Ask About Islam

[KWED]

Yes, I know
Give an example to prove me wrong

You have that the wrong way round. You are the one making the positive claim (that everything that exists requires a supernatural creator), so it is your responsibility to provide evidence for your claim. I am merely saying that a doubt your claim and would like to see some evidence to support it (which I doubt you can provide).

However, it is pretty easy to give examples of things that exist without the need for a supernatural creator.
A snowflake. We know precisely how they form, and none of it requires the intervention of a god.
You. You didn't exist for most of the last 14 billion years. Now you do. No gods involved, just your parents.

 

[KWED]

That is your opinion. I have answered every question that was posed to me(except I refuse athiests now)

Hilarious!
In other words, you just repeat dogma. You have shown that you have no ability to assess questions and points on their own merit and respond in that context.

 

[KWED]

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

No, you judge it by the contents of its scripture. And as such, Islam was clearly made up by 7th century Arabs. Every line in the Quran is exactly what you would expect if it was written by men from that region and that time. Most of it is based on earlier myths, superstitions and customs from the region. Literally the only miraculous thing about the Quran is that people actually believe it was revealed by an omniscient, omnipotent, most merciful, just and beneficent god who created the universe.

 

[KWED]

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

Islam is god's final and best effort at revealing a path away from sin and to worship him. He only created us so we could worship him. Every person who doesn't worship him is a faulty product.
There are many billions of people who sin and who didn't, don't and won't worship him.
Therefore Allah's last attempt at his biggest project is a failure.
And if Allah can fail, he cannot be Allah, as Allah cannot fail at anything.
QED!

 

[KWED]

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

Perhaps you misread Sheldon's post.
The "personal incredulity fallacy" is precisely and entirely about personal thinking. It is the whole point of it. It would be like saying that cooking isn't about food.

You reject the scientific answer because you don't understand it and because it contradicts your existing position. You stated "I don't believe it". "Personal incredulity" is another way of saying "I don't believe it".

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

A tree.

 

[KWED]

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

The issue is "how did the universe come to exist?"
You insist that god created it all my magic and refuse to entertain any other explanation.
I claim that natural processes is a more reasonable and likely explanation.

Let's look at it more closely.
Do you have any evidence for the existence of this god, or any actual examples of magic being real? No.
Do I have any examples of natural processes existing and being real? Yes.

Can you point to something that exists that we can demonstrate was created by a god using magic? No.
Can I point to something that we can demonstrate was created by natural processes? Yes.

Can you point to anything that was once thought to be caused by natural processes but we now know is caused by god? No.
Can I point to anything that was once thought to be caused by god but we now know is caused by natural processes? Yes.

So, given all this, when presented with something for which we have no knowledge of the cause, which is the more reasonable, more likely conclusion? God or natural processes?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, given all this, when presented with something for which we have no knowledge of the cause, which is the more reasonable, more likely conclusion? God or natural processes?

A false dichotomy.
G-d is responsible for natural processes.

 

[KWED]

A false dichotomy.
G-d is responsible for natural processes.

So you admit that god did not create the universe.

 

[RAYYAN]

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.

Thank you again for taking the time with this amazing response
I agree that there are Muslims who bend verses from the Quran to fit a certain scientific fact and things similar to that, and that is wrong

Let me ask you this question:
However there is no evidence of the existence of God, Don't you think there is a chance he might exist?

 

[RAYYAN]

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.

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.

So why do you think these scientists who are educated and use facts with evidence believe in God with no evidence?
32% of biologists believe in God
19% believe in a higher power

[/url][/IMG]
I don't seem to know how to post an image, but here is the source

 

[RAYYAN]

You have that the wrong way round. You are the one making the positive claim (that everything that exists requires a supernatural creator), so it is your responsibility to provide evidence for your claim. I am merely saying that a doubt your claim and would like to see some evidence to support it (which I doubt you can provide).

However, it is pretty easy to give examples of things that exist without the need for a supernatural creator.
A snowflake. We know precisely how they form, and none of it requires the intervention of a god.
You. You didn't exist for most of the last 14 billion years. Now you do. No gods involved, just your parents.

I am not refusing to give evidence of the existence of God, I am saying I can't and don't have evidence (Why can't you get it! it is simple)

However, you claim that things appear with no maker, I am asking you to give me an example, but you keep beating around the bush.
And Snowflake! seriously! it is made out of ice something that exists already, so it is a matter of re-arranging thing

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Animals do have instinctive behaviors but they do not evolve into humans. Humans have yet to prove they even ever saw an ape transform. This should mark a massive change in history if it ever came into being-but it did not. We did not evolve from animals. Allah created us and he created all animals.

I think you should look more into the Quran and its sciences may do you some good

We can see new species develop but so far no men appear out of dirt.

 

[ppp]

I am not refusing to give evidence of the existence of God, I am saying I can't and don't have evidence (Why can't you get it! it is simple)

Without evidence of a thing, one is not justified in accepting the proposition that the thing exists.

 

[RAYYAN]

The issue is "how did the universe come to exist?"
You insist that god created it all my magic and refuse to entertain any other explanation.
I claim that natural processes is a more reasonable and likely explanation.

Let's look at it more closely.
Do you have any evidence for the existence of this god, or any actual examples of magic being real? No.
Do I have any examples of natural processes existing and being real? Yes.

Can you point to something that exists that we can demonstrate was created by a god using magic? No.
Can I point to something that we can demonstrate was created by natural processes? Yes.

Can you point to anything that was once thought to be caused by natural processes but we now know is caused by god? No.
Can I point to anything that was once thought to be caused by god but we now know is caused by natural processes? Yes.

So, given all this, when presented with something for which we have no knowledge of the cause, which is the more reasonable, more likely conclusion? God or natural processes?

Of course, I can't prove any of this because God doesn't use magic (or it is something you are saying to disrespect our belief! if that is the case, shame on you unless you are 8)

 

[RAYYAN]

Without evidence of a thing, one is not justified in accepting the proposition that the thing exists.

Of course, that is totally fine and it is a personal choice

 

[ppp]

Of course, that is totally fine and it is a personal choice

It's not totally fine. Accepting beliefs without rational justification, It's a hazard to both yourself and far more importantly to all the rest of us.

 

[RAYYAN]

It's not totally fine. Accepting beliefs without rational justification, It's a hazard to both yourself and far more importantly to all the rest of us.

Why is it a hazard?
Why can't we just live and let live!

 

[KWED]

So why do you think these scientists who are educated and use facts with evidence believe in God with no evidence?
32% of biologists believe in God
19% believe in a higher power

[/url][/IMG]
I don't seem to know how to post an image, but here is the source

Straw man. I said "It would be surprising to find a qualified biologist who believes in creationism". I still maintain that.
And remember I also explained that religious scientists often claim that god set up the conditions for evolution, Big Bang, etc, so they don't have to deny the evidence.
AAAS membership is open to anyone. You don't have to be qualified in a "hard science".
That survey was in the US. You will find a very different result in Europe.
In a survey of members of the Royal Institution and the American Academy of Science (the UK and US organisations for the top, expert scientists), about 95% do not believe in god.

Of course, there are bound to be some qualified scientists who are also literalist religionists, but I have never encountered any in my career ( and I have worked in the US).

 

[ppp]

Why is it a hazard?
Why can't we just live and let live!

Beliefs have consequences, do they not? And false beliefs are more likely to result in bad consequences than are true beliefs. No?

And who is not letting you live? Are you trying to say that expressing disagreement with you is somehow equivalent to not letting you live? That seems a little hyperbolic to me.

 

[KWED]

I am not refusing to give evidence of the existence of God, I am saying I can't and don't have evidence (Why can't you get it! it is simple)

In which case you cannot claim that a god is responsible for anything, and you certainly can't claim that you know one is. You are simply presenting your opinion based on your beliefs.

However, you claim that things appear with no maker
And Snowflake! seriously! it is made out of ice something that exists already, so it is a matter of re-arranging thing

You said "I simply know behind every thing is a creator". Whee is the "creator" behind the snowflake?

A snowflake isn't carved out of a block of ice that someone made. It forms, without any help from anyone, from things that are not ice, by processes that are well understood.