A letter to the Atheists

[roli]

First of all, Sun's working is not complex, neither is Earth's rotation. Sun is simply gases with hydrogen and helium in core and loads of other gases surrounding the core. Biological life is complex. But that does not mean that someone has to create it. The kind of conditions that existed during the early stages of Earth were replicated in the laboratory and amino acids and cell-like structures were formed although the scientists could not initiate life. But they could not create life simply because we do not have complete information about the early Earth. Just because science does not currently have enough facts to correctly describe the creation of life through chemical recations does not mean that there has to be a creator to create life. And tell me, if Creator indeed created life, why didn't he/she do it on other planets as well? Why did the Creator have to create life 13-15 billion years after the creation of the universe?

The question in the process of all these ,quote " simple,not complex" functions is that they operate,as do our complex bodies under extensive laws that govern and regulate these ."simple functions of the sun.
The question is how do these unseen and innumberable laws that are so exact,precise and consistent hold the universe together,with laws there must be a law giver and not self existent

 

[Kungfuzed]

The complexity of the universe, and specifically of the conditions necessary for life, give me great reason to appreciate how rare and beautiful life is. If things had happened differently we might not be here to appreciate it. The other planets in our solar system are examples of what could have been different.

There is no serial number on Mars. No bar code on the moon. No signature on a sunset. Nothing to indicate that this universe was made by an intelligent being.

The question is how do these unseen and innumberable laws that are so exact,precise and consistent hold the universe together,with laws there must be a law giver and not self existent

"Laws" of the universe are what scientist use to describe and make predictions on what happens. Scientists are the law makers and they make the laws according to their observations and experiments. Without humans there would still be life on earth, but there would be no laws, and no statistics on how probable anything is, nor would there be any religion. If an animal jumped off a cliff it would fall to its death and there would simply be no explanation for it, nor would there need to be. A great lawmaker in the sky is entirely the product of human imagination.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is no serial number on Mars. No bar code on the moon. No signature on a sunset. Nothing to indicate that this universe was made by an intelligent being.

Unless we do not know how to read these signitures, bar codes, or serial numbers. Or perhaps they are so mundane we take them for granted.

I would argue that should an intelligent being decide to create a Universe, It would not leave a signature. That's simply a human custom, one that is not always done.

When we listen to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, is there any way to know that it was Beethoven who decided to put all those pre-existing notes and beats together into a specific form?

 

[Cordoba]

There is no serial number on Mars. No bar code on the moon. No signature on a sunset. Nothing to indicate that this universe was made by an intelligent being.

That information is found in God's Divine Revelations

Would a "serial number on Mars" one thousand years ago be a useful clue for humanity?

 

[Pah]

That information is found in God's Divine Revelations

Would a "serial number on Mars" one thousand years ago be a useful clue for humanity?

All this aside, there is not a way to prove/disprove God's existence, but there will be proof, scientific proof, that religion and all of it's concepts are works of men. While that does not definitively prove God does not exist, it makes it clear that God was invented.

 

[Majikthise]

All this aside, there is not a way to prove/disprove God's existence, but there will be proof, scientific proof, that religion and all of it's concepts are works of men. While that does not definitively prove God does not exist, it makes it clear that God was invented.

Sure wish I owned the patent on that one. I could make enough dough to get my teeth fixed, .

 

[TashaN]

Egyptian Muslim cleric, Sheikh Mutwali al-Sharawi, was renowned throughout the Arab world for many years until his death in June, 1998 at the age of 87. He appeared on Egyptian television daily. His sermons were distributed widely in cassette tapes and in tracts which are still in great demand and sold on nearly every street corner in the larger cities of the Arab world. Here is an excerpt from one such pamphlet, al-Wujood wa-l Shak (Existence and Doubt) , an Islamic version of the ontological proof for the existence of God.

"Doubt Proves Existence"​

With respect to those who would deny the existence of God, the attempt to deny it only proves the case. For, there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist. Take the earth, for example. Some people say it is round. Others say it is flat. Would a dispute have broken out had not some observed the earth moving out away from them along a flat plane? If previous knowledge had not confirmed for them that the earth is round, for what reason would the dispute have arisen? The dispute broke out, however, because there is actual knowledge which is at variance with what the eye actually sees. Therefore, before the refutation and before the dispute, there was a pre-existing truth. For, if we wish to deny a scientific theory which requires its existence as a precondition, how then can it be refuted? The differences here between denial and existence necessarily presuppose the fact.

Therefore, the attempt to deny the existence of God presupposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would any disbeliever make the attempt to advance such denials? An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing. If there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why argue about it? Who would attempt to refute its existence?

Doubt in the existence of God (may He be praised and exalted) only confirms His existence. Those who attempt to validate doubt in God's existence serve only to confirm the existence of something which requires no need of proof. For, the proof of the existence of God is the very demand for such a proof. Efforts to make understandable such concepts only serve to prove that God has been with us since creation.

al-Imam Muhammad Mutwali al-Sharawi, al -Wujood wa-l Shak (Existence and Doubt) , (Alexandria, Egypt: Dar al Nadwa, 1990, pp. 55-56). Translated by Ted Thornton, NMH Religious Studies.

Source: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/a_muslim_proof_for_the_existence.php

Read also: http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=149

 

[eudaimonia]

If the the universe had a begining, what came before that?

Time only has context within the universe (physical reality) as a measure of change. Nothing came before the universe -- not even "nothingness" -- because time has no meaning "before" the universe -- there is no "before". Time/change may have had a start, but the universe is eternal.

If it has an end what comes next?

Time would also cease to have meaning "after" the universe ceases to change, assuming that can ever happen. So nothing (but not "nothingness") would come "next" -- there would be no "next".

If it did not exist what would?

Anything that exists might as well be called "the universe", and so your question is meaningless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Kungfuzed]

Egyptian Muslim cleric, Sheikh Mutwali al-Sharawi, was renowned throughout the Arab world for many years until his death in June, 1998 at the age of 87. He appeared on Egyptian television daily. His sermons were distributed widely in cassette tapes and in tracts which are still in great demand and sold on nearly every street corner in the larger cities of the Arab world. Here is an excerpt from one such pamphlet, al-Wujood wa-l Shak (Existence and Doubt) , an Islamic version of the ontological proof for the existence of God.

"Doubt Proves Existence"​

With respect to those who would deny the existence of God, the attempt to deny it only proves the case. For, there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist. Take the earth, for example. Some people say it is round. Others say it is flat. Would a dispute have broken out had not some observed the earth moving out away from them along a flat plane? If previous knowledge had not confirmed for them that the earth is round, for what reason would the dispute have arisen? The dispute broke out, however, because there is actual knowledge which is at variance with what the eye actually sees. Therefore, before the refutation and before the dispute, there was a pre-existing truth. For, if we wish to deny a scientific theory which requires its existence as a precondition, how then can it be refuted? The differences here between denial and existence necessarily presuppose the fact.

Therefore, the attempt to deny the existence of God presupposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would any disbeliever make the attempt to advance such denials? An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing. If there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why argue about it? Who would attempt to refute its existence?

Doubt in the existence of God (may He be praised and exalted) only confirms His existence. Those who attempt to validate doubt in God's existence serve only to confirm the existence of something which requires no need of proof. For, the proof of the existence of God is the very demand for such a proof. Efforts to make understandable such concepts only serve to prove that God has been with us since creation.

al-Imam Muhammad Mutwali al-Sharawi, al -Wujood wa-l Shak (Existence and Doubt) , (Alexandria, Egypt: Dar al Nadwa, 1990, pp. 55-56). Translated by Ted Thornton, NMH Religious Studies.

Source: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/a_muslim_proof_for_the_existence.php

Read also: http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=149

I suppose by the same reasoning that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens from other planets, and ghosts all exist too.

 

[Cordoba]

All this aside, there is not a way to prove/disprove God's existence, but there will be proof, scientific proof, that religion and all of it's concepts are works of men. While that does not definitively prove God does not exist, it makes it clear that God was invented.

When such "proof" becomes available we would be glad to discuss it

Meanwhile, peace and all the best for 2007

 

[NoahideHiker]

I know many atheists who are good people and they raise their children with good family values.

 

[roli]

.

Nothing to indicate that this universe was made by an intelligent being.

Except creation itself,look at your computer ,or pencil for that matter,look at anything in your sight,if you tried to convince today's scientists that anything that you see ,from pencils to rulers to paper,to stop signs to rockets,buildings,telescopes,microscopes etc. came about randomly,by chance over many years you would be unreasonable to say the least,how much more if you tried to convince them that all living matter came about by non living matter you would insult their intelligence and be a laughing stock among them.
You would require more faith to believe complex life along with nature's beauty and tradmarks ,eg:sun ,moon,stars,planets,light,water cycle etc came by natural selection and chance than to believe a divine creator God created them.

"[

QUOTE]Laws" of the universe are what scientist use to describe and make predictions on what happens.

Excellent observation,that's all,they observe and study and work within the already existent laws

Scientists are the law makers and they make the laws according to their observations and experiments.

They may make the observations and conduct experiments,but there is no way you can think they create these self existent laws,eg: aerodynamics,gravity,chemical,physiological,natural ,
Man just discovers and learns how to operate within these self existent laws,what has always been existent just undiscovered and or tapped is not grounds to make such bold claims ,that man are law makers,how totally absurd

Without humans there would still be life on earth, but there would be no laws,

Maybe civil law and ceremonial Laws but certainly not universal,or naturaL laws,these have been present long before man came along.
Are you actually saying man created the law of aerodynamics,gravity ???????

and no statistics on how probable anything is, nor would there be any religion. If an animal jumped off a cliff it would fall to its death and there would simply be no explanation for it, nor would there need to be. A great lawmaker in the sky is entirely the product of human imagination

Your logic here is simply not worth the response,but I must endeavor to carry on .
Obviously the laws that govern and regulate that animal that jumped.were compromised.If indeed you believe biology 101 that there are laws that govern and regulate that life and if you think different ,please study biology,physiology or something that will open your eyes to the laws that any species of life must operate under.

I mean if an an animal travels through the air 60 miles an hour for even 2seconds,the biological laws that cause that living organism to function in normal living conditions is obviously pushed to the limits and compromised when that animal stops immediately after it makes contact with the ground from 100 ft in the air.
There are boundaries within which that life must remain to exist,if you don't catch unto that well I move on from here.

 

[Pah]

.
Except creation itself,look at your computer ,or pencil for that matter,look at anything in your sight,if you tried to convince today's scientists that anything that you see ,from pencils to rulers to paper,to stop signs to rockets,buildings,telescopes,microscopes etc. came about randomly,by chance over many years you would be unreasonable to say the least,how much more if you tried to convince them that all living matter came about by non living matter you would insult their intelligence and be a laughing stock among them.
You would require more faith to believe complex life along with nature's beauty and tradmarks ,eg:sun ,moon,stars,planets,light,water cycle etc came by natural selection and chance than to believe a divine creator God created them.

No "faith" is needed to understand the answers science gives. And no proof that God continues to exist in what you said.

They may make the observations and conduct experiments,but there is no way you can think they create these self existent laws,eg: aerodynamics,gravity,chemical,physiological,natural ,
Man just discovers and learns how to operate within these self existent laws,what has always been existent just undiscovered and or tapped is not grounds to make such bold claims ,that man are law makers,how totally absurd

It's discovery not invention that's true. You still must make a case for a living God or any other diety.

Maybe civil law and ceremonial Laws but certainly not universal,or naturaL laws,these have been present long before man came along.
Are you actually saying man created the law of aerodynamics,gravity ???????

Civil law is natural and a product of its own evolutionary process.

Your logic here is simply not worth the response,but I must endeavor to carry on .
Obviously the laws that govern and regulate that animal that jumped.were compromised.If indeed you believe biology 101 that there are laws that govern and regulate that life and if you think different ,please study biology,physiology or something that will open your eyes to the laws that any species of life must operate under.

I mean if an an animal travels through the air 60 miles an hour for even 2seconds,the biological laws that cause that living organism to function in normal living conditions is obviously pushed to the limits and compromised when that animal stops immediately after it makes contact with the ground from 100 ft in the air.
There are boundaries within which that life must remain to exist,if you don't catch unto that well I move on from here.

I quess 60 miles an hour would depend on how high is the cliff from which lemmings leap. Seems natural for lemmings.

 

[doppelganger]

How does one know that an object one finds is a "watch"?

 

[Pah]

How does one know that an object one finds is a "watch"?

Could very well be a paper weight to help keep the scrolls open.

An anchor for the chain accross the vest?

 

[doppelganger]

Could very well be a paper weight to help keep the scrolls open.

An anchor for the chain accross the vest?

And if I recognize as any of those things, then aren't I the creator?

 

[Tiberius]

Egyptian Muslim cleric, Sheikh Mutwali al-Sharawi, was renowned throughout the Arab world for many years until his death in June, 1998 at the age of 87. He appeared on Egyptian television daily. His sermons were distributed widely in cassette tapes and in tracts which are still in great demand and sold on nearly every street corner in the larger cities of the Arab world. Here is an excerpt from one such pamphlet, al-Wujood wa-l Shak (Existence and Doubt) , an Islamic version of the ontological proof for the existence of God.

Therefore, the attempt to deny the existence of God presupposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would any disbeliever make the attempt to advance such denials? An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing. If there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why argue about it? Who would attempt to refute its existence?

Can't argue with this paragon (uh, I mean parody) of logic, so I think I shall use it!

The attempt to prove the existence of God presupposes the truth that God doesn't exist. Otherwise, why would any believer make the attempt to advance such assertations?

Yay! I win!

I really fail to see how the existence of a viewpoint against a thing is proof of a thing.

 

[logician]

.
Except creation itself,look at your computer ,or pencil for that matter,look at anything in your sight,if you tried to convince today's scientists that anything that you see ,from pencils to rulers to paper,to stop signs to rockets,buildings,telescopes,microscopes etc. came about randomly,by chance over many years you would be unreasonable to say the least,how much more if you tried to convince them that all living matter came about by non living matter you would insult their intelligence and be a laughing stock among them.
You would require more faith to believe complex life along with nature's beauty and tradmarks ,eg:sun ,moon,stars,planets,light,water cycle etc came by natural selection and chance than to believe a divine creator God created them.

.

The simple argument to refute this is, who created god, if indeed intelligence cannot spring from nothingness.

 

[Mathematician]

The simple argument to refute this is, who created god, if indeed intelligence cannot spring from nothingness.

Bingo. :yes:

Perhaps the people who present this watch arguement don't realize the universe wasn't always like it is now. It's not like we're talking about the beginning of present existance being just the appearance of Earth and our 8 companions out of nowhere. We're talking about billions of years of change. From what I understand, the projected time elapse is 14 gigayears, though scientists are willing to admit anywhere from 11 to 20. That's nothing small. Look what a small change in Earth's surface temperature has done in only half a century.

 

[TashaN]

I suppose by the same reasoning that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens from other planets, and ghosts all exist too.

Not necessary.