IN THAT POSITION

KALIMAH - THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH & MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IS HIS MESSENGER

More on >> http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/14458-miracles-allah-azawajaal.html

ALLAH DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Your questions are beside the point.

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.

Because that's what it is.

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" ?

Probably.

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?

I don't see how it can be illogical, and your assertion that it is inconsequential makes no difference to the thrust of the thought experiment.

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.

The definition given includes the statement that god is "present everywhere", which I remember you telling me was not a feature of the Islamic belief in god.

Yes, you are correct that is an error in the article.

Theists often say that the burden of proof is on the atheist to give their evidence justifying disbelief in god (as you have hinted in a recent post), so I am now returning with a request for any theist to give the evidence justifying disbelief in the orbiting teapot, in the attempt to show that both requests are equally irrational, and that it is the onus of the person asserting a positive belief to supply evidence supporting that belief.

A good summary of your argument. However, I pointed out above why I think your argument fails.

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

i suppose all these miracles time after time just magically happened too, similar to how the universe was formed right?

i suppose you gonna deny these miracles, the signs that prove Allah does Exist

I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace

 

[Ghazi]

Greetings,



I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace

Salaam

Your denying the stone, seriously take a look.

 

[DaSangarTalib]

Greetings,


I certainly deny that those are miracles, and frankly I'm amazed that you give them credence.

You may as well claim that every time 'the face of Jesus' is found in a piece of toast that that indisputably proves his divinity.

Peace

exactly what i thought you gonna say, im not surprise! btw why jesus?

Peace.

 

[DaSangarTalib]

Heres something intresting....

Who Created the Universe From Nothing?

With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?

Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:

Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 1​

Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:

By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.2​

READ MORE>> http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_03.html

and >> http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_04.html

 

[mathematicci]

I have read a good question which written by Czgibson:"Why most rationalist scientist say there is no God".
Ask your sana for a minute:When you're ill...Where do you go?Do you see a doctor or Computer engineer....or.. When you want to buy a beefsteak; do you want it from a tailor?Of course these are illogical.Than if you want to learn something about God, you should ask it people who are interested in God.If you do not have several perejudges. You should ask God people who found him.Scientist whor deny Him cannot give you anything about Him.For example, imagine that America has not been discovered yet.Neither you nor I know that there is a overseas continental.However one day you have heard that a man named Colomb says there is Continetal across seas.I heared it too, but I did not approve it.You're asking me is that true...I am a seaman and I say to you:"I have gone the other side of that sea and I didn't see any thing.I don't believe it.I deny that rumours." Imagine that I deny insistently.Do you maintain asking America to me?If you continue, can your belief be true?"Of course you investigate that rumour in Colomb's side.My refusal is derived from my ship's insufficiency or from going on wrong side.For these resons you should ask God from His experts if you want to learn whether He is existed or not...

 

[muslimahh]

quick reply....

teapot example is not the same as we do not see any manifestations of this teapot.

The manifastations of God is His Creation and how it is maintained in perfect harmony for life to continue to exist

Further to the big bang theory, say the universe was just one small speck....who created that speck and how was it compressed?.....if anything every single argument including that for evolution and the big bang argues that creation emerged from a certain item, not nothing, i.e. evolution = amino acids like nitrogen, carbon, oxygen etc. and the big bang from a compressed speck. The point is that there was something to being this reaction about as there were key ingredients involved in their manifestations.

 

[mathematicci]

Yes Muslimah.Conceding that first point have created itself has not any difference from saying all our writings is writen by it's own.All actions have to be possessed any author.We everyday experience that any letter cannot be writen by it's own.Then how can we say that these trees, Sun, moon have writen by it's own.Ofcourse God's letters and words do not resemble our writings.When He wants to write; He writes satrs, galaxies, planets, bacteries, flies...

 

[yasin]

I am sorry to hear that.



We will stop if you stop. So the next time the media refers to all Muslims being terrorists you will not complain?

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

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

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

 

[yasin]

IThis is easy to explain and in fact you have answered your own question. The Quran and the Bible do not contain amazing facts, or at least no one knew they did. Modern scientists, usually believers or in the pay of the Saudi government, have gone over the Bible and the Quran with a fine tooth comb and taken out anything they can semi-plausibly claim to be scientific and claimed it is a miracle. So the Quran did not, for about 1400 years, make any sort of statements about science or maths. It is only in the last 30 years or so that some people have claimed it does.

you talk so much rubbish it's unbelievable.

You have never read the Quran, FACT.

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

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.

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

 

[anis_z24]

Salam
Do we not know of the verse that says - 025.063 And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";-
In this case HeiGou can be classified as ignorant, because HeiGou is talking about something HeiGou doesn't know.
So say peace as the Quran asks us to do.

Peace

 

[yasin]

my apologies and thank you for your advice