Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

I sometimes can't understand the logic of Atheists. 

Athiests believe that complexity doesn't require an intelligent creator. They also feel that thiests try to impose design upon anything which seems complex.

Why do Athiests feel that science is a sort of proof that God doesn't exist. They always draw a thick black line between religion and science. They often argue that the faliure to use scientific principles to explain the natural world is the reason why thiests believe in God.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that we need to distinguish between the gaps' god and the reasons' God.

Gaps' god argument: Something happened which we don't know how to explain rationally, so it must've been by a supernatural being which acts outside reasons.

Reasons' God argument, either: 

1. Something happened which we don't know how to explain it by current knowledge, then it must've happened by a specific reason which leads to God in the end. 

2. Something happened which we know how to explain by current knowledge, but its complexity hints towards it being created by an intelligent being. 

 

What they say is true about the gaps' god which many (and not all) Christians believe in. Yes, the rapid advancements in science and scientifical theories removed the need for such a god. But is not true at all about the reasons' God.

Edited by Mark Enlightment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you saw an Apple fall to the ground- 

Pre- discovery of a Law called gravity

People did not say God must have done it. 

Post - Discovery of a Law called Gravity.

People who study the natural world, said well Apple fell to the ground due to a Law/Force called Gravity. 

But what is Gravity? Who created Gravity. 

So, you can't negate an Agent because you were able to explain mechanics/mechanism.

Even in secular/ Scientific world God is an Agent not a Mechanism. 

Hubble telescope can "Show" you the deep field" But it can't explain Who put it there. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Salam,

I sometimes can't understand the logic of Atheists. 

Why do Athiests feel that science is a sort of proof that God doesn't exist. 

That's a bit of a generalization, I'm sure different atheists arrive at their beliefs in different ways. For me, as soon as I was old enough to think about it for myself I had to reject Christianity as an implausible fantasy story - I just do not believe the important bits. I have yet to encounter another religion that is believable for me. I don't believe in a creator, Im not convinced by the arguments in favor (but I don't rule it out). Science, it seems to me, offers no evidence for  either belief in God or for disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Klanky said:

That's a bit of a generalization, I'm sure different atheists arrive at their beliefs in different ways. For me, as soon as I was old enough to think about it for myself I had to reject Christianity as an implausible fantasy story - I just do not believe the important bits. I have yet to encounter another religion that is believable for me. I don't believe in a creator, Im not convinced by the arguments in favor (but I don't rule it out). Science, it seems to me, offers no evidence for  either belief in God or for disbelief.

So, you believe that You were created because of a Mechanism called Evolution. (Correct). Macro Evolution has not been proved or will ever be proved. That way its called "Macro". No mechanism exists to prove it. You "believe" in it. Because someone said its true, you believed in it (Gap Fill).  

How did the Universe or the pocket of the Unknown Universe that we live in and you life Originated. 

Science deals with Mechanics/Mechanisms Only. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Enlightment said:

 

1. Something happened which we don't know how to explain it by current knowledge, then it must've happened by a specific reason which leads to God in the end. 

 

Common trick, that we get it wrong. 

I do not have to explain, why Sun and Moon exist or how they function. I can say, God made them to sustain life. 

Now if someone explains the "Science" behind their motion. 

Why was My saying that God made it was a gap fill. Scientist just explained the reason for their movements or how they were formed or it was a trillion degree hot and what reaction happen inside of it to produce heat. ( information may be of value for other reason )  It was not my concern. 

Rain comes down, I say its Mercy from God. If a scientist explains the mechanics of how water gets evaporated and sent back down to earth. That just explains the mechanics Which I was not concerned with. Because its a Mercy of God. And God must have a mechanism to carry out His mercy for us.

God helped me, implies that I understand God does not physically comes down to this tiny rock to physically Help me. God has forces that carry out this task. He is the Source of Help. 

God takes away life. If you explain the mechanic so death, and what causes death.(of value for other reasons) . Is of no concern to me.

I never claimed that God is sitting there making the sun and the moon move, or bringing every drop of rain or taking souls "Himself" . In my belief Mechanics/ Mechanisms or Forces which carry out the command is already understood. Mechanisms/ Laws govern life and Universe

I already understood that so, its not a new revelation. Everything was created around me has a function and its to sustain life.God is the Source of "All". God put all in action.  We can explain away the mechanics of things but this does not negate the Originator/ Creator.

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

I sometimes can't understand the logic of Atheists. 

Athiests believe that complexity doesn't require an intelligent creator. They also feel that thiests try to impose design upon anything which seems complex.

Without wishing to offend, your logic is quite odd too:

Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator

Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 

What about something like the Economy? It is complex (baffles me anyway) it is a human creation that functions fairly well. Did someone design it?
And how about crystals? They form order entirely automatically. So do snowflakes, ocean waves, spherical planets, elliptical orbits ... none of these things require any will or design at all.
wslm.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Created gods" are simply called them Idols. 

First handle the question of your own creation, with out deflection or finding a Gap fill to justify your inabilities.

Two objects and their interaction with each other or  on other objects around them are governed by what? law - which you now call automatic assembly of things with out will ..they are in inanimate objects they are formed and shaped and obtain properties based on what ? laws, forces etc...( Mechanics)

shape and forms are dictated by what ? is of no value to me, why there are the shape they are in is of Value- because they are designed that way through laws, forces, interactions to produce a particular  result. 

Again, common trick, focus on mechanics - mechanics does not answer the why questions. So, focus on Mechanics is your Gap fill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

Without wishing to offend, your logic is quite odd too:

Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator

Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 

What about something like the Economy? It is complex (baffles me anyway) it is a human creation that functions fairly well. Did someone design it?
And how about crystals? They form order entirely automatically. So do snowflakes, ocean waves, spherical planets, elliptical orbits ... none of these things require any will or design at all.
wslm.

*

The basis of the economy was created by humans. The initial drive for the economy required someone to creates it then allowing to function according to the conditions that already exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

none of these things require any will or design at all.
wslm.

There is a reason religion has existed for so long. Countries in Europe have plummeting birth rates the EU economy has disminished as a whole and healthcare prices will increase for Europeans(few young people, many old).

Also secular morality is fluid and adapts to culture:

Age of consent is set by culture, in China they eat dogs they’re secular yet they are not bound by the same morality.

Then you get into the identity crisis Alt groups are emerging because they feel white Christians are becoming extinct. Whites will only make 9% of the world population by 2060 as they are having less kids.

Finally, those who are secular humanists who believe in being good to others are motivated by human desire, drinking, having sex, they will elevate their desires above treating you with respect. They have no consistent moral code or way of enforcing it. I have seen countless humanists succumbing to their desires such as pursuing a woman and ignoring you when you are equal according to humanist ideals.

You are Italian no? Your population will take the largest hit Italians only have 1.00 fertility rate not enough for replacement level.

Every empire has had a model for its desruction the last stage is the age of decadence where morality ceases to be important, drinking, promiscuity and other things becoming more important, soccer and football players are more important than scholars and philosophers. This stage took place with Rome, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, and the British Empire no example has been able to escape it.

Enjoy the decline!

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

Without wishing to offend, your logic is quite odd too:

Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator

Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 

Information does not come from nothing(randomness) this a key obstacle for those adhering to random chance nothing produced by random chance has remained stable, even in chaos theory only temporary structures exist not long enough to create something. Complexity can only come from complexity from simple nothingness.

You have not even generated a response only declarative statements placed in bold of your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaamun aleikum,  i think an issue here is people/scientists trying to "disprove God/find evidence of God" through physical sciences/any science that is based on and dependent on the material boundaries of creation. As long as we focus on THIS realm, everything we know will be to some degree as the very nature of creation is limited in its size,shape,form,consistency,duration,every combination of these, etc. Please correct me if i am wrong.

How can Gods existence ( God being beyond anything we could ever ascribe to Him or understand) be proven by something that is limited in every aspect of the proving entitys tools and in their  existence? 

The ability to witness the Reality of God is something that takes place outside this hard, materialistic realm of our consciousnesses current plane of existence. 

Our time here in this realm is meant to be used to raise our spiritual state through purification, resisting our urge to partake in behaviors that degrade our soul and hinder our spiritual progress. (For Muslims, this is one of the benefits of voluntary fasting and also the fast of the Month of Ramadan. Obligatory fasting  will hopefully give Muslims the opportunity to experience this and increase in their spiritual awareness. Once the experience is had, hopefully they will be motivated to voluntarily fast at other times based on the proximity and spiritual elevation they experience.) Of course, there is no guarantee that everyone will have this spiritual experience as that is based on MANY different parameters, but never the less, this is a starting point towards it.

The physical realm is a vehicle that we are to use to achieve an experience of the metaphysical. A difference between THIS realm and the metaphysical is that the metaphysical Realm has less limits to restrain a persons experience to. It is outside the limitations we currently experience here. The Experience people have and it's very nature being the metaphysical (beyond physical) is something that can not be proven by science due to our limited abilities, but is something many people throughout time and  independent of religion/belief system have experienced. I am not saying that God can be proven through the metaphysical either, only that the metaphysical realm is something that science hasnt been able to prove either yet is a realm that once experienced, can give a person more of an opened mind to the Existence of God.

I know non-Muslims,atheists etc. are not convinced when we (Muslims) use literature from our religious sources as our evidence for whatever we are supporting, but never the less, i will use it anyway, as we are using a Muslim site:)

A belief in the metaphysical is known as the ghaib in Islam and is the first criteria listed in Surah 2, ayatt 3, where Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى says:

"Those who believe in the unseen (ghaib), and keep up prayer and pay out of what We have given them."

points to the importance of believing in the unseen/metaphysical reality. In this ayatt, "unseen/ghaib is listed first, before prayer and giving charity, because without belief in the unseen/ghaib/metaphysical, the spiritual goal is not possible, so first and foremost, the belief in what is beyond our senses is stressed, and hopefully, once rhis step is taken, a person will be opened up to realities beyond tbis realm, of which God is THE reality.

W/s

 

 

Edited by shia farm girl
Forgot something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

I sometimes can't understand the logic of Atheists. 

Athiests believe that complexity doesn't require an intelligent creator. They also feel that thiests try to impose design upon anything which seems complex.

Why do Athiests feel that science is a sort of proof that God doesn't exist.

You generalize Atheists too much they all came to their points from different paths. 

Also which Atheist? Agnostic Atheists are respectable and logical people. Gnostic Atheists are foolish to say the least I believe you're thinking about them.

5 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

So, you believe that You were created because of a Mechanism called Evolution. (Correct). Macro Evolution has not been proved or will ever be proved. That way its called "Macro". No mechanism exists to prove it. You "believe" in it. Because someone said its true, you believed in it (Gap Fill).  

How did the Universe or the pocket of the Unknown Universe that we live in and you life Originated. 

The best way to prove evolution is simply to look at the skeletons of us homo sapiens and monkeys (preferably chimpanzees) you'll see how simliar we are (especially the tailbones). Our designs as humans arent that unique as you've been lead to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

They often argue that the faliure to use scientific principles to explain the natural world is the reason why thiests believe in God.

Sorry I would like to point out. Before the scientific revolution in poor areas when there was drought we always blamed God but due to the advances in science we can now prevent droughts or at least contain them. Also during the outbreak of the black plague the Muslim and Christain world claimed this was a punishment from God so we should start praying but now in a more scientific secular world we can contain the outbreak of the black plague and create vaccinations for all diseases we thought were from God.

Im not an Atheist but I understand their points of views and why they think like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

Without wishing to offend, your logic is quite odd too:

Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator

Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 

 

I hear this repeated a lot of the time. This contention was what Dawkins also mentioned in his book , and in his talks. He posits that if we seek to have an explanation for the complexity, what benefit is that if the explanation is something far more complex in every imaginable way? It just pushes the question back and brings forth a bigger problem than it solves.

In response to this, what argumentation like this demonstrates is a lack of understanding about the reality of God and arguments for his existence. Remember Atheists or Theists/Deists both affirm that something has always had to exist, by nature or necessity of its own existence, or nothing would exist.  When a Theist/Deist states that something must exist , by nature or necessity of its own existence , or nothing would exist, and further goes on to proving from a logical perspective how this 'thing' can not be contingent, but must be necessary, they then come to a point where they affirm: that which had to exist, and by which everything exists, is necessary. A necessary reality can not be contingent, and so can not come into and out of existence, or form and change intrinsically, and this rules out matter, energy, and the like. This then shifts the argument further and we realise what brought the universe into being must be necessary, immaterial, powerful, neither matter nor energy.  Further arguments are used to established other elements of this, such as the deliberate nature of the universe coming into existence, and the like so don't consider this the only argument or an exhaustive elucidation of even this argument.

Therefore we get to a being which is immaterial, necessary, all-powerful, by virtue that this could be the only possible explanation. The universe can't have these properties and can't just exist , and we know something has always had to just exist by nature or necessity of its own existence, or nothing would exist. 

Ocamm's Razor would necessitate that now we have an adequate explanation for the universe and, being a necessary existence (exists by necessity of its own existence or nothing would exist, because you have to believe the universe or some form of matter or energy system existed before it and just existed), we don't need to delve deeper because the problem has been solved without needing to seek further explanations. You don't need to ask' who made God' because the reality is, God is the answer to why anything exists at all, whereas the universe is not sufficient when measured up against objective principles we have derived that have come from logical argument (i.e it must be necessary, immaterial etc).

From Kita al-Kafi (our book of traditions from the ones chosen by God i.e the Prophet and the purified of his family (asws))):  "The Imam said, "There is nothing in the universe, but that is subject to annihilation, alteration, change, decay, transition from one color to another, from one shape to another and from one quality to another. They increase, decrease and change from decrease to increase, except He, Who is the Lord of the worlds. He alone is eternal and in one state. He is the first, before every thing and the last eternally. His attributes and names do not change as they do in the case of others. A man at one time is dust, at other time flesh and blood, then turns into decaying bones and finally becomes dust. A piece of date  at one time is raw, at another time ripe, mature and then it dries up. With every change, the names and attributes also change. Allah, the Majestic, the Glorious is different from all such things." [Volume 1, the tradition has a Saheeh(authentic) chain as per mirat al-Uqul]

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Quisant said:

They form order entirely automatically. So do snowflakes, ocean waves, spherical planets, elliptical orbits ... none of these things require any will or design

A snowflake begins when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor high in Earth's atmosphere. The water vapor coats the tiny particle and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice. This tiny crystal will be the "seed" from which a snowflake will grow.

I posted the process of how snowflakes are formed in case you didn't know.

Something forming automatically doesn't suggest that God doesn't exist. The formation of snow is only possible if it adheres to certain scientific principles. This in no way proves anything, so I don't know what your point is.

Can you elaborate on why you brought the example of the formation of snowflakes? How does it prove your point?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

I already understood that so, its not a new revelation. Everything was created around me has a function and its to sustain life.God is the Source of "All". God put all in action.  We can explain away the mechanics of things but this does not negate the Originator/ Creator.

I didn't deny this. It is our belief from generations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forgottenthinker said:

The best way to prove evolution is simply to look at the skeletons of us homo sapiens and monkeys (preferably chimpanzees) you'll see how simliar we are (especially the tailbones). Our designs as humans arent that unique as you've been lead to believe.

I call BS they keep shifting the narrative first they said humans came from Africa. Now they’re saying Asia and Africa also there are many missing links in the fossil record yet in spite of this they keep generating hypothetical scenarios with little observable evidence.

Case in point:

“The fossil that rewrites human history: 260,000-year-old Chinese skull suggests we descend from ASIAN as well as African ancestors”

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5084509/amp/Ancient-skull-China-rewrites-human-history.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Forgottenthinker said:

The best way to prove evolution is simply to look at the skeletons of us homo sapiens and monkeys (preferably chimpanzees) you'll see how simliar we are (especially the tailbones). Our designs as humans arent that unique as you've been lead to believe.

Even if you believe in evolution, how does the defy the existence of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Forgottenthinker said:

The best way to prove evolution is simply to look at the skeletons of us homo sapiens and monkeys (preferably chimpanzees) you'll see how simliar we are (especially the tailbones). Our designs as humans arent that unique as you've been lead to believe.

Sorry, that's just an ambiguous and far-fetched theory. No supporting evidence whatsoever, not even a trace of 'less evidence' to pass it as probable. A valid theory is an undisputed one, which can be observed and tested in every regard until disproven. 'Likeness' and 'similarity' do not form the prerequisites which substantiate facts (or proof) but only open doors to investigation. So far, such experiments or means of seeking observable evidence have FAILED, and miserably continue to FAIL. 

Assuming the animal kingdom was non-existent - the universe theoretically contains all the ingredients which pave the way for 'human identity'. But that only corroborates with the physical being but what of life itself? How does physical matter transform into active intelligent matter? Truth is, Scientists are baffled with some of the more simpler and obvious questions, hence the idea of evolution from ape-2-man is forced with predefined protocols or observatory methods deliberately disregarded. The real questions just get brushed under the carpet. That's not science, that's stubbornness. Much like the theories of natural law of selection, multi-universes, etc. 

BTW, man has dug deep and uncovered dinosaurs....why haven't they found our evolving ape ancestors? Maybe the apes didn't necessarily evolve....but Gandalf with his staff did the abra kadabra. Yep, he was around, theoretically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

I call BS they keep shifting the narrative first they said humans came from Africa. Now they’re saying Asia and Africa also there are many missing links in the fossil record yet in spite of this they keep generating hypothetical scenarios with little observable evidence.

Case in point:

“The fossil that rewrites human history: 260,000-year-old Chinese skull suggests we descend from ASIAN as well as African ancestors”

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5084509/amp/Ancient-skull-China-rewrites-human-history.html

 

 

 

 

Id recommend reading my old posts and the links below.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24287

 

 

In fact,

1.mutations have been observed to occur.

2. Mutations have been observed to accumulate.

3. Accumulated mutations have been observed to fixate as a product of natural selection.  

4.Fixated mutations have been observed to produce phenotypic change which result in increased fitness and longevity of life.

5. Accumulated genetic differences have been used to predict rates of mutation.

6. Rates of mutation have been used to predict the location of fossils

7. Fossils and DNA produce independent phylogenetic trees that are identical.

 

Even if we all just stuck our heads in the sand and still did not accept common descent, those of us who are honest and scientifically educated, recognize the theory as a plausible explanation for the diversity of life.

 

Those who would like to contest the above may do so in my theory of evolution thread.

 

It bothers me enough seeing young earth Christians with their stories of global floods and mankind riding dinosaurs. Their belief in the diversity of life involves all animals of the entire world on a single ark for hundreds of days. It pains me to see muslims taking after their Christian counterparts in denial of science.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×