Why cant we scientifically prove god?

[uq]

Peace Ahmad,

I think we are mostly in agreement.

Evidence, in the scientific sense, I believe, does not exist. As the object of study?God?transcends all things material and immaterial alike; how then is God to be quantified and qualified in any such manner when the Scientific Method is fundamentally concerned with the constituent parts of the universe itself?

I say that the only forms of evidence that exist in proof of God are twofold.

The first is in the form of order, that is to say, an orderly universe, a universe in which laws are relatively constant in our perception and have been facilitative of the development of life on this tiny rock.

The second is in the form of observation. In this regard, the evidence for God, I believe, is wholly sensory. The observation that the universe is ordered, that the earth is in revolution, that there is an alternation of night and day, that all living things are made of water, that water is caused to descend from the sky thereby causing a growth of plants edible and otherwise, that many of today's animals have been made docile rendering them suitable for our laborious tasks, that the diversity of human colours and tongues does exist, that embryonic development is such that the observer's breath is nigh on suspended!?all such observations lend the observer not merely recognition of God's being, but also of God's oneness.

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, uq, and I apologize for the late reply.

Evidence, in the scientific sense, I believe, does not exist. As the object of study?God?transcends all things material and immaterial alike; how then is God to be quantified and qualified in any such manner when the Scientific Method is fundamentally concerned with the constituent parts of the universe itself?

That was a major issue of mine for quite a while. My viewpoint now, though, differs from this. I think that God actually CAN be proven scientifically; most people just don't know where to look and, more importantly, what to look for. There are various definitions for what a "god" is to most people, and people are looking for what they believe to be God. And, of course, this god can never be found... Since I look at things more along the lines of pantheism (or even panentheism), I see God every time I look out of my window, every time I look in the mirror, and every time I look at my children. God, to me, is life. God is everywhere and in everything.

Tying that in from a scientific perspective, I guess I'd illustrate it in the form of the five senses

1. I see God when I look in the mirror.
2. I hear God when I listen to a thoughtful and inspiring speech or lecture.
3. I smell God when I take a whiff of roses.
4. I taste God when I bite into an orange.
5. I feel God when I hold my children, or shake a friend's hand.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily characterize things in that specific context; but I think you get the overall point I'm referring to.

And, ultimately, all of these things are ONE ("waahiyd"/singular and unique) - working in complete unity and harmony. The Universe is a gigantic, pluralized singularity operating as a unit. That's what God is to me.

Peace,

Ahmad

[good_logic]

Peace Ahmad Bilal.

I liked the way you explained your point. I also agree with you.

I was discussing "God" with a friend and I was asked the following questions

If God exists, then He must have been somewhere before He started His creations,where?

In that case "somewhere existed with/before Him?

I said I would put his questions as one statement

At the beginning there was only GOD!!!! He must have been, because everything else was created including"somewhere" and "nothing"!

GOD bless you.
Peace.

[runninglikezebras]

Good point. I often return the question as well. I ask them to explain Big Bang to me without God. They can't. Not one 1 microsecond before Big Bang they can explain. All they can bring is conjecture like "Hawkings thinks matter can exist out of nothing" or some hypothetical multiverse-theory that only shifts the issue a bit further without resolving it. I guess Hawkings is their God/idol, but he brings little proof to the table.

Next to that I often challenge them to produce a verse of equal quality, challenging to produce an equal palindrome verse like the ones in Quran that is still meaningful and without using google or dictionaries in any language they choose. I haven't seen one successfully live up to that challenge they either avoid it or start googling non-sensical palindromes (= cheating).

Peace

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, good logic.

If God exists, then He must have been somewhere before He started His creations,where?

In that case "somewhere existed with/before Him?

I said I would put his questions as one statement

At the beginning there was only GOD!!!! He must have been, because everything else was created including"somewhere" and "nothing"!

I actually get that question a lot, and that's part of what made me reassess my ideas about God. For example, if God is a "person", like Salaafis claim, with a giant human-like body, then He couldn't have created space and time, since He would've had to have been somewhere when everything began to take shape. In other words, if God is limited to a fixed physiology, then He must have existed in a designated location, which must've been present before He was. If He is described as being eternal, then His location (e.g. space) must also be eternal, since, being supposedly designated to a physicality, He has (and had) to exist somewhere.

The concept of matter existing without space is an illogical paradox. If there is something, it has to exist somewhere.

When I start saying things like that, people generally tend to back down, since there's no way they could possibly justify the contrary... laugh

Peace,

Ahmad

[Student_of_Allah]

Good point. I often return the question as well. I ask them to explain Big Bang to me without God. They can't....

The Big Bang theory refers to the expansion of the universe from a singularity to its present state. Done. I just explained it without invoking a pink unicorn or a God for that matter. I wonder who you were asking to explain Big Bang to you.

....Not one 1 microsecond before Big Bang they can explain. All they can bring is conjecture like "Hawkings thinks matter can exist out of nothing" or some hypothetical multiverse-theory that only shifts the issue a bit further without resolving it. I guess Hawkings is their God/idol, but he brings little proof to the table.

Argument from Ignorance(click me to learn what I am and avoid further public embarassments)

A lot of the times, a lot of religious people have difficulty wrapping their heads around things to which they have no answer. They were trained either by others or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" when they don't know something. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know. This doesn't mean that your random weird belief becomes true automatically. That would be an argument from ignorance.

Let me give you an example. Thousands of years ago in a land foreign, there were two kinds of people. Those who believed that Zeus is the one throwing the lightning bolts and those who didn't have a clue but refused to believe that Zeus was throwing it. The fans and followers of Zeus often said things like "I challenge anyone to explain to me how lightning strikes the earth. Not a single one can answer my question. They always say things like 'may be this process is going on/may be something out there is causing it', all conjectures". They used to never understand that just because the non-Zues-believers couldn't explain how lighting strikes the earth, it doesn't make their belief that Zeus throws it to be true. Just because you can't say what is in my bag right now doesn't mean that I get to claim arrogantly that because you can't say what it is, it must be a x/y/z/anything!

Not to mention that you are tiptoeing around the God of the gaps fallacy. You are just conveniently placing God in places where we have yet to learn a lot about the place. Your ancestors did the same with rain/food/weather/name it. Over the centuries as science explained so many things, these Gods and Goddesses now hides in places like "before Big Bang". You can keep doing it and playing this God of the gaps game. Its just that doing such a thing ends up defining your God as "The ever receding pocket of our scientific ignorance".

Next to that I often challenge them to produce a verse of equal quality, challenging to produce an equal palindrome verse like the ones in Quran that is still meaningful and without using google or dictionaries in any language they choose. I haven't seen one successfully live up to that challenge they either avoid it or start googling non-sensical palindromes (= cheating).

Answer

Shalom Aleikhem,

I am sorry, that is not a falsifiable thing. First of all, Qur'an may tell you to "bring another chapter like it", but it doesn't tell you who you should bring it to. See the problem? Who will be the judge? A Hindu values and respects his/her Vedas and will most likely never agree with you that whatever you wrote is better than his/her veda. A christian values his/her Bible and will not agree that your writings are better than his/her Bible or even the same for that matter. In the same sense, it makes no sense to ask someone to "bring a chapter/verse like it". No matter how many chapters I bring, Muslims can always get away saying that "I don't find it good enough". This is because Qur'an provides no objective means of falsification.

Having said that, there is also a logical flaw in what you said about divinity. There is no direct link between writing a similar chapter like Qur'an and divinity. To claim that "God" wrote that book, you have to demonstrate that He did write that book. You can not shift the burden of proof on others by asking them to write something similar, which to begin with doesn't prove or disprove divinity in any shape or form.

Peace
---------- Student of Allah

[Man_of_Faith]

THAT is not a god or among gods to make such ignorant commentary.

Be of one in is that that is

[runninglikezebras]

The Big Bang theory refers to the expansion of the universe from a singularity to its present state. Done. I just explained it without invoking a pink unicorn or a God for that matter. I wonder who you were asking to explain Big Bang to you.

My bad, I forgot to add the words "origins of" in that sentence. I thought my next sentence made that clear. But feel free to score an easy goal there. Not impressed though.

Argument from Ignorance(click me to learn what I am and avoid further public embarassments)

A lot of the times, a lot of religious people have difficulty wrapping their heads around things to which they have no answer. They were trained either by others or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" when they don't know something. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know. This doesn't mean that your random weird belief becomes true automatically. That would be an argument from ignorance.

Let me give you an example. Thousands of years ago in a land foreign, there were two kinds of people. Those who believed that Zeus is the one throwing the lightning bolts and those who didn't have a clue but refused to believe that Zeus was throwing it. The fans and followers of Zeus often said things like "I challenge anyone to explain to me how lightning strikes the earth. Not a single one can answer my question. They always say things like 'may be this process is going on/may be something out there is causing it', all conjectures". They used to never understand that just because the non-Zues-believers couldn't explain how lighting strikes the earth, it doesn't make their belief that Zeus throws it to be true. Just because you can't say what is in my bag right now doesn't mean that I get to claim arrogantly that because you can't say what it is, it must be a x/y/z/anything!

Not to mention that you are tiptoeing around the God of the gaps fallacy. You are just conveniently placing God in places where we have yet to learn a lot about the place. Your ancestors did the same with rain/food/weather/name it. Over the centuries as science explained so many things, these Gods and Goddesses now hides in places like "before Big Bang". You can keep doing it and playing this God of the gaps game. Its just that doing such a thing ends up defining your God as "The ever receding pocket of our scientific ignorance".

Answer

Peace
---------- Student of Allah

I find your belief that the origins of Big Bang is something we have yet to learn rather embarrassing to read from a muslim. It is not solvable. It's beyond human comprehension. You accuse me of making this statement out of ignorance but I'm pretty familiar with the theory and it is a definite ring-pass-not for science. It's also here where your analogy with the historical evolution of understanding of lightning fails. They are not equivalent in regard of difficulty to understand. Lightning is not something that occurs in initial singularity. Initial singularity is outside the framework of time and space which renders our understanding rather incapable and useless. It's beyond our limits. Empiricism fails. Measurement is no longer a tool. Does this prove God exists? Not at all I'm not promoting arguments of ignorance, though it does confront the disbeliever with the realization their scientific framework requires just as much belief, if not more, than a believer applies considering the ultimate origins of this universe. They are based on hypotheses only. Do you honestly believe one of the current scientific hypotheses dealing with the preceding events of Big Bang will hold up to be true without shifting the issue, thus evading the crucial question of Gods involvement in it? If so, which alternative methodology are going to apply to establish that proof, given the empirical model fails in that context? The theistic evolutionary approach is as much a valid hypothesis if not a superior one. If you're muslim, it should beyond doubt be a superior one. So what are you arguing anyway, something that goes against your own belief? -)

About the linguistic challenge I mentioned don't get your jimmies rustled. It's just a little teaser I sometimes use. Not an ultimate proof at all. Though you are misunderstanding (while quoting yourself) - that it is about the quality of the text. I ask them to come up with a palindrome expressing a palindromic verse in Quran in any language they like without using dictionaries, books or online tools while having at least a similar meaning. So you should know it's not about a subjective judgment of quality of language, but rather a test of technical skill, like a puzzle. When I use that challenge it's never meant to convince anyone, but it does sometimes strike people and makes them think.

Nowhere did I claim the things I mentioned were absolute proof. That was purely your assumption. I just use them to make people reconsider and think.

ps I found your entire post pretty disrespectful accusing me of publicly embarrassing myself and what not while you yourself were jumping the gun and assuming I was stating absolute proofs. Assumption is the mother of all mistakes. I still am interested to know though, how you reconcile your view of expecting science to completely understand the ultimate origins of this universe with the belief God is the creator of this universe. Please explain that one to me. If you're an atheist, then please explain to me how you're going to scientifically prove the ultimate origins of this universe in an environment that renders the empirical model useless. It may shed some light on why the only two available scientific models dealing with the events before big bang are nothing but conjecture and the ones to come will be equally unproven for eternity. But atheists have a lot of faith in science when it comes down to that, don't they? Even when it falls entirely out of it's domain.

http//izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-absolute-atheism-starts-in-an-act-of-faith-in-reverse-gear-and-is-a-full-blown-religious-commitment-jacques-maritain-250464.jpg

[Student_of_Allah]

Shalom Aleikhem,

My bad, I forgot to add the words "origins of" in that sentence. I thought my next sentence made that clear. But feel free to score an easy goal there. Not impressed though.

1. I will not apologize for your mistake but I can sympathize.

2. Adding "origins of" to your previous statement just makes your case worse. The reason I say that is because we don't know the answer to that. Therefore, knowing that we do not have an answer, expecting someone to give you a definitive answer is just as embarrassing as trying to lend credibility to an answer proposed by ignorant people from the past just because at the moment we don't have the answer.

I find your belief that the origins of Big Bang is something we have yet to learn rather embarrassing to read from a muslim. It is not solvable. It's beyond human comprehension.

Are you willing to show us the peer reviewed scientific journals where you have published your papers proving once and for all that the origin issue is necessarily not solvable and is necessarily beyond human comprehension? That is another argument from ignorance. Just because you can't think of a solution does not mean that nobody ever will be able to come up with a solution. It is people with mindset similar to that which you demonstrated here, who held scientific progress back for ages and still does in many places throughout the world.

Oh, I believe you mentioned the muslim-big bang theory to indicate something about muslims knowing about it. If you are willing to discuss that, please go ahead and open a new thread in the science section of the forum and see if your claim holds. You can just make the thread and let me know via PM.

.. You accuse me of making this statement out of ignorance but I'm pretty familiar with the theory and it is a definite ring-pass-not for science...

Someone didn't read enough! Guess who that is? I said many times that you were trying to advance an ]argument from ignorance. I didn't say that you don't know or are not familiar with the big bang theory. I don't know if you don't like reading or not but it will help if you read about argument from ignorance. It is a very common fallacy upon which a lot of theistic beliefs rest. Not to say that I believe that you know much about the big bang theory, but I'd like to clarify that I made no remarks on the level of knowledge you have concerning the Big Bang model.

It's also here where your analogy with the historical evolution of understanding of lightning fails. They are not equivalent in regard of difficulty to understand. Lightning is not something that occurs in initial singularity. Initial singularity is outside the framework of time and space which renders our understanding rather incapable and useless.

Wrong again. Please try and focus the next time you read what I am saying. The point of my analogy was not to demonstrate that the two situations and the subject/objects are identical in them. The point was to demonstrate how throughout human history, ignoramuses full of overconfidence has never changed their attitude towards things nobody has answers to. That was the point. If you still don't get it, then consider the following example

Issue NASA refuses to invest any money into Mars missions until the project seems financially and technically sound.
Analogue Mary isn't willing to save up for the next Sims game until she is convinced that the Sims4 is a big enough leap from what Sims 3 has to offer.

Anyone will be able to see that Mary's issues are NOTHING compared to NASA's issues. However, the point of the analogy is not to show that NASA's challenge is objectively equivalent to Mary's. The point is to show how people don't like making financial commitments without viewing their goals as feasible and sound. In the same sense, I did not provide the Zeus analogy to compare the complexities. The point was to show you the attitude of the intellectually bankrupt has not changed throughout the ages.

It's beyond our limits. Empiricism fails. Measurement is no longer a tool.

Our "PRESENT" models and known principles all melts down when we reach that point of singularity. It will be very unwise and stupid of anyone to then assert without evidence that it is impossible for us to develop other models which may crack this code for us. It is sad and depressing how you have no respect for what we have achieved thus far. Just imagine that simple algebraic calculations were impossible before we figured that out. Now imagine how far we have come that we can dare talk about calculations about the specific conditions of our freakin universe some 14 billion years ago!!! We were completely unaware of electricity and then we figured it out and see how it revolutionized everything. We had no idea about what we are made of and now we are sequencing genes and playing with DNA. As I have explained before in my earlier post, you simply resort to "God of the gaps" fallacy. No matter how much we prosper, you will forever be trying to find that one spot where science has yet to explore and hide your deity there.

All the doctoral students and post docs and researchers throughout the academia are grappling with what we are ignorant about in the hopes of winning. All these people wake up everyday with the hopes that their work will shed some light on the currently unknown things that our existing models can't account for. On one side I have people like them. On the other side I have the likes of you who baffles me with their shameless audacity. Without a shred of evidence at your disposal, you are going around declaring you have the final solution and making everyone working in the fields of physics and mathematics seem like retards who don't know when to give up. Everyone working in the field is driven by the thirst to peal another layer of nature and stare at the face of God while your message is basically to give up and admit defeat because somehow despite any publications in any reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, your "faith" trumps knowledge.

Does this prove God exists? Not at all I'm not promoting arguments of ignorance, though it does confront the disbeliever with the realization their scientific framework requires just as much belief, if not more, than a believer applies considering the ultimate origins of this universe.

You should be ashamed of making such a remark for at least the two following reasons

1. You are making it sound like all believers reject the scientific framework. You are trying to create a false dichotomy between "belief in a god" and "science". There are many muslims and no-muslims theists who are not allergic to science and do not see the scientific framework as their opponent like you do.

2. The scientific framework does not require the same type of belief as that of a religious person believing because an old book says so. Scientifically we do not yet have an answer. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, the answer is "We don't know yet". To demonstrate how laughably asinine your assertion was, let us look at what religion demands. Your religion requires you to assert that "God did it". Science has no evidence to back up anything so it says "we don't know yet". You have no evidence to back up anything and you say "God did it". In what universe are they the same answers? Your religion requires you to be dishonest and assert that you know things when you evidently don't "know". Not to mention that the shameless double standard just kills me when I look at how critical you are in accepting anything from science without evidence yet you believe the claim you are reading from an old book without any evidence for the claims. For shame!

They are based on hypotheses only. Do you honestly believe one of the current scientific hypotheses dealing with the preceding events of Big Bang will hold up to be true without shifting the issue, thus evading the crucial question of Gods involvement in it?

1. You asked for my honest opinion. My honest opinion is that I don't know. I know that this is a hard one for you to swallow, but hey, dishonesty doesn't earn me points towards any heaven, so I have to be honest and say I don't know when I DO NOT KNOW.

2. You make it sound like the entire scientific world has this agenda and conspiracy to throw your almighty out of the syllabus. Unlike you, scientists are evidence driven. They do not start with the conclusion and try to find evidence that supports that conclusion and feel like some God loves them for it. If the evidence points to a God, they will have to move towards that and if it doesn't they will have to move towards whatever it points to. It is as simple as that. On top of that, there are an infinite number of possibilities. Why would they be thinking about "either this particular version of God did it" or "this particular process"?

Look, here is the simple truth. Everywhere we have looked, we have yet to find one single case where the answer came out as "Supernatural" or "God". Why then would anybody waste their time trying to entertain the possibility of a God making it? It is not the fault of the physicists or the mathematicians or people from any other discipline of science that the combined work of all of them failed to produce any evidence for fairy tales that one might find in old books from ignorant civilizations. Pardon my tendency to draw analogies, but just like we don't care that the answer to "lightning" didn't turn up to be "God did it" upon the arrival of knowledge, we don't care that your God doesn't show up as the answer to virtually anything that the scientists work on.

If so, which alternative methodology are going to apply to establish that proof, given the empirical model fails in that context? The theistic evolutionary approach is as much a valid hypothesis if not a superior one. If you're muslim, it should beyond doubt be a superior one. So what are you arguing anyway, something that goes against your own belief? -)

Argument from Ignorance

The answer is that just because we do not have a model at the time, I will not resort to joining the descendants of those Zeus fans who are trying to advance their argument from ignorance model. )

Your entire theory is something like "Science can not solve this problem at the time, therefore God did it"

About the linguistic challenge I mentioned don't get your jimmies rustled. It's just a little teaser I sometimes use. Not an ultimate proof at all.

I'd be really embarrassed to come up with such a fallacious and evidently wrong teaser. I wasn't expecting that to be your ultimate proof. The challenge is so juvenile that one will need to drive a train through the ears of a retarded person to make them use it as ultimate proof. So I didn't even expect you to use that as ultimate proof. Feel free to post on the science section your nuclear evidence that will demonstrate the existence of your deity and I will be waiting along with the Nobel Prize committee to witness the first of such case.

Though you are misunderstanding (while quoting yourself) - that it is about the quality of the text. I ask them to come up with a palindrome expressing a palindromic verse in Quran in any language they like without using dictionaries, books or online tools while having at least a similar meaning. So you should know it's not about a subjective judgment of quality of language, but rather a test of technical skill, like a puzzle. When I use that challenge it's never meant to convince anyone, but it does sometimes strike people and makes them think.

It must feel good to make stuff up!

1038 Or do they say "He has invented it!" Say "Then bring a chapter like it, and call on whom you can besides God if you are truthful."

No, no no no no no. You don't get to make stuff up. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it offer a challenge to make a palindrome or a love letter for that matter. You are designing your own challenge. I will not lend any credibility to your challenge by talking about palindromes in other texts. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it ever ask anyone to not use dictionaries/books/online tools. In fact, this is what the Qur'an has to say about assistance

1789 Say "If all mankind and the Jinn were to gather to bring a Qur'an like this, they could not come with its like, even if they were helping one another."

• The challenge has nothing to do with your made up palindrome challenge
• The rules you are putting forth has nothing to do with what the Qur'an challenged

The saddest part of it is that you think that even if for the sake of argument, one found the Qur'an to have some praiseworthy aspects to it, they must then conclude that "God did it"! You seem to have this unhealthy attachment to this particular fallacy of argument from ignorance that binds your irrational belief together. This is simply so childish. You have actually gone out of your way to make up your own challenge. Would you concede that Eminem's rap lyrics with its inter and intra sentence rhyming beats anything the Qur'an has to offer when it comes to inter nad intra sentence rhyming? If you don't care about "inter and intra sentence rhyming" why would others care at all about what palindrome the Qur'an might have in it? Does Eminem's lyrical skills scream out divinity to you? Why will Qur'an having some palindrome scream out or even hint at divinity to anybody else then?

Not to mention that even then it is still subjective. It still relies on us to make a judgement based on our biases and taste.

Nowhere did I claim the things I mentioned were absolute proof. That was purely your assumption. I just use them to make people reconsider and think.

I'll give you that one. I apologize for assuming that you were using that as some form of evidence. Not absolute proof. Having said that, I never thought that having air tight arguments and conclusive evidence at hand, you'd resort to telling us all about how you stun the non-believers with something so evidently wrong. Its just that usually when people brag about things, they often brag about their accomplishments, not something they should be ashamed of.

ps I found your entire post pretty disrespectful accusing me of publicly embarrassing myself and what not while you yourself were jumping the gun and assuming I was stating absolute proofs. Assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

I am sorry for coming across as disrespectful. I have gone through some of your posts in this forum and you didn't seem like a stupid person in general. We all do or say stupid things at times. Sometimes we meet people who do not shy away from calling us on our BS! It will be better if you don't take it personally as I don't know you and can't say much about the entirety of your personality. If I say you are being stupid in my post, it is because I find you stupid in that particular place. It should not be interpreted as a general remark about your character.

I still am interested to know though, how you reconcile your view of expecting science to completely understand the ultimate origins of this universe with the belief God is the creator of this universe. Please explain that one to me.

You are doubly wrong there.

1. I do not know how to attain a complete understanding of ultimate origins of the universe. This means that while I can be "hopeful" and hope that like every other damn thing science has cracked, science will crack this one too, I do not actively believe that it MUST be science. We might come up with a better methodology which might help us with such questions. Until we have a better methodology, I can't help but side with science over religion.

2. I do not believe that God is the creator of the universe.

If you're an atheist, then please explain to me how you're going to scientifically prove the ultimate origins of this universe in an environment that renders the empirical model useless.

You are going wrong again. An atheist is one who disbelieves in the theistic claim that there is a God. To quote Oxford dictionary

Atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

It is important that you understand that to be an atheist, you do not have to have any opinion about the origin of the universe or models of cosmology. As long as you are not convinced by the theistic claims about the existence of Gods/Goddesses, you are an atheist. So your question doesn't make sense. It's like me asking you "So, as a Muslim, what is your opinion about chocolate vs vanilla as ice-cream flavors?" You do not have to have any opinion on that issue to be a Muslim. In the same way, I do not have to have any opinion about cosmology and the early universe to be an atheist.

Since you asked, I can tell you what I think. Just like the Muslim might tell you what her favorite ice-cream flavor is even though it is not tied to her religion. In an environment where our existing models become useless, we should probably do what we already do whenever we face challenges in science. We should work towards coming up with models that are robust enough to do the job. I don't know if that will work or not but I am willing to vote for it. Just like I don't know if we will ever cure cancer/HIV/etc but I don't mind promoting research in those fields. Let's say that we are all simulations inside some kids computer game. If we discover that that is the case, I will just accept that and accept that there is no "before beginning" as we were just installed in his computer when the first episode (Big Bang) took place. Unlike religious dogma, I can afford to be honest and accept whatever evidence points to. I do not have ties to some belief I must stick to.

It may shed some light on why the only two available scientific models dealing with the events before big bang are nothing but conjecture and the ones to come will be equally unproven for eternity.

Please give me links to your Nobel Prize winning paper where you have demonstrated that mankind will never be able to come up with any model EVER. If you can't, please tame that ignorance driven religious certainty and try to realize that just because you can't think of a solution, it doesn't mean that no one ever will.

But atheists have a lot of faith in science when it comes down to that, don't they? Even when it falls entirely out of it's domain.

1. I won't repeat myself on the whole "atheist and science" issue. I already explained why its weird of you to always present the case as "Athiest + Science VS Theist ".

2. I don't know what you mean by "falls entirely out of it's domain". That sounds like something I'd hear medieval science hating anti-progress ignorant barbarians to say. At the frontier of science, it always deals with the unknown. Since when did the unknown become "outside the domain of scientific inquiry"? Religious people throughout the ages had tried to retard scientific progress saying the very thing you are saying here. Look beyond the known planets and you are going out of your domain. Probe into the womb of a pregnant woman and you are going beyond your domain, etc. Science has not offered any solution as of yet to the origin question. Why then do you get offended? Coming up with testable hypotheses and confirming them is the way we always found the answers and unlocked doors. There can be many rival hypotheses developed awaiting falsification. That is how science works! Just because you are coming up with hypothesis doesn't mean you are claiming to know what actually happened. When your hypothesis is confirmed through the accuracy of its predictive power, it is then we know if it is true or not. The difference between you and the scientists working in the field is that everywhere they see something unknown, they try to figure out what it is and you slap on "God" stickers and move on.

3. You are wrong about what you said about "Faith". The word "faith" has two meanings

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

An atheist might have "complete trust or confidence in" science but not "strong belief in the doctrines of science based on spiritual convictions rather than proof". I have faith that the sun will show up tomorrow just like it did every single day since I was born. I also didn't read any verifiable recorded accounts of the sun ever not showing up throughout human history. I do not believe that it will show up because it says so in some old book. Look at the second definition of faith above. That is what religious faith is. It is not based on "proof". If you had proof, you wouldn't require faith. This is another place where religious people goes wrong. This word play will not work with rational people. The first definition is based on trust and the second one is based on dogma. I trust science because of its 100% track record of success. Therefore I have the first kind of faith in science. Of course I can be wrong about it and science may fail in giving us the ultimate answer. However, I do not have the second kind of faith in science where I believe in it because some old book asked me to believe and then threatened me with hell-fire like a terrorist if I don't have "faith". My trust in science comes out of its track record. My trust is tentative too. Same is true for my knowledge. Unlike religion, science doesn't require me to take anything as the "ultimate and absolute answer". It is a method I use and I trust because IT WORKS!! and there are no other models ever created by man till date which can rival the robustness of the scientific method.

http//s4.postimg.org/ld6y1hi3h/br_Copy.jpg

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

[runninglikezebras]

Shalom Aleikhem,

1. I will not apologize for your mistake but I can sympathize.

2. Adding "origins of" to your previous statement just makes your case worse. The reason I say that is because we don't know the answer to that. Therefore, knowing that we do not have an answer, expecting someone to give you a definitive answer is just as embarrassing as trying to lend credibility to an answer proposed by ignorant people from the past just because at the moment we don't have the answer.

Well you're just wrong in saying "at the moment we don't have an answer". I demonstrated why there NEVER will be a scientific answer to that topic in a crucial phrase in my reply, which you seem to have ignored completely. The empirical model fails in dealing with events preceding initial singularity. Sure, you can come up with other models, but they will not be scientific given that methodology is based on the empirical model. Any "new" model trying to approach the origins of initial singularity will prove to be just another metaphysical model. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that. The current "models" science offers us prove to be just that - both the "big bounces" and "M-universe" hypotheses are far more metaphysical in nature than you seem willing to admit. Next to that, I do not make that argument to "try to lend credibility" to the theistic answer. It just shows them they have no way of proving the theistic answer is objectively wrong, as clearly they have to admit their own knowledge on that matter is non-existing. That does not imply it makes the theistic approach objectively right. It leaves it in the middle. I think you could easily distill that from my statement that I do not use these examples to prove the existence of God. Please keep that in mind.

Are you willing to show us the peer reviewed scientific journals where you have published your papers proving once and for all that the origin issue is necessarily not solvable and is necessarily beyond human comprehension? That is another argument from ignorance. Just because you can't think of a solution does not mean that nobody ever will be able to come up with a solution. It is people with mindset similar to that which you demonstrated here, who held scientific progress back for ages and still does in many places throughout the world.

Again you demonstrate ignorance in understanding you need the empirical model to be able to speak of a scientific answer. The empirical model breaks down dealing with events leading to initial singularity breaking any approach to the problem down to a metaphysical one. I think we both agree metaphysical models don't exactly qualify as objective, verifiable evidence for anything.

Oh, I believe you mentioned the muslim-big bang theory to indicate something about muslims knowing about it. If you are willing to discuss that, please go ahead and open a new thread in the science section of the forum and see if your claim holds. You can just make the thread and let me know via PM.

I am referring to those verses in Quran. Posting a new thread on that topic is just not one of my top priorities. Feel free to start one yourself however. Maybe I will feel tempted to contribute to it.

Someone didn't read enough! Guess who that is? I said many times that you were trying to advance an
Wrong again. Please try and focus the next time you read what I am saying. The point of my analogy was not to demonstrate that the two situations and the subject/objects are identical in them. The point was to demonstrate how throughout human history, ignoramuses full of overconfidence has never changed their attitude towards things nobody has answers to. That was the point. If you still don't get it, then consider the following example

Issue NASA refuses to invest any money into Mars missions until the project seems financially and technically sound.
Analogue Mary isn't willing to save up for the next Sims game until she is convinced that the Sims4 is a big enough leap from what Sims 3 has to offer.

Anyone will be able to see that Mary's issues are NOTHING compared to NASA's issues. However, the point of the analogy is not to show that NASA's challenge is objectively equivalent to Mary's. The point is to show how people don't like making financial commitments without viewing their goals as feasible and sound. In the same sense, I did not provide the Zeus analogy to compare the complexities. The point was to show you the attitude of the intellectually bankrupt has not changed throughout the ages.

Our "PRESENT" models and known principles all melts down when we reach that point of singularity. It will be very unwise and stupid of anyone to then assert without evidence that it is impossible for us to develop other models which may crack this code for us. It is sad and depressing how you have no respect for what we have achieved thus far. Just imagine that simple algebraic calculations were impossible before we figured that out. Now imagine how far we have come that we can dare talk about calculations about the specific conditions of our freakin universe some 14 billion years ago!!! We were completely unaware of electricity and then we figured it out and see how it revolutionized everything. We had no idea about what we are made of and now we are sequencing genes and playing with DNA. As I have explained before in my earlier post, you simply resort to "God of the gaps" fallacy. No matter how much we prosper, you will forever be trying to find that one spot where science has yet to explore and hide your deity there.

I am not one who likes to repeat himself and play the broken record. But you force me to do so. Your accusation of me bringing an argument of ignorance is flawed once you realize how crucial the empirical model is to science and how it breaks down/gets rendered a useless methodology dealing with initial singularity. Therefor I can say to you it's insolvable by science without being ignorant. It's a fact and a logical conclusion. You have no scientific means to test, validate, measure any scientific hypothesis that relates to what preceded initial singularity. Rendering it just another metaphysical approach that gets dressed up like a scientific model. Only the pseudo-scientific hobbyists get fooled by that masquerade of a metaphysical model pretending to be science. I guess you are one of them.

All the doctoral students and post docs and researchers throughout the academia are grappling with what we are ignorant about in the hopes of winning. All these people wake up everyday with the hopes that their work will shed some light on the currently unknown things that our existing models can't account for. On one side I have people like them. On the other side I have the likes of you who baffles me with their shameless audacity. Without a shred of evidence at your disposal, you are going around declaring you have the final solution and making everyone working in the fields of physics and mathematics seem like retards who don't know when to give up. Everyone working in the field is driven by the thirst to peal another layer of nature and stare at the face of God while your message is basically to give up and admit defeat because somehow despite any publications in any reputable peer reviewed scientific journals, your "faith" trumps knowledge.

I suggest you read up on how fundamental the empirical model is for science. You're only demonstrating you fail to understand this. Again and again. If you aren't doing so, you are referring to some other unspecified metaphysical model. I'll elaborate on that further down this message.

You should be ashamed of making such a remark for at least the two following reasons

1. You are making it sound like all believers reject the scientific framework. You are trying to create a false dichotomy between "belief in a god" and "science". There are many muslims and no-muslims theists who are not allergic to science and do not see the scientific framework as their opponent like you do.

2. The scientific framework does not require the same type of belief as that of a religious person believing because an old book says so. Scientifically we do not yet have an answer. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, the answer is "We don't know yet". To demonstrate how laughably asinine your assertion was, let us look at what religion demands. Your religion requires you to assert that "God did it". Science has no evidence to back up anything so it says "we don't know yet". You have no evidence to back up anything and you say "God did it". In what universe are they the same answers? Your religion requires you to be dishonest and assert that you know things when you evidently don't "know". Not to mention that the shameless double standard just kills me when I look at how critical you are in accepting anything from science without evidence yet you believe the claim you are reading from an old book without any evidence for the claims. For shame!

3. Wrong interpretation of what I said. I do not reject the scientific framework. I only showed you it's not a suitable methodology for dealing with a topic like the origin of initial singularity.

4. The "scientific" hypotheses raised for dealing with initial singularity require 100% belief. And you know this well enough. They can't be validated empirically. They are metaphysical ideas using scientific terminology.

5. You asked for my honest opinion. My honest opinion is that I don't know. I know that this is a hard one for you to swallow, but hey, dishonesty doesn't earn me points towards any heaven, so I have to be honest and say I don't know when I DO NOT KNOW.

6. You make it sound like the entire scientific world has this agenda and conspiracy to throw your almighty out of the syllabus. Unlike you, scientists are evidence driven. They do not start with the conclusion and try to find evidence that supports that conclusion and feel like some God loves them for it. If the evidence points to a God, they will have to move towards that and if it doesn't they will have to move towards whatever it points to. It is as simple as that. On top of that, there are an infinite number of possibilities. Why would they be thinking about "either this particular version of God did it" or "this particular process"?

I'm gonna refer to my other remarks in the beginning of this post. It's getting tiring to repeat this.

Look, here is the simple truth. Everywhere we have looked, we have yet to find one single case where the answer came out as "Supernatural" or "God". Why then would anybody waste their time trying to entertain the possibility of a God making it? It is not the fault of the physicists or the mathematicians or people from any other discipline of science that the combined work of all of them failed to produce any evidence for fairy tales that one might find in old books from ignorant civilizations. Pardon my tendency to draw analogies, but just like we don't care that the answer to "lightning" didn't turn up to be "God did it" upon the arrival of knowledge, we don't care that your God doesn't show up as the answer to virtually anything that the scientists work on.

Honestly, I don't care the theistic hypothesis hasn't shown up next to the other metaphysical models science has purported so far on the topic of initial singularity. It's funny to me however how they have raised science to a religion when dealing with initial singularity. It's very revealing. -) No issues with throwing empiricism overboard and resorting to blind faith. Well, that's an analogy with faith like no other.

Argument from Ignorance

The answer is that just because we do not have a model at the time, I will not resort to joining the descendants of those Zeus fans who are trying to advance their argument from ignorance model.

Your entire theory is something like "Science can not solve this problem at the time, therefore God did it"

Wrong, that's not what I said. I clearly stated it's not a proof of God whatsoever. Stop putting words in my mouth. See my earlier remarks. Try to understand them this time.

I'd be really embarrassed to come up with such a fallacious and evidently wrong teaser. I wasn't expecting that to be your ultimate proof. The challenge is so juvenile that one will need to drive a train through the ears of a retarded person to make them use it as ultimate proof. So I didn't even expect you to use that as ultimate proof. Feel free to post on the science section your nuclear evidence that will demonstrate the existence of your deity and I will be waiting along with the Nobel Prize committee to witness the first of such case.

It must feel good to make stuff up!

I don't need to make that stuff up. Science is doing it itself. They are writing many religious/metaphysical books dealing with initial singularity. One is titled "M-Universe", the other "Big Bounces Theory". The only one I stick to is Quran.

1038 Or do they say "He has invented it!" Say "Then bring a chapter like it, and call on whom you can besides God if you are truthful."

No, no no no no no. You don't get to make stuff up. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it offer a challenge to make a palindrome or a love letter for that matter. You are designing your own challenge. I will not lend any credibility to your challenge by talking about palindromes in other texts. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it ever ask anyone to not use dictionaries/books/online tools. In fact, this is what the Qur'an has to say about assistance

1789 Say "If all mankind and the Jinn were to gather to bring a Qur'an like this, they could not come with its like, even if they were helping one another."

• The challenge has nothing to do with your made up palindrome challenge
• The rules you are putting forth has nothing to do with what the Qur'an challenged

Where do you get the idea Quran is telling me to use that linguistic challenge? I never claimed that. Again you are assuming things I never said. Yes, it's a challenge I designed myself. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The saddest part of it is that you think that even if for the sake of argument, one found the Qur'an to have some praiseworthy aspects to it, they must then conclude that "God did it"! You seem to have this unhealthy attachment to this particular fallacy of argument from ignorance that binds your irrational belief together. This is simply so childish. You have actually gone out of your way to make up your own challenge. Would you concede that Eminem's rap lyrics with its inter and intra sentence rhyming beats anything the Qur'an has to offer when it comes to inter nad intra sentence rhyming? If you don't care about "inter and intra sentence rhyming" why would others care at all about what palindrome the Qur'an might have in it? Does Eminem's lyrical skills scream out divinity to you? Why will Qur'an having some palindrome scream out or even hint at divinity to anybody else then?

Not to mention that even then it is still subjective. It still relies on us to make a judgement based on our biases and taste.

Didn't you read? I said nowhere do I claim this is absolute proof. I said it's just a puzzle. A teaser. Stop putting words into my mouth.

I'll give you that one. I apologize for assuming that you were using that as some form of evidence. Not absolute proof. Having said that, I never thought that having air tight arguments and conclusive evidence at hand, you'd resort to telling us all about how you stun the non-believers with something so evidently wrong. Its just that usually when people brag about things, they often brag about their accomplishments, not something they should be ashamed of.
I am sorry for coming across as disrespectful. I have gone through some of your posts in this forum and you didn't seem like a stupid person in general. We all do or say stupid things at times. Sometimes we meet people who do not shy away from calling us on our BS! It will be better if you don't take it personally as I don't know you and can't say much about the entirety of your personality. If I say you are being stupid in my post, it is because I find you stupid in that particular place. It should not be interpreted as a general remark about your character.

An intellectual debate has no need for subjective labels. Let's ignore them.

You are doubly wrong there.

1. I do not know how to attain a complete understanding of ultimate origins of the universe. This means that while I can be "hopeful" and hope that like every other damn thing science has cracked, science will crack this one too, I do not actively believe that it MUST be science. We might come up with a better methodology which might help us with such questions. Until we have a better methodology, I can't help but side with science over religion.

2. I do not believe that God is the creator of the universe.

"A better methodology" that is not science? Can you explain what that could be without being a metaphysical one? Are you admitting here metaphysical models can be superior to science? Are you claiming metaphysical models can provide hard evidence you are willing to accept? That's a pretty self-defeating argument if you do.

You are going wrong again. An atheist is one who disbelieves in the theistic claim that there is a God. To quote Oxford dictionary

Atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

It is important that you understand that to be an atheist, you do not have to have any opinion about the origin of the universe or models of cosmology. As long as you are not convinced by the theistic claims about the existence of Gods/Goddesses, you are an atheist. So your question doesn't make sense. It's like me asking you "So, as a Muslim, what is your opinion about chocolate vs vanilla as ice-cream flavors?" You do not have to have any opinion on that issue to be a Muslim. In the same way, I do not have to have any opinion about cosmology and the early universe to be an atheist.

My question does make sense. It shows your atheism applies a leap of faith and is putting blind trust into an eventual scientific breakthrough dealing with the events preceding initial singularity. Even if it requires irrationality and negates the scientific methodology's foundations. Thank you for proving that.

Since you asked, I can tell you what I think. Just like the Muslim might tell you what her favorite ice-cream flavor is even though it is not tied to her religion. In an environment where our existing models become useless, we should probably do what we already do whenever we face challenges in science. We should work towards coming up with models that are robust enough to do the job. I don't know if that will work or not but I am willing to vote for it. Just like I don't know if we will ever cure cancer/HIV/etc but I don't mind promoting research in those fields. Let's say that we are all simulations inside some kids computer game. If we discover that that is the case, I will just accept that and accept that there is no "before beginning" as we were just installed in his computer when the first episode (Big Bang) took place. Unlike religious dogma, I can afford to be honest and accept whatever evidence points to. I do not have ties to some belief I must stick to.

This sums it all up doesn't it? You are showing your atheistic blind faith again, saying we can just replace the empirical model with something else and still call it science. It's not only showing blind faith, it also shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific methodology. Many atheists fail right there. Thanks for illustrating this. Then you admit being willing to accept a metaphysical model that "is like a computer game". You don't seem to understand there is no such thing as evidence for any metaphysical model. It requires faith. You can't prove them empirically or provide empirical evidence for it.

Please give me links to your Nobel Prize winning paper where you have demonstrated that mankind will never be able to come up with any model EVER. If you can't, please tame that ignorance driven religious certainty and try to realize that just because you can't think of a solution, it doesn't mean that no one ever will.

I think my entire post proves just that. No empirical model = no science = no evidence = requiring faith. You can call that model whatever you like but it won't be science. You can send the nobel prize to my home address, thank you.

1. I won't repeat myself on the whole "atheist and science" issue. I already explained why its weird of you to always present the case as "Athiest + Science VS Theist ".

2. I don't know what you mean by "falls entirely out of it's domain". That sounds like something I'd hear medieval science hating anti-progress ignorant barbarians to say. At the frontier of science, it always deals with the unknown. Since when did the unknown become "outside the domain of scientific inquiry"? Religious people throughout the ages had tried to retard scientific progress saying the very thing you are saying here. Look beyond the known planets and you are going out of your domain. Probe into the womb of a pregnant woman and you are going beyond your domain, etc. Science has not offered any solution as of yet to the origin question. Why then do you get offended? Coming up with testable hypotheses and confirming them is the way we always found the answers and unlocked doors. There can be many rival hypotheses developed awaiting falsification. That is how science works! Just because you are coming up with hypothesis doesn't mean you are claiming to know what actually happened. When your hypothesis is confirmed through the accuracy of its predictive power, it is then we know if it is true or not. The difference between you and the scientists working in the field is that everywhere they see something unknown, they try to figure out what it is and you slap on "God" stickers and move on.

I agree you don't know what I mean by "falls entirely out of it's domain". I also agree you don't have a clue how fundamental the empirical model is for science and thus no idea of the methodology that science provides and it's limits. You show all traits of the pseudo-scientific atheist that misunderstands science and abuses it as a religious argument. I have seen this fallacy time and time again with atheists. I'm not even surprised to see you make that mistake.

3. You are wrong about what you said about "Faith". The word "faith" has two meanings

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

Without an empirical model you are showing belief, there is no proof. It's impossible to provide any proof dealing with events preceding initial singularity still you believe science will surpass that boundary. That's strong belief, if not total ignorance. If it's not total ignorance it also implies hypocrisy. A hypocrisy in which you have subjectively raised a metaphysical model removing God as superior to one involving God.

An atheist might have "complete trust or confidence in" science but not "strong belief in the doctrines of science based on spiritual convictions rather than proof". I have faith that the sun will show up tomorrow just like it did every single day since I was born. I also didn't read any verifiable recorded accounts of the sun ever not showing up throughout human history. I do not believe that it will show up because it says so in some old book. Look at the second definition of faith above. That is what religious faith is. It is not based on "proof". If you had proof, you wouldn't require faith. This is another place where religious people goes wrong. This word play will not work with rational people. The first definition is based on trust and the second one is based on dogma. I trust science because of its 100% track record of success. Therefore I have the first kind of faith in science. Of course I can be wrong about it and science may fail in giving us the ultimate answer. However, I do not have the second kind of faith in science where I believe in it because some old book asked me to believe and then threatened me with hell-fire like a terrorist if I don't have "faith". My trust in science comes out of its track record. My trust is tentative too. Same is true for my knowledge. Unlike religion, science doesn't require me to take anything as the "ultimate and absolute answer". It is a method I use and I trust because IT WORKS!! and there are no other models ever created by man till date which can rival the robustness of the scientific method.

You keep believing in a scientific solution that threw empiricism overboard. It's faith if you do. Faith posing as science. You keep showing me you are more faithful about science than scientists. Only caused by your lack of understanding of the methodology and it's clear limits. I accept science as an excellent methodology for understanding the space time continuum and to some degree it's origin. But when it comes down to the origin of that space time continuum beyond initial singularity, science's track record is abominable and in no way superior to any other kind of faith. Outside that domain, we only have metaphysical ideas to resort to. You seem to be willing to accept those as long as they are comparable to a video game and not mention God or Quran in them. I find that attitude rather hypocritical. I'm not making an argument that simplifies the debate as science vs faith. I have no conflict accepting both in their proper domains. My only conclusion on your take is you are allergic to God since you seem more than willing to accept any metaphysical model that removes God from it. That's fine. But be honest about it. You can't objectively prove the fictive metaphysical model you are still waiting for is in any better than the ones established faiths offer. It's an entirely a subjective call if you do.

Peace

PS Please try not to put words in my mouth in your next reply, it's kind of annoying. I notice you have a habit of

• Trying to put words in my mouth even when I clearly negated those earlier. Nowhere do I claim the things I said to be proof of the existence God. Still you continue trying to picture them as that

• Trying to distort this debate into a science vs faith discussion. Nowhere am I against the the scientific methodology. I just pointed out it's clear boundaries

• Applying sentimental/subjective terminology like stupid, embarassing, bullshit. They only show a lack of better objective arguments

• Ignoring the essential argument I made being that empirical models are useless in a framework without time and space.

• Refusing to admit your willingness to accept a metaphysical model that removes God is a clear sign of subjective, double standards.

• Attempting to picture me as someone who is averse towards science based on zero evidence. I encourage all scientific progress. I spend a lot of time reading up on new scientific understanding.

• Assuming my interpretation of Quran is incompatible with current scientific understanding. Again based on zero evidence.

[good_logic]

Peace Student of Allah.

Welcome back. Every now and then when you post in this thread, I pop up and say hello.

I also trust Science especially Mathematics . A universal language with many true facts.

Now , as well as trusting Science ,I trust my "faith". Both exist hand in hand for me.

Let me explain further.In my opinion,to believe is to have confidence in something , or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. It is the unshakable conviction that something exists whether it is physical or mental, seen or unseen, agreed upon by others or not.

Also,the word, belief , carries many other values and rich emotions such as absolute love, trust, passion, and extreme care for whoever is believed in.

I believe in GOD with a heart full of love, passion, obsession, and unshakable trust . Trusting Him implies having no doubts or hesitance that He exists .

This means I believe in GOD ,and I feel GOD.

Of course this is my personal experience and feelings and I cannot claim them as evidence for others.

I also respect your views as you are entitled to them.

GOD bless you brother
Peace

[runninglikezebras]

The Big Bang theory refers to the expansion of the universe from a singularity to its present state. Done. I just explained it without invoking a pink unicorn or a God for that matter. I wonder who you were asking to explain Big Bang to you.

Argument from Ignorance(click me to learn what I am and avoid further public embarassments)

A lot of the times, a lot of religious people have difficulty wrapping their heads around things to which they have no answer. They were trained either by others or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" when they don't know something. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know. This doesn't mean that your random weird belief becomes true automatically. That would be an argument from ignorance.

I may have not stated this clearly enough. But your accusation of me trying to use an argument of ignorance is easily refuted by my clear stance I'm nowhere trying to use that state of "ignorance" as a proof for anything. The only way I apply "state of ignorance" is to point out neither atheists nor believers have any objective tools to prove one or the other neither right or wrong. It does not contribute in resolving the argument whatsoever. It rather shows there is a balance there. Atheists stop at "we don't know and we accept that", believers stop at "we don't know so we stick to the Quranic teaching on that matter". You can't prove neither one objectively right or wrong. They both have equal validity and are merely subjective attitudes towards that state of ignorance. In the ideal scenario this understanding should lead to mutual respect and remove the constant antagonizing of the other side.

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, Student of Allah.

A lot of the times, a lot of religious people have difficulty wrapping their heads around things to which they have no answer. They were trained either by others or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" when they don't know something. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know. This doesn't mean that your random weird belief becomes true automatically. That would be an argument from ignorance.

I absolutely agree with you here. While people may believe certain things to be true concerning their religious convictions, they don't actually know whether the ideas promoted in their religious ideologies are true or not. They simply believe (and hope) that it is, through the medium of "faith". I ultimately call that wishful thinking...

There are factors outside of this frame of thinking, though. One of the things that led me to my personal conclusion concerning Divinity is the concept of relative consciousness. Many scientists are proposing the idea that the Universe is structured (and behaving) like a giant brain, particularly in the sense that electrical firing of brain cells appear to be identical to the appearance of expanding galaxies. In addition, we could rationally conclude that the Universe is structured like a gigantic living organism, with consciousness. This can even be demonstrated from our perspective of thought (e.g. as a simulation of 'the macrocosm vs. the microcosm' concept). We, as humans, are part of the greater Universe, and we possess consciousness and self-awareness to study and evaluate the world around us (and within us). In a way, we're like a mini-Universe, standing within the greater Universe.

This illustrates, if nothing else, that the Universe is at least partially conscious, since it has conscious entities within it.

If we are conscious agents within the Universe, as are other organisms, then what limits the greater Universe from also existing as a conscious entity? Based on the modern scientific model, it's difficult to determine where (relative) consciousness begins and ends...

In biology, the concept of "intelligent design" (e.g. creationism) is dismissed as unscientific - and for good reason! However, this doesn't mean that organisms evolve "randomly". In fact, the success and reproduction of a species via natural selection isn't random at all (contrary to popular belief)! It's directly related to the function of its inherited traits in the organism's environment. Again, that implies, at least to a degree, that the organism, and even the evolutionary model itself, is acting according to consciousness - an awareness of what it's supposed to do and a determination to act accordingly. In other words, I don't think there's an exterior agent ("designer&quot who formed the Universe. Rather, I think the Universe IS the designer. The Universe designed (and continues to design) itself.

Humans, historically, have contemplated the Universe as if we're exterior agents looking down (or up) at it, like we're somehow outside of it. Reality is very different, though. Being that we're part of the Universe, then we're actually fragments of the Universe contemplating its own existence.

Some people may refer to this "creator" as ALLAH (God), and others may refer to it as the Universe. The real question, at least to me, is where does one begin and the other end?

Peace,

Ahmad

[Man_of_Faith]

Absolutely no skyman, brother Ahmad Bilal. Absolutely not!

Be of one in 'is that it is'

[hawk99]

Peace, Student of Allah.

There are factors outside of this frame of thinking, though. One of the things that led me to my personal conclusion concerning Divinity is the concept of relative consciousness.

Many scientists are proposing the idea that the Universe is structured (and behaving) like a giant brain, particularly in the sense that electrical firing of brain cells appear to be identical to the appearance of expanding galaxies. In addition, we could rationally conclude that the Universe is structured like a gigantic living organism, with consciousness. This can even be demonstrated from our perspective of thought (e.g. as a simulation of 'the macrocosm vs. the microcosm' concept). We, as humans, are part of the greater Universe, and we possess consciousness and self-awareness to study and evaluate the world around us (and within us). In a way, we're like a mini-Universe, standing within the greater Universe.

This illustrates, if nothing else, that the Universe is at least partially conscious, since it has conscious entities within it.

If we are conscious agents within the Universe, as are other organisms, then what limits the greater Universe from also existing as a conscious entity? Based on the modern scientific model, it's difficult to determine where (relative) consciousness begins and ends...

In biology, the concept of "intelligent design" (e.g. creationism) is dismissed as unscientific - and for good reason! However, this doesn't mean that organisms evolve "randomly". In fact, the success and reproduction of a species via natural selection isn't random at all (contrary to popular belief)! It's directly related to the function of its inherited traits in the organism's environment. Again, that implies, at least to a degree, that the organism, and even the evolutionary model itself, is acting according to consciousness - an awareness of what it's supposed to do and a determination to act accordingly. In other words, I don't think there's an exterior agent ("designer&quot who formed the Universe. Rather, I think the Universe IS the designer. The Universe designed (and continues to design) itself.

Humans, historically, have contemplated the Universe as if we're exterior agents looking down (or up) at it, like we're somehow outside of it. Reality is very different, though. Being that we're part of the Universe, then we're actually fragments of the Universe contemplating its own existence.

Some people may refer to this "creator" as ALLAH (God), and others may refer to it as the Universe. The real question, at least to me, is where does one begin and the other end?

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace Ahmad Bilal,

Here it is done again, where you go from what others believe and think to what you and scientists "believe", and think.
Some things nobody knows, some things we cannot prove, and some things we cannot apply the scientific method.
The Quran states "O you who believe," and not "o you who have proven".

A lot of the times, a lot of religious people have difficulty wrapping their heads around things to which they have no answer. They were trained either by others or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" when they don't know something. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know.

This also applies to non religious folks who come up with their own theories (pink unicorns) trained either by others
or themselves to lose the intellectual honesty to say "I don't know" The fact of the matter is that we have no
idea about things "before" The big bang. We simply don't know many things since the "big bang" either.

God bless

peace

[Man_of_Faith]

Peace hawk,

Have you not noticed that Ahmad has returned to faith? I find that his utterances were really nice. He believes in "God" but just not the sectarian way of God as a skyman.

Be of one in God

[hawk99]

Peace hawk,

Have you not noticed that Ahmad has returned to faith? I find that his utterances were really nice. He believes in "God" but just not the sectarian way of God as a skyman.

Be of one in God

Peace Man of Faith,
I am aware (happy) that Ahmad has returned to faith, as highlighted in the thread "Why do you believe the Quran
to be the Word of GOD?" My reply to reply #120 was based on the reply itself and not on any preconceived
opinion.

God bless

peace

[good_logic]

Peace All.

All of us have our answers, they are just different. Proofs ,like answers also differ.

First apologies for leaving the Arabic text that is quoted in this post untranslated!

Here we are trying to "prove GOD"! Unaware( or aware?) that God is aware ?

GOD knows we are in" dispute" about His existence

Here is a question?

Of course some are going to ask where is your evidence? Where is your proof?

I am going to say "GOD is my Lord"!

I am also going to add, when GOD is mentioned I rejoice (Regardless of" Scientifically proving His existence"?)!!!!

Sorry if you are wondering " What has this Arabic text got to do with God?"
You are entitled to ask that question,but it will make no difference to the outcome. There will always be those who believe and those who do not!!!

And the disputes and the questions continue?

GOD bless .
Peace.

[hawk99]

Peace,

I agree good logic,

May I add

Three Categories of People

(1) The Righteous

who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and from our provisions to them, they give to charity.

And they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and with regard to the Hereafter, they are absolutely certain.

These are guided by their Lord; these are the winners.

(2) The Disbelievers

As for those who disbelieve, it is the same for them; whether you warn them, or not warn them, they cannot believe.

GOD seals their minds and their hearing, and their eyes are veiled. They have incurred severe retribution.

(3) The Hypocrites

Then there are those who say, "We believe in GOD and the Last Day," while they are not believers.

In trying to deceive GOD and those who believe, they only deceive themselves without perceiving.

In their minds there is a disease. Consequently, GOD augments their disease. They have incurred a painful retribution for their lying.

When they are told, "Do not commit evil," they say, "But we are righteous!"

In fact, they are evildoers, but they do not perceive.

God bless

peace

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace, hawk99.

Here it is done again, where you go from what others believe and think to what you and scientists "believe", and think.
Some things nobody knows, some things we cannot prove, and some things we cannot apply the scientific method.
The Quran states "O you who believe," and not "o you who have proven".

I think you're missing several important matters instituted in the Qur'aan itself, namely

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them. (Q. 1736, Rashad Khalifa translation)

The basis of our development in Islam (or 'submission&#039 isn't to blindly believe anything; God clearly states that we need to verify the information. Science and mathematics are the best forms of substantiation. In fact, God Himself can be considered a Scientist, since He's the One Who set up the laws and governing systems of the Universe. If we evolved from lower species of animals, and modern scientists are studying to authenticate this notion, then how great of a Scientist is God, Who developed the process? If the cosmos were originated by a 'big bang' (or point of Universal expansion), and scientists are attempting to authenticate this, then how scientific must God be to have ordered and caused it from the beginning?

The fallacy you're creating is in the conception of the idea of 'believing'. Sure, the Qur'aan refers to "those who believe" - but what are they supposed to believe? Simple they're told to believe in the "unseen". In fact, the beliefs spoken of predominantly throughout the book consist of (a) belief in God and (b) belief in the last day, or the day of judgment. Neither of these can be substantiated by science, in the sense that one aspect (e.g. God) exists outside of our perception and the other has yet to occur.

Other than this, the Qur'aan states that the "believers" are those who believe in God, His angels, His books, and His messengers (Q. 2285)... What about the 'big bang'? What about evolution by natural selection? Well, of course, none of these things are mentioned! In other words, the methods of how God works and arranges things isn't a factor of necessary belief. You're correct in stating that there are some things that we don't know, and I'm not negating that at all. However, we should verify and authenticate those things (in accordance with Q. 1736) if possible, rather than simply believing what we're told.

If you disagree, then compare the passages in the Qur'aan that speak of 'those who believe' and the ones that speak of 'those who possess knowledge'. I'm sure we can agree that belief and knowledge aren't the same. How do we acquire knowledge, and why is this important?

Peace,

Ahmad