65 replies to this topic

[AlayhisSalaam]

If we believe in a theory similar to the Big Bang and think about the Universe before the 'bang', then one must ask oneself what was before this event?

"Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past and has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state and continues to expand today."

"Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be."
Source: http://www.universet...e-the-big-bang/

Cosmologists have used mind-boggling mathematical equations in order to evaluate the event from a scientific perspective.  The problem is that the time before the "bang" is outside of the realms of science.

Science goes back as far as the singularity theory:

"A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter."

Without getting confused, the argument is that there was an unimaginably small single hot atom, that was the only thing that existed (ie a singularity), and it had so much energy that it was destined to explode and cause the Universe as we know it to begin... A "Big Bang"... Imagine complete and utter silence, suddenly an explosion beyond comprehension...

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. (2:117)

Islam agrees that the Universe very well would have been created in a similar fashion, Allah symbolically says "Be!" and it is.  What better description of an unimaginable explosion can you think of besides this simple statement of "'Be!' And it is."?

The conundrum however rests not in this 'beginning', rather in the 'beginning of this beginning'.

Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous. (2:255)

A scientific argument against the existence of god has often been "If God created everything, then Who created God?"

This argument is useless in Islam because our Qur'an clearly states that Allah is Eternal, with No Beginning and No End, He is the Creator, and was not created, in other words, Infinite.

So the question becomes, if you can say that the universe is/was infinite, has always existed eternally, then why is it absurd to believe that there is a Creator who has existed eternally?

Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.
The Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-'Ikhlas

Allah is Eternal; One; No Beginning; No End; No Creator; No Equals; Incomparable.

How can you say that the Universe is eternal and then have a hypocritical, double-standard, with regards to the concept of a god/creator?

However, we know that a great many scientists believe the Universe to be Finite, as opposed to infinite; temporary as opposed to eternal... And it is a leading theory that the singularity which was the beginning of the Big Bang came into existence from non-existence.

This, of course, is a scientific fallacy, it is illogical, it is quite simply wrong and inconsistent.

So, how can one claim to follow science, but to disregard science in order to attempt to disprove god? One may stick to these theories, I have no problem with one's freedom of opinion, but I expect at the very least for one to admit to the double-standard, disregard for science; and fallacy upon fallacy of such views, of course as opposed to the arrogance of knowledge and scientific monopoly.

Edited by AlayhisSalaam, 16 July 2010 - 04:03 AM.

[Quisant]

AlayhisSalaam, on 16 July 2010 - 03:55 AM, said:

So the question becomes, if you can say that the universe is/was infinite, has always existed eternally, then why is it absurd to believe that there is a Creator who has existed eternally?

Because for one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.  
 
This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is a vastly superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated God."  
At least as far as the evidence is concerned.

Nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a God exists and is active in the Universe.
Lots of claims but no evidence. 

Wslm.
*

[AlayhisSalaam]

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 06:28 AM, said:

Because for one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.  
 
This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is a vastly superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated God."  
At least as far as the evidence is concerned.

Wslm.
*

So due to the fact that you consider yourself a thinking, conscious being, who presumably observes its own existence within a universe, then you are convinced, by way of evidence, that your existence is a mere coincidence within an 'eternal and uncreated universe'?

If your existence is a mere coincidence, and due to coincidences being outside of the realm of scientific observation (you cannot capture a coincidence by its very nature, *it may never happen depending on its probability), then how is it that you find this a vastly superior answer to 'the question of ultimate reality' than an eternal and uncreated God?

How is it that you rationalize, with a sane scientific mind, the theory of your existence being a mere coincidence?

How can life be a mere coincidence?

Assuming that your belief is that this universe has existed eternally, in some way or another, then I would be more inclined to believe in your logic if you could produce a single evidence of life coming into existence from non-life.

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 06:28 AM, said:

Nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a God exists and is active in the Universe.
Lots of claims but no evidence.

Using scientific methods, can you demonstrate to me that love exists? Demonstrate to me that the big bag existed? Demonstrate to me that something can come from nothing or demonstrate to me that life can spontaneously appear in a universe where no life form of any kind existed before it (hint: this one is impossible by the way because we live in a universe with life forms.)

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a singularity which explodes and suddenly appears life, structure, orbital systems, galaxies, black holes.......

Here is an easier demonstration for you, demonstrate to me that your thoughts exist, how can you prove that what you imagine in your head is being imagined? Science cannot observe a person's precise thought.  If I think of a black hole swallowing Mars, for example, there is no way that you can prove that I'm thinking of a black hole swallowing Mars.  Impossible.

[Quisant]

AlayhisSalaam, on 16 July 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

How is it that you rationalize, with a sane scientific mind, the theory of your existence being a mere coincidence?

My existence is not a coincidence.
Sperm cells from my dad joined with an egg in my mum. Nutrients allowed the fertilized egg to split and split and split and split.
Everything in me is a copy of existing DNA, fleshed out with food.
This is a well-understood biological process called "reproduction".

The explanation for the origin of man is covered in evolution. As is the origin of our ancestors.
Down to the origin of the first single-cell organisms.
The origin of those, is covered by abiogenesis. Which is a growing and exciting field of study.

The formation of Earth and our solar system, is covered by both Geology and Cosmology, which in turn is a subset of physics and astrophysics.
Both of which also study the origin and formation of our universe, including the Big Bang.

Quote

Here is an easier demonstration for you, demonstrate to me that your thoughts exist, how can you prove that what you imagine in your head is being imagined?

If my thoughts did not exist, I would not be able to translate them into typed words and you would not have replied.

It does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen."
It only matters that for us to accept its existence, there must be evidence of that existence.
Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world.  

We go about detecting the unseen... through its effects.
If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

Wslm.
*

[AlayhisSalaam]

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

My existence is not a coincidence.
Sperm cells from my dad joined with an egg in my mum. Nutrients allowed the fertilized egg to split and split and split and split.
Everything in me is a copy of existing DNA, fleshed out with food.
This is a well-understood biological process called "reproduction".

lol I had no idea

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

The explanation for the origin of man is covered in evolution. As is the origin of our ancestors.
Down to the origin of the first single-cell organisms.
The origin of those, is covered by abiogenesis. Which is a growing and exciting field of study.

Now we're talking.

Prove that life can come from no life.

http://talk.islamicn...ead.php?t=16853

I do not believe that life can come from non-life, I do not believe that matter can come from non-matter, existence from non-existence.

Show me some proof, I will not have faith in your religion of abiogenesis easily.

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

The formation of Earth and our solar system, is covered by both Geology and Cosmology, which in turn is a subset of physics and astrophysics.
Both of which also study the origin and formation of our universe, including the Big Bang.

These are theories, there is no proof, show me some empirical scientific evidence.

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

If my thoughts did not exist, I would not be able to translate them into typed words and you would not have replied.

It does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen."
It only matters that for us to accept its existence, there must be evidence of that existence.
Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world.  

We go about detecting the unseen... through its effects.
If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

Since when was lack of empirical evidence sufficient for atheists?

It is now sufficient to believe in something based on the effects of something?

I can easily argue the existence of God based on the effects God has on me in my life, why didn't you tell me this to begin with, it's so much easier.

I consider our existence to be an effect of God's Will.  That is an effect, prove me wrong scientifically.

We will simply go around about in circles, and that is my point: your belief is just that, a belief, and requires more faith than mine because your faith has numerous fallacies from science all the way to moral dilemmas.

Admit that your religion is "Big-Bangian" or something of the like.  Your views/faith/beliefs are just as much a religion as Islam, albeit however depressing and illogical it may be.

Quisant, on 16 July 2010 - 09:47 AM, said:

My existence is not a coincidence.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

The age of the Universe is estimated by scientists to be roughly 14 Billion years...

Do you really believe that amidst the chaos of an explosion of a singularity--which by the way was like blowing up a piece of chocolate and suddenly having giant orbs made out of ice cream, waffels, fruits, vegetables, some hot, some cold, constantly expanding--given such a short period of time relative to the speed of the matter, that suddenly orbital systems formed amidst the chaos--which would be like the orbs of ice cream suddenly slow down and begin to rotate around a much larger orb of banana--suddenly out of an explosion there are laws of physics being created, from which no such laws previously applied--have you ever seen a football explode and then the shrapnel stops in mid-air and pieces begin orbiting around larger pieces--now there's not a single life form except suddenly a single cell appears and out of that, eventually over billions of years of evolution, you have intelligent creatures arguing about where they came from and fighting over females?

Wow that is totally a very plausible religion.




You simply, out of arrogance, do not want to use the term "God" or "Creator"

But what else do you call something which exists eternally, defies all rationality and laws of science in order to create rationality and laws of science, creates a universal morality, and creates matter, physics, and life out of non-matter, beyond physics, non-life, from which nothingness came everything, against all odds? If you don't call that God, then you're in serious denial.

Edited by AlayhisSalaam, 16 July 2010 - 10:52 AM.

[eThErEaL]

AlayhisSalaam, on 16 July 2010 - 03:55 AM, said:

If we believe in a theory similar to the Big Bang and think about the Universe before the 'bang', then one must ask oneself what was before this event?

"Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past and has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state and continues to expand today."

"Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be."
Source: http://www.universet...e-the-big-bang/

Cosmologists have used mind-boggling mathematical equations in order to evaluate the event from a scientific perspective.  The problem is that the time before the "bang" is outside of the realms of science.

Science goes back as far as the singularity theory:

"A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter."

Without getting confused, the argument is that there was an unimaginably small single hot atom, that was the only thing that existed (ie a singularity), and it had so much energy that it was destined to explode and cause the Universe as we know it to begin... A "Big Bang"... Imagine complete and utter silence, suddenly an explosion beyond comprehension...

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. (2:117)

Islam agrees that the Universe very well would have been created in a similar fashion, Allah symbolically says "Be!" and it is.  What better description of an unimaginable explosion can you think of besides this simple statement of "'Be!' And it is."?

The conundrum however rests not in this 'beginning', rather in the 'beginning of this beginning'.

Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous. (2:255)

A scientific argument against the existence of god has often been "If God created everything, then Who created God?"

This argument is useless in Islam because our Qur'an clearly states that Allah is Eternal, with No Beginning and No End, He is the Creator, and was not created, in other words, Infinite.

So the question becomes, if you can say that the universe is/was infinite, has always existed eternally, then why is it absurd to believe that there is a Creator who has existed eternally?

Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.
The Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-'Ikhlas

Allah is Eternal; One; No Beginning; No End; No Creator; No Equals; Incomparable.

How can you say that the Universe is eternal and then have a hypocritical, double-standard, with regards to the concept of a god/creator?

However, we know that a great many scientists believe the Universe to be Finite, as opposed to infinite; temporary as opposed to eternal... And it is a leading theory that the singularity which was the beginning of the Big Bang came into existence from non-existence.

This, of course, is a scientific fallacy, it is illogical, it is quite simply wrong and inconsistent.

So, how can one claim to follow science, but to disregard science in order to attempt to disprove god? One may stick to these theories, I have no problem with one's freedom of opinion, but I expect at the very least for one to admit to the double-standard, disregard for science; and fallacy upon fallacy of such views, of course as opposed to the arrogance of knowledge and scientific monopoly.

the way how you are using science to interpret the verses of Koran seems very wrong.  It seems now days people are becoming more and more heedless of the Quran as a truly metaphysical reality; which precedes all other realities.

[14infallibles]

eThErEaL, on 16 July 2010 - 09:10 PM, said:

the way how you are using science to interpret the verses of Koran seems very wrong.  It seems now days people are becoming more and more heedless of the Quran as a truly metaphysical reality; which precedes all other realities.

I think that nowadays people are using new scientific information to justify their belief in Allah òÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì
To me, this is like saying that all the people from before did not have a good enough reason to believe in God because they did not know these new scientific facts, like Big Bang, etc

I think that to justify belief in God, one should not rely on science, and more on logic, etc. What are your thoughts on this?
Wassalam

[AlayhisSalaam]

eThErEaL, on 16 July 2010 - 09:10 PM, said:

the way how you are using science to interpret the verses of Koran seems very wrong.  It seems now days people are becoming more and more heedless of the Quran as a truly metaphysical reality; which precedes all other realities.

First,

I'm not using science to interpret the Qur'an, rather I'm comparing verses of the Qur'an with scientific theories, and one may draw whatever conclusion one wants from that.

Unfortunately you are right about people becoming heedless, this is due to the arrogance of scientific thought, that because they cannot observe God under a microscope, he must not exist.   But I've pointed out the double-standards of such fallacious arguments.

14infallibles, on 16 July 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

I think that nowadays people are using new scientific information to justify their belief in Allah òÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì
To me, this is like saying that all the people from before did not have a good enough reason to believe in God because they did not know these new scientific facts, like Big Bang, etc

I think that to justify belief in God, one should not rely on science, and more on logic, etc. What are your thoughts on this?
Wassalam

I've only made these arguments in order to, insha'Allah, help those who have doubts due to science, in order to show that the belief in God is less absurd than the current theories of science, which is the basis for so many people's disbelief.

It is adaptive dawah.  If you're giving dawah to someone who is deaf, you will need to communicate in a way suitable for them to understand you.  I'm seeking to communicate this message with scientific driven individuals who see no reason to believe in God by showing the absurdity of their godless theories which have absolutely no position in the realm of logic.

One should rely on their logic and their own personal discoveries and beliefs to believe in God, sometimes that may include science for some people, this does not discredit any of our predecessors.  I do not like to think "what about our forefathers" (what about the early scholars, what about the sahabah) because the Qur'an warns about people who worship what their forefathers worshipped, and continue in that way based on the continuity of their heritage, which is absurd! I hope this has made my position clear enough insha'Allah.

"I have read the Qur'an, I believe it is from Allah, but I'm going to continue being a Christian because my forefathers were Christian..."

Why should we not discuss science with people whose only obstacle to faith is scientific theories which they believe leave no room for a god's existence?

I think it is naive and stagnating of one's mind to limit oneself to a particular field, not exploring other venues for the sake of truth, especially when such venues have been the result of many people's conversion.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube where scientists and secular scholars/professors have converted to Islam after reading the Qur'an, due to their scientific knowledge for example.

So I disagree, it is not wrong to make comparisons and to observe the possibilities, to give hope to one who is so lost in their disbelief that there is actually more evidence for god than for not-god, scientifically even, due to all of the absurdities I've pointed out as above.

[14infallibles]

AlayhisSalaam, on 16 July 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

I've only made these arguments in order to, insha'Allah, help those who have doubts due to science, in order to show that the belief in God is less absurd than the current theories of science, which is the basis for so many people's disbelief.

It is adaptive dawah.  If you're giving dawah to someone who is deaf, you will need to communicate in a way suitable for them to understand you.  I'm seeking to communicate this message with scientific driven individuals who see no reason to believe in God by showing the absurdity of their godless theories which have absolutely no position in the realm of logic.

One should rely on their logic and their own personal discoveries and beliefs to believe in God, sometimes that may include science for some people, this does not discredit any of our predecessors.  I do not like to think "what about our forefathers" (what about the early scholars, what about the sahabah) because the Qur'an warns about people who worship what their forefathers worshipped, and continue in that way based on the continuity of their heritage, which is absurd! I hope this has made my position clear enough insha'Allah.

"I have read the Qur'an, I believe it is from Allah, but I'm going to continue being a Christian because my forefathers were Christian..."

Why should we not discuss science with people whose only obstacle to faith is scientific theories which they believe leave no room for a god's existence?

I think it is naive and stagnating of one's mind to limit oneself to a particular field, not exploring other venues for the sake of truth, especially when such venues have been the result of many people's conversion.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube where scientists and secular scholars/professors have converted to Islam after reading the Qur'an, due to their scientific knowledge for example.

So I disagree, it is not wrong to make comparisons and to observe the possibilities, to give hope to one who is so lost in their disbelief that there is actually more evidence for god than for not-god, scientifically even, due to all of the absurdities I've pointed out as above.

brother
I am not saying that one should not use science to strengthen their beliefs. However, I think that scientific discoveries should not be the sole reason why one would believe in God.
Wassalam

[Quisant]

AlayhisSalaam, on 16 July 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

I will not have faith in your religion of abiogenesis
your religion is "Big-Bangian" or something of the like
Your views/faith/beliefs are just as much a religion…depressing and illogical

You know, it's very bad form to tell your debate opponent what he is or isn’t.
If you want to understand what I am, then you should ask me rather than tell me.

Quote

These are theories, there is no proof, show me some empirical scientific evidence.

It is true, one cannot reproduce in a laboratory the conditions that were in place 4 billion years ago; therefore God exist…
I can see that yours is a superior logic.

Science is unproven assertions, without proof, rubbish.
It is only useful on the odd occasion…to cure illnesses, catch a plane or play with the computer.
Apart from that? Just theories.

Quote

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans....

Except, of course, for what Prof. Watson suggests (you sure it wasn’t Sherlock Holmes?)
He dwarfs theorists like Newton, Darwin, Einstein.

I am glad you have opened my mind to the truth and have given me empirical evidence for the existence of God.

Quote

But what else do you call something which exists eternally, defies all rationality and laws of science in order to create rationality and laws of science, creates a universal morality, and creates matter, physics, and life out of non-matter, beyond physics, non-life, from which nothingness came everything, against all odds?

Anybody can see that it is not just Father Christmas for grown ups...so you could not call it a fairy tale!

It is pointless trying to outwit you, you are much too clever for me,
so I take this opportunity to thank you and say good-bye.

Wslm.
*

[AlayhisSalaam]

Quisant, on 17 July 2010 - 01:33 AM, said:

You know, it's very bad form to tell your debate opponent what he is or isn’t.
If you want to understand what I am, then you should ask me rather than tell me.



It is true, one cannot reproduce in a laboratory the conditions that were in place 4 billion years ago; therefore God exist…
I can see that yours is a superior logic.

Science is unproven assertions, without proof, rubbish.
It is only useful on the odd occasion…to cure illnesses, catch a plane or play with the computer.
Apart from that? Just theories.



Except, of course, for what Prof. Watson suggests (you sure it wasn’t Sherlock Holmes?)
He dwarfs theorists like Newton, Darwin, Einstein.

I am glad you have opened my mind to the truth and have given me empirical evidence for the existence of God.



Anybody can see that it is not just Father Christmas for grown ups...so you could not call it a fairy tale!

It is pointless trying to outwit you, you are much too clever for me,
so I take this opportunity to thank you and say good-bye.

Wslm.
*

Sarcasim and a complete disregard of respect to the people hosting you... then you complain when I make a very logical observation about your "religion" being that of "Big-Bangian", which is not far from the truth:

Religion: •A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Rather than acknowledge the truth of my rhetoric, you respond once again with your sarcasm and rude disregard of logic.

Atheist, belief in one short life, god is just "Father Christmas for grown ups.... so you could not call it a fairy tale!"...

You're on a religious forum, enough said.

Edited by AlayhisSalaam, 17 July 2010 - 04:35 AM.

[JimJam]

Quote

Because for one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.  

This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is a vastly superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated God."  
At least as far as the evidence is concerned.

Nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a God exists and is active in the Universe.
Lots of claims but no evidence.

Wslm.

What is the will behind it all? Or do you think its is all random activity?

Quote

My existence is not a coincidence.
Sperm cells from my dad joined with an egg in my mum. Nutrients allowed the fertilized egg to split and split and split and split.
Everything in me is a copy of existing DNA, fleshed out with food.
This is a well-understood biological process called "reproduction".

The explanation for the origin of man is covered in evolution. As is the origin of our ancestors.
Down to the origin of the first single-cell organisms.
The origin of those, is covered by abiogenesis. Which is a growing and exciting field of study.

The formation of Earth and our solar system, is covered by both Geology and Cosmology, which in turn is a subset of physics and astrophysics.
Both of which also study the origin and formation of our universe, including the Big Bang.

Again , what is the will behind it all? Or do you think its is all random activity? What is reality? Is it really only what we can observe? Is it simply what is able to be grasped by our intellect?

Nature points to nature's God.

[Yusufali 16:12]  He has made subject to you the Night and the Day; the sun and the moon; and the stars are in subjection by His Command: verily in this are Signs for men who are wise.
[Yusufali 16:13] And the things on this earth which He has multiplied in varying colours (and qualities): verily in this is a sign for men who celebrate the praises of Allah (in gratitude).

[Shakir 16:83]  They recognize the favor of Allah, yet they deny it, and most of them are ungrateful.

[Yusufali 16:96]  What is with you must vanish: what is with Allah will endure. And We will certainly bestow, on those who patiently persevere, their reward according to the best of their actions.

Its like this, we look at a car, and say, "the people who made this must have been geniuses". You say "No, I only accept the existence of this car only, I cannot accept that people made this"

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 06:14 AM.

[Quisant]

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 05:55 AM, said:

What is the will behind it all? Or do you think its is all random activity?
Again , what is the will behind it all? Or do you think its is all random activity? What is reality? Is it really only what we can observe? Is it simply what is able to be grasped by our intellect?

I don't know and neither do you ...is more intellectually honest.

Imagine the puddle of water, which fits the exact shape of the hole,. . . waking up one morning and thinking:
'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?
In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

This notion of "fine-tuning" is no more useful, nor more in need of explaining, than the fact that green is green.

The whole fine-tuning logic is self-serving and base vanity. It helps you pretend that there is a greater meaning to our existence.

Quote

Nature points to nature's God.

Can you show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe?

Quote

Its like this, we look at a car, and say, "the people who made this must have been geniuses".
You say "No, I only accept the existence of this car only, I cannot accept that people made this"

If you claim that every complex thing (a car) needs a creator...
then our creator which is more complex than us also needs a creator.

The human race has evolved from simple cells over the course of billions of years, intelligent design is a just a silly idea.

If we were intelligently designed we would have the sight of eagles, the smell ability of dogs, whales'  sense of hearing, women would not cross their legs when they sneeze etc..etc...

Wslm.
*

[AlayhisSalaam]

Quisant, on 17 July 2010 - 07:29 AM, said:

If you claim that every complex thing (a car) needs a creator...
then our creator which is more complex than us also needs a creator.

The human race has evolved from simple cells over the course of billions of years, intelligent design is a just a silly idea.

If we were intelligently designed we would have the sight of eagles, the smell ability of dogs, whales'  sense of hearing, women would not cross their legs when they sneeze etc..etc...

Wslm.
*

Those are absurd assumptions to make.

The creator needs a creator? That was the first argument I debunked in my original post.

Quote

A scientific argument against the existence of god has often been "If God created everything, then Who created God?"

This argument is useless in Islam because our Qur'an clearly states that Allah is Eternal, with No Beginning and No End, He is the Creator, and was not created, in other words, Infinite.

So the question becomes, if you can say that the universe is/was infinite, has always existed eternally, then why is it absurd to believe that there is a Creator who has existed eternally?

It is hypocritical of you, you claim that the Universe existed eternally, but you will not accept that the Creator existed eternally, and claim that if there were a creator, he would've had to of been created.  Absurd logic.

[Quisant]

AlayhisSalaam, on 17 July 2010 - 04:31 AM, said:

Sarcasim and a complete disregard of respect to the people hosting you...

If a moderator ever hints that I am not welcome, I will leave immediately.
You are not hosting me.  

Quote

Rather than acknowledge the truth of my rhetoric, you respond once again with your sarcasm and rude disregard of logic.

That is because there is no truth in your rhetoric. That's all you have, rhetoric.
Worse, you make demands : "Show me some proof", "show me some empirical scientific evidence"
Whilst all the time you offer no proof whatsoever for your naked assertions.  

It is amazing how believers never apply the same "nit-picking" questions to their God theory. 
Why is it that they are willing to accept the existence of a Supernatural being without applying the same standards to which they demand others to be held. 
Long on dogma and faith but zero on evidence and logic. 

Quote

You're on a religious forum, enough said.

Yes, I am on the atheism section of a religious forum, well observed.

*

Edited by Quisant, 17 July 2010 - 07:49 AM.

[AlayhisSalaam]

Quisant, on 17 July 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

If a moderator ever hints that I am not welcome, I will leave immediately.
You are not hosting me.  



That is because there is no truth in your rhetoric. That's all you have rhetoric.
Worse, you make demands : "Show me some proof", "show me some empirical scientific evidence"
Whilst all the time you offer no proof whatsoever for your naked assertions.  

It is amazing how believers never apply the same "nit-picking" questions to their God theory. 
Why is it that they are willing to accept the existence of a Supernatural being without applying the same standards to which they demand others to be held. 
Long on dogma and faith but zero on evidence and logic. 



Yes, I am on the atheism section of a religious forum, well observed.

*

The demands I made were to show you that you're asking for "proof of god" and I can equally ask you for proof of your theories, and neither of us will ever be able to deliver.  Simple.

I'm not nit-picking, nor am I just stating random words, I'm making logical arguments which you're ignoring.

The reason I pointed out that this is a religious forum is because you're being very rude towards people who believe in God, why are you on a religious forum if you so confidently disbelieve in god and why would you think it is right to come to their forum and insult them by saying things like "Anybody can see that it is not just Father Christmas for grown ups...so you could not call it a fairy tale!"

It is as if you go to an Obama forum and say "Only morons vote for Obama", it is childish and shows a lack of sincerity for intellectual discussion.

I've presented very sound logical arguments, and have shown that the burden of proof is on a scientific theory by its very nature, and yet there is no proof, it is simply another religion.

[Quisant]

AlayhisSalaam, on 17 July 2010 - 07:37 AM, said:

Those are absurd assumptions to make.

The creator needs a creator? That was the first argument I debunked in my original post.

You have only debunked your own assertions.

Quote

It is hypocritical of you, you claim that the Universe existed eternally, but you will not accept that the Creator existed eternally, and claim that if there were a creator, he would've had to of been created.  Absurd logic.

I told you before, we have evidence for the universe, there is no evidence for a supernatural being.

Can you show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe?

*

[JimJam]

Quisant, on 17 July 2010 - 07:29 AM, said:

I don't know and neither do you ...is more intellectually honest.

Imagine the puddle of water, which fits the exact shape of the hole,. . . waking up one morning and thinking:
'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?
In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

Actually the true religious position will be that the puddle will see that it is trapped in its hole, and that must be a greater existence beyond the hole,and it is not in control at all, even in the hole it exists in. That there must be a cause behind it all.

Interestingly the Quran says all existence worships its creator. Even that which seems non living to us.

Quote

Can you show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe?

No, because true divinity transcends nature. There is no material proof of God. But it is also wrong to say that there is no God.
In the Shia view, God is apparently nothing, but in reality it is not nothing.

Quote

If you claim that every complex thing (a car) needs a creator...
then our creator which is more complex than us also needs a creator

You do realize that everything which exists needs a creator.
The ultimate cause, that which transcends all reality, all matter, all form and all idea, would require no creator.

Quote

The human race has evolved from simple cells over the course of billions of years, intelligent design is a just a silly idea.

If we were intelligently designed we would have the sight of eagles, the smell ability of dogs, whales'  sense of hearing, women would not cross their legs when they sneeze etc..etc...

Wslm.

To us this universe is a place of trial. Here we are placed in difficulty. But despite our shortcomings through our ability to think and reason were are superior to the dogs & whales.Evolution does not contradict the belief in God.

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 10:44 AM.

[eThErEaL]

14infallibles, on 16 July 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

I think that nowadays people are using new scientific information to justify their belief in Allah òÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì
To me, this is like saying that all the people from before did not have a good enough reason to believe in God because they did not know these new scientific facts, like Big Bang, etc

I think that to justify belief in God, one should not rely on science, and more on logic, etc. What are your thoughts on this?
Wassalam

Logic also has its limitations.  but it is better.  but what are the limitations of logic.  logic will only tell us that God is not this or that.  There is another faculty we have called "khayal" or "imaginal faculty".  this faculty allows us to see how two things which have different identities can mix and be merged.  Which is precisely what analogies and symbolism and similitude are all about.  the whole world and all creatures symbolize and reflect God in a kind of analogical way.  the beauty of the finite flower is an analogy of God's Infinite Beauty.  The knowledge of a person is a similitude that God strikes with His Infinite Knowledge.  the finite powers or forces we see in nature symbolize God's Infinite Power.  The only way to interpret such natural and even scriptural symbolism, and analogies is to use the imaginal faculty.  The imaginal faculty therefore tells us what God IS.  while the rational or logical faculty tells us what God IS NOT.

[JimJam]

eThErEaL, on 17 July 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

Logic also has its limitations.  but it is better.  but what are the limitations of logic.  logic will only tell us that God is not this or that.  There is another faculty we have called "khayal" or "imaginal faculty".  this faculty allows us to see how two things which have different identities can mix and be merged.  Which is precisely what analogies and symbolism and similitude are all about.  the whole world and all creatures symbolize and reflect God in a kind of analogical way.  the beauty of the finite flower is an analogy of God's Infinite Beauty.  The knowledge of a person is a similitude that God strikes with His Infinite Knowledge.  the finite powers or forces we see in nature symbolize God's Infinite Power.  The only way to interpret such natural and even scriptural symbolism, and analogies is to use the imaginal faculty.  The imaginal faculty therefore tells us what God IS.  while the rational or logical faculty tells us what God IS NOT.

I agree partly with your way of thinking. But  why logic and reason in understanding God is beneficial because as our understanding of the universe grows we gain further appreciation of the mastery of God. As we come to understand the complexity of the universe we understand the greatness of God.
The danger in using art or imagination to understand God is that you will then make out God to be whatever you want to be, iv seen 'sufis' on this site say they like to picture God in theri mind as the eternal mother.
Just like God transcends human reason, just like logic cannot explain god, then neither can the human subconscious or the imagination.

God transcends everything.

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 02:37 PM.

[eThErEaL]

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

The danger in using art or imagination to understand God is that you will then make out God to be whatever you want to be, iv seen 'sufis' on this site say they like to picture God in theri mind as the eternal mother.
Just like God transcends human reason, just like logic cannot explain god, then neither can the human subconscious or the imagination.

God transcends everything.

Imagination? I am not talking about imagination.  I am talking about the "imaginal" faculty.  The imaginal faculty allows us to experience analogous realities, or symbolic realities.  It allows us to see them AS symbols.  The whole point of this faculty is so that we can relate to God.  otherwise we would have absolutely no way of relating to God.    Yes, when used alone, without Logic, this will necessarily lead to shirk.  Logic comes in on the other end of the scale and tells us that there is no symoblism or comparison.  We ought to use both is what i am saying.  the scale ought to be balanced with imaginal faculty on the one hand, and logic on the other.  If we only use Logic, we can even become atheists or deists.  Of course many so called "Muslims" are, even if not admittedly, deists or atheists.  

Worship God AS IF you see Him. For even if you do , He sees you.

Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.

Eternal mother sounds beautiful.  but i dont think they mean they are physically imagining the eternal mother.  only uneducated people will think sufis mean that alone.  which is silly.

[JimJam]

eThErEaL, on 18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM, said:

Imagination? I am not talking about imagination.  I am talking about the "imaginal" faculty.  The imaginal faculty allows us to experience analogous realities, or symbolic realities.  It allows us to see them AS symbols.  The whole point of this faculty is so that we can relate to God.  otherwise we would have absolutely no way of relating to God.    Yes, when used alone, without Logic, this will necessarily lead to shirk.  Logic comes in on the other end of the scale and tells us that there is no symoblism or comparison.  We ought to use both is what i am saying.  the scale ought to be balanced with imaginal faculty on the one hand, and logic on the other.  If we only use Logic, we can even become atheists or deists.  Of course many so called "Muslims" are, even if not admittedly, deists or atheists.  

Worship God AS IF you see Him. For even if you do , He sees you.

Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.

Eternal mother sounds beautiful.  but i dont think they mean they are physically imagining the eternal mother.  only uneducated people will think sufis mean that alone.  which is silly.

Imaginal: Of or relating to the imagination, or to a mental image
Sounds pretty much like imagination to me.

Im of the opinion that just like you cannot define God through studying nature, then neither can you not define God by looking within yourself.
You can look within yourself or without yourself but you can never truly understand God, to understand something is to limit something, and God has no limitations.  But just like you gain a better appreciation of God through seeing the immensity of his creation the same way when you look within yourself you will also gain a better appreciation of God by looking at the depth of thought he has given us.
Like Imam Ali said: "You think that you are insignificant, while there is a great universe contained in you."
To appreciate God is a worship of God.

[eThErEaL]

JimJam, on 18 July 2010 - 04:52 AM, said:

Im of the opinion that just like you cannot define God through studying nature, then neither can you not define God by looking within yourself.
You can look within yourself or without yourself but you can never truly understand God, to understand something is to limit something, and God has no limitations.  But just like you gain a better appreciation of God through seeing the immensity of his creation the same way when you look within yourself you will also gain a better appreciation of God by looking at the depth of thought he has given us.
Like Imam Ali said: "You think that you are insignificant, while there is a great universe contained in you."
To appreciate God is a worship of God.

I am using imaginal (khayal) in the traditional sense.  not according to the "dictionar".  which is why i explained what i meant by the word "imaginal".  

We cannot define God at all; I dont think I ever said we can define God.  Rather, we can only know God through His revelation.  In His revelation He declares Himself far from us and near to us; similar to us, and incomparable to us.  But in order to understand God describing Himself as near or similar to us, we have to use our "imaginal" faculty.  And in order to understand God describing Himself as far from or incomparable to us, we have to use our "rational" faculty.    The problem people have is that they dont use the right faculty for understanding a particular verse.  When God says wherever you turn there is His face, or when God described Himself through His names using qualities that are seen within creation, then this means we have to exercise our imaginal faculty.  When God describes Himself by saying that nothing is like Him, this means we have to use our rational faculty.  the problem with people is that they want to use only one of their faculties.  either they will use only their imaginal faculty, or they will use only their rational faculty.  

This great universe contained within each of us, is actually a very profound statement by Imam Ali .  It is referring to the fact that man in his perfect, original, and pure state is a microcosm.  and as such he mirrors the whole macrocosm by containing within himself, all the qualities which can possibly found dispersed  throughout the entire universe (material, spiritual, and barzakhi realms).  Imam aLi is basically saying that man and universe are two sides of the same reality.  In reality man IS the universe.  so there is a inextricable connection between man and nature.  If man wants to know God, he has to know himself.  and knowing the true self implies, knowledge of the world as it truly is.  

Man Arafa Nafsahu Faqad Arafa Rabbahu.    

The JOB of the Quran is to harmonize man and nature.  The Quran is precisely that interface between universe and man.  because only through the unity of man and nature can God be known.  This is why the Quran contstantly refers us to the signs of God within nature.  This idea is more emphasized in Taoism (the connection between man and nature).  When one realizes nature as it truly is, one sees that nature is nothing but the appearance or self-expression of God.  And one sees that this nature is where their own meaning of life lies. the meaning of each of our existence is found in the nature which  immediately surrounds; in the sense that each of us has a responsibility towards it as vicegerents of God (khalifatullah).  To discover the meaning of our life, is to discover our vicegerency with respect to the universe.being in harmony with nature, is being in harmony with God by being receptive to the way he expresses Himself through them.

Edited by eThErEaL, 18 July 2010 - 05:38 AM.

[Quisant]

eThErEaL, on 18 July 2010 - 05:26 AM, said:

If man wants to know God, he has to know himself.  and knowing the true self implies, knowledge of the world as it truly is.  

Amazing that we actually agree on one thing!

The Ancient Greek aphorism " Know thyself" was inscribed in golden letters at the lintel of the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.
The purpose of life becomes visible only through self knowledge; Self realization is by far the most rewarding "quest".

"Yourself" is the filter that delivers the best possible truth.

Hence to will anything other than Self knowledge is to wander still further from the Truth.
Unfortunately surrender to such simple task is the most difficult act to our complex minds; and hence training is necessary.

Wslm.
*

[Quisant]

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

Actually the true religious position will be that the puddle will see that it is trapped in its hole, and that must be a greater existence beyond the hole,and it is not in control at all, even in the hole it exists in. That there must be a cause behind it all.

Interestingly the Quran says all existence worships its creator. Even that which seems non living to us.

No, because true divinity transcends nature. There is no material proof of God. But it is also wrong to say that there is no God.
In the Shia view, God is apparently nothing, but in reality it is not nothing.

To us this universe is a place of trial. Here we are placed in difficulty. But despite our shortcomings through our ability to think and reason were are superior to the dogs & whales.Evolution does not contradict the belief in God.

Thank you for your opinion, nice of you to let me know.

I wonder, is it really possible that you do not know the difference between opinion and fact?

Quote

There is no material proof of God.

How do you know that God exists?

Quote

You do realize that everything which exists needs a creator.
The ultimate cause, that which transcends all reality, all matter, all form and all idea, would require no creator.

That is quite an assumption. The whole universe may not have the explanation you give. it just is.
How do you know  a creator is required?
For one thing, an ultimate cause does not need to be God.

Wslm.*

Edited by Quisant, 18 July 2010 - 07:27 AM.