Jump to content

Does God exist?


Solaris

Recommended Posts

For an alternative perspective and for the sake of fairness, I feel obliged to note a few things that go against the line the previous poster took. Firstly, whether or not religion is positive or negative is completely irrelevant in the argument of whether or not god exists. I look at religion as being completely disassociated from what god is or is not, simply because its value is purely inherent and relative to the believer. What I found most interesting, though, is that the extreme form of atheism ends in materialism, which is the belief that everything is quantifiable and material. The result of this (shown by the idea of chaos theory) is that there can be no free will or self determination, as the fate of the universe was purely coincidental and determined by the output of the big bang. Many materialists that I know use this to justify nihilism, which I find to be both a slippery slope and an interesting thing to study, that somehow always leads me to believe that there is at least some form of dualism.

Anyways, for the perspective I said I was going to mention, religion isn't all negative, in fact, it's whatever you make it out to be. If you blame religion for causing your parents to be mean to you, then you should instead blame your parents. They bought in to it, and they carried out the acts. Likewise, if you attribute religion to giving you morality and a good life, consider it to be your own merit, and that of those people who shared your faith and helped you along. There's a book, written by a person who, in an attempt to show the ridiculousness of Christianity, decided to follow all 300-or so laws in the bible for a year. At the end of the experience he expected to be able to say that it was ridiculous, and that doing such things as wearing all-cotton had no bearing on morality whatsoever. In his year, he came to the conclusion that following rules made him think before he acted, and more importantly, it caused him to think about the results of his actions as they pertained to himself and others. The Bible is a book of teachings, and people choose which things they'll take from it. Modern day fundamentalists generally take the worst parts of the bible, whereas more open protestant churches often take the metaphors and interpret them in terms of morality. Nobody can argue against "love thy neighbor," which is what religion is actually supposed to be about. It's not about hating people or trying to enforce ridiculous doctrines, but that's what most people make of it.

Just a quick edit, for Mahuta:

You need to stop using the argument of complexity. It's a major irreperable fallacy in the way that first off, you're judging a cause by its results, and second, you're failing to note that things are as they are. If I roll a seven on a trillion sided dice, I can claim it was god all I want, but the fact remains that it was purely random, and that I'm not being very rational in attributing it to fate. You can't base an argument on how wondrous the world is. You provide a false dilemma by saying that it can't be random, and you supply a false conclusion by stating that it was the work of god. Even if god existed, evolution still happened. Now, don't take this personally, I'm probably closer to agreeing with you than most people here, but the fallacies need to be replaced with reasoned arguments that actually admit their own flaws. If you think you can prove that god exists, you're already on the wrong track. The scientific method demands starting without a conclusion, and you're not following it here.

Edited by SharkSpider
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found most interesting, though, is that the extreme form of atheism ends in materialism, which is the belief that everything is quantifiable and material. The result of this (shown by the idea of chaos theory) is that there can be no free will or self determination, as the fate of the universe was purely coincidental and determined by the output of the big bang.

Without fail?

This is not my field of expertise, but it seems to me like a straw man at first glance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without fail?

This is not my field of expertise, but it seems to me like a straw man at first glance.

That's how I saw it myself, but from a purely materialist perspective, a premise is that everything that exists is made of matter. Since all mater can be quantified and thus measured, all matter could theoretically be predicted. Namely, in a material sense, the fact that everything is defined to be made of energy can be combined with the fact that energy is measurable and predictable. By that regard, since everything is theoretically predictable with perfect accuracy, there can be nothing that is unpredicted, and thus, there is no room for free will or randomness.

Interestingly enough, quantum theory is a direct attack on materialism, basing the atomic structure off a model that literally changes when a conscious entity observes it. What's even more interesting is that this is actually the leading development in physics and that modern evidence is suggesting that this otherwise ridiculous-sounding theory may be, in fact, plausible. They're saying that the tree doesn't just stop making sound when you aren't there to hear it, it literally stops existing and becomes a series of probabilities that aren't resolved until they're observed. Freaky stuff, relatively unproven, but it's one of the first scientific discoveries that may actually point to dualism instead of hard line materialism. Fascinating material, but not enough to prove it either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, indeed.

I guess at this point my existentialist instincts kick in: if there's no one we can perceive to be capable of such perfectly accurate predictions with respect to human matters, then determinism vs. free will is a bit of a false dilemma--how can you accept determinism if you can't know your own future? As such, I'd say materialist claims about human matters, and especially religion, are still valid insofar as they separate the metaphysical realm from our own lives. And I would think this is where most atheists are coming from.

Actually maybe I'm a bit biased in this regard because I don't think the metaphysical realm has any relation to our own lives other than what we ascribe to it. But either way, I think there are different levels of materialism and taking materialism to the nth degree in order to put forth an argument against atheism is a bit like setting up a straw man.

Edited by Mr. Shiver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Manhuta, that's exactly what I am talking about. Your just over emphasizing a much larger issue, and simply "skipping" to what you see now. It would be like, and this is a horrible example, but if someone said that God cannot exist because of the technological advances made today and the time in which we live, is much different from the time during which "jesus" walked earth. All I am trying to do here, is a use your skipping method in relation to God. Surely, when u look at religion there is a perceptive of history, which seems to be almost valued.

It is not appropriate to simply throw out numbers. So let me ask you something, should you believe in God, what exactly are your beliefs filled with. The mere notion of probability? A unlikely chance? I dont really see where your getting at with your statement. Like I have stated. This complexity which you see is a product of careful trial and error. It is quiet obvious that evolution isnt perfect, and despite a religious claim that nature is perfected by God, not true. Plants perform functions which are otherwise counter intuitive. I think its called Photorespiration, where instead of actually making anything valuable or sugar, the plant starts to consume its own ATP, impeding growth. And in a more evolutionary aspect, some plants have evolved to counter this, called CEM + C4. Look it up, but your in Bio, so you know what I am talking about. I Have a hard time seeing this as God's purpose, but much rather a ingenuity of evolution.

The thing about God is, you can carve out a hypothesis or counter-claim for anything. Which is quiet invalid, considering the source is undetermined, uncertain and underdeveloped.

A good question to ask is, why would God create this vast space surrounding us? What purpose does this have in his plan, if you will, what effect does it have?

Ignore my comments about the aspects of the erlier post you misunderstood XD there are more variables than stated, and simply unimportant to mention..irrelevant <3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our knowledge is very limited. Our brains aren't capable of knowing everything. When I say this, I dont mean the amount of knowledge, I mean there are things that our brain/minds arent capabe of accepting because our view is limited, just as our eyes and ears arent capable of hearing and seeing certain wave lengths and sounds.

For this reason, I personally, and I dont think anyone else, dont know know why there's the vast space around us. There sure is a reason, but we don't have the wide and open enough view to realize that.

I dont meant to 'skip' really, but that is what I start with.

LOL, I tried answering your question, answer mine. <3

The previous one, how do you explain the scientific facts in Holy books like the Quran that was delivered to us by someone that doesnt have an idea on how to write or read? I'm using the Quran because I dont know much about the others.

I dont only look at living organisms, although I mentioned it, to tell my self God exists. Because again, science, especially Biologist are missing too many infos to be able to find a reason for everything.

There are a lot of things that were said to have no purpose, which some people used as evidence to say that God doesnt exist, because otherwise he wouldnt have made such things. But they're constantly finding explanations for those things, proving in return, those people to be wrong.

I'm certain that eventually, Biologist will find explanations for all those things.

Evolution, yes, I agree. One point I wouldnt like to agree on or start an argument about is the evolution of humans from apes. But the fact that Humans changed so much overtime due to enviromental reason, absolutly yes. BUT, they were humans to begind with. This is what I believe.

XD

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol..no...im just giving an example! <3 ...

if you claim that god doesnt exist because you just cant get touchable/seeable proof....then that applied to your mind as well doesnt it?

and this is for everyone...

ok..so GOD doesnt exist...when you're in trouble..like...serious trouble...why does EVERYONE...go like.."oh god please help"..or.."oh lord"...whether or not they believe in god...am i not right? and just watch people as they're struggling in something...this is...something like....a serious car accident..or anything of that sort...

why do we seem to be calling out for him when it concerns our lives? i mean..just watch your self if you ever fall in such trouble...you will deep inside be pleading god to help you...no?

and just the fact that some people who do NOT believe in god actually plead him when they want their lives saved..says alot about his existence...

Mahuta, I'm afraid I am going to have to strongly disagree with what you have written. Using your logic, as people often say phrases like "when pigs fly", this suggests that pigs can indeed fly.

As a psychologist who has studied this, I think I have a bit of authority on the subject of responsibility. The reason people cry out for God or seek an "external" source of explanation when bad things happen is because people want an explanation of why something has happened to them. It's interesting that people are much more willing to suggest that when negative things happen, it is the fault of someone else (studies have shown this to be the case).

Also, I've just thought of another colloquial term that people use. Holy ****! Since so many people say this, we can only assume that there is in fact holy **** all over the place?

My point is simple. When someone says something, it doesn't become truth. This is the case with any information. That is why people need to reference or back up their statements with evidence, not simply by saying "so and so said it".

Link to post
Share on other sites

About what I said earlier, it could be ignored, I guess. Because I didnt know how to phrase it properly, nor express it.

Also, I've just thought of another colloquial term that people use. Holy ****! Since so many people say this, we can only assume that there is in fact holy **** all over the place?

If you mean that I shouldnt believe that there is such thing as Holy Quran or any Holy book then I disagree on that. Because we have it in our hands, and I know for a fact that its not human-written.

I dont believe what everyone says. Im not sure if you mean a specific person or saying "someone" in general.

Edited by *~*MaHuTa*~*
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, indeed.

I guess at this point my existentialist instincts kick in: if there's no one we can perceive to be capable of such perfectly accurate predictions with respect to human matters, then determinism vs. free will is a bit of a false dilemma--how can you accept determinism if you can't know your own future? As such, I'd say materialist claims about human matters, and especially religion, are still valid insofar as they separate the metaphysical realm from our own lives. And I would think this is where most atheists are coming from.

Actually maybe I'm a bit biased in this regard because I don't think the metaphysical realm has any relation to our own lives other than what we ascribe to it. But either way, I think there are different levels of materialism and taking materialism to the nth degree in order to put forth an argument against atheism is a bit like setting up a straw man.

I would still disagree with the straw man claim, because I noted expressly that materialism was the only thing I would attack by pointing that out. Call it a false dilemma if you will, but there is no way to justify free will from a purely materialist perspective, and there is every way to deny it. You can't make the claim that because we can't predict the future, it is unpredictable, that's as flawed as attributing every unsolved scientific discovery to god. I'm not saying that materialist claims aren't valid, I'm saying that if you set up a model for a universe in which everything is material and quantifiable, then there can be no room for free will or self-determination. I never said this was wrong or untrue, it is simply a corollary that you live with if you choose to argue for materialism. Materialism doesn't have multiple levels. You are either a dualist or a materialist, and it's far more black and white than you're making it out to be. Either there's consciousness or there isn't. Materialism states that everything that goes on in your brain is a product of chemical reactions and physical properties of matter, and there just isn't a way to work free will in to the equation. As soon as you take free will in to the mix, you separate the mind/body thing, and you get right in to dualism in one of its forms.

Again, I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm attacking a particular branch of Atheism on the basis of denying free will, simply because as philosophers we tend to find a lack of free will unacceptable. Some people actually believe we're robots, though, and we can't prove them wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still disagree with the straw man claim, because I noted expressly that materialism was the only thing I would attack by pointing that out.

I thought you were using your counterargument to materialism as a means of criticizing atheism in general.

Call it a false dilemma if you will, but there is no way to justify free will from a purely materialist perspective, and there is every way to deny it.

Granted.

You can't make the claim that because we can't predict the future, it is unpredictable, that's as flawed as attributing every unsolved scientific discovery to god.

I'd say it makes sense from an empirical perspective. Now you can discredit empiricism on the grounds that it's inherently materialistic, but as empiricism seems to me to make fewer assumptions about reality (e.g., that it would be predictable if quantifiable), I would say that it's a more useful approach in evaluating the existence of God (and that's really what all this talk boils down to) than rationalism is.

I'm not saying that materialist claims aren't valid, I'm saying that if you set up a model for a universe in which everything is material and quantifiable, then there can be no room for free will or self-determination. I never said this was wrong or untrue, it is simply a corollary that you live with if you choose to argue for materialism.

Yeah, I don't really understand chaos theory. So, I'll take your word for it.

Materialism doesn't have multiple levels. You are either a dualist or a materialist, and it's far more black and white than you're making it out to be.

I talk of "levels of materialism" in terms of what it manages to explain (and, conversely, what it doesn't--although I tend not to focus too much on those aspects because they don't usually concern me), which, in matters of direct relevance to our own lives (a "lower" level), is quite a lot, but in metaphysical (a "higher" level) matters, not much at all.

Either there's consciousness or there isn't.

Biologically speaking, there is a grey area, however little understood it may be.

Again, I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm attacking a particular branch of Atheism on the basis of denying free will, simply because as philosophers we tend to find a lack of free will unacceptable.

Granted. Straw man claim withdrawn. :wtf:

Edited by Mr. Shiver
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I tried answering your question, answer mine. ^_^

The previous one, how do you explain the scientific facts in Holy books like the Quran that was delivered to us by someone that doesnt have an idea on how to write or read? I'm using the Quran because I dont know much about the others.

That’s a very good question to ask. Sorry, missed your desire for me to reciprocate something. Hehe.

But despite your point, there is an assumption which your attempting to make, or is instilled within the statement. One that would state that basically that in order to make scientific observation, the person must be able to read and write. In all honestly, I am unclear of what your talking about. I am assuming your saying that the writings of the Quran were so primitive and primordial, that they were “created” or written at a time of great illiteracy. Well, once again, the idea of those observations being scientific evidence is quiet invalid to say. Especially since science has a new meaning. What then looked like mere observation of something today is a strenuous and periodic process that is integrated with the concepts germane to the exact desire of science. That is, the components of the scientific inquiry are strongly influenced by the actual product. What we want, is a correlation at the end, something of a conclusion that can be further tested – and the scientific method does just that. However, to allude to the observations or innuendos which correlate with present science, is not exempt of coincidence. The “notes” or bullet-point mentions in the Quran, are nothing short of visual observation. And a better question to explore is, does intelligence change over time. Because you are attempting, and correct me if I am wrong, to make a claim about the nature of intelligence. Almost assuming, it was primitive back then. And this, weather you explored or not, I would like to comment on. I see intelligence as a minutely altered factor of humanity – not something drastically different. Sure, you know today all of these random facts you and I learned in biology and Chem, but then the acquisition of knowledge is still the same. This is the central point of intelligence. Someone who is able to ponder about something and come up with it, is no less of importance in the knowledge community, than the same idiot who may perform an experiment. Knowledge is knowledge. We treat it the same, despite its coming from many years ago. So to generally answer your question, I cant explain the scientific links, but I can say that I don’t think you have any claim or proof or anything in close proximity, to making a connection to these “facts” to an existence or validity of their existence in notion to God. To me, this is nothing short of human knowledge incapable of suppression and flourishing throughout all historical times :wtf:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In TOK, we learn that our perception is limited to our five senses. To some people, they can preceive god because their senses allow them to "see" him, and this is their concrete evidence. Others, our senses can not see him, and this proves to be our evidence as well. Regardless, religion is based on faith, and should not be questioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how Im like replying to your posts in almost every thread.

I cant agree more on that.

That is what I personally think.

It is very hard to prove to an athiest that God exists. It was very hard for me because they dont see things as I do. Yet, this doesnt mean that he doesnt exist.

As you just said, "religion is based on faith, and should not be questioned. ", that is exactly what I believe and what my religion made me (not forced) have faith in. I believe that it shouldnt be questionned.

Thanks alot. I never knew how to express this. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, religion is based on faith, and should not be questioned.

This is probably the most dangerous thing anyone can ever take to heart over a religious matter.

First off, you take a book that was written by men, and then you claim that having absolute faith in it is a good idea. That is literally letting 2000 year old people control your life, and no amount of argument or evidence will change that fact. The necessity of questioning faith should be inherently obvious to any rational thinker, this is because we know that faith as we know it is not derived from rationalism, but from the world around us. You can have all the faith you want, but it won't make good the things that are wrong about religion, and it is only through constant questioning and reconciliation between faith and reality that a person can even hope to achieve some manner of justified faith. If you have faith in something that has been proven to be false, you are wrong, and to put it in simple terms the only appropriate descriptor would be the term "foolish," on the basis of believing something that is untrue, when means to show its falseness are readily available.

Lastly, anything you have faith in should be recognized in your mind as being something that is not necessarily true. You need to be able to say, with conviction, that you have no idea as to whether or not there is a god, but that you choose to believe in one for whatever reasons you have for doing so. If you state that you know that there is a god because religion says so, then you are saying something that is not true, because no, you can't derive knowledge from religion. That was never its purpose, and the only people who claim otherwise are quite simply wrong, in a platonic sense.

In short, religion is based on authority, and not faith, and thus, should be questioned at every given opportunity to do so. To claim that religion is based on faith is both naive and wrong, because you're claiming that by simply blindly accepting the word of other people, you arrive at some absolute faith that must be held higher than real knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, you take a book that was written by men, and then you claim that having absolute faith in it is a good idea

You see..this is the main reason why we completely disagree. If you believe that the bible and the torah have been writtten by men, then I do not believe that the Quran is written by a man. In fact, the original bible and torah havent been written by men either. They were given it. The things in it I mean.

If you have faith in something that has been proven to be false, you are wrong

God hasnt been proven to not exist. Honestly, my common sense proves that he does.

You need to be able to say, with conviction, that you have no idea as to whether or not there is a god, but that you choose to believe in one for whatever reasons you have for doing so.

Well I'm not, because I wont say something I know I dont believe. I can say that there is god, because I know there is for the reasons I have which are a result of my common sense.

I have said this before, I dont see how a human being could write a book containing very accurate scientific facts. Remember this was in the Saudi Arabia..1400 years ago, so they were living in very ancient and undevelopped time, no such thing as science was ever known. Unlike the Persians and The Romans at that time. So how could a book that was 'written' there to give insanely accurate details about a lot of scientific facts that are only being proven recently. Answer my question before you accuse me for believing in something that was written by men. Science only started in this area way after Moh'd's(PBUH) death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the scientific facts im talking about:

1) Formation of rain:

We are told the formation of the rain before it was discovered:

It is Allah Who sends the winds which stir up clouds which He spreads about the sky however He wills. He forms them into dark clumps and you see the rain come pouring out from the middle of them. When He makes it fall on those of His servants He wills, they rejoice. (Qur'an, 30:48)

2)The menstrual cycle :

Allah knows what every female bears and every shrinking of the womb and every swelling. Everything has its measure with Him. (Qur'an, 13:8)

3)Pregnancy:

Curse man for his ingratitude! From what thing did He create him? From a drop of sperm He created him and proportioned him. Then He eases the way for him. (Qur'an, 80:17-20)

It's impossible that someone in that time and place would know anything about sperm and gametes isnt it?

4)Earth is round:

He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)

the word 'wrap up' was translated from the word 'takweer' which is from 'kurah' a ball.

5)Human Birth:

Does man reckon he will be left uncontrolled [without purpose]? Was he not once a drop of ejected semen? (Qur'an, 75:36-37)

Fertilization doesnt used ALL of the semen just a little drop of it. When did human beings first know this?

6)Sex of baby:

He has created both sexes, male and female from a drop of semen which has been ejected. (Qur'an, 53:45-46)

We are told in the Quran, that male and female genders are determined from ejaculated semen i.e Sperm

7)bones and muscles:

[We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14)

Until recently, scientists thought that bones and muscles developped at the same time. We were told that bones are first then muscles, which is proven to be correct.

I can give you much much more if you want. It is logically impossible that this has been written by a human being.

Unless you're insisting on disagreeing, I think its pretty obvious that its not man-written.

Anybody agree? Honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the scientific facts im talking about:

1) Formation of rain:

We are told the formation of the rain before it was discovered:

It is Allah Who sends the winds which stir up clouds which He spreads about the sky however He wills. He forms them into dark clumps and you see the rain come pouring out from the middle of them. When He makes it fall on those of His servants He wills, they rejoice. (Qur'an, 30:48)

2)The menstrual cycle :

Allah knows what every female bears and every shrinking of the womb and every swelling. Everything has its measure with Him. (Qur'an, 13:8)

3)Pregnancy:

Curse man for his ingratitude! From what thing did He create him? From a drop of sperm He created him and proportioned him. Then He eases the way for him. (Qur'an, 80:17-20)

It's impossible that someone in that time and place would know anything about sperm and gametes isnt it?

4)Earth is round:

He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)

the word 'wrap up' was translated from the word 'takweer' which is from 'kurah' a ball.

5)Human Birth:

Does man reckon he will be left uncontrolled [without purpose]? Was he not once a drop of ejected semen? (Qur'an, 75:36-37)

Fertilization doesnt used ALL of the semen just a little drop of it. When did human beings first know this?

6)Sex of baby:

He has created both sexes, male and female from a drop of semen which has been ejected. (Qur'an, 53:45-46)

We are told in the Quran, that male and female genders are determined from ejaculated semen i.e Sperm

7)bones and muscles:

[We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14)

Until recently, scientists thought that bones and muscles developped at the same time. We were told that bones are first then muscles, which is proven to be correct.

I can give you much much more if you want. It is logically impossible that this has been written by a human being.

Unless you're insisting on disagreeing, I think its pretty obvious that its not man-written.

Anybody agree? Honestly.

1. Rain comes from clouds, it doesn't take a scientist to see that. Inductive reasoning.

2. A baby grows inside a woman, and they get bigger, nothing there either. Inductive logic can be used to find this.

3. Not even close... people in ancient times could use inductive reasoning. Sperm was named before we even knew it contained cells.

4. That's pathetic, because it's just a metaphor, and because when one looks around, they can see in 360 degrees, and thus, even if the earth is flat, the heavens are round.

5. Again, inductive, and largely metaphoric.

6. Not really... if making babies requires semen, then obviously the gender of the baby is determined in its making. You're taking way too much out of this stuff.

7. Largely metaphoric, and that effectively states that he created the inner parts before putting stuff on them. That's a no brainer, and it took more scientific knowledge than they had to see it differently, which is where your argument falls apart.

And yeah, you can overanalyze and try to fit things as much as you want, but the only people who will believe you will be people who want to be able to find connections where no connections exist. The only reason you can see them that way is because you're already indoctrinated in to doing so, and as much as I hate to say it, you're lacking any basis to make any of those claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yeah, you can overanalyze and try to fit things as much as you want, but the only people who will believe you will be people who want to be able to find connections where no connections exist. The only reason you can see them that way is because you're already indoctrinated in to doing so, and as much as I hate to say it, you're lacking any basis to make any of those claims.

Learned this is psych... it's called confirmation bias.

Basically you just go looking for evidence that supports your belief and don't pay attention to any info that refutes it.

:ashika:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see..this is the main reason why we completely disagree. If you believe that the bible and the torah have been writtten by men, then I do not believe that the Quran is written by a man. In fact, the original bible and torah havent been written by men either. They were given it. The things in it I mean.

God hasnt been proven to not exist. Honestly, my common sense proves that he does.

Well I'm not, because I wont say something I know I dont believe. I can say that there is god, because I know there is for the reasons I have which are a result of my common sense.

I have said this before, I dont see how a human being could write a book containing very accurate scientific facts. Remember this was in the Saudi Arabia..1400 years ago, so they were living in very ancient and undevelopped time, no such thing as science was ever known. Unlike the Persians and The Romans at that time. So how could a book that was 'written' there to give insanely accurate details about a lot of scientific facts that are only being proven recently. Answer my question before you accuse me for believing in something that was written by men. Science only started in this area way after Moh'd's(PBUH) death.

The books were written by men, they were translated, they were supposedly copied down from stories and other words, and even if the original books were representations of the word of god, you can't deny the fact that you have absolutely no way of knowing that, simply because at any point in the line, people could have simply writtend down their philosophical beliefs, claimed they had the word of god, and gone from there to create a massive religion. There's no proof against that, and illogical conclusions as to the scienfitic nature of the document yield nothing, because you simply deny the ability of ancient peoples to use inductive reasoning and metaphors.

An appeal to common sense is a fallacy. That being said, if you claim to use your own reasoning to prove that god exists, you are wrong unless your reasoning can be followed (ie, you can make an argument to prove it) This is because logic is the same function in all humans, and unless you can show use true premises and conclusions that prove your point, then you are simply wrong in stating that you can prove god exists. That being said, don't you think that if there was actually a proof for god, that we'd be taught it in school and that every philosopher in the world would be able to recognize its undeniability? The very fact that the debate still rages on after several millenia is testament to the fact that logic hasn't been able to prove or disprove god. By that regard, when you claim you know for sure, you are actually speaking something that isn't true.

Firstly, as I've shown in the previous post, those are neither detailed nor precise. Second, inductive science has existed forever. This means that people made assumptions based on what they saw. That's largely why people created the idea of God in the first place, to explain the unexplainable. They saw clouds forming and rain dropping, and they said "god must have done this," the saw how women were made pregnant, and they attributed that to god too. You're not giving people enough credit, and you're making the jump to claiming that god gave them all this knowledge far too quickly and without justification. Lastly, quit saying common sense, it's a fallacy, and I doubt that common sense is actually what you're using here, because it seems more like said common sense is the type that comes from subscribing to a set of beliefs, often described by the term "fundamentalism."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...