If you want something specific and/or detailed, you might want to check this out.
And this is a good one too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
If you want something specific and/or detailed, you might want to check this out.
And this is a good one too.
Skwim
Veteran Member
from your source:
"Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it..."
What's so scientific about mere observation? Countless people in countless other cultures have observed the very same thing.
"And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightning nearly blinds the sight."
What's so scientific about mere observation? Countless people in countless other cultures have observed the very same thing.
"...And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky."
What's so scientific about mere observation? Countless people in countless other cultures have observed the very same thing. So, aside of crediting god for these acts of nature they hold no more import than the observation that in the fall some plants go dormant and in the spring they spring back.
"Let him beware! If he does not stop, We will take him by the Naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful Naseyah (from of the head)!"
Do you suppose that people of other cultures and societies figure that their thoughts come from their butt or their feet? Of course not! we all perceive that our thinking, emotions, and all mental functions take place in our heads.
...A lying, sinful Naseyah (from of the head)!
Do you suppose that people of other cultures and societies figure that their thoughts come from their butt or their feet? Of course not! we all perceive that our thinking, emotions, and all mental functions take place in our heads. That the writers of the Quran recognize this simple fact is about as astounding as recognizing that we hear with our ears.
Last edited:
The source also states that some of these observations have only been recently discovered by meteorologists. And if that link wasn't convincing enough for you there are a couple more I have posted above.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Then that's an out right lie. There is nothing there that hasn't been observed by 99% of all humanity.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Oh no i've seen the mountain building one before.
Mountains do not have roots per say, its like explaining sex to children as birds and the bees.... untra-simplified.
Mountain roots are really a thickened section of the continental crust which occurs under mountains as opposed to a thinner crust in lower lying areas. Calling them roots is rather inaccurate and not entirely true.
Mountains are formed from the less dense crust on top of the dense mantle and are thus pushed upwards are a result of bouyancy force, a known hydraulic property. Mountains don't exactly have "roots" rather the crust is simply thicker.
Also this only occurs with regard to folded mountains..... so given how many mountain types there are (4 majors: folded, ocean ridges, fold and fault blocks) this is rather vague wouldn't you say?
I'm not going to argue with you about this right now either. Did you read the cerebrum one though?
Also here's another website full of scientific information in the Qur'an.
Last edited:
The problem with scientific evidence in religious texts is that they, from what I remember, often are general enough to be interpreted for something they are not. From a purely scientific angle they cannot be considered to be that reliable.
To answer the OP, I don´t know why we are here. Why we exist. I really don´t think anyone knows it. People have different ideas of why, believe in different reasons, they have faith... but I don´t think anyone knows.
To answer the OP, I don´t know why we are here. Why we exist. I really don´t think anyone knows it. People have different ideas of why, believe in different reasons, they have faith... but I don´t think anyone knows.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Now that's as bad as the stuff creationists pump out. Obviously you have no appreciation for rationality and what the word "science" means. Nice talking to you. Have a good life.
McBell
Unbound
Why not?
I mean, if your god can come from nothing, then why not the world?
If your god can be 'eternal', why not the world?
The problem here is that you have to exempt god from every rule you use to 'prove' that god has to exist.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
DebaterSlater, can I ask, what makes it more likely for one God to have created the world than many Gods?
Why can't there be a God of space and a God of time, a God of clouds and a God of trees, of water, of fish, of cows?
Why would creation point to one God over many Gods?
Why can't there be a God of space and a God of time, a God of clouds and a God of trees, of water, of fish, of cows?
Why would creation point to one God over many Gods?
I never said it was all rational and good. Obviously the site's authors are bound to make mistakes but there are some good things there such as this one for example.
In what way do they make the Earth more stable? I mean, to my knowledge they don´t prevent earthquakes, so in what way do they add stability?
Seems a bit far fetched to me, which was what I was talking about in my previous post. It is too open to interpretation to be reliable scientific evidence.
And personally I wouldn´t call a part of the brain good or evil
.
And why would one God be incompetent and incapable to the point that he would need to have "other" Gods to help him create and run the universe? Don't you find that an unnecessary and strange assumption? And the whole point is that there's only one God. If there are multiple deities of the same power you wouldn't call them "Gods", would you?
DebaterSlater, may I ask you what you consider to be scientific evidence? Or evidence in general?
Not asking to correct you in any way, it could just help in explaining what is in my mind. Basically, I think that if you view what is in those links as evidence, then that is fine by me. I don´t personally agree with it, but I am not the one to go around and tell people what they should and should not believe. However, that doesn´t make them scientific evidence. More like... I don´t know the correct term, but... personal evidence? Sorry if I am confusing, lol. Hard to place my thoughts in words.
Not asking to correct you in any way, it could just help in explaining what is in my mind. Basically, I think that if you view what is in those links as evidence, then that is fine by me. I don´t personally agree with it, but I am not the one to go around and tell people what they should and should not believe. However, that doesn´t make them scientific evidence. More like... I don´t know the correct term, but... personal evidence? Sorry if I am confusing, lol. Hard to place my thoughts in words.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
Who said anything about one being more powerful than the others? Why couldn't there be a team of equally powerful gods, each with their own sphere of influence, one of frogs, one of socks, one of sand? Why is that less plausible than one guy who does everything?
To me evidence is an objective fact that is used to prove something. There's no such thing as "personal evidence". If it's not objective then it's not more than an opinion.
Define "God" from your point of view.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Then why do you present opinion after opinion as evidence?
I only presented some links and videos containing scientific discoveries in the Qur'an as evidence. Other than that where did I exactly present anything as "evidence"?
McBell
Unbound
Why do you assume that said gods "need" the other gods?
No more so than the unnecessary and strange assumption that there is even one god.
Says who?
Depends upon what you mean by the word "god".
McBell
Unbound
Please note the huge pink fonted portion of your own post.