Ask About Islam

[RAYYAN]

If you can't find your keys one morning, which is the better, more likely explanation.
a) that you mislaid them
b) they were stolen by pixies

Before answering remember that there is no evidence that they were not stolen by pixies.

No one thinks that way. It is childish
Or maybe if the pixies a book that is amazing, convincing, and perfect like the Quran, I can believe that

 

[RAYYAN]

Everything you see in the universe is the result of nature. Nature created solar systems, planets, galaxies, black holes, elements. We even know the big bang was at one time small enough to be quantum sized. The background microwave radiation agrees with what predicted quantum fluxuations in the energy would produce and are the reason matter is distributed unevenly and created galaxies and such. The quantum realm is ruled by probabilities. If something is probable it will eventually happen. All of this is natural processes. Did these natural processes evolve or develop from other natural things that we do not yet know? Probably. A magical deity who started everything doesn't make sense and has zero evidence.
All you see right now is that nature is vast, creative and mysterious. Filling up mysteries with deities from fiction doesn't make them real.






A single cell is very complex life. Self replicating compounds far pre-date that and is an entire field of study. If you study it you will understand. There are breakthroughs every year. In 2011 an enzyme copied a long RNA sequence -

"A big advance came earlier this year, when Philipp Holliger of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, and colleagues unveiled an RNA enzyme called tC19Z. It reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long, almost half as long as itself (Science, vol 332, p 209). To do this, tC19Z clamps onto the end of an RNA, attaches the correct nucleotide, then moves forward a step and adds another. “It still blows my mind that you can do something so complex with such a simple molecule,” Holliger says.

“It stills blows my mind that you can do something so complex with such a simple molecule”

So biologists are getting tantalisingly close to creating an RNA molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself. That leaves another sticking point: where did the energy to drive this activity come from? There must have been some kind of metabolic process going on – but RNA does not look up to the job of running a full-blown metabolism."


Nucleobases and amino acids play a role in RNA, there has been breaks with these and all sorts of compounds. Every month there is a new paper.

Spontaneous Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules Containing Nucleobases and Amino Acids
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796


Read more: First life: The search for the first replicator | New Scientist"






No cosmologists is saying that. People thought God was behind every single gap in science. Even the planetary motion once had gaps and it was assumed God filled in the stuff they couldn't figure out.

Every fundamentalist in every religion says their God caused the big bang. Yet there is no evidence for any God. 2/3 of all religious believers think it's a different God who caused the big bang. No scientists think that.

Thank you for taking the time to post this response
and to be honest, I don't understand everything you said

So the big question I have is, How does the single-celled (life) start?
I guess scientists don't know yet right?

and are you saying that there are no biologists who believe in God?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

First of all, Islam isn't perverted nor had it been. I don't really think you are sincere in your questioning. You seem to mock almost everything we say. This isn't very nice.

I opened this thread for people who wanted to learn about Islam, not for those to come in and just mock us.

Who are you? If I want to know about Islam, I should study Islam, not ask some convert who has been verified on multiple occasions to have beliefs inconsistent with reality. I submit to God, not you.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

pft seriously, stop with the hatred. I am sure out of all the thousands upon thousands of men in the west and in Germany that there are men who abuse, rape, murder, and plain just are narcissistic...so please, stop the hatred. In every country, in every city, in every place there are good and bad people. In Islam, if those that commit such atrocities, will have their rude awakening if they don't repent and make towbah, then they will face their Creator.

Islam can’t be superior if it has just as many sinners as everyone else.

 

[RAYYAN]

No, you don't "know". You "believe", because you don't understand either the existing explanations for things, or how to rationally approach what we don't know.

Yes, I know
Give an example to prove me wrong

 

[MyM]

Who are you? If I want to know about Islam, I should study Islam, not ask some convert who has been verified on multiple occasions to have beliefs inconsistent with reality. I submit to God, not you.

That is your opinion. I have answered every question that was posed to me(except I refuse athiests now) If you think they are inconsistent with reality, then that is your belief. NOT MINE. I have a right to my belief and in Islam, I quote from the Quran and Sunnah. It isn't my problem if you do not understand them and think differently. If you are sincere, ask and I will answer truthfully. If you have prejudged me, then that is on you.

 

[MyM]

Islam can’t be superior if it has just as many sinners as everyone else.

You do not judge the religion of Allah by the people that sin.

 

[Sheldon]

That is an argument from incredulity fallacy, it is a known common logical fallacy, and thus the assertion is irrational by definition.

Well, NO

Yes it absolutely is a textbook argument from incredulity fallacy.

RAYYAN said: ↑
(1) For me, I can't believe that the whole thing started without a creator. You can call it whatever you want, but, It is something I believe.

Well there you go, textbook.

"Argument from incredulity
Also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

It is a basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational, if it contains a known logical fallacy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a simple fact of life, there is a maker for everything.

No it isn't, facts are based on knowledge, you don't get to just assert them, incidentally that is called an argument from assertion fallacy.

Sheldon said: ↑
I never claimed to know how life started, not knowing how why or if something was caused, doesn't mean we can accept bare unevidenced claims, based on superstition.

Oh! you don't know!

Nobody knows.

Correct me if I am wrong here after the big bang, a single-celled life started by accident,

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support this claim? How can I correct your bare unevidenced assertion, when I just stated I don't know how life started?

then multiplied, multiplied, then there was evolution and a man. Isn't that the theory!

Not one I have ever heard, evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific theory, they are wildly different things, did you not know this? Also the scientific theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, did you not know this either?

Oh, I forgot. You don't know

Neither do you, nor does anybody else, the difference is that I am not making wild unevidenced assumptions or invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Sheldon said: ↑
The big bang is supported by scientific evidence, your bare assertion for an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic is not. Why do theists think repetition of a bare claim is valid argument?

Again, You can't judge anyone of their personal belief as long as they don't enforce it on you Are you asking me not to post about how I feel!

Did I remotely say that? You also seem to have ignored what I said, and responded to something else that I have not said? Repeating a bare unevidenced claim is not a compelling argument.

Sheldon said: ↑
Which was and still is, a known common logical fallacy, called an argument from incredulity fallacy. Here is a <LINK> to an explanation of that fallacy. Any assertion based on or using a known fallacy in informal logic, is by definition irrational.

Still. I can talk about my belief as much as I want without considering your feelings

You may not care that your claim was irrational, which is up to you of course, as you're free to be as irrational as you want, but I am free to point that out, which was all I did. The rest you seem have imagined. Your response seems little more than deflection tbh.

 

[England my lionheart]

That is your opinion. I have answered every question that was posed to me(except I refuse athiests now) If you think they are inconsistent with reality, then that is your belief. NOT MINE. I have a right to my belief and in Islam, I quote from the Quran and Sunnah. It isn't my problem if you do not understand them and think differently. If you are sincere, ask and I will answer truthfully. If you have prejudged me, then that is on you.

I'm sure all the atheists here are as disappointed as i am,i'm glad though that you are not representative of all of islam,if you were chop chop square would be on overtime.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Islam can’t be superior if it has just as many sinners as everyone else.

That is illogical.
It is mankind who are sinners .. and not G-d.

 

[RAYYAN]

Yes it absolutely is a textbook argument from incredulity fallacy.

No, It is not
You can't apply that to personal thinking and personal conviction and I REPEAT, I didn't force that to anyone to accept it

No it isn't, facts are based on knowledge, you don't get to just assert them, incidentally that is called an argument from assertion fallacy.

Yes, it is I REPEAT, give me something made without a maker
If you can't, then ...... I think we both better zip it

Nobody knows.

I know that you don't know
that's why I said "Oh, I forgot. You don't know LOL

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support this claim? How can I correct your bare unevidenced assertion, when I just stated I don't know how life started?

I don't know, but that's what I think scientists are saying
That's why I said correct me if I am wrong because I accept being wrong. But, nevermind YOU don't know

Not one I have ever heard, evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific theory, they are wildly different things, did you not know this? Also the scientific theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, did you not know this either?

Did I say it has something to do with life!
or you are just putting words into my mouth?

Neither do you, nor does anybody else, the difference is that I am not making wild unevidenced assumptions or invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

I am free in whatever I believe. I believe there are unicorns, I say there are unicorns, I write all I want...... As long as I am not forcing people to accept that you can't police me

Did I remotely say that?

Yes, you are jumping up and down in response to what I believe. Chill out

You also seem to have ignored what I said, and responded to something else that I have not said? Repeating a bare unevidenced claim is not a compelling argument.

Well, I made a mistake with the quotes. So what? Stop this don't touch me attitude. Are you the real Shelly!

You may not care that your claim was irrational, which is up to you of course, as you're free to be as irrational as you want, but I am free to point that out, which was all I did. The rest you seem have imagined. Your response seems little more than deflection tbh.

Sure. I can go with that

 

[Sheldon]

No, It is not
You can't apply that to personal thinking and personal conviction

Personal thinking is precisely what an from argument from personal incredulity applies to.

this was your claim:

↑
(1) For me, I can't believe that the whole thing started without a creator.

"Argument from incredulity
Also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

I know that you don't know

I already told you this, nobody currently knows how life originated.

I don't know, but that's what I think scientists are saying That's why I said correct me if I am wrong because I accept being wrong. But, nevermind YOU don't know

Well you were wrong then, as your assertion had nothing to do with science, since science does not currently know how life originated, and the scientific theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life.

Did I say it has something to do with life!
or you are just putting words into my mouth?

This was your rather bizarre assertion:

Correct me if I am wrong here after the big bang, a single-celled life started by accident, then multiplied, multiplied, then there was evolution and a man. Isn't that the theory!

What theory were you talking about, since you mention both the big bang and species evolution, neither of which makes any claims about the origins of life.

I am free in whatever I believe.

Who has said otherwise?

Are you asking me not to post about how I feel!

Sheldon said: ↑
Did I remotely say that?

Yes, you are jumping up and down in response to what I believe. Chill out

I certainly said no such thing, but please do quote where you claim I did.

Well, I made a mistake with the quotes. So what?

So i pointed it out, and since you did not answer the question.

Stop this don't touch me attitude. Are you the real Shelly!

You've lost me sorry?

 

[RAYYAN]

Well you were wrong then, as your assertion had nothing to do with science, since science does not currently know how life originated, and the scientific theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life.

Am I wrong!
So you know or don't know? pick a side and don't confuse me

This was your rather bizarre assertion:
What theory were you talking about, since you mention both the big bang and species evolution, neither of which makes any claims about the origins of life.

So what is their claim?

I certainly said no such thing, but please do quote where you claim I did.

Quote, what? You jumping up and down?

 

[KWED]

No one thinks that way. It is childish

But that is exactly how you are thinking!
You are rejecting the more probable, likely, evidence-based option in favour of fantasy based on no evidence, then claim that it is justified simply because there is no evidence that it is wrong.

This is one of the great ironies of religious apologetics. Apologists will use an argument with great conviction, yet when the same argument is used on their position they call it ridiculous.

 

[RAYYAN]

But that is exactly how you are thinking!
You are rejecting the more probable, likely, evidence-based option in favour of fantasy based on no evidence, then claim that it is justified simply because there is no evidence that it is wrong.

This is one of the great ironies of religious apologetics. Apologists will use an argument with great conviction, yet when the same argument is used on their position they call it ridiculous.

Then tell me
What is the "more probable" about the whole thing

 

[joelr]

It's worth bearing in mind that "rape" does not have to involve physical violence or even force of any kind. Even when "consent" appears to have been given it may still count as rape.

Anyone who claims that consent is not required for sex, whatever the circumstances, is "morally bankrupt", to use one of @muhammad_isa's favourite expressions.

The whole thing is creepy, especially when they say "the modern notion of consent"?

 

[joelr]

Thank you for taking the time to post this response
and to be honest, I don't understand everything you said

So the big question I have is, How does the single-celled (life) start?
I guess scientists don't know yet right?

and are you saying that there are no biologists who believe in God?

That's fair. It's good to ask questions. There are no biologists who disbelieve in evolution. I personally know a few biology professors and they understand that the process that started life is definitely a natural process that we will eventually understand. When scientists say they don't know how life started it's because they are extremely exact and meticulous. They need to have proven theories for every single step. Right now we know the building blocks of life like amino acids, proteins and such occur naturally. They know self replicating chemicals occur and can form more advanced structures along the chain like nucleopeptides. We do not yet understand how a simple RNA was formed. But the basics are there, it's just a matter of time.
Some biologists do believe in some God they just assume it created reality or nature and the big bang and life are natural parts of things that will happen in nature. They generally don't try to insert God in places where science cannot answer because that has been done for centuries and always turns out wrong.
Overall scientists tend to believe in a theism less than the general public. I have a family member, a biology professor who is Catholic and attends church weekly. But he doesn't believe any of it. It's just tradition and structure and a way to have some type of spirituality.

So the big question I have is, How does the single-celled (life) start?

More complex cells - eukaryotes - formed from simple cells (no nucleus) prokaryotic cells, the simple cells evolved for around 1.5 billion years so they had a long time. Simple cells have proteins, membranes, probably had a simple RNA and a few other things that occur naturally. How they got together is not my area. There are many pieces to the puzzle that are known and theories about other things that we are not sure about.

It's a bit of a fallacy to think there is one magic point where we need a God. We can demonstrate simple cells evolve into complex cells or RNA may become DNA and millions of processes that happen in the formation of life. So why would there be one step that is too much to fathom? For example this paper proposes nucleopeptide reciprocal replicators could be the key. Nucleopeptides have been shown to form naturally. So now we just need one that replicates. Replication is also something that happens naturally.

Even the simplest organisms are too complex to have spontaneously arisen fully formed, yet precursors to first life must have emerged ab initio from their environment. A watershed event was the appearance of the first entity capable of evolution: the Initial Darwinian Ancestor. Here, we suggest that nucleopeptide reciprocal replicators could have carried out this important role and contend that this is the simplest way to explain extant replication systems in a mathematically consistent way. We propose short nucleic acid templates on which amino-acylated adapters assembled. Spatial localization drives peptide ligation from activated precursors to generate phosphodiester-bond-catalytic peptides. Comprising autocatalytic protein and nucleic acid sequences, this dynamical system links and unifies several previous hypotheses and provides a plausible model for the emergence of DNA and the operational code.
Reciprocal Nucleopeptides as the Ancestral Darwinian Self-Replicator


"The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose."
The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[joelr]

Then tell me
What is the "more probable" about the whole thing

Well the last several pages of the thread were debating the science in the Quran and if it could be considered of divine origin or just science stuff men figured out. The claim is this science was new to mankind so it must be obtained from God.
As we have seen none of the claims stood up to scrutiny. All of the science had been part of Greek scientific knowledge.
When it was challenged that maybe Greek knowledge didn't get to Islamic lands historical information demonstrates that Romans and Christians kept the knowledge written down in books. Early Islam was very interested in this material and are known for incorporating this tradition into their culture and religious text.

So these are false apologetics (scientific miracles in the Quran). It was more probable that people came up with this science. It is usually more probable that science based empirical thinking will be more true than apologetics and fundamentalist thinking. But this is the place to discuss the evidence and try to take an honest look at it. Although some folks think taking a critical look at evidence are personal attacks and they seem to prejudge atheists, but that is on them.

 

[KWED]

So the big question I have is, How does the single-celled (life) start?
I guess scientists don't know yet right?

There are a number of reasonable hypotheses but because early life was too "soft" to leave fossil remains, the precise process it will always be conjecture.
However, we do not need to know how it happened, only that it could happen, and we are fairly close to that. Laboratory experiments have created the amino acids and other organic molecules required for basic life from chemical compounds and conditions that could have been present on the surface of the early earth, so we have the pieces, we just haven't completed the jigsaw.

and are you saying that there are no biologists who believe in God?

It would be surprising to find a qualified biologist who believes in creationism. Religious scientists usually seem to get round the problem by saying that god set up the conditions required for evolution, the Big Bang, etc, so they don't have to deny the obvious evidence.

 

[joelr]

What do you think most of the saturday night violence is about?
Women and sex .. no?

No. Never. Not about sex.
Alcohol.
Men going out drinking and starting fights,
Women starting drunk arguments that escalate.
Men getting angry drunk and becoming abusive.

The smart move is have your girlfriend over, get pizza, movie, sex, sleep. Get breakfast, go to the gym or whatever. It isn't the sex or the not being married.
If a woman doesn't want sex you go play video games or go online. You don't argue or get mad. If she never wants sex you look into therapy, get her hormones checked, there is no violence in this equation?
This is why no sex until marriage is a bad idea. You may be completely not compatible that way.