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

[Ruggedtouch]

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, <i>he</i> created Lucifer, we didn't, right?).

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?

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.

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 <i>all</i> the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple <i>millennia</i> 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 <i>needed</i> 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?

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.

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

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 <i>none</i>.



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 <i>different</i> 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 <i>literally</i> 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 “<i>Evolution is a religion and its adherents blindly following Darwin's theory by FAITH</i>”).


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 <i>in principle</i>, 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 <i>can do</i> 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.

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?