Proof of God

[czgibson]

Greetings,

like say luck is a sort of faith which is like belief innit?

I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.

if thta is how you argue, i can also argue that islam is the right path, believe it or not.

No, the two statements are not logically comparable. I said science often uses logic, whereas your statement was definitive, i.e. Islam is the right path. I didn't say science always uses logic, but that it often does so is undeniable.

but that is not how it is....u think science is logical because you believe it to be.

Hopefully you can now see that you've misrepresented my statement here.

if you dont believe in something, it never seems true to you. just like if you dont believe in someone, you wouldnt beleve that what that person is saying is true o not.

Fair enough.

i didnt say dat. in my previous post, i meant that not all aspects of biology is a conspiracy but certain aspects of it has gone too far. beyond what religion says.

For the last few exchanges you've used 'science' and 'biology' interchangably, which is why my inference from what you said was actually fair.

Peace

 

[The Ruler]

I'm not aware that luck is a sort of faith, no.

no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way :?

 

[abdul Majid]

luck???

 

[HeiGou]

no? then how would you explain luck in a scientific way :?

The tail end of a binomial distribution.

 

[------]

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.

I agree.

 

[HeiGou]

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.

OK Not my thread, but let's see what I would like to reply to.

I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.

Do we know if it still exists in orbit?

That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?

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.

A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.​

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.

Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?

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.

Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith. Assume that there was a long running tradition, taught in schools and upheld by Bishops and Ulama, that said teapot did exist. Why would you need a coherent explanation? Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent? You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?

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.

Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.

 

[HeiGou]

It deeply saddens me to see that so many people in today's world don't believe in God, or, if they say that they do, they don't live as though they do. Actually, surprisingly enough, this is not because I fear I may not spend eternity with them in paradise, but because believing in God is just about the easiest thing on Earth to do, with the possible exception of breathing or blinking. It's the living according to His Will that's hard. And even that can be simplified if we just look beyond our own agendas.

I agree.

But with what do you agree? Don't you think there is a contradiction in what the previous poster said - after all if belief in God is easy but living His law is hard, what do you expect? Most people will say they believe in God but won't live as if they do. Blinking and breathing come natural. I was not taught to do them. And yet belief in God is highly socially specific. If idolated from true believers, children do not ever become believers. People do not convert in large numbers to any religion that does not try very hard to make converts. All evidence suggests belief in God is very hard if by that you mean anything more than the pieties of social belief.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi HeiGou,
Sorry I forgot about this post, I know it's been over two weeks but I still would like to reply.

I think that sounds like an excluded middle. There are more choices than that surely.

Such as?

That surely is the problem. If it is too small to see and all we have to go on is tradition that says there is a teapot there, how do we know?

Is it claimed that it still orbits around the earth?

A strong atheist denies the existence of God. A weak atheist is less ambitious. They just deny belief without going so far as to assert such entities do not exist.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.​

Thanks for the quote. What do you think is the difference between being a weak atheist and being agnostic? What is meant by 'absence of belief'? That they never affirm it or deny it?

So let's take the claim that there is an an invisible inanimate entity in an alternate dimension. Let's call her the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And let's also say that She is watching us and judging our every move and if we dare associate with horse shoes or spoiled oats She will damn us to eternal damnation. Now we can agree you cannot disprove such an entity. She is, after all, Invisible. But you also cannot claim that She is inconsequential to your life because, after all, you are going to be damned for all eternity if you do not placate Her.

You're absolutely right, and this illutsrates my point well about when we can dismiss something as inconsequential.

Now about the IPU. The difference between this and the ice cream factory or the orbiting teapot is that you have now ascribed divine powers to the entity, so the discussion becomes a theological one. We now examine the concept and see if it fits in with a plausible explanation of our universe. As I said before, one needs to provide a coherent explanation for the entity in question.

Is the IPU created or uncreated? Is it pink or is it invisible (note that it would be contradictory to suggest that it is both)? A unicorn implies an organic creature with a physical body. Does it have eyes or is it invisible (note again that it is contradictory to suggest both)? Ultimately, when you examine the coherence of the concept itself you are left with some Zoomorphic model of God versus the Unique model of God found in Islam.

As for associating with horse shoes and eternal damnation, two things are being confused here. On one hand there is the belief in the entity, and on the other hand there is the obligations we have towards the entity. I believe that someone can realize the existence of a divine entity just by following their fitrah but I don't believe that they will be able to realize all the religious practices that this entity has mandated for us. For the latter, one must consult the revelation.

Now I would say, in the absence of any reason to believe in said IPU, it would be reasonable not to believe in such a Being (may She forgive me if She is listening) much less burn hay to Her every Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree that despite the potential eternal damnation it would be sensible to deny She exists?

I believe in the divine Creator, I just don't believe He has the image of a unicorn.

Why? Why not simply assert it as a matter of Faith.

Because if one cannot provide any coherent explanation for the subjects existence, then it is sufficient to reject it on the basis of logic. If there is no coherent explanation, then the belief lacks credibility.

Even if I conceeded that a coherent explanation was needed, do you think the parallel belief in the existence of God is any more coherent?

Yes, I do believe that the Islamic understanding of God is the most coherent explanation for our universe.

You too can ask the same questions atheists ask - who made the teapot if you like. But if I assert the teapot is the First Cause was was never created, where does that get us?

To a theological discussion, as above.

Fine. Then the teapot has existed since the beginning of time when it called the Universe into Being. It is the First Cause, the Original object, it is not Created, but a Creator. Rather like the Invisible Pink Unicorn but not as attractive.

Obviously this is no longer a normal teapot. If it is uncreated, then it is not composed of matter is it? If it is not composed of matter, there goes the entire 'teapot' model.

Peace.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'd like to remined members not to spam all threads with the same link. If you like it, post it once in the exchange links section. Especially because this section is for members to articulate their own arguments and only refer to links as back-up for arguments, not as substitutes for arguments.

And please do not post only a smiley. If you have some beneficial information share it inshaa'Allah, otherwise please refrain from posting here.

 

[Hussein radi]

This video is another proof.

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=124

To be honest with you i don't know why they don't beieve in god. there are proofs everywhere of his existence. Our planet and the habitants in it are all proof of his infinite power and knowledge. I am sure you know the perfection of Human bodies and Universe. The body uses all these intelligent ways to function. Infact, the understanding of the eyes helped the devolpment of the camera. Maybe they don't believe in him because they don't find it important and care too much about this life and not the life after. And Satan is blinding those who don't believe through whispering influences. Their are billions of people who believe in god, two main religions are Islam and christianity. Many scientests also believe in god,including einstein.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Many scientests also believe in god,including einstein.

Einstein was more of a pantheist on the lines of Spinoza rather than a straightforward theist. Here's a quote from him:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

See this page for more of Einstein's views on god:

Einstein on God

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I wrote this as a response to someone's objection to God, but the thread was deleted so I'm posting it here, inshaa'Allah.

Hi
Thanks for your post. Your argument started off with God's predestination and then you moved to the famous atheist argument known as the 'problem' of evil, and then you switched back to the argument against pre-destination.

Let's start with predestination. Yes, God knows everything that will happen. But you neglect the fact that God transcends time and space; He is above and beyond our universe. So He is not restricted by time into past, present and future as we are. He sees all events past, present and future.

Do you agree that our universe has a definite future? i.e. that there is a definite course that our universe is going to take, and that every individual in our universe has a definite future. Predestination or no predestination everyone will agree with the fact that there is a definite future. If person X can only do either A or B, there is a definite course he will take, we just don't know whether it is A or B. But we know that he cannot do both. He has one specific choice which he will choose.

So if we agree that there is a definite course which the universe will follow, whether people have free-will or not, then it makes no difference whether we also state that there is a divine entity beyond this universe who knows what that definite course is that we will take. If it did not contradict our free-will to say that there is a definite course, then neither does it contradict it to suggest that there is someone beyond time and space who knows what that definite course is.

If we took all the future happenings in person X's life and made them into a movie which person Y watched, that has no impact on person X's free-will. X still has the choice, but Y simply knows which ones he will choose.

Now we come to your version of the problem of evil when you ask, "Why did God create such a person knowing they would be evil?" This question is no different from the question of why God created evil. We have discussed this question in great detail in this thread, but briefly, if there was no opposition to peace, justice, and faith, then where would the test be in establishing peace, justice and faith in God?

Regards

 

[جوري]

Great thread.. well by great I meant Ansar's posts ..
Maybe tomorrow I'll write up something on the null hypothesis (rejecting/or failing to reject it) Type I & II errors, confidence interval and how scientific testing is actually done to 'prove' an event, although czgibson was on to something.. this thread at times lacked directionality..
well, if I am in the mood for it anyhow.. I think I am enjoying the 'atheistical colloquium' too much not for its scientific approach but for its moronity and rabid overture!

 

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


Einstein was more of a pantheist on the lines of Spinoza rather than a straightforward theist. Here's a quote from him:



See this page for more of Einstein's views on god:

Einstein on God

Peace

I've seen that site before. All I can say is something seems to be out of context. That is not the Einstein I met in 1952. In 1952 he was a summer guest of one of my neighbors and 6th Grade Teacher, Giles Desmond. I spent quite a bit of time talking with him that summer, being a young kid I simply saw him as a kind old man. I was very much impressed with his religious attitude. Often when we were float fishing on the Farmington River he would attempt to explain to me how he had seen the work of a creator in everything he had seen. I was a bit young to grasp his concepts of relativity and thought I was teaching him how to bait a fish hook. He thought he was explaining to me about how all things can be reduced to nothing if it was not for the existance of God(swt).

Those quotes are quite in contrast to what I saw in him as a man.

 

[ranma1/2]

Lets go through an exercise, shalll we?

(for anyone who wants to participate)

Q1 - If there was no God, how did everything we have in nature and non-nature come to be?

(one word answers are welcome....i know the answer most of you will give, but for fun's sake, entertain me )

god did it does not answer how. all it is is a answer that tells us nothing.

teh GFSM did it. see that doesnt answer anything.

As for how there are several scientific theories. I suggest looking up the basics of cosmology for starters.


edit, dang it this is a resurected thread..

Oh well medium resurrectrion spell say level 7 for something 2 years old.

 

[جوري]

I've seen that site before. All I can say is something seems to be out of context. That is not the Einstein I met in 1952. In 1952 he was a summer guest of one of my neighbors and 6th Grade Teacher, Giles Desmond. I spent quite a bit of time talking with him that summer, being a young kid I simply saw him as a kind old man. I was very much impressed with his religious attitude. Often when we were float fishing on the Farmington River he would attempt to explain to me how he had seen the work of a creator in everything he had seen. I was a bit young to grasp his concepts of relativity and thought I was teaching him how to bait a fish hook. He thought he was explaining to me about how all things can be reduced to nothing if it was not for the existance of God(swt).

Those quotes are quite in contrast to what I saw in him as a man.

^^ I have bought the book you recommended Einstein's Universe 978-0517385708
well let you know how it pans out insha'Allah..

 

[Isambard]

It would seem you lived an interesting life Woodrow.

In response to the thread. I just want to address the statement that all of existance is proof of Gods existance. I think ppl are simply attributing it based on ignorance as to what a "godless universe" would look like.

To give an example why this is silly; "All of existance is proof that Mars is red".

In regards to weak/strong atheist, Id say alot of atheists are actually both. Even agnostics, deists and even most theists are the majority of the time strong atheists.

This is because the deities of almost all formal religions can be tested for at least indirectly.

This can be done either thru science, logic, or just believing your faith to be superior.

Im only a weak atheist when it comes to the deist God. He left as an undefined abstract which I then have no way to prove/disprove so it would be dishonest of me to say it doesnt exist.

 

[جوري]

It would seem you lived an interesting life Woodrow.

Live(s) an interesting life wal7mdlilah! rabena yitwal fi 3omro and yi7asen 3amaloh Ameen

In response to the thread. I just want to address the statement that all of existance is proof of Gods existance. I think ppl are simply attributing it based on ignorance as to what a "godless universe" would look like.

Maybe you can eleborate on that a little..

To give an example why this is silly; "All of existance is proof that Mars is red".

I think you are reverting back to your old ways with nonsensical questions and/or conclusions to which I believe Br. woodrow's earlier post to you would be appropriate here too!

this is one of the first questions brought up in both Debating 101 and Philosophy 101.

The point being if something looks like a question and sounds like a question it does not mean it is a question.

A logical as that sounds as a question, it is actually an excercise in nonsensical recognition.

This is like asking the classic question of:

If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half.
How many pancakes would it take to shingle a dog house?

The first part of the Question:



Now to a person that is not educated or has very limited knowledge, that looks like a question. But is it? Is it a question or is a nonsence phrase under the grammatical formation of a question.


Place any other quality in place of correct, let the quality be either true, false or nonsence. The question does not pass the scrutiny of being able to be replaced with other qualities and sound rational.

For example:


Is God tall because he is God?

Is God purple because he is God?

Is God strong because he is God?


Any quality can be placed in there and the problem is we still do not have a question, we have a statement that is based upon cause and effect when what we have is state of being and neither a condition of cause and effect.

Question 2 is a fallacy. By definition of a supreme God, there can only be one God, so question two is a moot point as it is an impossibility by definition.

Children playing in philosophy 101 only serve to illustrate their own ignorance by their inability to formulate legitimate questions. The simplest fool can ask more questions than the wisest man can answer.

In regards to weak/strong atheist, Id say alot of atheists are actually both. Even agnostics, deists and even most theists are the majority of the time strong atheists.

You have run a study on that? or just a hunch?

This is because the deities of almost all formal religions can be tested for at least indirectly.

How do you test for a deity?

This can be done either thru science, logic, or just believing your faith to be superior.

That is a little incoherent, especially the very last assertion!

Im only a weak atheist when it comes to the deist God. He left as an undefined abstract which I then have no way to prove/disprove so it would be dishonest of me to say it doesnt exist.

As good a reason as any to spend ones life being an atheist!

cheers

 

[Muezzin]

The fact that people, with all the dictionaries of the Internet available to them, still spell 'existence' with an 'a' is proof enough that nobody will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists. It's a matter of faith.

Like my faith in spelling tests...

 

[Omari]

nobody will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists. It's a matter of faith.

Isn't the proof of the authencity of the Quran sufficient enough to prove that it's god's word and by extention prove the existAnce of god? [existence]