If we were all atheists?

[yasir]

Atheists movements and agenda is about bringing reason in to public sphere(political, social and culture) and policy matters. Dogma and Superstition has to be reason with like any other ideology, rather than protection by state, if they can beat reason on level plain field, then hats off to them. Same sort of level pain field as Anti-racism movements demanded. World dominated by reason, is not a bad dream

Reason inherently means evidence based, there is no other way to reason

 

[sweep_shot]

Ask yourself the same question. If the universe came out of God, what did God come out of?

From Islamic point of view, here are some descriptions of God:

1) God is eternal. He has no beginning and He has no end.
2) God was not created. He creates.
3) God is absolutely perfect. He has the absolute power.

So, answer to your question is God didn't come out of anything. He just exists. He existed when there was nothing and He will continue to exist.

 

[yasir]

From Islamic point of view, here are some descriptions of God:

1) God is eternal. He has no beginning and He has no end.
2) God was not created. He creates.
3) God is absolutely perfect. He has the absolute power.

So, answer to your question is God didn't come out of anything. He just exists. He existed when there was nothing and He will continue to exist.

These are just statements, you have any evidence to back these statements??

 

[sweep_shot]

These are just statements, you have any evidence to back these statements??

I am not that great at debates but I am sure someone from here will be able to answer you better.

I will say you one thing. I am a believer and I find many evidences of existence of God. The way this universe functions can't happen without a higher power's presence. You may not see those evidences because you seem secular.

 

[troodon]

From Islamic point of view, here are some descriptions of God:

1) God is eternal. He has no beginning and He has no end.
2) God was not created. He creates.
3) God is absolutely perfect. He has the absolute power.

So, answer to your question is God didn't come out of anything. He just exists. He existed when there was nothing and He will continue to exist.

Nothing comes out of thin air or vacuum. Something or someone as complex as God cannot be created without any external power.

Your post makes no sense. Also, God is not perfect. Look at his creation and the natural calamities that are happening on Earth and in the Universe. This entire Universe is still a very violent place. Not perfect as you suggest.

 

[yasir]

I am not that great at debates but I am sure someone from here will be able to answer you better.

I will say you one thing. I am a believer and I find many evidences of existence of God. The way this universe functions can't happen without a higher power's presence. You may not see those evidences because you seem secular.

What evidence of God you have encounter? - You can get Noble Prize for such findings

Secondly, if you are not confident at debating, last thing you want to do, is making sweeping statements

 

[sweep_shot]

Nothing comes out of thin air or vacuum. Something or someone as complex as God cannot be created without any external power.

Your post makes no sense. Also, God is not perfect. Look at his creation and the natural calamities that are happening on Earth and in the Universe. This entire Universe is still a very violent place. Not perfect as you suggest.

Earth is not a perfect place and God created it like this. He made it as a testing ground; humans will be tested here.

“Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.” [Quran - 29:2-3].

"And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient, who, when disaster strikes them, say, "Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return. Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided." [Quran - 2:155-158].

 

[sweep_shot]

What evidence of God you have encounter? - You can get Noble Prize for such findings

Secondly, if you are not confident at debating, last thing you want to do, is making sweeping statements

Evidence is there if you have an open mind to look for it. You either believe or you don't.

Also, I was just responding to Robert and letting him know Islamic viewpoint of God. I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

 

[sweep_shot]

I urge all critics and skeptics of Islam to read the Quran. It should answer your questions. The book has less than 7000 verses. You can finish the book in one month.

I know many non-Muslims who converted to Islam after reading Quran. Latest example is Joram van Klaveren. He used to be a far-right politician from Netherlands and now he is a Muslim.

 

[WC-Passion]

Humans use religion as an excuse to believe and fight. It would probably be something else used instead.

 

[Musakhel]

Nothing comes out of thin air or vacuum. Something or someone as complex as God cannot be created without any external power.

Your post makes no sense. Also, God is not perfect. Look at his creation and the natural calamities that are happening on Earth and in the Universe. This entire Universe is still a very violent place. Not perfect as you suggest.

God is perfect, But he is also All powerful, that means he does as he wills, and some manifestations of his creation are the Imperfections that we observe.

God being perfect does not mean he must create perfection all the time, this is in itself flawed thinking, because you are limiting God power, God being All powerful means he does what he wills, perfect, imperfect everything falls under his power to do as he wills.

 

[Robert]

From Islamic point of view, here are some descriptions of God:

1) God is eternal. He has no beginning and He has no end.
2) God was not created. He creates.
3) God is absolutely perfect. He has the absolute power.

So, answer to your question is God didn't come out of anything. He just exists. He existed when there was nothing and He will continue to exist.

That’s evasion. Islam cannot answer how something came out of nothing.

 

[Technics 1210]

That’s evasion. Islam cannot answer how something came out of nothing.

Neither can science.

 

[JaDed]

Faith is important, imposition of faith or atheism for that matter isn't, sadly religions are made to appear to be written on stone and don't move with time.

 

[pillionrider]

Neither can science.

That should read, "Neither can science as of now".

I would refer you to YT videos on scientists who are working on this problem right now, but I know it wouldn't make a difference to you.

The difference between Science and Islam/other religions is:

At least Science has the possibility of solving this maybe in another 500 years. But your lot has no plans of adding anything to your existing material. So...

 

[sweep_shot]

That should read, "Neither can science as of now".

I would refer you to YT videos on scientists who are working on this problem right now, but I know it wouldn't make a difference to you.

The difference between Science and Islam/other religions is:

At least Science has the possibility of solving this maybe in another 500 years. But your lot has no plans of adding anything to your existing material. So...

We believe our religion is complete and there is no need for addition or subtraction. This religion was complete with the final prophet Muhammed (PBUH).

 

[yasir]

Neither can science.

Science is not making a claim, you are.

 

[yasir]

Faith is important, imposition of faith or atheism for that matter isn't, sadly religions are made to appear to be written on stone and don't move with time.

There is no dogma behind Atheism to be imposed. Plain and fair level field for ideas. No protection of faith/religion or and idea including science, let them compete...

Problem is we cannot accept religion at face value. Religion is no authority on reality or natural world, it has to prove its point like science. Policy matters effects everybody, they cannot be accepted at Faith. If you have Faith that is personal, Atheist have no reason to drag in public life. We only care about Faith that has consequence for us.

 

[yasir]

Evidence is there if you have an open mind to look for it. You either believe or you don't.

Also, I was just responding to Robert and letting him know Islamic viewpoint of God. I don't think there was anything wrong with it.

Can you present one evidence of the existence of God??

 

[sweep_shot]

Can you present one evidence of the existence of God??

I look at universe and see how everything follows a pattern. All planets follow their own orbits and not a single planet goes away. Everything seems programmed and someone must have programmed all these. That's enough evidence for me.

I look at human body and I see clear sign of intelligent design. It shows to me that Someone has designed it. It can't happen by chance.

These two may not seem like evidences to you but I refuse to believe these happened by chance.

 

[yasir]

God is perfect, But he is also All powerful, that means he does as he wills, and some manifestations of his creation are the Imperfections that we observe.

God being perfect does not mean he must create perfection all the time, this is in itself flawed thinking, because you are limiting God power, God being All powerful means he does what he wills, perfect, imperfect everything falls under his power to do as he wills.

You are attaching so many properties to the God, without establishing his existence first

Nobody has demonstrated that if a God exists, let alone a specific kind of God like Allah, Jesus, Ram etc...

 

[yasir]

I look at universe and see how everything follows a pattern. All planets follow their own orbits and not a single planet goes away. Everything seems programmed and someone must have programmed all these. That's enough evidence for me.

I look at human body and I see clear sign of intelligent design. It shows to me that Someone has designed it. It can't happen by chance.

These two may not seem like evidences to you but I refuse to believe these happened by chance.

Seems programmed, does not means it is programmed or does it?? - How do you concluded, it’s definitely programmed??

In your God theory, God himself was created by chance, since nobody created him. If God can be created by chance why not rest of the cosmos??

You again have not demonstrated your claims, rather making more indemonstrable claims. At some point you have to prove your claims. Claims are not important evidence is

 

[sweep_shot]

Seems programmed, does not means it is programmed or does it?? - How do you concluded, it’s definitely programmed??

In your God theory, God himself was created by chance, since nobody created him. If God can be created by chance why not rest of the cosmos??

You again have not demonstrated your claims, rather making more indemonstrable claims. At some point you have to prove your claims. Claims are not important evidence is ������

I think you misunderstood. We do not believe God was created. God is uncreated and He just exists. He has no beginning and He has no end; He is eternal.

What kind of proof are you seeking? I am not clear actually.

 

[sweep_shot]

Seems programmed, does not means it is programmed or does it?? - How do you concluded, it’s definitely programmed??

In your God theory, God himself was created by chance, since nobody created him. If God can be created by chance why not rest of the cosmos??

You again have not demonstrated your claims, rather making more indemonstrable claims. At some point you have to prove your claims. Claims are not important evidence is ������

These are not claims. These are beliefs.

I give you one example. Let's say you are walking over Sahara Desert. You suddenly found a wristwatch with no brand name. Are you going to assume that watch got assembled by chance? Or are you going to believe someone has designed that watch? Same with human body and same with universe.

 

[Technics 1210]

Science is not making a claim, you are.

No.

If the question is how can god come out of nothing, then how can the universe pop out of nothing devoid of God? If the question is how did god exist in the first place to create the universe, the the questions is also how did a pre universe exist without a God from nothingness?

If the penny hasn't dropped let me dangle it for you - science and God with respect to the creation of the universe are both faith based initiatives. And no, science cannot prove the big bang either.

You live in science yet are troubled by people believing in God. It's you who has the weak faith in science.

 

[Technics 1210]

Seems programmed, does not means it is programmed or does it?? - How do you concluded, it’s definitely programmed??

In your God theory, God himself was created by chance, since nobody created him. If God can be created by chance why not rest of the cosmos??

You again have not demonstrated your claims, rather making more indemonstrable claims. At some point you have to prove your claims. Claims are not important evidence is

Yet you believe the universe was created by chance. Evidence? Where is it? Your position is no different to those who believe in God created the universe.

That's the problem with you flukists. You believe everything popped out of a cosmic hat through chance, everything is possible and probable, except the existence of God.

A living contradiction If there ever was one.

 

[James]

Human nature is one of competition, conflict and power-seeking. As well as a unifier, religion can also be a major cause of division, sure - but without religion there would still be politics, race and gender to name just three sources of disquiet. We would still be actively fighting “the war of all against all”. (Thomas Hobbes)

 

[Technics 1210]

Human nature is one of competition, conflict and power-seeking. As well as a unifier, religion can also be a major cause of division, sure - but without religion there would still be politics, race and gender to name just three sources of disquiet. We would still be actively fighting “the war of all against all”. (Thomas Hobbes)

Good quote, but misses the 4th source of disquiet, money.

 

[Madplayer]

That’s evasion. Islam cannot answer how something came out of nothing.

The issue with your position here is that you are trying to question this Islamic fundamental based on your own rules which shows bias. The scientific laws of universe which you follow claim that everything has come from something as in everything has a beginning. Islamic belief is that God is uncreated and above the laws of universe which he himself created. So, he doesnt need to come from anything. He doesnt have needs to begin with. Hence you cannot put God under the microscope like the things which He has created. When you accept this position, everything else falls into placem however, science will never be able to fulfill its promise and get to the beginning of it all because by definition science will have to look for what came before the "beginning". Its an unending cycle.

 

[Madplayer]

Can you present one evidence of the existence of God??

You are the evidence.

 

[Arsal_AK]

Physics has not answered the question whether something can come out of nothing. Come back when you can prove that

0 + 0 = 1

That is a stupid statement. 0 + 0 = 1 is proven to be false it will always be, no matter what.

What even more problematic is the assumption that zero has anything to do with nothing in this context or the statement is in anyway whatsoever equivalent to the question of the origin of the universe.

Yes, physics as of now doesn't have an answer but that doesn't mean that we won't ever have one.

Rewind the clock a few centuries back and the same was said of planetary dynamics and Newton changed that. Then same was said of life that there won't be a Newton for something as complex as a blade of grass and well we had Darwin. Now all you are doing is saying that the same for the universe, whereas science has time and time again shown that it may take time but it does eventually get there. And this is a hard problem.

Modern Cosmology has many models which explain the state of the universe before the big bang and then predict it's state afterwords too (the Physics of which is well established) with astounding accuracy.

So yeah, many brilliant people are actually working on the problem day and night and there is no reason to conclude that they won't make any progress.

 

[Technics 1210]

If people believe something can come out of absolute nothingness in empirical terms, then we're in trouble. Science is based on observation, which means our knowledge is limited to the boundaries of observations. People should not confuse metaphysics with actual observable and repeatable physics. Science has proven one thing, cause precedes effect, and something cannot come out of something. Anyone believing this is possible, or says, we will find out some day, holds more faith than religious folk, and is determined not to follow the evidence because of preconceived views.

Remember, our development of science over the centuries coincides with our development of observation, and observation has limits, thus science has limits.

 

[Adijazz1706]

What evidence of God you have encounter? - You can get Noble Prize for such findings

Secondly, if you are not confident at debating, last thing you want to do, is making sweeping statements

What do you think would constitute admissible evidence of God?

 

[Madplayer]

That is a stupid statement. 0 + 0 = 1 is proven to be false it will always be, no matter what.

You know in what context i used that statement. I was talking about vicious cycle that science finds itself in. Every created thing has to come from something until you reach the Uncreated. However science doesnt admit that there could be something uncreated and hence its on an unending quest to look for beginning of everything. This will never end.

What even more problematic is the assumption that zero has anything to do with nothing in this context or the statement is in anyway whatsoever equivalent to the question of the origin of the universe.

Yes, physics as of now doesn't have an answer but that doesn't mean that we won't ever have one.

Rewind the clock a few centuries back and the same was said of planetary dynamics and Newton changed that. Then same was said of life that there won't be a Newton for something as complex as a blade of grass and well we had Darwin. Now all you are doing is saying that the same for the universe, whereas science has time and time again shown that it may take time but it does eventually get there. And this is a hard problem.

Modern Cosmology has many models which explain the state of the universe before the big bang and then predict it's state afterwords too (the Physics of which is well established) with astounding accuracy.

So yeah, many brilliant people are actually working on the problem day and night and there is no reason to conclude that they won't make any progress.

Blah blah. Do you even see what problem is being discussed and whats the basis of that problem? This is not like proving that earth revolves around sun. Its different. Its a fundamental and ideological problem of science which we are talking about.

 

[Madplayer]

If people believe something can come out of absolute nothingness in empirical terms, then we're in trouble. Science is based on observation, which means our knowledge is limited to the boundaries of observations. People should not confuse metaphysics with actual observable and repeatable physics. Science has proven one thing, cause precedes effect, and something cannot come out of something. Anyone believing this is possible, or says, we will find out some day, holds more faith than religious folk, and is determined not to follow the evidence because of preconceived views.

Remember, our development of science over the centuries coincides with our development of observation, and observation has limits, thus science has limits.

One of the best posts on this thread.

 

[miandadrules]

If people believe something can come out of absolute nothingness in empirical terms, then we're in trouble. Science is based on observation, which means our knowledge is limited to the boundaries of observations. People should not confuse metaphysics with actual observable and repeatable physics. Science has proven one thing, cause precedes effect, and something cannot come out of something. Anyone believing this is possible, or says, we will find out some day, holds more faith than religious folk, and is determined not to follow the evidence because of preconceived views.

Remember, our development of science over the centuries coincides with our development of observation, and observation has limits, thus science has limits.

Something from nothing makes no sense to you. How did God come about?

 

[Technics 1210]

Something from nothing makes no sense to you. How did God come about?

Read what I posted again. Something from nothing is not possible, which is what science has proven within the known observable universe, Atheists must then explain how the universe came from nothing. In other words, there is no God, now explain how the universe came from nothing? You can't, and neither can science.

There is no empirical evidence of any process or scientific experiments even remotely demonstrating something from nothing in the known observable universe. The closest science came to explaining the existence of the universe in this scenario was SST - Steady State Theory - in that, the universe was eternal, had no beginning or end. This theory was falsified on the discovered of CMBR, which falsified the Steady State theory by demonstrating the universe had a beginning, and will have an end. Now the question is, how and what triggered the beginning if the universe.

Put simply, Atheists and Theists have faith in the how the universe was created. There is no point in Atheists asking what created God, when they themselves cannot explain how the universe was created in the absence of God.

 

[yasir]

If people believe something can come out of absolute nothingness in empirical terms, then we're in trouble. Science is based on observation, which means our knowledge is limited to the boundaries of observations. People should not confuse metaphysics with actual observable and repeatable physics. Science has proven one thing, cause precedes effect, and something cannot come out of something. Anyone believing this is possible, or says, we will find out some day, holds more faith than religious folk, and is determined not to follow the evidence because of preconceived views.

Remember, our development of science over the centuries coincides with our development of observation, and observation has limits, thus science has limits.

We have improved our observation because of Science(which is entirely based on evidence) not the other way around. Human Brain has not improved significantly in last 500 years or so, but Science and Tech has made possible exponential growth in our civilization.

How have you evaluated the limits of our observation?? - I don't know a method that can tell reliably, what we can or cannot achieve using Science.

MetaPhysic, Spiritualism or Other forms of Junk Literature has not answered either, How something can come from nothing? - But many claims they do have answers, it's just they are not articulate enough to present that to everybody else

Science is based on evidence not emotional baseless statements.

 

[miandadrules]

Read what I posted again. Something from nothing is not possible, which is what science has proven within the known observable universe, Atheists must then explain how the universe came from nothing. In other words, there is no God, now explain how the universe came from nothing? You can't, and neither can science.

There is no empirical evidence of any process or scientific experiments even remotely demonstrating something from nothing in the known observable universe. The closest science came to explaining the existence of the universe in this scenario was SST - Steady State Theory - in that, the universe was eternal, had no beginning or end. This theory was falsified on the discovered of CMBR, which falsified the Steady State theory by demonstrating the universe had a beginning, and will have an end. Now the question is, how and what triggered the beginning if the universe.

Put simply, Atheists and Theists have faith in the how the universe was created. There is no point in Atheists asking what created God, when they themselves cannot explain how the universe was created in the absence of God.

How did God come about?

 

[Technics 1210]

How did God come about?

Same way the universe came about in the absence of God.

What's the problem? You believe the universe popped out of a cosmic hat from nothing, some people belief God came of of a cosmic hat from nothing.

 

[Technics 1210]

We have improved our observation because of Science(which is entirely based on evidence) not the other way around. Human Brain has not improved significantly in last 500 years or so, but Science and Tech has made possible exponential growth in our civilization.

How have you evaluated the limits of our observation?? - I don't know a method that can tell reliably, what we can or cannot achieve using Science.

MetaPhysic, Spiritualism or Other forms of Junk Literature has not answered either, How something can come from nothing? - But many claims they do have answers, it's just they are not articulate enough to present that to everybody else

Science is based on evidence not emotional baseless statements.

No evidence presented on how the universe was created.

I asked in scientific terms, no God. Where is your evidence the universe was created from nothing? If created from something, where is the evidence that something was created from nothing?

You do not understand science. Science is based on observation, it is observation that leads to evidence. THis is why God is not scientific because God cannot be observed.

 

[yasir]

No evidence presented on how the universe was created.

I asked in scientific terms, no God. Where is your evidence the universe was created from nothing? If created from something, where is the evidence that something was created from nothing?

You do not understand science. Science is based on observation, it is observation that leads to evidence. THis is why God is not scientific because God cannot be observed.

We don't know how universe was created, that is scientific stand. Purpose of Science is not to discover God, but to know reality based on evidence. Scientific community is honest about what we know and don't know right now. There are no sweeping statements about what we can and cannot know through Science.

Nobody else has provided any evidence that God has created universe. I would like to know how you come to the conclusion, that God has created universe??

What does that mean, "God cannot be Observed"?

 

[pillionrider]

What does that mean, "God cannot be Observed"?

He means that, of all the species possible, God chose to present himself to a species that bases its daily existence on perceiving and observing things, but missed out on switching the ON button of these features

 

[Technics 1210]

We don't know how universe was created, that is scientific stand. Purpose of Science is not to discover God, but to know reality based on evidence. Scientific community is honest about what we know and don't know right now. There are no sweeping statements about what we can and cannot know through Science.

Nobody else has provided any evidence that God has created universe. I would like to know how you come to the conclusion, that God has created universe??

What does that mean, "God cannot be Observed"?

We? Call yourself an Atheist? Atheists claim the universe was created from nothing by chance with no purpose. So much so they come out with the nonsense of multi-universe hypothesis which has no evidence in an attempt to counter fine tuning of the universe. You are no different to Theists, you have hope, you have faith, that the universe was created from nothing and all can be explained in terms of chance, matter, and time.

If you claim you do not know how the universe was created, that makes you an Agnostic.

My suggestion to you is instead of asking theists for evidence of God, why don't you do a little reading on what Atheism actually believe with respect to science, and find out what you really believe in.

God cannot be observed in any physical manifestation, very much like a force of the universe. We cannot observe forces, but we can observe the effect of forces, in the same way theists will argue that they can obverse the effect of God.

When you come off the bandwagon that science disproves religion, you will realise that both religion and science compliment each other - but first get a grasp on what you actually believe in before you demand evidence from others.

 

[yasir]

What do you think would constitute admissible evidence of God?

Something we can observe, quantify or measure reliably and consistently. If God's want to show itself, then he should know how to do that

It is dubious that God talks to people in caves, mountains etc and many times to people having mental conditions... He also emphasis on having Faith rather than reason, when it comes to God

 

[Thulsa]

You could posit that religion is the ultimate con. Think about it:

Holy person: “ Pray/worship/donate x times per day, and you will be rewarded in the next life”
Person: “sure, I believe!”

Person dies, realises there is nothing and thinks “I’ve been had”.

And here is the best part - can’t do a damn thing about it at that point

 

[Musakhel]

You are attaching so many properties to the God, without establishing his existence first

Nobody has demonstrated that if a God exists, let alone a specific kind of God like Allah, Jesus, Ram etc...

God has Certain Attributes that he must Have in order to Be God, this Is outlined In many Creed Books by Various scholars.

 

[Robert]

The issue with your position here is that you are trying to question this Islamic fundamental based on your own rules which shows bias. The scientific laws of universe which you follow claim that everything has come from something as in everything has a beginning. Islamic belief is that God is uncreated and above the laws of universe which he himself created. So, he doesnt need to come from anything. He doesnt have needs to begin with. Hence you cannot put God under the microscope like the things which He has created. When you accept this position, everything else falls into placem however, science will never be able to fulfill its promise and get to the beginning of it all because by definition science will have to look for what came before the "beginning". Its an unending cycle.

I am not applying bias, I am asking you to answer your own question of how 0 + 0 = 1 where 1 = God. The only way you can do this is posit a bigger older God behind your God. And so on, like the world on the back of a giant turtle, which is on the back of a bigger older turtle, ad infinitum.

As for the Big Bang. Think of a time-space funnel where everything gets smaller and tighter until it reaches a single point of infinite mass and zero dimensions and no more time. Then imagine the same thing but the vector of the funnel is back in time instead of forward in time. That’s my understanding of Hawking and Penrose. So 0 + 0 = 1 doesn’t apply.

 

[Technics 1210]

I am not applying bias, I am asking you to answer your own question of how 0 + 0 = 1 where 1 = God. The only way you can do this is posit a bigger older God behind your God. And so on, like the world on the back of a giant turtle, which is on the back of a bigger older turtle, ad infinitum.

As for the Big Bang. Think of a time-space funnel where everything gets smaller and tighter until it reaches a single point of infinite mass and zero dimensions and no more time. Then imagine the same thing but the vector of the funnel is back in time instead of forward in time. That’s my understanding of Hawking and Penrose. So 0 + 0 = 1 doesn’t apply.

Here lies the problem. When you use terminology like *Imagine*, it's based on nothing but faith. No evidence, but just faith.

The Ad-infinitum problem also applies to a model/ideology devoid of a God.

0+0=1, where 1 is the universe, is an equation/problem for Atheists/Science too.

 

[JaDed]

If Atheists and rationalists focused on countering religion than God their argument will be heard more and even rationalized by people having faith.

 

[DeadBall]

If Atheists and rationalists focused on countering religion than God their argument will be heard more and even rationalized by people having faith.

There are a few problems.

First, faith and rationality do not go hand in hand
There are many fallacies and faults in all religions but whenever confronted the faithful will either try to change the subject, post irrelevant verses as the ultimate proof and if nothing finally bring it down the one basic tennant of religion which is faith.

Second, religion is basically the will and word of God and accepting that it has flaws in it, would nullify the whole concept of God being the All Knowing, All Seeing, Infallible etc etc.

Third, I have spent decades arguing with religious people and have come to accept the fact that convincing someone of the non existence of something or even questioning it is a fools errand as it is in the end all about faith. It is very hard to change the mind of someone who has accepted something to be 100% true without many objective reasons other that it being pummeled into them since birth.

There is a reason why believing followers of one true faith do not believe the followers of the other one true faiths.

There are many factors such as indoctrination, subjigation, education (actual non biased education, not just that someone is a doctor or an engineer), poverty, or even people who actually feel there is something far more superior in the universe and choose the option most suitable to them.

Religion is something that exists mainly because of misinformation and denying access to actual, unbiased information, but the brain should be in a position to assess this information which is very hard. I have been down that long road and it took me a long time to accept that what I was taught and knew wasn't the word of God due to the hundreds of logical fallacies.

My current stance is to let nature take its course, less and less of the newer generations are questioning religion due to the abundance of information and are moving away from it, I wouldnt have taken so long if I had Google in my teens, instead I had to research everything the hard way.

In conclusion, it is quite pointless to debate religion and to a certain degree politics with others who have opposing views as most people have already made up their minds and there is no point of trying to convince them otherwise.

 

[Chrish]

Just because universe can’t be explained by our current understanding of science, doesn’t mean we must automatically give credit to some supernatural being for its creation. That’s pretty lazy line of thinking.

“By the way, since I have no clue how to solve this problem, God must be behind it. I will go to bed. Peace”.

As for what caused Big Bang and what was before then? That’s a very interesting question and humanity isn’t destined to ever figure it out IMO. Our universe might be part of multiverse where infinite number of big bangs are taking place at any given moment.

I understand universe is so boundless and unfathomable that you almost wanna give up trying to figure out its mysteries. But I don’t think God is the only definite answer to that question.

I am not an atheist. I believe there is a higher power but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the case.

I value science equally.

 

[Chrish]

And by the way, what does religion say about this experiment??

 

[JaDed]

There are a few problems.

First, faith and rationality do not go hand in hand
There are many fallacies and faults in all religions but whenever confronted the faithful will either try to change the subject, post irrelevant verses as the ultimate proof and if nothing finally bring it down the one basic tennant of religion which is faith.

Second, religion is basically the will and word of God and accepting that it has flaws in it, would nullify the whole concept of God being the All Knowing, All Seeing, Infallible etc etc.

Third, I have spent decades arguing with religious people and have come to accept the fact that convincing someone of the non existence of something or even questioning it is a fools errand as it is in the end all about faith. It is very hard to change the mind of someone who has accepted something to be 100% true without many objective reasons other that it being pummeled into them since birth.

There is a reason why believing followers of one true faith do not believe the followers of the other one true faiths.

There are many factors such as indoctrination, subjigation, education (actual non biased education, not just that someone is a doctor or an engineer), poverty, or even people who actually feel there is something far more superior in the universe and choose the option most suitable to them.

Religion is something that exists mainly because of misinformation and denying access to actual, unbiased information, but the brain should be in a position to assess this information which is very hard. I have been down that long road and it took me a long time to accept that what I was taught and knew wasn't the word of God due to the hundreds of logical fallacies.

My current stance is to let nature take its course, less and less of the newer generations are questioning religion due to the abundance of information and are moving away from it, I wouldnt have taken so long if I had Google in my teens, instead I had to research everything the hard way.

In conclusion, it is quite pointless to debate religion and to a certain degree politics with others who have opposing views as most people have already made up their minds and there is no point of trying to convince them otherwise.

Well said and Top Post.

 

[Arsal_AK]

That’s the wrong question. It couldn’t come out of nothing because time didn’t exist for it to come out of. No maths apply at that point, nothing we can describe does.

Ask yourself the same question. If the universe came out of God, what did God come out of?

I like what Sagan said on this:

"If the general picture of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?

Was the universe devoid of any mater and then the matter suddenly, somehow was created. How did that happen? In many cultures the customary picture is that God created the universe out of nothing.

If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ofcourse ask the next question. Where did God come from?

If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. Or if we say that God always existed why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed. There is no need for a creation, it was always here.

These are not easy question. Cosmology brings us face to face with deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."

Now one idea is like you pointed of time t=0, the beginning of everything.

Another one is along lines of what Sagan says, that of an eternal universe. And that is looking more and more promising. An eternal universe, that has always existed and will go on forever.

 

[Chrish]

But the current universe hasn’t always existed. We have scientific evidence that proves that universe is approximately 13 billion years old.

So there is no eternal universe. Eternal multiverse? May be!

 

[Chrish]

And if we accept the existence of god, then we have to decide which god is the right one? Christian? Islamic? Jewish? Hindu?

So, the whole debate becomes pretty silly in the end.

 

[Arsal_AK]

But the current universe hasn’t always existed. We have scientific evidence that proves that universe is approximately 13 billion years old.

So there is no eternal universe. Eternal multiverse? May be!

No we don't know yet. And we won't untill we get a quatum theory of gravity.

It's true that general relativity predicts that the big bang happened, a moment in time when the density of the universe was infinite. When you wind the clock bakwards and solve for the early universe, the universe gets smaller and denser.

But GR we know for a fact is wrong when applied to the moment the universe began. It predicts a singularity, a sign of a theory breaking down. And GR is not compatible with quantum mechanics which is the most successful theory we have so far.

Big Bang, Inflation, GR all describe the universe after time t = 0, not at that time.

But still there are cosmological models that predict a true beginning like you say. Just like there are models that predict an eternal universe. We simply don't know which is right as of know.

 

[Robert]

I like what Sagan said on this:

"If the general picture of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?

Was the universe devoid of any mater and then the matter suddenly, somehow was created. How did that happen? In many cultures the customary picture is that God created the universe out of nothing.

If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ofcourse ask the next question. Where did God come from?

If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. Or if we say that God always existed why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed. There is no need for a creation, it was always here.

These are not easy question. Cosmology brings us face to face with deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."

Now one idea is like you pointed of time t=0, the beginning of everything.

Another one is along lines of what Sagan says, that of an eternal universe. And that is looking more and more promising. An eternal universe, that has always existed and will go on forever.

I get it the feeling that there was no time before the BB is difficult, and emotionally unsatisfying.

But the universe is flying apart, faster and faster, and we have hard evidence of the BB so the steady state theory is debunked.

Would you prefer the oscillating universe hypothesis? Good old Penrose has advanced this idea of late.

 

[Adijazz1706]

[MENTION=5869]yasir[/MENTION] So you basically want to see a miracle of sorts, however bearing in mind that people around the prophets called miracles black magic, you'd probably call it somewhat similar

 

[amvbfm]

Without religion, there would be no optimism in the world. Faith in God gives people hope.

When something goes wrong in life and when we are in a dire situation, we pray to God because we have faith that there is a superior being who can make things right.

If we believe that we are on our own, we will be in despair.

The family of a dying cancer patient prays till the last moment because they believe that God can cure him. Without faith in God, they will have nothing to turn to.

A child that loses a parent seeks solace in the fact that his mother or father is in a better place now.

If the child believes that there is no better place after death, and we all end up as nothing but ashes or a scary looking skeleton buried under the ground, how will that child feel?

A lot of people try to do good to others because they want to be rewarded by God. Do you need to be religious to be a generous and a giving person? Certainly not, a lot of atheists are more charitable than religious people, but yet, a lot of religious people try to do good to others because of the incentive of being rewarded by the Almighty.

Religion is a very powerful tool, and anything very powerful can be both good and bad. It has certainly caused conflict and violence throughout the course of history, but it has also been beneficial to the human race. It is the single biggest reason for hope and optimism in the world.

True to a large extent but does not address the issue raised by the OP. Cannot disagree with the importance of religion as a necessity to rationalize the inherent randomness of this world and to quell the human mind's insistent quest for personal significance. On a personal level it is indeed in many ways a biological necessity that gives hope, cuts down problems to a level that our brains can process and elevates the meaning of life from the mere perpetuation of species to something more significant. As a result it also drives one to do (if only for selfish reasons) what is morally right according to the principles of the particular religion (universal morality being a debatable concept).

However, moving away from a personal perspective and factoring in human nature and biology, religion becomes one of many (but perhaps the most important) factors that unite and divide humanity in its quest for survival. And by survival I mean the morally ugly but inevitable process of the fittest and strongest staking their claim to resources. Organized religion is rarely spiritual in nature and more often than not a tool for oppression and subjugation. But i also don't think that the absence of religion will make the world any less violent in general as conflict is an unavoidable fact of our existence given the human penchant for power and domination.

 

[amvbfm]

Can you present one evidence of the existence of God??

Can you present any evidence about the non-existence of a God(s)? In my opinion the absence of evidence is by no means evidence of absence and i do not say this in defence of religion but from a purely scientific viewpoint. Science is based on asking questions and driven by the recognition that our knowledge is incomplete and inadequate and limited by our mental faculties. Perhaps the issue is that the concept of God is always framed in spiritual and mystical terms. Maybe at some point the concept will be demystified in scientific terms. Who knows? The point i am trying to make is that we should keep our minds open, science is constantly evolving and so is the human mind so be as skeptical as you want but do not dismiss the notion outright until it has been disproven.

 

[amvbfm]

We have improved our observation because of Science(which is entirely based on evidence) not the other way around. Human Brain has not improved significantly in last 500 years or so, but Science and Tech has made possible exponential growth in our civilization.

How have you evaluated the limits of our observation?? - I don't know a method that can tell reliably, what we can or cannot achieve using Science.

MetaPhysic, Spiritualism or Other forms of Junk Literature has not answered either, How something can come from nothing? - But many claims they do have answers, it's just they are not articulate enough to present that to everybody else

Science is based on evidence not emotional baseless statements.

Simply the extent of our faculties. In more material terms all of our observations are in discrete terms when every scientific phenomenon is continuous in nature. Yes, our models are close estimates of natural processes but they cannot replicate them (and this is without being philosophical about the overall limitations of our minds and the nature of reality etc). So please don't dismiss things outright and consider them beyond possibility as then science itself tends to become a religion, something confined to its known body of work and principles (most of which have been repeatedly rewritten over time).

 

[miandadrules]

If we were all atheists slavery would be abundant, minorities would be persecuted, nobody would be allowed to practice religion, science and development would cease, there would be no human rights....


....oh wait.


Forget I mentioned anything.

 

[miandadrules]

Same way the universe came about in the absence of God.

What's the problem? You believe the universe popped out of a cosmic hat from nothing, some people belief God came of of a cosmic hat from nothing.

I thought it’s ridiculous to believe something came out of nothing but now you’re telling me God did.

Are you saying Islam is ridiculous?

 

[Technics 1210]

I thought it’s ridiculous to believe something came out of nothing but now you’re telling me God did.

Are you saying Islam is ridiculous?

Are you even reading properly? My point was the both sides face the same questioning.

If you want to spew hatred towards Islam, start another thread. Until then, read the posts.

 

[miandadrules]

Can you present any evidence about the non-existence of a God(s)? In my opinion the absence of evidence is by no means evidence of absence and i do not say this in defence of religion but from a purely scientific viewpoint. Science is based on asking questions and driven by the recognition that our knowledge is incomplete and inadequate and limited by our mental faculties. Perhaps the issue is that the concept of God is always framed in spiritual and mystical terms. Maybe at some point the concept will be demystified in scientific terms. Who knows? The point i am trying to make is that we should keep our minds open, science is constantly evolving and so is the human mind so be as skeptical as you want but do not dismiss the notion outright until it has been disproven.

That opening line is one of the most ignorant things one can say.

Can you present evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who claims to be the creator of the universe?

 

[miandadrules]

Are you even reading properly? My point was the both sides face the same questioning.

If you want to spew hatred towards Islam, start another thread. Until then, read the posts.

I think the issue is that I am reading it very clearly.

So is it ridiculous to believe something came out of nothing?

Oh now it’s hatred for Islam?

Where have I done so?

You’re a fine one to talk about hatred.

 

[amvbfm]

That opening line is one of the most ignorant things one can say.

Can you present evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who claims to be the creator of the universe?

A simple reversal of logic really. If someone can ask for the evidence of existence then it is equally logical to ask for evidence proving nonexistence. Isn't that how science works? The matter has not been proven either way so imo its open to debate both scientifically and otherwise. Yes, there is no evidence as of now, but does that totally preclude the possibility that there will be none in the future? I am not supporting either argument, I am simply asking both sides to be equally receptive about possibilities.

 

[Technics 1210]

I think the issue is that I am reading it very clearly.

You most certainly are not.

Carry on hating champ.

 

[miandadrules]

You most certainly are not.

Carry on hating champ.

Said the person who has exhibited vile bigotry.

So what is it going to be?

Is it ridiculous to believe a God that came out of nothing?

 

[miandadrules]

A simple reversal of logic really. If someone can ask for the evidence of existence then it is equally logical to ask for evidence proving nonexistence. Isn't that how science works? The matter has not been proven either way so imo its open to debate both scientifically and otherwise. Yes, there is no evidence as of now, but does that totally preclude the possibility that there will be none in the future? I am not supporting either argument, I am simply asking both sides to be equally receptive about possibilities.

Logic?

No that’s not how science works. You’d think that before posting paragraph after paragraph about science you’d at least have a basic grasp of the principles.

Can you present evidence for the absence of the spaghetti monster?

 

[Technics 1210]

Said the person who has exhibited vile bigotry.

) OK, if you insist.

Stupidityrules, indeed!

 

[Mamoon]

A simple reversal of logic really. If someone can ask for the evidence of existence then it is equally logical to ask for evidence proving nonexistence. Isn't that how science works? The matter has not been proven either way so imo its open to debate both scientifically and otherwise. Yes, there is no evidence as of now, but does that totally preclude the possibility that there will be none in the future? I am not supporting either argument, I am simply asking both sides to be equally receptive about possibilities.

Burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. That is what theists don't get. If you claim that God exists, it is your responsibility to prove that He does.

 

[miandadrules]

) OK, if you insist.

Stupidityrules, indeed!

Are you going to answer the question?

Is it absurd to believe God came out of nothing?

 

[amvbfm]

Logic?

No that’s not how science works. You’d think that before posting paragraph after paragraph about science you’d at least have a basic grasp of the principles.

Can you present evidence for the absence of the spaghetti monster?

Would be happy to learn the "basic principles" from you. Again the intention here isn't to support either side but to keep an open mind. I am simply talking about the scientific possibility of discovering a greater force, a universal law of nature if you will, that is close to what we know as God when framed in religious terms. Also science is ever evolving and to scoff at any notion as impossible or stupid has time and again been proven to be foolish.

 

[Technics 1210]

From steller objects visible by the naked eye, to quarks; from species to DNA, from reactions to formula units, our understanding of Physics, Biology, and Chemistry is guided by our observation and the technology used to observe. This is science. Falsification through observation via repeatable and testable experiments. From hypothesis, to theory, observation is the primary tenant of science.

Man of old used his naked eye to observe the Sun, Moon, and Stars and based his understanding of the world on this simple observation. This is why ancient history/ideologies are intertwined with the Sun, Moon and Stars. As technology advanced, telescopes were sent into space, man's understanding of the universe was further increased through observation. Whether the observation of universe expansion through the detection of Red shift, or the universe had a beginning through the detection of CMBR – science is based on observation, and if observation has limits, so to does science.

All verifiable science today is confined within the known observable universe. Whether it be the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, or Gravitational Waves of causing ripples in the fabric of space-time our understanding of the universes begins with plank time and ends at present time. Any belief in what occurred before plank time (the creation of our universe) is a matter of faith. Whether you believe in God or not. Whether you ignore science or accept science – certain aspects of our existence sit within the realms of faith.

Hence faith, is defined as the belief in the unseen - the unobserved.

 

[Technics 1210]

Are you going to answer the question?

I already did, repeatedly. Without wanting to repeat myself again, read.

 

[miandadrules]

Would be happy to learn the "basic principles" from you. Again the intention here isn't to support either side but to keep an open mind. I am simply talking about the scientific possibility of discovering a greater force, a universal law of nature if you will, that is close to what we know as God when framed in religious terms. Also science is ever evolving and to scoff at any notion as impossible or stupid has time and again been proven to be foolish.

You’re talking about the scientific possibility yet don’t know the basics of science?

To scoff at any notion without proof is foolish?

I’m not here to soothe your ignorance. You have posted liberally in this thread about science yet don’t know the basics (no need for inverted commas).

 

[miandadrules]

I already did, repeatedly. Without wanting to repeat myself again, read.

Please show me where you have answered.

Once again, is it stupid/ridiculous/absurd to believe in a God that came out of nothing?