Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest KingFahad

"Does God Not Exist?" Part 2

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ridiculous... again i don't know how these atheists ever agreed to such a debate on that topic! Disproove a negative! YOU CANNOT!

(salam)

Lebstyle I am really trying to understand your arguements in many of these posts but I cannot. You say we can't prove the existence of god. And now you say we can't prove that god does not exist. So you are saying there is no way to find out?

That means you are wrong in concluding that god does not exist because u cannot prove it. What you should say is "I am not sure if God Exists". I wish Atheists would say this instead of arriving at a conclusion straight away without proof. If they did this then I would have more respect for their arguements because there would be no double standards in what they say as there is now. Its a simple question:

Does god exist?

(a) yes

(B) no

© I don't know

If yes prove it, if no prove it. Why do you like going round in circles complicating things just to confuse yourself and others so that it seems that u r right. When in actual fact u say many paradoxical statements.

The truth is, u don't know where you came from and why you are here. If you do please tell us. The Atheists have never answered this question since the beginning of the human race. And Science can never answer it because the scientists admit that they can never understand the period before the big bang or before time started because the tools of science cannot detect that "area".

There is only 1 way to know the truth of this topic. You need something that doesn't change like science. Something you can use to reach a conclusion. I'm sure u all know what that is.

According to recollections of past posts , Lebstyle has stated a negative to the notion that he has disproved the existence of God . Stating that he is more agnostic than atheist .

I believe the thrust of his writing is - that no one has proof of God ; largely , because he himself is not , of late , persuaded of God's existence ; and he's not the type of guy to take " someone else's " word for something on this magnitude of significance . [ Personally , I think he'd make the best kind of believer - one who doesn't follow blindly : but one who follows what he " knows " within himself ; from personal conviction . ]

As far as disproving a negative Leb ... As in ; disproving that God does not exist ?

Remember God's " non-existence " is only alleged .

To which , you'd say ; but so is the existence Of God only " alleged ".

So , is it a matter of whose allegations we find more convincing ?

Not really ; as it is written regarding this very thing - " ... My speech and my

preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom , but in demonstration of

the Spirit and of power : That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men ,

but in the power of God . " <-----> 1st Corinthians 2:4+5

Consider - that when someone rejects our testimony of God's existence ; they haven't necessarily rejected God ; but only our feeble attempt at demonstrating " the Spirit and the power " of God .

Solution 1. Find fault with those who reject us .

Solution 2 . Find greater access to " the Spirit and power " of God .

Surely , the latter is greater than the former .

Surely , the latter is more difficult than the former .

And surely , the latter is more uncommon , than the former .

" Therefore if any man be in Christ , he is a new creature : old things are passed

away ; behold , all things are become new . " <-----> 2nd Corinthians 5:17

May we not overstep ; and may we not underestimate .

wm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam allaikum,

>I'm not certain that there will be a "Part 3," however, there may be a (something along the lines of) "Is Jesus a Prophet or the Son of God?" sometime in Sept.<

Wow, i think this would be a great debate. I would love to see this one. But who would brother Rajabali debate against, on this topic ??? I'm not sure if brother Rajabali would be able to debate this topic because i don't think he ever debated a christian apologist. In my opinion the best candidate to debate brother Rajabali would be Norman Giesler the co-author of the book "Answering Islam". In my opinion the best muslim apologist when it comes to debating Christians is brother Shabir Ally from Canada because he is a experienced debater and has debated one of the best christian apologists namely William Lane Craig.

But i would love to see brother Rajabali debate some Christian on the topic of Jesus whether he was Prophet or the Son of God ? Specially if they debate in New York, which is not far from where i live. So, if anyone has some information about this possible debate, let me know please.

We selam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alaykum.

Immediately after this, Rajabali jumped on board and cited the verse from Soorat al-Anbiyyaa' that talks about the ripping of the heavens and the earth, and the creation of all living things from water, wondering aloud if anyone could have possibly known the latter. Richard Carrier gave the exact response that came to my mind: Thales' proclamation that the arche (APXH), the very foundation of all things, the "principle", was water, therefore all living things coming from water was also asserted by this Greek thinker some eleven centuries before the advent of Islam.

As Dan Barker stated, scientists make hypotheses which may or may not be accurate. Thales was a thinker (or scientist) who predicted that water is the root of all living things. Was his theory tested and taken as fact then? The Qur'an states this as a fact. Although the Qur'an is not a book of science, everything stated is not to be taken lightly. There is a certain strength and certainty in its preachings.

Rajabali seemed unable to mount any serious response to Carrier's point. Barker tried to get involved, but his points (about Muhammad not knowing about germ theory) seemed woefully sophomoric.

If I recall correctly (as one who attended the debate), Rajabali did not have the time to counter that argument, he was cut off.

Just my thoughts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pax Vobis FaithMuslima

Sorry for the delay in response...

As Dan Barker stated, scientists make hypotheses which may or may not be accurate.  Thales was a thinker (or scientist) who predicted that water is the root of all living things.  Was his theory tested and taken as fact then?  The Qur'an states this as a fact.

Well, I would note two things. First, Thales was living in a time when many Greek philosophers were trying to determine what 'element' served as the arche, and it is possible that Thales did not reach his conclusion via any serious scientific methodology, rather he may have somewhat arbitrarily chose water the way other Greeks from the time arbitrarily picked fire or air/wind/pneuma. Second, regardless of his methodology, Thales certainly asserted it as being a fact.

As for Rajabali's response, he did respond directly to Carrier on that point, but the question seemed bizarre (along the lines of "so why did scientists not agree with Thales?" or something like that).

Anyway, I was shocked to see Corey repeating the claim that Soorat az-Zaariyaat miraculously speaks about the expansion of the universe. I'd love to pick his brain on that one...

-Denis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alaykum.

I was directed to this link by someone: http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Greek/Ph/ThalesMiletus.htm

According to 2000 Britannica.com Inc., no writings by Thales survive, and no contemporary sources exist; thus, his achievements are difficult to assess. Inclusion of his name in the canon of the legendary Seven Wise Men led to his idealization, and numerous acts and sayings, many of them no doubt spurious, were attributed to him.

The claim that Thales was the founder of European philosophy rests primarily on Aristotle, who wrote that Thales was the first to suggest a single material substratum for the universe -namely, water, or moisture. Even though Thales as a philosopher renounced mythology, his choice of water as the fundamental building block of matter had its precedent in tradition. A likely consideration in this choice was the seeming motion that water exhibits, as seen in its ability to become vapour; for what changes or moves itself was thought by the Greeks to be close to life itself. To Thales the entire universe is a living organism, nourished by exhalations from water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I found this online somewhere and wished to share this with others @ ShiaChat

Theory 1: God created the entire universe and life.

Theory 2: Massive amounts of matter floated around in space in such quantities that the sheer mass caused a big bang. If there was no creation, this matter just "existed" and there was no beginning of time (since there can be nothing that creates it). Aftermath of this cosmic explosion led to life that was self sustaining on bodies that just happened to get all of the material needed to support life. This gathering of cosmic materials evolved into modern day life as we know it.

The problem with Theory 2 is that if all it takes is matter in space for life to spring up, why couldn't God have sprung up just as life forms on earth? There was no beginning of time or creation of the matter so he would have always been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam Alaykum.

For those interested, Carrier's review of the debate: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...ercarrier.shtml

Wassalam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(salam)

Carrier was talking very high of lee smolin's multiverse theory and Davies comparison of multiverse theories, and often misqouting stuff. A little glance at the smolin's original paper will reveal quite much. How he has struggled to explain anthropological principle through speculations and often ridiculous explainations.

There is a very good argument against all the multiverse theories which even Davies stated in his paper [MULTIVERSE COSMOLOGICAL MODELS

P.C.W. DAVIES

Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie University

New South Wales, Australia 2109]

5 . Multiverses merely shift the problem up one level

Multiverse proponents are often vague about how the parameter values are selected across the defined ensemble. If there is a “law of laws” or meta-law describing how parameter values are assigned from one universe to the next, then we have only shifted the problem of cosmic biophilicity up one level, because we need to explain where the meta-law comes from. Moreover, the set of such meta-laws is infinite, so we have merely replaced the problem of “why this universe?” with that of “why this meta-law?” This point was already made at the end of section 2. But now we encounter a further problem.

Each meta-law specifies a different multiverse, and not all multiverses are bound to

contain at least one biophilic universe. In fact, on the face of it, most multiverses would not contain even one component universe in which all the parameter values were suitable for life. To see this, note that each parameter will have a small range of values – envisage it as a highlighted segment on a line in a multi-dimensional parameter space – consistent with biology. Only in universes where all the relevant highlighted segments intersect in a single patch (i.e. all biophilic values are instantiated simultaneously) will biology be possible. If the several parameters vary independently between universes, each according to some rule, then for most sets of rules the highlighted segments will not concur. So we must not only explain why there is any meta-law; we must also explain why the actual meta-law (i.e. the actual multiverse) happens to be one that intersects the requisite patch of parameter space that permits life. And if the parameters do not vary independently, but

are linked by an underlying unified physical theory, then each underlying theory will

represent a different track in parameter space. Only in some unification theories would this track intersect the biophilic region. So one is now confronted with explaining why this particular underlying unified theory, with its felicitous biophilic confluence of parameter values, is the one that has “fire breathed into it,” to paraphrase Hawking. In Tegmark’s extreme multiverse theory this problem is circumvented, because in that case all possible meta-laws (or all possible unified theories) have “fire breathed into them” and describe really-existing multiverses.

Sometimes it is claimed that there is no meta-law, only randomness. Wheeler, for

example, has asserted30 that “there is no law except the law that there is no law.” In Smolin’s version of the multiverse14, gravitational collapse events “reprocess” the existing laws with small random variations. In this case, given a multiverse with an infinity of component universes, randomness would ensure that at least one biophilic universe exists. (That is, there will always be a patch of parameter space somewhere with all highlighted segments intersecting.) However, the assumption of randomness is not without its own problems. Once again, without a measure over the parameter space, probabilities cannot be properly defined. There is also a danger in some multiverse models that the biophilic target universes may form only a set of measure zero in the parameter space, and thus be only infinitesimally probable31. Furthermore, in some models, various randomness measures may be inconsistent with the underlying physics.

For example, in the model of a single spatially infinite universe in which different supra-Hubble regions possess different total matter densities, it is inconsistent to apply the rule that any value of the density may be chosen randomly in the interval [0, p], where p is some arbitrarily large density (e.g. the Planck density). The reason is that for all densities above a critical value that is very low compared to the Planck density, the universe is spatially finite, and so inconsistent with the assumption of an infinite number of finite spatial regions31.

The need to rule out these “no-go” zones of the parameter space imposes restrictions on the properties of the multiverse that are tantamount to the application of an additional overarching biophilic principle. There would seem to be little point in invoking an infinity of universes only to then impose biophilic restrictions at the multiverse level. It would be simpler to postulate a single universe with a biophilic principle.

At another place in the same paper he states:

An additional philosophical problem that afflicts most multiverse models (e.g.Boltzmann’s, Linde’s) is the familiar one that in an infinite universe anything that can happen, will happen, and happen infinitely often, purely by chance. This is also discussed as the problem of duplicate beings34. Thus eternal inflation predicts that 10 to the power 1029 cm away there will exist a planet indistinguishable from Earth, with beings indistinguishable from us13. By the same reasoning there will be an identical Hubble volume to ours about 10 to the power 10115 cm away. Furthermore, there will be infinitely many such identical persons, or identical Hubble volumes, or identical super-Hubble volumes, in the multiverse. Though there is no logical impediment of physical reality being infinitely replicated in either space or time, any physical theory that predicts such a situation invites especially skeptical scrutiny.

Adittionaly i will state that saying "infinite random pool of potential" is easy, but it isn't practically feasable. At the end of the day we will be having some restriction on the pool of values of the parameters, which will need an extra explaination, and this will go on indefinetely..

Edited by sayedzeeshan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lemme get one thing straight... Richard Carrier was amazed at Shia Islam!!??!?!?!

That's incredible, mashallah. He does in fact seem like a very open-minded, fair, just individual. He seems that he is trying very hard to believe. I'm sure there will be one thing he'll find out about in Islam, and the belief in Allah will just manifest itself inside of him, and he will proclaim the Shahada.

AND THEN THE ATHEISTS ARE DOOMED, MUAHAHAHAHAH!

He's a human computer, and his debating skills are legendary.

What do you guys think? Anyone who was present with him while Brother Rajabali was discussing Shia Islam with him... how did it look?? Was he enthusiastic?

- Mansab Jafri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

I found this online somewhere and wished to share this with others @ ShiaChat

Theory 1: God created the entire universe and life.

Theory 2: Massive amounts of matter floated around in space in such quantities that the sheer mass caused a big bang. If there was no creation, this matter just "existed" and there was no beginning of time (since there can be nothing that creates it). Aftermath of this cosmic explosion led to life that was self sustaining on bodies that just happened to get all of the material needed to support life. This gathering of cosmic materials evolved into modern day life as we know it.

The problem with Theory 2 is that if all it takes is matter in space for life to spring up, why couldn't God have sprung up just as life forms on earth? There was no beginning of time or creation of the matter so he would have always been there.

The problem with Theory 1 is that we define God as a very, very complex being.

The fact that we say he created the universe, does not solve our problems, since now we need to know where God comes from, what created him. This is of course just as difficult, if not more difficult than simply explaining the universe. That said, it is quite easy to explain something like the Big Bang, at least easier than the creation of a God.

Now, zareen, I have no idea where you found the description of theory 2, but it is way, way more complex than that, and at the same time, way more simple. The description you give is actually completely inaccurate.

I'll try and describe it better.

Theory 2: a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature exploded (the Big Bang), forming billions and billions of planets and stars. On a fraction of these planets, the conditions of life were just exact to have life (the fact that the conditions of life are exact might seem crazy, but since there are trillions and trillions of planets, there are certainly a couple of thousands of them that have these perfect conditions). And with a little bit of luck, ONE CELL is formed.

That one cell goes on to evolve (the brilliant Evolution Theory of Darwin) into more complex beings, after millions of years of course. Also, this might seem crazy, but if you read about it, you will see that it is a tremendously easy, yet enormously elegant theory. And thus, over billions of years, life evolved as such to form the humans and animals we now know.

There's no need for a God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jenneh19

"a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature exploded "

...This 'density and temperature' is considered matter as well, can you please explain where it came from? Did the hen come before the egg or did the egg come before the hen? Aren't you basing your entire belief on a loose theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature exploded "

...This 'density and temperature' is considered matter as well, can you please explain where it came from? Did the hen come before the egg or did the egg come before the hen? Aren't you basing your entire belief on a loose theory?

No I'm basing my idea about this universe (why do you guys keep using "belief") on the experiences and gathered evidence of scientists far more clever than you and me. And yes, the theory still needs perfection, it needs new stuff, but we are on the right path.

It seems as though you think the simplest explanation has to be the correct one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jenneh19

im assuming you are well-educated so you probably know that there are a HUGE amount of nucleotides in the human body... and one mistake in the sequence can have a domino effect on many many cells...

the probability of the nucleotides arranging in the correct form in which you and i are able to live is an astounding 41000 or 10600 .... chances of the nucleotides falling into perfect place based on evolution are slim to none... so small that even evolutionary theorists believe it to be a chance of nearly zero

Edited by jenneh19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im assuming you are well-educated so you probably know that there are a HUGE amount of nucleotides in the human body... and one mistake in the sequence can have a domino effect on many many cells...

the probability of the nucleotides arranging in the correct form in which you and i are able to live is an astounding 41000 or 10600 .... chances of the nucleotides falling into perfect place based on evolution are slim to none... so small that even evolutionary theorists believe it to be a chance of nearly zero

I know I'm going back two years but still feel compelled to clear this up.

jenneh19, your DNA did not just magically fall into place, it evolved by natural selection to what it is today.

Unfortunately I'm half asleep right now but I can explain further if needed.

Edited by Slipperyroads

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    •  @Mishael, Please read the thread shared by brother @Kazemi.

      I think you need this.
    • Salam. If you have one year before you start your Masters degree program, then there is no need to leave your family to go study Islam. Stay with your family and do as much independent study about Islam as you can. Do research on your own by reading and studying. After you achieve your Masters degree, inShaAllah you can take a break and reassess your situation to decide whether you want to take hawzah classes or other educational opportunities or if you need to work to pay off debts for yourself or your family.  
    • I have come to know when it comes to spirituality (sofism)there is nothing like Sunni Shia.  They are all same that true servant's and lovers of Allah. 
    • PBS, Charlie Rose, Fri17Nov17: lan Bremmer, Pres. of EurAsia Grp. KSA, Hariri, KSA Corruption, Yemen, lran, Qatar...       start time 45:30ff   KSA-lsrael at 52:30 (~new axis) https://charlierose.com/episodes/31184?autoplay=true 
    • Flower farming in Holland.
×