• 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!

Scientists Confirm The Signs Of God

stemann

Time Bandit
Thank you! Hope you could taste the sweetness of a believer, hope you could taste the sweetness of having God so close to you, just the fact of His being with us, so close to us every minute is a remedy to the aching heart. I sincerly hope since you are the voice of reason to follow reason and come to the conclusion that there is God, one and only one God who created everything and deserves to be worshipped.
Where does reason show us that? Depending on how you use reason it can show you conflicting things, hence why intellectuals (us) are both theists and atheists. You can't say 'follow reason and come to the conclusion that there is God' because reason doesn't always lead you there.

Simply because science proves it. Scientists arrive to facts that are mentioned in the Holy Quran more than 1400 years ago. Could you tell me who could have told to Prophet Muhammad pbuh these scientific facts then? No one could told Him except the Almighty who created the universe and knows the components of His creatures.
Ever heard of Swift, or Joyce? Two writers who wrote 'strange' things later discovered by science. Some believe that they were precognatives (could see into the future), and there are many many more examples. God does not come into any of them, anywhere.

It is not for me I want to prove it because I believe in Him and in His existance 100% and I have no doubt and will never have a doubt about His existance.
Good for you.

scientists could have eternity to look for god and heaven and they wont find neither,not because they dont exist but because god does not want to be found by fact just faith
I wish someone would tell me, once and for all, how can you have faith in the existence of something. Existence is not a property; you have to know something exists before you can have faith in it for whatever reason.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
stemann said:
Where does reason show us that? Depending on how you use reason it can show you conflicting things, hence why intellectuals (us) are both theists and atheists. You can't say 'follow reason and come to the conclusion that there is God' because reason doesn't always lead you there.


Ever heard of Swift, or Joyce? Two writers who wrote 'strange' things later discovered by science. Some believe that they were precognatives (could see into the future), and there are many many more examples. God does not come into any of them, anywhere.


Good for you.


I wish someone would tell me, once and for all, how can you have faith in the existence of something. Existence is not a property; you have to know something exists before you can have faith in it for whatever reason.
What proof do you need to know that something exists?:)
 

stemann

Time Bandit
What proof do you need to know that something exists?

The only thing I know exists is me. This is one of the fundamentals of objectivists, however I read about objectivists once and I thought they were joking, they were talking rubbish.

However, at the moment I think I am perfectly correct in sayin that I know I exist (Descartes- I think therefore Iam). But I am still thinking about a possible counter to this.

I do not and, I think, cannot know for sure the existence of anything else- including you all; don't feel to hard about it. :)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
stemann said:
The only thing I know exists is me. This is one of the fundamentals of objectivists, however I read about objectivists once and I thought they were joking, they were talking rubbish.

However, at the moment I think I am perfectly correct in sayin that I know I exist (Descartes- I think therefore Iam). But I am still thinking about a possible counter to this.

I do not and, I think, cannot know for sure the existence of anything else- including you all; don't feel to hard about it. :)
Hehehe, I won't. I think what you are describing is Solipsism ie a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. Ghosh it must be a bit boring; and you are talking to yourself ! - perhaps you had better go and seek help ------oh, but you can't do that............:biglaugh:
 

stemann

Time Bandit
Hehehe, I won't. I think what you are describing is Solipsism ie a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. Ghosh it must be a bit boring; and you are talking to yourself ! - perhaps you had better go and seek help ------oh, but you can't do that............
Yes, I've heard a lot of stuff about how solipsism leads to absurdity (well, you could argue religion does as well, and it depends on your view of 'absurd') but I don't even believe that definition of solipsism anyway; I don't say 'Only I exist' because for all I know, there might be an objective reality where you exist. And the reason I act as such and still feel embarrasment, shame etc (which solipsists are not supposed to feel) is because my subconscious accepts the real world since it seems like I have been living in it all my life, and so the emotions which I don't control (shame etc) still occur.

And, even if this all doesn't exist, pleasure and pain still exist as the illusion of pain still hurts; so, the solipsist would act in a way conducive to his/her continuing pleasure and not pain (forget masochists) just like everyone else.

Why do I need help? Sorry I went off on one, I suppose I am just trying to justify myself to myself. Is that insecurity?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
TVOR is right. Science has never, nor will ever prove or disprove anything religious, paranormal, spiritual, etc. One of the rules of thumb in studing parapsychology is nothing can be proven or disproven. A good example, allthough very irational, I have not personally seen the world trade tower site. I do not know for a fact if the terrorist really attacked them, or if it is some government and media story, and the towers are still standing. Or maybe the american government planted some form of device that allowed remote control of the planes. However, somepeople saw the towers being attacked, but I don't know any of these people. They could have been on drugs at that moment for all I know.
Very irational, but its the same concept. I have no proof except for stories that the september 11 attacks happended. Some people have no proof of anything beyond this realm being real except for stories.
 

stemann

Time Bandit
A good example, allthough very irational, I have not personally seen the world trade tower site. I do not know for a fact if the terrorist really attacked them, or if it is some government and media story, and the towers are still standing. Or maybe the american government planted some form of device that allowed remote control of the planes. However, somepeople saw the towers being attacked, but I don't know any of these people. They could have been on drugs at that moment for all I know.
Very irational, but its the same concept. I have no proof except for stories that the september 11 attacks happended. Some people have no proof of anything beyond this realm being real except for stories.
Why did you say 'very irrational' twice????? This is very rational and the sad fact is some people forget that *cough*'Michel'*cough*. You can't know anything external really, but you can (like me) accept it until it is proved wrong, since you don't gain anything by treating it all as not real.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
stemann said:
Why do I need help? Sorry I went off on one, I suppose I am just trying to justify myself to myself. Is that insecurity?
From your signature: pleeeeeeese argue with me, I do not see you are any close to being solipist. On the other hand, perhaps you are, as you need some one to argue with you so that you can be sure that you exist?:biglaugh: Michel may have a point here:jiggy:
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Some people have no proof of anything beyond this realm being real except for stories.
Interpretation of the cosmos is indeed something we do to everything. We can't help but do it. Not just with religion. How do I know that an atom actually exist. I haven't done any studies on it. But I believe it based on someone elses studies and interpretations of it. Because the studies and conclusions seem very resonable. Outside of that, I don't know. No amount of time on earth could allow us to figure it all out. With that said, it appears like that the only solution would be to trust in someone. Trust who? Well, perhaps that should be the center of your search in this life. That should take less time then the alternative. Nevertheless, people aren't to fond in trusting something other then themselves.

The Least
~Victor
 

deepali

New Member
Peace said:
Scientists Confirm The Signs Of Allah

Harun YAHYA​

What we have covered so far shows us that the attributes of the universe discovered by science point to the existence of Allah. Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge. It is religion that shows us the way in knowing Allah. It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion. Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand. In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of Allah. They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach Allah through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.

As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of Allah. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln said on this issue:

For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it. ...But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them..

As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters.

Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in Allah. The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution: If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.What Watson means by "special creation" is Allah's creation. As acknowledged, this scientist finds this "unacceptable". But why? Is it because science says so? Actually it does not. On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation. The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of Allah. All other evolutionists take the same stand.

Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm Allah's existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him. Some trends developing in the USA such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by Allah. This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion. The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources. However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of Allah. Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of Allah. The following verse of the Qur'an addresses this issue;

Do they not look at the sky above them? How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein? And the earth - We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs). And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops. And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another. (Surah Qaf, 6-7, 9-10)

As the above verses imply, the Qur'an always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live. This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one's world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of Allah self-evident in the universe. Prominent German physicist Max Planck said that "everyone who, regardless of his field, studies science seriously is to read the following phrase on the door of the temple of science: 'Have faith'". According to him, faith is an essential attribute of a scientist.

All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences. Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality. The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admiration for its flawless order becomes. Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.

The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century. David Darling also maintains that neither time, nor space, nor matter, nor energy, nor even a tiny spot or a cavity existed at the beginning. A slight quick movement and a modest quiver and fluctuation occurred. Darling ends by saying that when the cover of this cosmic box was opened, the tendrils of the miracle of creation appeared from beneath it.Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in Allah and His divine books. The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.

In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws. Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws. He said: This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point. The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books where he wrote:

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, was also a Christian who believed in God. He had strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution and totally rejected it. In 1903, short before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science... positively affirms creative power."
Hello
Welcome To RF.It seems u r very great scholar.
 

St0ne

Active Member
Also I don't think anyone has pointed out that the theory of evolution has explains the evolution of species, not how the universe came into existance as the article implies.
 
"All Scientists who art in Heaven" are all very much alive and can communicate back to Earth if we want to Listen to them and I am sure they find all this very Interesting.
I am here to read these things and also to say I am even more interested in hearing peoples views on God and Creation and Evolution since I can communicate with the Spirit World and while I can't prove this to anyone scientifically I personally know when the Body of Man dies here on Earth all his intelligence and Memories leaves the Physical Boday and the Human Head and body are just casings left here on Earth and the Soul with all its intelligence and memories goes to the Spirit World and there they can communicate back to Earth and still share all the ideas and continue work through people here on earth just as they did when the were here on Earth.
Also back in the Mid Eighties I awakened one morning and Jesus Christ was walking towards my bed, and he appeared on the two following nights and said I will work with he and other Guides in the Spirit World to help them prove life after Death.
Over the years few people have believed me but I personally believe that Jesus and God and everyone else who has passed over are all alive in the Spirit World and capable of answering prayers and speaking back to Earth through us if we will only believe and listen.
And just as they are alive and well in the after life there are also Evil Forces alive in the Spirit World and sometimes they try to keep us from believing in God and Jesus but they are there.
And so I believe in Creation and I also believe we all evolve down through the ages to become more perfect through a better lifestyle and better medical research and Longer Life span on Earth and things like that.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
"Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator "

Actually, the converse is true, science proves that the universe needs no man-made god.
 

akshar

Active Member
Back to the point. Just cause a few scientists found some scientific facts in the quaran doesent necessarally mean that allah is there. Ancient india gave birth to numbers, hospitals, knowledge, university, medicine and many other things. The vedas predicted cars chariots planes and many other things, it doesent mean that we created the universe( althou i do;)) Some scientific i've heard in the quaran sound silly ( i cant remember but ive seen it on a thread somewhere. In india there ave been signs of shiv. In india, in many spots black stones (lingas) have grown from the earth, in the perfect shape in which we worship. No1 has put them in the earth as it has been traced to come fom very deep
 

spacemonkey

Pneumatic Spiritualist
What exactly are you trying to say with this article, that there are religous scientists? For every scientist you have listed I can find 10 from the same field that don't believe everything is a "miracle". I find it of intrest that the author of the article takes a quote out of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", the book by Leigh, Lincoln, and Baigent that inspired Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" (Leigh Teabing, a character from "The DaVinci Code" takes Leigh from Richard Leigh and Teabing from Baigent, and his description in the book matches Henry Lincoln)
 

Random

Well-Known Member
This thread is yet another reason why this forum should be called "Science & Religion" and not "Science Vs. Religion". Not one sensible, well-reasoned comment from any of you about the OP. A stupid waste of dataspace.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Godlike said:
This thread is yet another reason why this forum should be called "Science & Religion" and not "Science Vs. Religion". Not one sensible, well-reasoned comment from any of you about the OP. A stupid waste of dataspace.
The OP was so rambling and off-subject, full of contradictions and irrelevant information, that I could only wade through half it before I gave up in frustration.

So I guess I agree with your conclusion. ;)
 
Top