Does God exist?

[deissi]

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)

"Before it was discovered."

I'm not even going to pretend I'm an expert on this, but I have to say that it seems like you aren't that well-informed about this either. It doesn't take much of a logician (seriously) to notice that wind affects clouds, and when clouds are dark it rains. Besides, "stir up clouds" only means move clouds, and the fact that wind moves clouds is just obvious, you can see it with your own eyes.

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)

What's so special about that? Again, you don't need to know science to note that a) women don't menstruate when they are pregnant b) it happens about once a month.

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?

Again, you need not go into the scientific explanation of how an egg is fertilized to claim this. I have to assume here since I don't speak Arabic, but is it not true that the etymology of the word 'sperm' in Arabic shows that the word was selected because it was used in the Qur'an for explaining a man's role in fertilizing a woman. Thus, the fact that the Qur'an talks about sperm (something that sounds scientific) doesn't really have anything to do with science, but the Arabic language has only started to use the same word for the biological meaning of 'sperm' because it was mentioned in the Qur'an.

I don't think I need any proof for my claim that it doesn't take science to notice that only by having sex, a woman can get pregnant.

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.

I don't speak Arabic so I won't speculate on this.

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?

To me, that just sounds like a metaphor, so I'll have to call for the coincidence card. Sorry.

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

In my eyes, this is the result of prejudiced reading. I don't think one can read into it that much.

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.

Again, non-scientific logic itself would say that what's inside comes first and whats outside comes later. In other words, because bones are the innermost part of our hands for example, they came before the flesh around it.

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

Logically, it most certainly is not impossible. Again, if you were to look for mistakes in the Qu'ran, you'd find them there too. Why would God lie to us?

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

Wow, I have to say, WHAT A CONCLUSION . From your claims, it's far from obvious, and we haven't even looked at the counter-claims.

Anybody agree? Honestly.

Not me, no.

[Mahuta ♥]

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

Sorry but I disgaree because not with the Quran.

There are things that just cant be induced. If they're possible to be induced, how come it wasnt induced in Persia for example, where they were more advanced than the arabs?!

The way you are talking just shows that you're completely diagreeing with what im saying and proving me wrong.

Please give me one evidence that god doesnt exist. To prove something, you try to disprove it.

I dont know how coincedence can be the reason to all this, for those of you who said its a coincedence.

I know I cant change you POV, and im not changing mine either. I just want to get you to stop attacking my POV by at least understanding it from my perspective rather than applying Philosophy to everything. Human mind isnt developped and advanced enough to be able to contain everything and all possibilities.

[Mahuta ♥]

It doesn't take much of a logician (seriously) to notice that wind affects clouds, and when clouds are dark it rains

Easy for us to say this. I said before, people there NEVER thought of these things. Its the Saudi Arabia..they knew NOTHING.

What's so special about that? Again, you don't need to know science to note that a) women don't menstruate when they are pregnant b) it happens about once a month.

Yes, but did they know that its the swelling of the uterus?

I don't think I need any proof for my claim that it doesn't take science to notice that only by having sex, a woman can get pregnant.

Again, non-scientific logic itself would say that what's inside comes first and whats outside comes later. In other words, because bones are the innermost part of our hands for example, they came before the flesh around it.

Embryologists used to think they developped simultaneously. Again, easy for us to say that, because we learnt that and nothing else before it.

In my eyes, this is the result of prejudiced reading. I don't think one can read into it that much.

Which proves my point somehow.

Again, yes, but was there such thing as 'sperm' especially to arabs?!

Logically, it most certainly is not impossible. Again, if you were to look for mistakes in the Qu'ran, you'd find them there too. Why would God lie to us?

Alright Joel. Go ahead. Others tried before. Linguists(sp?) arab and english...Scientists, arabs and westerns, tried looking for linguistic mistakes and scientific ones, so far not a single mistake. If it was written by human, you would definatly find mistakes. I dare you and everyone else, kindly ofcourse, to find a single mistake. I assure you..you will not find a single one, whether scientific or linguistic.

Edited February 13, 2009 by *~*MaHuTa*~*

[SharkSpider]

Sorry but I disgaree because not with the Quran.

There are things that just cant be induced. If they're possible to be induced, how come it wasnt induced in Persia for example, where they were more advanced than the arabs?!

The way you are talking just shows that you're completely diagreeing with what im saying and proving me wrong.

Please give me one evidence that god doesnt exist. To prove something, you try to disprove it.

I dont know how coincedence can be the reason to all this, for those of you who said its a coincedence.

I know I cant change you POV, and im not changing mine either. I just want to get you to stop attacking my POV by at least understanding it from my perspective rather than applying Philosophy to everything. Human mind isnt developped and advanced enough to be able to contain everything and all possibilities.

You can't disagree "because not with the Quran" by that logic. They're possible to be induced, they were induced in persia, and rome, and just about everywhere else, but they weren't put in to religious texts.

Yes, the way I'm talking does show that I'm completely disagreeing and proving you wrong, because you are wrong, and I have every right to be doing just that. The onus is absolutely not on me to prove that god doesn't exist. I am stating that there is no one who can prove it either way, and so far, you haven't proven it, and you shouldn't expect that you'll be able to, if the world's philosophers haven't been able to do so in the past several millenia. I actually believe there is a god of some sort, so no, I'm not going to attempt to prove there isn't one, because doing so is impossible. To prove something, you don't try to disprove it. The only way that works is when you're dealing with inductive things with the scientific method. But that isn't all, either, because inductive proofs are never proper, and just because it's impossible to disprove god doesn't mean that it's the best hypothesis that concludes with what we have. Namely, we look at what we do know for sure, and we try to explain it. Saying that god made everything as is is one possible explanation, but then again, it's just as absurd as saying that everything is coincidental. Now, if you tell me that your god hypothesis relies on the world being 6000 years old, you're wrong, end of story. Point being, faith only applies to that which we don't know yet, and since our horizon of knowledge expands, faith needs to be changed to accomodate it.

My point of view is, and always will be, a philosophical one. I change my beliefs all of the time, and so far, they haven't really come to anything in this topic because I'm currently agnostic. The fact thay you're avoiding accepting a philosophical view is actually somewhat frightening to me, largely because of aforementioned perspective. As in Plato's allegory of the cave, once you begin to see things rationally, it is impossible to go back. As such, asking me to see the world from an irrational and faith-based perspective is something that won't happen. However, I'm sure you have the ability to question belief and to think rationally, which is why I'm strongly suggesting it. Philosophy isn't something to run away from or stick under the carpet.

[Mr. Shiver]

Mahuta, if you haven't noticed, the only reason why it hasn't been accepted yet that the Qur'an was written by men is because of the constant intimidation by religious authorities (and hence, the larger Muslim population) not to question the matter. Christianity has progressed much further in that regard, largely because of the decreasing role of the church in the political arena overtime.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Mr. Shiver

[Mahuta ♥]

Ok, so if you think that yes the Quran has been changed. There's the first copy of the quran,the original one, still written as it first wasn't changed a bit. No such thing as philosophy existed. Its the same Quran as the ones we have now.

Could it also be that the original copy was changed??

[Ashika]

Just a question Maha, but have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? I mean, have you ever considered that what you've believed your whole life could possibly be false?

Not saying that it is or isn't of course.

[Mahuta ♥]

Yes I certainly have. And I found nothing to say im wrong. Especially to the fact that the Quran hasnt changed. Because of what I said on the other post.

[moneyfaery]

Nothing 'proving' you're wrong doesn't prove you're right. Just remember that.

[Ashika]

I don't think it's a matter of whether you're wrong or right... but about being able to accept it if you are wrong.

That's all I meant by that.

[SharkSpider]

Ok, so if you think that yes the Quran has been changed. There's the first copy of the quran,the original one, still written as it first wasn't changed a bit. No such thing as philosophy existed. Its the same Quran as the ones we have now.

Philosophy has been around much, much longer than any monotheistic religion... Religion was created by philosophers in order to spread their ideologies, but has since been taken to be quite something else entirely.

[Mahuta ♥]

Religion was created by philosophers

What?! Says who?!

[SharkSpider]

Well, to amend my statement, I'd state that modern religion is the product of philosophy, and that the more barbaric times beforehand were largely fear-based, where tribes would apply names to that which they did not understand. Anyways, with modern religions, the root is almost purely philosophical.

There are lots of pieces of evidence and arguments that support this idea. Firstly, during a time when only the educated could read or write, religious texts could only be the product of people who would be considered educated. With that in mind, consider that the basis of judaism comes from Abraham, initially. The term "prophet" was applied several times thereafter, and signifies someone who teaches people the "true path" or the way to heaven. Examining the ten commandments, we see that they are similar in almost every way to the basic philosophical standards of morality that were developed long before monotheism, which was the idea that since all humans were conscious entities, it would be best to treat all other humans with the same kindness afforded to oneself. Another point that shows a similar effect was the point of Jesus, who was by all respects, a person with an activist and philosophical ideal, who was later turned in to a messiah. His work involved bringing religion back to its roots, which was effectively supposed to be the philosophical concept of humans caring for humans. Likewise, Muhammad's own philosophical views were recorded with reverence by his followers. Now, in order to see this, you need to look at what philosophers themselves have come up with, and compare them. Reading Plato's Republic next to the old testament of the Bible shows definite similarites, in terms of how things were discussed. Plato presented views and arguments in addition to allegories. In the end he came to conclusions which were then stated in terms of how this enlightenment should alter a person's life. The same is true for any religious text. It tells you a story, then tells you what you're supposed to learn from it and how to change your life based on what you've learned. Now, of course there are other things present, and alot more to get than just that, but the semblance is too striking to leave undiscussed.

[Mahuta ♥]

The term "prophet" was applied several times thereafter, and signifies someone who teaches people the "true path" or the way to heaven. Examining the ten commandments, we see that they are similar in almost every way to the basic philosophical standards of morality that were developed long before monotheism, which was the idea that since all humans were conscious entities, it would be best to treat all other humans with the same kindness afforded to oneself

Personally, I would use this evidence to prove that they are all being instructed and made 'prophets' by the same God. Its the same message he wants to send through more than one person in all times.

You said Mohammed's(PBUH) Philosophical views, how can someone that hasnt touched a book..nor read one nor been around ANY scientists/philosophers??

[Abu]

You said Mohammed's(PBUH) Philosophical views, how can someone that hasnt touched a book..nor read one nor been around ANY scientists/philosophers??

One doesn't need to read to be philosophical, neither be around any scientists/philosophers.

[moneyfaery]

Personally, I would use this evidence to prove that they are all being instructed and made 'prophets' by the same God. Its the same message he wants to send through more than one person in all times.

This isn't meant as a personal attack on you, but I find most 'discussions' on religion just deteriorating to a ping-pong match between who can rationalize views (no matter how absurd) first.

What you should get out of these discussions is a sense of humility that you COULD be wrong. Yes, you could be wrong, Jake could be wrong, Aboo could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc. But the point of a debate isn't to squash your opponent (though it certainly seems that way) but rather, to see alternate views and then reevaluate our own views. If everyone just insisted on inciting their own views, nothing would ever change.

Personally, I think I am slightly moving towards agnosticism (still predominantly atheist though!), so I can wave my flag around saying, "See? I am 'open-minded'! Nyah nyah nyah"

[Ashika]

What you should get out of these discussions is a sense of humility that you COULD be wrong. Yes, you could be wrong, Jake could be wrong, Aboo could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc. But the point of a debate isn't to squash your opponent (though it certainly seems that way) but rather, to see alternate views and then reevaluate our own views. If everyone just insisted on inciting their own views, nothing would ever change.

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say in my past few posts.

Nothing is absolute and you all need to realize that.

Even something you believe with all your heart could be wrong, just be prepared to accept that.

[Mr. Shiver]

You can't go wrong with being agnostic.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Mr. Shiver

[Graeme]

I say we stop all this nonsense and just start believing in Zeus and stuff.

[Mr. Shiver]

Yeah, and let's also start believing that we're all imperfect depictions of some higher reality where everything is beautiful and which only the philosophers can figure out and enlighten the rest of us ignorant fools about.

Oh wait, we already do.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Mr. Shiver