How can we determine sound criteria and evidence for proof of God
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.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).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.
It would need to be actual evidence. That is all.
What sort of evidence do you have in mind Mark? What would convince you?
That is practically impossible too determine effectively. Can you even imagine the kind of evidence it would take for you to become a Hindu?
How do you prove your right hand exists? The same will do.
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.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.
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.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.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.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.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?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.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.
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.Remarkable that you did not warn us of the 9/11 attacks.
Why not?Mark Knowles, we never informed of the same as you will allege for the same.
Ah - so no prophecies then? Which is it?
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?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.
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.
More evidence . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjKGlNVm … p;index=36Ah - 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.
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=3You mean like how the Quran describes the earth as shaped like an egg?
Or how the Quran states the Suns orbit is responsible for out night and day?
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.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-OLG0KyR4Establishing 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.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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.What exactly is incorrect in the videos? Who has pointed this out? Please state 'specifics' and 'facts' only.
Again, what EXACTLY are the inaccuracies or incorrect statements in The Quran with regards to the content on the videos? And WHO pointed them out? What are the corrections?Please stop being so obtuse. How odd that you ignored all the people who pointed out the lies and inaccuracies. But - as you like youtube evidence so much.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAInpxmJyFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHuw-wNUTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y62gtQx0 … 0DD105C43C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ8V36gMMiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LARGpHiy6pU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jSq89TMflk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cbLg_Wcpro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJDd2xS-oT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUicjcETxI
Now - there are many specifics and facts in these videos. When you have watched them all, I expect an apology. I have plenty more if you want more.
You know what your problem is? You lack faith.Firstly, I asked you to provide instances where people had posted a direct response to the claims in the content of my videos. Let it be stated for the record that you replied with no specifics on such instances.
As for the videos you have posted, the first thing that needs to be exposed for the consideration of the objective viewer is the credentials of the authors. Who are these people? What credentials do they hold? Please be specific in your answer.
The content that I have shared has statements from eminent scientists. The first video I posted on the stages of embryology and sex-determination does not have an eminent scientist’s name to it but Prof. Gerald G. Goeringer in the other video confirmed that this level of detail can only be known by divine intervention 1,400 years ago. To further strengthen, I present the following two contents of eminent scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille who converted to Islam after lengthy research on Quran’s prophecy that Pharaoh’s body will be preserved. Also below is an interview with eminent mathematician and best-selling author Dr. Jeffrey Lang who also converted from Atheism to Islam this time based on deep philosophical questions and reasoning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zs6z6E_Oik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2ZIgn1K7E4
Even though the credentials of the authors of the videos you posted are poor, I will answer a few of these as below . . .
The first video is about the salt-water/fresh-water mix subject. What is likely being referred to in The Quran is not that salt water and sea water don’t mix but the recently discovered “Halocline phenomenon” in Oceanography which effectively separates salt water and fresh water. Your video makes no mention of this and also makes no mention of the Straits of Gibraltar where the Mediterranean flows into the Atlantic Ocean and the two don’t mix as mentioned by Yusuf Estes. Below video has a BBC footage of the Halocline phenomenon yet Mr. Dawkins is more interested in mixing water in cups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hFV4tcPYSo
The second video is offering the argument that the Quran’s description of the Heavens being ‘smoke’ (which Muslims point to as reference to The Gaseous State) during creation should be held as inaccurate since chemical compounds in a smoke would not be the same as those found in Heavens. It smacks of seeking out some way to attack a very accurate description of The Gaseous State that is understandable in common-terms language. Let the objective viewer make up their mind.
The third video is completely off-topic.
The fourth video makes the argument that some statements in the Quran like the seven layers of The Heavens do not have scientific validation. They may not as yet, but this does not mean that they are untrue—there is knowledge to be discovered. The other argument was that formation sequences in the Quran between the earth and Heavens are in contradiction in some verses and in one verse it speaks of some formations of earth while the Heavens were in smoke which apparently is contradictory to scientific explanation. Stages of cosmic development and when certain events took place with regards to condensation in different parts of the universe is a matter of academic study. The universe is hundreds of billions of light years in size. Verses 28-30 of Chapter 79 in the Quran speak of certain events like extraction of light and darkness before certain events on earth. As far formation taking place on earth while the Heavens may be in a state of smoke please view the following famous photograph of The Eagle Nebula known in recent times. I see plenty of ‘smoke’.
http://zpaceneat.blogspot.com/2012/09/t … -star.html
Again, a poor attempt that smacks of little more than seeking out some means of opposition crafted by someone in opposition to Islam with probably no credentials.
The fifth video called BREAKING NEWS is terribly off-putting in its lack of intellect, credentials, and evident attitude of the author. At time-stamp 3:10 in the video the author calls the famous Big Bang theory verse in The Quran as nothing more than B.S.—this reveals the credibility of this author. He then goes on to say that the embryology stages given in the Quran should be rendered inaccurate because bones form within flesh and not vice versa. That makes no basic or common sense from a structural and developmental perspective. Flesh would form in some amorphous molded manner and then hard bones would follow? Really? Again, this person’s credentials are? After this I could not bring myself to watch the rest but please do let me know if there is anything you can back up with sound credentials and qualification.
Again, please be specific about what are the credentials of your sources? What qualifications do they hold? I have eminent scientists on my list. If you have a question or would like credentials please do let me know, be happy to post. For the objective viewer, would like to highlight the number of views these videos have as opposed to the ones I have posted. People in general do not pay heed to those without qualification and credential.
Now, you should apologize to me for posting such shabby sources.
I’ve got plenty more too.
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.
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.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.
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?Mark Knowles,I am hopping to achieve truth and this is great reward.
But you steadfastly refuse to listen to reason. How is that going to help you achieve truth? What is this reward of which you speak?
Mark Knowles, I am listening your arguments and replying for the same,but it is not necessary to agree for listening I may listen and then may reject it for not being agreed with it. I do not wish any thing to find out of my research except truth,therefore,I will consider this truth as reward for my self.
Mark is right - you have had person after person explain that your logic is faulty, yet you continue to insist it is correct. The respondents even explain exactly why it is faulty and you ignore them.
You aren't hoping to achieve truth - you are hoping to convince others that Allah exists.
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.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.
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.
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?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 .
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.
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.
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.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 ?
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.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...............
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.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 ?
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.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 ?
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?
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.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 ?
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.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?
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.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 ?
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.wilderness, children=things, all children have parents=all things have creators ,therefore,every children is proof of creator =therefore,every thing [including universe] is proof of creator, [ we never require other universes,we require other things as universe is a thing.] [ a singularity, if supposed this theory is correct,=thing=child,] what is difference? ,if you say of evolution,child is also evolving from a singularity, a cell.], parent is'' creator'' and God is creator. where is difference and how the same logic will be applicable differently .?
Sorry, children still aren't "all things". Please use the same principle for your examples; if you wish to use children to provide proof of that children had a creator, then use children. Do not use children as proof of a creator of something totally different than other children.
If you think children are a singularity, I pity you. Even though my words to them sometimes seem to vanish into a black hole...
wilderness, living things and nonliving things are common in respect of being ''things'' as both are made up of matter,therefore, every argument applying to ''things'' will apply commonly,if children are not ''things]' then same logic can never be applied as in case of defining God,it is interesting same logic is applicable to Creator declaring Him ''thing'' but the same is not applicable to children as they are not'' thing'' in your view ?
Children are things. Universe is a thing. God, if existing, is a thing. Photons (light) are things. Electrons are things. Universe is a thing. As mass and energy are interchangeable and all mass is a thing, so is energy.
And before you proclaim that because some things are created (child) it means that all things (universe) are created, such a statement will also mean that because some things (your "creator") are a god, all things are a god (including you and I), capable of creating a universe.wilderness,there is no exception in the universal observation that all things we observe are existing by cause or creator,therefore,universe being thing also has a cause but to suppose creator or principal cause as a'' thing'' is logically false as if creator is a thing ,He is creation and subject to His own laws,it means,with a ''cruel logic'' you are first declaring creator as a'' thing'' and then you are ''capturing'' by His own laws and finally you are'' killing'' Him .This is the great injustice with the creator by the creation.
So - once again you restate exactly the same argument:
Everything needs a cause.
Except one thing.....................
Prove me wrong.
All things needs to be created? So you keep claiming except of course for your creator. You keep thinking everything needs to have been created using a mind and then you claim that you get to decide what that one exception is.
No thought when into a rock. A rock is a product of the earth.
So, your answer to the creation of the universe is that everything needs creation except for the one thing that created it?Rad Man, a rock is a product of earth and earth of what ? I have observed that all things being observed have a creator or cause or may exist by one who may brings these in to existence, therefore,universe is only possible to exist by ONE who may bring it in to existence,but HE is not a'' thing'' ,therefore HE never requires creator .
No, you have NOT observed that all things being observed have a creator.
You observe the universe (or at least the tiny party our eyes can detect) but have never, ever observed it's creation or what caused it's creation.Hah aha ahh ha. You can't see it but that is some messed up logic.
First you claim everything needs to have been created by a self aware designer (which is only the case for man made tools) and then you claim that that everything doesn't include the creator.
I don't often see people get everything wrong.
Your entire argument is a fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect
A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … ffect.htmlEncephaloiDead,The confusion of cause and effect can never be ruled out but it does not mean that cause and effect never work and we must suppose universe without the same.
You're missing the point entirely, you can't compare a cause and effect between children/parents and universe/creator. The argument is a fallacy, plain and simple. You are dead wrong.
wilderness,I never require to remove driving seat,I am siting on the same, my car may fly after having wings and plane engine,I am not seeing an apple being red, I am seeing that all things including living things are ''red.'' therefore, universe being thing is ''red''.
Good. Change children into universes and see if they still have a creator. Just as you change cars into planes and say they can fly.
But, unlike words on a keyboard, you must actually change children into universes and test to see if a new child/universe has a creator, not merely say they behave the same without offering any proof they do.wilderness, yes I have tested and tried to make a child without cell, and matter without atom, but I have not succeeded,I also tried to make cell and atom but not succeeded, therefore they require creator for their existence .
Your logic is killing me.
You've tried to make these things but failed so therefore someone else must have created them?
Stop you're killing me.This is how I understand your argument:
1) we tentatively infer (draw a general principle from specific examples that support it) that physical things have causes (e.g. rocks, children etc.)
2) 1 is only falsified if/when a thing is observed and there is sufficient objectively verifiable evidence that categorically proves that it exists without a cause
3) There is currently no objectively verifiable evidence that categorically proves that any physical thing exists without a cause
4) Therefore 1 is not falsified (from 2, 3)
5) the universe is a physical thing
6) therefore we can tentatively infer that the universe has a cause (from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
I think this logic is valid, but you are using "creator" in place of "cause" which may be getting you into difficulties. The word creator has connotations of a deliberate intent or will, which in turn implies an intelligent being, therefore excluding other possibilities. Cause on the other hand includes the possibility of an intelligent being, but does not exclude other possibilities such as quantum fluctuations and other scientific hypotheses which describe phenomena that we might categorise as natural.
Semantic issues notwithstanding, I think you are right, we can indeed tentatively infer a cause from the existence of a physical thing (all scientific principles are tentative). Indeed this is a well known scientific principle in physics called the principle of causality. Given what we understand of the universe it would be unreasonable not to infer this principle, which I believe is what you are describing. Therefore we can tentatively accept it as true that the existence of the universe indicates a cause to the universe or, to boil it down to its bare essence, existence implies a cause.
The fact is though that we do not know whether the universe had a cause, and if so what it was. Current best (scientific) guess is that there was and it was some form of rapid inflation, but that is speculative. What caused that rapid inflation is even more speculative, but some scientists (e.g. Stephen Hawkins) suggest it has something to do with quantum fluctuations. The religious interpretation, as you know, is that the cause was god.That would be incorrect.
As is noted in 1), it is a tentative inference, not proven to be factual. As not all "things" have been checked for a cause, all we can know is that the set of "things" includes a subset of "things with a cause".
Example: we think we know how a star comes into being, but have never watched it happen even once. It is not possible to claim that we know stars (which are "things") have a cause. We can only have that "tentative inference", not proof, and certainly cannot extend that tentative inference that we think a star is forming in this or that nebula to saying our sun had a cause.
We can disprove 1) by finding an exception, but lacking such an exception does not prove it to be true. This is the same logical error sibtain has made right along; the assumption that if something is not proven to be untrue then it has to be true. Doesn't work for him, doesn't work for you.
The universe may be in the subset of "things with a cause" or it may not. All we know is that it is in the set of "things" and that only because we define the word to include the universe.All scientific principles are tentative inferences, as I'm sure you know. The theory of gravity for example is merely an inference that we have a high degree of confidence in. That high degree of confidence stems from the amount of objective, verifiable evidence that supports it, which is gained through systematic observation, measurement, and experiment. So we do not really "know" anything scientifically speaking, we have varying degrees of confidence that certain things are accurate. When the degree of confidence is very high we colloquial say we know it, though that is technically incorrect.
So I do not assume something to be true due to lack of falsifiability. I (like the whole scientific community) tentatively accept certain descriptions as accurate when there is a high degree of confidence in that accuracy through the means described above. Examples of descriptions in which there is a high degree of confidence include the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, the theory of thermodynamics, the theory if relativity etc.
There is a large amount of verifiable, objective evidence that supports the notion that physical things have causes, which is why there is a high degree of confidence in the principle of causality. That is why it is reasonable to tentatively accept causality to be part of an accurate description of the universe. Suggesting otherwise defies the known conventions of science. Like any scientific principle it could be falsified by some new observation made. Until that time it is as reasonable to say we "know" that physical things have causes as it is to say we "know" that an apple will fall to the ground when released from a height.Clearly the problem with sibtain's logic is he jumps from a cause to a creator as if the cause has to have intelligence and then claims that the only thing that doesn't need a creator is his creator. When I asked him why he said the creator is outside our time so therefore doesn't need creation. When I told him without time the creator wouldn't have the TIME to create he simple said the creator makes his own time and space. In other words he's just making stuff up.
"There is a large amount of verifiable, objective evidence that supports the notion that physical things have causes" Really?
What evidence is there as to there being a cause for an electron to move to a different location in the same "orbit"?
What evidence is there as to there being a cause for certain subatomic particles to pop into and out of existence?
What evidence is there as to there being a cause for a certain singularity to "blow up"?
What evidence is there as to there being a cause for a specific atom of Uranium in a block of the substance to give up a bit of itself in the form of radiation?
None of those things are repeatable, none are predictable and all appear to happen on a random basis (except for the singularity, where we know absolutely nothing). There is absolutely no evidence that points to any of them being a result of a causal action at all.
The point was, and is, that there is exactly zero evidence that everything has a cause. Only the extremely tenuous example that things in the macro world we occupy, and that we have examined, do. While I do understand that nearly everything in science is tentative, and that degree of confidence counts for a great deal, that example is so tenuous that it doesn't even register. Let alone the many things we have found with NO cause.
Fifty years ago, all of physics (and science in general) was predicated on the concept that every action had a cause. The given certain conditions, we could always predict the results of an action. That we know what the results of an action (a "cause") would be. That is no longer true.
But in any case, to extrapolate the cause/effect concept from the macro (or micro) results we see in our universe to a singularity existing outside of time, outside of the natural laws of our universe, and outside of anything we have any knowledge about, is highly unlikely to produce truth. And that's exactly what you do when you look around you and conclude that because the results of the big bang operate in a certain manner the singularity that produced that bang operated the same way.It does not matter that there are some phenomena for which we have not yet been able to identify a cause. We do not abandon fundamental principles because we discover things we cannot explain. There is verifiable, objective evidence supporting the principle of causality, zero evidence refuting it.
Of course there is no evidence that everything has a cause. Just like there is no evidence that every apples will fall when released from height, or that every photon in a vacuum travels at the speed of light. That would require every apple and photon in existence to be experimented on. Clearly impossible. But that does not stop us from saying we know apples will fall when released from height, or that we know photons in a vacuum travel at c.
Science is based on inductive reasoning (general principles from specific instances) not deductive reasoning (specific instances from general principles). That is why it's so useful. It means we do not need to test every instance of an apple, and photon to arrive at the principles of gravity and relativity. We can tentatively infer those principles from the specific instances we observe. Likewise we do not need to test every instance of a physical thing to arrive at the principle of causality. We can tentatively infer it from the specific instances we observe. By the standard you are employing, not a single currently accepted scientific theory could be accepted as knowledge.Overall, true. But. Inferring that actions/reactions will remain constant in radically different environments almost always leads to "knowledge" that isn't true.
A second is a second, always. Always, that is, until you measure it in a gravity well. Or at high velocity. Suddenly a second isn't a second at all when the environment has changed.
So yes, we use inductive reasoning, always careful to keep all variables as close to identical as possible. It works reasonably well, but never perfectly despite our best efforts. Now you want to deduce that because a rock had a cause (water and ice broke it from a mountainside) that the big bang, a different action happening under conditions and environment that were literally as different from that rock as is possible to get, also had a cause, extending the observation of the rock to the big bang.
A very, very dangerous deduction to make, and one that is almost certain to contain flaws because of the radical differences in environment. Now add in the things we are now finding with no discernible cause - although you claim the cause is there but we just haven't found it, that claim is as bogus as the one for a cause of the big bang. You are again extrapolating (by inductive logic), but from circumstances and conditions that are totally different. It doesn't work there, either - there may indeed be a cause for an electron to move, but there may not, either. That you have spent a lifetime observing causes for things in a far different environment does NOT give rise to knowing that there is a cause for electron movement.
If you want to say a raindrop has a cause, a grain of sand had a cause, or a tree falling down has a cause, fine. They all have the same basic environment (compared to a singularity or quantum space), they are all the same "kind" of mass/energy (compared to an electron or a singularity) and you have a lifetime history of finding causes for just that sort of thing. A perfect history - every single one has had a cause.
But you (meaning mankind) have a perfect failure history of finding a cause for electron movement or a big bang. It is unreasonable to claim there is a cause under those conditions/environments where we have 100% failure of finding a cause simply because other actions under other conditions have a cause. That "fundamental principle" you spoke of may not apply under those conditions any more than the fundamental principle of the speed of light or the length of a second in a gravity well still works. We may well have to change our knowledge base to include those differing conditions and the results found there, just as we did when relativity came along.
And indeed, that change in our understanding is already happening. Scientists the world over have recognized that not everything has a cause. Not just that we can't find it, but that there is no cause at all. Now, I'm just like you - that conclusion is so far from my world and my observations that I have a really hard time accepting or even understanding it, but that doesn't make it false and it doesn't mean I should ignore it. I don't understand the intricacies (at the atomic level) of a computer or the details of the WWW, either, but have to accept that others DO and can make use of that knowledge.There is no suggestion that certain things are "always" the case. The very first premise in the argument is: "1) we tentatively infer . . . that physical things have causes. . ." Scientific principles are not certain. Tentative by definition means not certain, or provisional. So no disagreement there.
But accepted scientific principles remain so until they can be falsified. That has to be the case otherwise we'd be throwing out established ideas every time anyone developed a new one. That's not how it works. It is perfectly reasonable to apply commonly accepted scientific principles, like the principle of causality, until such time as that principle is either falsified or superseded by another theory which becomes an accepted principle. As yet nothing has falsified or superseded the principle of causality.
It is inaccurate to suggest that current scientific thinking indicates the universe had no cause. Quantum physics for example does give a cause to the universe, namely quantum fluctuations, virtual particles vacuum energy etc. Confusion arises when a scientist like Stephen Hawking says "the universe could have created itself from nothing". He is using "nothing" in a philosophically naive way, quite different to its common meaning.
By "nothing" most people mean an absence of absolutely anything. In science "nothing" relates to zero-point energy (the lowest possible energy a quantum physical system can have). The technical term vacuum is usually used (but doesn't make quite as good a headline). So when scientists say nothing they actually mean the quantum vacuum, vacuum energy, virtual particles, fluctuations of energy etc. They don't mean there was an absence of anything.
Suggesting the universe was caused by quantum phenomena just shifts the question from what caused the universe, to what caused the quantum phenomena that caused the universe. It does not invalidate the principle of causality as you are suggesting, or even remotely place it in doubt.You like and trust Hawking? Me, too, while recognizing that it is inevitable that some of what he says will eventually be shown to be wrong.
From Stephen Hawking; The Beginning of Time lecture
"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. " [a]
Lets paraphrase:
At the singularity there were no laws of physics, including the "Principle of Causality" (which is not a scientific principle at all). This means there is no need for a cause of the big bang, and may go on to say that there cannot be a cause. Specifically, no determinism means no causality.
After the big bang, nothing that is seen is dependent in any way to what may or may not have happened prior to the bang. The universe will evolve from the big bang totally independent of what happened prior to it. Again, there is no need for a cause, and perhaps prohibits any such cause.
In short, we don't know if there was a cause for the big bang or not. Hawkins comment on the materials used for the creation (nothing) have nothing to do with a cause; they are on a totally different topic.
[a] http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.htmlI do like Hawking. I think he is a great scientist, albeit philosophically naive.
Hawking does not believe the universe began as a singularity. The section of the lecture you quoted is where he is giving a historical background of the different theories for the beginning of the universe. A singularity was one of those theories. He then goes on to talk about more contemporary theories:
"It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time . . ." He then goes on to explain what imaginary time is before saying: "If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down." (my emphasis)
So that lecture does not support your view. It is true that below a certain scale (the Planck scale) classical physics becomes unreliable, but that is what led to the development of quantum physics. Just because quantum physics applies to areas outside of classical physics, that does not mean that scientific principles cease to exist or be valid. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is an example of a scientific principle at the quantum level. The HUP is itself an example of the principle of causality (the act of observing has an effect on sub-atomic particles and our ability to measure their position and momentum).
It is the assumption that the principle of causality is universal that has led science to discover the causes of effects that were previously unknown. Without that assumption, there would simply be no scientific discovery. More importantly the claim that something is uncaused can never be a scientific claim, because science is based on empirical observation and inductive reasoning. It is impossible to observe the absence of something. Therefore it would be impossible to identify an uncaused phenomenon. We could say that a phenomenon has no identified cause, but it would be unscientific to assert that a phenomena has no cause. You'll note that even Hawking (in his most recent book) does not say the universe had no cause. He just says that the cause does not necessarily have to be god.I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Don. You're willing to extend the classical concept of causality to everything in the quantum, Planck, world - I'm not.
I just look at too many instances where no cause can be found to be willing to state that there IS a cause. It's true that I cannot say there is NO cause, either, but I don't maintain that. Merely that there may NOT be a cause.
In the case of the big bang, I maintain there may be a cause, but there may not, too. If you wish to claim there is a cause, you will either have to produce that cause or produce enough causes in the quantum world (preferably including singularities as Hawking goes on to say it WAS a singularity, after all, and it may have been) to be convincing that the concept may reasonably be extended to ALL actions there. I do not find, at this time, that such evidence is available in the quantities necessary to produce a high degree of confidence that the causality is required in all actions.I agree that we will have to agree to disagree.
Is there a cause to the universe? I have no idea. I'm not making that claim. The point for me (and this is not aimed specifically at you) is sometimes we see the world-views of others as a single homogeneous idea, rather than a set of many discreet ideas that demand their own consideration. There is nothing inherently more or less reasonable about believing the universe had a cause than not believing it. But when this idea is lumped in with a theistic world-view it seems to become more objectionable for those with a non-theistic world-view. Whereas in scientific terms all arguments concerning the beginning of the universe are speculation. All we can do is share our reasoning with others, then either agree, or agree to disagree, while hopefully learning something in the process.LOL Sorry, Don, but we will have to agree to agree after all. I'm with you right down the line, from not knowing if there was a cause to the comments on theism vs non-theism.
Actually what he says is the cause can't be a God. And he also says some things do appear to have no cause. Perhaps we haven't found the cause yet. But he did come to the conclusion that without time no God would have had the TIME to create the universe.
Hmm. You can't do those things, so that means that someone (creator) did make them.
As Rad says, the logics is not quite there. The possibility of self creation is very much alive; your inability to make a child without an egg in no way negates the possibility of self creation. Specifically, it says absolutely nothing about self creation of the universe.Don W, Thanks for explanation, I have already used the term ''cause'' in my early posts,obviously, it is more comprehensive,logical and scientific and your premises are very good explanation in formal logical format,I used the word ''creator'' in the sense that ''existence'' in the absence of scientific and logical proof for ''self existence'' is evidence requiring creator for its being or one self bringing it in to existence, this evidence will continue to conclude creator for its being until it is rebutted and discorded by another evidence of self existence of universe.
wilderness'',Existence'' is fact and evidence,how it may be rebutted by the ''possibility of self existence'' ? ,evidence may be discorded by the evidence. My argument is not upon the basis of'' lack of knowledge'' but ''lack of evidence'',
You've got it! You finally understand!
Yes! Your argument is based on lack of evidence. You have exactly zero evidence for a creator, and thus cannot claim one exists. All of your argument is based on...lack of evidence. You attempt to shift the onus of proof onto others (to prove an impossibility) but only because you have no evidence yourself.
Good! You finally realize and accept that. Now, find evidence of a creator for the universe. Not for children, not for a car or a plane, but for the universe. Do not provide a lack of evidence, demanding proof from others; provide evidence yourself. Do not claim that because something far, far different (child) has a creator and therefore the universe does; give hard evidence of that creator.
wilderness, sorry,you never understood my point of view'',lack of evidence'' for rebutting my evidence of'' existence of universe'' that logically and scientifically requires a creator or cause for its being and that may be rebutted by only evidence of that degree for self existence ,therefore,my argument is not that we have no knowledge or evidence for self existence therefore,there is proof of creator,my argument is that existence of universe is evidence and will continue to be evidence until you provide evidence for self existence for rebutting the same .
You are misusing the terms "logically and scientifically," in this case. You have not made a logical or scientific argument or presented any facts. Until you do so, your creator remains a figment of your imagination. We have evidence that the Universe exists apparently naturally. i.e. without a cause.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary - which you have failed to present. Please present your evidence rather than continue to present your unsubstantiated opinion. Go!I'm sorry, but your logical evidence seems to be that because a child had a creator the universe must have one too. Or sometimes that because the universe exits it must have a creator. Neither is a true conclusion, coming from either flawed logic or flawed premisses.
The scientific evidence seems to be that...uh...you have presented no scientific evidence. Not even to refute statements from our top physicists that there need not be a cause for the big bang. Except, of course, for your opinion that there was a cause - an opinion that is evidence that you have an opinion but nothing else.
As far as your statement that "my argument is that existence of universe is evidence and will continue to be evidence until you provide evidence for self existence for rebutting the same", well, my evidence of self creation by the universe is the existence of the universe and until you can provide evidence for god for rebutting same it will remain a true statement. After all, if you can do it, so can I.I guess indoctrination can be so thick as to even replace what one calls logic. Actually I think his sense of logic has been taught as I've heard the same argument many times.
I fear it's spreading, too - there have been several more of the "If you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right" comments lately.
But I don't know that it's indoctrination. There also seems to be an explosion of believers desperate to be considered "scientific" or "logical". It can't be done, of course, but they try and this sort of nonsense is the end result. "Scientific" evidence that is pure opinion and "logic" that is, at best, GIGO. They pick this nonsense up from some radical web site, if fits with what they want to believe and sounds good to the untrained. Not really "indoctrination", just something that snuggles up tight to existing beliefs and reinforces those beliefs with fine sounding words like "science" and "logic".I'm not sure about that, most of the middle east is being schooled based on religious teachings. Someone a few weeks back said his school text books taught him that evolution has been debunked.
I didn't mean to indicate there is no indoctrination - there is loads and loads of it, just as you say, and not only in other countries. The US is loaded with it as well.
I just referred to the "logic" we're seeing here. No one can possibly teach logic that uses the "whatever I say is true unless you can prove otherwise" concept; it is too easily turned against the speaker. What is done instead is teach that "a god exists (and only MY god)" until it is deeply ingrained, whereupon the "logic" is offered as an additional reason to believe. As it agrees with a known truth, it is used and can no longer be turned around as that very obviously gives the false result that there is no god. The speaker using that logic simply ignores anyone else using the same "logic" as false even though they don't know why it is false; it just is false because it gives a false result when someone else uses it.
Wilderness,Earlier on a different thread you have stated that no body is going to support my argument but now I am not alone and many science knowing persons like,Don W, PhoenixV ,pennyofheaven and others are supporting my ''nonsense'',this refers that you are losing and my view is being appreciated ,therefore,my advice is that you are required to work more for your ideas and to counter my point of view.
Whether your argument is supported by others does not change the fact your argument is a fallacy. Repeating over and over does not make it true.
Wilderness,This is not indoctrination ,this is self discovery and self conscious of the modern man ,therefore,it is very difficult for you to get more support for such kind of ideas as the man is awakening and trying to find out his true position and objective in this universe and over this planet with reference to GOD,this is ,perhaps,the age of revivalism of humanity under the universal morality of conscience that reflects spiritual and absolute conscience.
BTW
I am sure this fact is obvious to all:
One 's claim
that another's belief
is a fallacy
does not make it false...Mark Knowles, ''Existence of universe'' is a observable and objective fact,we do not need any supposition for the same as this'' exists'' ,therefore, this is not claim,this is evidence,now if you say that universe never exists but self exists ,this is not fact, this is claim requiring evidence for rebutting the evidence of existence of universe ,consequently, this is logical [ as existence is proof of someone bringing it in to being] and scientific [ being objective and observable] evidence for creator or principal cause.
Evidence for a creator is not observable or objective fact. You are wrong.
wilderness, I have repeatedly stated that ''existence'' of universe is required to be rebutted by the'' self existence'' as'' existence of universe'' is a fact not claim ,and therefore, an evidence,but ''self existence of universe'' is not a fact but a claim,if you say universe is not 'existing'' but'' existing by self'' you suppose some thing that requires an evidence,therefore, our ''logical fight'' may be ended if you prove your claim of ''self existence'' rebutting the evidence of ''existence'', and if you say'' existence'' is ''existence'' and prove ''existence'' and conclude nothing,then explain how'' existence'' [not self existence] concludes nothing for its being? you have to suppose self existence for concluding nothing from existence and this supposition is false,this is my argument.
No, your argument is that the existence of our universe is proof of a creator. That is wrong.
EncephaloiDead'',Existence of universe'' is not a fact and evidence? Or this concludes nothing ? if so,that will require the proof of'' self existence'' ,how you may suppose the ''existence'' as ''self existence ''for concluding nothing? how is possible to conclude nothing from ''existence'' ,without supposing ''self existence''?
You are now making no sense at all and are missing the point entirely. If God created the universe, that is something we have no evidence for and cannot make the claim that He did create the universe. That is why you're wrong.
Kathryn L Hill, Thanks for comments, you are right .
Thank you, Mr. Bukhari. It is my opinion/belief that religion scientifically directs our consciousness inward where the perception of God is possible. This inward focus is what is not understood in the majority of religions which misinterpret or ignore their holy books.
Side Note: I have been reading the Book of Mormon and have comprehended some truths revealed there. For instance, Mormons do not believe a child needs to be baptized. The adult is given the opportunity to repent and become baptized, (when and if he so chooses) but not a child who is straight from heaven. I agree with this precept. It is more like a scientific truth in that a child by his very nature does not sin. I realize that a child's innate goodness may be contradictory to popular belief. My belief is based on the fact that a child 's second embryonic stage of development is occurring (according to nature) from birth to six. The psyche is developing in an unconscious way, during this period of development. Is the fetus in the womb a sinner? is a five year old? Actually, I have heard children begin to take on their own karma around age seven.
Interesting, right?Kathryn L Hill, Absolutely correct, actually, religion is nothing but ''self conscious'' and therefore, an experience for development of ego that ultimately reflects the ''Absolute Ego'' ,in this way,religion is providing a base for'' human making'' and ''revivalism for humanity''.
I see it this way:
Self conscious(ness) equals (True Self) awareness or (True Self) realization. I regard God as the Over-Soul, however, and not the Over-Ego. LOL.Kathryn L Hill, Recognition of self is recognition of God .
The self is not God, however. We are a drop in the ocean, according to holy texts. Jesus said," know ye not that ye are gods"... not God.
not to argue... just to clarify. I am sure you agree.Kathryn L Hill, Agreed, our selves are not God but perhaps,reflection of Absolute Self or Absolute Ego of God,and this means,I think, of Jesus and holy texts.
Do you believe in Jesus as a prophet and not to be considered God (as many Christians do?)
Kathryn L Hill, I agree the concept of'' inward focus'' and perhaps,this is the base of religion but this is for the development of Ego of man and for awakening of his conscience , a light inside the self ,a universal conscious of truth and justice, a natural revelation within man that differentiates truth and falsehood, justice and cruelty ,every great religion focuses one towards the same for building humanity,justice and peace and that is why Quran has presented the same as the essence of religion and as a universal standard of truth by saying repeatedly that one who believes in God and performs good deeds and avoids bad deeds,is successful,actually ,I think, every great religion is focused upon the awakening of the conscience but clergy convert the same religion in to an'' idol'' and ''narrow minded formalities'' ignoring the real message and essence of the religion.A child is very close to this pure simple and innocence nature of man but effects of environment develop in him narrow minded concepts, therefore,this ''innocence of child '' is required to be protected. Therefore,prophet Muhammad[pbuh] states that everyone is born on nature but is converted by his parents .
Kathryn L Hill, yes,I believe in Jesus as a great and loving prophet of God who scarified for humanity and perhaps, for this love and sacrifice for God he has been regarded as'' son of God'' having spiritual meaning of being very close to God.
EncephaloiDead, you are not replying my questions and are focusing only upon that that there must be evidence for creation of universe by God and if we are not observing the same,we must deny the creator as having no evidence,it is like as we have not observed the earth being filled up by the force of gravitation,therefore we must reject it having no evidence?
Of course, we are all focusing on that because your argument is a fallacy and is not valid. Therefore, the only way you can make an argument for creation is to have evidence for creation, and you have none.
We already understand how planets form in solar systems so your claim is not based on evidence, it is based on your religious beliefs.No it's not at all. We understand why we have gravity and what causes it. We understand we are in a universe, but don't know the cause.
EncephaloiDead ,Rad Man, Repeating ''fallacy'' is no argument, You reject ''religious God'', but you accept the'' secular god,''the'' universe'' that explains every thing ,no beginning,no ending,no cause,no creator,everlasting but you have no evidence for its self creation? ,Rad Man, how you discovered gravity? many objects fall down not all ? you have found gravity from its effects.you can never find creator from its effects?
Are you trying to insinuate that your god (supernatural creature from another universe somewhere) is somehow similar to our universe (the whole of nature) so that the atheist can use the universe as their god?
A dropped ball falls. Every single time. It falls at the same rate, still every single time. We can watch it fall and measure the fall.
Which of the creators actions can we watch and measure, that are repeatable every single time and which have no other possible causes?The difference between you and me is that my faith in God does not require I make up stories and lies about the world around me. No, I don't see a creator from the effects of gravity, that would be an outright lie to say such a thing. I don't see the universe as evidence for the existence of a creator, that is not how we view our faith in God, because we know that would be a lie.
If you or anyone else must make up lies about God in order to convince others of your faith, then you truly have no faith at all, you have only one lie built upon another.
EncephaloiDead, Who will decide that who is making lie and who is speaking true? you or I or anyone else? therefore,I ,like you.do not make such a claim as I do not know your intention nor you know my intention,therefore, we may simply make opinions in light of our knowledge and perhaps ,we may have some effects of our beliefs over our thoughts ,therefore,I stated that atheists assign all attributes of'' Religious God'' to the ''universe'' and unconsciously they have belief in th'' god of universe'' , if you disagree the same give reasons that you never believe in the same.
Your intentions are obvious, you are making false statements about gravity and the universe being evidence for a creator as an argument, it isn't working because your statements are false. You must not have very much faith in God if you feel you must do that.
EncephaloiDead, Gravity is not identified by its effects ? Gravity is not unseen? you have seen that earth was being filled up by gravity? but you believe in gravity ,why ? gravity has been identified as'' unseen cause'' ,subsequently,it has been measured by the speed and weight of falling objects. God is also'' unseen power'' and'' cause ''for its effects but as you are not capable of His measurement ,therefore you deny Him declaring him as ''imaginary God''.
What effects would those be? Be sure that your answer contains ONLY effects that you have direct evidence showing that they come from a god. Videos, other recordings, etc. - none of this "It came from god because I said so" nonsense!
That is the same fallacy you keep trotting out again and again, it is false. Gravity is not evidence for God. God may or may not be an unseen power or cause, but there are no effects that we can say are a result of God, we would be LYING if we did.
That is why you have no faith in God.Gravity's cause is well understood, but a tad difficult to explain. Gravity is nothing like Allah as gravity can be studied and measured.
The interesting thing about gravity in this discussion is that it does not come in pairs as described in the Quran. You'd think if God was talking to Mohammad he would have told him almost all things come in pairs.
wilderness,No,I am simply saying that atheists suppose all attributes of a ''religious God'' in the'' universe,''therefore,they have a belief in ''secular God'' and not a'' religious God'' . When we watch a ball falling down,we search for a cause,and conclude that an unseen force inside the earth is attracting the same towards its self,we have seen falling object not the force inside the earth nor we have observed that a force is being filled up inside the earth,but we believe that as almost all objects are falling down with the same speed and we can measure the speed and weight of the object, therefore,it exists, but we deny the ''unseen cause'' of the force just for the reason that we have failed to measure the same? we believe that this force exists by self just for the reason that we can never measure its cause?
Would have to disagree. I at least do not propose that the universe is an intelligent creature, that it cares about me or any other human, that it consciously interacts with things on earth, that it has another universe to exist in, that it has existed forever, that it owns a stable of angels, that it loves anything or anyone, that it finds humans to be special in any way, etc. etc.
The list of differences in attributes is nearly endless. One could probably say that there are NO attributes of god shared by the universe except the possibility that both created this universe and be closer to the truth.
I'm not sure what you are asking about gravity; it exists, we can measure it and do not know the details of what causes it (if anything). Outside of trying to claim that that ignorance somehow proves a supernatural creature from another universe, I fail to understand your point. Can you explain further?Actually, you might call nature in all it's forms a secular god. Or maybe reality as a whole.
It seems a little dishonest as it would be a total departure from what people think of as a "god", though. Just making up new meanings for old words.wilderness, you have chosen some attributes of'' Religious God'' ,and have assigned to'' universe'' supposing that'' universe'' explains every thing and started to believe unconsciously the same as ''secular'',logical ''and ''scientific'' god'' but you have forgotten that left over attributes ,you mentioned,such as, love, intelligence ,conscious,conscience .morality,etc,are also within universe as man is the part of universe ,admittedly,if ''universe'' ,your god has no these qualities then from where these attributes have come?
The universe is not a God and the attributes you mentioned are the results of evolution. They can be seen at varying degrees in all animals.
Sibtain, you simply cannot move from a supernatural god to the universe being a god by definition and retain any credibility at all.
To understand this simple concept, you might start by listing the attributes commonly put to a god:
Eternal, with no beginning.
Not of this universe
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Outside time
Loves mankind
Not a single one of those applies to the universe, but let's keep going:
Intelligent
An image of mankind
Speaks to man
Has offspring (at least many do)
Undetectable
Still nothing applicable to the universe. Why don't you try making a list? I confess, the idea that the Universe is a god, in the accepted meaning of the word "god", is the most ludicrous thing you've proposed yet.
Rad Man,Your universe is not eternal?, Does not has no beginning and no ending? Self existing? Self uniformed? Self maintained? Self evolved ? Without cause ? Time is within universe? No time before universe? your universe has no conscious but knows by self how is to be evolved and how is to be avoided by destruction through the blind law of nature and collisions of planets,even it is aware of the orbits of planets? you provide all qualities of conscious and intelligence to your'' god of universe'' without declaring the same,I am not declaring universe as god but you are doing so for avoiding the ''religious God''
Perhaps this is just to difficult for you to understand that's why you insist in telling us that we think the universe has intelligence. The universe needs no intelligence, the universe was not created for us, the earth was not created for us, it's arrogant to think so. We are just another species inhabiting this planet, we will come and go just like the dinosaurs. Our galaxy has billions of earth like planets and there are billions of galaxies with billions of earth like planets. That's a billion x a billion chances of others' being out there.
Rad Man, It is your claim that your universe never requires intelligence but when you assign the attributes to universe,it is clear you are supposing intelligence within universe as for example,how universe may maintain itself without intelligence? how it may avoid collisions among billions of earth like planets by self without intelligence? how it protected itself by destruction during its emergence from the big bang and maintained itself without intelligence? how the evolution of life within universe saved itself from all dangers and destruction during the billion years of evolution without intelligence ? when you make possibility of such claims under no. of by chances then actually you have been assigning the universe the status of intelligent being as without the same this all is not possible under series of presumptions.
the argument from ignorance or incredulity may make you feel better, but it is still a logical fallacy sibtain. you keep asking us to point out your fallacies, and then you make it even easier by repeating them.
Again, you claim the universe needs intelligence as you assume the universe is a product for humans. If you remove your assumption you may begin to understand that the universe doesn't care about us, just as the universe didn't care to protect the dinosaurs from extinction the universe will not protect us from extinction. The universe doesn't care anymore than a rock cares.
Wilderness, You never declare these mentioned attributes to universe but when you define universe you practically suppose all these qualities within universe,for example,Your universe is not eternal?, Does not has no beginning and no ending? Self existing? Self uniformed? Self maintained? Self evolved ? Without cause ? Time is within universe? No time before universe? your universe has no conscious but knows by self how is to be evolved and how is to be avoided by destruction through the blind law of nature and collisions of planets,even it is aware of the orbits of planets? you provide all qualities of conscious and intelligence to your'' god of universe'' without declaring the same,I am not declaring universe as god but you are doing so for avoiding the ''religious God''It is your claim that your universe never requires intelligence but when you assign the attributes to universe,it is clear you are supposing intelligence within universe as for example,how universe may maintain itself without intelligence? how it may avoid collisions among billions of earth like planets by self without intelligence? how it protected itself by destruction during its emergence from the big bang and maintained itself without intelligence? how the evolution of life within universe saved itself from all dangers and destruction during the billion years of evolution without intelligence ? when you make possibility of such claims under no. of by chances then actually you have been assigning the universe the status of intelligent being as without the same this all is not possible under series of presumptions.
Well, that's certainly a nice list of suppositions. Let's take a look at them.
Universe had a start - why do you say it did not?
Universe is to evolve from laws of nature - what happens, happens. No guide to what will happen.
Contrary to your ignorance of celestial mechanics, collisions happen every day.
Universe needs no "maintaining"; it just is. What happens is what happens. No guide and no intelligence.
No indication universe protected itself against big bang, any more than there is evidence that Sibtain protected self against universe upon birth. What happens will happen.
Does not avoid collisions; such events are a daily occurrence if not hourly.
Life did not save itself from destruction; dinosaurs are all gone, yes?
So, no intelligence and no god. Chance only.
Rad Man,Perhaps, you are not understanding my point of view,,this time I am not supposing that universe is for human beings,I am simply stating that the attributes assigned by you to universe necessarily require an intelligence within universe ,if not,then give reasons how all above mentioned qualities may be disclosed by universe without intelligence?
I assigned no attributes to the universe, you did and then claim I made them. As stated before, the universe doesn't care about us as it didn't care about the dinosaurs when a meteor hit the earth and sent the dinosaurs waving bye bye.
Come, come, Rad man you are being quite irritating.
Everyone knows the earth was created fully formed by an intelligence; it did not form by the slow accretion of uncounted brainless collisions and certainly no life was even extinguished by such a collision. "Meteor" indeed!When the universe was created 6000 years ago it was created with the light from distant stars already in motion with the equivalence of millions of years just so we could see twinkling stars at night.
Yep! And BIG fake bones buried all over the place to make us wonder.
There's no telling the lengths a god will go to to confound the ants they are creating; they'll even tell those ants that they are the lords of creation - that it was all made just for them!
And then, I think, the gods have lunch.
again, the argument from incredulity.
In case you're having difficulty understanding it, let me define it for you.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Conclusion: Not-P.
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
wilderness,Rad Man,JMcFarland, Your argument is as under; ''The great and infinite creator is impossible to be'' captured'' by the confined reason,therefore,it is reasonable and rationale to deny Him and to suppose a magical universe where every great work has been performed by self without reason, intelligence and conscious.'' If I close my eyes from the great and billion of moving planets and stars in their specific ways without colliding and destroying universe and from the miracles of human beings,animals,plants, and living organisms and their surprising systems of food,shelter and workings,the problem is resolved by supposing every thing is automatic?
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.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''?
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.5 billion years? Do you think camels will be left untended in 5 billion years?
Or that the universe will end in 5 billion years? I didn't get all of that, either.
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.
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?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...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?Mark Knowles,How do you believe that you will escape from His punishment? You find the place where you may hide your self?
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.
Reality is a good place to hide. But - thanks for showing your true colours.
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.
Please review this Hub below for more information on consideration of evidence . . .
http://james-wolve.hubpages.com/hub/prophecies-in-QuranWow, talk about vague, but I did find interesting to read someone justify having sex with a 9 year old.
And what you found interesting and what you find vague reflects all upon you.
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?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?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?
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.
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?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.“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.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.
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.
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.Your SUPER SMARTNESS is very impressive. I wish I was you.
your super sarcasm is always much appreciated, since it's a method of positively enhancing communication and dialogue.
I'm sure you do.
Shouldn't this be DUE to? Maybe my grammar is off...LOLThank 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.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.I believe I answered the questions in the same spirit s you asked them. Perhaps what you mean is that you don’t find the answers agreeable.
I was raised a Muslim but in the social sense. I later embarked to learn what it means to be a Muslim. In the theological sense, I expect that God will judge if I was able to fulfill becoming one. I would not say I have always accepted Islam as truth but do so more now. I have studied other religions. As I mentioned in the post, I believe Islam embodies the teachings of those religions. They are not in competition in the sense that I take many of them as dispensations of the same God. As for my determination on Islam, I believe I covered that in the post above. I wouldn’t say that convenience factors in my case as the movement I belong to now—The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam—is unanimously considered infidel by mainstream Muslims. And per the corrupted interpretations of modern Islamic scholars, we are considered apostates and many have issued a libel-for-death edicts against us. In many Muslim countries our members are violently persecuted and many suffer murder in cold blood for nothing more than an article of faith. However, we are under covenant with God and will not compromise no matter what the cost. I personally have not suffered much though there are challenges. But convenience does not come to mind.
To me method does not explain existence nor origination. Method itself requires origination and determination. I would say I see design because I see what is a design. When I see several spherically shaped planets in consistent orbits with a finely tuned balance of centrifugal force and centripetal gravity, that is not something that can be randomly blasted into. Human biological mechanisms and the mechanisms and functions found inside a cell organism cannot be the product of random musings. The degree of engineering is too great. I have not found it true that people who are not religious or who do not subscribe to organized religion do not see such design. I myself know several people who believe in God and creation but are not religious in the typical sense.
I wasn’t offering personal experience as proof in the domain of public debate, rather just mentioning it as a critical dimension for someone searching for answer. To me Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Bhagwan and others are all the same entity. There is no Muslim God vs. Christian God. People account for the experiences in terms they are familiar with. Allah means God. Christians in the Arabia Peninsula and even as far out as Malaysia use the word Allah for God.
Honestly, I feel little motivation for reading the book because I am familiar with the argument.So - have you given up discussing "evidence," and reverted to the (somewhat useless) "it is so complex a god must have made it so," argument? Not sure why you needed so many words to say so either.
As a matter of interest - does your cult reject all the usual Muslim stuff like stoning for adultery etc?If you would like to ask me questions, would appreciate it if you can avoid the innuendo.
The Ahmadiyya movement in Islam rejects death for apostates and blasphemy and also any form of coercion or aggression that may be termed as a Jihad. It advocates separation of Church and states and holds freedom of conscience as a fundamental human right (Muhammad pbuh is reportedly the first person to draft 'freedom of conscience' into a constitutional document). There are no injunctions for these types of punishments in The Quran. The contradictions found in Hadith(sayings of Muhammad pbuh) and Sunnah(practices of Muhammad pbuh) we reject as innovations and manipulations that occurred much later and possibly motivated by politics.
science proves and is evidence of God!
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?
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.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.
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.
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...unless you FEEL this when you close your eyes, it's not a fact. Feelings are what makes things factual, after all
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?
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.
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.
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.There aren't people who change their behavior based on the threat of god our the fear of him without evidence now?
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
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.
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.
how do you know you were created by a powerful being?
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
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.
-and perceiving God directly, I might add.
(...attempting to perceive God directly, counts too.)
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 ?
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.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.
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.
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 .
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?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 .
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.
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.
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.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 .
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.
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.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.
True ONLY if you define God as self. Are we each a god?
wilderness,W e are not God ,we are reflection of God and God is Absolute self .
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.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.
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.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 .
So if you assume that you are part of god then god exists. Gotcha.
But you are NOT part of god, so don't know if god exists or not.wilderness, I am not part of God. I am within God and God is within me but I am not God,I am confined within God and God is not confined within me,for example,a small circle within big circle,therefore,if ''small circle'' will know it self it will know ''big circle'' as it is within ''big circle''. universe is within God but universe is not God,therefore,if you will prove the self existence or eternal universe,you will actually prove self existence of God.
"...if you will prove the self existence or eternal universe,you will actually prove self existence of God."
A true statement, but ONLY if the universe is within God. As there is no god to be within, the statement is obviously false.
Which is what I said; the statement that you, I or the universe is a part of god is false. Untrue. Wrong. A lie, whether intentional or not. This is termed the GIGO principle; Garbage In, Garbage Out. You have put the garbage in (false statement that the universe is inside a god) and get garbage back out (there is a god).wilderness, How you have so strong belief that this is a false statement ? Have you any proof that this is impossible? Due to this reason I state that you have strong belief in the'' god of universe'' and do not like even the sharing of ''religious God'' in the creation .
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?EncephaloiDead, you have not counted the population of believers of other religions ?
Along with non-believers, they make up about 77% of the population who are NOT Muslim, who do NOT agree with Islam.
Inspiring?EncephaloiDead, Believers of God of all religions having faith in Islam or not.
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."
You and the other believers don't believe in the same God. If you did there would be less fights.
Rad Man,Now due to presence of'' you'' we never need to fight with each other,we are now uniting against you.
Aww - if only that were true. Trust me - the Christians where I live will never join forces with Muslims.
But why unite against someone of a differing point of view? I thought Islam teaches you to live in peace with everyone
Islam is just another excuse to fight and control!
Deepes Mind, You are right, Islam is the message of peace and knowledge ,the fight of reason and knowledge not actual fight,
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)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.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.
"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.
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.
Related Discussions
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 4 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
- 85
Would proof in the existence of God be enough for you to worship Him?
by Jason2917 13 years ago
I originally posted this as a question... but started thinking It would probably make a better discussion.Would proof in the existence of God be enough for you to worship Him?This is not a trick question, and I'm not looking for a debate e.g.: science vs religion, etc.Consider it this way, if all...
- 2613
Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
by Claire Evans 11 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
- 56
What evidence would it take to convince you your religion is false?
by Shane Almgren 13 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to accept it. For example, if your buddy told you he had Chinese for dinner last...
- 103
If you do not believe in God, then what is your perception on this?
by Retrohawaii 13 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
- 16
If scientists found proof that God existed, would you atheists then believe it?
by John Harper 9 years ago
If scientists found proof that God existed, would you atheists then believe it?http://witscience.org/first-scientific-proof-god-found/