If No One Had Told You About Allah.... Would You Still Believe In Him?

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a key difference between God and the universe. God is said to have existed infinitely. The universe is said to have existed 13.7 billion years ago. It is not possible to exist for a finite length of time without a cause. This is contingent being (can be or not be) as opposed to necessary being (the prerequisite for all things).
y.

You are making several huge mistakes with that logic. First of all is how we percieve time. Time itself is a part of the universe. Time came into existence when the universe itself did. There is no 'before' the universe becausee there was no such thing as time. The statement 'before' the universe is meaningless.

You then go on to say how tye universe is finite when that is not what science tells us at all. The universe has expanded to the state it currently is in over 14 billion years and someday it will change to a very different state. That says nothing about the finite nature of the universe, just about the finite state of its current configuration.

I.e the universe as we know it is finite but that says nothing about the finitness of the universe itself.

The next problem is the very logic you use. You state a problem with believing how the universe came into being by itself but have no issue proclaiming your god came into existence by itself. The main issue with this is that if it were true it answers nothing. Wlif you place your god there we now have less answers than if you left it out.

philologos

virmilitaris wrote: »

You are making several huge mistakes with that logic. First of all is how we percieve time. Time itself is a part of the universe. Time came into existence when the universe itself did. There is no 'before' the universe becausee there was no such thing as time. The statement 'before' the universe is meaningless.

We're getting into a philosophy of time. What do you think time is? Immanuel Kant regarded time as a mere mental construct. However, we can't do a whole lot of physics without considering time as a constant.

virmilitaris wrote: »

You then go on to say how tye universe is finite when that is not what science tells us at all. The universe has expanded to the state it currently is in over 14 billion years and someday it will change to a very different state. That says nothing about the finite nature of the universe, just about the finite state of its current configuration.

We calculate the age of the universe by determining how far it has spread since the Big Bang. I'm fairly certain on this. Perhaps you would like to bring something to the table.

I.e the universe as we know it is finite but that says nothing about the finitness of the universe itself.

virmilitaris wrote: »

The next problem is the very logic you use. You state a problem with believing how the universe came into being by itself but have no issue proclaiming your god came into existence by itself. The main issue with this is that if it were true it answers nothing. Wlif you place your god there we now have less answers than if you left it out.

I think that there is a clear difference between things of finite and infinite age.

You then claim that I believe in a god of the gaps somehow? Perhaps you'd like to make this clearer because I'm actually not there with you. As a follower of a theistic belief system I would hold that science is the means by which God brought all things into being. God isn't in the gaps as far as I'm concerned because it is fundamentally illogical that any of this could have happened without God to begin with.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a key difference between God and the universe. God is said to have existed infinitely. The universe is said to have existed 13.7 billion years ago.

This is an example of the problems associated with subjective understanding, the problem of your understanding being subjective to what else you know. The universe, in the that state it is now (ie under the influence of space/time, with entropy running in one direction) is said to have begun 13.7 billion years ago. There is nothing to say that the universe didn't exist before then, but in a state that doesn't make sense to our time/space-single-direction-entropy derived minds.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is not possible to exist for a finite length of time without a cause. This is contingent being (can be or not be) as opposed to necessary being (the prerequisite for all things).

The problem with this is that causality is time dependent. The "cause" of the universe happened "outside" of time (ie before time began, although "before" doesn't make much sense in that situation) and therefore our notions of causality need not apply (causality itself might not need apply).

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm basing this a good deal on Aquinas' philosophy. Indeed, also on James Sadowsky's argument against an infinite regress. If creation was an infinite regress we would still be in creation. The earth wouldn't be said to be created because it would be in a sense in an infinite loop. If you're a into software development / computer science it might be like this

while (3 < 4) {
do this;
}

It won't move past the "do this;" block of the code until the condition is satisfied. Namely in our case that the earth is created.

Philosophy of religion is one of my favourite areas of philosophy.

The philosopher is moot. The fact that we can bend our language to imply some concept has no baring on whether or not the concept actually exists. Remember that, as of yet, no one has built a computer that isn't subject to time/space and entropy, so to point to a situation were a computer is limited because of its temporal locked causality doesn't reflect on the possibilities of one that isn't.

There is also the problem of why none of this infinite regression philosophy doesn't apply to god.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears the only difficulty here is:
1) In earnest it doesn't make sense to you.
2) Due to assumptions, pre-conceived notions or whatever else it isn't desirable for you to believe that there was indeed a Creator.

I'm thinking the second.

The second certainly applies to you, hence you seem very reluctant to see that what makes sense to you doesn't make sense to the billions of non christians in the world. Making sense to you is subjective. While it is generally assumed that what people believe, makes sense to them, it usually goes without saying because it has zero bearing on whether what they believe is actually true.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where does it make a judgement on whether or not it is needed. I think this is your assumption and nobody elses. It seems to be agnostic on the issue (God may have, or God may have not). Atheism slipping into your interpretation of the science again Mark? (Why should I be surprised?)

The theory of the big bang leaves about as much space for god as Boyle's Law. It explains, without the call for magic or divine intervention, the creation of the universe based on scientific evidence. Your theistic beliefs are uncomfortable with this, so you try to imply that it leaves the door wide open for god. Theories, generally describe all that is needed to account for whatever observations that are being explained. Last I checked, the big bang theory didn't have a step labelled "miracle" or "magic", therefore it doesn't need god.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're welcome to that opinion, but this is all that it is. Can you find any statement in peer-reviewed papers on this which clearly state that God is not needed? Or are they silent. If they are the latter you're being fundamentally dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest. I'm being perfectly honest, more honest than you. No scientific theory for anything mentions god, because they dont need to, they explain what they explain without him. You are trying to exploit the fact that there exists uncertainty in all theories (no scientific theory is 100% perfect, not without the theory maker having 100% knowledge of the universe) to imply that gods intervention could be supported by them. The problem being, that if god intervened then the theory is invalid.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

We're getting into a philosophy of time. What do you think time is? Immanuel Kant regarded time as a mere mental construct. However, we can't do a whole lot of physics without considering time as a constant.

Thus showing the laughable uselessness, in the grand scheme of things, of philosophy.

Jakkass wrote: »

We calculate the age of the universe by determining how far it has spread since the Big Bang. I'm fairly certain on this. Perhaps you would like to bring something to the table.

I.e the universe as we know it is finite but that says nothing about the finitness of the universe itself.

Em ok that doesn't really contradict what virmilitaris said though...

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that there is a clear difference between things of finite and infinite age.

You then claim that I believe in a god of the gaps somehow? Perhaps you'd like to make this clearer because I'm actually not there with you. As a follower of a theistic belief system I would hold that science is the means by which God brought all things into being. God isn't in the gaps as far as I'm concerned because it is fundamentally illogical that any of this could have happened without God to begin with.

It think that virmilitaris is just pointing out the illogical leap from universe cant be infinite to god is therefore infinite, and that, even if it were true, it doesn't really explain anything, such as how god could be infinite when infinite existence is apparently such a problem for the universe?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not being dishonest. I'm being perfectly honest, more honest than you. No scientific theory for anything mentions god, because they dont need to, they explain what they explain without him. You are trying to exploit the fact that there exists uncertainty in all theories (no scientific theory is 100% perfect, not without the theory maker having 100% knowledge of the universe) to imply that gods intervention could be supported by them. The problem being, that if god intervened then the theory is invalid.

Saving us some time and effort I'm not going to go through all that. I will deal with this at present. You said that the Big Bang theory clearly states that God isn't required. This is false, and it is dishonest. Being agnostic on the subject isn't the same thing as saying that "God isn't required". Absolute tosh. You're doing the same thing as you're accusing me of.

I'm going to call you out on it every time you try and pull it because it's simply rubbish. The difference between you and I is I don't claim that the science says that God is required for the Big Bang to have occurred. I believe in all probability that it was so. If you would make the same concession this could be a little easier. It's very disappointing to see people try ram their opinion into the middle of science and then claim that it is what the science claims.

Although I better tone this down because Hobbes said I'm not allowed to attack atheism on this thread.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Thus showing the laughable uselessness, in the grand scheme of things, of philosophy.

Science without philosophy is blind (Indeed it is the child of philosophy). Philosophy without natural science is also blind. I prefer the middle ground. Nice to know that I've been wasting half of my time in university though.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

T

The big bang theory as it is considered scientifically, ie without any need for god's intervention.

The Qur'an mentions the origins of the universe and big bang theory in Surah 22 Verse 30-33:

Have not the unbelievers ever considered that the skies and the earth were once one mass, then We split them asunder? And We have created every living thing from water. Will they still not believe?[30] And We have planted mountains on earth lest it should tilt to one side with them (the weight of people) and We left between them open passages so that they may find the right direction.[31] And We have made the sky a safe canopy: yet they are heedless to these signs.[32] He is the One Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) move swiftly in orbits of their own.[33]

http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_25&products_id=159

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Saving us some time and effort I'm not going to go through all that. I will deal with this at present. You said that the Big Bang theory clearly states that God isn't required. This is false, and it is dishonest. Being agnostic on the subject isn't the same thing as saying that "God isn't required". Absolute tosh. You're doing the same thing as you're accusing me of.

I'm not being dishonest. The big bang theory explains the expansion of the universe without any part needing gods intervention. While, technically, the possibility is there, the theory is no less complete by ignoring god.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm going to call you out on it every time you try and pull it because it's simply rubbish. The difference between you and I is I don't claim that the science says that God is required for the Big Bang to have occurred. I believe in all probability that it was so. If you would make the same concession this could be a little easier. It's very disappointing to see people try ram their opinion into the middle of science and then claim that it is what the science claims.

It is illogical to believe that god was involved in the big bang, when the theory doesn't need god in order to be complete. Its a simple application of Occams Razor, adding god just needlessly complicates the theory, therefore it would be unscientific to do so.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although I better tone this down because Hobbes said I'm not allowed to attack atheism on this thread.

That was an attack?

Jakkass wrote: »

Science without philosophy is blind (Indeed it is the child of philosophy). Philosophy without natural science is also blind. I prefer the middle ground. Nice to know that I've been wasting half of my time in university though.

Philosophy works on the assumption that the twistings of a language developed by apes to point out which trees had the best fruit can actually have any bearing on the reality of the universe. Its ludicrous, especially when people still hold to outdated philosophical notions long after physical reality has shown them to be wrong. Philosophy is far too subjective (most philosophical concepts dont work outside of human language, and those that do work, eg mathematically, need to be shown to work in that way to be shown to be dependable) for it to be useful in discovering the realities of the universe.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

The Qur'an mentions the origins of the universe and big bang theory in Surah 22 Verse 30-33:

Have not the unbelievers ever considered that the skies and the earth were once one mass, then We split them asunder? And We have created every living thing from water. Will they still not believe?[30] And We have planted mountains on earth lest it should tilt to one side with them (the weight of people) and We left between them open passages so that they may find the right direction.[31] And We have made the sky a safe canopy: yet they are heedless to these signs.[32] He is the One Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) move swiftly in orbits of their own.[33]

http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_25&products_id=159

Thats not the big bang theory. The big bang theory starts off with no matter (a dense energy state), therefore no mass.
The mountains weren't planted (they are parts of the tectonic plates driven upwards by underground tectonic forces), and they dont counterbalance the weight of humans (counterbalance on what, by the way? the explanation of mountains makes them sound like counterbalances for one side of a flat disc. We are on a rotating orb, we tilt all the time).
What do the celestial bodies orbit? That sentence could equally describe a geocentric understanding of the universe, with the sun and the moon orbiting the earth.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not being dishonest. The big bang theory explains the expansion of the universe without any part needing gods intervention. While, technically, the possibility is there, the theory is no less complete by ignoring god.

Have had enough of the nonsense Mark.

Show me where in any peer-reviewed science where it states clearly that God isn't required. If you can't logically one has to accept that it doesn't say this at all in even the slightest respect and this is your opinion.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Have had enough of the nonsense Mark.

Show me where in any peer-reviewed science where it states clearly that God isn't required. If you can't logically one has to accept that it doesn't say this at all in even the slightest respect and this is your opinion.

Show me a peer reviewed paper on anything that clearly states Santa Claus isn't required? With a well peer reviewed theory, you have an explanation of everything needed to get the effect described. While it is technically possible that other things are involved, it is insincere to think that by adding in whatever you feel like that you aren't disagreeing with the original theory.

philologos

I take that as there's nothing whatsoever and that it is your opinion?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I take that as there's nothing whatsoever and that it is your opinion?

Thats not what I said. Try again, this time reading my post.

Mark is correct, if the theory works on its own then you dont need to mention anything regarded as superfluous e.g. unicorns, god, etc

Still, this might satisfy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-god-not-n_n_703179.html

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

We're getting into a philosophy of time. What do you think time is? Immanuel Kant regarded time as a mere mental construct. However, we can't do a whole lot of physics without considering time as a constant.

Jakkass you claim the Universe is not infinite as an argument against it's natural existence. Time is a part of the Universe, time came into being with the Universe. There is no 'before' the Universe and there most probably is no 'after' the Universe because time is a part of the Universe itself.

The Universe's state has changed dramatically and will continue to change dramatically until the last star goes out. The only argument you can make in this regard is that the current state of the Universe started and the current nature of the Universe will eventually end but the Universe itself will continue.

We calculate the age of the universe by determining how far it has spread since the Big Bang. I'm fairly certain on this. Perhaps you would like to bring something to the table.

The age of the Universe as we know it. See above.

I think that there is a clear difference between things of finite and infinite age.

Jakkass, time is a component of the Universe since the Big Bang. There is nothing 'older' than that because there was no time 'before' that.

The Universe is as infinite as is possible for us to understand.

God isn't in the gaps as far as I'm concerned because it is fundamentally illogical that any of this could have happened without God to begin with.

And you have absolutely nothing to support such an assertion besides your faith.

Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that your god could have indeed started it all. The Islamic god could have started it all. A variety of gods could have started it all. An as of yet unknown god could have started it all. And there could have been no god involved at all. It could have been Aliens from a different dimension. It could have been completely natural. The possibilities of what it could have been are endless precisely because we don't know.

Sliding your god or any god or Aliens or indeed anything in place of an unknown answers precisely nothing. It's exchanging one unknown for another.

Thousands of years ago you might have been arguing that lightning comes from god and I might have been arguing that neither of us knew where it came from. Again, putting god in there without an explanation of how tells us absolutely nothing.

virmilitaris

irishconvert wrote: »

The Qur'an mentions the origins of the universe and big bang theory in Surah 22 Verse 30-33:

http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_25&products_id=159

That seems to be a little less than accurate irishconvert.

I don't mean to push but just in case you missed my question earlier, could you explain to me why, if your god is real, why I should worship it ? I'm not badgering, just thought you might have missed it.

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

Have had enough of the nonsense Mark.

Show me where in any peer-reviewed science where it states clearly that God isn't required. If you can't logically one has to accept that it doesn't say this at all in even the slightest respect and this is your opinion.

Jakkass, science can only talk about the testable and observable. Science cannot make any comment on anything supernatural because science can only talk about the natural. It's a given that science says it works without god because science cannot take a god or gods into account.

philologos

virmilitaris wrote: »

Jakkass, science can only talk about the testable and observable. Science cannot make any comment on anything supernatural because science can only talk about the natural. It's a given that science says it works without god because science cannot take a god or gods into account.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, the rest is where I don't. Science doesn't say that it works with or without God. It is entirely agnostic on the issue. It is a leap when we say that it precludes the existence of God, or indeed when it includes it. This is mere opinion as I see it.

virmilitaris wrote:

Jakkass you claim the Universe is not infinite as an argument against it's natural existence

I don't argue against its natural existence. I only disagree with you as to its causal origins.

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

Science doesn't say that it works with or without God. It is entirely agnostic on the issue. It is a leap when we say that it precludes the existence of God, or indeed when it includes it. This is mere opinion as I see it.

I'm sorry but that's not correct. It's not agnostic on it because been agnostic suggests that it has a stance on it or could have a stance on it. Science by definition cannot talk about the supernatural, if it were to then it wouldn't be science.

Science by definition precludes the supernatural.

Unless you are suggesting your god can be examined, tested and observed in which case he isn't supernatural.

I don't argue against its natural existence. I only disagree with you as to its causal origins.

And yet again you continue to talk about cause. Why would the Universe need a cause ?

philologos

It seems we are going around in circles here. We will just have to agree to disagree. As far as I see it, if it isn't clearly stated this merely means that it is silent on that question. I still nonetheless see the position that science has any position on the necessity of God in creation to be beyond absurd and dishonest on your part and on Mark Hamill's part. Indeed, the worst type of ramming ones opinion in and claiming that it is somehow scientific.

You mentioned Karl Popper's idea about what is testable and observable. This has no bearing on what is true or what is false even in his own thinking, but rather on how to demarcate science from pseudoscience. Indeed, in this case it may be useful for you to apply his principle to your claims. (I studied philosophy of natural science last Semester, Popper being the one I looked at most specifically)

Jaafa

virmilitaris wrote: »

That seems to be a little less than accurate irishconvert.

I don't mean to push but just in case you missed my question earlier, could you explain to me why, if your god is real, why I should worship it ? I'm not badgering, just thought you might have missed it.

That may not have been the best example of science in the quran.
Let me show you a few.
Note I am not trying to convert you or anyone else, nor am I trying to convince you to believe in 'my god'. My faith is not based solely on these, they simply reinforce it.

1. Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

2. The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.

3.And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The idea of an expanding universe was only proven recently as you may already know.

It was previously thought to be shrinking. You will also note the use of the word 'heaven' for universe. This was probably the best way of putting it at the time.

4. Finally reference to the orbits of the stars and planets.

"[I swear] by Heaven with its cyclical systems," (Qur'an, 86:11)

"its oscillating orbits," (Qur'an, 51:7)

These are a few of the scientific revelations in the quran. Now I know what you are going to say. Anyone could look at any old book and claim revelations and predictions from it. However for me these are pretty specific and impossible for anyone to have known in the 5th and 6th century.

Lastly let me say this to all those debating here .I, nor anyone else will ever be able to prove the existence of Allah or any divine beings. To do so would mean that everyone would believe and it would it become the norm.

This is not faith.

Faith (by one definition) : a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

Therefore the very bases of religion would be lost. This is why I believe any 'creator' would not reveal them-self to us completely.

Thats my take.

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems we are going around in circles here. We will just have to agree to disagree. As far as I see it, if it isn't clearly stated this merely means that it is silent on that question. I still nonetheless see the position that science has any position on the necessity of God in creation to be beyond absurd and dishonest on your part and on Mark Hamill's part. Indeed, the worst type of ramming ones opinion in and claiming that it is somehow scientific.

Jakkass I am not saying that science says there cannot have been a god involved in creation. I'm saying Science must assume that there is no supernatural, if it didn't then it wouldn't be science. Science can only talk about facts and observations of the natural world. Scientifically, the supernatural does not exist because the supernatural is outside the domain of science by pure definition.

Look at it like this. The theory of evolution explains observations and facts related to the origins of species. It makes no comment on nuclear theory or string theory for example because its outside its domain.

philologos

I don't agree with you at all virmilitaris, but as I've said already I don't think we need to go around in circles. You and I are effectively restating what we've already posted. Science says nothing about the possibility of the supernatural rather than:

virmiltaris wrote:

Scientifically, the supernatural does not exist because the supernatural is outside the domain of science by pure definition.

The fact that you cannot see that you're making a huge leap without any basis is just astounding.

Jaafa: I'm assuming that's the "Miracles of the Qur'an" lark?

virmilitaris

Jaafa wrote: »

1. Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

2. The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.

I'm sorry but that's just not true and wherever you read that is been dishonest.

Christians have done the same thing with the Bible in several different ways. Please see http://carm.org/what-biblical-numerology Or http://www.handresearch.com/numerology/bible-numerology.htm

It's quite easy to delve into a text and come up with a pattern especially when words can be translated so many different ways.

3.And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) The idea of an expanding universe was only proven recently as you may already know.

It was previously thought to be shrinking. You will also note the use of the word 'heaven' for universe. This was probably the best way of putting it at the time.

4. Finally reference to the orbits of the stars and planets.

"[I swear] by Heaven with its cyclical systems," (Qur'an, 86:11)

"its oscillating orbits," (Qur'an, 51:7)

I think that if I were to comment on these it may be against the charter here but I will comment on the first one anyways. I searched for the verse in question and got the following four English translations from the following website. http://islam.thetruecall.com/

Abdullah Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
Mufti Taqi Usmani: And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof).
Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

All of which seem to indicate a static state.

May I ask where you got your translation ?

These are a few of the scientific revelations in the quran. Now I know what you are going to say. Anyone could look at any old book and claim revelations and predictions from it. However for me these are pretty specific and impossible for anyone to have known in the 5th and 6th century.

I'm sorry and I really mean no insult by this but I could do the same thing with a copy of the Bible or any other number of books, indeed people have done as demonstrated on the Christian websites I previously linked to.

Lastly let me say this to all those debating here .I, nor anyone else will ever be able to prove the existence of Allah or any divine beings. To do so would mean that everyone would believe and it would it become the norm.

Indeed but that was not my question. I said that if I could be persuaded to believe in your gods existence, then what motivation would there be for me to worship it ?

That is, I accept your gods existence. Now why should I worship it ?

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with you at all virmilitaris, but as I've said already I don't think we need to go around in circles. You and I are effectively restating what we've already posted. Science says nothing about the possibility of the supernatural rather than:

The fact that you cannot see that you're making a huge leap without any basis is just astounding.

I don't think you are taking what I'm saying in the way I'm meaning it.

Science says nothing about the possibility of the supernatural because science assumes there is no supernatural. Science only talks about the natural world. It can't make a comment on the supernatural because as far as it is concerned the supernatural doesn't exist. This is not agnosticism.

It's like asking what Biology has to say about the historical accuracy of Homers illad. It can't make a comment on it because its completely out of its domain. It's not agnostic on the issue because as far as it is concerned ancient greek writing doesn't exist. To say it's agnostic on it would mean that it's possible for it to take a position which it is not. If it did it wouldn't be Biology.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

The fact that you cannot see that you're making a huge leap without any basis is just astounding.

I think whats astounding is that you dont disagree that scientifically the supernatural doesn't exist, but then think by bringing in the supernatural into a scientific theory that you aren't disagreeing with the scientific theory.

Mark Hamill

Jaafa wrote: »

1. Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times. The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12.

There aren't 365 days in a year though (its approx 365 and a quarter, hence we have leap years). Only 4 months have 30 days in them.

Jaafa wrote: »

2. The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.

71.1% of the earth is covered by water, not the sea. About 97% of the water is sea, but the rest is fresh water.

Jaafa wrote: »

4. Finally reference to the orbits of the stars and planets.

"[I swear] by Heaven with its cyclical systems," (Qur'an, 86:11)

"its oscillating orbits," (Qur'an, 51:7)

These tell nothing that no-one for the last whatever thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that humans existed would have known. Just by recognising that night and day follow each other, you can say that the things iin the sky are cyclical systems (they happen in cycles, as they move across the sky).

Jaafa wrote: »

Lastly let me say this to all those debating here .I, nor anyone else will ever be able to prove the existence of Allah or any divine beings. To do so would mean that everyone would believe and it would it become the norm.

This is not faith.

Faith (by one definition) : a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

Therefore the very bases of religion would be lost. This is why I believe any 'creator' would not reveal them-self to us completely.

Thats my take.

But "faith", as you define it, is only valuable because god says so. he could just say belief based on evidence and logic is what every body should have, there is nothing to stop him. Seeing as everything humans have created can only be relied on because of logic and material evidence (the computer you type on isn't there because someone based computer science on faith alone), it would seem to fit better in with what we can reliably do in this universe.

Jaafa

virmilitaris wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's just not true and wherever you read that is been dishonest.

Christians have done the same thing with the Bible in several different ways. Please see http://carm.org/what-biblical-numerology Or http://www.handresearch.com/numerology/bible-numerology.htm

It's quite easy to delve into a text and come up with a pattern especially when words can be translated so many different ways.



I think that if I were to comment on these it may be against the charter here but I will comment on the first one anyways. I searched for the verse in question and got the following four English translations from the following website. http://islam.thetruecall.com/

Abdullah Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
Mufti Taqi Usmani: And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof).
Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

All of which seem to indicate a static state.

May I ask where you got your translation ?



I'm sorry and I really mean no insult by this but I could do the same thing with a copy of the Bible or any other number of books, indeed people have done as demonstrated on the Christian websites I previously linked to.



Indeed but that was not my question. I said that if I could be persuaded to believe in your gods existence, then what motivation would there be for me to worship it ?

That is, I accept your gods existence. Now why should I worship it ?

Ok to answer your last question (I think we both know we could argue over the rest for some time). If you believe in god why should you worship him? Yes?

Personally I don't see it as worship. I see it as giving thanks. I believe in god. Therefore I believe he has created all I see and he has given me a book by which to life my life in a good way. As a result I don't have any problem with giving up 15 minutes of my day to give thanks or worship as others call it. I'd call it a fair trade.

If a human had done something as meaningful to me I would also gladly thank them. Perhaps not as much be never the less I'd thank them.

Jaafa

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There aren't 365 days in a year though (its approx 365 and a quarter, hence we have leap years). Only 4 months have 30 days in them.


71.1% of the earth is covered by water, not the sea. About 97% of the water is sea, but the rest is fresh water.


These tell nothing that no-one for the last whatever thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that humans existed would have known. Just by recognising that night and day follow each other, you can say that the things iin the sky are cyclical systems (they happen in cycles, as they move across the sky).


But "faith", as you define it, is only valuable because god says so. he could just say belief based on evidence and logic is what every body should have, there is nothing to stop him. Seeing as everything humans have created can only be relied on because of logic and material evidence (the computer you type on isn't there because someone based computer science on faith alone), it would seem to fit better in with what we can reliably do in this universe.

Acording to wikipeadia its oceans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean Do you mean by water coverage ice as well?

As for the orbits while it may have been theorized, it was never proven until the 17th by Kepler. Although I'll grant you this is something anyone could have come up with.

No I do not value faith because god says so. Faith does not require god or religion it is merely a crucial part of. Faith still exist between humans in the form of trust regardless of god.

For example think of the person you trust the most. Do you trust them because they have proven themselves to you in every possible situation. Or do you trust them because based on the information you have, although some of it is lacking, you have faith in them?

I mean logic would dictate that a person who has never had to risk their life for you can't be guaranteed to do so in the future. However I'm certain of at least a few people who do so for me. Why do I think this without enough information? Because I have faith in them.

Mark Hamill

Jaafa wrote: »

Ok to answer your last question (I think we both know we could argue over the rest for some time). If you believe in god why should you worship him? Yes?

Personally I don't see it as worship. I see it as giving thanks. I believe in god. Therefore I believe he has created all I see and he has given me a book by which to life my life in a good way. As a result I don't have any problem with giving up 15 minutes of my day to give thanks or worship as others call it. I'd call it a fair trade.

If a human had done something as meaningful to me I would also gladly thank them. Perhaps not as much be never the less I'd thank them.

Its not just giving thanks in god's eyes, though, is it? Dont give thanks and you go to hell.