Sign of God
-
Why do those who do not take the quran as a scripture from God always tend to choose the most negative or hateful interpretation of everything? Why aren't they just interested in the flora of different understandings and consider positive interpretations at least as valid as negative ones? Why this gravitation towards the negative? Is it due to the assume that the majority always interpret the quran correctly? Why this assumption? Why the assumption that the actual/real/original is the most negative? Smells like bias, and not like objectivity like it is often portrayed as. In general, I find the human being's attraction towards negativity quite interesting and typcal...
-
Peace zulf,
They want contradiction so that it is falsifiable. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you see it, the Quran is just usually misinterpreted due to the age of the scripture, and that one takes verses out of context. Sometimes you have to take several pages into account before deciding the exact meaning.
Up to this day, the Quran seems to be the most intact religious book with apparent words of God. I am however not treating Quran as an idol, meaning I cannot think without it, but of course I refer back to it for Wisdom and Knowledge.
I enjoy reading religious books from other religions, lately I have been looking into Zoroastrianism and it seems to point back at the same God as in the Ibrahimic religions. There are some myths about Zoroastrianism, this religion has like other ones become exposed to human inventions. It is not polytheistic.
The Zoroastrians lost their religious book some many years ago, the burning of Persepolis may have been a factor and the Islamic conquest later on.
Ahmad Bilal is nicer than people here may think if you get to know him a little. He has a quite critical eye though, but his mind is sharp. He thinks logically and rationally, as one should do. He searches for an answer here like everyone else. I have an understanding people may have a problem with his bluntness though.
I see the Quran as the most accurate (un)distorted word of God available today. And despite any claims that it has weaknesses it is still the most worthy "reading" of them all.
God bless you
-
Peace All,
We must be careful not to point fingers at non-believers when we ourselves are
engaging in the negative conversation as well. There are many ayats that warn us
about the pointlessness of such arguments because the non-believers are not
interested in conversion to Islam but simply want to share their doubts. We have
to believe God who has revealed revelations about non-believers in the Quran.635, 7146, 1099-101, 1331, 2781, and many more and finally sura 109.
If one feels the need to convince the non-believer that God is who he says he is,
be prepared to be disappointed.Surely, those who do not believe in GOD's revelations, GOD does not guide
them. They have incurred a painful retribution.Who are more evil than those who are reminded of their Lord's proofs,
then disregard them, without realizing what they are doing. Consequently, we
place shields on their hearts to prevent them from understanding it (the Quran),
and deafness in their ears. Thus, no matter what you do to guide them, they can
never ever be guided."a wise man and a fool were arguing in an alley when two friends happened to be
walking by and saw them, one of the friends asked the other, "which is the fool"
the other friend replied "I cannot tell the difference!I hope this is helpful
peace
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
It is obvious by the context that is during a war situation, dear brother, and it is an encouragement to stand up for your rights.
The Quran tells you not to transgress if an opponent gives up or wants peace.
Indeed, brother, I totally agree. I've read the Quran many times, and I know that this was referring to a wartime situation. My statement wasn't with regard to the Quran instructing Muslims to 'kill people'; rather, I was talking about the designation of these slain people AFTER death. Killing someone in self-defense may be necessary at times, in my opinion. However, the concept of these people being slain by the believers, and THEN being brought back to life y God and mercilessly tortured for an eternity, seems a bit extreme. That's all I was saying...
If you still want to compare this scripture with the one from that guy Mr. Fard then feel free to do so, but I do not. And my understanding is as I stated above.
For the record, I'm not saying that I agree with the notions suggested by Mr. Fard. If we look at the historical references for this, Fard actually stated that his words regarding that issue weren't meant to be taken literally; they were symbolic of the 'killing of the evil inside one's self', not killing other people. That's why I made the comparison. According to traditional Islamic clerics, the Quran is being LITERAL when it says that Allah (God) will bring unbelievers back to life and torture them indefinitely...
People alleged that Mr. Fard was being cruel and 'wicked' in (apparently) suggesting that his followers kill others. However, they believe that God is being 'righteous' when he suggests that people kill others, and that he'll bring them back to life to torture them for an eternity... Doesn't there seem to be a contradiction and double-standard here? Which person appears more 'righteous' and 'wicked' to you?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmad,
I agree with you here. And I doubt the meaning of Quran is to be taken literally but rather allegorically concerning many factors. They will probably not be tortured but instead living under poor conditions or something like that. I cannot claim to know unless I would be lying.
Religious zealots during all ages and all religions are over-interpreting the passages of their religious books and take everything too literally and without using their brains and rather through wishful thinking, and also to suit their political agenda. Religion drives a lot of people crazy, it is hazardous for them. Still it is, like I said before, about making peace within your own soul that is the point with Islam and some other "religions" I know.
Like you like to say about yourself regarding rationality. They should try to be more rational.
God bless you
-
science and religion are many times incompatible
Peace.
Some thoughts on this issue i wish to share. I think scientists discover the truths on phenomena of nature by putting aside God into the picture just to avoid controversy. From religionists. Also realizing that the construction of meanings on the phenomenon change with time due to new findings using more powerful instruments, which can debunk old theories and understanding.On the other hand religionists tend to stick to ancient meanings on phenomena thinking that this is what God meant it to be. Religionists like to think they are guardians of God's words.
Scientists always view things from the perspective of man. Whereas, religionist always view things from the perspective of God. They always say Gods says this and God says that.....
Science has its way (methodology) of coming to a conclusion on the things being studied. As time goes by, men of science discovered that the methodology, reasoning and approaches is natural to their common sense.
Using common sense, they start to question common beliefs such as the existence of God using "common science." For those people with common science who care to study the Quran as it should be studied using common sense (with sincerity) will discover and arrive at the same truth on any phenomenon.
Why? God created phenomena as ayats (words). James Watson and Francis Crick said that all phenomena contain bits, information. From the Quran we know that all creations are in the form of informational beings. Thus, we are here to discover the truth, the true meanings of things, be it the word of the Quran or the word (information) embedded in the phenomena of nature. All around us and within us are information of Truth created for us to study and ponder as signs of Reality and the ultimate Reality, God, distinct from other information which are symbols of falsehood, satanic words.
How can we differentiate these two? The words of the Quran (symbolic writing in Arabic) refers to the words in creations. The common science people will see that religion (behavioral system) and science (physical system) is a natural way for us to learn about Reality and to live in this world.
I must always remember to approach and see things from the human mind.
-
Peace!
Nice post!On the other hand religionists tend to stick to ancient meanings on phenomena thinking that this is what God meant it to be. Religionists like to think they are guardians of God's words.
This is a problem IMHO. Letting one's mind get stuck in old habits, repeating old garbage. Also, anyone thinking they are the guardians of God's words is, IMO, highly arrogant, thinking that it needs protection and what not.
Scientists always view things from the perspective of man. Whereas, religionist always view things from the perspective of God. They always say Gods says this and God says that.....
I don't think religionists see things from the perspective of God at all. How could they ever? But I understand what you are saying. Actually, they just see things from their own perspective, that of their own ego and mind.
Science has its way (methodology) of coming to a conclusion on the things being studied. As time goes by, men of science discovered that the methodology, reasoning and approaches is natural to their common sense.
Science is great, as long as it doesn't claim things about stuff it cannot touch. When we use science as an excuse to say that there is not God in any form, then it is not science that speaks, but rather a person promoting his personal point of view which in turn is based on his capacity to see things...
-
I don't think religionists see things from the perspective of God at all. How could they ever? But I understand what you are saying. Actually, they just see things from their own perspective, that of their own ego and mind.
Peace Zulf.
Thanks. You understand well about my notion of religionists. They elevated themselves as guardians of God's system and consequently create and try to maintain a mess sectarian community. The general public has no freedom to discover on their own about God's system and unable to speak freely about their discoveries. Fortunately, the internet creates a challenge to this authoritarian system. We are now becoming an online community of seekers and followers to God's system according to Quran. -
Peace!
Nice post!
Science is great, as long as it doesn't claim things about stuff it cannot touch. When we use science as an excuse to say that there is not God in any form, then it is not science that speaks, but rather a person promoting his personal point of view which in turn is based on his capacity to see things...Agreed,
There are those who use one of God's gifts which we call science,
(which is a tool to understand what God has created) to support their atheistic beliefs,
while maintaining those beliefs from the outset, this is an attempt to give their views
veracity and authority, some are fooled by this tactic, while some are not,
In the end they are simply non-believers dressed as critical thinkers.peace
-
There are those who use one of God's gifts which we call science,
(which is a tool to understand what God has created) to support their atheistic beliefs,
while maintaining those beliefs from the outset, this is an attempt to give their views
veracity and authority, some are fooled by this tactic, while some are not,
In the end they are simply non-believers dressed as critical thinkers.Peace.
These people fail to acknowledge the limitless boundary of science, expanding quest for knowledge and changing philosophy and shifting of paradigm in science. -
Peace.
These people fail to acknowledge the limitless boundary of science, expanding quest for knowledge and changing philosophy and shifting of paradigm in science.Indeed.
However, I think we need to also try to see it from the point of view of an atheist. One can understand the reasoning, and an atheist's reasons are not faulty or ignorant... they are the only thing they can be. An atheist who is a scientist may be brilliant, but the point is that an atheist, as per my current understanding, works/lives/perceives/thinks purely and solely in the domain of the Intellect/Mind. The Intellect/Mind is a tool that can only be aware of the physical creation, which also includes energies and perhaps many things not yet measurable my science. BUT, the Intellect/Mind is not what we are. We are a soul/spirit/being/whatever which also has a Mind. But, if we only perceive with the mind/intellect/emotions then we can not fathom the existence of that which one may call God, because God, and other things, are out of the reach of the mind. The mind can only reason, think... not perceive. If we only perceive with our five senses, then we miss much. We only perceive with our physical body (5 senses), and reason about the impulses with the mind. But when the mind is let to dominate our perception, we cannot fathom the unseen. It is indeed a limited perspective. There is much to be said about the mind/intellect and it's role in the drama of life. The whole point is that we are not just our mind and what goes on in our heads...
Peace
-
Peace,
It was my philosophies about creation over a decade ago which made me draw the conclusion there had to be a Creator and that was when I was pretty much an atheist myself. I merely believed in spirits. My early belief was a bit like Star Wars, which I have abandoned now (although I tend to still use it as an allegory / analogy).
I have always tried to work through logic and reason, but no matter what I did I could not rule out that a Creator must be involved in evolution. It would be like the universe just exploded into existence in exact measures to form planets and stars and other bodies. Some planets could even support life, which seem to require oxygen to survive (most of them at least).
And I wondered how the heck could coincidence know what planet Earth needed in terms of material and then in perfect measures give it to the planet. Add to that the intelligent design / formula of the endless amounts of specimens. The probability is non-existent in my logic and ability to reason.
And I am coming from an atheist family and I got by no means any indoctrination to believe in God but was rather discouraged in my youth. My world was more or less based on science. I have always loved science and everything with technology and I love science-fiction (as you may have noticed, I also like the character Spock in Star Trek with all his talk about logic).
I am no traditional religious man. I realized that there has to be a Creator entity which is not bound by time or space and cannot be measured since this entity lacks features which can be detected by scientific equipment and methods. If you are above all creation you can surely also hide from detection. Sign of God is instead all creation itself and the heavy philosophical thinking required to even ponder the question about what happened in the beginning and before the beginning.
Another thought I had was from that I was taught that energy does not disappear. But traditional atheist belief is that we are born and we die. But what happens to the energy of the soul? For surely something so advanced and conscious has to be a form of energy. This gave me the inspiration that life has to be eternal, just that it leads elsewhere when we "die".
Bingo. I was a Believer without even opened the Bible or Quran ever in my life. And this was perhaps 15 years ago (I am 31 today). I still refused to open the Bible (I did not even know about Quran at that time) for several years to come due to traditional Christianity and its lame Jesus fixation as I thought at the time, for how could anyone believe in the story that God's son could die like a human to save mankind. How could God be a human on Earth I thought.
I softened up a bit with time when I got in contact with good Christians that showed the corruption of the church and I finally was persuaded to give the Bible a chance. I could quite immediately see that it was filled with strange nonsense though, but I choose to follow the best and ignore the rest. This was about 7 years ago. I still was friend of those Christians and I liked to discuss the good things of the Bible.
God seemed to have been walking along the beach with me all the way here and for that I am forever in debt to Him.
After I stopped drinking a summer, 2008 I think, things accelerated and I got promoted at work, all went above expectations and in 2009 I met exactly the wife I had prayed for in 2007. A woman who can push me to do things because I often lack motivation without someone who does the coaching.
Well, some of you know my problems with her, but that was probably part of the Trial. God removed my affliction and did something (I do not know what still) to her and she stopped being a nightmare. Now we only have the usual marital problems only
Anyway, she made me purchase a Quran in the winter of 2009, a basic one translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and I could immediately see that this scripture was from God. After that I have learned some basic Arabic and bought/downloaded better translations and begun heavy research on religion. I swore an oath to God to be a man of Faith last year and His servant and that He may use me in any way He likes.
Now I live a blessed life following His footsteps (sunnah) and carrying out His commands. I am provided with whatever I need and I am content with that.
This all for being an atheist in the beginning who just dared to use logic and reason in controversial ways. Nice, huh?
And excuse me for all my rambling. Hope it was to any use for someone. "Follow the best and ignore the rest".
God bless you all and may the Light guide you
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
And I wondered how the heck could coincidence know what planet Earth needed in terms of material and then in perfect measures give it to the planet. Add to that the intelligent design / formula of the endless amounts of specimens. The probability is non-existent in my logic and ability to reason.
You need to study science, sir. Your assertion is totally outrageous... And who said anything about everything being due to "coincidence"? Scientists definitely don't claim this! Again, check out a science book, and perhaps your view will change.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Indeed.
However, I think we need to also try to see it from the point of view of an atheist. One can understand the reasoning, and an atheist's reasons are not faulty or ignorant... they are the only thing they can be. An atheist who is a scientist may be brilliant, but the point is that an atheist, as per my current understanding, works/lives/perceives/thinks purely and solely in the domain of the Intellect/Mind. The Intellect/Mind is a tool that can only be aware of the physical creation, which also includes energies and perhaps many things not yet measurable my science. BUT, the Intellect/Mind is not what we are. We are a soul/spirit/being/whatever which also has a Mind. But, if we only perceive with the mind/intellect/emotions then we can not fathom the existence of that which one may call God, because God, and other things, are out of the reach of the mind. The mind can only reason, think... not perceive. If we only perceive with our five senses, then we miss much. We only perceive with our physical body (5 senses), and reason about the impulses with the mind. But when the mind is let to dominate our perception, we cannot fathom the unseen. It is indeed a limited perspective. There is much to be said about the mind/intellect and it's role in the drama of life. The whole point is that we are not just our mind and what goes on in our heads...
Peace
Peace Zulf.
I was an atheist. We need to understand why they are in that position. Maybe, they brush aside the traditional conception of God. Maybe, they don't bother to explore God using their mind and experience. Maybe, they are just interested in things that can be observed by the senses.
They are scientists who ponder on this matter, the existence of a Creator. They termed God as the Supreme Being, the Supreme Intelligence, the Prime Mover and so on. Not all scientists are atheists. And not all atheists are scientists.
IMHO atheists are closer to the truth than the religionists. Scientists build their understanding through logic and reason and they observe and study mainly the God's ayaat in the universe. Their worldview is closer to the truth about systems and laws. They do and contribute many good things in this world. They make life better and prosperous. An ethical scientist who observe and obey the God's Laws governing the universe, such as an engineer, will construct a solid building.
A curious scientist would ask, who is behind this Intelligence, Laws governing the universe, Orderly pattern of things evolving and functioning, Is there a Creator of the universe, at least. And have they not study the Koran? If it is not from the God, they will surely discover many errors in it. The Koran is a challenge from the God to discover the Truth.
-
Peace Ahmad,
I have read a lot of science, please do not be so arrogant. I happen to have a different view than yours, but I am very interested in science.
I drew the logical conclusion that someone who does not believe that any creator made the world then they must believe it was created by coincidence. I call that a non-existent probability, but if you believe something else I respect your opinion.
What is wrong in this logical conclusion if I may ask?
Of course, by scientific means we can neither prove or disprove it. Logical deduction however can make the answer simple.
It was not easy to reach this conclusion if you think so. I had to check a lot of studies before I made up my mind.
Your colorful reaction is outrageous, Sir.
And I have checked the theories of an eternal universe which has always been there, but that logic does not add up either. Somewhere there must be a beginning, unless the world is supernatural of course.
Unless you change your attitude I will avoid discussing with you. You searched for every tiny little error and it is all you could comment on when I sat there for hours writing a post. And you objected on something which is neither right or wrong but hypothetical thinking.
God bless you regardless
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
I have read a lot of science, please do not be so arrogant. I happen to have a different view than yours, but I am very interested in science.
I wasn't intending to appear arrogant with my comment, and I apologize if that's the way you interpreted my statement. I was merely recommending that you check out some science books on this issue (e.g. cosmology). Modern cosmology actually states that none of the events that occurred during the formation of our (visible) universe were "coincidental" at all.
I drew the logical conclusion that someone who does not believe that any creator made the world then they must believe it was created by coincidence. I call that a non-existent probability, but if you believe something else I respect your opinion.
What is wrong in this logical conclusion if I may ask?
There's a lot wrong with this conclusion, sir. The lack of a creator deity doesn't equate 'coincidence'. The concept is "cause and effect". Specific instances occurred in the past that ultimately led us to where we are today. There was nothing 'coincidental' about it... Now, if we want to be realistic about this proposition, then the concept of a creator defies the logical idea of cause and effect, since religionists claim that God has no 'cause' - he was just 'always there', whatever that means...
Isn't this a logical determination too?
Of course, by scientific means we can neither prove or disprove it. Logical deduction however can make the answer simple.
Actually, science CAN prove this. If you examine the concept of a creator deity via the scientific method, though, it doesn't hold water. That's one of the reasons why the concept of gods and goddesses is ONLY substantiated on the basis of faith and belief, not facts... Have you ever looked into the "God question" scientifically? And, more importantly, have to investigated this idea logically?
And I have checked the theories of an eternal universe which has always been there, but that logic does not add up either. Somewhere there must be a beginning, unless the world is supernatural of course.
How did you come up with this idea? The world has to be "supernatural" in order to be eternal (static), even though science clearly says that prime energy can't be created or destroyed? Please elaborate on this.
Unless you change your attitude I will avoid discussing with you. You searched for every tiny little error and it is all you could comment on when I sat there for hours writing a post. And you objected on something which is neither right or wrong but hypothetical thinking.
That's not true, and I think you know that isn't a true statement... I'm not overly concerned with small errors, even though the tiniest of infractions make a big difference when identifying a 'perfect' god. But that's another subject. I thoroughly read your posts, and I respond to them in what I see as being the most suitable manner, without trying to be rude or condescending. If I offended you, I apologize. This just happens to be a particularly passionate subject for me.
Like I said before, I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they choose to believe. I know what it means to be a believer. I've been just about everything - a Christian, Jew (and Ebionitic Jew), Hindu, Muslim (e.g. Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Ahmadi, Hanafi), Submitter (e.g. student of the teachings of Dr. Rashad Khalifa), Buddhist, Taoist, Universalist, student of Rastafarianism, Thelemite, Satanist, Rosicrucian, deist, agnostic, and a few others too! And I'm still under the age of 30. I've been on many roads, and the study of all of those religious groups and orders have inevitably led me to where I am today.
If you'd rather not discuss the issue of theology anymore, then that's your prerogative. I'm merely stating my position on the matter. I'm not trying to convert (or deconvert) anyone to anything. I'm merely providing people with a different way to think about science and philosophy, and I think that's a good thing.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
I wasn't intending to appear arrogant with my comment, and I apologize if that's the way you interpreted my statement. I was merely recommending that you check out some science books on this issue (e.g. cosmology). Modern cosmology actually states that none of the events that occurred during the formation of our (visible) universe were "coincidental" at all.
There's a lot wrong with this conclusion, sir. The lack of a creator deity doesn't equate 'coincidence'. The concept is "cause and effect". Specific instances occurred in the past that ultimately led us to where we are today. There was nothing 'coincidental' about it... Now, if we want to be realistic about this proposition, then the concept of a creator defies the logical idea of cause and effect, since religionists claim that God has no 'cause' - he was just 'always there', whatever that means...
Isn't this a logical determination too?
Actually, science CAN prove this. If you examine the concept of a creator deity via the scientific method, though, it doesn't hold water. That's one of the reasons why the concept of gods and goddesses is ONLY substantiated on the basis of faith and belief, not facts... Have you ever looked into the "God question" scientifically? And, more importantly, have to investigated this idea logically?
How did you come up with this idea? The world has to be "supernatural" in order to be eternal (static), even though science clearly says that prime energy can't be created or destroyed? Please elaborate on this.
That's not true, and I think you know that isn't a true statement... I'm not overly concerned with small errors, even though the tiniest of infractions make a big difference when identifying a 'perfect' god. But that's another subject. I thoroughly read your posts, and I respond to them in what I see as being the most suitable manner, without trying to be rude or condescending. If I offended you, I apologize. This just happens to be a particularly passionate subject for me.
Like I said before, I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they choose to believe. I know what it means to be a believer. I've been just about everything - a Christian, Jew (and Ebionitic Jew), Hindu, Muslim (e.g. Sunni, Shia, Salafi, Ahmadi, Hanafi), Submitter (e.g. student of the teachings of Dr. Rashad Khalifa), Buddhist, Taoist, Universalist, student of Rastafarianism, Thelemite, Satanist, Rosicrucian, deist, agnostic, and a few others too! And I'm still under the age of 30. I've been on many roads, and the study of all of those religious groups and orders have inevitably led me to where I am today.
If you'd rather not discuss the issue of theology anymore, then that's your prerogative. I'm merely stating my position on the matter. I'm not trying to convert (or deconvert) anyone to anything. I'm merely providing people with a different way to think about science and philosophy, and I think that's a good thing.
Peace,
Ahmad
Can I ask - what do you believe or not believe in?
-
Peace, pixelrow.
Can I ask - what do you believe or not believe in?
I don't specifically dismiss the concept of divinity, for starters, even though I haven't seen any verifiable evidence for the existence of God(s) either. I just try to look at things objectively and rationally. If there is a god, then it seems more likely that the god would be impersonal, rather than personal. Rather than this god existing "beyond" space and time, being completely transcendent and "beyond" the Universe, it would make more rational sense for this god to be a concept of Universal existence itself, such as the viewpoint of god being equated to Nature.
Personally, the idea of a personal god who performs miracles and answers prayers, who creates universes but leaves no evidence for his own existence, doesn't make much sense to me. If people choose to embrace that ideology, then I see nothing wrong with them doing so; however, I can't accept that notion, since it doesn't coincide with logic, reason and verifiable science.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, pixelrow.
I don't specifically dismiss the concept of divinity, for starters, even though I haven't seen any verifiable evidence for the existence of God(s) either. I just try to look at things objectively and rationally. If there is a god, then it seems more likely that the god would be impersonal, rather than personal. Rather than this god existing "beyond" space and time, being completely transcendent and "beyond" the Universe, it would make more rational sense for this god to be a concept of Universal existence itself, such as the viewpoint of god being equated to Nature.
Personally, the idea of a personal god who performs miracles and answers prayers, who creates universes but leaves no evidence for his own existence, doesn't make much sense to me. If people choose to embrace that ideology, then I see nothing wrong with them doing so; however, I can't accept that notion, since it doesn't coincide with logic, reason and verifiable science.
Peace,
Ahmad
In short - Agnostic Atheists?
As far as "verifiable science" goes . . . is it even meant to answer if there is a God or not? I fail to see - science - as we know it has much concern with God.
As for logic . . . that is of course - debatable. I think the most logical answer perhaps - is we do not know.
For me . . . it is quite simple. I do not accept that universe either was or came from nothing. I try my best to grasp Physics - and nothing that I have read has changed my mind. This is my thought process
-
Peace, pixelrow.
In short - Agnostic Atheists?
Not necessarily... I don't particularly dismiss that terminology, if it fits. However, the ideas I expressed could also describe a lot of other philosophical worldviews as well - pantheism or naturalism, for example, or even secular humanism. They all fit this criteria, even though they are different in scope and ideology.
As far as "verifiable science" goes . . . is it even meant to answer if there is a God or not? I fail to see - science - as we know it has much concern with God.
Actually, this isn't the case at all. Many scientists are very concerned with the idea of a god (or gods), especially when analyzing the world around us and interpreting its origin and sustainability... Personally, I'm not only interested in science, though; my primary focus is in philosophy, and the "god question" in very important in this field of investigation and inquiry.
As for logic . . . that is of course - debatable. I think the most logical answer perhaps - is we do not know.
I agree.
For me . . . it is quite simple. I do not accept that universe either was or came from nothing.
Again, I agree - I don't believe that the Universe 'came from nothing', nor was it "nothing" in expression. There was always something, regardless of how minute that 'something' may have been at one point in time... So, if the Universe was always "something", or existent, then how do we compare this to the viewpoint that God created the Universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
I try my best to grasp Physics - and nothing that I have read has changed my mind. This is my thought process
Perhaps my views don't go beyond logic - because what I've learned from the fields of physics, biology, geology, cosmology (and astronomy), and other sciences have dramatically influenced the way I perceive the world. In fact, they're the primary reason why I question the idea of a personal god today.
Peace,
Ahmad