Who created God?

[جوري]

Pascal boyer is scientific evidence?
Further, where do you not see proof of G-D...
if I can decode your sequence of amino acids do you think I can kill you, then put you back together in the form you are in now? actually rather, can chance favor these amino acid to perfectly base pair be functional in sequence and come together on their own accord, forming you out of the billions of others that exist?
science is nothing but a testament to G-D's existence, even if you don't want to dig deeper, certainly nothing scientific has explained in a satisfactory way where everything came from... even if I were to blindly accept the primordial goo from which we all budded off. I'd still want to know where primordial goo came from, what gave it sentience and shape and caused it to be an infinite number of perfect other chances across the ages
I have been starring for two hours at some work I needed to finish and it hasn't finished itself, budded off into other creatures, or developed consciousness or put itself on in a pretty little aesthetically pleasing form.

 

[Nerd]

lol thanks for pointing the contradiction there trumble... let me try and rephrase my sentence than "Has science progressed so far that the supernatural ain't supernatural anymore?"

Empirical studies and methodologies are limited, and indeed developing day by day... therefore to completely rule out the existence of a God based on current scientific knowledge is stupid

 

[Nerd]

No proof = no reason to believe.

Heard of Pascal's Wager?

"Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or live as if God does not exist. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing."

Now would you rather not believe in a God, simply cause there is no proof?

 

[Trumble]

Don't ignore my post please

I didn't, although I'm afraid I did miss it at first. I edited my previous post to include an answer.

lol thanks for pointing the contradiction there trumble... let me try and rephrase my sentence than "Has science progressed so far that the supernatural ain't supernatural anymore?"

It's always changing, of course. There are many things science studies today that our ancestors would have considered supernatural, or 'magic'. If I was atheist, though, I would be very concerned if that the boundary might one day move to include God. To understand and describe God in scientific terms we would have to be as or even beyond God.. surely that could never be?

Pascal's Wager, BTW, was shot down long ago. The options Pascal considered, being both a Catholic and a product or his time were a) Catholicism or b) unbeliever. Throw in three principle theist religions, not to mention a large number of denominations all believing each other to be heretical in at least one of them, and "two options" rather falls by the wayside. The principle argument against it, though, is that it is hard to demonstrate you can believe anything just because you decide it is beneficial to do so.

 

[Makky]

You can't isolate God's intervention from His existence; if you have demonstrated He exists then the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged

I wish you take my words in a friendly way .

Its clear now that you are contadicting yourself

can you answer these questions:

1-Do I exist?

2-can you predict what i'm going to say in the next post?

let me answer

1-yes Makky is a member, and he exists

2-you can not predict... at least if you can you are not able to say that you will have 100% correct prediction

....

Mr/ Trumble...I can isolate God's intervention from His existence

and no... if I have demonstrated He exists , this doesn't mean that the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To successfully explain phenomena a scientific theory has to be able to predict it. For example, for all the things Philosopher mentioned you can conduct experiments in the lab and the same conditions will invariably produce the same results. Some things you can't do in the lab, but you can still use scientific theories to predict them (with varying degrees of accuracy) and explain them - a good example would be severe natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.

You cannot, by definition, predict what God will do (even if you accept there is one) not least because He could, by definition, change the rules completely if he saw fit. You therefore cannot incorporate God into any scientific theory simply because you have no way of predicting what His intervention will be, or even demonstrating any such intervention has taken place at all (the "we can't explain it otherwise so it must be God" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid).

As I said, to include God in science you must re-define science. There is a heavy price to pay for that.

now i'm just reminding you of what you posted before because i'm going to extract some other contradictions later insha Allah from this post

 

[Philosopher]

I'll get back to the other guy later.. but to you I say.. The big crunch is a very accepted theory of the world's end and was certainly taught to me in my under-grad physics classes.. I am not a physicist by profession! but I am able to read and process information on a graduate level.
What you are stating really is a conjecture. Hawkings though respectable, and I am not familiar if what you have above stated is in fact his work, but he can theorize as much as the next physicist, all of them are certainly equally acceptable in my eyes.. my bias of course will be toward an ending universe, and a dying sun, many will in fact will confirm that at some point our star will die out! So Everything will die at some point and only the infinite will remain.. the infinite is G-D!

This post is a combination of a straw man and "god of the gaps" fallacy.

About the big crunch -- do you know that it is merely a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is defined as "an idea or proposition that is based on certain observations about the natural world. Hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation. " In other words, a hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess and is lacking empirical evidence and peer review.

I am astounded by how you blatantly reject Hawking's, who specializes in the study of black holes.

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

The Black Hole Theory states that the universe will eventually be completely and permanently swallowed by a supermassive black hole the size of the universe itself. This theoretical black hole would have to be large enough to engulf the entire universe and all matter inside it. The matter inside of the universe would subsequently be spaghettified and lost forever past the event horizon. As of yet, a black hole this size has not been identified, but this theory may in fact take effect in as little as 10 million years. This theory was proposed by the respected British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

If you don't know what a theory is, or if you fail to grasp the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," maybe you need to leave this debate to avoid further embarrassment.

So Everything will die at some point and only the infinite will remain.. the infinite is G-D!

Another unfounded claim. The only thing that is infinite is the multiverse. Maybe if you can prove to me the existence of Allah, as opposed to the tooth fairy, and then I will take this statement seriously.

 

[Philosopher]

Heard of Pascal's Wager?

"Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or live as if God does not exist. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing."

Now would you rather not believe in a God, simply cause there is no proof?

LMAO! Pascal's wager is indisputably the WEAKEST argument for God. Here are some good websites that demolished Pascal's Wager:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/
http://www.freethoughtfirefighters.org/a_refutation_of_pascals_wager_Massimo_Pigliucci.htm

 

[Trumble]

I wish you take my words in a friendly way .

Always. But..

Its clear now that you are contadicting yourself

can you answer these questions:

1-Do I exist?

2-can you predict what i'm going to say in the next post?

let me answer

1-yes Makky is a member, and he exists

2-you can not predict... at least if you can you are not able to say that you will have 100% correct prediction

....

Mr/ Trumble...I can isolate God's intervention from His existence

and no... if I have demonstrated He exists , this doesn't mean that the possibility of His intervention must be acknowledged...

Sorry, it might just be me but I don't understand point you are trying to make.

If you managed to prove God exists then the possibility of His intervention in any physical process that you were studying must always exist. If God is omnipotent there is no logical alternative. The fact that you couldn't predict whether such an intervention would occur or not, or what it might be if it did is precisely my point - the scientific method cannot be applied in those circumstances. Hence, from the perspective of science one goes with the other; if God exists then the possibility He may choose to intervene in anything at any time also exists. You can't isolate one from the other.

All that could leave you with is a 'science' that excludes God in a rather different way. The most you could say about any physical phenomenon is that you can predict it unless God should intervene. So force = mass x acceleration unless God decides force should be something different for the day/second/instant/place/etc, which being omnipotent He is perfectly at liberty to do. So either way, if you prove God exists or believe He does not, there is no room for Him in science - unless you redefine science to include Him.

 

[Woodrow]

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

No proof = no reason to believe.

And yes, science has proven that religion is "hard-wired" in the brain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351726,00.html

No proof = no reason to believe.?????????

ccam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

 

[Makky]

Always. But..




Sorry, it might just be me but I don't understand point you are trying to make.

If you managed to prove God exists then the possibility of His intervention in any physical process that you were studying must always exist. If God is omnipotent there is no logical alternative. The fact that you couldn't predict whether such an intervention would occur or not, or what it might be if it did is precisely my point - the scientific method cannot be applied in those circumstances. Hence, from the perspective of science one goes with the other; if God exists then the possibility He may choose to intervene in anything at any time also exists. You can't isolate one from the other

.


therefore you don't believe in your existance..because your soul couldn't undergo any physical process and it cann't be measured or even tested in a lab

All that could leave you with is a 'science' that excludes God in a rather different way. The most you could say about any physical phenomenon is that you can predict it unless God should intervene. So force = mass x acceleration unless God decides force should be something different for the day/second/instant/place/etc, which being omnipotent He is perfectly at liberty to do. So either way, if you prove God exists or believe He does not, there is no room for Him in science - unless you redefine science to include Him.

you are still conttradicting yourself... lackage of information about the personality of any of your friends doesn't mean that he doesn't exist... our ignorance of any phenomenon doesn't mean that it doesn't exist .. realizing or recognizing a phenomenon is a completly isolated process from understanding the rules that govern this phenomenon... we all know what are earthquakes but nobody can predict when will it occur or where.

 

[BanGuLLy]

:enough!: IM GETTIN BRAINWASHED :enough!:

 

[Makky]

:enough!: IM GETTIN BRAINWASHED :enough!:

WHY?!?!?! :raging: hey you! you are a muslim... tell me what is wrong?!!

 

[Philosopher]

No proof = no reason to believe.?????????

Yes, according to Occam’s Razor:

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor#Religion

 

[Sami Zaatari]

I dont think this question is from the shaytan...
People are just curious about everything.. so they are askin to gain more knowledge..
and if you always see things in a negative way.. then YOU are being controlled by the shaytan..

actually this question is from the shaytan as the prophet said in the hadiths, hence dont tell ppl their controlled by shaytan when the prophet taught us this.

 

[Trumble]

therefore you don't believe in your existance..because your soul couldn't undergo any physical process and it cann't be measured or even tested in a lab

Now you have lost me even more than before, I'm afraid - I just don't see how any of this relates to what I was saying. As an aside, as a Buddhist I don't believe I have a 'soul' - indeed the central point of Buddhist philosophy is that the whole concept is completely illusory. It is not necessary for me to exist, as I clearly do.. even if it is not the same 'me' that was around when I started this sentence. :statisfie

you are still conttradicting yourself... lackage of information about the personality of any of your friends doesn't mean that he doesn't exist... our ignorance of any phenomenon doesn't mean that it doesn't exist .. realizing or recognizing a phenomenon is a completly isolated process from understanding the rules that govern this phenomenon... we all know what are earthquakes but nobody can predict when will it occur or where.

Again, I see no relevance to what I posted, let alone a 'contradiction'. You seem to think that I am arguing God does not exist, because that existence cannot be measured by scientific methods. I was doing nothing of the sort. I was saying that even if He did exist His actions could not be predicted by science. How can man presume to predict God?!

As to earthquakes we can, and do, predict them, although not with any great precision as yet. There is, however, no theoretical reason why our understanding and predictive power cannot increase over time, as it has to date. The difference between an earthquake and God in this context is fundamental; an earthquake is the result of physical processes that science understands and can predict if we have the information necessary to do so (which isn't easy in the case of earthquakes). The same is not and could never be true of God - we could have all the data there is, but could never predict what God would decide to do in any given set of circumstances. That would mean knowing the mind of God.

 

[Philosopher]

actually this question is from the shaytan as the prophet said in the hadiths, hence dont tell ppl their controlled by shaytan when the prophet taught us this.

Blind faith.

 

[Woodrow]

Yes, according to Occam’s Razor:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor#Religion

Thank you. I can accept that as a definition. Oddly I have always seen Occam's Razor as simply the statement of "If there is more than one explanation, the simplest is most likely the correct one."

 

[Trumble]

Blind faith.

No, just a convenient way of avoiding an awkward question. I would have thought that those with faith would attempt to face it head on, not avoid it. There is a perfectly acceptable theist answer for those who take the trouble to research it, although as usual it 'proves' nothing.

 

[wilberhum]

Thank you. I can accept that as a definition. Oddly I have always seen Occam's Razor as simply the statement of "If there is more than one explanation, the simplest is most likely the correct one."

Hate to jump in, but, and not that I agree, but, "No God" is the simplest explination. :zip:

 

[BanGuLLy]

WHY?!?!?! :raging: hey you! you are a muslim... tell me what is wrong?!!

I am getting brain washed by these athiests... I'm starting to believe that I'm wasting my time.. Islam just seems to be a law book to keep people civilized... People told me that the Quran.. is the updated version of the Bible.. So are these people sayin.. that Allah makes mistakes??? PLZ PROVE TO ME ISLAM IS THE RIGHT RELIGION... this is pissin me off.. all my boys are havin fun and all I can do is watch them have fun.. All the memories are still in my head.. Life is not as fun as b4 but at the same time it made me a better person.... and I just got into Islam after I got arrested.. PLZ PROVE TO ME ISLAM IS THE RIGHT RELIGION...