91 replies to this topic

[Ashir]

What proof is there?
Please, I ask that no one post 'The Qu'an said so'. Thank you.

[Saracen21stC]

What proof is there?
Please, I ask that no one post 'The Qu'an said so'. Thank you.

There is no tangible evidence. But if atheism is true, it does not really matter whether we are in so called true path or not. That's why personally I am more inclined towards religion. And you will have to understand that we BELIEVE in the existence of the Creator, not that we know creator exists. As I have said, if atheism is true, you can believe whatever you want. As a result, choosing atheism as a 'true' or default path is rather problematic. I hope you understand what I mean.

[Younes]

Please read the following post:

http://www.gawaher.c...r/#entry1229733

[AhmedTi]

We know that Allah exist by using our mind contemplating ourselves and the universe. Also, we know that Allah exist through his messengers that he sent to us.

I would ask you a question

As you know, Judaism, Christianity & Islam, these three religions have significant differences between them. Yet, when it comes to Allah/God they all admit his existence. Are you telling me that all these people are fool and you are right?

You did state earlier that you were a Muslim, if it is possible we would like to know what makes you reject Islam? Did you embrace it for a couple of months and then leave it or you have born as Muslim?

[Padre5]

There is no tangible evidence. But if atheism is true, it does not really matter whether we are in so called true path or not. That's why personally I am more inclined towards religion. And you will have to understand that we BELIEVE in the existence of the Creator, not that we know creator exists. As I have said, if atheism is true, you can believe whatever you want. As a result, choosing atheism as a 'true' or default path is rather problematic. I hope you understand what I mean.

This is the answer of most modern theologians, too! Very good answer, Saracen; have some extra fruit juice tonight after your fast. I'll drink a toast to your wise answer with a glass of wine, of course!

[Perseveranze]

What proof is there?
Please, I ask that no one post 'The Qu'an said so'. Thank you.

Actually, the Qur'an never says; "because I said so". It actually says, if you don't believe it then;

1. Produce a chapter like it.
2. Find a single contradiction
3. Create something equal to even a small fly
4. etc. basically challenges

Whether you believe in it or not, that's your choice. However, there's no book in the world that claims to be from God that is quite like it. And that for Muslims (plus the Prophethood of Muhammad(pbuh)) is our proof.

Edited by Perseveranze, 29 July 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[Saracen21stC]

In addition to what Perseveranze said, Prophet (Sal-Allaahu `alayhi wasallam) was unlettered. He was never taught writing literary poems or prose. And there were many other authors who were specialists in writing Arabic literature. But none could compete with the Qur'an. Till this day, there is no Arabic poem or similar literary piece which has equal or greater effect on the humanity than the Holy Qur'an.

Edited by Saracen21stC, 01 October 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[Padre5]

"The cosmological argument for God’s existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended–and attacked–by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. "http://yaallahoo.wor...tence-of-allah/
Ever Muslim should know about the Kalam "proof of God."
I don't agree, of course, but it came from the period of Great Islamic scholarship!

Edited by Padre5, 29 July 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[Ashir]

There is no tangible evidence. But if atheism is true, it does not really matter whether we are in so called true path or not. That's why personally I am more inclined towards religion. And you will have to understand that we BELIEVE in the existence of the Creator, not that we know creator exists. As I have said, if atheism is true, you can believe whatever you want. As a result, choosing atheism as a 'true' or default path is rather problematic. I hope you understand what I mean.

This is much akin to me saying 2+2=4 and some other saying it is 5, only, he says that you'll die if you don't believe it, so you decide to believe it so you won't die.
I think you are hinting that Islam gives you morales. There are other ways to morales also; it's quite simple, look at the earth's faults, examine what you must do to stop them.
According to the Qu'ran, alas that is not so. When I read the Qu'ran almost every page mentioned disbelievers suffering eternal damnation in hell.

Please read the following post:

http://www.gawaher.c...r/#entry1229733

This is a post saying WHY you believe. I did not ask this. I would love to believe in a deity; the mindset of hope it gives you, the determination, is unparalleled. But I believe things only when I am provided with proof, which, under my ideology, does not exist.

We know that Allah exist by using our mind contemplating ourselves and the universe. Also, we know that Allah exist through his messengers that he sent to us.

I would ask you a question

As you know, Judaism, Christianity & Islam, these three religions have significant differences between them. Yet, when it comes to Allah/God they all admit his existence. Are you telling me that all these people are fool and you are right?

You did state earlier that you were a Muslim, if it is possible we would like to know what makes you reject Islam? Did you embrace it for a couple of months and then leave it or you have born as Muslim?

How is that proof?

No, I am not telling you that. Where you insinuate that, I do not know.
They 'admit his existence', in my opinion, due to a number of psychological schemes placed cleverly to exploit human fear, etc. such as 'either you become a Muslim or you stay in hell after death forever'. Most people are stupid enough to fall for things like these.
Neuroscience is also coming to explain why we believe in God's. A number of books on this subject are in progress.

And just how many dominant religions were not monotheistic?


I rejected Islam because I picked up the Qu'ran, and (with no intent to offend any one) it was the most disgusting, tear-evoking, hateful thing I had and have ever read. Of course this lead me to questions such as; 'how do I know God exists?', where I found the illogic in religion.

Actually, the Qur'an never says; "because I said so". It actually says, if you don't believe it then;

1. Produce a chapter like it.
2. Find a single contradiction
3. Create something equal to even a small fly
4. etc. basically challenges

Whether you believe in it or not, that's your choice. However, there's no book in the world that claims to be from God that is quite like it. And that for Muslims (plus the Prophethood of Muhammad(pbuh)) is our proof.

I could argue there are. For example I remember in one verse it says to treat Jews like brothers and in another it says to attack them if they do not convert, but that is a matter of opinion, as we both could always have misconstrued things.. I think you may be hinting at the claimed 'foreknown science' the Qu'ran provides such as an impressive look at embryology and astronomy. In fact, arguably all of this premature intelligence can be found in Greek/Mesopotamian science, long before the rise of Islam, and much, much more (also from the Egyptians). Because they discovered or generated theories that were only to be confirmed millennium later, that means their deities must exist? A weak and contradictory argument.

In addition to what Perseveranze said, Prophet (Sal-Allaahu `alayhi wasallam) was unlettered. He was never taught writing poems. And there were many other poets who were specialists in writing Arabic poems. But none could compete with the Qur'an. Till this day, there is no other Arabic poem which has equal or greater effect on the humanity than the Holy Qur'an.

That's because they didn't say things like 'You're going to hell if you don't believe in this and do as I say'. Almost all major religions used the art of deception in this way to climb to the top.
That's the thing, how do you know? In fact, how do you know Muhammad even existed?

"The cosmological argument for God’s existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended–and attacked–by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. "http://yaallahoo.wor...tence-of-allah/
Ever Muslim should know about the Kalam "proof of God."
I don't agree, of course, but it came from the period of Great Islamic scholarship!

No serious philosopher takes the cosmological argument seriously. Neither the teleological argument. Both are laughably stupid.

Edited by Ashir, 29 July 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[ParadiseLost]

It is not logical to think that something came from nothing. That is enough proof for me to know there is One Creator.

[Ashir]

How is it not logical?

[Amarie0417]

Why do you feel it was the most disgusting thing you have ever read?

[Nightingale]

Ashir, what causes you to subscribe to the theory that we just randomly were formed exactly as we are, on the only planet (that we currently know about ourselves) that is perfectly situated to sustain life, with all the intricacies of the different lifeforms on Earth? Random chance?

As for the existence of Muhammed (pbuh), I've yet to see a serious scholar dispute his existence yet, mainly because there is ample historical proof he lived. There's even more tangible proof of Prophet Muhammed's (pbuh) existence than Jesus (pbuh) (though there is also a large body of evidence to prove he existed and lived). So are you saying that you believe his existence is all a lie?

As was mentioned before, we believe in Allah, it's called faith. And how does it matter to you if we believe and you don't? If you are wrong, you'll have to stand before Allah and account for yourself, if you are right then does it really matter? I myself have always believed in Allah. Because as I stated above, I don't believe it is random chance for our existence.

[AhmedTi]

You said that you did read the Koran and that was the reason to reject Isman. Well , if you read the koran as you claimed, you will certailly undesand that not all people who read koran will be guided to the straight path. Meaning that only the believers will benefits from it. As for the disbeliever who is wronging himself by his disbelief, when he hears or read the Qur'an, it only makes him further from the truth and increases him in his disbelief. The problem lies with the disbeliever himself, not with the Qur'an. I guess you did skip some verses while reading. Therefore, I set them hereunder for you.

Surah 17-82

وَنُنَزِّلُ مِنَ الْقُرْءَانِ مَا هُوَ شِفَآءٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلاَ يَزِيدُ الظَّـلِمِينَ إَلاَّ خَسَارًا

(82. And We send down of the Qur'an that which is a cure and a mercy to the believers, and it increases the wrongdoers in nothing but loss.)

Edited by AhmedTi, 30 July 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[AhmedTi]

Surah 41-44

﴿وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَـهُ قُرْءَاناً أعْجَمِيّاً لَّقَالُواْ لَوْلاَ فُصِّلَتْ ءَايَـتُهُ ءَاعْجَمِىٌّ وَعَرَبِىٌّ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ هُدًى وَشِفَآءٌ وَالَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ فِى ءَاذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى أُوْلَـئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِن مَّكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ ﴾


(44. And if We had sent this as a Qur'an in a foreign language, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail What! Not in Arabic nor an Arab'' Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a cure. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness in their ears, and it is blindness for them. They are called from a place far away.'')

[abdullahfath]

salaam alaiykum,

Did you just seriously ask how do we know Muhammad (pbuh) existed?

Muhammad, in full Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (born 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina), founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God.
Although his name is now invoked in reverence several billion times every day, Muhammad was the most reviled figure in the history of the West from the 7th century until quite recent times. He is the only founder of a major world religion who lived in the full light of history and about whom there are numerous records in historical texts, although like other premodern historical figures not every detail of his life is known. Because Muhammad is one of the most influential figures in history, his life, deeds, and thoughts have been debated by followers and opponents over the centuries, which makes a biography of him difficult to write. At every turn both the Islamic understanding of Muhammad and the rationalist interpretation of him by Western scholars, which grew out of 18th- and 19th-century philosophies such as positivism, must be considered. Moreover, on the basis of both historical evidence and the Muslim understanding of Muhammad as the Prophet, a response must be fashioned to Christian polemical writings characterizing Muhammad as an apostate if not the Antichrist. These date back to the early Middle Ages and still influence to some degree the general Western conception of him. It is essential, therefore, both to examine the historical record—though not necessarily on the basis of secularist assumptions—and to make clear the Islamic understanding of Muhammad.

source: http://www.britannic...396226/Muhammad

And that is from a non-religious resource.

What you are looking for is something called intelligent design where more and more scientists in various fields who are atheist or agnostic find more and more evidence that we had to be created.

[abdullahfath]

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.

This leaves the origin of molecular machines like the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism-natural selection-that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better alternative? Based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems, namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter irreducibly complex systems--such as an integrated circuit or an internal combustion engine--and we know how they arose, invariably a designing engineer played a role.

Thus, Behe concludes--based on our knowledge of what it takes to build functionally-integrated complex systems--that intelligent design best explains the origin of molecular machines within cells. Molecular machines appear designed because they were designed.

source: http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

I personally have always known that there was a superior power from the time I was a child. And if you walk around and ask you will find many children who are the same. If the majority of the population believes in a superior power, a creator while less than 1% of the global population does not what is that 1% referred to as? That is an outlier, an anomaly if you will. Even those that practice polytheism still believe that one of their gods was the primary creator god. For the Greeks this was Uranus and Gaea. Atum or Ptah in Egyptian, YHWH in Hebrew, etc.

Logic also leads us to conclude there is a creator in several works that have already been written. One such book you might want to look into is called Mere Christianity, granted it is lacking obviously as he subscribes to Christianity but the other, C.S. Lewis was originally an atheist who turned to Christianity after logic lead him to realize that there had to be a creator and an afterlife.

[dot]

Member Ashir is now banned from posting. He asked that we announce that we have banned him, so that members know.
He said:

I don't want people thinking I'm not capable of debating their arguments.

[Perseveranze]

I could argue there are. For example I remember in one verse it says to treat Jews like brothers and in another it says to attack them if they do not convert, but that is a matter of opinion, as we both could always have misconstrued things.

Please post the verse(s), as I'm sure you're interpretation is wrong.

The general ruling, in how we treat others, be it Jew or Christian or Atheist is outlined by this verse, that applies above all;

"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.” (Qur'an: Mumtahinah, 8)

I think you may be hinting at the claimed 'foreknown science' the Qu'ran provides such as an impressive look at embryology and astronomy. In fact, arguably all of this premature intelligence can be found in Greek/Mesopotamian science, long before the rise of Islam, and much, much more (also from the Egyptians). Because they discovered or generated theories that were only to be confirmed millennium later, that means their deities must exist? A weak and contradictory argument.

Actually, if you study it very carefully, you'll find the Greeks made various errors and so did the earlier Egyptions. With the Qur'an, not only are there differences between itself and the greeks, but there is no particular errors as such. As I always said, the Qur'an came to correct what came before it, that's the claim it's always made and that's what it has done. You should read this article regarding Embroylogy in the Qur'an, it also talks about the Greeks etc.

Once again, my argument stands, the fact you call it weak is due to your lack of understanding the argument that I put forth. If you're claim is that "there are other books like it", then this is also wrong.

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.

As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.

- H A R Gibb, Arabic Literature - An Introduction, 1963, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. 36.
- H A R Gibb, Islam - A Historical Survey, 1980, Oxford University Press, p. 28.

[allin25]

Actually, the Qur'an never says; "because I said so". It actually says, if you don't believe it then;

1. Produce a chapter like it.
2. Find a single contradiction
3. Create something equal to even a small fly
4. etc. basically challenges

Whether you believe in it or not, that's your choice. However, there's no book in the world that claims to be from God that is quite like it. And that for Muslims (plus the Prophethood of Muhammad(pbuh)) is our proof.

You seriously believe Nobody has ever produced a chapter or verse like the quran and their is not even one contradiction in the quran ?