Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[~Amin~]

which is really a coward's way out of debate.

I am NOT debating, just want to make that clear, i am sharing my perspective, and i thought this is what you are doing. There is a statement in our scripture that says;
"Do not debate even if your right''

We know it close enough as makes no difference. There is no such state as perfection, nor can we ever comb every inch of the universe; to lament that ALL our knowledge is worthless because of such hyperbolic requirements is a rather banal escape clause.

I NEVER made such a statement, that this knowledge is WORTHLESS, show me where i said this, makes me think, you have misunderstood me in such basic straight forward response, what if we were to get more intimate and personal.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I am NOT debating, just want to make that clear, i am sharing my perspective, and i thought this is what you are doing. There is a statement in our scripture that says;
"Do not debate even if you're right''
I NEVER made such a statement, that this knowledge is WORTHLESS, show me where i said this, makes me think, you have misunderstood me in such basic straight forward response, what if we were to get more intimate and personal.

It is fine to share a perspective, but you also added in definitive statements about reality, and that unnamed experience which you have had prove something; and that they are objective.
These are definitive statements which have naturally led to what can only really be called 'debate'. In fact reading back again your responses to others can also essentially be framed as debate responses. I can totally understand that perhaps your initial desire was to avoid any conflict or difference of opinion, but we've strayed into statements which essentially invite it.
While you never used the word 'worthless' it is true, however the conclusion based on your response to camanintx, is that epistemology presents a world where peoples' perceptions veil real Truth. You also brought it up in response to me. While perception can cloud many things there are still objective things which do not change based on someone observing about them. You then alluded to the idea that somehow Truths would instead be revealed after we are dead. So, in essence and in my own words, you are making the claim that the world as it is hides truth from us or otherwise renders our human observations flawed [making our conclusions, by default, useless] and that only in some idealistic afterlife with we be shown what's real. How is that not solipsism?

 

[~Amin~]

So, in essence and in my own words, you are making the claim that the world as it is hides truth from us or otherwise renders our human observations flawed [making our conclusions, by default, useless] and that only in some idealistic afterlife with we be shown what's real. How is that not solipsism?

I don't believe the world veils anything from us, its only veiled if a persons approach is limited, there are boundaries in all things that exist, there are physical and spiritual ways to traverse different paths, even though there are unseen things i believe in "life after death'' there are examples in existence, which make it rational for me to believe. For example i believe after i die i will be brought back to life ( which is unseen) but in real existence, every season countless number of living things die, then next season are brought back to life, so after witnessing this, its logical to me to think,
if these things can come to life after death, then so can i. One question how did you link this with solipsism?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then present it.

Oh please! Do you think that I'm discussing with you simply to amuse myself?
I do care about the fate of other people, I cannot present my reams of evidence in a few simple sentences.

No, it isn't. If you answer "where did the Universe come from" with "God", you are left with the ever-more unfalsifiable question of where God came from.

Not at all ! God created space-time .. He's the owner of time!
ie. It's only the physical definition of time which leads to the question of where God came from

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh please! Do you think that I'm discussing with you simply to amuse myself?
I do care about the fate of other people, I cannot present my reams of evidence in a few simple sentences.

Then just present one piece of evidence. Why is it that whenever a theist claims to have evidence of the existence of God (or "reams" of it) they never present it when asked? If you possess it, present it. If you can not, then you don't have any.

Not at all ! God created space-time .. He's the owner of time!
ie. It's only the physical definition of time which leads to the question of where God came from

How is that even remotely relevant to the question of the origin of God? If the Universe must have an origin, then it stands to reason that God must have an origin as well. Even disregarding that, the notion of a God gives rise to any number of questions, such as what is God's nature, form and fuction; what, if any, are God's tenets/beliefs; what, if any, religion is God the deity of, etc.? An answer that produces nothing but more questions is not a real answer.

 

[McBell]

Oh please! Do you think that I'm discussing with you simply to amuse myself?
I do care about the fate of other people, I cannot present my reams of evidence in a few simple sentences.

You do an awful lot of talking, making bold unsubstantiated claims, yet you are always so unable to support your claims with anything other than more claims...

Not at all ! God created space-time .. He's the owner of time!
ie. It's only the physical definition of time which leads to the question of where God came from

And yet you are still unable to convince those outside your choir that god exists outside your own mind...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

if this is an issue for you, then science should also be a problem, because according to science amd physics, matter and energy are also not created.

Except science never stops dead at a question like the premise of a "God" does. The difference is that science looks for answers, whereas God is proposed an an answer, yet produces nothing but more questions. In science, answering a question honestly with "I don't know" is a valid response. Answering the same question with "God" is just a dead-end that provides no real answers.

Science is very good, but through it, trying to find God is a contradiction, sience can ONLY measure and examine physical objects, and God is not a physical object seen by the human eye, thats why the opening verses of Baqara states;
This is a book; in it is sure guidance, without doubt, those who are God concious.
Who believe in the UNSEEN. Qur'an 2 verse 2,3.
Remember Unseen, science only anylises that which is physical, this DOES not mean we reject science, just that its limited in certain areas.

If something exists, then we should be able to demonstrate it's existence by some means. If it is not quantifiable - by any means - then we have no basis on which to claim that that thing exists in the first place, so any and all claims made about that particular thing are meaningless assertions. I reject the claim that the existence of God is not a scientific claim, since any claim worth making any assertion about should be quantifiable. You're welcome to believe what you like in spite of this, but I refuse to believe anything as being true until it has met the minimum requirement for being established as being true, and the best possible method we have for that is the scientific one.

 

[camanintx]

That is not totally true, epistemology is important, people have diverse method of approaching things, and we have plenty of evidence which you differ with, to us is our belief, and to you is yours, their is no dispute between ourselves and yourself, we will know the reality of it after a short time(after we leave this world, if indeed we are truthful in our statements).

If evidence is that which we use to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion, in this case that God exists, then wouldn't that assertion have to be logically consistent first?

 

[Tristesse]

I am NOT debating, just want to make that clear, i am sharing my perspective, and i thought this is what you are doing. There is a statement in our scripture that says;
"Do not debate even if your right''

I NEVER made such a statement, that this knowledge is WORTHLESS, show me where i said this, makes me think, you have misunderstood me in such basic straight forward response, what if we were to get more intimate and personal.

You realize that you're in the debate section of the forum, right?

 

[~Amin~]

Except science never stops dead at a question like the premise of a "God" does.

This part is true, but science(material observers) don't have a definite answer, they assume, or propose a reason how everything came about, but they don't know for certain. And when i speak of science i want to make clear, to me science is a branch of knowledge created by God, i do not criticize it in any way, i actually respect the fact that, when they are uncertain about something, they say it.


If something exists, then we should be able to demonstrate it's existence by some means. If it is not quantifiable - by any means - then we have no basis on which to claim that that thing exists in the first place, so any and all claims made about that particular thing are meaningless assertions. I reject the claim that the existence of God is not a scientific claim, since any claim worth making any assertion about should be quantifiable. You're welcome to believe what you like in spite of this, but I refuse to believe anything as being true until it has met the minimum requirement for being established as being true, and the best possible method we have for that is the scientific one.[/quote]That is fair enough if that is how you feel, but for me on the other hand the evidence is clear, for example, in a very basic way, everything is within an order and a balance equilibrium, when you study human anatomy and physiology, there is homeostasis, of course even so, people like Dawkins respond to this by saying ''it just appears to be organised and balanced, this is just a powerful illusion'' so he doesn't deny the essence of the subject or evidence, just that it ''SEEMS'' to us as such, which he dosnt deny nor can anybody else, to me this is irrational.

 

[~Amin~]

If something exists, then we should be able to demonstrate it's existence by some means. If it is not quantifiable - by any means - then we have no basis on which to claim that that thing exists in the first place, so any and all claims made about that particular thing are meaningless assertions. I reject the claim that the existence of God is not a scientific claim, since any claim worth making any assertion about should be quantifiable. You're welcome to believe what you like in spite of this, but I refuse to believe anything as being true until it has met the minimum requirement for being established as being true, and the best possible method we have for that is the scientific one.

That is fair enough if that is how you feel, but for me on the other hand the evidence is clear, for example, in a very basic way, everything is within an order and a balance equilibrium, when you study human anatomy and physiology, there is homeostasis, of course even so, people like Dawkins respond to this by saying ''it just appears to be organised and balanced, this is just a powerful illusion'' so he doesn't deny the essence of the subject or evidence, just that it ''SEEMS'' to us as such, which he dosnt deny nor can anybody else, to me this is irrational.

 

[Tristesse]

1. 'a god' could refer to anything at all
2. there most certainly IS evidence .. but you don't accept it

A 'larger mystery' is not created .. it's part of the SAME ONE!

Whats the evidence? If you provide sufficient evididence you could win the nobel prize.

Explain how a larger mystery isn't created, because typically we explain things in terms of things that are already understood. For instance, if you're using a god as an explanation, you have to define what you mean by god, demonstrate how this thing manifests in reality, or manifested(if it no longer exists) and explain how this thing could have created the universe. Then we might have a better understanding of what you mean by a god, until then it's just non-sense.

 

[~Amin~]

If evidence is that which we use to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion, in this case that God exists, then wouldn't that assertion have to be logically consistent first?

The evidence from my point of view, is not evidence from your point of view, read previous post, if you dont mind let me ask you what is inconsistent about our evidence?

 

[Tristesse]

The evidence from my point of view, is not evidence from your point of view, read previous post, if you dont mind let me ask you what is inconsistent about our evidence?

Thats hog wash. Evidence is evidence, and if you're using special evidence that is evident to everyone, then it's not evidence in the scientific sense and there's no point in discussing it.

 

[~Amin~]

You realize that you're in the debate section of the forum, right?

I really don't care how they label it, debating gets people no where, it makes people feel arrogant for both believers and disbelievers, and this arrogance for a believer is poison.

 

[Tristesse]

I really don't care how they label it, debating gets people no where, it makes people feel arrogant for both believers and disbelievers, and this arrogance for a believer is poison.

I disagree, many minds have been changed from debating. Don't underestimate the power of debating. But it does matter how they label it, because if you're going to say, I'm not here to debate, while in the debate section of the forum then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this section.

 

[~Amin~]

Thats hog wash. Evidence is evidence, and if you're using special evidence that is evident to everyone, then it's not evidence in the scientific sense and there's no point in discussing it.

Thats fine if thats how you feel. Like i said before God is not a material being so scientifically how can you measure this? you cant, so why try? you can approach it from another angle.

 

[Tristesse]

Thats fine if thats how you feel. Like i said before God is not a material being so scientifically how can you measure this? you cant, so why try? you can approach it from another angle.

If you can't quantify it's exisistence, then how can you make the statement that it exists? How do you define existence? And what other approach can we take? Is there a better method of knowledge then science? I appologize for asking so many questions, but your statement doesn't answer anything, and only leaves me asking questions.

 

[~Amin~]

Whats the evidence? If you provide sufficient evididence you could win the nobel prize.

If this is sarcasm its not needed in a serious discussion.

Explain how a larger mystery isn't created

This is easy, but first explain how matter isn't created?

you have to define what you mean by god, demonstrate how this thing manifests in reality, or manifested(if it no longer exists).

Definition, God created us, then provides for, and has created everything with a biological time( it will die), then he will give it life again, like the first time. He is manifest to those whose obey Him, which is for their own benefit.

explain how this thing could have created the universe. Then we might have a better understanding of what you mean by a god, until then it's just non-sense.

When He wills something He merely says BE and it exists.

 

[riley2112]

If you can't quantify it's exisistence, then how can you make the statement that it exists? How do you define existence? And what other approach can we take? Is there a better method of knowledge then science? I appologize for asking so many questions, but your statement doesn't answer anything, and only leaves me asking questions.

I do not believe it is possible to, “prove,” whether or not God exists, whether to the atheist, or to anyone else for that matter. We can present factual evidence (which we can not prove is factual, funny how that works) for the unbeliever to weigh and consider as a part of the process necessary to develop his or her individual faith, but we simply cannot, “prove,” there is a God because we are not God. What I mean is this: God will prove Himself to each and every person that takes his or her first step of faith; God tailors the inner, ‘spiritual witness’ that He feels is best suited and unique to each individual, and therefore HE is the ultimate, “proof,” of Himself and His existence.