what do u think ???

[mli3]

A dialog between a Muslim and an atheist …



Muslim:
Do you believe in God?

• Atheist:
No!

• Muslim:
Who created you and the heavens and earth, then?

• Atheist:
I do not know!

• Muslim:
But there must be a creator or a maker for everything.
Things cannot create themselves!

• Atheist:
Well ! According to your logic, who created this
Creator? You said that there must be a creator for
everything, then who created this creator?

• Muslim:
Mmm! I will answer your question tomorrow!

• Atheist:
Ok! Until tomorrow then!

▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬ ▬

• Muslim:
While I was in the desert, I found a beautiful watch
in the sand

• Atheist:
What make of watch is it?

• Muslim:
Oh! Nothing was written on it, so I think that no one
made it. I think that the watch just emerged from the
sand by itself.

• Atheist:
Ha Ha!


• Muslim:
Why are you surprised?

• Atheist:
The watch must have a maker. The watch can’t make
itself! There must be a human who made it.

• Muslim:
Well ! According to your logic, who made this human?
You said that there must be a maker for the watch, so
who made this maker?

• Atheist:

Why do you ask this stupid question? Why do you
concern yourself with the creation of humans. Why do
you compare Humans with watches; humans are not like
watches! All we know is that watches must have a
maker. While we cannot comprehend the creation of
humans!

Our knowledge and minds are not able to discover the
truth. Even in our life, we do not know many things
like the causes of many diseases, the spirit etc. How
could we, then know exactly the truth of the origin of
humans?



• Muslim:
That is exactly what I wanted! Your reply to me is
exactly my reply to you, when you asked me yesterday,
“ Who created the Creator?” .... So my reply to you
is,

“Why do you ask this stupid question? Why do you
concern yourself with the creation of your God? Why
do you compare God with humans; God is not like us!
There is none like unto Him. All we know is that God
created us. If the Human mind could not comprehend the
universe, how could it comprehend the Creator of the
universe?

Our knowledge and minds are not able to discover the
truth. Even in our life, we do not know many things
like the causes of many diseases, the spirit etc. How
could we then discover the truth of the unseen?
▬▬▬▬▬

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves
the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay,
they have no firm belief …
Or that the Unseen is in their hands, and they write
it down?
Or have they a god other than God? Exalted is God far
above the things they associate with Him! …
So leave them alone till they meet their day, in which
they will be thunder stricken (Quran 52: 35-45):bonk:

-----------------------

 

[t3gah]

one must separate oneself from the origin concept as men know it.

god means god.

the real god who started it all can not be examined as to whether god was or was not created by something or someone because the term god and being forth with is beyond our comprehension of creatorship versus creator.

 

[meogi]

Why do you compare Humans with watches; humans are not like watches!

Everything the "Atheist" says, other than this, doesn't matter. And these two are way too energetic.

 

[Majikthise]

Doesn't really mean anything ,neither could say where God came from.It just made the Muslim seem more clever.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Agreed, Meogi.

So much shouting!

 

[linwood]

Not the watch again.

Please.

Not the watch again.

 

[Master Vigil]

Why do people keep using the watch analogy? Don't people read old posts?

You see, sure the watch has to be made by a man, but that does not prove anything about life needing to have a creator, or even an intelligent one at that. It only proves two things, 1. A watch is created by man. And 2. No one knows anything about the beginning of the universe because we have to use stupid analogies to try to prove our points. Why don't we worry about more important issues, like getting all of this crap in iraq settled. Saving our rainforest, stopping crime, diesease, hunger, etc... I'd rather put good effort and time into that than worrying about "where the universe came from." Or "my religion is better than yours." ETC....

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Not the watch again.

Please.

Not the watch again.

I'm new, and I haven't had the immense displeasure of being embroiled in the watchmaker argument here yet. So onward ho

The watchmaker argument is inherently circular. It wishes to prove that humans require a maker. So, it compares humans to watches, then uses a fact we know ("watches have makers") to conclude a fact we do not know ("humans have makers").

The assumption is that the argument stands on the first point, and that the second point can logically follow from the argument. Unfortunately, and this is where the argument fails as being circular, the argument must first support the idea that humans are analogous to watches within the scope of the argument. To do so, one must assume that humans are similar to watches with regard to all relevant characteristics: To be analogous in the first place, one must first assume that humans need makers. Otherwise, the two are incomparable, and the argument fails.

This is clear in the structure of the argument; its failing is clearly evident. The Muslim seeks to claim that the atheist argument 'humans need makers, so does God' is analogous to 'watches need makers, so do humans' and he does so by presenting them in a parallel format to best showcase the analogy. As with all analogies, though, the devil is in the differences:

Muslim: But there must be a creator or a maker for everything. Things can't make themselves!
---------------------------
Atheist: The watch must have a maker. The watch can’t make itself! There must be a human who made it.

Clearly, the atheist is using information we do know -- that watches need intelligent makers. The Muslim is using information he's concocted out of his fantasy of a supernatural alternate reality: that everything needs an intelligent maker. Without supporting that assertion first, the watchmaker argument is meaningless.

Wonderful, isn't it? That an argument so inherently, plainly fallacious has survived as a hallmark of the theistic crusade against nonbelief? Times are getting desperate, methinks...