Why cant we scientifically prove god?
-
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
-
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' 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
-
Peace brother Ahmad Bilal,
My latest studies of the language behind "belief" reveals that the phrase may as well mean 'be of one(s) in God and not the traditional system of "belief".
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
My latest studies of the language behind "belief" reveals that the phrase may as well mean 'be of one(s) in God and not the traditional system of "belief".
Honestly, I haven't done any research concerning that position, and it may indeed be the case. Different people tend to translate it in different ways. Edip Yuksel, for example, chooses to translate the passage as saying "those who acknowledge", rather than the traditional 'those who believe' statement. I guess it all depends on one's interpretation.
My question is Is it necessary to still "believe" in the Book, since ALLAH (God) stated, according to the Qur'aan, that we have "bayyinah"/proof? Which is greater, believing or knowing? What's the difference between the two, and why are they mentioned separately and independently throughout the Qur'aan?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Harmony brother Ahmad,
The important thing is to know the substance of what it teaches and not so much about "belief" and then live accordingly. The thing about belief and ritualistic behavior is just people who are void of understanding. Iman can be seen as a meter from 0 to 1 and at 1 then you are whole (one) with God and a good soul which is the real intention for us and not some sectarian mumbo-jumbo about a skyman (love your sarcastic definition) that must be pleased in primitive ways.
It is silly to me to measure things in belief anyway as God testifies that it is alive and you just have to decide to follow and you see that the universe exists (God) and all that you see is God and God has no need of anything from us and thus not any belief. Giving God needs would make God primitive and with an ego and atheists would have a point. And then if people would realize the meaning of iman then they would realize that submission and belief is not what God asks of people but God invites to harmonization/entering into symbiosis with what is God and to live LIKE God and be a part of the oneness. If we would realize God's intricate function then we would realize the universe takes no space but could just be seen as a singularity yet with a mass packed into a non-existent space. The universe is spacious, I do not mean anything else, only that to God it is just One. Your mission is to be part of existence (God) and not an anomaly to it. God uses 'We' frequently in Quran for a reason. Imagine 'the Borg' in 'Star Trek' if you have ever watched it and then you see a bit of the condition you should get with God, except that God is perhaps not so insistent and forceful (until the promised day). Consider the concept of symbiosis rather than distance yourself to God like something you have to be afraid of as many people do about God.
Hence rituals have no purpose at all since God needs no such worship but the best "worship" is done by allowing yourself to be one with God and hence live like God in judgment and deed. See what I mean?
Be of one in God
-
We cannot prove Gods existence because
- the mind is not designed for it. Thinking is not a guarantee for seeing the existence of God.
- we are looking for the wrong thing. By trying to prove God, we by default look for the wrong thing. We look for a thing while God is not a thing.
Peace
-
Peace,
THE PREMISE Part 3
The fact, for instance, that every human culture - no matter how isolated - has communicated through language suggests that our species' linguistic capacities constitute a genetically inherited trait. Since our capacity for language represents a cognitive function, there must exist some very specific cluster of neurons within the brain from which our linguistic capacities are generated.
As we know such "linguistic" sites do exist in the human brain and include the Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. Damage incurred to any one of these "language" specific sites will impair some very specific part of one's language capacities. What this clearly demonstrates is that our linguistic capacities are directly related to our neurophysiological makeup. Furthermore, this supports the notion that for every cross-cultural behavior our species exhibits there must exist a specific part of the brain from which that behavior is generated.
If it's true that this principle applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality. Wouldn't this suggest that human spirituality must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, that is, a genetically inherited trait? Furthermore, being that spirituality, just like language, represents a cognitive function, wouldn't this suggest that our "spiritual" instincts, just like our linguistic ones, must be generated from some very specific physical part within the brain? I informally refer to this site as the "God" part of the brain, a cluster of neurons from which spiritual cognitions, sensations, and behaviors are generated.
THE "GOD" PART OF THE BRAIN Author Matthew Alper
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."
God bless,
peace
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
The important thing is to know the substance of what it teaches and not so much about "belief" and then live accordingly. The thing about belief and ritualistic behavior is just people who are void of understanding. Iman can be seen as a meter from 0 to 1 and at 1 then you are whole (one) with God and a good soul which is the real intention for us and not some sectarian mumbo-jumbo about a skyman (love your sarcastic definition) that must be pleased in primitive ways.
It is silly to me to measure things in belief anyway as God testifies that it is alive and you just have to decide to follow and you see that the universe exists (God) and all that you see is God and God has no need of anything from us and thus not any belief. Giving God needs would make God primitive and with an ego and atheists would have a point. And then if people would realize the meaning of iman then they would realize that submission and belief is not what God asks of people but God invites to harmonization/entering into symbiosis with what is God and to live LIKE God and be a part of the oneness. If we would realize God's intricate function then we would realize the universe takes no space but could just be seen as a singularity yet with a mass packed into a non-existent space. The universe is spacious, I do not mean anything else, only that to God it is just One. Your mission is to be part of existence (God) and not an anomaly to it. God uses 'We' frequently in Quran for a reason. Imagine 'the Borg' in 'Star Trek' if you have ever watched it and then you see a bit of the condition you should get with God, except that God is perhaps not so insistent and forceful (until the promised day). Consider the concept of symbiosis rather than distance yourself to God like something you have to be afraid of as many people do about God.
Hence rituals have no purpose at all since God needs no such worship but the best "worship" is done by allowing yourself to be one with God and hence live like God in judgment and deed. See what I mean?
I love how you expounded on this, brother, and it completely makes sense. I absolutely agree with your points, and I appreciate your sharing your wisdom on this matter. I don't think it could've been broken down in a better way! Thanks for that post.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
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)
Ayat 17/36 is indeed guidance for the believers, however, I think it has a more mundane application. Not so much as scientific research but an instruction on the moral correctness contained in sura Ban? Israel. The ayat has a broader application of course but the main point is righteousness that is why I conclude that 17/36 is to be understood in conjunction with sura An Nur.
The basis of our development in Islam (or 'submission' 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?
Excellent! God the exalted is truly beyond human comprehension in math and science
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.
I don't know about you, but I have not verified the "big bang" using the scientific
method, or evolution or black holes but since these are widely accepted I accept them with
a grain of salt i.e., it does not matter if they are true or not.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?
First I'd like to say that your reasoning is sound, and a pragmatic overview is intelligent, but getting back to
knowledge. We acquire knowledge thru desire, reason, listening, study, inspiration, experimentation, critical
thinking, observation, removal of personal bias, learning what is best or most suitable or most practical, also
we must learn definitions. This is my shortlist.God bless
peace
Knowledge is the guardian against ignorance
-
Peace sun
If we want smith. to prove we usually need smth. tangible, visible etc. From Quran we know that some people wanted evidence of God from prophets. But, the point here is to believe in unseen and to come away from the matter - visible, tangible.
We don't need to prove God, we need to know that "it" exist. That means we have to work on this, to study everything around us and in us.
The terms believe and knowledge/to know differ in their meaning.Maybe we should try with What we need to prove God scientifically?
God knows the best.
-
Peace,
Wanting to be able to see God and not think God exist because it is impossible is just another show of our materialistic obsession. Just the same with everything else. You can ask them to see your soul/mind too and the same people would laugh even if it is like an empty projected image of God. And people treat God like an object, which more resembles a grumpy bearded old skyman rather than something which energy is contained in all substances, every atom of the world and which creation we are part of. In fact God is nearer than most of us care to think and less incomprehensible than most of us care to think too just that our materialistic tendency causes us to miss the point.
I tend to say that if you raise up your arm in front of your eyes and can see it then you have seen God and you have also seen God do something despite your impulses wished it to rise in an upwards motion. If you see the birds or other animals then you have seen God for without mind or soul (instinct-driven) they yet are able to function. See the tiny mosquito with a minuscule capability to process information know what it should do. Or the single cell, how much intelligence does it have on its own?
I have long been curious how people who claim not to believe in any god can puzzle it together how the world would come into existence. The various different atoms (see periodic table) and how they were made and then spread across the universe on their own. And how some cells were created out of nothing and then as some primitive cells could know which direction of evolution to take as if they are able to think rationally enough as barely consisting of nothing at all. DNA or RNA, how can that even be created without any guidance into what to be of it?
So funny shapes of animals and do they look exciting because the animals need it or "someone" else gave expression (and likely wanted it as a sign)?
Have you see the armored dinosaurs with near fantasy-like designs and yet people claim they developed through mere evolution through coincidence and adaption to the environment. What made the "autonomous" development taking place?
How could nature be so intelligent as to make some animals fly in the air? Did it try and experiment to what happens if you grow out what we call wings?
Birds and flying creatures are a good signs for people who doubt. How could a nature without a strong spirit in itself develop such advanced creations as the flying bird?
People who say God is an integrated part of our lives are right. No skyman or strange aggressive being but the foundation on which we live. Consider God the platform with us as running programs and the things we consider ourselves see an expression created out of what is God. The bodies are from dust and not from magic. We cannot ignore science but science cannot ignore "God".
God says "be" and it is, but will use the expressed world that we are in and do things which are impossible because it is how our science perceives it. Virgin birth of Mary is an example, as the egg became fertilized on its own but also not in a magical way. The basic semen narration of Quran is not impressing people today 2014 with scientific advancements, but God has more allegories in disposition. Yet many of the questions which Quran rises regarding the existence are still good and usable and the birds parable of flight in formation is excellent.
God made the waters of the sea move aside for Moses people to pass through. Every atom and molecule is in control simultaneously so it was not in any way hard for God, but it was still an expression from nature which suddenly changed behavior over our normal perception of things.
But you can still go back to the arm risen to the front of your eyes and see that also this moment is an expression of God on the platform we live. And just put your faith to it and you can move mountains too.
Be of one with God
-
So funny shapes of animals and do they look exciting because the animals need it or "someone" else gave expression (and likely wanted it as a sign)?
Good question. I think it's quite astonishing to realize that God also care about cuteness!
God created many cute creations indeed, perhaps to cheer up the people who undergo this worldly life because seeing cute animals and their adorable behaviors can cause people smiling and feeling happy. Praise be to God.
Salm.
-
Good question. I think it's quite astonishing to realize that God also care about cuteness!
Indeed. Also let me add the following
God cares about everything. All our being, all our environment, all our existence, all everything is created by God. The evil which is here arises from our insistence on going against nature (God's system). Our rebellion creates dissonance in a system which is otherwise harmonious.
We can also see it like this God doesn't care about cuteness in the sense that there is cuteness in the world and then GOd cares about it. God doesn't see it and then care for it. No, God owns cuteness. God made things cute. God created the very concept of cuteness and our ability to perceive it.
;D Peace
-
Peace,
Getting back to the thread,
Peace,
THE PREMISE Part 3
The fact, for instance, that every human culture - no matter how isolated - has communicated through language suggests that our species' linguistic capacities constitute a genetically inherited trait. Since our capacity for language represents a cognitive function, there must exist some very specific cluster of neurons within the brain from which our linguistic capacities are generated.
As we know such "linguistic" sites do exist in the human brain and include the Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. Damage incurred to any one of these "language" specific sites will impair some very specific part of one's language capacities. What this clearly demonstrates is that our linguistic capacities are directly related to our neurophysiological makeup. Furthermore, this supports the notion that for every cross-cultural behavior our species exhibits there must exist a specific part of the brain from which that behavior is generated.
If it's true that this principle applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality. Wouldn't this suggest that human spirituality must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, that is, a genetically inherited trait? Furthermore, being that spirituality, just like language, represents a cognitive function, wouldn't this suggest that our "spiritual" instincts, just like our linguistic ones, must be generated from some very specific physical part within the brain? I informally refer to this site as the "God" part of the brain, a cluster of neurons from which spiritual cognitions, sensations, and behaviors are generated.
THE "GOD" PART OF THE BRAIN Author Matthew Alper
Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves "Am I not your Lord?" They all said, "Yes. We bear witness." Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were not aware of this."
God bless,
peace
Based on cross cultural behaviors that are common to all humans, we can conclude that some things are true
or real and are a part of our existence, our very essence. If we consider anthropology a field of science, could
we not conclude that according to science God does exist? Of course if one were to conclude that anthropology
is not science but pseudoscience then my conclusion can be taken off the table. Some don't believe in love, but
many do believe so, likewise music is universal but some have no need for it. God or spirituality is universal but
some are nonbelievers. Please feel free to give opinions in this regard.God bless
peace
-
Peace, hawk99.
Based on cross cultural behaviors that are common to all humans, we can conclude that some things are true
or real and are a part of our existence, our very essence. If we consider anthropology a field of science, could
we not conclude that according to science God does exist? Of course if one were to conclude that anthropology
is not science but pseudoscience then my conclusion can be taken off the table. Some don't believe in love, but
many do believe so, likewise music is universal but some have no need for it. God or spirituality is universal but
some are nonbelievers.Personally, I think anthropology is a field of science, to a degree at least. And yes, I think that we can conclude scientifically that God does exist. However, the problem lies in the literary perspective rather than the scientific. Any scientist would say that God definitely exists, depending on how you define the word "god". That's where the issue comes in. If someone came out and said, "I am God" (e.g. one who possesses power, influence, knowledge, or anything else he/she uses to define the term), then scientists would absolutely agree; although they may differ on the magnitude of the mentioned qualities, THAT "god" absolutely exists in the real and natural world, and that's something that's undebatable.
The same thing applies when 'scientific pantheists' state that "God" is synonymous with the Universe (in the absolute sense). Again, scientists can't argue with that notion. They can't prove that a pantheistic god doesn't exist, since that would be tantamount to stating that the Universe (e.g. reality, nature, energy, etc.) doesn't exist. It all depends on how we define the word "god". On the same note, if someone stated that God is literally a giant, invisible man in the sky, then those same scientists would probably laugh you out of the conversation.
Both figures are called "God", and both are philosophical notions. One philosophical concept is also a physical (material) concept, though, which means that it can be tested, measured and assessed. The other, being a 'spiritual' (supernatural) concept, can't be tested or analyzed at all. You can have knowledge of one, while the other can only be believed. That's where the scientific line is drawn. If something can be accepted without proof, then it can also be dismissed due to the lack of proof.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I appreciate your tinkering, brother Ahmad. You surely add to the topic.
Be of one with God