Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://bb.islamsms.com)
+-- Forum: ENGLISH (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Islam (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World (/showthread.php?tid=6933)

Pages: 1 2 3

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Ruggedtouch - 11-18-2006

Quote:Bismillah:

Code:
So... care to enlighten us as to what Neil Armstrong "basically said"?

<div>

I was referring to other great scientists and thinkers who talked very well about Islam. as of Armstrong, all what we hear is assumption, which could be right or could be wron, we have heard that he became a Muslim after hearing the Muslim call to prayer on the moon, then again we heard that he denied becoming a Muslim, then we heard that he really become a Muslim but was forced to openly deny that he had become Muslim under pressure and even threats from the United States government Now in all cases, we are not really sure of what happened. To tell you honestly, I don’t care much about what Armstrong ‘basically said’, I don’t even care whether he embraced Islam or not, because thousands upon thousands of Non Muslims great thinkers, philosophers and scientists have declared the truth about Islam, although some of them didn’t embrace it, but at least they were honest to say the truth which you always deny. Read what they say:

he was referring to the following hadiths: 

he also said:

and when he was asked about the source of the Qur'an he said:

i can still go on, but i dont think you are even going to read what was written.

Salam

Wael.

</div>

Ya’ know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are you really so desperately insecure in your belief system that you’re compelled to scour the internet to find validation of your beliefs by quote mining? How sad!

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by apologists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other apologists when they are copied without attribution.

That’s precisely why you have performed this Olympic quality backstroke when challenged to support your specious claim regarding Neil Armstrong.

As Anatole France has said, (and I'll throw in a quote of my own - one that's verifiable) "Just because 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it doesn't mean it's not a foolish thing".

Again, even if everyone in the world, atheists included, suddenly became Islamic followers, that doesn't mean islam is true. Truth requires external and authoritative verification, and what you've offered here instead is nothing new, nor is it particularly out of the ordinary.

It is wholly irrelevant, as you know, how many people join a religion or leave a religion. Even if every human being alive embraced Islamic tenets by dawn tomorrow, Islam does not move one step closer to being true than it is now (which is that it is like all theisms, false). Islam falters because it embraces faith, which is totally unnecessary to explain existence, because it requires the specious device of a book to "support" its veracity.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - wel_mel_2 - 11-20-2006

Bismillah:

Quote:Ya’ know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are you really so desperately insecure in your belief system that you’re compelled to scour the internet to find validation of your beliefs by quote mining? How sad!

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by apologists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other apologists when they are copied without attribution.

Yes I did copy and paste those quotes from the internet, not to validate my beliefs, Alhamdulelah Islam doesn’t need my help. Anyway, the quotes are recoded on video tapes and you can watch them by yourself. Let me know if they are not ‘original source’

Scientists testimonies about the Qur’an, Muhammad pbuh and Islam.

Quote:Again, even if everyone in the world, atheists included, suddenly became Islamic followers, that doesn't mean islam is true. Truth requires external and authoritative verification, and what you've offered here instead is nothing new, nor is it particularly out of the ordinary.

Actually we don’t care much about ‘arrogant atheist’s opinion concerning religion.

Salam

Wael.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Ruggedtouch - 11-20-2006

Quote:Bismillah:

Yes I did copy and paste those quotes from the internet, not to validate my beliefs, Alhamdulelah Islam doesn’t need my help. Anyway, the quotes are recoded on video tapes and you can watch them by yourself. Let me know if they are not ‘original source’

Scientists testimonies about the Qur’an, Muhammad pbuh and Islam.

Will you be surprised to discover that I’m not terribly impressed with your posting a half dozen “scientific testimonials”? I understand what you’re attempting to achieve by doing so but do you realize how weak your argument is?

Kindly supply links to the peer reviewed literature your sources have submitted to their academic peers. Let’s see just how authoritative your sources are.

Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues.

There is a standard debunked creationist/theistic claim that scientists reject evolution and support creationism
.

Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.

Quote:Actually we don’t care much about ‘arrogant atheist’s opinion concerning religion.
Salam

Wael.

"Actually we don’t care much..." Congratulations on your job promotion as spokesman for all muslims.

Actually, you’re behaving like a teenage drama queen. This is a message board, kiddo. People are going to react to the material you post and critique those postings.

The entire god question is a pretty important one I'd say. For me, it's not something to just roll over and believe because if you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.

Let’s be honest, in all likelihood, your are a muslim simply because that is the majority belief system you grew up in.

People chose what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a Hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select. And of course, I'll even include the possibility (but not probability) that one selects a belief because they actually do hear directly from the Supreme Being.

But none of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of atheism until such time as there is a clear defining reason to select one over the other. Your religious views are of no more authority than the beliefs of any other.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - wel_mel_2 - 11-21-2006

Bismillah:

Quote:Will you be surprised to discover that I’m not terribly impressed with your posting a half dozen “scientific testimonials”? I understand what you’re attempting to achieve by doing so but do you realize how weak your argument is?

I know, am not even expecting you to be impressed, my job only is to strive in delivering the message of Islam to you and to those who are not aware of it, and its up to you whether you accept the invitation or not.

Quote:Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.

now i quote what you just said earlier..

Quote:Just because 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it doesn't mean it's not a foolish thing".

Aren’t you shy when you still calling evolution as a ‘theory’? It is a theory my friend, not a FACT.

Anyway, we shall not argue about this issue because we believe that if this universe was created, then Allah alone is the Creator, (Al Khalik) and if it was evolved, then He also alone is the Evolver. Al Bari’.

Quote:Let’s be honest, in all likelihood, your are a muslim simply because that is the majority belief system you grew up in.

Yes I did grow up in a Muslim country but I start practicing Islam ONLY when I moved to a Non Muslim country. So I am a Muslim because it does make sense to me, actually am a student of comparative religion, so Islam was my choice over all other religions that I’ve studied. not because i was raised in a Muslim family.

anyway, this is not our topic.

Salam

Wael

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Ruggedtouch - 11-23-2006

Quote:Bismillah:

I know, am not even expecting you to be impressed, my job only is to strive in delivering the message of Islam to you and to those who are not aware of it, and its up to you whether you accept the invitation or not.

That’s fine. I just prefer to embrace what is supportable and conforms to the facts.

Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge. The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. For myself, I don't conceive of my atheism as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Santa doesn't exist". It's just a fact-- Santa doesn't exist, and only those who would assert he does are required to support the claim with evidence.

Until then, Gods, Demons, Jinn, etc., remain an unsupported, untested and unproved assertion that even those who embrace it admit cannot really be explained or defended.

Quote:now i quote what you just said earlier..
Aren’t you shy when you still calling evolution as a ‘theory’? It is a theory my friend, not a FACT.

Anyway, we shall not argue about this issue because we believe that if this universe was created, then Allah alone is the Creator, (Al Khalik) and if it was evolved, then He also alone is the Evolver. Al Bari’.

Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it obviously missed you, so you're excused.

What I can do is provide overwhelming evidence, that evidence being provable, testable and verifiable that natural causes and events have fully rational and explainable causes. As for facts, I can point you to a hundred different web sites, authored by hundreds of scientists containing factual data on science, chemistry, evolution and physics. All can provide testable proof of natural explanations for naturally caused events. Evolution is a scientific fact as evidenced by overwhelming evidence. Dispute it all you want, there are plenty of websites that can be looked at exhaustively to show overwhelming evidence. Yes there are gaps in it, there is nothing wrong with that-- all knowledge comes to us in bits and pieces. Genesis is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.

Quote:Yes I did grow up in a Muslim country but I start practicing Islam ONLY when I moved to a Non Muslim country. So I am a Muslim because it does make sense to me, actually am a student of comparative religion, so Islam was my choice over all other religions that I’ve studied. not because i was raised in a Muslim family.
anyway, this is not our topic.

Salam

Wael

You inadvertently proved my point.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - wel_mel_2 - 11-23-2006

Bismillah:

Quote:That’s fine. I just prefer to embrace what is supportable and conforms to the facts.

What kind of facts do you require in order for you to understand that there is a God? Do you want Him to come down to you and tell you here I am worship me or you will be damned? Do you want to see Him plainly? are these kind of facts going to convince you? Well, but let me tell you that we don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, right? So if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, we immediately recognize the work of those artists., in the same way, we can believe that Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.). However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize that all of this universe could not possibly come into existence on its own.

Quote:Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality.

Am sorry but even Atheists require some faith in order for them to embrace their ideologies and way of life, but you just can’t admit that.

Quote:Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it obviously missed you, so you're excused.

Am sorry, there are also
hundreds of evidences
 which clearly show the collapse of such theory.
Evolution is a theory
 and it is lack of
scientific evidence
. All what you can show is
assumptions and ideas
 that has nothing to do with
FACTS
, and that’s why people who supported it still calling it
THEORY
. In fact
“Evolution is a religion and its adherents blindly following Darwin's theory by FAITH
. There is not in existence
one single piece of scientific evidence which proves 100% that man has evolved upward from animals
. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins
"scientifically
," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon
OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe
. I know you can provide
hundreds of hundreds of websites authored by scientists who supported that ‘THEORY’
, and so i say, that for every one website supporting evulotion that you are going to provide,
I can provide 5 other websites authored by other scientists who are totally against evolution.

But what is the point of doing this????

 For you
a scientist cannot be recognized as a ‘true’ scientist unless he REJECTS God and accept the theory of EVOLUTION
. Well,
there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution.

Quote:Until then, Gods, Demons, Jinn, etc., remain an unsupported, untested and unproved assertion that even those who embrace it admit cannot really be explained or defended.

First you tell us what kind of evidence you are looking for so that we can try to explain further insha’Allah.



Salam



Wael.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Ruggedtouch - 12-04-2006

Quote:Bismillah:

What kind of facts do you require in order for you to understand that there is a God?

What kind of facts can you offer?

Ok, let's start by applying your rule that those who assert there are god(s) have only to claim “because I say so” to make it true. Here's the part that applies to me, you, and everyone: "Your stating something does not make it true." All things being equal, this applies not only to me, but to those who assert god(s), and to you. that's fair, right? If you can say it applies to me, it applies to you and others, right?

Now person A asserts there are god(s) (if the religious aspect of the assertion compels you to immediately assume the assertion is true, swap out the religious connotation -- make it elves or fairies, or leprechauns)

This is a true assertion or not? How do we discern if it's true or not? What stands as the defining factor as to whether or not it stands as true?

Someone's say so? A book? A story? What? What defines something as a fact?

Well, that's simple. Evidence. Verifiable evidence. If evidence is not the standard by which we define what is knowledge and what is not, then any assertion made by all and anyone is just as much viable as any other assertion. Such an approach is indistinguishable from utter chaos.

Suddenly, if god(s) are allowed to be "facts" because the Koran says so and you want it to be so, then this world is overrun with all sorts of satyrs and dragons and fleepbizzels and trolls and so on and so forth. You may not have a problem living in such a fantasmagorical nonsense world, but I prefer reality (and facing reality helps us manage a world that can be unpredictable).

I have a wealth of other reasons why the Qur'an fails (one of which is no one can show just cause for why a book in anyway supports the assertion of a deity). Atheists use the heinous cruelties of Koranic teaching to point out the amoral nature of a god that is then asserted as a moral guide for human behavior. If one actually followed Allah's example, there would be no end to the justification of execution that person would deserve. Allah in the Koran is capricious, cruel, and as the author of all reality, (as is the claim), as evil can be (after all, he created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

Quote:Do you want Him to come down to you and tell you here I am worship me or you will be damned?

I wouldn’t think so. Do you think your god is really that angry and capricious as to condemn me for not believing what is not evident and not supported?

Quote:Do you want to see Him plainly? are these kind of facts going to convince you? Well, but let me tell you that we don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, right? So if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, we immediately recognize the work of those artists., in the same way, we can believe that Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.).

The artist analogy is a horrible analogy. You may want to abandon it quickly. No one is making any claim that a painting is a supernatural construct. All paintings are done my man… unless you know otherwise.

I'm not the god here, so it's a bit difficult for me to be able to lay out for you what that evidence might be (to prove a god(s)) or what that evidence may have been. But it's the curious lack of evidence that is what makes it all so suspicious. It's the repetitive nature of other, earlier messiah myths that gives one pause to ask, "Is this an original event? If so, why so many similarities to earlier "events" we know are prosaic mythology?" Why bring into the world your primary messiah in a human world rife with messiahs-of-the-week?

It is not my problem if the being asserted is outside the realms of test (and in a very real way, I have tested for gods by studying about them, and following the procedures to embrace them, especially Christianity). Again, your standards are applicable to any nonsense claim and your conclusion requires you to accept any nonsensical assertion as equally viable. To illustrate:

1. Form a hypothesis. -- There is a Blizbeep here.

2. Observe. -- I cannot, Blizpeeps cannot be seen

3. Test. -- I cannot, Blizbeeps are untestable

4. Conclude. -- Blizbeeps are likely to exist as to not exist, so let us assume they do.

As you can see, "Blizbeep" is replaceable by everything both sensible and insensible (the answers will always be the reverse for sensible assertions). You can also see that such loose standards will lead to any and every assertion as equally viable as any other, including ones you've probably already dismissed (I doubt you leave teeth under pillows for coins from a Tooth Fairy-- in fact, I hope you aren't losing your teeth at all). And since this is so, it renders your argument useless. Try this (highly oversimplified) approach instead:

1. Form a hypothesis.

1a. Is the assertion inherently noncontradictory? If so, assertion is likely rational

2. Observe.

2a. Is it an observable phenomenon? If not, does 1a fail? If so, assertion is irrational.

3. Test.

3a Is testing a viable option? If so, assertion continues to be rational. If not, define why. If reasons are due to technological shortcomings or limits --but not absence-- of evidence, conclusion will likely be Theory and not Law

4. Conclude.

4a Does the assertion meet with all the standards and sub standards? If so, assertion is knowledge. If not, assertion may be Theory, or unsupported assertion and nothing more.

I'd say this horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil.

Quote:However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize that all of this universe could not possibly come into existence on its own.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

Now why should I believe a single thing such a person says about anything else?

Quote:Am sorry but even Atheists require some faith in order for them to embrace their ideologies and way of life, but you just can’t admit that.

Another bad analogy. You should jettison this one quickly. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

Quote:Am sorry, there are also hundreds of evidences which clearly show the collapse of such theory. Evolution is a theory and it is lack of scientific evidence. All what you can show is assumptions and ideas that has nothing to do with FACTS, and that’s why people who supported it still calling it THEORY. In fact “Evolution is a religion and its adherents blindly following Darwin's theory by FAITH. There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves 100% that man has evolved upward from animals. It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe. I know you can provide hundreds of hundreds of websites authored by scientists who supported that ‘THEORY’, and so i say, that for every one website supporting evulotion that you are going to provide, I can provide 5 other websites authored by other scientists who are totally against evolution. But what is the point of doing this????
 For you a scientist cannot be recognized as a ‘true’ scientist unless he REJECTS God and accept the theory of EVOLUTION. Well, there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution.

Your post above is hysterical nonsense. Creationists state their case -- which is simply reiterating Genesis. As for evidence, there is none. Not a little, not some, not a whisper... but none.

Evolutionists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, paleonzoology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis account is true.)

Creationists say, "No." And then begin a litany of special pleadings to explain why all the evidence seen today was actually different some 6,000 years ago, or they cite special cases where there is some minor inconsistency and use that as a canopy to disassemble everything.

But none of this is not being done to force the evidence to fit into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of creation isn't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of the Koran is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned); no, this is being done because it's a reasonable interpretation of the data. Well, it's not.

In every instance, creationist "rebuttals" are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing rock-hard (pun intended) evidence, making non-comparable comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims lie in tatters before them, they escape into the "God did it" safety net or become sarcastic (or begin using hysterical concepts such as “Evolution is a religion and its adherents blindly following Darwin's theory by FAITH”).

What is the point of this? I've yet to see a creationist actually challenge the evolutionary perspective and evidence. They do not do it, and the reason is simple: They cannot. They can't answer even the simplest questions without resorting to miracles. Okay, fine, you have a religious belief. No one says you're not entitled to a religious belief, but it's a religious belief, nothing more. Trying to force a religious belief into a scientific paradigm is foolish and time-wasting.

“Nature” is all around us as are natural forces and processes we (mostly) understand and interact with. There is no evidence that gods exist or are extant. You would have to be omniscient to know that which is in principle, or otherwise, impossible. There is in fact no evidence of gods, as the holy books themselves declare-- as the arguments of theists declare: it is upon faith, not knowledge that your arguments reside. If faith is borne out as true, then it becomes knowledge and is no longer faith. Yours is theistic-grown nihilism. True, when we look to gods for replies we get a deafening silence, but when we look to existence we see the radioactive background noise that supports a big bang, we see clues from the past, and we are using our sentience to solve the puzzles of reality. Silence? Enquiry peals like the loudest thunder, before which gods and monsters shrink in stature. (Hey, you folks can preach every so often, so can I)

Let’s look at the similarities you dismiss between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution versus the theistic claims:

Both are evolution and gravity assertions are theories, (although not gravity, specifically). Both have aspects and some elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is). Both require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by Koranic fiat. Your disclaimer that "We're talking GOD here...the can do anything guy" is equally applicable to dismissing evolution as it is to gravity. And finally, neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution make any mention of gods. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about a god.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered (it's not, but they think it is). Yes, 100% "assumption" on my part, and I know there wil be passionate denials all around.

Quote:First you tell us what kind of evidence you are looking for so that we can try to explain further insha’Allah.
Salam

Wael.

Whaddya' got?

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - wel_mel_2 - 12-13-2006

Bismillah:

Quote:What kind of facts can you offer?

First of all, are you really open for such discussion or you are only here to bash our beliefs and show disrespect? You once again called my God cruel in which we have warned you before not to abuse our God, Islam and our prophet pbuh. So how will you ever verify and study the facts of God’s existence if you have no respect for us and our beliefs?

Quote:I wouldn’t think so. Do you think your god is really that angry and capricious as to condemn me for not believing what is not evident and not supported?

Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of some kind of accident or came about by chance? :conf06:

Quote:Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.[/font] [/size]

Quote:"The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory, has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. (Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p.48.)

Quote:Evolutionists state the scientific data, which is borne out by evidence such as geological and biological mechanisms seen today, the fossil record, age-dating, stratification, tectonic plate theory, astronomy, physics, paleontology, paleonzoology, etc. etc. (by the way, all of these sciences crumble into nonsense if the Genesis account is true.)

the theory of evolution has been discredited in scientific circles. Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one. The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism and will continue to oppose it.

When Darwin proposed this theory, he left room for the possibility that he could have made a mistake. In his book The Origin of Species, he often began his expositions with the words, "If my theory be true." In his investigations it can be seen that Darwin accepted certain scientific criteria and proposed some ways his theory could be examined. For example, he wrote about the fossil record:

Quote:If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, p. 179.

The numberless intermediate varieties mentioned by Darwin have never been found, and today many evolutionist paleontologists have had to concede this. When taking into account Darwin's condition for "if my theory be true," his theory must be rejected. If he were alive today, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his theory for this very reason.

Indeed, the evolution dogma is a superstitious religion that holds masses of people under its sway, but it is definitely not science. If what evolutionists say in their writings is closely scrutinized, you will easily be able to read between the lines and perceive that they speak of a religion. here again what one of the greatest historian of science, Marjorie Grene, has to say on this subject is not surprising:

Quote:It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds, men's minds. The derivation of life, of man, of man's deepest hopes and highest achievements, from the external and indirect determination of small chance errors, appears as the very keystone of the naturalistic universe... Today the tables are fumed. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith. M. Grene, Encounter, Nov., 1959, pp. 48-50.

The reason for this dogmatic approach can only be to avoid the truth they would find if they abandoned evolution, the truth that Allah created the universe and all living things. This cannot be accepted by those who understand the world from a materialist and atheist point of view.

Salam

Wael.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Ruggedtouch - 12-16-2006

First of all, are you really open for such discussion or you are only here to bash our beliefs and show disrespect? 

Actually yes. I am open to open discussion. I’m less open to baseless claims of the supernatural. You take the unfortunate position of assuming that anyone who disagrees with your “because I say so”, dogma is necessarily attacking your god(s).

The Quote function is not working so I detailed your comments in blue.

You once again called my God cruel in which we have warned you before not to abuse our God, Islam and our prophet pbuh. So how will you ever verify and study the facts of God’s existence if you have no respect for us and our beliefs?

Whether I respect your beliefs or not has little to do with your assuming that everyone must agree with your dogma. Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, had gods, so such projections of a spirit world are integral to the human condition itself. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.

Monotheism is currently in vogue in the Islamic neck of the woods.

Such deistic minimalism is wrong, of course, but it will go out of fashion. Whatever replaces it will be wrong as well.

You can always depend on religion that way. Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics.

Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.

That’s a terribly inept analogy. You make many false assumptions. Despite your willingness to use existence as a blanket "evidence" as to your theistic beliefs, you do realize that one can interpret existence as not having a supernatural cause, and be within the realms of possibility (matter uncreated: if there is enough matter in the universe to put into motion an oscillating universe, then existence has always existed ad infinitum.

Given that (and I most assuredly am assuming here, and with great trepidation as I sense you may just embrace a double standard), I'd suggest you find the threads that delve into this topic and post your proof of your assertion that there is in fact a god and that god is the one you espouse.

I look forward to this with anticipation.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.

Are you attempting to make a point with the above? God as an assertion is very extraordinary and it would require proof to support the existence of such a being. I would be interested in a sound theory to start off that process, and, in fact, there are already some theories extant-- although all of the theological theories ask the subscriber to them to exempt the Prime Mover from the rules the theory seeks to lay the groundwork for. I'd say that qualifies them as "unsound" by definition, and I'm at a loss to understand theists conceding their supernatural pronouncements are undemonstrable, yet they still adhere to them. It’s a form of self-delusion.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Another terrible example. Why would anyone think that junks cars could be turned into a new Mercedes? I understand you’re trying to somehow connect this with natural selection but your analogy makes no sense.

Interesting don’t you think, your faith by definition supersedes observation and reasoning where here you are, claiming that people should base their beliefs on faith, not observation.

Here’s a thought - I have to acknowledge that “Positive, negative, good, and bad can be creations of man”, no doubt about that. However, god being the creator of all ultimately makes him responsible for all. Things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

And so the next argument is, "Well, this is the way existence is!" Except that argument has no reply against: "Yes, but why does god create it "the way it is" when he just as easily could create it differently?

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god that cobbled it together. God doesn't cause an earthquake? Yes, he establishes the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

God doesn't cause a tornado? Yes, he establishes the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory.

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.

You’re on a roll, now. Another terrible analogy.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of some kind of accident or came about by chance? :conf06:

After considering all of the above, you’ve offered nothing more than hyperbole and unsupported opinion. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of a designer. Mass extinctions have little to do with natural selection. Natural selection can not act in the context of a catastrophic event like an asteroid impact. Survival through these events is based on luck, not adaptation. Less dogma and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

You confusion here lies in the fact that you have uncritically accepted the idea that certain sectarian writings such as (in this case) the Qur’an are reliable guides to the end zone of a “creator”. This is all well and good, but it provides no compelling reason for anyone else to accept that same belief.

Your particular sectarian version of “god(s)” is essentially the form of many other god(s) that have come and gone before who rule with supreme (even if arbitrary) authority and power. You understand “submission” to mean choosing to follow “his” (often arbitrary, capricious and cruel) rules of behavior for the purpose of either receiving a supernatural reward or avoiding a supernatural paddling on the behind.

I have trust in science, medicine, and the law, personal freedoms, self expression, etc., all those rational (and ultimately knowable) elements within and part of the natural world. I make no assertions about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this assertion relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The religionist asserts that "logic and reason have a crack in them" and are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "being behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my assertion logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists assert?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napolean (to use the cliche)?

Quote:"The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory, has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. (Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p.48.)

Quote mining again, are we?

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?-arl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)

the theory of evolution has been discredited in scientific circles.

Yet quite revealingly, you can offer not a shred of substantiation for this nonsense claim.

Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one. The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism and will continue to oppose it.

More nonsense claims. Ah – you’ve employed the “because I say so”, argument.

Care to share with us what “scientific circles” you speak of? That’s actually a rhetorical question because in my experience creationists almost never provide any valid points at all. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in creationist rhetoric, but the actual content very rarely includes anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If you have a specific valid point in mind, you might like to bring it to the table.

It's very easy for creationists or ID’ists to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the ID’ists and creationists will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a supernatural cause to function at all and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

When Darwin proposed this theory, he left room for the possibility that he could have made a mistake. In his book The Origin of Species, he often began his expositions with the words, "If my theory be true." In his investigations it can be seen that Darwin accepted certain scientific criteria and proposed some ways his theory could be examined. For example, he wrote about the fossil record:

The numberless intermediate varieties mentioned by Darwin have never been found, and today many evolutionist paleontologists have had to concede this. When taking into account Darwin's condition for "if my theory be true," his theory must be rejected. If he were alive today, perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his theory for this very reason.

You’re quote mining in the wrong circles, Wael and your “argument” suffers because of it. While Grene seems pretty schooled, she is not a biologist, and her degree does not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.

Yours is just standard boiler plate quote mining. As usual with creationists, the fields of syudy of those you quote mine from are suspiciously detached from the sciences most needed to establish an understanding of the very area in which they seek to explore.

Indeed, the evolution dogma is a superstitious religion that holds masses of people under its sway, but it is definitely not science. If what evolutionists say in their writings is closely scrutinized, you will easily be able to read between the lines and perceive that they speak of a religion. here again what one of the greatest historian of science, Marjorie Grene, has to say on this subject is not surprising:

The reason for this dogmatic approach can only be to avoid the truth they would find if they abandoned evolution, the truth that Allah created the universe and all living things. This cannot be accepted by those who understand the world from a materialist and atheist point of view.

That’s brilliant, Wael. Using a couple of quotes from a non-scientist, you seek to dismiss our best and most complete understanding of the natural world. How utterly silly.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of the philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.

The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World - Sana - 02-26-2007

Quote:Ya’ know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are you really so desperately insecure in your belief system that you’re compelled to scour the internet to find validation of your beliefs by quote mining? How sad!

Having faith is one of the blessings Allah has bestowed on us. And to see you lost in that department ruggedtouch truly allows me to be thankful for that blessing. The beauty of Islam is that it appeals to one's intellect and logic. I pray that one day Allah may bless you with that gift. Its so rewarding, it nourishes your soul and I wisk you well on your soul search... But try to let go of all that anger and bitterness your carrying around. Relax and let it go:)

As Anatole France has said, (and I'll throw in a quote of my own - one that's verifiable) "Just because 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it doesn't mean it's not a foolish thing".

Foolish???? Where are you getting that from? As articulate as you are there must be some sort of sound reasoning in you?!

It is wholly irrelevant, as you know, how many people join a religion or leave a religion. Even if every human being alive embraced Islamic tenets by dawn tomorrow, Islam does not move one step closer to being true than it is now (which is that it is like all theisms, false). Islam falters because it embraces faith, which is totally unnecessary to explain existence, because it requires the specious device of a book to "support" its veracity.

Surely you don't believe that nonsense. Not another rebel without a cause! Wake up and smell the coffee