Do you believe......

Sangre

InFront wrote:

My point isn't exactly that the laws of the universe shows faith to be logical, such laws do not have anything do do with why people have faith. The only point I'm making, is that mathematics, physics, chemistry and astronomy do not disprove God. They are, in themselves at their most basic, no inspirators. Nobody (I hope) is silly enough to say "Physics cannot prove 'God' is false, therefore God exists". Getting into why people have faith is a whole other matter, it has nothing to do with scientific debate.

No, phyiscs can't prove God false. Its is nearly impossible to disprove a negative. I don't see why your over-focusing on proofs in physics anyway. Our 'fundamental laws' of phyiscs aren't 'proven' in technical terms. They are merely laws which have been seen to apply in every situation we have put them to. Even gravity is theory but I don't expect to suddenly float off the planet. The fact something can't be disprove doesn't lend it any weight. I can't disprove there is an invisible cat behind me.

'Therefore God can exist is not the next logical step'. The sequence reads something like: "we don't know where the universe comes from, therefore it could reasonably have come from anything". A shiny green turtle could have created it, a hundred monkeys could have created it, God could have created it, or nothingness created it. I just happen to have faith in one of those things, based on things that were produced on earth to suggest so, manifestations of the Qur'an in life and in the Universe.

No it could not have reasonably come from anything. That sequence has no logical step from the first.To suggest that it could I think is insulting to the intelligence you obviously have. Is your criteria for plausability that we don't currently know what happened? I just found a pen beside me, I don't know what put it there. The next logical step means anything could have reasonably put it there, like a turtle on an elephants back. Can you not see the flaws in such an arugment.

Yes, that's right. This debate was at a point where some people seemed to be arguing the logic of religious thought. My point is that,leaving aside the religious texts that people find promise in, and looking at physics in its bare bones, you can't actually say that religion is a fallacy.

No, physics can certainly say that religion is a fallacy inside the universe, I already stated this. We can prove that people can't walk on water or bring people back from life or be re-incarnated etc., (I don't know any Muslim miracles).

As I said earlier when you said something about Allah obeying the laws of physics. his hand is the laws of physics, equally biology is at his hand. I am not a scholar, but as far as I can see it is not kufr to believe in evolution in general, that is fine. However, I do believe that man was created with special purpose, and did not derive from non human derivatives. Man is seperated from his worldly colleagues in this way.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. That man was placed suddenly on earth by divine intervention outside evolution? Personally I think that notion is just a remanent of man's inate superiority complex. Why do we share 99% of our DNA with a chimp etc.,

And getting back to unproven theories, Darwinism ranks pretty highly up there. It does not have a seat of proven assurity within science like the fundamental pricniples of other disciplines. The book is not closed on genetics.

Actually, this is one of the biggest fallacies claimed by theists. Neo-Darwinism Evolution is actually one of the most supported theories in science(partly due to its controversy), there is literally an unimaginable amount of evidence backing it, none being found to refute it yet. A theory in science doesn't mean lacking evidence. Like I said, most laws of physics and science and theories but we're still pretty sure they're right, we just don't have the means to prove them in every possible scenario.

While religion has made a great number of mistakes in the past (nobody really ought to deny that), I think you are overstating the case to represent it that way. I don't think enough non-muslims read the Qur'an, but if you did you would see that the religious principles of the Qur'an do not change. They are still with us today. So how can Islam (cant speak for others) be 'running' from science? Yes science has sometimes caused us to look at the Qur'an in different ways. I can't see a problem with that, it all furthers our education.

The Qur'an (or the direct word of God) also claims that the Sun revolves aroudn the Earth

Some examples of religion altering our perception of science, (or more exactly, not altering our perception of science, but science later realizing its mistakes and following the Qur'an:)

Newton: No the universe is not expanding, it is static. Gravity is always attractive
Einstein:No the universe is not expanding, it is static. Gravity is always attractive. This is why I had to invent the cosmological constant (c)

Modern Physics:Yeah the universe is expanding. Einstein called his cosmological constant 'his greatest blunder'.

Actually it seems likely that Einstein had it partly right along. Although I'm not sure what you're acutally trying to show with the above. How does it relate to religion or the Qur'an?

This is not the only example, calculations of the lunar year, geoid shape of the earth when science considered it either spherical or flat, angiogenesis in embryology, and more are contained within the Qur'an. So it is not a case of religion running from science, or vice versa. Both have things to learn one another. This page is interesting for anyone interested in the science of the Qur'an.

I'll have a read of the link, thanks.

often find it quite funny when some of our greatest atheist scientists such as Stephen Hawking for example show such respect for Aristotlean science, being an ancient document and based as it was without experimentation, yet complete disregard for the miracles of the Qur'an!

Miracles mean a breaking of the laws of physics. Of course a physicist will disregard it.


Man, this thread is really affecting my exams/study!

ferdi

all this militant dogmatic atheism is hilarious. its just another shoddy ideology, get over yourselves.

DilbertPartII

I believe in God, the creator of heaven and earth. I also believe that science begins where religion ends and vice versa. At least, there is another life for me to look forward to when i die..do you have?

Tar.Aldarion

The cumulative IQ of the last two posts can be counted with my fingers.

cornbb

DilbertPartII wrote:

I believe in God, the creator of heaven and earth. I also believe that science begins where religion ends and vice versa. At least, there is another life for me to look forward to when i die..do you have?

A nice long sleep and no prospect of being poked up the hole with fiery pitchforks.

Sangre

ferdi wrote:

all this militant dogmatic atheism is hilarious. its just another shoddy ideology, get over yourselves.

You make some valid points, I'll need some time to digest them all.

Calibos

ferdi wrote:

all this militant dogmatic atheism is hilarious. its just another shoddy ideology, get over yourselves.

The thousands of years old Good Book(which one?) invariably written by middle eastern goat herders says its so...so its so and always will be so -V- Atheists who look at all the evidence...ever......and make a rational logical opinion based on current evidence(or lack thereof) but are open to changing their opinion as new evidence is discovered.

Yeah.....we're the dogmatic ones :rolleyes:

I don't doubt that you have the intelligence to be persuaded by the evidence that human religion is nonsense. What I find hilarious is that the other bit of your brain that wishes heaven, eternal life, justice in the hereafter etc was true can switch the rational part of your brain off. Hey, I Hope all that is true too. Doesn't mean I can switch the rational part of my brain off and actually believe its true.

humanji

InFront wrote:

I often find it quite funny when some of our greatest atheist scientists such as Stephen Hawking for example show such respect for Aristotlean science, being an ancient document and based as it was without experimentation, yet complete disregard for the miracles of the Qur'an!

Isn't Stephen Hawking a christian? In his "A Brief History Of Time" he makes several references to how it's quite likely that a god created the universe.


Myself, I really don't care. The only religion I've ever been exposed to is catholism and that just seems like a load of rubbish to me. If god created everything, he made a piss poor job of it. 7 days? Feckin' cowboy!

ferdi

Let me first say that i am not religious and i have no opinion of whether there is or is not a God or heaven/hell etc

Sangre wrote:

You make some valid points, I'll need some time to digest them all.

i wasnt aware i had to submit a 15,000 word essay on the subject in order for my post to be considered worthwhile. my point stands.

Calibos wrote:

The thousands of years old Good Book(which one?) invariably written by middle eastern goat herders says its so...so its so and always will be so -V- Atheists who look at all the evidence...ever......and make a rational logical opinion based on current evidence(or lack thereof) but are open to changing their opinion as new evidence is discovered.

Yeah.....we're the dogmatic ones :rolleyes:

i'm just refering to the obstinant certainly of the stance which many atheists adopt. The unwavering faith they put in scientific theory is as passionate and blind as that of any religious wako or bible basher.

If there is a God, he is so immensely awsome and powerful that the human practice of 'science' is far too limited and weak to even begin to comprehend or debate the existence of such a God.

What i mean by this is that it is not a subject for human debate as we lack the capacity to do it justice - this is why it must be purely a matter of faith - there can be no right or wrong. Any claim to the contrary (either way) is pure arrogance and folly.

Sangre

ferdi wrote:

i wasnt aware i had to submit a 15,000 word essay on the subject in order for my post to be considered worthwhile. my point stands.

Not really because you didn't say why it was militant, why it was hilarious or why it was shoddy.

Anyway, you'll find most atheists don't aruge against God in the sense of a potential universe creator but rather God in the sense of the ones in religion who interact with man and earth.

You can't really tell someone there is no God if he considers whatever started the universe as God.

Sam Vimes

InFront wrote:

I found it quite funny seeing him on the Late Late Show a few months ago, debating with a Philosophy academic from UCD, attempting to explain why the notion of God is impossible, yet it is "very probable" (verbatum) that there is supernatural life elsewhere in the universe! And that without any proof! Shame on you, Mr Dawkins:p

he said nothing about supernatural life. just about every time i hear someone saying he's wrong, they're claiming he said something he never did. the latest is someone claimed that for some reason atheists can't believe in free will and he pretended that dawkins said that.


dawkins has no problem with belief based on evidence. as you said, if you add two number 100,000 times you could still be wrong. there are approximately 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
stars and planets in this universe. if life can start on one, its highly probable that it can start on another. that's all he was saying. he said nothing about supernatural beings.

dawkins has no problem with belief based on evidence, in this case statistical evidence. his problem is belief based on a 2000 year old ghost story

Sam Vimes

haunted-room wrote:

How is that the worst post ever! So I dont know the technicalities of what makes someone athiest....SO WHAT!!!!!

you told us you don't believe in god. that's the only pre-requisite to being an atheist. its not like a religion where you have to wear special underwear and stuff

ferdi

Sangre wrote:

Not really because you didn't say why it was militant, why it was hilarious or why it was shoddy.

militant becaue many are fundimentalist in their views (ie: any other opinion is downright stupid and primitive) hilarious because the very things they reject about organised religion are rife in their own 'faith' and shoddy because that on which they base their faith is as weak as that which religions base themselves (ie: human theory)

excuse the clumsy sentence structure


on the subject of dawkins on the late late, he was a disgrace - if he had been representing an organised religion people would have laughed and labelled him an arrogent quack.

Sam Vimes

cornbb wrote:

I don't believe in any God but I'm not an aetheist. Aetheism just leaves too many unanswered questions. I believe in logic, the uncertainty principle and science. Thats not spiritual stuff, but I believe it has some sort of divine magic. So I don't know what that makes me

then you're an agnostic

cornbb

Commander Vimes wrote:

then you're an agnostic

Wrong again. I don't believe in God, I have certain beliefs that I've formulated myself and other questions which I believe can never be answered. That could meet the dictionary's definition of atheism or agnosticism but I just don't like having my belief system being neatly shoehorned into one or other of someone else's definitions.

Dave!

cornbb wrote:

Wrong again. I don't believe in God, I have certain beliefs that I've formulated myself and other questions which I believe can never be answered. That could meet the dictionary's definition of atheism or agnosticism but I just don't like having my belief system being neatly shoehorned into one or other of someone else's definitions.

Regardless of whether you want to be labelled or not, if your beliefs match that of an agnostic -- THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE!!! Just get over it FFS!!!

You can't decide "I don't want this firm, edible, round fruit to be labelled as an 'apple' -- I shall call it a chair!" or you can't decide that you're a brontosaurus instead of a human!

cornbb

You seem certain that I am an agnostic. A previous poster seemed convinced I am an atheist. Can we call it quits and let me be what I like? Thank you.

Sam Vimes

cornbb wrote:

Wrong again. I don't believe in God, I have certain beliefs that I've formulated myself and other questions which I believe can never be answered. That could meet the dictionary's definition of atheism or agnosticism but I just don't like having my belief system being neatly shoehorned into one or other of someone else's definitions.

someone else also defined the word shoehorn. doesn't mean its a bad thing for something to be defined as one.

you can be one of three things here

1. an atheist who rejects all super-natural explanations for the universe

2. a theist who believes that super-natural things happened to create the universe (not necessarily a belief in god as we know it). if science can never explain it, its super-natural and therefore theistic

3. an agnostic who doesn't know either way

since you have beliefs that you think can't be explained by science, you'd be a theist. the fact that you don't believe in the catholic god is beside the point. the pope doesn't believe in the muslim god and he's not an atheist. what are these ideas that can't be explained?

cornbb

Thats closer but still not really accurate. I'm not trying to be some rebel trying to defy classification, I just believe that trying to describe someone's belief system in one word is like trying to describe personality like that. No one is 100% "shy", "outgoing" or whatever. There are too many variables, plenty in addition to science, supernatural things, gods etc

Dave!

cornbb wrote:

You seem certain that I am an agnostic. A previous poster seemed convinced I am an atheist. Can we call it quits and let me be what I like? Thank you.

I never said what you are an agnostic. I said that if your beliefs match that of an agnostic, then that's what you are.

cornbb

I know what my beliefs are. You do not. My beliefs do not neatly match those of an agnostic, an atheist, a theist or anything else I've heard of. Case closed.

Dave!

Alright buddy. You're YOU, isn't that right? Your own person

cornbb

Thats not what I'm getting at I think the same applies to everyone tbh. Unless you're Catholic, in which case you do what you're told...

Sangre

If you don't believe in a God or Gods then you're an atheist. Case closed.

cornbb

Sigh. I'm going to let you lot fight over what I am.

Dave!

I don't think there's anything to fight about!

Anyways, moving on........

Sam Vimes

cornbb wrote:

Sigh. I'm going to let you lot fight over what I am.

you're clearly a mushroom

Thrill

I don't believe in god and all that stuff, though i'd never try to put it down. I learnt my lesson years ago when arguing with my uncle, who was very religious and things got very bad. Other people joined in and there was an absolute uproar.

Very touchy subject, best avoided.

Dave!

thrill wrote:

I don't believe in god and all that stuff, though i'd never try to put it down. I learnt my lesson years ago when arguing with my uncle, who was very religious and things got very bad. Other people joined in and there was an absolute uproar.

Very touchy subject, best avoided.

I can't say I agree: just pick your moments rather than avoid it altogether. Seems to work alright for the most part.

InFront

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm intrigued. Perhaps since we can't disprove that we're in the Matrix, we can argue over these miracles you keep referring to. A few examples?

The miracles in this context are the quite widely published scientific miracles of the qur'an, which as I said mentions things like early embryogenesis and formation of the blastocoele in the uterus and angiogenesis, the geoid shape of the Earth, and many other scientific facts that were unknown and unproven, at the time of Muhammad pbuh.
They are all in the Qur'an, and as far as I remember are discussed on a page I think I linked to in the last post.
However there is more to faith than these scientific miracles that appear in the Qur'an.

For a variety of reasons, I believe that atheism is an impossible philosophy, that Allah could exist, that he does exist, and by and that he exists in the manner which Muslims understand.
I accept that you might believe completely differently, but I think it would be wrong to ask you to justify that belief. So it is for a Muslim, because this is where the element of "proving yourself" to a fellow human really is in danger of occuring.
It's not for not having read enough about Mathematics that I believe in Allah, or because I haven't read enough Dawkins or something. I do read and digest these things - enthusiastically - and still I don't find them convincing, and that is because of the firmer convictions that underlie all of these to the contrary..
The belief and its source, as it is for everyone, is a personal relationship with God. Even in a religion so public in its practice and its manifestations as Islam is.
I would not justify my beliefs to someone, because by introducing a third party, and justifying things for him, it is like turning your back on Allah as the only real judge of one's self. It is an invitation to a fellow human to judge Islam that I find impossible.
This is not a cop-out, I really believe that the religious debate ends at asking someone to prove their faith, or explain why the believe in x rather than y. Nothing is to be gained from it.

originally posted by humanji
Isn't Stephen Hawking a christian? In his "A Brief History Of Time" he makes several references to how it's quite likely that a god created the universe.

Youre right technically, he hesitates from calling himself an atheist because he cannot prove that God does not exist. Yet he says he does not have faith that he exists, as a hypothesis.
He uses the word 'God' a lot, and does not rule out the possibility of a universe created by God (nobody can do so according to science).

However, I certainly have not come across him using the phrase "quite likely" in any of his books or articles with respect to that point. I would be very surprised if he had ever said such a thing.

If there is a God, he is so immensely awsome and powerful that the human practice of 'science' is far too limited and weak to even begin to comprehend or debate the existence of such a God.

Exactly, and while that is a terrible reason for 'believing' in Allah/ God/ Yahweh, it is something that the (thankfully reasonably rare imo) atheists who actively preach impossibility, ought to remember in their preaching.

dawkins has no problem with belief based on evidence, in this case statistical evidence. his problem is belief based on a 2000 year old ghost story

Statistical evidence is only a measure of probability, not certainty. It is not evidence or proof as we know it.
The preachings of Dawkins, the current atheist prophet, that atheism is hard fact is what irks most people. It is downright hypocritical.
I do not claim that Islam, or even Mathematics, is hard fact, despite having serious faith in both of them.

And remember that Dawkins is not a remarkable scientist like Hawkins, Newton or Einstein (the latter two actively believed in a God). I say that because he has not contributed to academic scientific knowledge experimentally nor theoretically.
He remains, ultimately, a popular science writer who happens to have a second class degree in Zoology. In that context, he is most notable as a communicator, somebody who makes science accessible to the everyday Joe Soap at a bus stop.