Jump to content
Islamic Forum

wordVision Student

Member
  • Content count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wordVision Student

  1. A Refutation Of Atheism

    Not at all. You say yourself that there is room for a God before the Big Bang. So the question then is, who is more likely to be that God. While not offering absolute proof here, I'm only pointing out that the Spaghetti Monster is far less likely to be it. After all, many billions of people, including Nobel Laureates, scientists and thinkers of all persuasion believe in the God / Allah that I'm referring to. While few would invoke the Spaghetti Monster. A couple of scientists, stepping outside of science and delving into philosophy or metaphysics propose ideas like the multiverse and you're more than happy to use that as evidence for the lack of a Creator. But billions, including many scientists, propose that there is God, but you refuse to hear it. This is all I'm saying. Again, the notion that under a different set of physical law, a different form of biological life might appear, is one than is not proven. It is yet another red herring thrown in by atheistic scientist for want of something that can be supported by evidence. Science can not even show, in the lab, how the presently existing biological life cam about, let alone show how different, non-carbon based life could come about. The question 'why' is absolutely valid to ask. And indeed, scientists are asking it all the time. That is why they continue to search for an answer to the question, 'What caused the Big Bang'. Unable to answer this, unable to show why things should have come into existence from non-existence, atheists have had to resort to non-scientific ideas. This, despite the fact that they claim scientific answers to be the only answers! I don't offer this as proof. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread, you will find nothing in science that forces you believe in Allah. I offer this idea only as an indication to His existence, and as an examply of the beauty in his wisdom. Had humans been able to make things that far exceeded, in terms of wisdom, what we find in the universe, they might have suggested that there was no higher intelligence than humanity. Since this is clearly not the case, it points to the existence of a higher intelligence. Nonsense. But even if it were true, so what? Beauty is a human construct and means different things in different cultures. If there were no humans (or their intellectual equivalents) there would be no such thing as 'beauty". Is it really nonsense? Or do you simply refuse to accept it? Remember, I don't confine beauty here merely to aesthetic beauty. I refer to the beauty to be seen in the wisdom of how things work. There is beauty in wisdom, beauty in aesthetics, beauty in delicious foods... If a thing contains beautiful wisdom, it remains beautiful regardless of the existence of human observers. But of course, I don't expect you to agree as beauty can not be seen by all. If I give a 5 year old a chocolate, he can experience the beauty in its delicious taste. But if I take him to the National Gallery, he will probably not appreciate the beauty in the works of Da Vinci. Does this mean the works of Da Vinci are not beautiful? So in order to appreciate the true beauty of things, one requires a certain maturity, a certain level of knowledge and understanding. And especially requires belief. In the absence of belief, all things, including life, are reduced to mere chance or accident. So I am not surprised you do not see this beauty, but I'm certain that my fellow believers can. You misunderstand what perfection is. The universe is perfect, in that it is an intricate, purposive work of art, that operates exactly as its Creator intended. To understand this, you require an understanding of Allah, and of the wisdom in why he created this universe. Animals are meant to become extinct, things are meant to die, entropy in meant to increase. There is very subtle and elevated wisdom in all of this. You dropping your coffee cup in no way diminishing the perfection, the wondrousness, in the creation of forces such as gravity. But again, without belief you may be unable to see this. I do not know of any other universes and nor do you. If science is said to be the basis for atheism, why do atheists continue to resort to non-scientific notions in support of their claims? The Multiverse idea is merely a cop out that is used to try to explain the very troubling question that atheists are faced with: Why do the phenomena in the universe have the exact mathematical values that they do, which if any different, would not have allowed the existence of carbon based life. This is a very troubling matter indeed, that forces atheists to resort to untestable fantasies such as the Multiverse idea.
  2. A Refutation Of Atheism

    My brother, I like this post very much! If you're interested in a further 'analogy' along these lines, have a read of 'The Second Word' within 'The Words' by Said Nursi. It's quite short and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Go to wordvision(dot)org(dot)au and look up 'The Second Word' under the 'Risale-i Nur' tab. Or google - Risale-i Nur, The Second Word. Selam aleykum. :sl:
  3. A Refutation Of Atheism

  4. A Refutation Of Atheism

    The difference being that the likes of the Spaghetti Monster do not have any intelligence or will ascribed to them. Nor do they have billions of rational people - past, present and future - who believe in their lordship. You see, it's these very facts which indicate the presence Allah. Countless phenomena in the universe, and the universe as a whole, work in such a wondrous manner, that we can't resist but to refer to their workings using these types of metaphors. An entire universe, containing countless amazing works - most of which happen to work for the benefit of humankind, despite the works not being sentient - points strongly to the existence of a sentient Creator of the works. They may appear to work on their own, but this doesn't explain why they came about. Why did the universe have to come about? Why did it have to contain such amazing works, which humans, who like to think of themselves as quite smart, can not even begin to match. Yes, the combined intellectual resources of humankind work to build machines, computers, vehicles. But our best contraptions, are most advanced technologies, can not compare to the wisdom to be found in things such as living organisms, DNA, the structure of atoms, sound waves, photons of light... When humans build computer chips, they consider themselves pretty smart. Yet the DNA of the simplest living organism is far more beautiful, intricate and amazing. This makes rational people see that there ought to be a Beautiful Maker of these intricate arts. Also, the artworks come and go, yet beauty, wisdom and artistry remain. This points to an Enduring Wise Artist. In fact, scientists, including physicists, mathematicians and cosmologists, conduct their research on the basis that there should be this beauty, this wisdom, in the universe. They start, implicitly, with this premise. They are passionate about their work because of this beauty. If the universe did not work so beautifully, what point would there be in studying it. Who would be here to study it? So then question then remains; can beautiful, wise, artistic things, that work seamlessly with one another, have made themselves? Could they have concieved of themselves, them brought themselves into existence all together, of their own accord? No matter how much you talk about how things work, the rational mind does not accept that they could have made themselves. If I were to bring you just three pieces of electronic equipment, from three different parts of the world, which all worked together beautifully to achieve a meaningful result, and I then told you they had made themselves, you would justfiably laugh at me. But when you see how every single intricate component of this vast cosmos works together seamlessly to produce a perfectly functioning universe, you engage in obstinacy, cognitive dissonance or whatever else and tell me that it all made itself, without the direction, power, artistry and will of a Maker. What is the more absurd notion?
  5. A Refutation Of Atheism

    You miss my point. I'm not suggesting that these gaps in our knowledge, on their own, prove Allah. I only seek to demonstrate that nothing in science, or any other field for that matter, can preclude the existence of Allah. This, together with innumerable indications to His existence visible in the universe, together with the Quran and other authentic scripture, and the word of His many thousands of messengers, combine to form a solid basis for belief. Thanks for the very lively chat Wattle and Rahimi :sl:
  6. A Refutation Of Atheism

    C&Pd? I'm not in the habit of cutting and pasting anything for these forums (Google the passage in question if you like). We needn't resort to this, surely? Anyway. The idea that previous a previous universe, or universes, may be responsible for the creation of this universe is just that, an idea. Not proven, not 'testable', and totally unsubstantiated in science. It may have a philosophical basis, I grant you that. But let's not dress philosophy up as science. This is a technique born of necessity - "There's no scientific proof to deny Allah, so let's come up with some psuedo-science to buy some time". In any case, my trouble is not the obstinacy of sworn atheists. My concern is only for the belief of my fellow Muslim readers of this site. It is their sense of reason I appeal to. To them, I say the following: Do not be swayed one iota by atheistic arrogance. Sitting back while science constantly searches for and uncovers the wondrous workings of the universe, they then say, "See, it does it all by itself!" But describing how something works does only that. It says 'how' it works. Not 'why'. Why should our universe have the laws it does? Why did it come into existence in the first place. If it's all due to chance, why did it have to be so beautiful? Answering these questions with recourse to ideas such as a 'Multiverse' or 'prior universes' is no less faith based than religion. Also recall that many a scientist believes in Allah, or God. And this, not in spite of their scientfic knowledge but because of it. Many a scientist has accepted the truth of Islam, having read the Quran and having seen how it accords with and enriches their scientific knowledge. There is no discord between Islam and science - quite the contrary. Islam demands of us that we 'read'. This includes reading not only books, but the 'Book of the Universe' - the universe itself. This to know our Creator and thereby love Him, and thence express this love by whorshipping Him. I wish my valuable brothers and sisters on this forum every success on this path.
  7. A Refutation Of Atheism

    The idea that the physical universe, or at least some part of it, may have always existed is a notion that took a devastating blow as evidence for the Big Bang began to pile up. Steady-state theorists found the notion of a 'beginning in time' quite 'repulsive'. Alas, our knowledge advanced, and the cosmic background radiation that should have been left over from the Big Bang was in fact, found to exist. Stars were shown to be moving away from one another. The evidence kept coming and coming. So the steady-state theorist, in true Darwinian style, had to adapt to survive. No longer do (most of them) propose the universe is, as it always was. They have had to come up with something a little more palatable. So ideas like a 'Multiverse' or an 'Oscillating Universe' had to be conceived. None of which have ever been proven. And most of which have made their way to the cosmological junkyard. Although the Big Bang theory can not prove that there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang, it comes fairly close to doing so. It can demonstrate that the universe commenced from a tiny point, unimaginably small and dense. Then it exploded, for reasons unclear. Then it developed a set of laws, a set of parameters, that happened to set themselves to just the right values, accurate to nthdegree, for the development of conscious, biological life, that could later dwell on this amazing fact. as Why did the universe develop these laws, with these particular values, that are just right for life? Again, we're not sure. As one physicist put it, it all looks like a 'put up job'. And all this from nothing more than a tiny exploding point. Now which is the more 'reasonable' belief? That all this just happended to be? Or that it was willed, for a particular purpose? As I have stated in earlier posts, it is part of Allah's infinite wisdom that there should not be absolute proof of His existence in the physical universe. Such proof would force even my friend Wattle to believe! It would rob him of his limited free will, which would be contrary to the purpose of his creation. Notwithstanding this, for those with open minds and hearts, there are ample indications pointing to His existence in the physical universe, such the foregoing example. As Rahimi correctly points out, DNA is another such indication. None of the indications will force us to believe, but when considered rationally, in their totality, form quite a satisfying basis for belief. How can we strengthen this basis for belief? We need look no further than Allah's Holy Quran. But that is another topic altogether. If you choose to ignore this powerful resource, viewing it scepticism or scorn, then don't be suprised that you can not find Allah. Furthermore, if you have chosen to close your mind and heart, don't be surprised that you are unable to see the marvellous beauty in the universe. That you find yourself denying the existence of beauty itself - seeing it only as a 'human construct'!t When I speak of beauty, I don't refer only to aesthetics. There is very real beauty in all things. Mercy, love, compassion, wisdom, tolerance, empathy, intelligence, symmetry, mutual assistance, co-ordination, co-operation, intricacy, delicious foods and pleasurable smells, harmonious music... All these are real, and have a very real beauty to them. You may shut your eyes on a sunny day, but it's still daylight outside my friends...
  8. A Refutation Of Atheism

    Indeed, our laws of physics break down prior to Planck time. And we still don't know what caused the Big Bang. I look forward to a advancements in our knowledge that will fill these gaps. But let's look at what we do know. There was a point, a singularity, of massive density. It exploded and time, space and matter as we know it today evolved from there. Amazingly, a set of laws emerged in conjunction with this explosion. Together, these produced the sterling beauty, majesty and complexity we see today. Not only this, but it produced humans who could in turn gaze at it, uncover its mysteries and appreciate its wonders. This beauty is undeniable and has left our finest physicists, cosmologists - in fact all who are passionate about science - in wonder. The home page of NASA a few days ago bore the heading, "Beauty in the Universe", above a picture of Saturn fully encircled by its rings. Okay, so science can not incontrovertibly prove, nor disprove Allah. And so it is meant to be. And maybe you have a problem with all the major religions. But none the less, the reason tells us that this beautiful, amazing, working contraption called the universe could not have made itself out of a singularity. Nor could the 'singularity' have brought itself into existence from non-existence. The fact that atheists need to rely on unproven notions such as the Multiverse idea, or the idea that some part of the universe "might" have always existed, to try to deny the universe's Creator, is telling. It amuses me that atheists rely on faith to deny belief!
  9. A Refutation Of Atheism

    I am not talking only about the creation of the universe. I am talking about the bringing of all things into existence. Whatever you may propose as the initial 'natural cause' of the universe, still requires a Causer of the Cause. Something within, subject to, bound by, or even able to be described in terms of the phsical universe we know, can not also be its creator, can not be seen as responsible for bringing it into existence from total non existence. 'Nothingness' in terms of the physical universe, means just that. Pure nothingness. Natural physical causes, can not come into existence out of pure nothing. They require, exactly as you propose, a supernatural Agent. A God not bound by the physicality we are familiar with.
  10. A Refutation Of Atheism

    Thanks for your contribution Wattle. The word God has become somewhat of loaded, hasn't it? You may call It what you will. If you don't like the religious connotations associated with God, Allah or similar words, you may substitute, 'That Which Created the Universe' (In Islam, we use Al Khaliq - The Creator. Or even 'That Which Brought Things into Existence'. My point here is that, you may choose, for now, to disagree on the identity of the Creator. But you may not deny that there is a Creator. The fact that there is a physical universe in existence, and things can not create themselves out of nothing, necessitates a External Agent, not bound by physicality, to bring it into existence. So Allah can not be denied on the basis of the same argument. We are not comparing apples with apples. If you bear in mind how theists are defining Allah, you will see that He is totally other than the physical universe and laws that we understand. The difficulty atheists, and particularly materialists, face is that they will not accept the existence of anything that is not bound by some type of physicality, or some set of physical laws. That is the sticking point, the impasse. As for the idea of 'many gods' - that it different matter altogether. In order to discuss this, we need to again understand how Islam is describing Allah. We are talking here about a Being who enjoys absolute power, therefore absolute rulership. Absolute Power (Qadir) requires no assistants, Absolute Rulership (Rububiyet) tolerates no partner in Its rulership. To conclude, I should stress that the primary problem with atheist's attempt to refute the existence of Allah, is that they rely on an incongruent definition of Allah. We are the ones who are telling you Allah exists - it is unhelpful to try to deny Him on the basis of a different definition to what we are proposing.
  11. Selaam From New Member

    Selaam and hello. Have just signed up and am looking forward to some intersting dissussion. I am married male from Melbourne, Australia. I enjoy reading, travel and arthouse cinema. Chat soon inshallah :sl:
  12. A Refutation Of Atheism

    This should read, "...I submit that this does not represent an Argument from Incredulity..."
  13. A Case For Atheism

    This should read: Therefore the theory can not be relied upon to show that Allah is not required to create life, and certainly can not be used to disprove Him altogether.
  14. A Case For Atheism

    Browsing the net on an unrelated matter, I recently stumbled upon this thread. As this is an Islamic forum, comprised presumably of many Muslim readers, I felt compelled (for the benefit mainly of my fellow Muslims) to join specifically to respond to oooo's original post. I therefore apologise for the lack of timeliness of this response. I don't expect that I will convert oooo from atheism to theism - this is in Allah's hands only. But hopefully I can demonstrate to other Muslim readers the weakness of oooo's basis for denying Allah's existence. I should acknowledge that my post relies heavily upon the work of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, author of the Treatise of Light (or Risale-i Nur). My Islamic and philosophical assertions are paraphrased from his words. I will try to remain brief, referring readers instead to the Risale-i Nur itself, particularly the '11th Word' and the '4th Ray', for a more comprehensive argument in favor of Allah's existence. Risale-i Nur Implicitly, it would appear to me that oooo is basing her atheism on the following chain of reasoning: Premise 1. If Allah exists, He would surely offer incontrovertible proof of His existence within the physical universe (without having recourse to metaphysical phenomena such as miracles, Divine revelation or prophethood). Premise 2. There is no incontrovertible proof of Allah's existence in the physical universe, in that we can not demonstrate His existence through testable, scientific means. Premise 3. Furthermore, there appear to be 'natural' explanations for the existence of phenomena within the universe, if not for the universe itself. Conclusion: Therefore, Allah does not exist. With respect, I submit that this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. oooo attempts to disprove the existence of Allah without a proper understanding of the nature or attributes of Allah, or of the universe for that matter. Such an understanding is essential. How can one disprove that which one does not understand? Understanding Allah through a properly informed knowledge of His attributes, and His wisdom in the creation the universe, will in turn provide the basis for our belief in His existence. Returing to oooo's reasoning, Premise 1 is incorrect. Allah, being an infinitely beautiful and loving being, created the universe and everything in it for the purpose of displaying the beauty and perfection of His attributes. This in turn required the existence of conscious beings to appreciate the multifarious types, levels, degrees of that beauty. Allah created humans to be the most equipped of all conscious beings to appreciate His beauty, and to reflect His beauty and attributes through their own actions, character and behaviour. This requires free-will and indeed, humans have been given a limited free-will. If Allah were to fully manifest Himself in the universe, through incontrovertible physical proof that forced every human to believe, humans would be robbed of their free will. In other words, Allah will not create a situation where we are forced to believe, as this would operate contrary to His purpose in creating the universe and humans in the first place. Instead, Allah will provide strong indications of His existence in the universe, and will employ messengers to herald these indications. Attempting to establish faith in Allah's existence by relying on physics alone will, in most cases, lead to an impasse. One may use their free will to ignore Allah's Messegers and books, but can not then complain that there lacks incontrovertible physical evidence to justify belief. Premise 2, as is evident from the discussion above, is correct and is actually necessitated by Divine wisdom. Indeed, Allah is not 'testable' or 'falsifiable' in the scientific sense. Does this mean belief in Allah is invalid? Absolutely not! The fact that we can not 'falsify' something does not always diminish its value as an explanatory tool for phenomena in the universe (consider String Theory, for example). To reiterate, Allah's 'unfalsifiability' in the physical universe does not prove His non-existence. This is particularly so, given that Allah is the creator of space, time, matter and the physical laws, and is not bound, nor able to be described in terms of them. Premise 3 is arguable, and even if true, does not disprove Allah's existence. Demonstrating how a thing works does not necessarily do away with its maker, if it has one. I don't wish to get into a lengthy refutation of each of oooo's points. I only wish to point out the following: 1. Evolution is not a useful explanatory tool for abiogenesis. Relying on the pre-existence of a living, self-replicating organism, the theory the invokes 'random' mutations and natural selction to explain biodiversity. It does not explain, or even seek to explain, how life actually came about in the first place. No doubt, attempts have been made to explain abiogenesis via other chance or 'necessity' based mechanisms, but to date, these have failed to prove how life first came about. Therefore, the theory can not be relied upon to show that Allah is not required to create life, and certainly can be used to disprove Him altogether. In fact, Islam provides us with significant assistance in relation to the matter of abiogenesis or Life. It informs us that there are certain matters which are 'not veiled'. That is, certain phenomena do not have any 'apparent causes' attached to them to veil the hand of His Power. (For example, the apparent 'cause' for light on the earth is the photons emitted by sun - the sun being merely a veil to Allah's power.) So what are the things that are unveiled? Well, sure enough, one is said to be Life. It is no surprise then, that nothing in science can adequetely explain how Life first came about. Of course, this does not force us to believe. We still have the choice to invoke what can be described as the 'Argument from Hope' - that one day science will, once and for all, show us how life first came about (hopefully!?!) Or perhaps the idea that life on Earth actually originated from Mars (see Paul Davies - The Fifth Miracle)! 2. Quantum Fluctuations and guesses about the origin of the universe such as the Multiverse idea, do not disprove Allah's existence. The notion of quantum fluctuations of virtual particles, that appear to pop up in oppositely charged pairs without apparent cause, and briefly violate the first law of thermodynamics before annihilating one another, in no way contradicts what we know in Islam. And in no way disproves Allah. More on this shortly. But first, are the appearance of these virual particles actually an appearance out of nothing? Not at all. 'Something(s)' are still required to enable their appearance, namely a space/time field. These are not 'nothing'. (As an aside, I wonder whether further work on Dark Energy may shed some more light on this matter down the track?) Secondly, the use of the concept of quantum fluctuations to explain the creation of the universe is an extrapolation that is hitherto unproven. Sure, some eminent physicists have proposed the idea in peer-reviewed journals. But conclusive proof of how the universe came about still evades us. I feel it is invalid to rely on this notion then, as evidence for the lack of Allah's existence. Notwithstanding the above point, Islam (unlike some other faiths) has no issue with any scientific theory that may someday prove how the universe was created through so called 'natural processes'. Ours is not a God of the Gaps, but a God who is The Necessary Existent (Vacibul Vucud), who is the Causer of Causes (Yusebbibul Esbab). Personally I would find such a theory much more intellectually satisfying than the current best guesses like the Multiverse idea, that only push the problem of explaining the origin of the universe to another place. If I were an atheist, holding 'falsifiability' as the sole determinant of an idea's value, I would be loathe to rely on something like the 'Multiverse' idea to prove or disprove anything. From Non-Existence to Existence. Ultimately, regardless of how far science may progress, it is bound to reach an impasse. This is at the point where something goes from non-existence to existence. Again, Islam guides us on this and tells us about another matter which is 'unveiled' (recall the discussion above under Evolution). This is Existence. The coming of a thing into existence, from non-existence, after all the causes have been peeled away, is 'unveiled'. That is, Allah has not put in place an apparent 'cause' as a veil to His Power in relation to his bringing physical existence about. I apologise if I have not illustrated this point clearly, but let me put it like this. If science could uncover every possible working of the universe, it would eventually reach a point where it could not find a 'cause' for how the very first 'thing' in our physical universe came about. At this point, atheists might point and say, 'See, it created itself!' But of course, the reason does not accept this, as may be seen below. Allah's Name of Samed (the Eternal Absolute by one translation). Things can not create themselves. If something is in a state of pure non-existence, it can not bring about its own existence. It requires something else to cause its existence. If nothing exists at all, that thing that we define as a God, or Allah, The One who is Samed and Necessarily Existent, is required to bring things into existence. I submit that this does represent an Argument from Incredulity. Consider this. There is pure and absolute 'nothing' in terms of a physical universe. Then, something, whether its a 'quantum fluctuation of a field' or a 'singularity of infinite density' suddenly comes into existence with no discernible cause (after all, there are not even causes in our story here). Then this initial thing, so packed is it with beauty, wisdom, power, functionality, co-ordination and meaningfulness, morphs into the universe we know and love today. We can not deny we exist, nor can we deny that we perceive myriad pleasures through the beauty of the universe and its constituent parts (and especially through our children, families and fellow humans). And we admit that we love to exist, that we would hate not to exist. And we see that while beautiful things come and go, beauty itself endures. Under all these circumstances, are we not justified in refusing to accept that all this could not have created itself? Consider also that we have been endowed with the faculty of reason. Do you think it is an accident that using this very sense of reason, the majority of all humans, past and present, refuse to accept the non-existence of a Creator? How did Allah come into existence? "If things can not create themselves, how did Allah come into existence?" asks the atheist. The second part of this sentence contains an oxymoron. By definition, Allah can not 'come into' existence, for He has the attributes of having always existed and not requiring anything for His eternal existence. To claim that the existence of a such a God, who bears these attributes, is not possible given the known laws of physics, is to express what I feel to be the Argument from Incredulity - of which theists are so often accused. Or else it is to express an Argument from Ignorance. In Islam, we know Allah to have infinite power. The mind boggling majesty of the universe is just a single indication of this. We also know Allah to have brought time and the universe, including all its laws, matter and mechanisms into existence from non-existence. We know He is not bound by any of these. We also know a little about the nature of Allah, through the manifestations of his attributes visible in the universe. And that is where our knowledge ends for now. We can not see or in any way perceive, or conceive of, Allah's actual Essence. His Essence is absolutely Unique (Ferd) and outside of the human experience. We can not, therefore, properly understand, much less deny, Allah's infinitude and Eternal Pre-Existence with the limited human intelligence and imagination Allah has gifted us in this life. We are merely on the commencement of an infinite journey of discovery. Thanks for your time in reading this post, and I apologise again for its length. For further reading and discussion of the Risale-i Nur, by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, please go to ######wordvision(contact admin if its a beneficial link).au or just google Risale-i Nur.
×