quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Science has proven that matter comes from energy, and all things spiritual come from energy as well. However science has disproven god in some sense because so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. Fanatics or "true believers" will tell us that the Earth is the center of the Solar System because that is what the holy books say. Science (even ancient scientists) have proven that not to be true. The same goes for the sky, which the holy books claim is a solid canopy, rather than a collection of gas that can be passed through. etc. etc. Essentially, science provides a possibility of SOME GOD or GODS, but not the God as described in the books of Torah, New Testament, or Qur'an. If that god does indeed exist then that god is not as described in the books. That leads to the question of who wrote the books? Not god itself because god should know that the sky is gas and the Sun is the center of the Solar System, and not the Earth.
Then there are the dark energy and dark matter theories...

---

I was going to reply to this post, but was sure you will, as you have done, there is no need for double post. I was going to say some similar stuff.

Cheers

Now we understand that there are only two legitimate options for the origin of the universe:

(1) Someone made the universe (Intelligent Design), or
(2) The universe made itself (Random Chance).
The third option, the universe has always been here, is no longer a feasible alternative -- it contradicts empirical science. No other scientifically plausible theories for the origin of the universe have ever been proposed.

The implications of various 20th century discoveries have put atheists in an awkward position. Logic now requires that they identify an uncontrolled mechanism by which the universe could have initiated, designed, created and developed itself without an Intelligent Director. Otherwise, intellectual honesty requires the necessity of a Creator God.

Origin of the Universe - The Big Bang Theory
So began the effort to purpose an atheistic mechanism for the origin of the universe. Enter the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian Evolution. The original Big Bang Theory seeks to explain the sudden appearance of everything from nothing, while Darwinian Evolution seeks to explain the origin of complex life forms from their supposed simpler ancestors. The premise of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball, which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an instant. Yes, that's the theory. No Ph.D. required.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phagocyte:
Does our current scientific understanding of the world provide support for the existence of God or the supernatural? Has, indeed, science found God, as claimed by many religionists, including some theistically-minded scientists?

---

Assalamu Alaikum Phagocyte

Science itself as informations coming from observations can't prove or disprove God but useing what Science provided would be helpful to formulate argumets for or against the existence of God.for example when science speaks about laws of nature and by analysing these information we see how the universe has such very fine tuned design we tend to belive that such design probably is not the work of chance.
Let me suggest this article : http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=16

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Science has proven that matter comes from energy, and all things spiritual come from energy as well. However science has disproven god in some sense because so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. Fanatics or "true believers" will tell us that the Earth is the center of the Solar System because that is what the holy books say. Science (even ancient scientists) have proven that not to be true. The same goes for the sky, which the holy books claim is a solid canopy, rather than a collection of gas that can be passed through. etc. etc. Essentially, science provides a possibility of SOME GOD or GODS, but not the God as described in the books of Torah, New Testament, or Qur'an. If that god does indeed exist then that god is not as described in the books. That leads to the question of who wrote the books? Not god itself because god should know that the sky is gas and the Sun is the center of the Solar System, and not the Earth.
Then there are the dark energy and dark matter theories...

---

Assalamu alaikum

I think you are confusing things here the claim that "so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. " does not necessary conclude " science has disproven god in some sense because "

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShadowLynnParker:
Take this from where it comes, A bleeched blonde ok? But trust me when I say that God was derived from good. Keeping people in line was a huge task way back when and someone had to make some rules. People are like sheep and need guidance. so the "You must do this"list came out for that reason. Next is my thought that we are just here.the sky is the sky and the earth is just earth. No one oversees us but us and we had better do a better job and stop relying on a phathom sperit to guid us. We are born we age and die and thats that. Ants do the same and follow only there gut. Greeks had many gods I guess they needed more then one. We have one but I think he or she might just be on vacation. When he or she comes back there will be hell to pay. Just kidding. Lighten up guys and have some fun. Pleaseeeee If you are super religious then please dont read any of my work on line. You will hate it.

---

Imagine our scientists thinking in the same way? Appl falls because it's just that .will we be able to know about gravity then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
That is an outdated explanation of the big bang, and there are also more theories than that. With dark energy and dark matter being held in consideration another theory is that these two forces brought creation to the material world. The dark matter and dark energy make up 90% of the universe, which leaves much room for theories other than the above description of the big bang. That website does not seem credible at all to me. String theory also presents different theories of the universe and its creation. Actually it presents different theories of matter, energy, time, and distance... You might want to do some research on dark energy, dark matter, and string theory. Anyway, even if there is intelligent design, it doesn't prove the existence of Yahweh/Eloh/Allah because it could be design from countless forces instead of just one. If one god could have been existing without being created, why is it more bizarre to think that there could be 100 or more gods that exist without being created?

---

Now regarding your statment "Anyway, even if there is intelligent design, it doesn't prove the existence of Yahweh/Eloh/Allah because it could be design from countless forces instead of just one. If one god could have been existing without being created, why is it more bizarre to think that there could be 100 or more gods "

First we need to address the issue, is the first cause mechanical or personal? and this can be replied simply by aying exactly what a philosopher like William lane craig said "the only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time."

Muslims,Christians and Jews believe in a personal God and the purpose of the argument was to prove this fundmental beliefe which is why scholars of this religions used this argument (kalam cosmological) from long time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad1:

Assalamu alaikum

I think you are confusing things here the claim that "so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. " does not necessary conclude " science has disproven god in some sense because "

Assuming that Qur'an has scientific errors (which you have yet to prove first) that wont in anyway disprove God as preached in Qur'an .it may prove that Qur'an has errors due to human input but how can it disprove the Qur'anic claim about what God is(i.e ominscient,omnipotent etc)?

---

Science has not proved or disproved God. We can extrapolate into the future and past of the universe and try to see what happened then but all scientists who try to do this admit they are speculating. Some deists see the big bang and the force needed to bring it about as proof of God, some see it as disproving God. And some try to fit discoveries into organised religion to claim "scientific miracles" like those Kabbalah nutters who think that the biblical age of the universe (approx. 6000 years) is proof that the bible understood the theory of relativity rather than a horrible disgrace for the Torah.

I guess we can't really figure this out at the moment. I believe in God and I believe he is looking down on all of us trying to figure this out and having a big laugh. I think he's not angry, just amused that we still haven't got it.

A leading scientific journal concludes that increasingly, scientists have doubts about the existence of a deity or similar supernatural and religious claims. This finding questions the pop-culture view that science and religion are moving toward a consensus, and a shared view about the humanity and the universe. The study also touches on the changing character of the scientific enterprise in modern society...

Science will never answer this question because the scientific method works in a completely different way.

As Hawkings put it, "not even God can determine the velocity and position of subatomic particles" when talking about the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Readily available scientific research has already proved the Qur'an has scientific errors. The sky is not a solid canopy, and the Earth is not the center of the solar system. This either disproves god as preached in the Qur'an because an omniscient deity would be aware of the order of the solar system OR it disproves the divine revelation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an supposedly is the word of God as delivered by Jibrail. So either the Qur'an isn't the word of God, rendering it just some Arab guys philosophy, or God isn't omniscient. Thus, it disproves god as preached in the book. As I said above, if you keep it in context, science leaves the possibility of some god, or gods, but just not as described in the given holy books..

---

You said"Readily available scientific research has already proved the Qur'an has scientific errors. The sky is not a solid canopy, and the Earth is not the center of the solar system. This either disproves god as preached in the Qur'an because an omniscient deity would be aware of the order of the solar system OR it disproves the divine revelation of the Qur'an. "

Where and who did this "avaliable scientific research"?

You Said "So either the Qur'an isn't the word of God, rendering it just some Arab guys philosophy, or God isn't omniscient. Thus, it disproves god as preached in the book. As I said above, if you keep it in context, science leaves the possibility of some god, or gods, but just not as described in the given holy books"

God as described by Qur'an is "A person, present everywhere, the creator and sustainer of the universe, a free agent, able to do everything (i.e. omnipotent), knowing all things, perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, immutable, eternal, a necessary being, holy, and worthy of worship."

If the Qur'an contain any scietific error,in no way that will disprove God as described by Qur'an but rather "may" disprove the Qur'an as a holy book and I'm stressing on "may" .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
I was not saying the big bang never happened, I was saying that there are forces other than what Phagocytes clipping referred to that were and are factors in the big bang and its role in creation theories. Big bang is not the end all of why the universe is here for current scientific thought. It is merely a component.

I do not understand why answering the question of "is the cause mechanical or personal" is relevant.?

---

The main question was about God and science.so I assumed here God not only refers to "force" but also it goes furthure to the identity of this God as told through abrahamic faith who is a personal God .
As for why 1 not 100 , I think after addressing whether it's personal force or mecanical force comes a minimal detailes where even Muslims and other abrahamic faith believers may differ in.And in this case we tend to look which is more rational than the other.

The Qur'an address the subject of multiple gods in more than one place as ash'ari understood, here I quote "Herbert Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy, " :"Quran 21:22 reads: "If gods other than God were in them [i.e., in the heavens and earth], both [the heavens and the earth] would fall into ruin." And Quran 23:91 reads: "There is no god along with him else each god would assuredly have championed what he created, and one would have overcome the other." Ash'ari spells out the intent of the Quranic verses: On the hypothesis of two creators, one of the two might will something while the other willed the contrary. For example, one might "will to have a man live, while the other willed to have him die." Should such occur, it would not be possible for the will of both to be accomplished; nor for the will of neither to be accomplished; nor again for the will of one to be accomplished, while the will of the other was frustrated. Clearly, "what both will could not conceivably be accomplished; for a body cannot be conceivably alive and dead at the same time." Nor might "what neither wills be accomplished." The reason therefore is that if the will of neither creator was accomplished, both assumed creators would "perforce be powerless, whereas," Ash'ari postulates, "what is powerless cannot be God or eternal ... Thus, no more than one divine creator can, Ash'ari concludes, exist."

Also from the same book the philosopher Al Kindi is quoted saying :""If two entities possessing the nature of the deity were to be differentiated, one or both would have to contain an added element setting it apart. The entity containing the added element would be composite; what is composite is generated; what is generated cannot be the eternal first cause."
And Hume affirmed the same when he said that multiplying cause without necessity is against true philosophy

I hope I didn't divert the discussion from its intended purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saladin:
Faith is, by definition, to believe in something without having evidence.

Science will never answer this question because the scientific method works in a completely different way.

As Hawkings put it, "not even God can determine the velocity and position of subatomic particles" when talking about the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle.

[This message has been edited by Saladin (edited 17 June 2004).]

---

But it does not conclude from the uncertainity principle of Hisenberg or from Hawking's principle of ignorance that the change in particles is uncaused.

I believe if we have sufficient evidences that the universe is temporary caused which we seem to have then I think this can help in forming a good proof for the existence of God

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad1:

Thank you for your reply.

You said"Readily available scientific research has already proved the Qur'an has scientific errors. The sky is not a solid canopy, and the Earth is not the center of the solar system. This either disproves god as preached in the Qur'an because an omniscient deity would be aware of the order of the solar system OR it disproves the divine revelation of the Qur'an. "

Where and who did this "avaliable scientific research"?

You Said "So either the Qur'an isn't the word of God, rendering it just some Arab guys philosophy, or God isn't omniscient. Thus, it disproves god as preached in the book. As I said above, if you keep it in context, science leaves the possibility of some god, or gods, but just not as described in the given holy books"

God as described by Qur'an is "A person, present everywhere, the creator and sustainer of the universe, a free agent, able to do everything (i.e. omnipotent), knowing all things, perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, immutable, eternal, a necessary being, holy, and worthy of worship."

If the Qur'an contain any scietific error,in no way that will disprove God as described by Qur'an but rather "may" disprove the Qur'an as a holy book and I'm stressing on "may" .

---

Well, countless scientists have proven the sky is not a solid canopy. Every satellite in orbit around the Earth proves it as well. When we look at the stars it is now known we are seeing things beyond our sky, not lamps and missiles that are attached to it as the Qur'an states (I never took that literally anyway because I am pretty sure it was metaphor.) I am not sure what you are getting at. I believe the scientific data that has been provided me more than I believe Mohammed's explanation because science provides actual data rather than a statement which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed.

For the second point, it "may" do both. It definitely proves that either the Qur'an is from a random , scientifically ignorant god and not that omniscient god that is so claimed or that it was the construct of an Arab spiritual philosopher. By doing so, it disproves that the god of the Qur'an is as the Qur'an states. That is what should be noted. Still, some *other* god may exist, as I had stated earlier. We may be agreeing on the concept but not on the semantics... not sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad1:

But it does not conclude from the uncertainity principle of Hisenberg or from Hawking's principle of ignorance that the change in particles is uncaused.

I believe if we have sufficient evidences that the universe is temporary caused which we seem to have then I think this can help in forming a good proof for the existence of God

---

Hawking does not seek to use the Hiesenberg principle to disprove that God does not exist. He was using that as an example where application of God's existence to the scientific mode of thought will not lead to further scientific advancement, in fact it will hold it back.

"...on October 20, 1985, TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart announced that the great British scientist repudiated his life's work as he lay dying, and that he also asked to read the Bible so he could know Jesus. Swaggart was not the first to make use of the Darwin death-bed recantation. It's an old fabrication. Shortly after Darwin's death at seventy-four on April 19, 1882, the evangelistic widow of Admiral of the Fleet Sir James Hope, told a gathering of students at Northfield Seminary in Massachusetts that she had visited Darwin in his last hours and found him reading the Epistle to the Hebrews. Darwin, she said, announced that he wished he "had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done," and he also asked her to get some people together so he could speak to them of Jesus Christ and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savoring the heavenly anticipation of bliss." Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957.

These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A... The whole story has no foundation whatever."

Francis Darwin, who was with his father toward the end, reported that Darwin said, "I am not the least afraid to die," a few hours before his passing. These seem to have been his last words.

Darwin's work had a tremendous impact on religious thought. Many people strongly opposed the idea of evolution because it conflicted with their religious convictions. Darwin, a self-proclaimed agnostic who had spent some time in seminary, avoided talking about the theological and sociological aspects of his work, but other writers used his theories to support their own theories about society.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a man of high standing among his family, society, and the science community. He seemingly had nothing to gain and everything to lose by propagating some of his conclusions. He did in fact lose many friends and honors because of his published views in The Origin of Species. He sat on his ideas for decades because of concerns for family and society. He went so far as to consider waiting to have his works published posthumously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saladin:

You cannot prove that something does not exist.

---

Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That's like asking Iraq to prove it had no WMD's, how could you be sure?

I mean whether or not God exists is a question that can't be answered by science. If you keep looking at what happened at big bang and using chaos theory and what not to explain how the universe as we know it today evolved from a pinpoint of infinite density that still doesn't answer where the pinpoint came from. Even if you answer that, then what caused the cause of the big bang. The discussion soon stops being scientific and becomes philosophical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
It is a popular myth that you can't prove a negative. You can indeed prove a negative given test parameters. You can also prove something does not exist within certain parameters. Such as you can prove that there is no African Elephant in my test-tube. You simply define what an African Elephant is, and see if the contents of the test tube fit that definition. If not, there is no African Elephant in the tes-tube. One does not have to prove that there is something else in the tube (a positive) in order to prove the negative because by defining the subject we have set workable parameters.
The proper statement is that an absolute (unconditional) negative cannot be scientifically proven.
You *cannot* prove that something does not exist anywhere, for example, does work as a statement. Anyway, in the sense of proving there is absolutely no god, this applies. Science cannot prove there is absolutely no god, but it can prove that the god of the three holy books we have been discussing does not exist *within the parameters stated by the books.* So either we must admit the books are not from god, or admit that the god as described in the books does not exist and is actually a different god which is not omniscient. Or both

[This message has been edited by Undead (edited 18 June 2004).]

---

How has science proved that God can't be omniscient? And please don't tell me Heisenberg uncertainty because that relates to a fundamental limit in the observation of pairs of properties IN THIS UNIVERSE and using our definition of observation. I admit I studied Heisenberg's principle in a very dry course with no philosophical sides so maybe I am missing something here. Could you please elaborate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:

The true illustration of why this discussion is futile is the statement "You have to pick something and believe in it." Science is self-correcting. As new data is found theorems are adjusted. Religions that have holy books are not like this, they pick and believe, cannot change (without rewriting the book as the Christians and Jews have often done) and that is what makes discussion of this type futile.

[This message has been edited by Undead (edited 18 June 2004).]

---

Sheesh undead! Like okay:

-You can't prove a negative over an infinite volume or one where your observation is exceeded by the rate of expansion.
-Insofar as the presence or lack thereof God is concerned you have to pick something and believe in it, because the philosophical aspect will always give leeway to both sides.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Come to think of it, there is another possiblity and that is that the deity is omniscient but is a liar. If one believes that option then the whole book should be disregarded because the entire thing could be lie. So, one of the parameters of this "experiment" is that the book should be taken as honest (though possibly flawed) account.
[This message has been edited by Undead (edited 18 June 2004).]

---

Just stop editing this so that I can respond for God's (oops) sake. Well, I don't know what in the Koran has been contradicted by science. Because honestly I saw people who claimed science proved the Koran is inspired and those who agree with you and what's common between them is that they both manipulate Koranic semantics and vocabulary to get to their end. There is nothing substantive, nothing that can't be interpreted as a symbolism. For example no verse says the Earth is the centre of the universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Well, countless scientists have proven the sky is not a solid canopy. Every satellite in orbit around the Earth proves it as well. When we look at the stars it is now known we are seeing things beyond our sky, not lamps and missiles that are attached to it as the Qur'an states (I never took that literally anyway because I am pretty sure it was metaphor.) I am not sure what you are getting at. I believe the scientific data that has been provided me more than I believe Mohammed's explanation because science provides actual data rather than a statement which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed.

For the second point, it "may" do both. It definitely proves that either the Qur'an is from a random , scientifically ignorant god and not that omniscient god that is so claimed or that it was the construct of an Arab spiritual philosopher. By doing so, it disproves that the god of the Qur'an is as the Qur'an states. That is what should be noted. Still, some *other* god may exist, as I had stated earlier. We may be agreeing on the concept but not on the semantics... not sure.

In regards to the later post, for what the definition of a god or deity has been since the beginning of recorded history, there are other gods in the Qur'an as well. The jinns that have influence on the Earth, but are of a non-material/non-corporeal nature would qualify as gods. Iblis with his great dominance over the Earth and the human condition, as well as the Angels also fit the definition of deity. They just aren't claimed to be the creators of all things... but in no traditions save Islam has that somehow come to be the defining criteria. Even the Old Testament acknowledges other deities, it just forbids the worship of them. (Jews still hotly debate this but it is right there in their book. Mosa even calls out to one during the Exodus.)
So, the Muslim reasoning for why there can only be one god doesn't hold up from where I am inquiring. "Quran 23:91 reads: "There is no god along with him else each god would assuredly have championed what he created, and one would have overcome the other." " What kind of sense does this make? This is like saying that all deities MUST be full of arrogant braggadocio. It is a baseless assumption. Are all men the same? Are all animals? No, so why must all deities be the same? A deity so enlightened that it views the lives as humans as irrelevant is a reasonable possibility, considering the state of the world.
"Quran 21:22 reads: "If gods other than God were in them [i.e., in the heavens and earth], both [the heavens and the earth] would fall into ruin." Also a baseless assumption, as if great enlightened beings are not capable of cooperation.
The question still remains, if there can be one, why is it more bizarre to think there could be one hundred.

---

>Well, countless scientists have proven the sky is not a solid canopy. Every satellite in orbit around the Earth proves it as well. When we look at the stars it is now known we are seeing things beyond our sky, not lamps and missiles that are attached to it as the Qur'an states (I never took that literally anyway because I am pretty sure it was metaphor.) I am not sure what you are getting at. I believe the scientific data that has been provided me more than I believe Mohammed's explanation because science provides actual data rather than a statement which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed.

by your statment "Readily available scientific research has already proved the Qur'an has scientific errors" I thought a group of scientists published a research about Qur'an which I was not aware of .

Now are not you just making a strawman here?Did the Qur'an claim to be a book of science?

>For the second point, it "may" do both. It definitely proves that either the Qur'an is from a random , scientifically ignorant god and not that omniscient god that is so claimed or that it was the construct of an Arab spiritual philosopher. By doing so, it disproves that the god of the Qur'an is as the Qur'an states. That is what should be noted. Still, some *other* god may exist, as I had stated earlier. We may be agreeing on the concept but not on the semantics... not sure.

NO, not semantic here. You said before "If that god does indeed exist then that god is not as described in the books"

But this is not logic.The Qur'an can be not from God and still the describtion of God in Qur'an as I gave can be correct. a scientific error may disprove that the Qur'an is from God but it does not disprove the existence of a God as described by Qur'an . Anyway. I will move this aside and better stick to the main issue here.

>In regards to the later post, for what the definition of a god or deity has been since the beginning of recorded history, there are other gods in the Qur'an as well. The jinns that have influence on the Earth, but are of a non-material/non-corporeal nature would qualify as gods. Iblis with his great dominance over the Earth and the human condition, as well as the Angels also fit the definition of deity. They just aren't claimed to be the creators of all things... but in no traditions save Islam has that somehow come to be the defining criteria. Even the Old Testament acknowledges other deities, it just forbids the worship of them. (Jews still hotly debate this but it is right there in their book. Mosa even calls out to one during the Exodus.)

You are telling me that there are other things that can be called god .that's taken but what's the point? here we call the plumber an engineer but he is not a true engineer! . The discussion here is about God which Muslims,Christians and jews regard as true God .and i'm talking about the fundmental idea of what God is. which we are very similar in.

Yes, Moses was called god of pharoe in OT and in Qur'an anything can be called god. money can be god if it controls someone ...Money is his god . do not we say that sometimes? .

The definition I gave is for the God Muslims,Christians and Jews worship and I even quoted it from a Christian philosopher.

>So, the Muslim reasoning for why there can only be one god doesn't hold up from where I am inquiring.

I usually say God in capital letters to strict on the meaning which I refer to. and this God as I defnied is what we all here talking about his existence and its relation with science. we are not talking about Money, Moses or even cows.so I do not see this by anyway relevant.

>"Quran 23:91 reads: "There is no god along with him else each god would assuredly have championed what he created, and one would have overcome the other." " What kind of sense does this make? This is like saying that all deities MUST be full of arrogant braggadocio. It is a baseless assumption. Are all men the same? Are all animals? No, so why must all deities be the same? A deity so enlightened that it views the lives as humans as irrelevant is a reasonable possibility, considering the state of the world.
"Quran 21:22 reads: "If gods other than God were in them [i.e., in the heavens and earth], both [the heavens and the earth] would fall into ruin." Also a baseless assumption, as if great enlightened beings are not capable of cooperation.

The Verses as explained by Ash'ari speaks of a possible dispute. after all we are talking about 100 distinct personal omnipotent creators ( do not know how can thiere be more than one omnipotent anyway) and a possible dispute is higher than a possible of agreement . so what would happen when a dispute happen? and why would they cooperate in the first place if each is omnipotent and omniscient and personal?. You simmply cooperate because you need others.
And also how about occam's razor(Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", )?The more than one God thing demands alot of justifications as I quoted Hume stating "multiplying cause without necessity is against true philosophy ".Occam's razor is widely accepted in science , As Isaac Newton stated "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." and The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

Again I quote Ash'ari "On the hypothesis of two creators, one of the two might will something while the other willed the contrary. For example, one might "will to have a man live, while the other willed to have him die." Should such occur, it would not be possible for the will of both to be accomplished; nor for the will of neither to be accomplished; nor again for the will of one to be accomplished, while the will of the other was frustrated. Clearly, "what both will could not conceivably be accomplished; for a body cannot be conceivably alive and dead at the same time." Nor might "what neither wills be accomplished." The reason therefore is that if the will of neither creator was accomplished, both assumed creators would "perforce be powerless, whereas," Ash'ari postulates, "what is powerless cannot be God or eternal ... Thus, no more than one divine creator can, Ash'ari concludes, exist."

Sounds very convincing to me.Also how more than one distinct entity may possess all knowledge "omniscient" ? and how can there be more than one "all powerful"? is not that self contradictory?

>The question still remains, if there can be one, why is it more bizarre to think there could be one hundred.

Also you did not address the argument which Al Kindi made. I can present more but I think that's sufficient.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kimo_the_maniac:
Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That's like asking Iraq to prove it had no WMD's, how could you be sure?

I mean whether or not God exists is a question that can't be answered by science. If you keep looking at what happened at big bang and using chaos theory and what not to explain how the universe as we know it today evolved from a pinpoint of infinite density that still doesn't answer where the pinpoint came from. Even if you answer that, then what caused the cause of the big bang. The discussion soon stops being scientific and becomes philosophical.

So I guess in the end I guess it's all a matter of faith. What's interesting though is why atheists are eager to wring any novel theory for "proof" that God doesn't exist when it's clear that that's a futile excercise. I mean does that indicate their need for reassurance about their belief. The same way that those Muslim, Chrisitan, and Jewish nutters are seeking reassurance in alleged scientific jewels in their holybooks.

---

I agree that science can not say whether God exist or not but the big bang is a confirmation of the logical proofs for God's existance.

You say "that still doesn't answer where the pinpoint came from. Even if you answer that, then what caused the cause of the big bang. "

We are talking about the first cause unless you have in mind an infinite regress? But this is impposible in reality. Imagine every cause had another cause and so on in infinity then how are we here right now if we are coming from infiinity?you would never come into existence because the infinite cannot be traversed. And bear in mind this has nothing to do with the amount of time

Mathematically speaking :

{...., -4 , -3 , -2 , -1 , 0} If we assume that 0 is the present and since we are coming from an beginless cause (infinite) then we have to traverse an infinite time to reach here or infinite sequnces of events. did we do that? NO.

So the World can't be infinite and therefore thiere is a first cause thats personal and is out of time .

Another example, I'm student at Ain Shams University I go to school almost everyday ,and here is my way

My Home -------------------------- (30 minutes)-------------------------------------------> Ain Shams university

It takes me 30 minutes to reach my school,now imagine im coming from infinity:

Infinity----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Ain SHams university

How much time do I need to reach my university? Inifnity,but the fact is I do go to school everyday means I did cut a finite time and the fact that we are here now means that we did cut a finite time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
NO FAIR!
The Qur'an has a couple of verses that state that the Sun orbits the Earth. (not the center of the universe, just our solar system) Also there are a few that state that the sky is a solid canopy, a roof that is solid until the day that god tears it apart for the yom el din. Also there is a verse saying that the Earth is spread out like a carpet and pinned down with mountains. Another states that stars are attached to the sky. Really, there are several more. There are also a couple things that have been scientifically
substantiated. Believe it or not
I guess we said enough/finish.

---

Do You have this in mind :
http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1498

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Science has proven that matter comes from energy, and all things spiritual come from energy as well. However science has disproven god in some sense because so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. Fanatics or "true believers" will tell us that the Earth is the center of the Solar System because that is what the holy books say. Science (even ancient scientists) have proven that not to be true. The same goes for the sky, which the holy books claim is a solid canopy, rather than a collection of gas that can be passed through. etc. etc. Essentially, science provides a possibility of SOME GOD or GODS, but not the God as described in the books of Torah, New Testament, or Qur'an. If that god does indeed exist then that god is not as described in the books. That leads to the question of who wrote the books? Not god itself because god should know that the sky is gas and the Sun is the center of the Solar System, and not the Earth.
Then there are the dark energy and dark matter theories...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Readily available scientific research has already proved the Qur'an has scientific errors. The sky is not a solid canopy, and the Earth is not the center of the solar system. This either disproves god as preached in the Qur'an because an omniscient deity would be aware of the order of the solar system OR it disproves the divine revelation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an supposedly is the word of God as delivered by Jibrail. So either the Qur'an isn't the word of God, rendering it just some Arab guys philosophy, or God isn't omniscient. Thus, it disproves god as preached in the book. As I said above, if you keep it in context, science leaves the possibility of some god, or gods, but just not as described in the given holy books.

---

As far as I know, science doesn't attempt to leave any notion whatsoever that there is God(s). In fact science, is trying to prove that there is no supernatural being that "created" us, just "forces" that have been available for eternity. Science avoids such a word as "God". Science is leaned towards the idea that living beings have been created "out of chance" under certain conditions of the earths movement, distance from the sun, and its atmosphere. This means that given the appropriate conditions, there could be millions of "earths" within various galaxies or solar systems. This is also in direct contradiction with what is said in various religious books. Science doesn't create an impression that a "being" was responsible for creation of planets or life for that matter. Science tends to lean towards the notion that "unconscious" natural forces(non-being) explain a lot of conditions and situations in the universe. Science also tends to lean to the notion that the universe is an eternal phenomenon with a never ending frontier. Hence comes the word, "life is neither created nor destroyed". "Life" passes from one living thing to another, but a new life isn't created. All living creatures on earth are actually breathing "one" life, not different lives. If anyone doubts this, look it up!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad1:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kimo_the_maniac:
Exactly. You can't prove a negative. That's like asking Iraq to prove it had no WMD's, how could you be sure?
I mean whether or not God exists is a question that can't be answered by science. If you keep looking at what happened at big bang and using chaos theory and what not to explain how the universe as we know it today evolved from a pinpoint of infinite density that still doesn't answer where the pinpoint came from. Even if you answer that, then what caused the cause of the big bang. The discussion soon stops being scientific and becomes philosophical.

So I guess in the end I guess it's all a matter of faith. What's interesting though is why atheists are eager to wring any novel theory for "proof" that God doesn't exist when it's clear that that's a futile excercise. I mean does that indicate their need for reassurance about their belief. The same way that those Muslim, Chrisitan, and Jewish nutters are seeking reassurance in alleged scientific jewels in their holybooks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that science can not say whether God exist or not but the big bang is a confirmation of the logical proofs for God's existance.

You say "that still doesn't answer where the pinpoint came from. Even if you answer that, then what caused the cause of the big bang. "

We are talking about the first cause unless you have in mind an infinite regress? But this is impposible in reality. Imagine every cause had another cause and so on in infinity then how are we here right now if we are coming from infiinity?you would never come into existence because the infinite cannot be traversed. And bear in mind this has nothing to do with the amount of time

Mathematically speaking :

{...., -4 , -3 , -2 , -1 , 0} If we assume that 0 is the present and since we are coming from an beginless cause (infinite) then we have to traverse an infinite time to reach here or infinite sequnces of events. did we do that? NO.

So the World can't be infinite and therefore thiere is a first cause thats personal and is out of time .

Another example, I'm student at Ain Shams University I go to school almost everyday ,and here is my way

My Home -------------------------- (30 minutes)-------------------------------------------> Ain Shams university

It takes me 30 minutes to reach my school,now imagine im coming from infinity:

Infinity----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Ain SHams university

How much time do I need to reach my university? Inifnity,but the fact is I do go to school everyday means I did cut a finite time and the fact that we are here now means that we did cut a finite time.

Am I being silly here?

---

2:22

21:32

31:29

36:38-40

67:5

69:16

78:19

We have made This Qur'an easy in the tongue, in order that they may give heed...

Naturally people bicker about the semantics in the Qur'an even though the Qur'an states it should be easily understood, though it also contradicts that and says it is too deep to easily comprehend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Perhaps you have not read the whole thread. Science does indeed leave room for things it has no method of measuring. Such as the existence of beings beyond our current scientific reach, including spiritual gods, ghosts, aliens, etc. We haven't proven that there are aliens but the US SETI project is proof that science leaves the door open for the possibility. The scientific method does not try to say there is no god, it merely explains what can be detected. The origins of all things is still unknown and thus science must leave the possibility of intelligent guidance to all of the scientifically substantiated phenomena. Scientists that try and prove that there is no god do so out of their own opinion, not out of fundamentals of science.

[This message has been edited by Undead (edited 19 July 2004).]

---

I don't need to read the whole thread to come to the conclusion of the findings of Science. You are right, when you say that science doesn't try to prove or disprove phenomenon it has no way of scientifically verifying. However, scientific findings don't lean to the idea that there are "beings" determining the natural forces of the universe. Where do you think the notion of "life is neither created nor destroyed" comes from. Is this supposed to imply that there are "beings" or Gods (as you put it), for which you claim that science is leaving room for possibility? Then comes Darwin's "Evolution and natural selection". This again, puts forward the idea that there is an explanation for how we got here, and that it has nothing to do with some "being" pulling the strings. Gravity, day and night phenomena, weather conditions, radiation, the movements and the creation of celetial bodies, have all been explained by science as the result of forces for which there was no need of input by a "being". If all this doesn't lean to the idea that there is no supernatural "being" or "beings" in command of all natural forces in the universe, than I don't know what will. Science doesn't outright deny any "God(s)", but it surely doesn't endorse such a word to describe phenomena in the universe. In fact science is more in favor of "natural" forces as explanation of phenomena in the universe, rather than some "beings" responsible for the orchestration of phenomena in the universe!

I should add that the same concept of "guided or random" goes for everything that we have observed. Gravity, quarks, photons, etc. could have also been made to act as they do, rather than just being a "natural force." Science does not try to answer that one way or the other, it justs explains the workings of what we can already observe to the details which we can measure. Nothing further

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Well, I was never claiming that it "leans" toward supporting god. I was trying to explain that it neither confirms nor denies.

---

If my memory serves me correct you said something about science being in favor of god or god(s) of another nature, which is different from the ones in various religious teachings. Your rational for this was that, science maintains that either the religious texts weren't the words of God, or else God was not the same "being" as the one depicted in religious teachings.

quote:

---

by Undead:
Just to clarify, I was never stating that an intelligence guiding the universes phenomena was referring to creating humans out of nothing. Darwins writings don't conflict with what I have said at all. (His writings conflict with the Qur'an stating that humans were shaped out of dust (unless you tweak the meaning to mean that all earthly things were dust in space hundreds of billions of years ago; but you knew that already)) I am saying that evolution as well as all the other scientifically developed theorems and observations *could* still have an unseen "guiding hand" behind them. Evolution could have led in billions of directions, but generally it led to something that works for the species while the "normal" unevolved ones died out. To some, this suggests "guidance."

---

You claim that evolution and other science theorems *could* still have an unseen "guiding hand" behind them. Well, Darwins evolution theory contradicts what you are claiming. Darwin explains how living cells came from the photosythetic process of algae during the undesirable earth's atmospheric conditions in the absense of oxygen; the algae were intermediary primitive cells bordering between life forms like bacteria, and primitive plants. It was through this photosynthetic process, that oxgen built up slowly in the atmosphere, thereby making evolution of algae cells into single cell bacteria and plants. From there, single cell bacteria slowly evolved into more complex cell organisms and then culminating into higher organisms such as humans over time. According to Darwin, higher organisms like humans, are made up of many cells that still show their ancestral heritage. Indeed he did stress that evolution of organisms occured in many different directions, and only the evolved organisms that were the fittest survived. In the case of apes, they were supposed to have come from small primates, which still exist in one shape of form or another. Some of these apes diverted to becoming gorillas, chimpanzees, etc, while others became hominids such as Homo Errectus, and Homo Sapiens. There is evidence that suggests Homo Errectus existed at the time Homo Sapiens came to being. But since Homo Sapiens were culturally stronger, they either merged with some of these Homo Errectus groups or eliminated them in conflicts as they started "colonizing" the lands of earth. Again, it boiled down to the survival of the fittest. Once again, this contradicts your notion of some "guided hand" in these forces. Basically, what Darwin was getting at, was that given the right conditions and forces, cells or organisms evolve and this has nothing to do with any "guiding hand" from some being(s). For if there was a "guiding hand", there would be no need for evolution of species to take "many" directions, just to end up with "several" desired species. Moreover, the original species would not have to survive any longer. Darwin proves that while this happens in various cases under certain conditions, it doesn't hold true for others. The primates, we are supposed to have evolved from, are still in existence!

quote:

---

by Undead:
Let us say that some aliens come in a hundred thousand years and all signs of humanity are gone off the surface. When they start digging they will find cars and buildings first. They will find how cars and buildings "evolved" into better structures while the poorer ones "died out." Only we will know that they didn't evolve, we built the cars better and the buildings better overtime. (unless they find our engineering journals.) I am sure you understand what I am getting at.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Undead:
We can't see if there is a guide/engineer or not with our limited paraphenalia. Now, I do not know if there is or is not and I do not claim to, and no one knows except for "true believers" I am just saying that science has not proven if the universe is completely random or guided and it doesn't really attempt to because of the lack of tools. That is why I assumed you had not read the whole thread, because it has already been discussed.

---

You keep using as a defensive measure, the unfounded claim that I haven't read the thread. Why then am I refuting you here, if I hadn't gone through the thread? Besides, I don't have to read the "whole" thread to know the findings of science. I have enough knowledge in science, so as to be able to refute a claim when I see one. Nor should I expect to be educated by the claims made on this board.

quote:

---

Posted by Undead:
I should add that the same concept of "guided or random" goes for everything that we have observed. Gravity, quarks, photons, etc. could have also been made to act as they do, rather than just being a "natural force." Science does not try to answer that one way or the other, it justs explains the workings of what we can already observe to the details which we can measure. Nothing further

---

Once again, I disagree. According to science, there is explanation for the likes of gravity, protons, etc, without the need of a "guiding hand" of some being. Gravity is the product of the earths motion on its axis, which in turn is a product of the molecular behavior of the Earth, imparting the magnetic polarity of the earth's north and south poles. The molecular behavior and polarity ensure that the earth remains on its path of motion, and not divert or stop rotating on its axis. Then comes the distance of the earth from the sun, which creates unique conditions experienced on the earth. This leans far more towards the idea that "natural forces" with no consciousness as the drivering force of phenomena in the universe, rather than some "guiding hand or force" by some being(s). Having said all this, science still doesn't try to prove or disprove God or Gods, because this hasn't been scientifically verified! But science claims to know what isn't the work of some "divine" force or power.

Firstly, your memory DOES NOT serve you correctly in your statement that I said science is in favor of a god or not. The point was that because science has disproven some of the Qur'ans claims it means that the Qur'an is not from a truthful, omniscient god. The Qur'an states that it is true, and from an all knowing being. Since there are errors, either the god is lying, it is not omniscient, or it is not from god at all. I am not saying science leans towards one of those choices, but logic leans away from it being from the god that the qur'an says it is from. Read the thread, even though you claim you have you clearly have not understood it.
Absolutely nothing you have posted about evolution has contradicted a "guided hand" possibility. And it is not "my theory" I didn't make it up, just as much as you don't understand it Why just because there is a guided hand would things not go in multiple directions? Just like my car and building analogy, there are several types of cars. They evolved in different directions, if you will. Some models completely died out, others continue. That was by our design, so why can't evolution be by somethings design, even if they don't all work out?

From this discussion and other posts I have seen from you I have the feeling that even if you do understand, you will argue it and eventually resort to insulting me; as per your pattern.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
Supercar, you have not comprehended the entire point of what I have said.

Firstly, your memory DOES NOT serve you correctly in your statement that I said science is in favor of a god or not. The point was that because science has disproven some of the Qur'ans claims it means that the Qur'an is not from a truthful, omniscient god. The Qur'an states that it is true, and from an all knowing being. Since there are errors, either the god is lying, it is not omniscient, or it is not from god at all. I am not saying science leans towards one of those choices, but logic leans away from it being from the god that the qur'an says it is from. Read the thread, even though you claim you have you clearly have not understood it.
Absolutely nothing you have posted about evolution has contradicted a "guided hand" possibility. And it is not "my theory" I didn't make it up, just as much as you don't understand it Why just because there is a guided hand would things not go in multiple directions? Just like my car and building analogy, there are several types of cars. They evolved in different directions, if you will. Some models completely died out, others continue. That was by our design, so why can't evolution be by somethings design, even if they don't all work out?

From this discussion and other posts I have seen from you I have the feeling that even if you do understand, you will argue it and eventually resort to insulting me; as per your pattern.

Although we agree that science has not proven or disproven god or gods and does not attempt to, you are still mistaken that science knows the universe is *not* the work of some divine being. Science still does not claim to know what caused everything to happen. So it must leave the possibilities open.

---

I said specifically that science knows "what isn't the work of a divine being". I already gave examples of this; such as the rotation of the earth, gravity, rain, evolution, and so on. If divine being is responsible for evolution, why go through all that trouble just to get the "right" organism or species? This is common sense! Darwin was trying point out that living beings are not the result of the creation of some divine being, but the result of evolution of cells under certain conditions.
You are totally confused about what I had said. You said in your previous comment that according to scientific findings, the teachings in various religious books have been proven wrong, which meant that either the words of those books weren't the true words of God because God knew the workings of the universe, or else that the God of the religions involved, weren't the God as the Scientists know it. I think it is you who is suffering from amnesia. To refresh your memory here is your earlier comment:

quote:

---

posted by Undead:
Science has proven that matter comes from energy, and all things spiritual come from energy as well. However science has disproven god in some sense because so many things in the Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an are scientifically incorrect. Fanatics or "true believers" will tell us that the Earth is the center of the Solar System because that is what the holy books say. Science (even ancient scientists) have proven that not to be true. The same goes for the sky, which the holy books claim is a solid canopy, rather than a collection of gas that can be passed through. etc. etc. Essentially, science provides a possibility of SOME GOD or GODS, but not the God as described in the books of Torah, New Testament, or Qur'an. If that god does indeed exist then that god is not as described in the books. That leads to the question of who wrote the books? Not god itself because god should know that the sky is gas and the Sun is the center of the Solar System, and not the Earth.
Then there are the dark energy and dark matter theories...

---

Here is what I said in my own words:

quote:

---

Posted by supercar:

If my memory serves me correct you said something about science being in favor of god or god(s) of another nature, which is different from the ones in various religious teachings. Your rational for this was that, science maintains that either the religious texts weren't the words of God, or else God was not the same "being" as the one depicted in religious teachings.

---

Clearly I understood your earlier comment!

It is clear from the above quote of your original comment, that you are the confused individual. You don't even remember what you said, which means that it is you who needs to thoroughly read the thread again before responding to posts!

Your talk of Aliens and cars didn't make sense one bit! I have pointed out my rebuttal for that. Re-read my earlier post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
It makes sense, you just don't understand the analogy. Anyway you have yet to understand what everyone else was already talking about.
The phenomena you have described are caused by yet another force, and another force and so on until... what makes it all happen? Random or guidance? No one knows, and science does not claim to, despite your desperate adherance to your faith. (hope you understand the irony)
You might as well use some more intense insults because you have sunken into your typical pattern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undead:
What you just posted illustrates you are missing what the point of the majority of the discussion was.

---