Why cant we scientifically prove god?
-
In general, I agree and don't mind the change of whether facts and reality are the base or the goal or the base AND the goal.
But I do need to object to the claim that reality is what you make it. I need to appreciate that no matter how much I dream about it or how much I wish I could, I can't jump off a building without at least getting hurt. I have to accept that I can't fly. That is reality. I can demonstrate it. I can prove it. I can show this to someone who does not believe it. That is reality.
Science is not based on faith - religion is. Religion is centred on the spiritual not reality. If a religion claims unicorns exist or ants can communicate with humans I do not need to accept that as reality.
Science is based on accuracy and precision. Theories change to accommodate increasing accuracy. It explains our natural environment.
WHAT? Of course science will attempt to examine everything. We don't yet have all the answers and never will, but our knowledge is ever increasing. To associate human failings with a negative view of science is a lot worse than simplistic. And what uncovered that shortfall of cheating humans? Religion or science?
As long as proponents of a particular faith are trying to kill me because I don't believe what they believe I have to take this very literal and very serious.
What on Earth is a "sect of science"?
Some people have seen ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, unicorns, ..... the list is endless. Should I believe all of them, because some lunatic claims they exist? Or do I ask for proof?
No, I go with believing where I have a reason to believe it.
If a god would be all-knowing, it would know what proof I require.
If a god would be all-powerful, it would be able to provide that proof.
If a god would be all-merciful, it would provide it. -
I think we actually can scientifically prove God exists. Check out this article, which attempts to prove God's existance without any religious texts at all. Only scientific theory.
http//www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/finding_god_%28P1180%29.html
-
Hey StopS,
I also generally agree with what you say. I makes sense no doubt, but there is much more to it.
As far as I see it, there is no duality or opposition between science and religion. A person can be living in reality to different extents. This person can also engage is all sorts of hobbies, such as science or religion. While there are some gold nuggets in religion, they are usually misunderstood in absurdum. As far as science (which is physical science) is concerned... it can only go so far. There are domains where science cannot go, but which is verifiable and reproducible by whomever takes that path. Just because you cannot hook some aspects of reality up to a gel electrophoresis device or describe it with some differential equation, it doesn't mean they are not real. Well, in some way it does. If there is something a person cannot see or feel, then that thing actually doesn't exist TO THAT person, but there is no need to claim non-existence in totality.If a god would be all-merciful, it would provide it.
I disagree with this idea. This is your assumption, as good or bad as pink unicorns.
This is based on the idea that things are not fair in the world, and misses the point of what all-merciful means and how things work.
God, in lack of a better word, will not silver spoon feed you. I think this is a black-and-white type of reasoning, like "either you're with us or you're against us". People usually conclude that God doesn't exist simply because they are not living in a all perfect and blissed out paradise. I think this way of seeing it comes from the distorted and deluded image of God that has come from the abrahamitic religions, where God is seen as some authority that dishes out happiness, or punishment, or whatever, as per his wishes and ways.Anyhow, peace and take care!
All the best -
I think we actually can scientifically prove God exists. Check out this article, which attempts to prove God's existance without any religious texts at all. Only scientific theory.
http//www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/finding_god_%28P1180%29.html
Oh dear, just a warmed up version of the "First Mover" or cosmology argument. No science, just pseudo-science and an appeal to emotion and ignorance.
-
I also generally agree with what you say. I makes sense no doubt, but there is much more to it.
I disagree with this idea. This is your assumption, as good or bad as pink unicorns.
This is based on the idea that things are not fair in the world, and misses the point of what all-merciful means and how things work.
God, in lack of a better word, will not silver spoon feed you. I think this is a black-and-white type of reasoning, like "either you're with us or you're against us". People usually conclude that God doesn't exist simply because they are not living in a all perfect and blissed out paradise. I think this way of seeing it comes from the distorted and deluded image of God that has come from the abrahamitic religions, where God is seen as some authority that dishes out happiness, or punishment, or whatever, as per his wishes and ways.Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Science is like a hammer. A tool for a purpose. And that limits it right from the word go.
And yes, I agree there is more out there than we can even imagine. We only scratched the surface and given that science has only been around ~250 years, it's come a long way.Well, the black-and-white thinking is what has been instilled into me by what I read in scripture, regardless of which one. No, with your reasoning I would immediately send you to the Euthyphro dilemma which is perfect here.
May I ask what your definition of a super-natural deity is? Or is that unwelcome here?
-
Dear StopS,
Well, the black-and-white thinking is what has been instilled into me by what I read in scripture, regardless of which one.
I don't blame you. It happens quite easily.
May I ask what your definition of a super-natural deity is? Or is that unwelcome here?
You may ask anything you wish. All sincere questions should always be welcome and encouraged.
I don't have any special definition for IT. Often it is more beneficial to see what it is NOT. Labels, classification and images will only lead away from it. In any case, it is not super-natural. It is very natural. It is the only natural. It is not separate from us, even though we cannot sense it most of the time, but at the same time as we are part of it, it is also infinitely larger than us. Anyone can find it, if so desired, but it will be experienced, not described or figured out. The mind will not grasp it. I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm writing. But since you asked...
The Euthyphro dilemma
I'm just a simple person who knows just a little, but I think that the dilemma spoken of, smells like the typical case of an image of a separate deity in the sky sending books n commands. I think this is a very mechanical and greek god type of concept...
Kind regards,
Peace -
You may ask anything you wish. All sincere questions should always be welcome and encouraged.
Well, I don't intend to offend......
I don't have any special definition for IT. Often it is more beneficial to see what it is NOT. Labels, classification and images will only lead away from it. In any case, it is not super-natural. It is very natural. It is the only natural. It is not separate from us, even though we cannot sense it most of the time, but at the same time as we are part of it, it is also infinitely larger than us. Anyone can find it, if so desired, but it will be experienced, not described or figured out. The mind will not grasp it. I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm writing. But since you asked...
From what I CAN understand it sure sounds more interesting than most accounts where a meta-physical being without definition does something and everything merely poofs into existence from nothing by mere thought control justified through highly developed anthropomorphism.
I'm just a simple person who knows just a little, but I think that the dilemma spoken of, smells like the typical case of an image of a separate deity in the sky sending books n commands. I think this is a very mechanical and greek god type of concept...
Indeed, it is, so had I known what I know now, I would have canned it
-
Or even better why doesnt he just show himself to us?? Im really struggling with my religion at the moment and it probably hasnt helped watching all those atheist youtube clips challenging my faith!
But I really can not understand why god doesnt just prove himself to me like he did to the rest of the prophets? Is it not unfair that the prophets got 1st hand evidence which I will not get and the prophets only believed in god once they did receive this special evidence (e.g. moses and muhammed who werent believers until they received the word of god)?
Even if God did show Godself to you, you would not be able to see God. God is infinite spirit. God does not have a body to be seing. God's being is not bound by flesh to be seen.
Also, God cannot be proven by science for this very reason. God is not scientific, because God cannot be viewed with the senses. Without this ability to observe and exmperiment on God, God cannot be scientific. Science can only work with finite things that have matter and are observable.
-
Very well said @boricuaboi85.
And then, doesn't Qur'an start with
" ...who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and from our provisions to them, they give to charity."
... belief in the unseen (not perceptible by the senses) being the prerequisite of the religion?
-
Peace All,
Before we forget that science is not the end all to be all let's remember that science has it's limitations.
Science comes up short in answering question in many fieldsMankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.
There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.
The three areas of limitation are
Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
Peace O0 -
Let me try to humbly express my opinion, I do not intend to offend anybody. If my language does seem offending, I apologize for the ill effect.
shadowpuppet
So.. if God isn't a human, and is really more of an "it" than a "he" or a "she" ....then, one might make the
conclusion that God is simply the force(s) of nature and the laws which govern them/it.Isn't this god more or less subjective to "objects" it can interact with? Since "natural laws" cannot exist by themselves without an entity to act on or draw meaning from such as mass or charge.
The natural laws we observe were coupled (GUT) at the time of Big bang and science cannot project it before the singularity, granted, an argument can be made to a "grander" law that sets off universe(s) with some kind of programming to include all the "laws we observe today" and a "much grander law" that initiated the "grander" one, in-essence we are almost making the "grandest law" as God (though this sounds elegant, we do not know of a law that by itself generates the entity it acts on - maybe that law could be God).
As for the "poetification", I guess its useless to speculate about what we do not know exactly (although the descriptions of heaven as gardens beneath which rivers flow does give an allegory). Taking everything poetically works too, but in a different way. Like taking the law of gravity to be poetic about Love and mass as the "Spiritual essence" of some kind, does paint a picture but one that is different from the reality intended. I am not speculating that God is measurable as in gravity! Our daily laws as god would mean that god is able to be manipulated to suit our selfish acts as we please (or maybe ascribing intelligence to laws as Paulo Coelho does in Alchemist could work too).Student of Allah
I dont know if that makes any sense, but thats the kind of idea I got from Physics. If all that sounds too complex, that means 2 things,
- I failed to explain
- I wrongly assumed that you might be familiar with the background of that particular field of physics.
I agree. Could the whole "Experience of God" be subjective and hence everyone needs it to be verified for oneself?
Same here, I never expected Bill gates to come and run all the codes himself on my windows machine. I never expected Bill and his team to show up in my house on every windows update. They dont need to, they are smart programmers. If Bill can be that smart, Allah is logically supposed to be smarter. He would have absolute control without physical interference.
Indescribable intelligence given any unknown, is able to solve for it and hence "nothing" is hidden, no matter what! Would we be able to understand at least the working of our Universe and the paradoxes we encounter when we meet him on Day of Judgement? or are we doomed to ignorance no matter what?
uq
Personally, I believe - based on certain verses - that all things have knowledge of God, though I can't yet conclusively prove this. This presumed knowledge, combined with the infinitesimal improbability of the universe's self-assembly, serve to give us, as humans, ample proof that God is one.
Could humans by evolution (design) be God cautious (some more than others)? - could that explain why we feel "awesome" "beauty"etc when we recognize something we can attribute as "work of God" or "Divine Intervention"? Could it also explain why there have been so many religions worldwide through history? Could God have authored most of them?
Amm
...why doesnt he just show himself to us??...
Maybe he is obvious enough for us to understand somehow and yet we are unable to do so?
Being "shown" to us cannot always work in our human selves.
eg We cannot "see" God, because our eyes cannot "see" anything above or below visual wavelength unless aided somehow.
Maybe the only show we can have are revelations or scriptures and anything above can only be subjective. Like how God showed his signs to People of Moses or through Jesus and they were indeed subjective evidence and lost in time. Maybe you need to ask God to send you a personal sign so that you could be sure , and assuming you are not "arrogant" enough to "reject" "every(obvious/non-obvious)" "sign"! (maybe like how Abraham did in Qur'an 2260)God Within
It is that state of energy at rest
Okay! At rest compared to what? Is there a notion of absolute motion or absolute motionless? What about "matter" at "rest" since it too is actually "energy" at "rest"?
MUNZIR ALI
One was horus which preceded jesus. I wonder why the quran only mentions jesus and claims that it was a miracle.
Where did you find out Horus had virgin birth? (Zeitgeist?) Ises was not a Virgin when she became pregnant!
Qur'an only mentioned prophets and their stories that are relevant or will become relevant. Which could be the reason why a lot Hebrew prophets and people we do not even know of are not mentioned.
Parthenogenesis is indeed plausible as was in the case of Mary Mother of Jesus.Zulf
I think we cannot prove God thru science partly because we have the wrong idea of what God is. What are we looking for? Some dude in the sky? Some other poster said that the quran seems to talk about that everyone and everything already knows God (or whatever word we should use not to get into a wrong idea)... and then goes on saying and putting emphasis on that God is one. So the quran is not mainly talking about the existance of God, but rather its oneness and how accurate our belief is. I really liked this observation, and I'm sure there are more great posts in the thread, but I really haven't gone thru the thread.
Indeed I agree with you! In-order for Mathematical Modeling to be applied we need black and white facts and this is not possible with the case of God especially when we are looking for something which we don't know exactly as to what!
And our evolutionary developments do not allow us to have a fully objective view of the universe either. Sometimes I think the whole idea of trying to prove God is like trying to prove String Theory - Its elegant and M theory does help in accounting for a TOE although invoking 11 to 26 dimensions in the process, whole thing just sounds too good to be true but has no experimental evidence as of yet (to my knowledge)! And not to even start about the Multiverse hypothesis!noshirk
So believing in GOD without seeing him or having a scientifc proof is central in faith.
However there numerous signs but never an incontestable proof.This brings us back to "purpose of our creation" in religious terms. Are we being really arrogant by asserting that we need a "Scientific proof"? Could we be comparable to Helio-centric ancients who debate on God about the same proofs while their state of knowledge was poorer still to understand God? or Are we proposing that there is a need to believe in an entity that our rational process might not be able to comprehend (easily or not at all)? Could Religion be proof enough (the so called "atleast one of the religion is true argument"?
-
Before we forget that science is not the end all to be all let's remember that science has it's limitations.
Science observes, describes, measures, tests, ..... nature.
Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.
There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.
The three areas of limitation are
Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
Peace O0I have to disagree here. Science CAN measure and explain what flower is deemed prettier and explain why the human brain will take that very decision. It has been demonstrated and tested.
Science CAN explain morality. It is measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable and has been tested in animals of different species.
THIS is true. Science does NOT concern itself with the supernatural, as it is based not on nature, but faith, a human brain construct. We can see what areas in the brain are stimulated and why this gives us pleasurable feelings and provides comfort, but not why some humans have had and still have this tendency towards the occult.
Just as an aside you can't prove a negative, so any attempt at proving something does not exist is futile and nonsensical. Anyway, the claimant is required to prove the claim.
-
Interesting video on the subject
"Many do not realize that their God does not communicate with them because BY DEFINITION, it does NOT EXIST! How/Why the Hellenized Academics Defined G-d into non-existence and could no longer hear his voice. Obviously, if something does not exist, it cannot communicate."
(from the description of the video)THE NATURE OF GOD
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=24HOUNSyTC4&feature=plcp
-
Science observes, describes, measures, tests, ..... nature.
I have to disagree here. Science CAN measure and explain what flower is deemed prettier and explain why the human brain will take that very decision. It has been demonstrated and tested.Peace Stop S,
You cannot measure prettiness, it's a matter of taste. Some people like red some like yellow,
people value different things for different reasons.You said
Science CAN explain morality. It is measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable and has been tested in animals of different species.Explain morality? It appears you are confusing explanation (opinion) with proof. One
cannot measure, demonstrate, or quantify abortion.I like you have a fondness for science and use it as a tool for reason and the compiliation
of empirical data, but I also recognize the invisible and the incalculable.Peace O0
-
Peace Stop S,
You cannot measure prettiness, it's a matter of taste. Some people like red some like yellow,
people value different things for different reasons.If you look at brain patterns and the sheer rationale of how we think you would see how scientists can accurately predict only by analysing the brain, what choice a person will take when choosing cars, flowers or partners.
You said
Science CAN explain morality. It is measurable, demonstrable, quantifiable and has been tested in animals of different species.Explain morality? It appears you are confusing explanation (opinion) with proof. One cannot measure, demonstrate, or quantify abortion.
You should read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape How Science Can Determine Human Values." Or start here https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g WARNING it's almost 2 hours!!!
"Morality" has been demonstrated in almost all higher mammals.
I like you have a fondness for science and use it as a tool for reason and the compiliation
of empirical data, but I also recognize the invisible and the incalculable.I respect that and have absolutely no problem with someone embracing both.
-
who said we can't scientifically prove God? isn't it gender alone enough to prove the existence of God? if humans are merely products of evolution, then how did the first opposite sex come into being? yeah, typical atheists may answer that we did not evolve into a complete system as we are now but rather through gradual modification and natural selection. then, how did a random process such as "natural selection" ensure that the development of a gender's sex organ is in compliance with its opposite sex, for example the penis and vagina? and most importantly, how did two organisms of opposite gender foresee the common goal that will be achieved in the final stage, which is to create a complete reproductive system where sperm transfer correlates with the genital shapes of both male and female?
Muslims do not simply assume and make a proclamation such as "we can't find the answer so it must be God". in fact, Allah gives us answers that can be proven by scientifically methods. otherwise, can the grand theory of evolution explains how did the first opposite sex come into being through a random process?
Quran 4913
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.
another proof of God's existence is the complexity of biological systems. atheists always said a complex biological system can be reduced to its simpler forms and hence reducible complexity, which can be achieved by evolution. however, they failed to understand that an organism can not survive without a complete biological system. for example, human can not live with only brain without other organs being present or vice versa. let alone a simple animal like sea cucumber (or even a single cell), though it may not have a complex system like human but still it has a complete system to carry out essential functions. it can not have only locomotion system without a nervous system, nor a respiratory system without circulation system. since all parts must be present in order to carry out functions so which part should evolution choose to evolve first? if two parts can not emerge spontaneously by chance then how can it be reduced in complexity and expect it to function like normal?
so THINK!
-
Peace, Nashrullah84.
who said we can't scientifically prove God? isn't it gender alone enough to prove the existence of God? if humans are merely products of evolution, then how did the first opposite sex come into being? yeah, typical atheists may answer that we did not evolve into a complete system as we are now but rather through gradual modification and natural selection. then, how did a random process such as "natural selection" ensure that the development of a gender's sex organ is in compliance with its opposite sex, for example the penis and vagina? and most importantly, how did two organisms of opposite gender foresee the common goal that will be achieved in the final stage, which is to create a complete reproductive system where sperm transfer correlates with the genital shapes of both male and female?
Have you ever studied the concept of gender-based evolution and sexual reproduction? If you did, then you'd know that gender (e.g. male/female) doesn't prove the existence of a god at all. In fact, it actually verifies the idea of natural selection stemming from a single-celled organism. I don't know who told you that you can scientifically prove the existence of God, but this isn't accurate.
another proof of God's existence is the complexity of biological systems. atheists always said a complex biological system can be reduced to its simpler forms and hence reducible complexity, which can be achieved by evolution. however, they failed to understand that an organism can not survive without a complete biological system. for example, human can not live with only brain without other organs being present or vice versa. let alone a simple animal like sea cucumber (or even a single cell), though it may not have a complex system like human but still it has a complete system to carry out essential functions. it can not have only locomotion system without a nervous system, nor a respiratory system without circulation system. since all parts must be present in order to carry out functions so which part should evolution choose to evolve first? if two parts can not emerge spontaneously by chance then how can it be reduced in complexity and expect it to function like normal?
Again, you need to study evolution via natural selection. Organisms naturally develop factors and attributes according to their specified environments. Concepts like "complexity" have been explained very thoroughly. You should check out some of the very enlightening books by Professor Richard Dawkins, such as "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The Greatest Show on Earth". They may assist you in your quest. I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in a god (or gods). However, to allege that science can somehow prove his/their existence is ridiculous.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmed.
Please Ponder the following
Is One who creates like one who does not create? Would you now take heed?
It is prophesied in God's final scripture that His proofs are going to overwhelm all human beings until they realize and witness His truth.
A Great Prophecy*
We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth.* Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?And say, "Praise be to God; He will show you His proofs, until you recognize them. Your Lord is never unaware of anything you do."
Since the time of Noah, the Most Merciful has been sending his prophets and messengers with clear proofs and scriptures to get the humans out of darkness and help them reach deep inside themselves for the monotheistic instinct He placed in their hearts (3030). He also perfected His blessings all around them so they can witness His presence and reach the conviction that He must be the Supreme and the Only One Authoritative Creator.
Those who are duped by Satan walk through earth totally oblivious to God's truth, as if He never gave them the hearing, the eyesight and the brain. They can never comprehend His proofs no matter how clear they are as it is a divine system that His proofs are to be beneficial ONLY for the souls of the believers. God already informed us that most people are either blind to His proofs or they slide back after witnessing them. Once this decision is made, it is a divine law that they are to be kept in the dark.
Say, "Look at all the signs in the heavens and the earth." All the proofs and all the warnings can never help people who decided to disbelieve.
Divine Intervention
Keeps the Disbelievers in the DarkI will divert from My revelations those who are arrogant on earth, without justification. Consequently, when they see every kind of proof they will not believe. And when they see the path of guidance they will not adopt it as their path, but when they see the path of straying they will adopt it as their path. This is the consequence of their rejecting our proofs, and being totally heedless thereof.
Some of them listen to you, but we place veils on their hearts to prevent them from understanding, and deafness in their ears. Thus, no matter what kind of proof they see, they cannot believe. Thus, when they come to argue with you, the disbelievers say, "These are tales from the past."
Why should God guide people who disbelieved after believing, and after witnessing that the messenger is truth, and after solid proofs* have been given to them? God does not guide the wicked.
He is the One who continuously shows you His proofs, and sends down to you from the sky provisions. Only those who totally submit will be able to take heed.
The reverent will take heed.
The wicked will avoid it.
And remind, for the reminder benefits the believers.
The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers.Praise be to God for fulfilling His promise and constantly showing us His solid proofs. He counted the following among them so we can reflect and glorify and value Him the way it should be
The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers
Among His proofs is that He created you from dust, then you became reproducing humans.
He committed in your service everything in the heavens and the earth; all from Him. These are proofs for people who reflect.Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquillity and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.
Among His proofs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colors. In these, there are signs for the knowledgeable.
Among His proofs is your sleeping during the night or the day, and your working in pursuit of His provisions. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who can hear.
Among His proofs is that He shows you the lightning as a source of fear, as well as hope, then He sends down from the sky water to revive a land that has been dead. In these, there are sufficient proofs for people who understand.
Among His proofs is that the heaven and the earth are standing at His disposal. Finally, when He calls you out of the earth, one call, you will immediately come out.
Among His proofs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the creatures He spreads in them. He is able to summon them, when He wills.
The heavens and the earth are full of proofs for the believers. Also in your creation, and the creation of all the animals, there are proofs for people who are certain.
Also, the alternation of the night and the day, and the provisions that God sends down from the sky to revive dead lands, and the manipulation of the winds; all these are proofs for people who understand.
He is the One who rendered the night for your rest, and rendered the day lighted. These are proofs for people who can hear.He is the One who constructed the earth and placed on it mountains and rivers. And from the different kinds of fruits, He made them into pairs - males and females. The night overtakes the day. These are solid proofs for who think.
On earth, there are adjacent lots that produce orchards of grapes, crops, palm trees - dioecious and non-dioecious. Although they are irrigated with the same water, we prefer some of them over others in eating. These are solid proofs for people who understand.
He sends down from the sky water for your drink, and to grow trees for your benefit.
With it, He grows for you crops, olives, date palms, grapes, and all kinds of fruits. This is (sufficient) proof for people who think.And He commits, in your service, the night and the day, as well as the sun and the moon. Also, the stars are committed by His command. These are (sufficient) proofs for people who understand.
And (He created) for you on earth things of various colors. This is This is a (sufficient) proof for people who take heed.And He committed the sea to serve you; you eat from it tender meat, and extract jewelry which you wear. And you see the ships roaming it for your commercial benefits, as you seek His bounties, that you may be appreciative.
And He placed stabilizers (mountains) on earth, lest it tumbles with you, as well as rivers and roads, that you may be guided.
And landmarks, as well as the stars; to be used for navigation. Is One who creates like one who does not create? Would you now take heed?
Would you like more added proofs?
Just ask!Peace.
-
Peace, good logic.
What was the point of all that? If someone is disputing the existence of Allah (God) and the authenticity of the Qur'aan, how much sense does it make to post a bunch of Qur'aanic passages as "proof" of something? How foolish! With all due respect, this is a scientific dialogue. Therefore, if your aim is to manifest some type of evidence to authenticate your beliefs, you need to bring REAL scientific justification to the table - not religious rhetoric!
In other words, saying, "I know God does all of these things, because the Qur'aan says so," doesn't cut it.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmed.
You are the one who said the Qoran talks a "lot of nonsense" and contradicts Science.Remember!
I have given you verses from Qoran. Show me the nonsense in them?
Peace.