jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (281 posts)

How can we determine sound criteria and evidence for proof of God

  1. amer786 profile image80
    amer786posted 3 years ago

    What criteria can be used to establish evidence for the thesis of an All-Powerful God that supposedly created the universe, determined its physical laws, originated and sustains mechanism for living organisms, created what are known as spiritual attributes, and dispenses wisdom and guidance for us to follow. What would the nature of such evidence? And how could it be qualified? Such evidences should be sourced from various domains or dimensions and may be used to determine proof.

    This is intended to be a discussion for Atheists and Theists. Please maintain common courtesy and contribute positively. Kindly avoid subjective statements or anything that may construed as innuendo and ridicule. Thank you. I will post some criteria suggestions shortly.

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

      Finding and speaking with the god would be great.  Speaking, that is, with recordable energies, not a "feeling".

      Finding another universe might be a small bit of evidence.

      Understanding the makeup and laws governing a singularity might help (or might reaffirm that no creator was necessary).

    2. kess profile image60
      kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The capacity to know good is what serves as evidence of God so therefore the one who is incapable of discerning an ultimate good, is ultimately void of the  capacity to discern God.

    3. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It would need to be actual evidence. That is all.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What sort of evidence do you have in mind Mark? What would convince you?

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is practically impossible too determine effectively.  Can you even imagine the kind of evidence it would take for you to become a Hindu?

        2. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Anything at all. Really. Anything.

        3. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do you prove your right hand exists? The same will do.

    4. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Evidence?
      Aside from the simple fact that humans exist, the earth exists, and we know it took something or someone much more powerful and capable than we are for that to have happened.......

      He would appear "in person" on earth in the womb of a virgin, live a sinless life, command the winds and seas, walk on water, heal the sick and blind, cast out demons, raise the dead, teach pure total Truth, fulfill the Bible's prophecies, die Himself, offering salvation to whosoever would accept Him,  and then rise from the dead & appear to hundreds of people afterward, then ascend back to Heaven...........yep, was here, did that.   No more proof required for either the analytical mind nor the spiritual mind.

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How do you automatically came to the conclusion that simple things like humans need a creator while complex things that can create humans do not? How do you know ?

        If you're saying this as a story I say sure it is interesting as it has magic just like Harry Potter but if you are saying it as a real story that happened I will ask about your level of intelligence or age just like I ask about somebody who say Harry Potter or Lord of the rings or Macbeth is history.  If the analytical mind is not sober or by spiritual you mean gullible.

    5. amer786 profile image80
      amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A criteria for evidence that a God exists should be the prophecies of those who claim to be messengers of God. Such prophecies should be able to predict events far in advance of when they occur. This would support the hypothesis that the creator of Space-Time is able to operate outside of it as well as with in. God would know all events bound by time from beginning of Space-Time to its supposed end. According to scripture, He dispenses such knowledge to His messengers so they may be recognized.

      This is one aspect of evidence and should be admissible. If anyone argues as to it not being so then they should give clear reasons why such evidence should not be accepted.

      1. JMcFarland profile image90
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In order for a prophecy to be a prophecy, it has to:

        - be understood and accepted as a prophecy from the time that its made
        - not be self-fulfilling and if it is public, it runs the risk of self-fulfilment or intentional attempts to fulfill it
        - specific and not vague
        - extraordinary, not mundane
        - not prone to individual interpretation
        - fulfillable by only a single event

        The reason for these criteria should be blatantly obvious.

        1. amer786 profile image80
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds fair. I will post one that I believe would meet this criteria. However, heading out onto the open road and into the wonders of the world for the long weekend. God's signs and wonder all abound,smile

          See you all next week. Till then.

      2. amer786 profile image80
        amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My apologies for the absence (had matters to tend to). Below I am presenting a certain prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) regarding end-times or what is known as religious eschatology. This is a wide subject and I am pulling just one tiny bit of material from a wide subject. The purpose of this specific prophecy is the detail which can be examined as evidence of a God who claims to endow his messengers with knowledge of the distant future. Therefore, it is important to stay in context and focus on the purpose of this discussion and not get distracted by the larger eschatological discourse.

        Islamic Eschatology, much like its Christian counter-part, paints a picture of a time when life-styles and norms will change dramatically. In the Bible (Daniel 12:4)  it says that the seal of prophecy will remain closed till that time when ‘knowledge shall be increased’ – believed to be a reference to a sharp rise in scientific progress i.e. the industrial revolution. The Islamic counterpart of the Anti-Christ is known as The Dajjal (or Deceiver). Let’s set aside for now who or what that is. The prophecy mentions that Dajjal will possess a very special donkey (donkey being a symbol for transportation). Here are the broad stroke details of what that donkey will be able to do . . .

        > It will be of a great size
        > It will eat fire
        > People will ride this donkey by entering into its belly which will be lit from the inside and will have arrangements for accommodations
        > It will be able to jump from East to West in one leap
        > It will fly above the clouds at great speed covering a journey of months with in a day
        > This donkey also travels on water, and when it will do that its size will bloat to such an extent that it will be able to carry mountains of grain but still will not sink below its knees

        With such detail, it is difficult to argue against the validity of the prophecy that was made 1,400 years ago. This is from someone who claims to be a messenger of God. This should count as evidence towards the case. If anyone wants the references of books or historical text where these are located feel free to ask.

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          that does not fulfill the requirements for prophecy that I shared with you - that you AGREED to.

          Namely, it is not fulfilled by a single event.  You extrapolated that a donkey was not a donkey - it was a metaphor for transportation.  Detail was not a criteria.  Specificity is.  why didn't god reveal to your prophet that this "donkey" would be an airplane?  Why did he not explain the mechanics.  If Mohammed was truly just a scribe for an angel sent from god, the angel could have spelled the words that he didn't know.

          Here's the thing.  If there was a prophecy made 1400 years ago that things called airplanes would be hijacked and flown into gigantic buildings because of religious extremism, and it would happen in September of 2001, that would be a specific prophecy.  If, on the other hand, there was a prophecy that giant eagles carrying people would crash into the side of tall mountains filled with people, that would NOT be a specific prophecy unless that is exactly what occurred.  It's easy to extrapolate prophecy in hindsight.  That's the whole point.  Prophecy should be clear in FORESIGHT with no extrapolation or interpretation required.

          1. amer786 profile image80
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is fulfilled by a single event. That ‘Donkey’ has arrived and knowledge was increased to make it happen.

            Consider this, using the word AIRPLANE and describing its form and mechanics as known today would have been a poor choice 1,400 years ago even if he had full knowledge of it. It would have been a distraction and confusion. Symbols like ‘Donkey’ (an Eagle does not carry people) convey the message simply and unambiguously. And most importantly, all can relate to it—rich or poor, intelligent or not. ‘Eating fire’ is a great way of conveying. Explaining incendiary fuel systems and mechanisms of turbine engines 1,400 years ago would lose the audience. Same thing with what you described as mountains with people inside them. Explaining contemporary skyscrapers would not make sense back then.

            It is specific. When you add up the details, it is specific. Question is, why would you reject it? It should give the examiner reason to pause and examine the evidence. What is your reason for discrediting it entirely? How can such detail be a hindsight thing?

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

              At some point in time humans will reach and land on Mars.

              There I've done it.

              In the future cancer will be eliminated.

              There I've done it.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So - as you and the entire Muslim world knew this was going to happen - why didn't you stop it?

              Pretty sure the Homeland Security people will be paying y'all a visit any time soon. wink

          2. amer786 profile image80
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Verse 16:8 of The Holy Quran states that “Allah has created horses, mules and donkeys (for a certain purpose and function: transportation), and He will create that of which we have no knowledge”. This is easily understood that such means of transportation will be created which were not knowable at the time. Verses 56:73-75 mention that fire has been made as a great source of benefit for travelers. The transfiguration of modes of travel that were impossible to contemplate at the time is what makes the prophecy so remarkable and extraordinary.

            To further enrich, the timing of this event is also prophecized. Islamic eschatology revolves around what are known as the 10 major signs to precede the Day of Judgment. The advent of the Anti-Christ and The Messiah Son of Mary are among the first signs. These signs have been prophesized to initiate after the completion of 13 centuries. As Dajjal is among the first signs, his donkey in inextricably tied in. Hence, the timing dimension is also fulfilled.

            This should certainly be considered as evidence.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Remarkable that you did not warn us of the 9/11 attacks.

              Why not?

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mark Knowles, we never  informed of the same as you will allege for the same.tongue

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah - so no prophecies then? Which is it?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Horse, mules and donkeys were already being used for transportation purposes even before Muhammad was a twinkle in his dads eye. The Quran has stated the obvious.



              Fire, horses, donkeys and mules are remarkable and extraordinary according to the Quran because they were impossible to contemplate?

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

                One must interpret the holy scripture to assume that donkey = transportation in general = jet plane.  Then work the same magic so that fire = jet engine.

                Now it's miraculous that the ancients could contemplate a jet plane flying overhead.  All it takes is a little imagination and a change of what the words meant.  Same thing Christianity does all the time to its hole scripture.

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

              Except Allah didn't create airplanes, people did. You can argue if you like that he created donkey's, but giving him credit for both airplanes and 9/11 is a stretch.

        2. amer786 profile image80
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this
          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ah - youtube apologetics that have already been debunked. Interesting what sort of person Islam appeals to. Instead of calling it the religion of peace, you should think of another name. wink

      3. amer786 profile image80
        amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And more . . .

        Former Christian preacher turned Muslim Yusuf Estes speaks of some of the reasons for his conversion, the sheer weight of evidence (as acceptable to him of course) >

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOpEDw__ … mp;index=3

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LAWL!

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

          You mean like how the Quran describes the earth as shaped like an egg?

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8055147_f248.jpg


          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7167568_f248.jpg


          Or how the Quran states the Suns orbit is responsible for out night and day?
          lollollollollol

        3. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So all I have too do is find a Muslim who converted to christianity due to evidence on YouTube and you'll change your mind?

          Do you really think that kind of crap convinces anyone?  Your idea of evidence is the same idea Christian apologists have.  Find verses.  Turn then into a prophecy and spin doctor the words until they say something that fits and boom.  Evidence.  Of course YouTube videos are right up there with science journals, too.

        4. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Try this video, the sheer weight of evidence, acceptable to Ray and Kirk is so overwhelming for Gods creation, Yusuf Estes would be thoroughly convinced and convert back to Christianity in a heart beat, banana.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

        5. amer786 profile image80
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Establishing evidence is not the result of one Youtube video, a verse, or a prophecy per se. The argument is that these accuracies in facts and prophecies are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional. In science alone you have the fields of embryology, cosmology and geography. In the environment of a court you argue that it is not one or two statements or pronouncement, the accuracies are spread over a multitude—that is what strengthens the case.

          I understand that here we are merely defending our positions and psychologies. This is not a classroom nor a debating hall nor a court. Still, the nature of comments is somewhat regrettable.

          1. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            yes, and they're directly in line with the nature of your "evidences"

            present some real evidence, and the comments in reply to them will probably improve.  You've got tricks, word games and gross over-interpretations, and that's all you presented.  I get the same things from Christians.  I thought you were better than that, and your evidence is nothing more than disappointing.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Stop presenting nonsense as "evidence," and I would think the comments will improve. Sadly your evidence is regrettable, but I am starting to understand why Islam thrives in uneducated countries. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't around 60% of the Muslim world illiterate?

            1. amer786 profile image80
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Honestly, do not know of the stats as such, 60% sounds high. But what you are referring to as 'Muslim-world' is a social identity. In religious terms, 'Muslim' is someone submitted unto God. The Quran calls all prophets before Muhammad (peace be on him) also as Muslims-- meaning submitted to God.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And your point is what? You still present youtube nonsense as evidence. Which may be acceptable to your illiterate brethren, but is not washing here. Try presenting some actual evidence instead - you will garner more reasonable comments in return.

                1. amer786 profile image80
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No matter what manner of language, innuendo, and accusations you adopt, you will never get me to succumb to the same. Even if you hate us, we wish you and your brethren a full literacy and a great education.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I never said I hated you. Please stop lying about me. Your lack of willingness to engage in reasonable conversation is some what irritating because it is so rude. Claiming that you understand something that I don't understand and the only reason I cannot see it is because I am so egotistical (which you have done on several occasions) is insulting and calculated to provoke. I refuse to stoop to your level, yet you accuse me of accusing? No wonder your religion causes so many fights. sad

                    I wish you and your brethren would go to the trouble of educating yourselves as well. Perhaps then you might stop presenting youtube nonsense as "evidence," and attacking anyone who points out how incorrect that is.

          3. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            amer786, your argument is correct and inspiring,no doubt Quran has many scientific evidences and prophecies within it,for example the dominance of man over nature through inductive reason, the description of different stages of human embryo, presence of pairs in the plants,the capability of man to escape from earth,movement of every heavenly object,the concept of unity of earth and sky as you mentioned and many others but problem is that atheists are not'' real logicians'' to accept an argument applying to reason but simply the extreme believers of absence of creator having closed their eyes from all evidences and making arguments just in the line of their belief ,therefore,we may convey our arguments for themselves and for others but we can never convince them,we must continue our work for proving that what they are saying and thinking is actually nonsense,we must unveil the'' logic'' of atheism.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just as a matter of interest - what do you hope to accomplish here? We already understand that you feel anyone who does not share your beliefs has "closed their eyes," and are "not real logicians."

              Are you just trying to cause ill will and hatred? Because lying about what the Quran says is not doing anything other than persuading me I am right to despise your religion.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mark Knowles,I hate with hate and love with humanity, , I respect your ideas but I disagree with that , you have right to disagree with my ideas but you will have to respect the same,my point was that atheists also have developed a ''belief of absence of God'' and therefore,it is difficult for them to review the same like believers,consequently, they reject any standard of the argument without taking in to consideration the reason ability of the same in light of their ideas. This is my conclusion of discussion with all of you,that may be wrong,and you have right to disagree with the same . If,your feelings are hurt by this idea,I am sorry for that.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That didn't really answer my question. I asked what you are hoping to achieve. My feelings are not hurt at all.

                  What are you hoping to achieve?

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mark Knowles,I am hopping to achieve  truth and this is great reward.

            2. amer786 profile image80
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sibtain, the issue is not as much logic as it is the ego. Many theists do the same thing-- they follow some very irrational and illogical doctrines.

              Logic and rationality will have value with an unbiased and serious student-- someone truly looking for merit of argument.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                amer786,Agreed.

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And how much time do either of you spend examining and researching arguments that you don't think HAVE any merit?  I'm guessing now much.  Now you understand how we feel about yours.

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

                    now much?? **smirk**.. nevermind.. too petty..LOL

          4. amer786 profile image80
            amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Many of the responses to what I have presented are that it is 'nonsense' or worthy of being ridiculed. No one has presented a sound argument as to how statements from diverse scientific disciplines are accurate 1,400 years before their scientific validation are worthy of such impulsive dismissal.

            Anyway, I shall press on. Below is a youtube video, the names of all the scientists are given and one can research further on the scientists and their statements. These are experts, so their testimony has value.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUPYs0g … p;index=37

            Note: If you go to 6:28 in the video, Prof. Keith Moore accepts the several accurate statements in Quran on stages of human development centuries prior to their scientific validation as 'proof' that these are from God.

    6. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Clear, undeniable, repeatable, strong, predictable evidence from multiple secular studies that prayer works better than the placebo effect would be a nice start.

      For the life of me, why bother praying when it doesn't work? Your own book says prayer will move mountains and yet it does absolutely nothing. And that's not a red flag for you guys?

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

        Well, actually.. *Thinks about who he is about to reply to* Nevermind..

    7. sibtain bukhari profile image62
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The sound  criteria and evidence for proof of God will be as under ';                      1] Every thing that may be observed and examined is a fact .2] Every fact is an evidence.3] Every evidence will essentially and logically come to some conclusion4] That conclusion will not be evidence itself 5] That evidence can never be associated with any presupposition ,this will discord the evidence.6] The evidence may be rebutted by the evidence only and not by opinion.7] Purity of evidence is to be protected by disassociating the same from any supposition 8] The conclusion must be logically and essentially to  be discovered by the evidence .9] The admissibility of evidence must be judged upon the basis of objectivity, observability ,repeatability,and purity of the evidence. 10] The evidence must define to some extent, its conclusion in respect of its work or essence ,For example, a'' child ''is is a'' fact'' and therefore,evidence for his'' parents'',it essentially and logically conclude the ''parents''  for its existence ,it can never be discorded by the association of presumption of ''self existence'' ,it may be rebutted by only evidence, child himself can never be concluded as it is evidence it is not conclusion,evidence concludes some thing it  is not it self conclusion, Existence of universe is fact and evidence essentially  and logically concluding the One bringing it in to existence ,it can never be destroyed by the presumption of self existence,only evidence of self existence may discord it .

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

        You must have forgot that you don't have evidence that a creator created the universe. As you said the universe is evidence of the universe. A boy is evidence of a boy, a blood test would be evidence that of who his parents are. You just don't have the blood test in the case of the universe.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Existence of universe is the evidence that one has brought it in to existence,child is proof of biological parents and blood test confirms the identity of parents . Evidence can never be conclusion of its own , it is meaningless to say that universe is proof of universe,Universe is fact and evidence as it is observable,it may conclude some thing else.

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

            A rock is evidence for what? You keep jumping to the universe being evidence for a creator without suppling the evidence.

            The universe is evidence of the universe. How it came into being is a question, to which we currently don't have an answer to. You saying it was created by a super being is only your opinion and a guess. There is no evidence that any being lived before our universe and before time. You may as well be saying the universe is a lump of oil on a giant pizza being delivered to a pizza eating giant banana.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man,everything including rock is evidence for One  who has brought it in to existence, if you have evidence that rock has been self existing,you may discord my evidence,you have it ?

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

                Each and every atom is evidence of there being a creator for it.  There are thus an uncountable number of creators for this universe; one for every atom and particle.

                Or do you have evidence that they are all one?  If not there are uncounted trillions of creators.

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We know how rocks are formed, and - essentially they are bought into existence without majick. Sorry - therefore your Invisible Super Being does not exist.

                You lose. ciao...............

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The universe is evidence of its existence but not evidence of anything else. We would need to look at what is contained in the universe and how it came to be in the form it is today.

            If you wand to assert everything in the universe was created by God, you would have to show evidence something was created by God. You don't offer beliefs, personal experiences or anything else other than the evidence.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              EncephaloiDead, you mean'' A child is evidence for his existence''? '' He can never be evidence for existence of his parents''? ''We must wait for the evidence that  child was created ? why this principal of evidence is only for creator and acceptable for all other matters and investigations ? Why this exception for God only ?

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We're not talking about children and their parents, we're talking about the universe and everything in it.



                Because, you are talking about completely different things, hence they aren't comparable. Do you compare an apple to an orange?

                So, we don't compare children and their parents to God and the universe.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  EncephaloiDead, you mean your principles of application of evidence to the things of universe are changed ? These principles of evidence are same for all things but different when we analyze  the evidence of universe for creator ?

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, they are not changed.



                    And, what evidence is there for a creator when we analyze the evidence? What evidence are you looking at specifically?

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

        Back at it again, Sibtain?

        You didn't do too bad this time, at least not until #10.  At that point you once again began laying the groundwork to declare that the universe is evidence of a god because a god created the universe.  The exact same thing you've been claiming (without supporting evidence) since the very first.

        Existence of universe is NOT the evidence that one has brought it in to existence no matter how many times you claim it to be so.

        Give it up.  You can't use a conclusion to prove a premiss.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness, Thanks for welcome, ''Universe is conclusion for its own evidence ?''Or it is evidence for concluding some thing except itself''?'' A child is evidence for his existence''? '' He can never be evidence for existence of his parents''? ''We must wait for the evidence that  child was created ? why this principal of evidence is only for creator and acceptable for all other matters and investigations ? Why this exception for God only ?

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

            Are you assuming a child is a universe?  Was the child's "parent" a singularity?  No?  Why then would you assume it's creation is as the universe's is?

            Absolutely nothing in your (or my) experience can be equated with the beginning of the universe - why do you assume that your experience of things being created  is also applicable to that event? 

            You want to prove the universe had a creator, show the evidence.  Don't try to compare apples to oranges, claiming they must be the same.  Don't try to use the conclusion of god's existence as proof of an unsubstantiated claim that the universe had a creator.  Hasn't worked yet, won't work in the future, either.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness, you mean your principles of application of evidence to the things of universe are changed ? These principles of evidence are same for all things but different when we analyze  the evidence of universe for creator ? I am only assuming that principles of application of evidence are same ? Should I not assume so? you mean an investigation officer must not conclude from signs of feet that these signs are of some one as standard of evidence may be changed?

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

                Analyzing the evidence of a child for a creator, we find a parent for every one of the billions we know of.  Conclusion: a child is evidence of parents.

                Analyzing the evidence of a universe for it's creator, we find...nothing.  We have never seen a creator of universes.  No universe we have ever watched being created had a creator.  There is therefore no creator for universes.

                As a universe did not come from the same place a child does (uterus) or in the same manner (combination of two cells, followed by biological growth), we cannot use a child as a reasonably similar object to a universe to say they will behave similarly.  Indeed, no universe we know of behaves as a child does at any point in it's life (possible because the universe is not alive).

                So, assume the principles of application of evidence are the same for both.  We watch parents create millions of children and declare them to be the creators of children whether we watch or not.  Watch a few universes being created and find the creator, then, before claiming there is one!  Same principle, after all.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,By analyzing the evidence of a child you find that  all children have parents , by analyzing the universe,we find that every observable thing in universe has creator for its existence,therefore, we conclude creator for universe ,as you have concluded parent for children,even there is no exception in this universal observation, may you provide only one example where ''thing'' in this universe has no creator or cause? further you3stated that you have not seen creator, Newton has seen the force of gravitation? he never concluded that falling objects are only evidence for themselves,he concluded that falling objects are proof of UNSEEN force attracting the objects towards itself ,What is this ?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Gravity. wink

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

                    No, no, no.  You said the principles need to remain the same.  That does NOT mean that you look at specific pieces and declare the whole to have the same principle.  It does NOT mean that circumstances (2 people making a baby) make no difference (2 people making a baby vs a singularity - a single infinitesimally small point with the mass and energy of the entire universe within it).

                    It's like that because a car moves at 60 mph you can remove just the drivers seat, sit in it on the ground and go 60 mph.  Or that because planes fly, so do cars because they are all part of the universe.

                    Again, you're looking at an apple, seeing red, and declaring that all living things are therefore red.  It doesn't work.

                    We analyzed children by looking at other children and finding a creator.  Now do the same for the universe, using the same principle.  Look at other universes and find a creator.  Now you might say ours does, too, just as you can with children.  Same principle.

    8. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Theories like M-theory hypothesise that there are phenomena "outside" the observable universe, and that some of the phenomena we do not currently understand within the observable universe may be aspects of that. For example one theory about why gravity is so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces is that gravity is being somehow diluted by going through extra dimensions that we cannot perceive. There's also a theory that suggests quantum entanglement (two particles behaving like one regardless of distance) may be the result of some communication happening through extra dimensions that we are unable to perceive (the alternatives violate the locality principle and indicate faster than light communication, both generally thought to be impossible)

      This raises the question of whether "god" is some phenomenon (I hesitate to use the word being because of the connotations that go along with that) which is not within the observable universe and that we therefore cannot perceive, but have indications of. It's interesting that speculative science seems to be making god a possibility, but possibly not the "god" as described in some religions.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don W,No doubt, the science ,philosophy and religion are traveling towards the same'' Absolute Reality'' from three different sources of knowledge,inductive reason,deductive reason and intuition,therefore, perhaps,God is a ''theory'' for science,a'' concept'' for philosophy and an'' experience'' for religion . Indeed,there is a problem of defining the limitations of reason ,how it may define an'' infinite Absolute Ego'' or Absolute reason'' or Absolute conscious''?

    9. amer786 profile image80
      amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      More that should be considered as evidence . . .

      Following is a copy/paste of Wikipedia page of Surah At-Takwir which is 81st chapter of the Quran called 'The Darkening' or 'The Overthrowing' . . .

      Sūrat al-Takwīr (Arabic: سورة التكوير‎ sūrat at-takwīr, “the Overthrowing chapter”) is the 81st sura of the Qur'an with 29 verses. It tells about signs of the coming of the day of judgement. Some of these signs include the following: (a) When the sun is shrouded in darkness (b) When the stars lose their light (c) When the mountains are made to vanish (d) When the seas boil over (e) when the she camel about to give birth is left untended. There is however, a striking similarity to the end of universe as predicted by scientists. e.g. we know the sun will first become a red giant about 5 billion years from now and then lose slowly all light to become a brown dwarf. All stars in universe are said to go the same fate as the big freeze. before the sun becomes a brown dwarf it will definitely make all mountains on earth to vanish melting earth during its red giant stage. and will definitely cause all seas to boil over during red giant phase as well.

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

        5 billion years? Do you think camels will be left untended in 5 billion years?

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

          Or that the universe will end in 5 billion years?  I didn't get all of that, either.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Fascinating how these guys jump on theoretical physics and then ignore the self same physics that claims the big bang started without an Invisible Super Being. Does this one reject proven biological science as well? I forget.

      2. amer786 profile image80
        amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ah yes, the Big Bang. Verse 21:30 . . .

        "Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were one mass, then We tore it asunder? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

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

          Probably not.  Particularly as neither the earth, sun nor "every living thing" came from water. 

          Now, change "water" to "hydrogen" and you might find more agreement...

        2. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good to know you no longer think an Invisible Super Being created the Universe by majik and accept the physics of the big bang.

          Still not believing your nonsense - no. Will your Super Being punish me for that?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mark Knowles,How do you believe that you will escape from His punishment? You find the place where you may hide your self?

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

              Why would Mark need to be punished. I've never seen him threaten anyone with harm for not following his instructions. I find it funny and sad that some think that an all knowing and all powerful God needs first and for most for us to believe he exists without suppling any evidence. Sounds made up to me.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Reality is a good place to hide. But - thanks for showing your true colours.

            3. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah.  I don't believe in your god or his punishment any more than I believe in the Christian version.  You can't threaten people who are unafraid.

              Peaceful Muslim, my ass.  Resorting to threats when your arguments are demonstrated too be invalid and fallacious, just like your fundamentalist Christian counterparts - except you hate each other, too.

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

                HEYYYY... oh wait, that doesn't include me.. nevermind.. carry on

    10. amer786 profile image80
      amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Please review this Hub below for more information on consideration of evidence . . .

      http://james-wolve.hubpages.com/hub/prophecies-in-Quran

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

        Wow, talk about vague, but I did find interesting to read someone justify having sex with a 9 year old.

        1. amer786 profile image80
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And what you found interesting and what you find vague reflects all upon you.

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

            Yes it bothers me when someone justifies pedophilia.

            I'll ask you two questions and you will have my attention if you can find a legitimate answer.

            Where in the Quran does it correctly state that the earths rotation is responsible for our night and day?

            Where in the Quran does it correctly state that the earths orbit around the Sun is responsible for our earths seasons?

            1. amer786 profile image80
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              On  the pedophilia thing . . .
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipo2NyBsL28

              It does not make sense that someone who fought with the social mores of his time to win inheritance and marriage rights for women would at the same time openly abuse them.

              Let me ask you, why these questions? Why these specific ones? What do a couple of scientific points have to do with validation of existence? If you are looking for a way out, there is always a way out. You have that right. You don’t have to raise that The Quran did not answer some specific question.
              Setting aside the 10 answered questions to hold on to the one unanswered, what is that saying?

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

                Because these are very specific questions that the Quran should have correctly answered. I know it talks about the sun and moon not catching up to each other in their orbits and being responsible for our night and day, but never mentions the earths orbit? Perhaps because he was unaware of it's orbit as he was unaware of the earths shape.

                And are you know also justifying someone having sex with a 9 year old girl? What is that grade 3 or 4?

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Realistically, you can't.  If God did exist and did want to be discoverable by science, He would be and we would have done it by now.  Also faith would be meaningless.

    1. amer786 profile image80
      amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Science is one domain. Besides, why do you think it would have happened by now? We are still in motion and discovering through the scientific method.

      Some element of faith may not be avoidable; someone can insist, alluding to @wilderness's comment, that they will not believe in God till they get to speak directly with God. But is that reason enough to discard all evidence or not to pursue it?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It would have happened by now because God is by definition omniscient and omnipotent and would have caused it to happen.

        And I am using "science" to mean "the kind of evidence impartial observers from different backgrounds can agree is valid" -- you know, stuff you can point to ad most rational people will see it is there.

        I don't think anything purely subjective and spontaneous can be said to be proof.  So W is right.  If God cannot be objectively experienced without normal senses either directly or via equipment -- that means there is no proof.  That is what proof it.

        1. amer786 profile image80
          amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          “Would have”, but may not have or apparently has not as yet—we should leave the possibilities open.

          I agree with you on empirical proofing agreeable by impartial observers. Impartiality is never easy in us humans but we will give it a whirl.

          1. JMcFarland profile image90
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You could start with what kind of evidence you would require in order to start believing in a DIFFERENT god than the one you believe in now.  That may put us all on the same frame of mind for required proof.

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

              +1

            2. amer786 profile image80
              amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I guess I would require evidence that beats, supersedes, or confutes what I regard as evidence. I don't know what kind of evidence that would be, till someone has something to show me. I'm not inclined to believe in something by disbelieving in what I believe. The alternative must base itself on a higher merit. The criteria and nature of evidence may not be that different anyway. We should review what evidence is available and what are its characteristics.

              1. JMcFarland profile image90
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Firstly, I would like to commend you and thank you for your honesty in expressing that you don'[t know what it would take to believe in an alternate deity.  Not everyone will admit to that, and your honesty in that regard is refreshing.  That is the way I currently feel about all proposed religions that I've studied.  I don't know what evidence would be compelling enough to convince me to look into it more, but I have yet to find any - and I've been around  a lot of proposed "evidence".  Most of it can be written off before it ever begins for a multiple array of reasons.  Since you admit that you don't know what kind of evidence would convince you, maybe you will understand the fact that things you consider to be "evidence" may not be evidence for me - or others like me.  Just the way that certain "evidence" for religions that compete with yours are not compelling for you.

                Secondly, onto your post.  I would like to start at the beginning.  What made you a part of your current belief system?  I'm assuming your a Muslim, based on your posts on another thread.  Why did you decide to become a Muslim?  I ask because I know of NO ONE of any faith, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu or anything else that converted on the basis of logical arguments or apologetics tactics.  They began to believe for another reason.  So with that in mind, I ask you what made you believe what you currently believe?

                Additionally, if you were not converted do to logical arguments/apologetics, why do you think they would work to convince atheists or people of other religions?  Every time those arguments are presented, I already have a list of refutations ready to go.  I've heard them all before.  I've studied them on a collegiate level.  I understand apologetics, but clearly if I found them compelling, I would not be an atheist right now.

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your SUPER SMARTNESS is very impressive. I wish I was you.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    your super sarcasm is always much appreciated, since it's a method of positively enhancing communication and dialogue.

                    I'm sure you do.

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



                  Shouldn't this be DUE to? Maybe my grammar is off...LOL

                  1. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    lol is that the best you got, buddy?  Bring it ON.

                3. amer786 profile image80
                  amer786posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for your kind and appreciative comments. I can certainly empathize that evidence is open to consideration especially in any thesis for validating existence.

                  My conviction I would say is a function of several aspects or dimensions—that is how I qualify conviction: that agreement should arrive from a variety of aspects or dimensions. I would qualify these mainly as ‘observed phenomenon’, ‘conscience’, and a ‘personal choice’.

                  Observed phenomenon:
                  Honestly, as far the cosmos and the beings that inhabit it go, I am in the category of people who convincingly see handiwork behind it. I just have not experienced doubt or the need to ‘proof’ it. But observed phenomenon goes further than that. We have our histories and current affairs of societies and nations. When I read a text that claims to be a message from God, I expect to see the admission to creating evil. Evil is a horrific phenomenon. It afflicts persons and pervades communities, societies and even nations. It cannot be explained as a biological dysfunction. And then I have even seen situations where people and societies admit to the evil that has overcome them—like a state of mind and being able to recognize it. I can only really qualify it as a spiritual phenomenon that exists in a dimension alongside the readily observable one and yet is strongly interwoven with it. Also these spiritual states seem to carry far into generations. I have seen Jews today who hate Jesus (pbuh) in the same intensity as the ones who we study in history some 2,000 years ago. You can’t explain it with being programmed to do that in the society one is born into. Sooner or later, under so-called natural discourse, one would ask why do I hate this person so much who lived thousands of years ago? I have seen it with my own eyes and heart. I myself was born into a culture where ‘Muslim’ served little more that social identity. Religious rituals like reciting verses and performing prayers were applauded yet those same people who decorated their walls with the name of God were dishonest in dealing, lied when it suited them, and treated with contempt those on a lower strata of society. When I converted into a movement that claimed to be the followers of a Messiah that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said will be sent into this state of corruption, I experienced the same thing. People began hating me for believing in someone who lived 125 years ago. When the Quran addresses the Jews who were interacting with Muhammad (pbuh) it says “and We drowned Pharaoh and his hosts while YOU were witnesses”—that language has a certain depth to it and agrees with what I have come to know. These scenarios also agree with the stage described in The Quran where Satan, who appears privileged enough to be a member of an exalted assembly in the presence of God, is commanded to bow to a supposedly inferior being as a supposed test for all that he has been endowed and facilitated with. Yet he refuses and is cast into rebellion. I don’t know why this is to be. But I think I know what it is. I find the explanation for it. I have not yet fully understood why evil has to exist, but in this form of life that we have come to know, it makes sense that sanctuary and refuge from evil is with God. Other statements like “Allah is Lord or Mercy, Forgiving, yet severe in punishment” also agrees with observed phenomenon for me. And, if you find support of validation in prophecy and statements of truths just discovered by science, I will be happy to share with you what I know.

                  Conscience:
                  Mostly the conscionable values are similar across different religions. So what I will address here is your question on why I picked this belief system versus other competing ones. That is because for me that competition does not exist. An attractive feature of the true Islam is that it encompasses and consolidates all of the dispensations and prophets of God. Verse 3:85 of The Quran states, "Say, We believe in ALLAH and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to HIM we submit." Verse 2:62 states, “Surely those who believe, the Jews, Christians, Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do good, they will have their reward from their Lord, they shall not fear nor grieve”. Of course, it makes no sense that God would dispense his rightful religion in one given place in one given time. The tenet I have stated here I find agreeable. I espouse to be as part of the rightful and obedient followers of God and his prophets whether that be Adam, Noah, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, those known, and those unknown (peace be on them all). The usually understood delineations in religion are not meaningful to me. A believer or follower is one based on merit, not just a notion of belief. This is not apologetics. To me, it is real.

                  Finally, ‘the element of choice’ or ‘the personal experience’. If God exists and is ever present in our lives, then communion with Him has to be there. There may be mediums for this, nevertheless, they would have to be real. In verse 40:60 of The Quran says “And your Lord says: Call on Me, I will respond to you”. So I can only urge anyone not to ignore this most critical call and to undertake it with the utmost sincerity and humility. It is incumbent upon Him, to respond to a true caller. Islam means Peace and surrender to the will of God. In my experience, the true everlasting peace can only really happen if you make peace with the Lord. And this does not in any sense constitute a resignation or withdrawal or lack of affirmation. In fact, it is liberating, endowing, and bountifully enriching. 

                  What I have given here is a personal experience, but that is really the only way I could answer the question. It may not be confined to logic or apologetics or any other notion that you find acceptable or favorable, because it really can’t.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image90
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    that really doesn't answer my question, while I appreciate your lengthy and detailed response. 

                    Were you raised as a Muslim, and then accepted it as truth?  Did you always accept it as truth?  Did you study other religions to come to the conclusion that yours is correct?  If not, how did you determine that it was - or was it just convenient to claim absolute truth about the religion that you already had?

                    As for seeing design in the universe - that is actually explained by evolutionary methods.  Humans like patterns.  We see them everywhere.  For example, we see constellations in the stars and fashion them into familiar shapes.  Does that really mean that there's a big or little dipper created in the sky that resemble sauce pans?  Of course not.  We just seek out patterns, and that makes us feel comfortable and understood.  I would posit (although I don't claim to know you or your history) that you see design in the universe because you were taught that the universe was created based on your religious beliefs.  People who were raised non-religious see the same universe that you do - and they don't see the hand of a creator in it.

                    While personal experience is fascinating, It can't really be considered proof.  It can't be demonstrated or tested or duplicated, and it can only provide confirmation bias to the person experiencing it.  For example, if a Christian has an experience that they can't explain, a lot of them will attribute that experience to the Christian God automatically, without even THINKING about alternate explanations.  A Muslim who has the same experience will attribute it to Allah.  It's confirmation bias about the beliefs that you already hold - but there is nothing to prove that these experience came from any god at all - let alone a specific one.  The fact of the matter is that people of all religions all over the world share similar experiences.  The only difference is who they attribute these experiences too.  I have never read a story from a Christian who automatically decides that the experience came from Allah - or visa versa - unless they have already converted to a different religion, therefore the confirmation bias confirms their new religious belief.

                    if you're open to suggestion about reading about this phenomenon, I would recommend reading a book called "the god virus" by Dr. Darrell Ray.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      science proves and is evidence of God!

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because?

      2. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Care to link some peer-reviewed, universally-accepted articles on that one? Or are you just referring to the stuff Isaac Newton attributed to "a creator" because he didn't understand it yet?

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unbelievable. I signed up to Hubpages in order to test the waters here for publishing articles and have reasonable debates and discussions with non-believers and atheists alike.

        I'm still debating with myself about writing articles considering what I've learned about that, but really had no idea that I'd be agreeing more with the non-believers and atheists than anything else, especially when I read things like that and other such posts from my fellow theists. I am embarrassed by all this and have actually considered becoming a non-believer.

        Sorry about that, God, but you made these folks what they are today. Please do something about it before I go off the deep end and do something I know I might regret.

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

          Don't feel bad about your feelings. To be fair, there is nothing wrong with agreeing to a good point (regardless of who gives it). A lot of atheists are former believers and they know the bible as good (or better) than a lot of theists. I'm not sure yet about your beliefs and how you arrived at your current beliefs, but your admission of being confused at some things shows that your mind and understanding is a little more open and broader than others. It happens.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I seriously don't think this place is for me, it has too many people who behave atrociously, they do nothing but start fights for no reason at all, posting verses from the Bible only to attack and hurt others and say things which are nothing but bald faced lies. Then, they pull the persecution card. There is no civility here and it is causing me to loose my temper and act accordingly. I just can't believe it. I've never seen a forum like this.

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

              I understand. It does get rough here and it does take a very thick skin to get along here in the forums

  3. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Quetzalcoatl is the one true god! This is 100% factual!

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

      Bah!  That stupid snake is not but a scullery maid for glorious Wiraqucha!  He would not make a good butler, let alone a god!

      Submit to Wiraqucha, lest he destroy you and all that you hold dear!  The sacrificial alter awaits...

    2. JMcFarland profile image90
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      unless you FEEL this when you close your eyes, it's not a fact.  Feelings are what makes things factual, after all

  4. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    I have to ask though I probably shouldn't, but why do we have to seek proof of God? If he is observing us he knows this is a question that has dogged man since the cradle of civilisation. Why doesn't God just reveal himself to humanity in a non ambiguous, testable, verifiable way using physical material methods? What is so great about faith; which is believing in something based upon someone else's opinion with no supporting evidence? Why doesn't God just get it over and done with and save a lot of confusion and religious trouble and strife?

    1. JMcFarland profile image90
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's what I'm saying.  Although I get smacked with the "free will" argument every time I ask.  Here's the thing, though.  I don't think that having evidence for god would negate free will.  For example: if the story of Lucifers fall from heaven were true, it would prove that an entity could have absolute knowledge of god and still choose too reject/refuse to serve it.  You can have period of god and still need faith as well, unless someone is claiming that none of the apostles had faith.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. I know my mum and dad are real and told me what I may and may not do when I was a child, but that never negated my free will to do as I pleased or my faith in them to take care of me.

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

        It may not totally negate free will, but it can have a major impact on free will in that it can cause the person to change what they would normally do if God were not around.. Like DPH's example of how his parents set the rules of what he is and is not to do but allowed him the free will to do whatever he wanted. Even though one might act within that free will, they may simply not do it around their parents.. Like for instance, My mother would backhand me if she ever heard me utter a curse word around her. She told me I wasn't allowed to curse. Now I may have had the free will to do whatever, but not without punishment. As a result, I never cursed around my mother because cursing around her became associated with pain. Around my friends, though I cursed like a sailor.. That's like we have the freedom to do whatever we want, but within a certain set of laws. Break a law, get punished. So we act (most of us) act differently around police officers (like slowing down and doing the speed limit when we would otherwise be doing like 90 mph, so to speak).

        The basic point is that If God were to show up and prove himself and reiterate the rules, there will be people that will change their pattern of behavior.

        1. JMcFarland profile image90
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There aren't people who change their behavior based on the threat of god our the fear of him without evidence now?

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

            Yes there are, but there would be more people who otherwise behave as if God isn't real that would change their behavior if he were to manifest. There is a difference between acting out of fear of the unknown and making a truly informed decision

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because god doesn't exist and faith is worthless. We have solid evolutionary reasons to believe things with no evidence, and while that may have served us in the past, in our current society it is a stumbling block that causes nothing but conflicts.

  5. Christine Ballano profile image60
    Christine Ballanoposted 3 years ago

    All we have to go by is that we have been created a powerful being. Our lives are destined  from the very beginning but by who or what is unknown. For years we have speculated and many religious factors lay claim to our existence but from I have studied all say the same thing. One thing I do know that we have been taught of the destruction through war throughout the ages. Hatred seems to grow stronger as  if it is guiding us to the final stages of this segment of civilization.

    1. JMcFarland profile image90
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      how do you know you were created by a powerful being?

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

        Actually, my dad was pretty amazing. one sperm was powerfully smart enough to make up half of my genetic code. Then my mom made up the other half.. Gotta admit, it takes power to create all this awesomeness wink lol

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

          Yea, awsomeness!!!!!!

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    The answer, of course, is that we cannot provide outer evidence. The truth is found within individual consciousness.... by listening to the language one's own heart and mind.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      -and perceiving God directly, I might add.
      (...attempting to perceive God directly, counts too.)

  7. sibtain bukhari profile image62
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    wilderness, If some persons of a  certain thought disagree my view and conclude it is faulty,I must agree with them ? If some persons of certain thoughts disagree with you,you should agree with them ? This is standard of truth? If I have concluded that Allah exists then Allah can never be truth? You conclude that Allah never exists,then this will be universal truth? inspire of the fact that billions of people disagree with you ?

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

      Sibtain, there is a vast chasm between disagreeing with your "view" or "opinion" and finding errors in your logic.  You don't seem to understand this, taking the teaching of others as a direct attack on your beliefs, but I assure you it is so. 

      You can conclude that Allah exists all you want to but it will never be a "universal" truth.  What is a very nearly universal truth, however, are the tenets and methodology or correctly used logical statements - should you wish to use logic in a "proof" of Allah it will either be used correctly or you will suffer such comments as you have seen here. 

      That is a direct result of logic itself - as it is "universal" you cannot change logical reasoning to something else that will force the conclusion you wish; it is either used correctly or will be derided.  You have not used it correctly (usually insisting on using the GIGO principle) repeatedly, and that will only increase the derision.  Learn, then, from the respondents that have repeatedly explained your errors.  Study the links given, discussing logical fallacies.  Apply the logic you wish to use to other circumstances and see if it still works.  The computer example I used was such a test; your own logic results in the conclusion that a computer made the universe - such a silly answer is the direct result of faulty logic.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness, Conscious of self or Ego is universal and this is actually, the conscious of God, we can deny every thing we can never deny ourselves,science and logic are not above criticism and can never be used as belief  or anti belief but as sources of knowledge ,these sources are not universal as science has to suppose ''existence of universe'' as a'' reality'' for its conclusions but this universe may not be reality it may be reflection of another universe as Plato or Hegel stated ,further science is not ''certainty'' it is ''probability'' , lastly, its laws are changing subject to space and time,as laws of Newton changed in the period of Einstein ,moreover scientists are divided upon the question of God,the same is with logic,it works with fallacies and the opinion about these fallacies may be different  ,it is method of reasoning,but it does not mean it is perfect and universal,these are methods and sources to find out some of truth,these are not truth by self,these are ways to understand the universe and to discover the valid conclusions.

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

          If being conscious of self is actually being conscious of god, then self is god. 

          This is unfortunate as I seem to have been left behind in the omnipotent part; can you teach me how to create a universe of my own?

          What the rest of your 179 word sentence is intended to convey, I'm not sure.  I will say that whatever Plato referenced with the word "science" is not what we mean with the same word.  Plato (428BC-347BC) was a just few years prior to Galileo (1564–1642), the father of the scientific method we call science today.

          I might also comment that if you think logic works when used with fallacies, or that if you think you can design a logical, fallacious statement that will produce truth you are sadly mistaken.  And no, you can't design your own "logic" that results in inconclusive conclusions and decide that IT produces truths, either.  That is not a valid method to understand the universe although it MIGHT convince the ignorant or gullible that Allah is real.

      2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        wilderness, Life can never be depended upon science or logic ,it is depended upon self or ego for its survival,existence and movement,we take example of insects not working mechanically but moving ,desiring,struggling and competing dangers under the belief in their selves, this is universal and base for life .

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

          For sure.  Explain to the nursing mother that an infant depends upon it's self for survival.  Explain it to the queen bee, feeding ONLY on what the drones supply.  For that matter, explain it to your own self; that you and you alone are responsible for your survival and need to get that bacteria OUT of your gut.  You won't live long that way, but if it makes you feel good to think you are solely responsible for your survival it is a small price to pay.

          The whole world is a study in symbiosis; there is not a plant or animal that does not depend on others for their survival.

          I don't really think insects, amoeba, bacteria or a virus has a belief in their selves.  Or that such a belief is a base for life, as tonnage wise the huge majority of life on earth has no belief in anything at all.  Without a brain, it doesn't even have a belief in Allah!

          Not sure what all that has to do with your failure to understand basic logical tenets OR with your unwillingness to learn same though.  Have you decided to ignore what anyone else says and simply pour out your religious platitudes in the forlorn hope that someone out there will take up your belief in your choice of gods?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, you have wrongly supposed that'' self'' never depends upon any other ''self'' ,this supposition is ridicule as by arguing that one self is depending upon other self ,therefore,there is no self, belief in self is self conscious or feeling of self,how can you deny the same? if insects would have been without self ,they could not make struggle for survival.a child depending upon parents also makes struggle  by moving its body and making noise and by weeping for milk,this is self .

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

              I feel you may not properly understand the concept of being self aware. Being aware of self is not something all animals have, studies have shown only a few do. For example a dog looking into a mirror doesn't know that that is a reflection of himself. We become self aware as humans when we notice for example that we are breathing, or we notice that we can think about thinking. An ant is NOT aware of itself as are dogs. They feel pain and want to avoid death, but that doesn't mean they think about or recognize themselves.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad Man,Perhaps,man has also reacted so when first time used mirror?  He was conscious of his self but he was not conscious of his reflection in mirror? this level of conscious of self in animals is a'' feeling of self'' and not '',knowledge of self'' , the man has knowledge of his self and not only feeling and therefore,an independent ego has developed within him,and this knowledge of his self was developed due to devil who realized him for having capability of disobedience of nature and God and that developed as an independent ego and therefore man was regarded as ''khalif of God''[Representative of God] and angels were directed to bow down before him.

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

              From your own post:

              "Life can never be depended upon science or logic ,it is depended upon self or ego for its survival,existence and movement"

              Paraphrasing, Life is dependent upon its self or ego for its survival, existence and movement.  Now you say that living things depend on a different self for survival.  Please decide which you mean.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness,It is interesting how are you finding different meanings from my statements, life is depending upon its self for its struggle for existence but it can never avoid its interaction with other selves for its different stages of development,these different selves become source for development of its own self upon which it is depending from birth to death,these different selves are supporter for its self,for example the self of mother protects and develops the self with in child and after being its independent self of mother is not required for its development .

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

                  Sibtain, I do not mean to offend, but your grasp of the English language is poor at best and I have really struggled in understanding your meaning through the poor grammar.  I'm sure I've read your posts wrong at least half the time, but it isn't for lack of trying, and the last few posts clearly show that.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness, OK,it is all right .

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A universal truth is one that can be demonstrated publicly to objective observers.

      Thus neither God's existence nor His non-existence is a universal truth.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        psycheskinner, You are correct that God's existence nor His non existence is universal,it is conscious of Self or Ego that is universal,and this is conscious of God.

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

          True ONLY if you define God as self.  Are we each a god?

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness,W e are not God ,we are reflection of God and God is Absolute self .

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

              Then why would you say that being conscious of yourselves is being conscious of god?  Are you spreading lies for your god?  For Satan?

              If we are reflection of your God then we must be Satan, for a reflection is opposite.  Are you the devil?

              If god is absolute self, then he cares not for the ants on the third planet called "humans".  Absolute self is complete narcissism, total ego without regard for others.

              1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                wilderness, Reflection of Absolute Self means the creator is'' ocean'' and we are a ''drop'' of the ocean that has an identity and can observe ''ocean'' with in itself as it is'' flow ''of the ocean,it is ''reflection'' or ''mirror'' of the ''ocean'', these are terms we may use for understanding our relationship with God . ''Self'' is not ''selfishness'', it is'' uniformity of conscious'' that we represent by the reference of '' I'' ,therefore,it may be selfish or justice for others.

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

                  Making up new meanings for old words in hardly conducive to good communication.  "Ocean" does not mean "reflection of absolute self", and the human body is not a "drop" of salt water.  "Oceans flow only in a mindless back and forth motion with tides; is that how you view your god?

                  Or, if you mean to talk in examples or parables, you're going to have to be a LOT clearer.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    wilderness,you are confused ,it is a simple and clear example but perhaps, your belief for'' universe'' as '' God''  never allow you for understanding this example, suppose creator is ''ocean'' ,then this is ''Absolute Self'' ,your'' self'' is the drop of this ocean,''Absolute Self'' and you can observe the ''ocean'' in the mirror or ''drop'' of your ''self'' ,this type of relationship of self of man is with Absolute Self of God .

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Recent stats show that Muslims make up about 23% of the world population with 20% living in Arab countries. That would be an isolated minority, not a broad majority.

      In other words, for every Muslim on the planet, there are three people who probably disagree and belong to the rest of the world outside of that isolated minority.

      Inspiring, is it not? smile

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        EncephaloiDead, you have not counted the population of believers of other religions ?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Along with non-believers, they make up about 77% of the population who are NOT Muslim, who do NOT agree with Islam.

          Inspiring? smile

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            EncephaloiDead, Believers of God of all religions having faith in Islam or not.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But, they do not accept Islam and the Quran or believe in Allah. The Quran makes it clear on what one is supposed to believe. Perhaps, you're not aware of these verses?

              Qur'an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” 

              Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

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

          You and the other believers don't believe in the same God. If you did there would be less fights.

          1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
            sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rad Man,Now due to presence of'' you'' we never need to fight with each other,we are now uniting against you.tongue

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Aww - if only that were true. Trust me - the Christians where I live will never join forces with Muslims. sad

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

              But why unite against someone of a differing point of view? I thought Islam teaches you to live in peace with everyone

              1. BuddiNsense profile image61
                BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Islam is just another excuse to fight and control!

              2. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Deepes Mind, You are right,  Islam is the message of peace and knowledge ,the fight of reason  and knowledge  not actual fight,

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Never will the Jews be pleased with you, neither the Christians, not till you follow their religion. Say: "Surely God's guidance is the [only] true guidance." And if you follow their caprices after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have against God neither protector nor helper. (2:120)

                  As for the unbelievers, they are friends one of another. Unless you do this, there will be persecution an the earth and great corruption. (8:73)

                  How can it be? If they get the better of you, they will not observe towards you any bond or treaty, giving you satisfaction with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors. They have sold the signs o f God for a small price, and have barred from His way; surely evil is that they have been doing, observing neither bond nor treaty towards a believer; they are the transgressors. (9:8‑10)

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

                  Reason and Knowledge?

                  Any idea what caused the collapse of the Islamic Golden Age?

                  You know that time in Islamic history when Islam kept science and philosophy separate from religion and the Arab world became an intellectual center for science and philosophy.

                  1. sibtain bukhari profile image62
                    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Rad Man, Scientific and philosophical evolution in Islamic history was the flow of emphasis of Quran over the reason, observation and outer experience almost on every page.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "The Arabs displayed a remarkable capacity of assimilating the scientific knowledge of the civilizations they had overrun."  ~ wiki

                    Note that the sentence above taken from the article in wiki that talks about the Islamic Golden Age shows that Muslims only managed to attain their scientific knowledge by conquering other nations and stealing it for their own along with the rest of the plunder.

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

            Umm.. Do you pay attention to some other believers? People who believe in the same God fight often. We have evidence here on the forums. A difference in deities doesn't make a difference. What makes  the biggest difference is what goes on in the mind and how people choose to react and respond to differing points of view.

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

              I'm not so sure you all believe in the same God. For instance some may think God is there but doesn't interact while others claim chat with God all the time. That is a description of two different Gods.

 
working