jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (303 posts)

The Existence OF Creator

  1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    There is no scientific and logical evidence of self existence of universe, therefore,only logical conclusion is the creator  of  universe not proving its self existence .

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But there is. Sorry. This is not logic - this is repeating the same thing again. You will now ignore the scientific evidence presented to you.

      But - let's for the moment assume there is an Invisible, Undetectable Creator (which I don't) - there is an infinite number of possible Invisible Undetectable Creators.

      Logically your Allah is therefore infinitely improbable.

      What are you trying to prove by repeating the same illogical, irrational statements over and over and over while ignoring all logic presented to you?

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Mark Knowles,we must also discover limitations of our reason while defining creator, our logic concludes  a creator under the universe not proving its self existence but it can never define completely the creator ,but if we try ,He is infinite supreme and absolute ego whose oneness never makes Him lesser in number and whose invisibility is actually confinement of our reason and senses, Who is not being observed but His power is being observed ,His will may be observed by the circulation of our blood,systems of our hearts and kidneys etc., which are working without our will and determination .How can we define and limit Him whose universe has not been defined and limited by our scientific research. How can we define Him who is not being seen but his realm, his creations, His worlds, His planets, His superb creature the human being, His workings, His systems,His wisdom and His kingdom is being observed .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "our logic concludes  a creator under the universe not proving its self existence"

          No - your logic goes from an expression of ignorance ("we can't if prove the universe created itself or not") to a declaration that god exists, created the universe and thus the universe did NOT create itself.  No one else is making that logical mistake - only you.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just preaching nonsense. Sorry - no logic here.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why would there be, ipso fact, an infinite number of possible creators?

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is self existence? 

      The universe exists by the only know way to determine things exist, agreement of multiple observers.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        psycheskinner, Self existence is existence by self, without support of external,a universe without beginning, an eternal universe, universe for ever, we observe the existence of universe,therefore, we can not presuppose that its existence is for ever and eternal and self existing, we are not observing a self existing universe,we are required to prove it for avoiding creator but we have no scientific evidence for the same for time being, consequently, we can never avoid the logical conclusion of a creator .

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Okay.  So what makes you think the universe could not come to exist spontaneously?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            psycheskinner, I am just making the point that there is no tangible scientific evidence to the effect of self existence of universe,therefore, the only conclusion is the existence of universe by creator , if universe is not created by creator it must prove its self existence .

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Um, To the extent something vastly removed in space and time can be studied, yes there is.

              How would you explain the universe rapidly expanding if not that it originated explosively from a single location?

              Why would God make a rapidly expanding universe rather than a stable one?

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Two things.
      1. There is scientific and logical evidence for a self existing universe. Open a book.
      even still
      2. Claiming there is no evidence for a universe without a creator and concluding that a creator must exist because of the lack of evidence of self existing universe is absurd. It's like claiming big foot exists because we can't prove he doesn't.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wait, Doesn't Bigfoot exist?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure he does, I have family members that strangely resemble big foot.

    4. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps if we did not use logic at all to conclude any thing at all we might not feel we have to prove any thing and just be. Oh well....

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Then we could go back to burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy, you mean? Like that. sad

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why would you think that then? Just because one cannot use logic to prove or disprove a creator what must you be thinking?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We can easily use logic to disprove a creator. You are the one suggesting that we stop using logic to conclude anything. When we didn't bother with that, we all believed the sort of things that led to burning witches and eating the heart of our enemy. At least I seem to be thinking. wink

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Does it not make sense to your logic to discontinue trying to prove or disprove what cannot be proved or disproved? It shall be fascinating to hear your logical argument disproving a creator, seeing as for you it appears to be easy.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure - here are some logical arguments for you.

                http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … gical.html

                But - as you already know it cannot be disproven - will you bother reading any of them? wink

                Love to hear your arguments as to why a Creator cannot be disproven or proven.

                The problem here is you have believers who have come to an illogical position that they are trying to prove by logic and reason. Which is why they are failing so badly.

                A god cannot be proven, because there doesn't seem to be one. Same reason the Tooth Fairy cannot be proven. wink

                1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                  pennyofheavenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you have no logical argument of your own?

                  Anyway..very briefly...as I see many flaws in the argument I was most interested in.

                  There are many perceptions of God so the logical argument presented of 'one' perception of God fail miserably at disproving God... sorry to say.

                  One of the logical arguments seems to be saying that in order for God to exist there has to be a beginning or an origin. The logical mind cannot grasp no beginning and no end because that is how it is designed and that is how it has evolved by default. Logic therefore cannot think beyond logic. At least by itself it cannot.

                  God cannot be proven or disproven using logic as I have said earlier.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Aww. Why on earth would I waste my time offering you any of my own arguments? You already know all the answers. LOL at the word salad. lol There are logical arguments that do disprove a god. Funny seeing you saying word salad and calling it logic though. lol lol

                    As I always say to people who use that argument that you stole from some one else,  - "You define it, I'll disprove it. " wink

                2. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



                  The tooth fairy can be proven! The tooth fairy looks like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I was speaking metawhatsitly. big_smile

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol!

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    I have to agree with Mark, to an extent. God is not the only logical conclusion.  My understanding of the current model of the universe is that we only have it because the team working out the mathematics only came up with it because the lead scientist had them continue on and come up with high improbabilities, along with all other calculations. So, we are working with what was a high improbability model. Which means the argument that God is highly improbable does not make it impossible.

    Although, I will add I see no logic in the argument for Allah, God as argued by Christianity and a lot of other ideas on the existence of a God.

  3. sibtain bukhari profile image61
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    Mark Knowles, I  am repeating my argument because I am not finding its logical reply from any one , my question is very simple and clear ''Have you any logical and scientific evidence that universe is self existing or exists by self '?' If answer is ''no'' ,''Then what is the logical conclusion of the same''? answer is '' Universe not proven to be self existing is existing  by creator'' ,Any one can reply it ?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah - I think you are getting confused. I made a logical argument and you chose to ignore it instead of addressing it. Why not try addressing it instead of repeating your illogical claim?

      The answer to your question is "yes." I even suggested some learning for you to do on one of your other threads. Why have you not done so?

  4. 0
    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago

    Looking at your op,it appears that you are saying that since there is no logical evidence to support a self existing universe the only logical conclusion is there is a creator. I really hope you have the logical evidence that you are asking atheists for to support your logical conclusion, otherwise you will be viewed as being as dishonet as you apparently accusing Mark of doing. I do not agree with Mark on a lot, but in this case, since you are refuting logical evidence then throaing a logical conclusion of your own, you must be ready to supply the same evidence to support your stance that you are asking others to supply to support theirs.


    (Yes, Mark, I know this would apply to me as well. Luckily for me, I keep my belief as simply a belief and know I do not have sufficient evidence that would convert that belief into absolute knowledge. No evidence is needed for a belief right? wink)

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Deepes Mind, you have not completely understood my argument , the logical conclusion of universe not proving its self existence is that universe is existing by creator , non self existence of universe, as we are observing the same, is the ample proof of creator , we are observing existence of universe , now if it will prove its self existence ,this will reject the logical conclusion of a creator and we will have to prove separately the existence of a creator but in the presence of universe not proving self existence ,the existence of a creator is established under logic as we have no other logical conclusion of the existing universe.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Untrue.  Everyone is completely understanding your argument, including Deepes Mind.  They are simply pointing out that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premiss.  That a failure to prove something is not the same thing as proving it false.

        Everyone that has replied to your posts on this matter have said the same thing; your logic is flawed.  Isn't it about time that you accepted that?

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



          It appears that he may be thinking that we are totally refuting his claim as false rather than pointing out the flaw in his logic. Flawed logic is not always false logic

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps, although I have repeatedly said (different thread) that there is no proof either way, that such "logic" neither proves NOR disproves anything.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I agree. Any logic provided can only reinforce a belief or lack thereof.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I understood your argument. At the same time, The lack of evedince does not mean evidence of lack. Even if there is no evidence to prove that the universe is self fulfilling this doesn't mean that the only logical conclusion is that there is a creator. Toy must be able to have that proof in order to jump to that conclusion. As it stands, there is no evidence available for a creator as well, but as i stated earlier, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since you are pointing to the lack of evidence for self existence and jumping to the logical conclusion, then you must have evidence of a creator (and no, "creation" itself is not evidence.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    There is only one creator, and his name is Ptah.

    Heathens.

  6. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Everything we know or ever will know remains within a system we call the universe. We may attempt to “Think outside of the box” but any conclusions we make about those things can not be proven with proofs from within the box (universe). 
      We are taught that within this system, matter can not be destroyed, it only changes form.                        Do we actually know that this is an absolute?  I have read articles concerning quantum physics experiments stating matter suddenly appeared and then mysteriously disappeared. 
      I don’t think we live in a closed system. I think the Black Hole at the center of our own galaxy  is proof of this.  This black hole swallows up vast amounts of matter and energy. We can not imagine how much energy this hole has consumed during the time of its existence.
    We don’t know where it went. We can only imagine. 
    The point of this post is …   Until we can think and understand things outside of this little box which we live, how can we presume to know who and what we are when we do not know how our little box affects and is affected by all them other little boxes which we are unaware of?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe. Sorry. Other than what you imagine to be there of course. wink

      Awesome that you think the Universe is a "little box," because I can barely grasp it's immensity. What was your point again?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Off topic, but I did see a while back that someone had detected an unusual "clumping" of galaxies at one side of the universe (although I'm not sure about there even being a "side").  Speculation was that there was another universe "rubbing" up to ours, and that gravity was drawing our galaxies towards theirs.

        One day perhaps we'll know.  Or at least our descendents; for sure neither you nor I will be around then!

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      The problem isn't with anyone not thinking "outside the box". The problem is the thinking that goes on "inside the box". It is not necessary to think outside of any boxes, only to change the thinking that goes on inside.

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree our bigest and foremost problem is how we are thinking inside the box.  But I would think our  ultimate  goal should be to think out side the box we find ourselves, and "IF" that could be acheived, looking back inside the box from which we have excaped, we would see everything diffrently than they now apear.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't like the box.  Why do we insist on climbing into it in the first place.  The problem isn't even about changing our thinking, in my opinion, but about learning to DO it. 

          When you allow yourself freedom of thought, you realize that the universe isn't as neatly "boxed" as some would have us believe.

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mo ..You are right.  Does the box really exist or is it something we blame for our small thinking. Im not talking about any individual thinking small but our species as a whole.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Jerami, it's like the dot inside the circle on a sheet of paper.  The dot is what we know.  The circle around the dot is what we don't know.  The rest is what we don't KNOW we don't know.

              All a matter of perspective about our place in the universe and how we think and act in relation to it.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This is not about the little Universe. It is about the majikal stuff outside the little box that is our Universe. We cannot detect anything outside it, therefore there is something outside it. lol

                1. Jerami profile image77
                  Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why is it that you put the "Majik" lable on everything you do not understand?
                  I didn't mention anything about religion or "God". or "Majik"
                     You put this belief in Majik lable on me and everything I post. Why is that?
                     Is it because you know that I believe in a few things that you don't?  Therefore "everything"  I believe is bogus?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You believe in things that don't make sense. Is it not Majick to believe in things that exist outside of reality?

                2. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You shush!  wink

                  That's the point I was making!

    3. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami, you have tried your best to observe the reality from out side of box but it is very difficult or almost impossible for the people living and confined inside the box.Perhaps, their, reason, can never work so extensively.

  7. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Mark said, ...  There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe.
    ME ...   That is what I said, we can't see outside the box.   Therefore according to some people, nothing outside the box exist  cause,  we can't touch it.

    Mark said, ...  There doesn't seem to be anything "outside" the Universe.
    ME ...   That is what I said, we can't see outside the box.   Therefore according to some people, nothing outside the box exist  cause,  we can't touch it.

    Mark said, ..   
    Awesome that you think the Universe is a "little box," because I can barely grasp it's immensity. What was your point again?
    ME  ...  Because we are so small ...  everything larger than us appears  SOoooo   BIG.   But, look on the bright side,  from the prospective of everything smaller than us, we may appear to be as enormous as you think our universe is.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh - it is not me that thinks it is enormous. It is enormous. Only people such as yourselves with such vast intellects consider it small and know better than all the physics we understand.

      You need for there to be something outside existence, therefore there is and anyone who doesn't agree is thinking small. There is no box. You have made that up to defend your irrational beliefs.

      This is why your religion cause so many conflicts,. wink

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilder, mark, deepes Mind , you all have only one problem, that is the strong belief over the self existence of universe, therefore, my argument is not acceptable for you ''intelligent'' and ''honest'' people , more interesting is that you blame me for believing irrational and unscientific things but you all are having blind faith over the self existence of universe without tangible scientific evidence to the effect of same,perhaps, it is necessary to have such belief to avoid existence of creator, I am not making any claim, I am just offering you that this your claim of self existing universe is required to be proved scientifically, otherwise, your views of absence of creator are nothing but ridicule. .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And yet...none of us has presented any claim about the universe being self created.  None of us has shared their belief of that.  The only claim has been that an unproven premiss cannot result in knowledge, and that your claim that lack of proof of self existence is somehow proof of a creator is faulty logic. 

          Go back to your premiss and either prove it to be true (you're going to have a really hard time proving that ignorance results in knowledge) or find a different premiss to start your proof of a creator with. 

          Because from the very start you have tried to use lack of proof as proof of the opposite.  It isn't, no matter how hard you try or how many times you complain about a belief in others that isn't there.  If necessary, start with your statement that "if proof of the universe's self creation is unavailable then we know it was created by a god", and show it to be a logical necessity, because no one else agrees that it is.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, you have not understood my argument, you have made two points, my premises is unproven  and I am trying to present lack of proof as the proof of opposite, I have explained my point of view many times ,and it is clear that thee two objections never apply to my proposition, universe has only two options in respect of its explanation, first that universe is self existing, therefore, no creator, secondly, universe is not self existing, therefore, it requires creator for its existence, it means if we fail to prove the self existence of universe, it will logically and necessarily conclude the requirement of  creator for its existence as it can never self exist,therefore,it is logical necessity and not the application of disproof to proof, moreover, it is fact that we have no evidence of self existence of universe , therefore,how it is false anf unproven premises?

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But lack of proof is not proof of the opposite.

              Or as the classic saying goes: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

              So...

              1) There is in fact evidence the universe arose spontaneously, and
              2) Even if there was not, this does not make any of the alternative theories any more or less likely -- including by not limited to the universe being made by any particular god, aliens from another dimension, or indeed the spontaneous self-creation of a God in belief systems where God is not seen as eternal e.g. Aztec Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Psycheskinner said it:
                "But lack of proof is not proof of the opposite"

                Specifically, lack of evidence that the universe is self created is NOT proof (or even evidence) that it is not.

                Now if you could prove somehow that the universe did not create itself then I would agree that a god did it (at least I would if you will agree that anything that could create the universe is a god).  But you don't do that; you just say that because self creation is unproven that god IS.  Still doesn't work.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness,Why I will be required to prove that universe is not self existed ? We are observing an existence of universe requiring a creator,now you will be required to prove self existence for proving that it has been existed by self and if you fail to do the same,then, universe is existing not self existing requiring creator .

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No one is required to prove anything.  But lack of proof for one thing is not evidence for another.

                    And before saying their is no evidence for spontaneous creation (big bang) maybe you should google it and look at the evidence there is.

                    Or response to the one example I briefly mentioned (expansion).

                    (Or you could write some hubs about it which is the primary purpose of this site. But if you do I suggest you use words everyone knows the meaning of. "Self existence" is not as self-explanatory as you seem to think?)

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If you can prove that a god created the universe, that will automatically prove that the universe did not self create - you indicate this yourself as being true.  So yes, in a way you must prove that it did not self create.

                    Similarly, if I could prove that the universe DID self create it will automatically prove that a god did NOT create the universe.  Same reasoning, in reverse.

                    Now.  Is it reasonable to declare that if you cannot prove that the universe did not self create, then the only possible conclusion is that god did not do it?  Again, this is the same reasoning you are attempting to use, except in reverse.  Do you accept the statement as true? 

                    Obviously you will not accept the statement, and for good reason.  That you cannot prove there was no self creation does not mean that there WAS self creation - it means only that you cannot prove there was not.

                    Similarly, that I cannot prove self creation does not mean there was not; it means only that I cannot prove there was.

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Now it is you that misunderstands me. Anything that I have told you has nothing to do with me arguing against your position. I am merely explaining to you that if you are going to claim a logical conclusion with knowledge you must be prepared to submit evidence to prove your knowledge. It appears that you are demanding evidence from Mark or others, but you are not willing to supply evidence of your own. I personally don't know and as such have no opinion one way or the other. I was actually offering you advice as to how to get along in the forums. I am not ridiculing anything of yours.

          On another note, Any ridicule that may be here (which I don't really see any) is directed toward your beliefs, not you as a person. You have accused all of us of not understanding you. We all understand your position, it's just that those that have an opinion of your position (of which I am not one) simply disagree with your position. I neither agree or disagree with your position, but if you're going to claim absolute knowledge then like everyone else, I would like to see your evidence. I'm always looking for more information in an effort to increase my knowledge.. Now the question is.. Do you have evidence of a creator? If yes, then share it. If no, then admit that you don't and accept that your position is merely an opinion instead of a fact

  8. amer786 profile image79
    amer786posted 3 years ago

    Sibtain, your premise to conclude the existence of God because the alternative cannot be proven may not be wrong but it is weak. A unified and all-powerful God’s existence, in my opinion, is a powerful argument by reason and logic in itself and works better than seeking a lack of proof on the opposing thesis. Below are a few points to support this:

    > In science there is something called the “fundamental constants of physics”. These are dead-set rules that have never been known to waiver. An example is that at 100 degrees Celsius liquid water will turn to steam, the strength of iron and when biological production commences, stays or decays. The rules apply across the spectrum of physical laws and attributes of matter. It is not logical that a tremendous variety of such rules many of which are able concert and construct with each other happened to land arbitrarily.

    > Cosmological, geological and biological phenomenon are also pointing to a degree of concert that is so highly  complex and tuned that again it is almost absurd to think that it is unguided or unregulated by a specific authority with such capabilities. Earth’s distance from the sun, the tilt in its axis, the trees recycling carbon-monoxide back into oxygen, calibration of atmospheric and blood-pressure, vegetation and fruits nutritious to our biological organisms. Scientists themselves have oft stated that the rules of the physical universe appear to be highly ‘rigged’ to generate life and cast its attributes.

    > Intangibles and spiritual phenomenon in fact have no explanation in physical or scientific terms--things like love, hate, anger, evil, chastity, morality, forgiveness, inhibitions, and even speech and articulation. These can only be logically explained as imparted by a God or such authority.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      amer786, thanks for supporting and increasing my knowledge,no doubt,a unified and powerful existence of God,is sufficient and logical argument but the same ,perhaps,can never be accepted, by a present logical mind requiring scientific evidence for existence of God,therefore,existence of universe requiring a creator for its being is the ample proof of the existence of God and in the absence of the evidence to the effect of the self existence of universe,the existence of universe will continue as evidence for creator,it is very difficult for an atheist to overview this type of argument but,perhaps, I am having problem in communicating the same.

      1. amer786 profile image79
        amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sibtain,

        There is a position that the proof for God does come through scientific knowledge and logic. This is established by the fact that many scientists are very religious and even become religious through their scientific knowledge, still some go the other way. Atheism is a dogma in itself and hardly rooted in scientific knowledge. Science does give the illusion that it is explaining phenomenon. It is really only explaining a set of discovered rules and processes behind the phenomenon but hardly addresses the fundamental questions.

        Can anyone ever really explain how a series of nine spherical planets just happened to land impeccable orbits around a light giving and heat-emanating sun through a complex process of gravitational forces? Science can explain a lot about how it is working and theorize about how it possibly came to pass BUT GOODNESS, how in your right mind do you think it was driving itself? What does that even mean that it is self-driven? It is not even a logical statement, nor scientific. I don’t think scientific principle contemplates anything to be driving itself.

        The Holy Quran says that in the Heavens and Earth and in our own selves are plenty of signs and evidences, for those who reflect with sincerity.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who claimed atheism is rooted in scientific knowledge? It is rooted in lack of knowledge if anything.
          And how is not believing something a "dogma"?
          You sure you are not just here to cause conflict and hatred?

          There are "Plenty of signs and evidences that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god."
          As long as you already believe it.  wink

          1. amer786 profile image79
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mark, my apologies if I even caused the inkling that I was causing conflict and hatred. Perhaps my tone was patronizing. If so, I am sorry for that. I was only saying that logic and rationality weigh on the existence of God, which is for the consideration of one asking the question, where as we are probably merely arguing.

            As for atheism and scientific knowledge, certainly many atheists I have spoken to or heard do tend to point to scientific explanation as alternative validation to religion. You may not agree but I believe it is a theme with atheism.

            Not believing something is not dogma. But believing or faith in something is. Theism and Atheism are both understood to be dogmas. Question is which one is the correct one.

            No, there no signs and evidences on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Best to leave it as an unseen God, or one whose image we can perhaps only manifest per what we can see of His creation and know of the rules we have discovered of it. Ridicule often surfaces in the absence of substance, rationality and logic—as I believe it has here.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Of course. This would be why your religion causes so much ill will.

              Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.

              1. amer786 profile image79
                amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mark, I did not adopt ridicule, you did. And now by attacking my religion you appear to be withdrawing rahter than offering any substance or valid tenets to the argument, which is fine I suppose.

                Your choice of the word 'lack' is interesting. 'Lack' denotes a deficiency. But perhaps that is not what you meant.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes. I lack irrational, illogical belief in a god.

                  If you propose illogical nonsense as fact you are likely to be ridiculed. The solution to this is to keep such illogical nonsense to yourself. As you have offered no "valid tenets" it is reasonable to point that out.

                  You did indeed ridicule me for not believing garbage. Please stop lying at me. I know that is a "valid," approach according to your beliefs, but my moral stance is that I do not value liars.

                  1. amer786 profile image79
                    amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No Mark, if I propose something 'illiogical' and 'nonsense' then you expose it by the merits of your tenets, not by ridicule. If you are confident you should be composed. Ridicule and reacting with subjective innuendo and by attacking religion and calling names like 'liar' represents that you are in a state of loss.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          amer786,I appreciate your arguments and indeed,there are great meanings in the verses you quoted, it is also clear that atheism is also like a belief but I am interested in the logical scheme of creator and perhaps, it is the time to discover the same to some extent so that the confusion may be clarified.

          1. amer786 profile image79
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sibtain, there is a sound logical and rational argument for God. I would urge you deeply undertake a study of The Holy Quran. The Quran also offers a great logical argument for the unity and undivided power and authority of God. It says that if there were more than one God, we would see much commotion and disturbance in observable universe and here on earth. The constant, consistent, and unwavering concert of physical laws logically points to one unified authority behind them. Dr. Abdus Salaam, the Nobel laureate scientist whose work on electroweak forces lead to the discovery of Higgs-Boson of ‘God’ particle said that he followed this guidance of The Quran in his scientific discovery. Freeman Dyson the famous Quantum Mechanics scientist once said, “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming”.

            The stage that we find ourselves upon is one that is clearly crafted, and sustained. To suggest that it is random, mindless or bizarrely self-drive, I am very sorry to say so, is just utter nonsense.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Would it be nonsense to say random waves and tides brought a shipwrecked person to an island or do we assume the waves and tides purposely guided the person to the island and also purposely guided another person to perish?

              The Holy Quran states that the Earth is egg shaped and sperm in generated from somewhere behind a mans ribs. That is not how a logical argument starts.

              1. amer786 profile image79
                amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I say in both cases it is guided, or ordained, or willed or any other notion that implies that logically nothing would escape the will and knowledge of an Almighty creator who has the means and capabilities to create the Heavens, Earth, biological organism and intelligent sentient beings like us.

                Seeking shelter with events (shipwrecks) that occur and yet seemingly defy logic or purpose is well and dandy, but why are you shifting ground? Are you conceding that at the cosmic level you are not able to defend the notion of randomness somehow stumbling onto a breathtakingly cohesive concert?

                If you are suggesting that The Quran has fundamental inaccuracies in statements, that’s not quite the realm of logic. But nevertheless, please post the verses in question. I would like to cross-examine.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Unfortunately, it is not possible to logically imply that nothing would escape the will of a creator.  One can imply it easily enough - you did so - but not logically.

                  1. amer786 profile image79
                    amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My good man, the logic is based on the premise that this creator owns the power to create the all that we know to exist. As such power exists because we can see it and know it, only then, by logic and reason, does it behoove to extend . . . that no event or matter would escape the authority (or will) of the creator.

                    You may not agree with premise or demand a certain kind of proof, but this pattern of thought is what is understood to be ‘logic’.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  79:30

                  86:5-7

                  1. amer786 profile image79
                    amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    on 79:30 I checked a few different translations including Pickthall and keep getting 'Earth spread forth' - not seeing egg anywhere, perhaps reference the translation you are using.

                    On 86:5-7, I am getting "from between the loins and the ribs". This is not even worth a debate.

            2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              amir786, indeed, there are great arguments in Qur'an and also scientific evidences and also invitation for observation and experience, therefore, existence of universe logically concludes creator for its being and if atheists want to disprove this they must prove self existence of universe but they have failed to do the same but problem is that this argument and argument of uniformity and existence of your also have been declared as ''nonsense'' by the atheists .

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is because it makes no sense. wink

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You are right Mark, it makes no sense for senseless people . wink

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Right. Anyone who does not accept your illogical nonsense is senseless. How brave of you to call me such. wink

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Okay, for the sake of argument let's play by your rules:

    1) There is no proof God created the universe
    2) Therefore the universe occurred spontaneously.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Already tried that, several times.  No response - presumably it is not considered fair play to make such a statement.

    2. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently that logic only works one way

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How about OP engages with our ideas in the same way that we engaged with his?

        Why is that too much too ask?

        So far I have provided evidence of the big bang.
        And demonstrate that his logic is pointless as it works equaly for big bang as for creationism.

        How about some kind of response to that?

        because talking to an inert wall is pretty pointless.  It means we are not having a conversation, we are just being preached at.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this




          No argument from me here.

    3. sibtain bukhari profile image61
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner, existence of universe is the evidence of creator as it requires creator for its being ,if you want to prove that universe occurred spontaneously you must prove that existence of universe is self existing or eternal but it is impossible.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        sibtain bukhari.  Existence of universe is evidence it is eternal as it requires that it be eternal.  If you want to prove that it is not eternal you must prove when the end will be otherwise it is proven eternal but it is impossible to make such proof.

        As universe is eternal, this satisfies your requirement of proof that universe occurred spontaneously and thus there was no creator.   

        Conclusion drawn from your statement that "if you want to prove that universe occurred spontaneously you must prove that existence of universe is self existing or eternal".

        Proof completed.  Required conclusion from inescapable logic is that there is no Allah.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilder,how you suppose that universe is eternal?, existence of universe is a fact but this is eternal or not it is not fact ,now if you claim for avoidance of creator that it is eternal,obviously,you will have to prove.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The current theory is the universe will continue expanding indefinitely and at some point in time any inhabitants will no longer be able to see any other galaxies which means they won't be able to understand the expansion of the universe. All evidence adds up to this and nothing provides any evidence of an end to the universe.

            So like your creator the universe existed before time therefore has alway been here and the universe like your creator will always be here.

            No need for a creator.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              maybe you're more up on this than I am, isn't the theory that the universe will expand to a certain point and then contract (again?)

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No. It's speeding up not slowing down.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay. I've been having trouble finding out about it on Google.

  10. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Mark posted
    I think we can both agree on the reality we experience. Reality is reality.                                                       We may But we may perceive it slightly differently, but -
    = - = -
    ME ...   Yes I agree completely with this comment. For some of us, the reality                                          which we experience in our own little environment can be totally different. Some of us are starving to death while others are sitting in the lap of luxury.
    =============
    You ask … are you claiming there is more to it that you can experience and I cannot?
    = - = -
    Me  …  Some things yes and some things NOT!    For some of us life is like constantly dinning out at the banquet hall while those in the kitchen would have a different prospective of reality. Those of us who are washing the dishes are thinking about things that would never cross the minds of those sitting in the dinning room.  Our minds can never grow until we start thinking out side the box we find ourselves in.
    =================
    You say …  You are the one making claims about the Universe being "little," and there existing things "outside," it. That is Majick! as far as I am concerned.
    = - = -
    ME …   Everything is large compared to something else which is smaller. I think the universe is the largest thing that we can think of.  BUT , If the cells in our body had an awareness, they could not begin to imagine a universe outside of the body . There is no reason for them to.
    To prove to you that there is anything outside of this universe we live in would be kinda like this …            We see a jar with a label on it which says Peter Pan.  I say that there is peanut butter in the jar. You say “prove it”  I then open the jar and say “See, that is peanut butter”  But if you have never seen peanut butter, its presence in the jar is only proof that “Something” is in the jar.  I would have to look out side of the jar for any other proof concerning the contents of the jar or to explain the process as to how the peanut butter came to be in the jar. We find no evidence within the jar to prove exactly what is in the jar.  I know a tractor was involved in the making of the peanut butter but there is no evidence of that fact to be found within the jar.
    And until we see out side of the jar, we can only speculate about the size of the jar or if there is anything out side of it.   I believe there are things out side of my perseption. What that is, I have no idea.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is nothing outside the jar. And the fact that we perceive reality differently does not change reality or make your Majik happen. Sorry. wink

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't expect for you to understand. And if you did understand(?) I didn't expect for you to admitt it.
        It it insights such as this which causes all of the troubles in the world.
        And that doesn't require majik.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah. If I don't agree then I lack your understanding. Gotcha. wink

          This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You beat me to it

          2. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say any such thing.  I think you don't understand the prospective from which the point I'm attempting to make comes from..  We are all guilty of this same thing.
            You usualy don't comment about the context of my posts, you just call it my beliefs in majik and dismiss it..

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes you did. Please stop lying at me. Thanks.

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



          I disagree. Mark will admit when he feels that a good point has been made. This goes along with any understanding. Assuming that someone doesn't understand because they disagree with a point is also something that causes conflicts.

  11. 61
    squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago

    That atheists can smile is a miracle. Therefore a smiling atheist is proof of a self-generating creator.

  12. sibtain bukhari profile image61
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness, And evolution works by self and by chance without any guideline? And by chance it has come to humanity,the most'' magical'' living being ?And by chance it has developed the ,the reason, conscious, self, conscience ,The miracles of humanity /

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      After a few billion years yes, not to worry in a few more billion we will no longer be here. You should also be aware human are not the only self aware, reasoning creatures. Evolution took a chance with us and we got lucky, these big, complex brains come at a price. We are physically weaker and need to eat much more often because of the human brain.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man, problem of evolution is that it is blind law,as Stated in an other post that it is for the development of ego as it moves towards perfection and ultimately it developed an interdependent ego in the man for willfully acceptance or rejection of creator,the problems of atheists is that they insist for automatic movement of evolution without any guide line and that is irrational as a blind law after billion years automatically and accidentally can never develop humanity,it is funny story.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What is funny is you think a few billion years of evolution was for the soul purpose of developing humans. It's rather like saying evolutions purpose was to create the cockroach, arachnids or crocodiles, all of which are more successful than humans. Your arrogance is blinding you from reality. Humans will if allowed, continue to evolve especially fast if we continue to contaminate the earth as we will have to adapt to a new environment.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rad Man, you may suppose that cockroaches having all qualities of man are equal to human beings. perhaps, my ''arrogance'' is ''blinding'', therefore I can never observe equation of cockroaches with human beings.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They are more successful, have been around longer and will be around long after humans are gone.

              Are you aware that Bowhead Whale's live 211 years. Are they further evolved because they live longer? We humans may or may not be smarter, but they live 3 times as long as us.

              I'm sorry you are unable to understand evolution and our place in it however not to fear evolution will take care of you.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad man ,these whales are scientists like human beings?if not then evolution was interested in developing human beings.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Evolution isn't interested in anything. It's okay, evolution has a way of dealing with those unable to understand it.

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see that happening. We seem to be suffering as a result of contamination.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The premise is not "we are here, thus evolution happened."
      The premise is "evolution happened, thus we are here."

      Your religion blinds you into following an egotistical anthropocentric view of the world, when the reality is the exact opposite. Humans can only live on a very small portion of the only planet we can find that could support us. If we tried to go anywhere else, we would either be crushed, fried, frozen, torn apart, or riddled with millions of microscopic meteor holes.

      How can you say the universe was created for humans when only a small fraction of one planet barely keeps us alive for the brief 80 years that we live? The universe hates you, and it wants you dead.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zelkiiro, you and other atheists allege believers for blind faith and you and others themselves believe that a blind law of evolution automatically developed the humanity after billion years ? this is not funny? universe was created for human beings as no other creations except human have evolved an independent ego by the process of evolution and this was the purpose of evolution,further,we observe the rise of man to skies,moon and other planets because of power of knowledge and further we observe his power of justice,his justice systems,right is might,human rights,his individual evolution,his creativity,his capability of obeying , praying and disobeying God , his dominance over nature ,life conditions over only one planet, absence of any other creation for the time being dominating man,all this confirms the central position of man in this universe.for the time being.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Here is what we do know.

          Of the two planets in the inhabitable zone of your solar system a self aware creature has evolved on one with the capability to support life.

          There are billions of stars and other planets in the inhabitable zone in our own galaxy and there are billions of galaxies each with the potential of of billions of inhabitable planets.

          So the next time you assume we are the only self aware creatures in our universe you may want to calculate the math and understand evolution of earth is not yet done and humans are not the only self aware creature even now.

          We can safely say then that the odds of another self aware creature developing even on earth is 100% as there are numerous self aware animals on earth.

          Therefore the number of other self aware creatures we should find else ware are as follows.

          1 billion X 1 billion /2

          So we can conservatively estimate given all available information that there are likely about 1 billion other self aware creatures currently in existence.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rad man.these all are presumptions .

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, that math is based of facts that we know. There is no way you could know we are alone when we are not even alone on our own planet. Not to fear, evolution has a way of dealing with those like you.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad Man, I will request to evolution to help you in understanding it .

                1. JMcFarland profile image93
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You're the one that doesn't know what evolution means, what it addresses our how it works.  Dozens of us have explained it to you, but instead of responding, you just repeat yourself.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, but evolution does have a guideline.  One stronger than the strongest steel cable.

      Survival of the fittest is the rule of evolution, and a very effective rule it is, too.  It will work every time.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness, guideline means an absolute conscious must protect evolution from dangers of world and for maintaining its working for billion years,this is impossible to work  for billion years without any external reason and just automatic  upon the basis of fittest of survival,without supposing an external conscious and reason it seems a magical blind law.

    4. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You understand evolution?

      1. 61
        squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        life generates evolution?

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image61
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        riddle, I do not understand evolution as as magical blind law working for billion years without support of external conscious or reason and maintaining by self upon the basis of genetic variations,natural selection,mutations ad fittest of survival,it is impossible miracle working of such law for billion years and its success and by chance its development to humanity.

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My question was do you understand evolution, not what you do not understand!
          Do you understand how magical beings pop out of nothing?

  13. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago

    What I find most interesting about any discussion of creation and evolution is that everyone focuses on the cause and the development of life as opposed to focusing on the reason for it.  And because we will never know whether there is one or not, no one will ever win said argument.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Which is good because if we ever find the true answer, the forums will be quiet and boring...LOL

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What I've found is that believers seem to think there is a need for life and the need seems to be to praise God, while the unbelievers are interested in the how and and not the why. The why is for us that we are simple the product of evolution.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed. Focusing on the reason for life (other than reasons we create for ourselves) immediately excludes those who don't feel they are a work of premeditated, goal-oriented creation.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe.  I don't say it for that reason.  The why isn't important for some.  The how isn't impotant for others.  But neither is an a valid argument against the other.  Biological weapons...what's more important?  To eliminate the reason for them or the ability to produce them?  And doesn't focusing solely on the how exclude those who focus on why?

      2. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yet nonbelievers get angry at the believers who say that the life of an unbeliever has no meaing apart from a creator...which gives the impression that some nonbelievers are concerned about the reason for their existence as much as anyone else.

        In the end we are here.  We can explain how but not why.  Maybe there is no why.  But life exists, deevelops, and perpetuates.  No first cause and no reason can be proven so why so much animosity?  Live and love and allow everyone else to do so.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Cool idea!

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, as long as they all keep it secular. Why would a secular society have laws against homosexuality, abortion and shopping on Sundays? (My Catholic upbringing still has me in conflict with abortion, but the condom thing is ridiculous.)

          Life does have meaning without a creator, I believe in even more so than any believer will tell you. Does humanity have meaning? Yes, to help others get peacefully through this life.

          Will the universe care when us humans are no longer here? Nope.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I have no issues whatsoever with secular society.  I also have no issues at all with what happens after I've shuffled off "this mortal coil."  I just care about now.  I know, I know, bad Christian!  But I didn't make the world, and I've no power over its continuation or demise.  I can only hope to make it a little better.  And only what and who I leave behind can ever decide if I did or didn't.

        3. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We can explain why. We are here because we are here. This is not good enough for you? No problem - believe in a god to fill the gap. wink

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Done! wink

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I Know. wink

  14. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Honestly, why not just fall back on the "faith" aspect.  At least that is transparently subjective and experiential.

  15. Chris Neal profile image83
    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago

    Today is the one-year anniversary of my wife's passing, an event many of you helped see me through. Although I'm grateful to you all, I will be taking the rest of today off from HP.

    At the risk of self-promotion, I did this in her memory.


    http://chrisneal.podbean.com/2013/08/28//

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good call. One day at a time. smile

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        smile

 
working