Arguments for and against the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Alan McDougall, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Yosef:

    Yes, and we don't yet have a solid scientific explanation for the values of those constants. But, we do have some scientific ideas about how they got their values, that don't require a Creator.

    Don't fall for the false dichotomy that says that if we can't explain something right now then God must have done it. It may well be that we'll discover the answer tomorrow, and it won't need God.

    And one further point: surely you believe your God does more in the world than to simply set the initial constants and laws of the universe, then to sit back and watch the universe run uninterrupted?

    The Qur'an doesn't mention the big bang or any physical constants.

    Here is what God says regarding the creation of the universe in the 1430 years old text:

    What I see is a butterfly that evolved spots on its wings, possibly because there was a survival advantage conferred by having predators wondering whether, perhaps, the butterfly might actually be a larger or more powerful predator itself, rather than food.

    The theory of evolution quite adequately explains butterfly wings.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    Why do you think that only two alternatives, there your God or evolution?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There is a difference between an "argument for the existence of God" and "argument for believing in God".

    Since God is per definition that being that is the primal cause, the source of everything, we are, per that definition, inferior beings and as such it is not within our capacity to prove the existence of God.

    We do, however, have at our disposal a number of arguments for (or against) belief in God.
    We may come up with empirical, pragmatic, moral and perhaps other arguments for belief in God.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    @James R

    Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Holy Quran - Prophets 21:30
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Not bad actually, if a little vague.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    But not actually "the Big Bang".
    Solid mass? :shrug:

    Were both a solid mass? So they existed separately...
    Plus, of course, the slight problem of no one being quite sure of what the original really says.
    http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/21/30/default.htm
     
  10. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    @Dywyddyr

    We know what the verse says, that is in revealed Arabic text. I will try to find the English language article I read one time about this particular verse. It explained well the Arabic words used.

    I can also draw your attention to Holy Quran - Prophets 21:104. God talks about the day when everything is going to cease to exist, just before judgment day:

    "On that day we will roll up the heaven as one rolleth up written scrolls. As we made the first creation, so will we bring it forth again. This promise bindeth us; verily, we will perform it."​


    This is a good description of what scientists refer to as Big Crunch. In fact this verse provides further confirmation that what is talked about in verse 30 is in fact the Big Bang. I believe that the Quranic text in Arabic provides the most accurate description of what happened and what is going to happen.

    * Pronoun We instead of the pronoun I - this happens often in the Quran, only when God talks about himself.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Except that there's some confusion over what it actually means and the English translation. In other words it appears to be somewhat undefined.

    And your point would be?
    The Big Crunch may never happen.

    Yeah, or the Queen of England (and all previous and current queens and kings), or even Maggie Thatcher.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Thanks for the info. I know that this is not universal for all languages, though.

    The idea that the universe is static dominated science for many years and this needed to be changed as observations were made in the past century that indicated that the universe is expanding. Amazingly the Holy Quran provides a picture of a rather dynamic universe. This can be seen in the above mentioned verses and also in the following, Holy Quran - The Imminent 56:75-80:

    "So I will not swear by the positions of the stars; and, verily, it is a grand oath if ye did but know - that, verily, this is the honourable Qur'an - in the laid-up Book! Let none touch it but the purified*! A revelation from the Lord of the worlds (all creation)."

    Stars are moving away from each other due to universe expansion. God is not giving oath by their positions. Where we see them to be is not where they are actually at. God has revealed these verses 1430 years ago!

    * Purified: Men and women who applied water to their bodies (as after engaging in intimate activity).
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Really?
    Please give an example of languages where the "royal we" is not used.
    (And this is the second time I have pointed out to you that it is not an "Arabic language thing").
    See here, also.

    And you are, once more (as has been pointed out previously numerous times) putting a modern interpretation on what was written. If the Quran actually means that why have believers not previously proposed that the stars are not "fixed"?
    And, FYI, it does NOT indicate that the "universe is expanding". It could mean that, for example, that it is contracting, shifting sideways, dancing all around or moving towards then away from any given point.
    "So I will not swear by the positions of the stars" could simply mean that the speaker is ignorant of the actual position and declines to state categorically (swear) that their positions are such and such.
    Fail. Again.
     
  14. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    @Dywyddyr

    Is it possible that there is no all-knowing God behind this verse too?!

    "With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it."
    Source: Holy Quran - The Dispersing 51:47​

    See this article for more info: http://www.quranmiracles.com/articles.asp?id=1

    Some people want to see predictions that become true. I have already provided the Big Crunch prediction. You say that it might not happen. I believe that it is going to happen, but then it's too late to start believing. You need to reconsider your arguments against the existence of God.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Yep.

    Nope. Already done that in the relevant thread.

    Hardly.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Your cited sources identify the majestic plural as a construction in the Western Branch of the Indo-European language family (Greek, Latin, English) and the Semitic (Arabic, Hebrew) and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family. I also have not found any reference to the phenomenon elsewhere. This leaves a couple of thousand languages with no evidence presented for their use of the technique.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Quite likely, but I was querying Yosef's "knowledge" of the usage (since he had, at one point) claimed it was an "Arabic Language Thing".
    IOW he assumed it was purely his own language, whereas I would have (failing evidence to the contrary - which we do have) would have assumed that, by default, it was common, since I myself was familiar with it.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Yosef:

    Is this what you're talking about?

    There's no mention of the big bang there.

    Where were these "solid heavens" of yours? Also, living things are not made entirely from water, and could not be made entirely from water, either.

    It's a good description of the "big crunch", you think? Really?

    I think it's a vague myth about the end of the world, with no connection to science at all.

    The most accurate? You mean, more accurate than modern science, eh?

    Really? Are you serious?
     
  19. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Baftan... why are you broadening the perspective. There is no reason to. Its an analogy....

    HTML is an imperfect code, and it requires changes as need arises. Sure that makes 'many creators'- and there are 'shared features' with other systems...

    But the point was... the system was created and it is not illogical to assume that it was. Secondly the code doesn't show the creator (it can but not required)- which was exactly my point.

    What you have done is basically identify the features of HTML that wouldn't work in this case- for example multiple creators... It was an analogy, and it wasn't a 1:1 comparison.

    I guess I will make the parallels for you:

    Universal Laws is the code.
    The forces are the tags
    And we are the results with consciousness.
    The group who thinks the code was created are theists
    The group that explains the results with the code are the scientists (note: they don't explain the code but the result of the code)


    There may be people modifying the code of HTML and adding 'new code'.... but I don't know of any example of anyone having modified universal laws. We use the laws for our benefit (i.e inventions).

    And my basic point was: If the results of HTML (i.e bolded text, color, header) were given consciousness they couldn't find evidence for anything except the code from which they were derived (science?). Just as we prescribe all occurrences to 'nature'.

    And I also pointed out that there is something external to the HTML code- something that 'translates it' the 'syntax'. And the final proposal was: Is it illogical to assume that there could be someone who set the translation or someone who is the translator? (translator is essentially what makes that code into 'something')

    The notion of a 'translator' or something that 'understands' the code to give it the 'actual' result is interesting thought. What makes the universal laws have the characteristics that they do. Why do opposites attracts? Because they have opposite charges- but so what- why is it that opposites charges are attract- how do they know they are opposite charges. Its the question of 'information' and 'what it means'. I might not be 'clear' here... so I'll just give an example..

    If you don't have javascript installed then you can't see pages that utilize javascript. If you don't have flash you can't see the content written in flash.. The code is still there but you can't see it, or at least not see it as it should be... You'll see the code, but not the 'result'. Essentially it is gibberish and absolutely worthless to have a website using a certain code, but the system not having the capability of understanding the code to 'produce' something.

    This forum has the ability to understand html code. That is why when I type something in the appropriate brackets it becomes bold otherwise I wouldn't see the bolded text but the brackets themselves. Something gives 'meaning' to the code. So its a question of information.

    And the point was NOT to 'pinpoint' a creator.. ie. Zeus, Allah, Yahweh.. but the 'argument for God'... Its not an argument for 'that God'.. but 'God' in general.

    I know atheists like to bring which the 'which God?' question... but why don't we leave it to the 'concept of God' which is really the question. So this argument is a general one- its not for any specific God or 'gods'. As the thread is about the argument for the 'existence of God'- not 'this God'.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  20. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Broadening? I am trying to narrow it, or clarify the idea behind this analogy. Plus, an assumed creator of religious tradition is "one single above physics intelligent creator"; whereas so called "creator(s)" are semi-independent mortal beings and they are definitely more than one. How can this analogy possibly work?

    What makes you think that living creatures are "perfect"?

    "Code doesn't show the creator" was not your point in terms of unknown identity of the creator; your point was to concentrate all humans behind HTML as if they could be represented by one identity (creator of HTML). Your attempt was to establish a logical connection between HTML and natural entities. To show that if HTML is created by unknown creator(s), therefore everything that exists must also be created by an unknown creator.

    An analogy can be good or bad. But they should at least be relevant. If you strip off the features of HTML and make it an object for your analogy, which features would you recommend us to understand what do you mean by "HTML" so that we can compare it to the signified (creator of everything). If your analogy doesn't provide "a 1:1 comparison", how much does it work; in other way of saying this what is the representation ratio if not 1:1?

    Is this an entry for a new analogy? What does that exactly mean?

    Trying to make parallels but creating more problem for your analogy: Which forces which tags?

    I thought eternal creation process wouldn't need a code writing, it used to say "be it" and things used to appear out of nowhere. What happened now? How are we going to compare a software program (a result of an HTML code) with something that is "created suddenly"?


    Bullshit. You made the code itself as a creation again. Code appeared suddenly, animals and human created out of the code (of course suddenly again); and scientist can only say things about the result of the code, but they don't have a clue about how code is relevant to the rest of the natural system. Is that what you are offering?

    Universe constantly modify itself, otherwise new phenomenons (which is practically everything in this universe) wouldn't have emerged in the first place. And this modification still continues. There is no creator or modifier behind the process.

    There is no natural and/or an independent concept of "God" that we can observe without the arguments. Since God does not exist, only descriptions of God imaginations come from religions. They define the borders or features of God(s).

    What does that exactly mean? If I told you let's discuss about the existence of Plordum, you would rightly ask me "What is Plordum?". And if I insist upon not to answer your question, you would probably change the question and ask "which Plordum?" in order to understand the subject topic.

    If you have an experience about unbelievers, you must also guess that I have my own on believers; and I know that they never answers question of "What is God?". Therefore unbelievers will rightly ask "which God?", "what does it do?", "how does it exist2?" or "what is its features?".
     
  21. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Because a creator is a creator regardless of numbers.

    When did I say they were. I was talking about 'imperfect' in the sense of needing to add further functionality into HTML.

    Actually this not so... You statement that 'therefore everything that exists MUST" is absolutely wrong. I said is it 'illogical to ASSUME'... My preposition was much more humble then an absolute form such as "MUST"... I'm not arguing that God "MUST" exist. But that it is NOT illogical to assume that he does.

    Its a relationship between HTML and the Universe if you will... you were asking for which parts were being represented by the analogy weren't you?

    You think a HTML page automatically appears? You don't think a computer can be given instructions to perform an action which it performs?

    Actually I did say the scientists know how the 'code is relevant' to the rest of the system... They show you how the code created the things and how it works together. But they don't show how fundamentally the code obtains its information ('meaning').

    And yes I "made the code itself as a creation"- but that is what the argument was (which essentially was a question). As one can assume that HTML is created, it may and can be assumed that the universe was also.. My argument was a question. Is it illogical to 'assume' that the code was created? I say no.

    No, so you are suggesting universal laws are always changing? I know that they are interacting always and create different things (i.e new phenomenon)... Whats the point of doing physics if everything is changing... Maybe we need to go back and check if 2 + 2 is still 4 in the real world?

    By the way it can be any of them.. so take into account all descriptions... For all I know you can take spaghetti monsters if you want. The argument was of a logical assumption and that it is not illogical to assume a creator. An argument for God does not equal proof for God. Thus there is room for allowing any of those gods to be the logical assumption. Perhaps that is where you are getting hung up.. I'm not presenting proof for God, thus its not important which God it is, but that it is not illogical (as atheists would say) to contend that a god x (you can choose x to be whichever god) exists.

    Take one of your choosing... It still wouldn't change the argument.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  22. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Your unsubstantiated idea. According to this logic, if a picture that is created by 1000 people with different aims and various brush quality will be same as a picture which is created by a single artist. Is that so?

    Can you or can you not claim the same is needed for natural beings?

    Summary of this passage: The existence of God is illogical.


    No, I was talking about the entire analogy, entire relevance, or "what are the pillars of your analogy representing the universe?"

    I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I say: I ask the relevance of existence of God to HTML. Simple as that. I didn't question or claim anything about how software works.

    No, I said it for a reason: If we stretch your analogy, only outcome would be an analogy between DNA and HTML codes. That's how it sounds.

    I already explain why "Code is created" claim is nothing other than a way of looking things. Therefore its not a factual observation. I repeat, no one can claim that "I made the code itself", there is no such a single person to demand complete intelligence over HTML code. If this person started what we call "HTML" today, he/she also replicated the many aspects of computer programming, repeated many logic which was already used by other software, and could not control the size and/or quality of what he/she started. This can be an analogy for natural phenomenons for certain degree, but only if you drop the "creation" claim. Because neither natural or human software has not been "created", especially all of a sudden or by a single intelligence.


    Without the existence of atoms, there wasn't any laws for atoms; without the existence of DNA, there wasn't any law for DNA, that's what I am saying. And these law once become functional, they also become reliable for other new constructions. By the way, 2+2=4 is a human thinking method.

    What is the point of an argument for God if the existence of God is out of issue? Let's call the game and say "We are discussing God as we are discussing about Superman, everything is all about imagination."

    Not if you equalize logic = imagination.

    So you are basically asking to accept God's existence a priori. Sorry, not possible...

    How come? You are offering not questioning God's existence under a discussion topic titled as "Arguments for and against the existence of God". I hope I misunderstood.
     
  23. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    The fact is that the verses of the Holy Quran talk about clear and true cosmic facts: Universe expansion, Big Bang, Big Crunch and others. Some of you have decided, based on nothing significant that I can see, that God does not exist. You are not willing to accept any proof for His existence. I know the linguistic miracle of the Quran, I know the truth that is conveyed in the text (societal, personal, scientific, mathematical) and I know that God exists. Did you know that cosmic webs are mentioned in the Holy Quran? God says:

    "By the sky with its fabrics"
    Holy Quran - The Dispersing 51:7​

    The word used in this verse is Al-Hobok which means nothing other than weaved material.

    More here:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520152013.htm
    http://kaheel7.com/eng/index.php/astronomu-a-space/92-al-hobuk

    Every book has an author. The author here is God. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone except God to:

    1) write such a beautiful Arabic text
    2) make it durable
    3) get 9 MILLION people around the world to learn it and recite it by heart
    4) make such accurate scientific claims
    5) structure chapters by mathematical systems - many of which cannot even be discovered without modern technology. I am talking about 316 or 1501 digit numbers for instance!
    6) much more....
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010

Share This Page