Establishing the Creator (Atheist runs away when Muslim asks probing questions)

[DunyaDawah]

Great video of an atheist who runs away when asked probing questions about Establishing the Creator by a Muslim brother at Hyde Park in London..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERyvgcWgluo

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So what do you want to debate?

 

[DunyaDawah]

So what do you want to debate?

Whether there is a Creator or not

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Whether there is a Creator or not

Okay. Do you have evidence in favor of a creator?

 

[DunyaDawah]

Okay. Do you have evidence in favor of a creator?

would you consider the Quran as evidence ?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

would you consider the Quran as evidence ?

Only if you consider Harry Potter as evidence of magic.

How about something a little more concrete, like math or science?

 

[DunyaDawah]

Only if you consider Harry Potter as evidence of magic.

How about something a little more concrete, like math or science?

The Quran contains many concrete statements relating to science as many of the statements mentioned have only been discovered recently by scientists whereas the Quran contained such information over 1400 years ago when there was no technology available.

Would you consider Darwins book and Richard Dawkins book as evidence ?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The Quran contains many concrete statements relating to science as many of the statements mentioned have only been discovered recently by scientists whereas the Quran contained such information over 1400 years ago when there was no technology available.

If this were true, Arabic scientists would have uncovered it sooner, wouldn't they? It's postdiction.

Would you consider Darwins book and Richard Dawkins book as evidence ?

Assuming their statements are backed on research and evidence, certainly.

 

[DunyaDawah]

If this were true, Arabic scientists would have uncovered it sooner, wouldn't they? It's postdiction.

Assuming their statements are backed on research and evidence, certainly.

the arabic scientists didn't need to release the information as that is what the Prophet Muhammad PBUH propagated around the world during his prophecy.

Surely if you are in doubt about the Quran not stating any evidential facts then you should certainly analyze the Quran first.


If we have mutually agreed that we are going to adopt scientific evidence as the basis for establishing the existence of a Creator you need to inform us what kind of evidence will satisfy you of the existence of the Creator.

 

[9Westy9]

Whether there is a Creator or not

post your argument/ evidence then

 

[1137]

Science tests and observes, holy book make random assertions based on faith and misunderstandings of how things work. Would the OP believe that the Sun is actually a hawk headed deity who goes across the sky in a boat just because the ancient Egyptians believed such? I am guessing no, and we have evidence that shows the sun is not a hawk headed god in a boat.

As for if there is a creator, I will go with the answer of no. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe in supernatural creation, a divine and conscious being, anything of the sort. More likely, the universe simply came about due to the nature of how reality works, not for any reason, not because of some conscious desire, but just because nature is awesome like that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who ran away?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

the arabic scientists didn't need to release the information as that is what the Prophet Muhammad PBUH propagated around the world during his prophecy.

Surely if you are in doubt about the Quran not stating any evidential facts then you should certainly analyze the Quran first.

Actually, it's very very simple: if the information was there, it would have been known at that time. If the information was not, it would not. Only in hindsight bias does the Muslim scream "The Quran holds the keys to string theory!"

If we have mutually agreed that we are going to adopt scientific evidence as the basis for establishing the existence of a Creator you need to inform us what kind of evidence will satisfy you of the existence of the Creator.

Scientific, peer reviewed, reproducible evidence is the kind of evidence that will satisfy me. So please, share some.

 

[outhouse]

There has never been anything that cen be scientifically attributed to any of the creation myths from any culture.

 

[Storm]

Whether there is a Creator or not

In that case, present an argument, not a random video of someone not bothering to answer.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Actually, it's very very simple: if the information was there, it would have been known at that time. If the information was not, it would not. Only in hindsight bias does the Muslim scream "The Quran holds the keys to string theory!"


Scientific, peer reviewed, reproducible evidence is the kind of evidence that will satisfy me. So please, share some.

the question we had asked was what kind of scientific evidence would you require to establish the existence of a Creator. We are talking about a scientific paper being written and being peer reviewed.
So can you please address the question in the format that it is set.

 

[Valjean]

The Quran contains many concrete statements relating to science as many of the statements mentioned have only been discovered recently by scientists whereas the Quran contained such information over 1400 years ago when there was no technology available.

Would you consider Darwins book and Richard Dawkins book as evidence ?

Would you give us some examples of these concrete, scientific statements?
The Harry Potter books contain many demonstrably correct historical, geographical and scientific statements. Including known facts in a book is not evidence that the book's premise is fact.

Darwin's book (I'm assuming you mean Origin of Species -- Darwin was a prolific writer) is not a theological work. It has no more to do with the existence of God than a book on auto mechanics.
Dawkin's books (I'm assuming you're referring to his pro-atheism works?) aren't evidence. they're works questioning the "evidence" posited by theists. The burden of proof is not on atheists -- atheism is the epistemic default position. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim that an invisible person exists and manipulates the world by magic.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

the question we had asked was what kind of scientific evidence would you require to establish the existence of a Creator. We are talking about a scientific paper being written and being peer reviewed.
So can you please address the question in the format that it is set.

That is my answer. Provide a scientific peer-reviewed paper showing the existence of a creator. I'm not giving specifics. Anything which conclusively shows the existence of a creator will do.

You should start with physics. It would probably be the easiest.

 

[DunyaDawah]

That is my answer. Provide a scientific peer-reviewed paper showing the existence of a creator. I'm not giving specifics. Anything which conclusively shows the existence of a creator will do.

You should start with physics. It would probably be the easiest.

with the greatest of respect we allowed the use of your criteria and on that basis we have asked the question. Merely making a statement and attempting to pigeonhole the subject is evading the question. Any scientific paper that is going to be written (and peer-reviewed) will require a proposition that is based in reality. So I would kindly ask you to address the question accordingly.

 

[Noaidi]

Given that the concept of a deity is so variable, where would one start in the presentation of evidence - or even in the gathering of the evidence?