Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
MohdHassan

Just Simply Prove.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You really need to brush up on philosophical concepts. It's not intended as an insult but a lot of your threads show a serious lack of understanding..

You should read these:

https://en.wikipedia...burden_of_proof

https://en.wikipedia...sell%27s_teapot

It's up to you to prove to me something exists. We can't just simply assume anything we want to exist, does indeed exist, without any further proof or evidence. I don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, it is up to you to prove that something does.

This famous quotation will help you with thinking about this:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I believe in 0 Gods, you believe in 1. There are thousands upon thousands of other Gods out there, tell me why you do not believe in those Gods and you'll be halfway to an answer.

Edited by kingpomba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the atheist wants us to believe that there is no God then he bears the burden of proof. He is making a claim about the Universe and so has the burden of supporting this claim. It's wrong to claim that the burden is only on the believer. It's on anyone who makes a claim about the nature of the Universe.

Secondly we dont need propositional evidence or proof to correctly believe that something exists. However we do need it if we want to convince others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the atheist wants us to believe that there is no God then he bears the burden of proof. He is making a claim about the Universe and so has the burden of supporting this claim. It's wrong to claim that the burden is only on the believer. It's on anyone who makes a claim about the nature of the Universe.

http://www.shiachat....ove-a-negative/

Well that doesnt really appear to be true. I guess it depends on how you define "atheist". I would consider myself an atheist simply because i dont believe, as opposed to being an atheist because I am claiming he doesnt exist.

Its not really a claim. I dont claim God doesnt exist no more than i claim the flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist. So the burden of proof is on the people who claim Gods truth. Not on the people who are simply unaware of this Gods existence and hence are a-theists.

The burden of proof is on those who make claims, be them theists or atheists, however it seems more common that its the theists that are making the claims around here.

Secondly we dont need propositional evidence or proof to correctly believe that something exists. However we do need it if we want to convince others.

And i agree with this.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There is no miracle done by GOD directly to me or to my poeple to proov right Quran, Bible, Torah, or Vedas or any other holy book of our time.

2) There is no proof that infinity really exist. I (Whats your proof?)

3) I am skhitsofrenic my self. I have had this disees for years. I have talked to djinns and Iblis personally as it part of my illness. Does that make them real? Have your prayer ever made you any material benefit or have you just just connected the dots yourself? Is there any scientific evidence that prayer has been answered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the atheist wants us to believe that there is no God then he bears the burden of proof. He is making a claim about the Universe and so has the burden of supporting this claim.

You're right, it is on him. Lets wait for him to deliver shall we?

I'm particularly interested in his reasons for not believing in every other God out there.

It's wrong to claim that the burden is only on the believer.

Now, this i'm not sure of. It's fairly contentious granted. I think however, you shouldn't need to prove something doesn't exist, especially if the claim is heavy or carries a lot of significance or is considered false by a lot of people. Religions are based on myths and myths are dismissed or considered untrue or outlandish by a lot of people, same for a lot of religions. Even the larger religions capture under 20% of the world each, so its obviously highly contentious and debateable. If you heard a rumour i had a dragon though would it be really up to you to prove that i didn't? it seems proposterous to assume something as out of reality as that exists, it's up to me to prove my dragon does exist. I'm not fully resolved on the issue myself but i'm still leaning towards the russels teapot type positon. Granted it is highly contentious.

Secondly we dont need propositional evidence or proof to correctly believe that something exists. However we do need it if we want to convince others.

I think you do. If you are to believe it yourself you need some kind of proof whether a prior or a posteriori. I find it extremely hard to believe someone would actually believe something exists without any evidence, proof or rationalisation in their mind at all. Everyone has something that they consider proof or evidence.

These are largely side issues anyway.

Lets wait for his reponse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this i'm not sure of. It's fairly contentious granted. I think however, you shouldn't need to prove something doesn't exist, especially if the claim is heavy or carries a lot of significance or is considered false by a lot of people. Religions are based on myths and myths are dismissed or considered untrue or outlandish by a lot of people, same for a lot of religions. Even the larger religions capture under 20% of the world each, so its obviously highly contentious and debateable. If you heard a rumour i had a dragon though would it be really up to you to prove that i didn't? it seems proposterous to assume something as out of reality as that exists, it's up to me to prove my dragon does exist. I'm not fully resolved on the issue myself but i'm still leaning towards the russels teapot type positon. Granted it is highly contentious.

Have a look at the link I posted.

I think you do. If you are to believe it yourself you need some kind of proof whether a prior or a posteriori. I find it extremely hard to believe someone would actually believe something exists without any evidence, proof or rationalisation in their mind at all. Everyone has something that they consider proof or evidence.

I said 'propositional evidence' by which I meant the sort of proof that you could write down in a syllogism to convince someone else. Now you are saying that proof can be a priori proof. Well, this isnt the sort of proof that you can write down in premise-conclusion form; its the sort of thing you know intuitively.

And its the sort of thing you dont need an argument for

(The edit function isnt working: the last sentence should read 'the sort of thing that you dont necessarily need an argument for'. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I claim 'The Eiffel tower is non-existent', it if my job it prove it.

A negation still needs to be proved in order for it to be true. A negation is no different from any other proposition.

Atheists, atleast most i know, including myself, would never say "the eiffel tower is non-existent", but rather i would say something more along the lines of, ive never seen this eiffel tower, and i therefore i am not a believer in its existence. Now, you can show me evidence for it, and then perhaps i will believe.

In order for me to say "the eiffel tower is non existent", i would need to first have someone make the claim to me that it does exist. Otherwise why would i even talk about something i dont know about? The same goes for God. I wouldnt say God does not exist unless someone first told me that God does exist and i disagreed.

No matter how anyone tries to twist it, the burden of proof is on the believer if they plan to prove Gods existence, or at least the burder of evidence is on the believer if they plan to convince others of Gods existence.

Aside from that, from what i can tell, I am unfamiliar with this "God" everyone speaks of. I dont think I have ever seen it, nor touched it, nor heard it. I wouldnt even have considered its existence if not for people telling me of it. So, i look toward the people who told me of it, and I ask them to provide the proof or at least evidence. Because its not my job to prove something which I have no knowledge of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The problem with atheists is that that they contemplate God only with the mind, when in reality you need both the mind AND the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the atheist wants us to believe that there is no God then he bears the burden of proof. He is making a claim about the Universe and so has the burden of supporting this claim. It's wrong to claim that the burden is only on the believer. It's on anyone who makes a claim about the nature of the Universe.

Secondly we dont need propositional evidence or proof to correctly believe that something exists. However we do need it if we want to convince others.

You can't prove a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with atheists is that that they contemplate God only with the mind, when in reality you need both the mind AND the heart.

This is all very nice and poetic but it isn't much in the way of an argument for God existing.

It's more sophism or PR than a proper philosophical argument, at least in my (dominant) western tradition of analytical philosophy.

You haven't proven or established why exactly we need the mind and the heart in an argument either, you just claimed it.

There's also the problem of an event where the mind and heart conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's not meant to be "poetic", it's meant to be actual.

Your problem is that you assume the existence of God can ONLY be actualized by an "argument" of the mind (which even you stated is biased towards the western tradition). You limit yourself if you follow this exclusively. It doesn't open you up to new realms of thinking or feeling.

God also exists through "realization", "epiphany", and "awareness". These are as important if not more important. And these cannot be measured through "rational argument" or "analytics". Therefore it seems more comfortable to dismiss and reject them, claiming (maybe arrogantly) that science and philosophy is the exclusive "way to go".

Which is why illiterate people around the world can believe in God without spending years "convincing themselves" with philosophy books and long forum posts. And also why many so called "intellectuals" are the opposite, despite libraries at their disposal.

Clearly another factor is in play here. And that is the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from that, from what i can tell, I am unfamiliar with this "God" everyone speaks of. I dont think I have ever seen it, nor touched it, nor heard it. I wouldnt even have considered its existence if not for people telling me of it. So, i look toward the people who told me of it, and I ask them to provide the proof or at least evidence. Because its not my job to prove something which I have no knowledge of.

That's kind of funny, since the other day you were flipping out over someone not apparently believing in the existence of black holes, which I'm pretty sure you've also never seen, touched nor heard. So why do you believe in them? Because their existence would explain phenomenon apart from them we see in the universe which would thus be their effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists, atleast most i know, including myself, would never say "the eiffel tower is non-existent", but rather i would say something more along the lines of, ive never seen this eiffel tower, and i therefore i am not a believer in its existence. Now, you can show me evidence for it, and then perhaps i will believe.

In order for me to say "the eiffel tower is non existent", i would need to first have someone make the claim to me that it does exist. Otherwise why would i even talk about something i dont know about? The same goes for God. I wouldnt say God does not exist unless someone first told me that God does exist and i disagreed.

No matter how anyone tries to twist it, the burden of proof is on the believer if they plan to prove Gods existence, or at least the burder of evidence is on the believer if they plan to convince others of Gods existence.

Aside from that, from what i can tell, I am unfamiliar with this "God" everyone speaks of. I dont think I have ever seen it, nor touched it, nor heard it. I wouldnt even have considered its existence if not for people telling me of it. So, i look toward the people who told me of it, and I ask them to provide the proof or at least evidence. Because its not my job to prove something which I have no knowledge of.

Then, with that argument, you can only ever claim to be agnostic. If you are agnostic, then you may have a point in saying you need someone to prove God for you.

But being an atheist, you are rejecting God. To dismiss something is to need evidence for it. I have no evidence for the presentism of time, but it would seem absurd for me to reject on the basis that I cannot see evidence for it. There may not always be clear evidence for something which is true, or perhaps evidence that we understand.

A scientific theory cannot be rejected just because it lacks any evidence, it will still remain. When it can be proved that it is not coherent, then we may discard it. The same applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of funny, since the other day you were flipping out over someone not apparently believing in the existence of black holes, which I'm pretty sure you've also never seen, touched nor heard. So why do you believe in them? Because their existence would explain phenomenon apart from them we see in the universe which would thus be their effects.

When you view the effects of a blackhole, youre visually viewing the direct physical effects of a particular object. For example, you can see with your eyes, objects being pulled in in a certain region. With religion however, what are we visually viewing? When I see blackholes, i attribute the attributes to that of a black hole. When I see lightning, i dont attribute it to Zues, I attribute it to charged particles. When I see a tidal wave, i dont attribute it to Poseidon, i attribute it to something like an earthquake.

So where does God come into the picture? The big bang? I really wouldnt know, nor do I. And so I ask other people to draw that line and to demonstrate why. Tell me why lightning is a creation of God as opposed to simply being the passing of charged particles.

Then, with that argument, you can only ever claim to be agnostic. If you are agnostic, then you may have a point in saying you need someone to prove God for you.

But being an atheist, you are rejecting God. To dismiss something is to need evidence for it. I have no evidence for the presentism of time, but it would seem absurd for me to reject on the basis that I cannot see evidence for it. There may not always be clear evidence for something which is true, or perhaps evidence that we understand.

A scientific theory cannot be rejected just because it lacks any evidence, it will still remain. When it can be proved that it is not coherent, then we may discard it. The same applies here.

I am an agnostic, but also I am a non believer, which is an atheist. Very few atheists are going to sit around saying God definitely doesnt exist. I had mentioned before, its how you define the word. And if this topic is only geared toward atheists who do make such claims, then this will be a baron topic, because there is no atheist on this website who would make such a claim.

Also, scientiic theories are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided. Until then, they're considered hypotheses. Though it is possible that hypotheses could eventually be demonstrated to be true, more often than not, they're false, and very few people aside from those that propose the hypotheses, actually believe in them.

And so, comparing God to a theory wouldnt be as accurate as comparing God to a hypothesis, in which case, by your analogy, it would be more practical not to be a believer.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to brush up on philosophical concepts. It's not intended as an insult but a lot of your threads show a serious lack of understanding..

You should read these:

https://en.wikipedia...burden_of_proof

https://en.wikipedia...sell%27s_teapot

It's up to you to prove to me something exists. We can't just simply assume anything we want to exist, does indeed exist, without any further proof or evidence. I don't need to prove that something doesn't exist, it is up to you to prove that something does.

This famous quotation will help you with thinking about this:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

I believe in 0 Gods, you believe in 1. There are thousands upon thousands of other Gods out there, tell me why you do not believe in those Gods and you'll be halfway to an answer.

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities – therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘Allah’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE

Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

“Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?”

[Al-Quran 41:53]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am an agnostic, but also I am a non believer, which is an atheist. Very few atheists are going to sit around saying God definitely doesnt exist. I had mentioned before, its how you define the word. And if this topic is only geared toward atheists who do make such claims, then this will be a baron topic, because there is no atheist on this website who would make such a claim.

An atheist by definition is one who rejects the existence of God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

There are plenty of atheists who do claim that there is no possibility in the existence of God. This sort of negation requires evidence, too.

One example is Richard Dawkin. In an interview he said that the God of the Bible/Quran does not exist (although he was still open to the idea that super aliens might have created us and are watching over us).

Also, scientiic theories are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided. Until then, they're considered hypotheses. Though it is possible that hypotheses could eventually be demonstrated to be true, more often than not, they're false, and very few people aside from those that propose the hypotheses, actually believe in them.

And so, comparing God to a theory wouldnt be as accurate as comparing God to a hypothesis, in which case, by your analogy, it would be more practical not to be a believer.

1. God, too, is given evidence in support of His existence. (The debates are with regards to whether or not these are truly 'evidences' for God)

2. God is not to be proved nor disproved. God is for the individual. Belief in God can be justified through rational discussion, but that is not always how one comes to Him.

3. Hypothesis cannot be said to be true nor false until they are examined from every angle. If I was to say that inside every quark there exists a tiny little leprechaun then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong in order to reject my hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you view the effects of a blackhole, youre visually viewing the direct physical effects of a particular object. For example, you can see with your eyes, objects being pulled in in a certain region. With religion however, what are we visually viewing? When I see blackholes, i attribute the attributes to that of a black hole. When I see lightning, i dont attribute it to Zues, I attribute it to charged particles. When I see a tidal wave, i dont attribute it to Poseidon, i attribute it to something like an earthquake. So where does God come into the picture? The big bang? I really wouldnt know, nor do I. And so I ask other people to draw that line and to demonstrate why. Tell me why lightning is a creation of God as opposed to simply being the passing of charged particles. I am an agnostic, but also I am a non believer, which is an atheist. Very few atheists are going to sit around saying God definitely doesnt exist. I had mentioned before, its how you define the word. And if this topic is only geared toward atheists who do make such claims, then this will be a baron topic, because there is no atheist on this website who would make such a claim. Also, scientiic theories are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided. Until then, they're considered hypotheses. Though it is possible that hypotheses could eventually be demonstrated to be true, more often than not, they're false, and very few people aside from those that propose the hypotheses, actually believe in them. And so, comparing God to a theory wouldnt be as accurate as comparing God to a hypothesis, in which case, by your analogy, it would be more practical not to be a believer.

"Also, scientiic theories are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided. Until then, they're considered hypotheses. Though it is possible that hypotheses could eventually be demonstrated to be true, more often than not, they're false, and very few people aside from those that propose the hypotheses, actually believe in them."

I don't think this is an accurate statement. A hypothesis becomes a theory after intense peer review and attempts to debunk it and to replicate the results are major steps to becoming a theory, after passing these tests it becomes a theory. After the empirical evidence is arrived at or found it then becomes a law of physics. Isn't this the Scientific or Newtonian Method? I am pretty sure about this but if this is wrong I welcome correction.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD

My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities – therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY

In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.

The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.

........

Hello,

Brother please can you just stop simply copying and pasting things... It'd be great to see your own original thoughts. I'm not going to reply to something you just ctrl c and ctrl v'ed. You copied and pasted it from http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212&Itemid=186 .

In your other thread in the christianity forum you also did a similar thing right here . I'm not intending to put you on trial or anything but if we wanted to see copy and pasted things we'd seek them out.

I'd really encourage you to post what you, yourself think. Don't be afraid that it might not be very good or strong, its all part of the learning experience to help re-enforce your philosophy, so please do share your own views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in 0 Gods, you believe in 1. There are thousands upon thousands of other Gods out there, tell me why you do not believe in those Gods and you'll be halfway to an answer.

There has been 1 god throughout the history of existence and when you come to jump over the dark valley of irrational and accept it by heart, this 1 becomes infinite.

Moreover 0 is the most meaningless concept ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been 1 god throughout the history of existence and when you come to jump over the dark valley of irrational and accept it by heart, this 1 becomes infinite.

Moreover 0 is the most meaningless concept ever.

This is totally false... You really need to go equate yourself with the history of religion and "existence". Some of the first religions were thought to be animistic religions, which obviously by their nature as such, definitely have more than one God. This covers a lot of human history. We need to look no further than ancient egypt or ancient greek for examples of multiple Gods in the religious thought of the time. You really need not look much further than the first couple sentences in the article for evidence of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism .

If you mean you think there has only been one corect God through history and you think its Allah, thats not what the quotation is about. It asks why you disregard all the other Gods out there as silly, unbelieveable or impossible, if you think about why you do that, you might come to understand a little why athiests also dont buy into your conception of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Also, scientiic theories are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided. Until then, they're considered hypotheses. Though it is possible that hypotheses could eventually be demonstrated to be true, more often than not, they're false, and very few people aside from those that propose the hypotheses, actually believe in them."

I don't think this is an accurate statement. A hypothesis becomes a theory after intense peer review and attempts to debunk it and to replicate the results are major steps to becoming a theory, after passing these tests it becomes a theory. After the empirical evidence is arrived at or found it then becomes a law of physics. Isn't this the Scientific or Newtonian Method? I am pretty sure about this but if this is wrong I welcome correction.

Ah, my mistake, i meant to say hypotheses, not theory. That is, I meant to say. "Also, scientific Hypotheses are not recognized as theories until after empirical evidence is provided". Which is similar to what you said. A hypothesis must contain a multitude of evidences and it must also be peer reviewed and built upon, in order to become a theory, which is essentially what you said, yes. Thankyou for pointing that out.

On the second part. Im not so sure theories become laws. For example, the theory of evolution could never become a law as a whole. But based on the way you worded it, im not sure exactly what you meant. Laws are mathematical truths that support theories. However theories themselves, I cant say for all cases because ive never really thought about it, but i know for many cases, theories will never become laws because theories contain a broad range of evidences. 10 different independent pieces of evidence..i cant imagine would be put together as one law. Unless were talking about a law that defines a unifying theory or something. But even then, the theories would remain as theories.

An atheist by definition is one who rejects the existence of God.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheist

There are plenty of atheists who do claim that there is no possibility in the existence of God. This sort of negation requires evidence, too.

One example is Richard Dawkin. In an interview he said that the God of the Bible/Quran does not exist (although he was still open to the idea that super aliens might have created us and are watching over us).

1. God, too, is given evidence in support of His existence. (The debates are with regards to whether or not these are truly 'evidences' for God)

2. God is not to be proved nor disproved. God is for the individual. Belief in God can be justified through rational discussion, but that is not always how one comes to Him.

3. Hypothesis cannot be said to be true nor false until they are examined from every angle. If I was to say that inside every quark there exists a tiny little leprechaun then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong in order to reject my hypothesis.

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

Ok, so unknown in fact as in, no fact appears to exist. therefore they do not believe because they do not have knowledge. They are atheistic. What do you think of this?

Also, That would make Dawkins an atheist with respect to some Gods, while still an agnostic toward others. We are all atheists toward some Gods.

"If I was to say that inside every quark there exists a tiny little leprechaun then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong in order to reject my hypothesis."

The real question is, why would you ever believe that leprechauns existed within every quark, if you did not have any objective evidence for it. Thats rhetoric. Also, you should never claim such a thing as absolute truth, and if someone doesnt believe it, you should be ok with that.

Also, its not incumbent upon me to disprove the hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese. I have my own theories that i accept, and I pay little mind to people who propose hypothesis that they cant even empirically support themselves. If anything, you are the one who believes it, you should have objective evidence before you believe it and before you propose it. You shouldnt believe it first, and then expect other people to pull evidence out of thin air against a concept they know nothing about.

Like the flying spaghetti monster. Christians are not obligated to disprove the FSM, FSM believers are obligated to have some form of objective evidence, upon the proposal of the hypothesis. Otherwise you cant even rightfully propose it.

Again, the concept of God would be a hypothesis, and not only that, you wouldnt even be able to submit an abstract on it because there is no truly objective evidence. At least not that I can see. If Jesus descended from heaven and left traces of his arrival, then sure, but the concept being discussed here is simply too obscure.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean you think there has only been one corect God through history and you think its Allah, thats not what the quotation is about. It asks why you disregard all the other Gods out there as silly, unbelieveable or impossible, if you think about why you do that, you might come to understand a little why athiests also dont buy into your conception of God.

Thanks for the link.

I never think anyone's system of belief as silly, unbelievable or impossible because they are sound, believable and possible even atheism. Allah is just the most sound, believable and possible to me. Allah is just a door, not more, and if you choose the right key to enter it, you will feel what I meant in the quotation from the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah is just a door, not more, and if you choose the right key to enter it, you will feel what I meant in the quotation from the heart.

Almighty god cannot really have hand, eye, house, name or other belongings, whatever you see in books are metaphors. Here I didn't mean anything more, but maybe I have gone a little bit too far ,so I apologize for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almighty god cannot really have hand, eye, house, name or other belongings, whatever you see in books are metaphors. Here I didn't mean anything more, but maybe I have gone a little bit too far ,so I apologize for that.

Oh, i really like this quotation and idea. Thanks for posting it. It does make quite a bit of sense to me personally.

oh my mistake i didn't know u were suppose to burn in hell,sorry,go go,and get burnt,Inshallah Allah will heat the fire more,let's pray,ok?

Who are you telling to burn? Who ever it is that is simply not on. Thats not how you have a reasonable conversation. I'm still waiting for some original arguments as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kingpomba:

1. It's obvious people (including you) only respond to easy posts that you think you can "win" against.

2. My last post here was left untouched, but yet you always seem to answer the braindead "you are going to hell" and "you are retarded" posts. In another thread I gave a whole response on Liberal Islam, yet the ONLY part you responded on was the part where I said you are Eurocentric and don't have our stakes. You ignored 90% of the post. I don't really care honestly, but it does look bad on your part, especially since you are "open minded" and want to "take it all in". Fearless in pursuit of truth, eh?

3. I will say it again, everything is NOT original "arguments" from the mind. That's merely a part of the human picture here.

I know you have a life, but use it wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not meant to be "poetic", it's meant to be actual.

Your problem is that you assume the existence of God can ONLY be actualized by an "argument" of the mind (which even you stated is biased towards the western tradition). You limit yourself if you follow this exclusively. It doesn't open you up to new realms of thinking or feeling.

God also exists through "realization", "epiphany", and "awareness". These are as important if not more important. And these cannot be measured through "rational argument" or "analytics". Therefore it seems more comfortable to dismiss and reject them, claiming (maybe arrogantly) that science and philosophy is the exclusive "way to go".

Which is why illiterate people around the world can believe in God without spending years "convincing themselves" with philosophy books and long forum posts. And also why many so called "intellectuals" are the opposite, despite libraries at their disposal.

Clearly another factor is in play here. And that is the heart.

Ill respond, since you seem to be under the impression that pomba wont, which im sure he will now that uve pointed it out. I personally ignored it because it sounds like something you just made up off the top of your head, also your attitude doesnt help my interest in wanting to talk to you. You said "God can be recognized through "awareness" or "realization" or "epiphany"". What is this even supposed to mean? You will have to elaborate. After all, you are talking to "intellectuals" here. I personally would need more details to know what youre talking about.

The problem with atheists is that that they contemplate God only with the mind, when in reality you need both the mind AND the heart.

And for this, the problem is, the "heart", i would consider, simply mislead emotions, built for the purpose of driving a being to take action while utilizing the mind. The "heart" itself isnt a tool that can be used to discover anything. For example, lets say we meet a women. The heart will not tell you if the women is good for you or not, the heart simply tells you to take action. The emotions you feel from the heart do not expose any sort of 4th dimension reality or anything like that.

With that said, we would be wise to trust the mind over the heart, just as we would when we meet women. Otherwise, you will end up with your heart broken, when you mind finally shows you that the heart has been wrong all along. The heart drives, the mind, directs.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It's obvious people (including you) only respond to easy posts that you think you can "win" against.

Sorry if i hurt your sensitive feelings(?) but what is your proof for this baseless accusation? Have you not seen my posts? They're quite often some of the most lengthy replies on the entire forum. If the arguments i were debating against were so easy, such length would not be required.

People have even commented on the considerably headwhacking length of my posts. Quite rightly i say but i do like to take my time, be thorough and give the arguments the answers i think they deserve.

If you think im conspiring against you, i've said numerous times (most recently here ) over my time on this forum that i really like it take my time and give arguments that come from people who have something useful to say and are able to engage in a proper exchange the time they deserve.

One thing i have a near 0 tolerance for is ad hominen or anything else of the like. That is not how you engage someone in proper debate.

2. My last post here was left untouched, but yet you always seem to answer the braindead "you are going to hell" and "you are retarded" posts.

See above about time. Those "braindead" arguments are often the easiest to respond to and take the least mental effort(like this post right now), like i said, i give things the time they deserve. It all makes sense now see?

Often i like to wait for some kind of inspiration to hit me or i'm just going through the motions, which is fine for any old regular reply but for something beefy, it really does require significant mental effort and is very draining. I'm sure you can see from my posts here that i do take time, often i spend time editing them and run over the hour edit limit because i took so long and have to make a new post or leave things out.

In another thread I gave a whole response on Liberal Islam, yet the ONLY part you responded on was the part where I said you are Eurocentric and don't have our stakes. You ignored 90% of the post. I don't really care honestly, but it does look bad on your part, especially since you are "open minded" and want to "take it all in". Fearless in pursuit of truth, eh?

What makes you think your so special that i ignore you? I'm sure you can tell, right now i'm leaving numerous other threads and people unanswered as well, so, you're not really anything special.

You seem to purposely think i'm ignoring you, what do you think my motivation is for such an act you accuse me of?

I ignored 90% of the post because the 90% needed more time and effort, which it deserved in this case.

I don't care if people think i "look bad" because you think everyone else holds the belief that i'm ignoring them. I could care less about that. However, personally, i do care about the time and effort i put into responding to peoples arguments.

3. I will say it again, everything is NOT original "arguments" from the mind. That's merely a part of the human picture here.

Blatant plagiarism without even changing anything or thinking about it yourself is different obviously different from the other kinds of "unoriginal"(according to you) arguments presented around here. There is a quite clear difference. In a university one will get you a fail if, not thrown out (the chancellor (highest administrative post) of a local university was fired and his career was ruined because he was discovered to be a plagiarist); The other, if executed correctly, will allow you to pass with flying colours. There’s a quite clear distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, i really like this quotation and idea. Thanks for posting it. It does make quite a bit of sense to me personally.

A good sign to me too.

And for this, the problem is, the "heart", i would consider, simply mislead emotions, built for the purpose of driving a being to take action while utilizing the mind. The "heart" itself isn't a tool that can be used to discover anything. For example, lets say we meet a women. The heart will not tell you if the women is good for you or not, the heart simply tells you to take action. The emotions you feel from the heart do not expose any sort of 4th dimension reality or anything like that.

With that said, we would be wise to trust the mind over the heart, just as we would when we meet women. Otherwise, you will end up with your heart broken, when you mind finally shows you that the heart has been wrong all along. The heart drives, the mind, directs.

Religiosity at least occurs at three levels: first level of religious is performing ahkam (commandments) such as prayer and fasting. Second level is to bring faith in everyday life and being a moral person, and the last and sublime level of religiosity is the level of personal experience of love for God that include the previous levels. So love is the most advanced level of being religious, which is not easily achieved because those who have gone this far believe that it is not just on you. And this is true about all religions.

Nobody wants you to worship or love an Unknown God, since this is impossible. But remember God by its very nature cannot be totally perceived by human. It is almost impossible for human to face the Infinite. This is the very critical point that the prophets have done an important service to humanity. They have made God more close and tangible to human mind by metaphors and allegories.

Metaphors as I previously said are many, but a beautiful allegory for God in the holy Quran is "light". God certainly is not the light, but thinking about god as light of sun can clarify many things. The sun is so generous in providing earth with light, making thing warm, giving life, and making it possible to see things. This allegory helps us get closer to god. The relationship between the love for a woman and a genuine love for God is like the relationship between light of sun and God. So if you come to understand God a you will see a neverending road in front of you that you will go as far as your capacity allows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

The problem of induction is interesting. We know it's true, but there's no universally accepted rational proof as of yet - in fact, in the philosophical world, it is still one of the great questions of philosophy.

The question is, what faculty knows induction to be true?

It's not pure reason. The belief in induction is not logically grounded. So what is it?

-------

The above is just to open up the question about evaluating tools other than reason, already hinted by Zarbolmasal.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good sign to me too.

Religiosity at least occurs at three levels: first level of religious is performing ahkam (commandments) such as prayer and fasting. Second level is to bring faith in everyday life and being a moral person, and the last and sublime level of religiosity is the level of personal experience of love for God that include the previous levels. So love is the most advanced level of being religious, which is not easily achieved because those who have gone this far believe that it is not just on you. And this is true about all religions.

Nobody wants you to worship or love an Unknown God, since this is impossible. But remember God by its very nature cannot be totally perceived by human. It is almost impossible for human to face the Infinite. This is the very critical point that the prophets have done an important service to humanity. They have made God more close and tangible to human mind by metaphors and allegories.

Metaphors as I previously said are many, but a beautiful allegory for God in the holy Quran is "light". God certainly is not the light, but thinking about god as light of sun can clarify many things. The sun is so generous in providing earth with light, making thing warm, giving life, and making it possible to see things. This allegory helps us get closer to god. The relationship between the love for a woman and a genuine love for God is like the relationship between light of sun and God. So if you come to understand God a you will see a neverending road in front of you that you will go as far as your capacity allows.

sounds like youre just making stuff up. but ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...