The existence of God

[czgibson]

Greetings Silver Pearl,

Really? i wouldn't quite say that, what has been identified and cleared due to founding new scientific evidence which answer queries that we were unable to do so before is not the same as miracle.

That's the point I'm making isn't it? Since there are possible scientific explanations for events such as the raising of the dead and the parting of the Red Sea, that would appear to make the chances of them actually being miracles much more remote.

How can science explain Jesus' (pbuh) birth? (note that in Islam Mary-may Allah bless her was not married or touched by any man).

Personally I would explain the Virgin Birth of Jesus as being a myth attached to the Christian belief-system well after Jesus had died. The Qur'an was written at a time when this belief would have been around for some time. There are also several linguistic questions that suggest the story is doubtful - see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth

How can science explain how people were able to see the angle of death?

I don't know. When was the last time anyone saw the angel of death?

How can people explain how Solomon could communicate with Jinn and control the wind? Those are factors of miracle.

I think the first question should be: what is the evidence that Solomon actually possessed these abilities?

Hence why Science won't be able to prove the non-existence of God nonetheless it may prove God’s existence.

Do you mean that science might discover god somehow?

Did the plant make the person's heart stop beating? Only then can it be considered 'death' state So care to share this plant?

I was wrong. The drug I'm referring to is not found in a plant, but in the pufferfish. In voodoo ceremonies, it is believed by some anthropologists to be present in near lethal doses in a powder known as coup de poudre. Accounts disagree on exactly what the ingredients of this powder are, but the key ingredient seems to be the drug tetrodotoxin.

Tetrodotoxin

You go simply on creating an ideology to support your claim, I'm not saying i believe that, simply it doesn't make sense unless you're just being ambigious with what you been by circle square, one shape can be inside the other or someone could name their child circle square (why is beyond me). However, your comparison is of different issue and your hypothesis is hoping that the answer to question will make it better.

You said:

No it isn't unlikely, just because we find it hard to comprehend such an event occuring does not make its probability weak.

I'm simply showing an example where this is not the case.

Or could it have not been that Apes came from us?

Not as far as anyone knows. Here's a quote from the wikipedia entry on apes:

Current understanding is that the apes diverged from the Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago. The lesser and greater apes split about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happen 14 mya (Pongo), 7 mya (Gorilla), and 6 mya (Homo & Pan).

Also what are the chances that things will just randomly evolve till humans came about?

Evolution contains random and non-random elements. Natural selection is not random, but is determined by brute survival rates.

You mean everyone's goal ultimately is to survive, which tends to be expressed subconsciencely?

The goal of every species is to survive.

So you're saying chance and random change has nothing to do with evolving?

Chance, maybe; as for random change, I'm not sure what you mean.

Yes it is a matter of choice, are you saying that it is not logical that smoking is bad?

(Bad for your health, I assume you mean.)

No, but...

are you saying it is not logical to see that murder is wrong?

I would agree with this. Placing a value-judgment on something is not a matter of logic, even if it is something most people agree with like murder. It's a question of ethics.

Ultimately emotions are what clouds us from logic.

And emotions can determine choice, can they not?

It isn't because i didn't want to tell you, i just felt you didn't need to know as it was irrelevant but i suppose i'll make up something and may be you could then try and answer it. Eternal sadness and agony

I'm sorry for my misunderstandings. Could you restate the question and I'll try to answer it?

How can you define one? What is 2? Maths is one of those subjects with no real answer to why such is right. We are taught from a small age that 1+1=2 thus we have acquired such knowledge and never stopped to question it.

You're quite right. How silly of me. (I'm doubly annoyed because I've made this point myself on a number of occasions!)

OK, how about an example from logic - one which can be proven:

The statement "A = not A" is definitely false.

That sentence contains a self evident truth. I do not believe we have any choice about accepting it. This is very different from accepting a religion, whose truths will be synthetic, yet unverifiable, and so will therefore require a choice. Choosing to accept something as true is very close to simply having an opinion.

Peace

 

[Silver Pearl]

Greetings Callum,

That's the point I'm making isn't it? Since there are possible scientific explanations for events such as the raising of the dead and the parting of the Red Sea, that would appear to make the chances of them actually being miracles much more remote.

You can't always rely on possibility but anyways, science does not explain raising from death. The abscence of life, death, can only be defined when one is no longer in the state of living. In order for one not to be alive they can no longer have any of the 7 qualities required for something to be labled as living such as movement, respiration etc. Now have humans explained how a person who died came to life and how could this have been proven?

Bring forth substancial Scientific evidence...

Personally I would explain the Virgin Birth of Jesus as being a myth attached to the Christian belief-system well after Jesus had died. The Qur'an was written at a time when this belief would have been around for some time. There are also several linguistic questions that suggest the story is doubtful - see here:

Once again doubt only comes in because people are so pessimistic. For us we can't imagine how any human can be born only from one parent. It doesn't make it impossible simply becomes we are incompetent of comprehending it. Also the site isn't helpful much, It address biblical quotes and not islamic quotes

I don't know. When was the last time anyone saw the angel of death?

Well not exactly yesterday, a long time but i'm sure i can't resurrect those who witnessed these angels if that is what you imply.

I think the first question should be: what is the evidence that Solomon actually possessed these abilities?

Again your arguement is weak and has no substance, Why would history just elevate certain people to have such powers? What do they gain from it? Neither of us can bring Solomon to the jury box so may be we'll leave you to find out these answers for yourself.

Do you mean that science might discover god somehow?

No, God can't be discovered, We'd have to travel, God knows the length, to reach his throne. I meant simply that people have this misconception that Science and religion contradict one another when it is actually that most of the time they aid one another. Science explains the How and Religion explains the Why....If we gain enough knowledge who knows what hidden truth may be relieved.

I was wrong. The drug I'm referring to is not found in a plant, but in the pufferfish. In voodoo ceremonies, it is believed by some anthropologists to be present in near lethal doses in a powder known as coup de poudre. Accounts disagree on exactly what the ingredients of this powder are, but the key ingredient seems to be the drug tetrodotoxin.

So basically people haven't really discovered the whole ingredient that made people seem dead. supposedly Also How can one seem dead? Did their heart stop beating completely? because it is only then that one can be said to be dead....and how did they measure their heart beat? Did they have the relevant equipment.

I'm simply showing an example where this is not the case.

Not really, you merely just put forth an imaginary statement played on language cleverly. Your description of your object can easily be metaphorical. Also you didn't specify what the 'circle square' thing or being was.

Not as far as anyone knows.

Science is developing, there is always plenty of room for error. I ask again do you think that it is possible that Apes could have evolved from us or that pigs could have also evolved from us?

Evolution contains random and non-random elements. Natural selection is not random, but is determined by brute survival rates.

So where does recessive gene come into this? Sometimes species will take on unuseful qualities. Why, What, Who and How does natural selection determine when it is relevant to take place?

The goal of every species is to survive.

So you agree with my statement then. So why do humans strive to survive if really there is no point to their living except to die and rot away in their graves? What was the point for the process of evolution to take place? How did the universe come about?

I'm sure you'll brush my questions under the carpet and state you don't have the answers but if you don't have the answers, i can only wonder how much you've really thought about your views. Not to sound rude or anything, if i do, my mistake it wasn't intended.

Chance, maybe; as for random change, I'm not sure what you mean.

Constant mutation where there is not the slightest trace of any negative out put but rather very beneficial consequences occuring from it.

No, but...

No but.....what?

I would agree with this. Placing a value-judgment on something is not a matter of logic, even if it is something most people agree with like murder. It's a question of ethics.

Forget about other people's ideology and morality for a split second and try and persuade me that there is no logicality in seeing smoking as being bad for ones health.

And emotions can determine choice, can they not?

No, emotion is part of humans, it is both a blessing and danger at times but it does not determine our choices.

I'm sorry for my misunderstandings. Could you restate the question and I'll try to answer it?

Don't worry about it.....

You're quite right. How silly of me. (I'm doubly annoyed because I've made this point myself on a number of occasions!)

OK, how about an example from logic - one which can be proven:

The statement "A = not A" is definitely false.

Once again i'm going to have to prove you to be incorrect about your assumption. 'A=not A' can be true because the compliment of A means that which is not A thus your statement is true and not false when it comes to Compliments.

This is very different from accepting a religion, whose truths will be synthetic, yet unverifiable, and so will therefore require a choice. Choosing to accept something as true is very close to simply having an opinion.

Once again i'm going to have to disagree with you, maths does not show more truth in its formulas than the truth (you'll probably disagree with the word i've used) Me, Ansar and others have put forth. If anything you could say that the truth we speak of is more reliable than going on 'self evident truth' which can contradict itself if you look at another part of maths.

Faith aid us when it comes to accepting truth. Faith, A quality which all humans have. May be we try and lose this asset on purpose...

peace,

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Callum ,
In case you didn't notice...
http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...m-evil-temp-split-teog-thread.html#post124118

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Silver Pearl,

You can't always rely on possibility but anyways, science does not explain raising from death.

I don't think you've understood me. A scientist would say that anyone who was said to have been raised from the dead was never really dead to begin with, people just thought they were. That is the scientific explanation of the stories you refer to.

Once again doubt only comes in because people are so pessimistic. For us we can't imagine how any human can be born only from one parent. It doesn't make it impossible simply becomes we are incompetent of comprehending it. Also the site isn't helpful much, It address biblical quotes and not islamic quotes

The Islamic belief in the Virgin Birth has only arisen because Christians believe it. You may say otherwise, but I'm convinced that that is a fact.

Well not exactly yesterday, a long time but i'm sure i can't resurrect those who witnessed these angels if that is what you imply.

No, I'm simply implying that people may have claimed to have seen the angel of death a long time ago, but what does that prove? People claim to have seen all sorts of unbelievable things, particularly in stories from long ago.

Again your arguement is weak and has no substance, Why would history just elevate certain people to have such powers? What do they gain from it? Neither of us can bring Solomon to the jury box so may be we'll leave you to find out these answers for yourself.

Sorry, but that's not a weak argument! History has not done what you claim it has done. Again, what is the evidence?

I meant simply that people have this misconception that Science and religion contradict one another when it is actually that most of the time they aid one another.

Have you never heard of the many scientists who were persecuted by religious authorities for their practices and beliefs?

So basically people haven't really discovered the whole ingredient that made people seem dead. supposedly Also How can one seem dead? Did their heart stop beating completely? because it is only then that one can be said to be dead....and how did they measure their heart beat? Did they have the relevant equipment.

No. Again, people only believed they were dead, when in fact, of course, they were alive the whole time. With regard to the "relevant equipment", did people have such equipment in the raisings from the dead that you are advocating?

Not really, you merely just put forth an imaginary statement played on language cleverly. Your description of your object can easily be metaphorical. Also you didn't specify what the 'circle square' thing or being was.

1. Thank you for the "cleverly", but that was no imaginary statement. It was a real statement. Neither you nor I imagined it.

2. So what if my object is metaphorical? Maybe the feeding of thousands with one meal was metaphorical too.

3. I specified that it was a round square. If you have difficulty in conceiving this object, this merely shows that something which is difficult to comprehend is less likely to be believed, my original point.

Science is developing, there is always plenty of room for error. I ask again do you think that it is possible that Apes could have evolved from us or that pigs could have also evolved from us?

No, I do not think those are possibilities. We come from the same family as the apes, and apes in general have been around a lot longer than we have. We are not related to pigs so far as I know, although if you have an alternative theory on this I'm ready to listen.

So where does recessive gene come into this? Sometimes species will take on unuseful qualities.

You mean a non-beneficial mutation? That is due to mutation being unpredictable.

Why, What, Who and How does natural selection determine when it is relevant to take place?

Species that have an advantageous mutation will tend to survive in greater numbers, and thus the mutation will be passed on to more offspring. That is natural selection. Have you never heard of it before?

So you agree with my statement then. So why do humans strive to survive if really there is no point to their living except to die and rot away in their graves?

I do basically agree with your statement, yes.

Humans want to survive in order to produce offspring and ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

What was the point for the process of evolution to take place? How did the universe come about?

Two very different questions, but the answer to both is the same - I don't know.

I'm sure you'll brush my questions under the carpet and state you don't have the answers but if you don't have the answers, i can only wonder how much you've really thought about your views. Not to sound rude or anything, if i do, my mistake it wasn't intended.

You're absolutely right, I don't have the answers, and I'm happy to admit it. They're not particularly urgent questions for me, to be honest. Oh yes, and be assured that I have thought about my belief-system very carefully.

Constant mutation where there is not the slightest trace of any negative out put but rather very beneficial consequences occuring from it.

Mutation is never entirely positive. It's most often negative, in fact, but one negative mutation usually dies out pretty quickly.

No but.....what?

Sorry - I meant "No, but.... I agree with this." I should have expressed it more clearly.

Forget about other people's ideology and morality for a split second and try and persuade me that there is no logicality in seeing smoking as being bad for ones health.

I agree with you about smoking, as I said in my last post. In the section you've quoted, I was talking about murder. You said murder was wrong, and I agree, but that view has nothing to do with logic, since it entails a value-judgment. (It seems we're not understanding each other, since we're having to repeat ourselves a lot.)

No, emotion is part of humans, it is both a blessing and danger at times but it does not determine our choices.

Emotion does not determine our choices? I'm very confused by that.

I like strawberries, but I don't like carrots. Therefore, given the choice, I would choose strawberries, since they produce a pleasant emotional response in me. What could be simpler than that?

Once again i'm going to have to prove you to be incorrect about your assumption. 'A=not A' can be true because the compliment of A means that which is not A thus your statement is true and not false when it comes to Compliments.

:-\

"The complement of A" is not the same as "not A", though, is it? Your definition is incorrect.

Once again i'm going to have to disagree with you, maths does not show more truth in its formulas than the truth (you'll probably disagree with the word i've used) Me, Ansar and others have put forth. If anything you could say that the truth we speak of is more reliable than going on 'self evident truth' which can contradict itself if you look at another part of maths.

These are different kinds of truth, clearly. Also, self-evident truth cannot be self-contradictory, by definition.

Faith aid us when it comes to accepting truth. Faith, A quality which all humans have. May be we try and lose this asset on purpose...

I have faith in certain things, for instance I have faith (not knowledge) that the sun will rise tomorrow, but when it comes to truth I prefer to rely on knowledge, if possible.

Peace

 

[muslim dude]

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

Sorry for the late reply.

Don't worry. I think we are both in the same boat in the sense our work commitments means that we will find it slow to respond.

So, in essense it is being said that you will find it hard to accept a statement from anyone without thinking about it and without any reasonable evidence, basically if someone says a statement and that is it.

That's what I mean, yes.

Al-Hamdulilah, thanks for teaching me about the concept of argument from authority. You are a credit to your profession of teaching.

OK, but that obviously depends to what extent you believe the Qur'an is reliable evidence.

Al-Hamdulilah, I am glad you have stated it is an evidence of some sort. I just wanted to explain that muslims in general don't just rely on argument from authority, but also makes use of corroborating evidence. You may reject the evidence but you are not denying the existence of the evidence of God. Hence, your original point of muslims only relying on argument from authority has been proved false.

Reading the Qur'an, I find it very hard to accept that it is anything other than a product of human endeavour. I've read books where it is hard for me to understand how a human could have produced them (such as the works of Shakespeare), but the Qur'an has never given me this impression. I'm talking subjectively now, but the case for the Qur'an having been written by god is far from proven.

So if you don't mind me asking czgibson, are you an expert in the field of poetries, stories, knowledge of this world, nature of this world, actions and motivations of men, eloquence and so forth? If so, do you have credentials to back it up or do you expect us to accept your expertise purely based on argument from authority?

(Qur'an, Chapter 49 (Al-Hujraat: The Chambers): 6)
"O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done."

On the otherhand, billions of people throughout current and past times have read the Qur'an and have accepted the statements in it....

(Qur'an, Chapter 40 (Ghafir/Al-Mu'min: The Forgiver/The Believer): 1 - 3)
"Hâ-Mîm."
"The revelation of the Book (this Qur'ân) is from Allâh the All-Mighty, the All-Knower."
"The Forgiver of sin, the Acceptor of repentance, the Severe in punishment, the Bestower (of favours), Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), to Him is the final return."

There are statements in it that explicity states that it is not a product of human endeavour, but is indeed the Word of God (hence corroborating evidence of God). Not only has it got statements such as these, but it contains other verses (i.e. statements) that talks about both the seen and unseen knowledge in such as way that it is the irrefutable Word of God. How do we know? Well we are humans ourselves and most of us when we are sincere in the seeking the truth, hence we are not too arrogant to acknowledge the limits of human ability and so humble enough to admit, we cannot better the writings in this glorious book.


(Qur'an, Chapter 4 (An-Nisa: The Women): 82)
"Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions."

(Qur'an, Chapter 10 (Yunus: [Prophet] Jonah): 37)
"And this Qur'ân is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allâh (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurât (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinns,and all that exists)."

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 34)
"Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'ân) if they are truthful."

Now one person who claims that they find it very hard to accept Qur'an can only be from God (perhaps this person has not got enough understanding of the limits of human ability) but then at the same time claims the likes of Shakespeare is not the product of human endeavour (thus implying divine origin) seem a little strange to say the least! And what's more amazing is that as far as I know, none of the works of Shakespeare make any claims of it's divine origin (and Allah knows best).

So do you have corroborating evidence to back up you point about the works of Shakespeare being of divine origin or do we have to rely on argument from authority?

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 43)
"Or have they an ilâh (a god) other than Allâh? Glorified be Allâh from all that they ascribe as partners (to Him)"

Quote: (Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 10 - 14)
"He it is Who sends down water (rain) from the sky; from it you drink and from it (grows) the vegetation on which you send your cattle to pasture"

It's perfectly possible to understand how rain comes about without needing to bring god into it.

Sure it is, to a superficial level... but you gain a better and more significant understanding if you dig a little deeper...

Quote:
"With it He causes to grow for you the crops, the olives, the date-palms, the grapes, and every kind of fruit. Verily! In this is indeed an evident proof and a manifest sign for people who give thought."

Rain is proof that god exists? Sorry, that is just strange.

Yep, this is correct. The existence of rain is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of crops is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of olives is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of date-palms is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of grapes is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of every kind of fruit is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.

Quote:
"And He has subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon; and the stars are subjected by His Command. Surely, in this are proofs for people who understand."

The existence of subjection of the night and the day is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of subjection of the sun and the moon and the stars is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.

They did not exist before a point in time, then they existed after a point in time and they operate in a non-random manner. That is a quite a lot of corroborating evidence!

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 17 - 19)
"Is then He, Who creates as one who creates not? Will you not then remember?"
"And if you would count the graces of Allâh, never could you be able to count them. Truly! Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
"And Allâh knows what you conceal and what you reveal."

What is all this nonsense about "people who give thought" and "people who understand"? The person who wrote that obviously had no understanding of how rain, day and night actually come about, and so decided to attribute it to god, so that other people who didn't understand would have a way of explaining it.

My understanding about why God stated advise about "people who give thought" and "people who understand" is that maybe God wants you to not just rely on argument from authority but also check out the corroborating evidence and think deeply about them...

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 35-36)
"Were they created by nothing, or were they they themselves the creators?"
"Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay but they have no firm Belief."

(Qur'an, Chapter 30 (Ar-Rum: The Romans): 8)
"Do they not think deeply (in their ownselves) about themselves (how Allâh created them from nothing, and similarly He will resurrect them)? Allâh has created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, except with truth and for an appointed term. And indeed many of mankind deny the Meeting with their Lord. [See Tafsir At-Tabarî, Part 21, Page 24]."

(Qur'an, Chapter 19 (Maryam: Mary): 67)
"Does not man remember that We created him before, while he was nothing? "

 

[muslim dude]

You've made a number of points that need addressing separately, so forgive me for breaking up your sentences like this:

I will forgive you as long as you forgive me breaking up your post into several posts

Quote:
but at the very least it will be hard to deny that God had told you to think about the various things of this world

As far as I'm aware, god has told me nothing.

So why are claiming the God has not told you anything when God has revealed in His Book:

(Qur'an, Chapter 20 (Ta-Ha): 14)
"Verily! I am Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As*Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) for My Remembrance"

Quote:
(i.e. you don't have to worry about verifying Paradise)

If I'm being asked to believe in Paradise, I'd like to have some evidence for it.

As has been stated before, belief in the unseen will come about only after establising that the One who has made these statements is our Creator and Sustainer and is the only one worthy of worship. And God was so kind and merciful to us that He gave us corroborating evidence from the seen (i.e. perceivable) knowledge! Truly, Allah is Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim.

Imagine I told you that after we die we all go and live in an ice cream factory on Jupiter - you'd quite rightly want some evidence for this belief.

If I then told you that you don't need to worry about verifying it,
you should just believe it anyway, I expect you would think I had an odd belief, and I'd be surprised if you accepted it.

Right again teacher, so as a student, I would research and look for corroborating evidence. I would discover that man has yet to go to Mars let alone Jupiter and also discover that there are no ice cream factories have been created in this planet that can survive in a planet mostly made up of gas.

Seeing as this is not materialistically possible with our current technology, it would seem like the teacher is claiming knowledge of the unseen which will mean that we shall need to establish if the one who is making this claim is the Creator and the Sustainer of the seen and unseen, and hence worthy of worship.

So, inorder to assess if this one is worthy of worship, they will need to pass this criteria:

(Qur'an, Chapter 112 (Al-Iklhas: The Purity): 1 - 4)
"Say (O Muhammad (pbuh)): He is Allâh, (the) One."
"Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks)."
"He begets not, nor was He begotten;"
"there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."

hmmm.... so czgibson pass does not pass the criteria without a shadow of a doubt! Hence he is not worthy of worship, hence he does not posses the knowledge of the unseen, hence there cannot possibly an ice cream factory in jupiter just based on czgibson's statement, and this point has been proved true without just relying on argument from authority, but I used corroborating evidence, the Noble Qur'an.

(Qur'an, Chapter 12 (Yusuf: [Prophet Joseph]): 111)
"Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allâh's existing Books [the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allâh] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe."

"And (remember) the Day when We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst themselves. And We shall bring you (O Muhammad ) as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allâh as Muslims)."

Well, it's not a hugely wondrous idea to conclude that rain exists. Just because rain exists, that doesn't imply that the things which can't be verified exist too. If that were the case, I could easily make this argument:

Rain exists, therefore the ice cream factory on Jupiter exists.

What? Now are you stating that the ice cream factory on Jupiter caused the rain to exist? Surely not?!!!

Now, this is an argument from authority unless you have further corroborating evidences. Did this factory create the heavens and the earth and everything between? Is it sustaining everything that exists? Did the ice cream factory on Jupiter send down a book to mankind for guidence? How many people worship this ice cream factory on jupiter then?

Quote:
Once the truth value of the statements referring to "seen" knowledge has been ascertained by oneself, then it means that you would accept the Qur'an as a proof of God and the word of God, thus accepting what the Qur'an refers to "unseen" knowedge (such as Paradise) at face value becames a logical conclusion.

It would have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with faith in authority.

I am really sorry, but your counter-point in relation to the point that was made above does not make sense. I am
pretty sure, the original point made above was logical...

 

[muslim dude]

If I wanted to understand how rain comes about, I would ask a scientist.

Why ask scientist?
Do you have blind faith in them?
Do you use them as argument from authority?
Do they have knowledge of the unseen?

I will assume you will answer the last three questions with a no. In fact, it will probably be safe to state that the reason you ask them is they have some knowledge of the "seen" (i.e. perceivable knowledge) based on corroborating evidences.

Right, so what is a scientist then? Someone who "has" science.
So what would this science be then? Is there a teacher in the house?!

the word "science" comes from the Latin root scientia, which means "knowing"

Al-Hamdulilah, did I not say you were credit to your profession, czgibson?!

Hey did you know the arabic word for knowledge is "ilm"?
One who posseses knowledge is "mu'alim" which is derived from "ilm" which is also the word used for "teacher".

Also, "Islam" means submitting to the Will of Allah and "muslim" means the one who does "Islam".

Guess what? Al-Hamdulilah, the Lord of all that exists, has blessed a lot of his creation with some of His Knowledge by His permission, including the muslims in this forum!

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): some of 255)
"... And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. ..."

I guess this makes us muslim scientists, henceforth you can ask us how rain comes about, and thus you can have confidence in our answer as scientists, when we state with our corroborating evidences that it comes by the will of Allah, Glory be to Him.

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 40)
"Verily, Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: 'Be!' - and it is."

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

Al-Hamdulilah, thanks for teaching me about the concept of argument from authority. You are a credit to your profession of teaching.

It's kind of you to say so.

Al-Hamdulilah, I am glad you have stated it is an evidence of some sort.

I don't recall stating it was evidence of any kind, but for the record I believe it is evidence of the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) and little more. Sorry to speak about your holy book in this reductive way, but that is my view, based on my minimal acquaintance with the book.

I just wanted to explain that muslims in general don't just rely on argument from authority, but also makes use of corroborating evidence. You may reject the evidence but you are not denying the existence of the evidence of God. Hence, your original point of muslims only relying on argument from authority has been proved false.

I am denying the existence of evidence of god. While I would not say that Muslims rely only on the argument from authority in justifying their faith to non-believers, I would say that it appears to be the form of argument that is used most commonly

So if you don't mind me asking czgibson, are you an expert in the field of poetries, stories, knowledge of this world, nature of this world, actions and motivations of men, eloquence and so forth?

That's a difficult question to answer without sounding arrogant. With regard to poetry, stories and eloquence, the answer is yes for works of Western literature, no for works of the East.

As for knowledge of the world, the nature of the world and men's motivations, I know enough to get by, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert.

If so, do you have credentials to back it up or do you expect us to accept your expertise purely based on argument from authority?

I have a Master's degree in English and Philosophy, but even with credentials it's still an argument from authority! Whether you accept it or not is your choice, of course.

On the otherhand, billions of people throughout current and past times have read the Qur'an and have accepted the statements in it....

The same is true for many other books, such as the Bible, but that does not mean it contains the truth.

There are statements in it that explicity states that it is not a product of human endeavour, but is indeed the Word of God (hence corroborating evidence of God).

I would not see that as corroborating evidence, since it is an assertion that cannot be verified; it can only be accepted on its own authority.

Not only has it got statements such as these, but it contains other verses (i.e. statements) that talks about both the seen and unseen knowledge in such as way that it is the irrefutable Word of God. How do we know? Well we are humans ourselves and most of us when we are sincere in the seeking the truth, hence we are not too arrogant to acknowledge the limits of human ability and so humble enough to admit, we cannot better the writings in this glorious book.

In my view, nobody can better the writing of James Joyce or Will Shakespeare, but I don't believe their words are the words of god.

Now one person who claims that they find it very hard to accept Qur'an can only be from God (perhaps this person has not got enough understanding of the limits of human ability) but then at the same time claims the likes of Shakespeare is not the product of human endeavour (thus implying divine origin) seem a little strange to say the least! And what's more amazing is that as far as I know, none of the works of Shakespeare make any claims of it's divine origin (and Allah knows best).

True, but I never claimed Shakepeare's works to be of divine origin. I simply said I find it hard to understand how someone could have written them (i.e. he was an extraordinarily talented writer).

Sure it is, to a superficial level... but you gain a better and more significant understanding if you dig a little deeper...

I don't see how bringing god into things helps anyone's understanding of rain.

Yep, this is correct. The existence of rain is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of crops is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of olives is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of date-palms is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of grapes is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of every kind of fruit is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.

I don't understand why you think this is the case.

The existence of subjection of the night and the day is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.
The existence of subjection of the sun and the moon and the stars is a corroborating evidence of existence of God.

What do you mean by 'subjection' here?

They did not exist before a point in time, then they existed after a point in time and they operate in a non-random manner. That is a quite a lot of corroborating evidence!

Not really, just a list of assertions which you've connected to god.

My understanding about why God stated advise about "people who give thought" and "people who understand" is that maybe God wants you to not just rely on argument from authority but also check out the corroborating evidence and think deeply about them...

Good point, but so far I haven't seen anything that I would consider to be good corroborating evidence.

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Hello again,

I will forgive you as long as you forgive me breaking up your post into several posts

So why are claiming the God has not told you anything when God has revealed in His Book:

(Qur'an, Chapter 20 (Ta-Ha): 14)
"Verily! I am Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me, and perform As*Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) for My Remembrance"

You're assuming god wrote the book, which, as I've said, I don't believe to be the case.

Right again teacher, so as a student, I would research and look for corroborating evidence. I would discover that man has yet to go to Mars let alone Jupiter and also discover that there are no ice cream factories have been created in this planet that can survive in a planet mostly made up of gas.

So you wouldn't believe it because there's no evidence to support the idea. That's exactly my point of view regarding god.

hmmm.... so czgibson pass does not pass the criteria without a shadow of a doubt! Hence he is not worthy of worship, hence he does not posses the knowledge of the unseen, hence there cannot possibly an ice cream factory in jupiter just based on czgibson's statement, and this point has been proved true without just relying on argument from authority, but I used corroborating evidence, the Noble Qur'an.

I don't know why I would need to be worthy of worship in order to be believed. You say you used something other than the argument from authority, but the quotes you gave from the Qur'an rely solely on the authority of the Qur'an if they are to be credited at all.

(Qur'an, Chapter 12 (Yusuf: [Prophet Joseph]): 111)
"Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allâh's existing Books [the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allâh] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe."

(I'm always suspicious of anything that defends its own veracity so strongly. If its true, people ought to be able to see that without these extra assertions. In an English idiom (from Shakespeare), this is known as "protesting too much".)

What? Now are you stating that the ice cream factory on Jupiter caused the rain to exist? Surely not?!!!

Of course not. I'm using your own logic to show the absurdity (as I see it) of the case you're making.

Now, this is an argument from authority unless you have further corroborating evidences. Did this factory create the heavens and the earth and everything between? Is it sustaining everything that exists? Did the ice cream factory on Jupiter send down a book to mankind for guidence? How many people worship this ice cream factory on jupiter then?

Let's get it straight: I'm not claiming that this factory does exist, just that there's as much evidence for it existing as there is for god existing.

I am really sorry, but your counter-point in relation to the point that was made above does not make sense. I am
pretty sure, the original point made above was logical...

So: rain exists, therefore god exists, therefore the Qur'an is true, therefore paradise exists? Is that really the argument you're putting forward here, or have I misunderstood you? If that is the argument you're making, there is nothing logically binding about it - it is purely faith-based.

Why ask scientist?

Because scientists are able to explain many of the operations of the natural world. It is their chief area of study.

Do you have blind faith in them?

Certainly not. They're as fallible as anyone else.

Do you use them as argument from authority?

Sometimes, maybe.

Do they have knowledge of the unseen?

They have knowledge of gases and microscopic things that can't be seen by the human eye - do they count?

I will assume you will answer the last three questions with a no. In fact, it will probably be safe to state that the reason you ask them is they have some knowledge of the "seen" (i.e. perceivable knowledge) based on corroborating evidences.

Right, so what is a scientist then? Someone who "has" science.
So what would this science be then? Is there a teacher in the house?!

A scientist is someone who investigates phenomena and constructs hypotheses based on experiment and observation which (hopefully) lead to theories that can explain aforementioned phenomena. The explanations they produce, gathered together, form the body of what we know as science.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

Hey did you know the arabic word for knowledge is "ilm"?
One who posseses knowledge is "mu'alim" which is derived from "ilm" which is also the word used for "teacher".

I did not know this.

Also, "Islam" means submitting to the Will of Allah and "muslim" means the one who does "Islam".

I did know this.

Guess what? Al-Hamdulilah, the Lord of all that exists, has blessed a lot of his creation with some of His Knowledge by His permission, including the muslims in this forum!

You've been blessed with faith, certainly.

I guess this makes us muslim scientists, henceforth you can ask us how rain comes about, and thus you can have confidence in our answer as scientists, when we state with our corroborating evidences that it comes by the will of Allah, Glory be to Him.

That's not how I understand science, as you can see from my "instant definition" above. What experiments have you done on rain to find out how it comes about? Reading the Qur'an, to find the answer "it comes from god"?

(Qur'an, Chapter 16 (An-Nahl: The Bee): 40)
"Verily, Our Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: 'Be!' - and it is."

This quote sums up what I'm trying to say: what reason is there to believe it? What reason is there to believe that these words were not written by a human? Is there any reason other than the authority of the text itself?

Peace

 

[hidden_treasure]

i would like you to prove to me that there is no Creator........













la ilaha ilallah

 

[time_spender]

hmmm...
I think the problem with atheists is that they havent understood the truth of themselves.
when their logic is differet you will never satisfy them.
they should first learn about what they are..why they are the human of earth and why they are the only creatures that have the highest amount of choice...i think asking them about these stuffs will help them to come in the line
wasalaam

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

i would like you to prove to me that there is no Creator........

I can't do that, just as you can't prove that there is. Atheism is my belief; it's not something that can be proven.

hmmm...
I think the problem with atheists is that they havent understood the truth of themselves.
when their logic is differet you will never satisfy them.
they should first learn about what they are..why they are the human of earth and why they are the only creatures that have the highest amount of choice...i think asking them about these stuffs will help them to come in the line
wasalaam

I'd like to respond, but I'm not really sure what you mean here.

Peace

 

[time_spender]

i Czgibson
oh so you are the Atheist!!laying:
well...i mean first we should understand what we are.that will help us to

converse about God more easily.
Prophet(AS) said:"who understood himself found his God"
or Imam Ali(AS) said:"knowing yourself is the most beneficial knowledge"
so Czgibson,lets talk about the word "Human"
can you tell me what you think about human? what is he?
an animal just like others.execpt that he has a bigger brain and the power

to choose?? a unknown creature that changed till evolution made him like

this?:rollseyes

I will help you! We have a big brain and the power to choose
now give these tools to any other animal and he will become like us.ok?

My question is why WE? why why why?:?
under these whys you will find something blinking!
did i understand myself too you?
Ok...enough for now? continue


P.s.Czgibson do you believe in soul?
wasalam And Allah bless you all:brother:

 

[Silver Pearl]

Greeting to you too Callum,

Apologies for the late reply.

I don't think you've understood me. A scientist would say that anyone who was said to have been raised from the dead was never really dead to begin with, people just thought they were. That is the scientific explanation of the stories you refer to.

The holes in the theory of the statements made by your scientist is that they don't have prove that the person was never dead to start off with. How can they assess something unknown to them or could they travel back a thousand years and carry out their theory? (if so would i love to travel with them!)

The Islamic belief in the Virgin Birth has only arisen because Christians believe it. You may say otherwise, but I'm convinced that that is a fact.

Lets not be arrogant now Callum, I'm sure you're well aware of the danger of arrogance. Christianity and Islam have common grounds, after all the message was from the same lord so why shouldn't there be similarities? The story of Jesus (pbuh) arose because the same lord that gave Jesus (pbuh) the gospel gave muhammad (pbuh) the Qur'an.

To suggest that muhammad (pbuh) made a cult of his by taking certain teachings of other religion in itself is absurd.

No, I'm simply implying that people may have claimed to have seen the angel of death a long time ago, but what does that prove?

Would you consider seeing the angel of death a miracle?

People claim to have seen all sorts of unbelievable things, particularly in stories from long ago.

Don't catergorize myths and truth in the same place.

Sorry, but that's not a weak argument! History has not done what you claim it has done. Again,

Exactly my point....you agree with me, *shock horror* but i don't think you understand what i implied so look back if you wish.

Have you never heard of the many scientists who were persecuted by religious authorities for their practices and beliefs?

No need to get so patronising Callum. Of course i have, just because people have persecuted scientist does not mean that the two are contradictory to one another.

With regard to the "relevant equipment", did people have such equipment in the raisings from the dead that you are advocating?

A man had asked to be cremated due to fear of his fate if Allah (swt) resurrected him, the man thought he wouldn't be able to be ressurected if he was cremated but with the power of God he was. Would you like to tell me a man who after being scattered as ashes can still maintain life?

1. Thank you for the "cleverly", but that was no imaginary statement. It was a real statement. Neither you nor I imagined it.

The statement may be real but it does not make it true, its nature isn't true (if it were, you wouldn't have used it as an example). It is something you just conjured to try and prove a point.

2. So what if my object is metaphorical? Maybe the feeding of thousands with one meal was metaphorical too.

We are talking about Islam here, quoting teachings of christianity is irrelevant.

3. I specified that it was a round square. If you have difficulty in conceiving this object, this merely shows that something which is difficult to comprehend is less likely to be believed, my original point.

Likely to believed doesn't make it false.....

No, I do not think those are possibilities. We come from the same family as the apes, and apes in general have been around a lot longer than we have. We are not related to pigs so far as I know, although if you have an alternative theory on this I'm ready to listen.

As far as our limited knowledge goes, pigs and humans have no link?....Could the evidence, that we came from apes, not be refuted if more information was gained?is it not possible that the theory could be wrong? As for my theory.....

Species that have an advantageous mutation will tend to survive in greater numbers, and thus the mutation will be passed on to more offspring. That is natural selection. Have you never heard of it before?

Here we go again with the patronising tone, everyone who has reached YR 7 knows what natural selection is. However, there is the same chance that disadvantages mutation can be passed on, it works both ways.

I do basically agree with your statement, yes.

You could have said that the first time

Humans want to survive in order to produce offspring and ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

is the point of existence to merely die without life after that? Why would nature create something that has no purpose? Name one thing that nature has made that has No purpose what so ever. Quoting something humans don't understand quite well will not be accepted as an example.

Two very different questions, but the answer to both is the same - I don't know.

So how can you conclude as an atheist if you can't even answer the most important questions? isn't it almost like blind faith, after all you base your whole belief on blindness. Surely to call yourself an atheist, it must mean that you have found excellent answers to those questions which refute the existence of God.

You're absolutely right, I don't have the answers, and I'm happy to admit it. They're not particularly urgent questions for me, to be honest. Oh yes, and be assured that I have thought about my belief-system very carefully.

So it wouldnt really bother you that if tomorrow you died (god forbid) and it came to your knowledge that God existed and we were all right that perhaps things might not look so rosey for you?

Mutation is never entirely positive. It's most often negative, in fact, but one negative mutation usually dies out pretty quickly.

Not true, otherwise sickle cell aneamia would have been wiped out.

Sorry - I meant "No, but.... I agree with this." I should have expressed it more clearly.

No problem.

I agree with you about smoking, as I said in my last post. In the section you've quoted, I was talking about murder. You said murder was wrong, and I agree, but that view has nothing to do with logic, since it entails a value-judgment. (It seems we're not understanding each other, since we're having to repeat ourselves a lot.)

In your opinion it isn't logical that murder is morally wrong then?

yes it does seem that we are having to repeat ourselves frequently, as you fail to answer the fundamental questions i ask and also due to my misunderstanding of some of your statements.

Emotion does not determine our choices? I'm very confused by that.

Not in all cases, sometimes yes emotion does infuence our choices but at times it is possible to make a decision without being emotionally influenced.

I like strawberries, but I don't like carrots. Therefore, given the choice, I would choose strawberries, since they produce a pleasant emotional response in me. What could be simpler than that?

It is just the way your taste bud react to different substances, and our stimuli. For example i hate sprouts because it leaves this bitter taste in my mouth, it isn't because i get this tingly feeling of sadness in my stomach

"The complement of A" is not the same as "not A", though, is it? Your definition is incorrect.

nm. misunderstanding....

My statement is correct and so is yours, we are just both talking from different points.

These are different kinds of truth, clearly. QUOTE]

True and i guess we might not even agree on the definition of truth.

I have faith in certain things, for instance I have faith (not knowledge) that the sun will rise tomorrow, but when it comes to truth I prefer to rely on knowledge, if possible.

Alright,

I think it is time we came to an end on this discussion. I'm well-aware that i raised some questions but it isn't likely you'll be able to answer, due to limited knowledge on the issue humans have.

I think i'll end this intriguing discussion with the following:

You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion

It has been a pleasure discussing with you but for now i'll let you battle it out with muslim dude.

Regards

Silver Pearl

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

From my point of view, it seems like the debate is not going anyway in this manner. This thread is not for discussing evolution, please do so in the other threads. I think we need to stay on target here and stick only to the arguments atheists use against God and the arguments theists use for God. That's why I would prefer to continue our discussion on the problem of evil first, in the other thread.

 

[hidden_treasure]

Greetings,


I can't do that, just as you can't prove that there is. Atheism is my belief; it's not something that can be proven.



I'd like to respond, but I'm not really sure what you mean here.

Peace

hi there,

If we could prove that there is a creator..would you accept Islam as being the truth and become muslim???

 

[czgibson]

Greetings hidden treasure,

If we could prove that there is a creator..would you accept Islam as being the truth and become muslim???

The short answer is no, I wouldn't become a Muslim on that basis alone. Here's a more detailed answer:

If you could prove to me that the universe was created by some being at a particular point in time, I would probably become a theist of some kind. I'd then have to accept many other propositions before identifying that being as the god of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology, and many more propositions after that before becoming a Muslim.

(In all honesty, I don't think any of that is likely to happen.)

Peace

 

[muslim dude]

May Allah bestow His peace on these who are guided and may Allah bestow His peace on these who are not guided by guiding them to the straight path.

Insha'allah, I will split my response to czgibson into two sections...

(Sorry for the length and also for not answering all the points raised - I am just worried about going off-topic)

You've been blessed with faith, certainly.

Thanks for saying so. I would like to add faith is based on knowledge and blind faith is based on ignorance...

In my view, nobody can better the writing of James Joyce or Will Shakespeare, but I don't believe their words are the words of god.

Well, I did say these authors did not say their work was the word of God so it would have been pretty silly of you to believe so otherwise! Infact comparing the writings of James Joyce and Will Shakespeare to a book that is claimed to be the Word of God is a silly comparison as well!

The writings of James Joyce and Will Shakespeare would fall into the category of drama, entertainment. Although, analysing the quality of writings can be subjective, there are certain indications that can be used such as the popularity of the books across the cross-section of society and the influence it has on society. Even if you were to claim nobody can better these authors writings in the category of entertainment, this would not be an undisputed claim. Some people would prefer the works of JRR Tolkien, some prefer CS Lewis, several might like Jane Austin, others prefer Charles ****ens, Orwell etc. Infact, some people nowadays might say nobody can beat Rowling's Harry Potter interms of entertainment

However, the Qur'an would fall under the category of a book of guidance, hence can only be compared with other books of guidance (whether the others are revealed or man-made). The fact that the influence Qur'an has had in the past, since revelation 1400 years ago and the influence it is still having nowadays on all the cross-section of society, transcending across so many nations of differing people, languages and cultures, so much so that the teachings in it formed the basis of such a huge number of communities that it is undoubtedly, the undisputed number one book in the category of guidance. I cannot think of any other book that had such a profound effect since 1400 years ago on the human species!

You say you used something other than the argument from authority, but the quotes you gave from the Qur'an rely solely on the authority of the Qur'an if they are to be credited at all.

1)
Well, what I would say regarding this matter is, when someone is teaching another discipline, would you not expect them to refer to their sources of information? I mean surely you would expect a history teacher to teach from the history books, maths teacher from the maths book, english teacher from english literature like Shakespere. Are you going to attempt to debunk the theory of relativity whilst not allowing the proponents of the theory to use any of Einstein's work in defence?!

Then why would it be expected for the proponents of God to abandon their main references to God like the Noble Qur'an? This would be treating religious discipline in a different way to other disciplines and would certainly be a case of double standards!

2)
Also, stating that we rely on the "authority of the Qur'an" is not really an accurate statement. We as muslims do not believe that the Qur'an wrote itself. It would have been better to state we rely on the authority of the author of the Qur'an.

We believe the author to be God as stated in the Qur'an. This is not an assumption, but is a premise that has yet to have been negated.

Now, I know you are going to say something like "this is argument from authority", so in response I will say did I not state that God does not want you to rely just on argument from authority? So He has challenged people who doubt the premise, that the Qur'an is the Word of God, to produce something like it...

What reason is there to believe that these words were not written by a human? Is there any reason other than the authority of the text itself?

Like I said before, the text did not write itself. The premise is that it is the Word of God. If you want to negate the premise, then feel free to take up the challenge.

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 34)
"Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'ân) if they are truthful."

So, if as you suggest that an illiterate man living 1400 years ago - in the middle of a desert, far away from the centres of great civilization of the day (Rome and Persia), living among people so ignorant that they used to bury their infant daughters alive, drinking alcohol committing all sorts of corruption,
treating women as objects, worshipping idols and believing in all manner of superstitions such that they used to walk round the Ka'ba naked - that someone living in that kind of enviroment can actually produce the Qur'an by himself...

...then surely you, Callum with your Master's degree in English and Philosophy, living in this technological age in one of the most developed nations with access to the works of so many scholars in eloquence (e.g. Shakespeare), law, history, nature of the world etc. and with http://www.google.com at your fingertips should be able to produce something like it, that will persuade the masses that what you have produced is a guidance containing nothing but the truth, making use of language with eloquence and imagery that surpasses the Qur'an, then you will be able to say that the premise has been negated.

The condition is that if you fail to do so, then you will have to accept the premise, that the Qur'an is the Word of God, hence a good corroborating evidence of existence of God and the failure to fulfil this challenge is the reason why you would end up believing that these words were not written by a human...

 

[muslim dude]

I would like to share this verse from Qur'an with you:

(Qur'an, Chapter 25 (Al-Furqan: The Criterion): 17)
"And on the Day when He will gather them together and that which they worship besides Allâh [idols, angels, pious men, saints, 'Iesa (Jesus) * son of Maryam (Mary), etc.]. He will say: 'Was it you who misled these My slaves or did they (themselves) stray from the (Right) Path?'"

and also a part of a hadith narrated by Abu Huraira:

"....On the Day of Resurrection, people will be gathered and He will order the people to follow what they used to worship. So some of them will follow the sun, some will follow the moon, and some will follow other deities; and only this nation (Muslims) will be left with its hypocrites. Allah will come to them and say, 'I am Your Lord.' They will say, 'We shall stay in this place till our Lord comes to us and when our Lord will come, we will recognize Him. Then Allah will come to them again and say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say, 'You are our Lord.'....."
(Source: Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 12, Hadith Number: 770)

You can almost imagine some people spotting Shakespeare and following him into the fire. You might even get the odd person following that Ice Cream factory in Jupiter...

Evaluating the arguments that have been put forward by czgibson, it is like you are thinking of God as a creation when infact He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists (i.e. all of the creations). He is The First and The Last, (i.e. The One without a begining and without an end).

The people who think of God as another creation are in a confused state. This will manifest itself on the Day of Judgement when the people will be called upon to whom they think is God, but in reality were only the creations of God, and will end up following them into the hellfire.

So Callum, I know you are going to argue that you don't believe in God. What I am stating is that in my opinion, you do not know what you do not believe in!

Imagine, you set up a stall in an Open Day for these wanting to do an Master's degree in English. A potential student comes up to the stall, and asks what's so good about a Master's degree in English? You reply by explaining the virtues of the course such as learning about outstanding literature, poetry, grammer, calligraphy and so on. The student then get up stating that it is not for him. You might ask why, after all you spent a lot of time explaining things, and after all the student did show an initial interest. So he replys, "I am not really interested in Differential Equations, Calculus, Geometry and I don't think Trigonometry will be that useful to me in real life." Now, would you not think that the person was very confused and did not understand anything you said about the English course?

Similarly, in order for anyone to make a rational decision on whether to recognise and worship God or not, they will have to understand who God is and what are the attributes of God that allows you to recognise God.

If you do not recognise who God is, then you will be wasting your time by describing Him with the limitations of creation and putting forward arguments on that basis, since these arguments will be very weak indeed. Infact, I think Ansar called these type of arguments, "Strawman Fallacy" (Ma'shallah, this forum is really educational).

(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf: The Gold Adornments): 82) "Glorified be the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne! Exalted be He from all that they ascribe (to Him)"

And, you know, subhanallah, the very fact that you are thinking of God as a creation, and hence your resistance in worshipping what's effectively in your mind is a creation, bodes well for you. Muslims also do not worship any creation. There is no one worthy of worship except the Creator of all that exists. The fact that we all refuse to prostrate to any creation is infact the natural disposition God has put into all our hearts. That is why, if Allah were to expand your heart with His Knowledge, then I am sure, by Allah's permission you will be one of these that submits to His Will. Truly, Allah is Al-Lateef (The Subtle One) and Ar-Rasheed (The One who guides).

Right again teacher, so as a student, I would research and look for corroborating evidence.
I would discover that man has yet to go to Mars let alone Jupiter and also discover
that there are no ice cream factories have been created in this planet that can survive in
a planet mostly made up of gas.

So you wouldn't believe it because there's no evidence to support the idea. That's exactly my point of
view regarding god.

My points on the lack of evidence to support the existence of an Ice Cream factory on Jupiter works because we are claiming that the Ice Cream factory on Jupiter is a creation (i.e a material object).

This is why, if you were to say Rain exists, so the Ice Cream factory on Jupiter exists, this would be an absurd argument as you rightly pointed out.

Why would it be absurd? It would be absurd because the existence of one independent creation would not mean that another independent creation exists.

However, to say the following argument is not logical shows your lack of understanding of the attributes of God.

So: rain exists, therefore god exists, therefore the Qur'an is true, therefore paradise exists? Is that really the argument you're putting forward here, or have I misunderstood you? If that is the argument you're making, there is nothing logically binding about it - it is purely faith-based.

So, do you not see that comparing God to a creation is the most absurd of comparisons of all? This is why this argument that has been put forward falls flat.

You have to understand, everytime muslims refer to God, we mean He is the One that is the Creator and Sustainer of all the exists, The First and The Last, The Life Giver.

Therefore, Callum, hope you can understand that stating that rain exists, hence God exists is logically sound. Why? This is because since this entire planet is a creation, (i.e. there was a point in time when earth did not exist, then after the point in time, the earth existed.), logically everything in earth is also created including the rain.

Or to put it in other words, to appreciate the fact that rain exists is the evidence of existence of God is to understand that rain and everything that exists is creation and God is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists.

Once you understand this point, then this will increase your knowledge on who God really is, and insha'allah bring you closer to him...

(Qur'an, Chapter 52 (At-Tur: The Mount): 35-36)
"Were they created by nothing, or were they they themselves the creators?"
"Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay but they have no firm Belief."

(Qur'an, Chapter 30 (Ar-Rum: The Romans): 8)
"Do they not think deeply (in their ownselves) about themselves (how Allâh created them from nothing, and similarly He will resurrect them)? Allâh has created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, except with truth and for an appointed term. And indeed many of mankind deny the Meeting with their Lord. [See Tafsir At-Tabarî, Part 21, Page 24]."

(Qur'an, Chapter 19 (Maryam: Mary): 67)
"Does not man remember that We created him before, while he was nothing? "

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

Sorry for the late reply (that's my standard opening to every post these days!)

Well, I did say these authors did not say their work was the word of God so it would have been pretty silly of you to believe so otherwise! Infact comparing the writings of James Joyce and Will Shakespeare to a book that is claimed to be the Word of God is a silly comparison as well!

The argument has been put forward that the quality of the writing in the Qur'an is so good that it cannot have been the product of human effort. I'm simply pointing out why this is a fallacious argument.

Although, analysing the quality of writings can be subjective, there are certain indications that can be used such as the popularity of the books across the cross-section of society and the influence it has on society.

Nonsense. Popular or influential books are not necessarily well written. You were closer with your first point here, that judging the quality of writing is essentially subjective.

Even if you were to claim nobody can better these authors writings in the category of entertainment, this would not be an undisputed claim. Some people would prefer the works of JRR Tolkien, some prefer CS Lewis, several might like Jane Austin, others prefer Charles ****ens, Orwell etc. Infact, some people nowadays might say nobody can beat Rowling's Harry Potter interms of entertainment

Absolutely true, but those people would be wrong.

However, the Qur'an would fall under the category of a book of guidance, hence can only be compared with other books of guidance (whether the others are revealed or man-made). The fact that the influence Qur'an has had in the past, since revelation 1400 years ago and the influence it is still having nowadays on all the cross-section of society, transcending across so many nations of differing people, languages and cultures, so much so that the teachings in it formed the basis of such a huge number of communities that it is undoubtedly, the undisputed number one book in the category of guidance. I cannot think of any other book that had such a profound effect since 1400 years ago on the human species!

You could be right about the Qur'an being the number one book of guidance, although there would certainly be other contenders, such as the Tao Te Ching, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Pali canon of Buddhist scriptures and so on.

As for books which have had a profound effect, how about the works of Homer, which have influenced so many authors in the history of Western literature? They're more than twice as old as the Qur'an, too.

1)
Well, what I would say regarding this matter is, when someone is teaching another discipline, would you not expect them to refer to their sources of information? I mean surely you would expect a history teacher to teach from the history books, maths teacher from the maths book, english teacher from english literature like Shakespere. Are you going to attempt to debunk the theory of relativity whilst not allowing the proponents of the theory to use any of Einstein's work in defence?!

The main difference is that these people have many books to work from. They won't say "this one book (two if you include the hadiths) contains everything, and all other books are just interpretations of it".

2)
Also, stating that we rely on the "authority of the Qur'an" is not really an accurate statement. We as muslims do not believe that the Qur'an wrote itself. It would have been better to state we rely on the authority of the author of the Qur'an.

We believe the author to be God as stated in the Qur'an. This is not an assumption, but is a premise that has yet to have been negated.

That is quite clearly an assumption, and the only authority for it is the text of the Qur'an itself.

Now, I know you are going to say something like "this is argument from authority", so in response I will say did I not state that God does not want you to rely just on argument from authority? So He has challenged people who doubt the premise, that the Qur'an is the Word of God, to produce something like it...

And who would judge whether the challenge had been met? As you say, that would be a subjective judgment.

Also, is it really beyond the ability of human wit to come up with a challenge like that? If Shakespeare had claimed his works to have been written by god, and included a similar challenge in one of his texts, would you believe that too?

Like I said before, the text did not write itself.

I don't remember claiming that it did. It's my belief that it was written by a human or a group of humans. Who, I don't know.

The premise is that it is the Word of God. If you want to negate the premise, then feel free to take up the challenge.

There's no need for me to do that - who would be able to decide whether I'd succeeded?

So, if as you suggest that an illiterate man living 1400 years ago - in the middle of a desert, far away from the centres of great civilization of the day (Rome and Persia), living among people so ignorant that they used to bury their infant daughters alive, drinking alcohol committing all sorts of corruption,
treating women as objects, worshipping idols and believing in all manner of superstitions such that they used to walk round the Ka'ba naked - that someone living in that kind of enviroment can actually produce the Qur'an by himself...

How do you know he did it by himself? How do you know he had anything to do with its composition?

...then surely you, Callum with your Master's degree in English and Philosophy, living in this technological age in one of the most developed nations with access to the works of so many scholars in eloquence (e.g. Shakespeare), law, history, nature of the world etc. and with http://www.google.com at your fingertips should be able to produce something like it, that will persuade the masses that what you have produced is a guidance containing nothing but the truth, making use of language with eloquence and imagery that surpasses the Qur'an, then you will be able to say that the premise has been negated.

Why would this be necessary to negate that premise? There are plenty of books which contain nothing but the truth, and with excellent uses of language. Incidentally, while I haven't read the Qur'an in Arabic (or even in English all the way through), it clearly doesn't translate well.

The condition is that if you fail to do so, then you will have to accept the premise, that the Qur'an is the Word of God, hence a good corroborating evidence of existence of God and the failure to fulfil this challenge is the reason why you would end up believing that these words were not written by a human...

I couldn't write as well as Shakespeare, but I know for a fact that his words were written by a human. We're going in circles here...

You can almost imagine some people spotting Shakespeare and following him into the fire. You might even get the odd person following that Ice Cream factory in Jupiter...

Shakespeare's going into the fire, is he? Oh well. I expect most of the people I admire are too.

Evaluating the arguments that have been put forward by czgibson, it is like you are thinking of God as a creation when infact He is the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists (i.e. all of the creations). He is The First and The Last, (i.e. The One without a begining and without an end).

I am thinking of god as a creation, you are absolutely right!

The people who think of God as another creation are in a confused state. This will manifest itself on the Day of Judgement when the people will be called upon to whom they think is God, but in reality were only the creations of God, and will end up following them into the hellfire.

:?

So Callum, I know you are going to argue that you don't believe in God. What I am stating is that in my opinion, you do not know what you do not believe in!

You're very close to the truth here - I find the idea of god utterly incomprehensible. I can't understand how people can believe it.

Similarly, in order for anyone to make a rational decision on whether to recognise and worship God or not, they will have to understand who God is and what are the attributes of God that allows you to recognise God.

I'm not making a decision on whether to recognise and worship god - to me, god is a fictional character invented by humans.

And, you know, subhanallah, the very fact that you are thinking of God as a creation, and hence your resistance in worshipping what's effectively in your mind is a creation, bodes well for you. Muslims also do not worship any creation.

I see what you've done there - very clever.

Therefore, Callum, hope you can understand that stating that rain exists, hence God exists is logically sound. Why? This is because since this entire planet is a creation, (i.e. there was a point in time when earth did not exist, then after the point in time, the earth existed.), logically everything in earth is also created including the rain.

The point is you've made an assumption in your premise, therefore your argument is not logically binding. In form your argument may well be valid, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Here's an example of a similar argument (exaggerated to make the point clear):

If all chickens are elephants,
and all elephants are bananas,
then all chickens are bananas.

That argument is logically valid, but it's not logically binding, because it's clearly nonsense, filled as it is with assumptions that bear no resemblance to the real world.

You've made the assumption that god is the creator, therefore your argument is based on faith, and nothing more. That's fair enough, of course, you're free to believe what you like - just be aware that faith-based arguments are rarely convincing to an outsider who does not share that faith.

Peace