As-salamualykum!
This is continuation of my previous blog , one of the brother kept saying you have not proved your God exist,
Where’s the proof man! Where’s the proof?
If you ask me for proof then I ask you,
What kind of proof and how much of proof will satisfy you?
Are you looking for 100% absolute scientific proof? If yes than let me tell you
Science makes an unreliable witness.
Though science has given us well established laws and theories, and it has provided us with wonderful insights and explained things and helped us make tremendous progress, but when it comes to the question of our existence, purpose and origin it puts us on a shaky ground.
How many times have you read or heard……
“New studies have revealed that….” Making the old studies obsolete, or,
“Previously scientist believed that … so and so, but there is new evidence which suggest….”
Making previous evidence false.
Previously it was said that eggs raised blood cholesterol, bad for heart but it has been proven wrong!
It was thought that our universe was in steady state, again proven wrong!
Is the speed of light fastest?
Think again.
“Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries”
Don’t forget to read: an ironclad rule of nature - and who gave us this rule? science!
“The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws .”
Don’t forget to read: break apparently unbreakable laws - who convinced us that these laws are unbreakable? science!
We know that our universe is expanding.
And when the question is put where or what it is expanding into?
The standard answer is you see the space itself is expanding so it is not actually expanding into anything it is just stretching and since we cannot exist outside our universe this question is irrelevant.
But even a person with depleted neurons may wonder..
Since space has properties and it can bend and stretch hence space itself must require something to exist in and expand.
Yet again new evidence has emerged,
“On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets”
“The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know,”
But the most interesting statement is...
“The theory could rewrite the laws of physics”
http://tinyurl.com/5gyx49
Though speculative but not impossible.
Now imagine a highly qualified doctor giving evidence in some case, in a court of law.
Now this highly qualified doctor keeps on revising and changing his testimony every now and then
How his evidence will be considered?
His evidence or testimony will not be considered as clinching evidence to decide the case, though it may be taken as supportive evidence.
The state of science is similar, science is always in revision mode it is always evolving, as new evidence emerge previous evidence is discarded hence science does not prove anything it only explains and this explanation is always open to revisions and rejections .
As for proving existence of Allah (swt), 100% absolutely using science or otherwise makes no sense.
If it could be proven Allah (swt) exists 100% absolutely then there is no need for Allah (swt) to be hidden and unseen.
Our existence on the earth becomes meaningless if it can be proven 100% that Allah (swt) exist.
Our life on this earth is test for us. This is what Islam tells us, and on the Day of Judgment we will be handed out our result.
Now imagine if answers were supplied along with the question paper would such exam or test have any meaning?
Therefore it makes sense that Allah (swt) remains unseen and hidden.
And though Allah (swt) is unseen and hidden he has made sure that we know about him by sending prophets from among our own kind.
Allah (swt) has send approximately 125000 prophets throughout the history of our existence
And Mohammad (saw) is the last and final prophet of Allah (swt), and all these prophets taught the same message that there is only one God.
By name 25 Prophets are mentioned in the holy Quran, also Allah (swt) says he has left plenty of signs in his creation about his existence if we care to think and ponder.
“ And those who have no knowledge say: "Why does not Allah speak to us (face to face) or why does not a sign come to us?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike, We have indeed made plain the signs for people who believe with certainty.”
(Chapter #2, Verse #118)
“We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things? “
(Chapter #41, Verse #53)
And now again the question about proving.
To prove a thing you do not always require direct proof, there is also what is called circumstantial evidence and logical conclusion.
But where is the proof?
That is for my next blog, inshallah
Thank you for reading if you did and thank you if you did not.
.
(All the true things i said are from Allah(swt) and any wrong information that i may have given unintentionally is from me alone and i ask forgiveness from Allah (swt). Allah (swt) alone knows the true meaning of all things)
...will go back and read your previous blog, since what we have here is just more of the same sort of psuedo-scientific misrepresentations being used to obscure the fact that your belief in "allah" is nothing more than a purely subjective assertion for which there is no actual, objective evidence in support.
A good example of this misrepresentation is your claim that...
Is the speed of light fastest?
Think again.
“Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries”
Don’t forget to read: an ironclad rule of nature - and who gave us this rule? science!
If you had actually read Dr. Lijun Wang's paper on Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation, you would have known that what he actually observed "is not at odds with causality or special relativity." I'll spare everyone the grotesquely technical details, but you can follow the link and--assuming you have the necessary background in particle physics--see so for yourself.
Ultimately, the fact remains that NOTHING that you have presented in this blog (or the other one) provides support for a belief in the existence of "allah" or any other supernatural power. You are engaging in the age-old theistic fallacy and begging the question of your deity's existence. In order to rationally make assertions about the nature of your "deity," you must you must first provide a rational basis for that belief, which would of course require actual, objective evidence. That isn't to say, of course, that you can't just decide to believe anyway, but that belief cannot I would suggest be categorized as "rational," defined as "consistent with or based on reason; logical."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I try to stay out of these relirious 'talks' but I just wanted to say that when you said basically that you can "just decide to believe anyway, but that belief cannot ... be categorized as "rational," defined as "consistent with or based on reason; logical." was you just being awesome, again.
I wonder if people can look at their God faith as irrational and still believe.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
We have been taught with certainty that nothing can travel faster than speed of light
but once again science does a volte face!
“Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.
Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is ,.supposed to be completely impossible.”
Don’t forget to read: supposed to be completely impossible
http://tinyurl.com/5r7sb5
If you had actually read Dr. Lijun Wang's paper on Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation, you would have known that what he actually observed "is not at odds with causality or special relativity."
Don’t forget to read: is not at odds with causality or special relativity
“Dr Gunter Nimtz, one of the physicists from the University of Koblenz, told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."”
Don’t forget to read: violation of special relativity
http://tinyurl.com/5r7sb5
You keep harping on “there is no objective evidence..”
Absence of objective evidence does not mean absence of existence.
Can you prove that your great, great, great, great, great, grandfather existed?
And if there is no objective evidence to prove it, does it means that he never existed?
And if he never existed, does it mean that you do not exist?
And if there is objective evidence for your existence but no objective evidence for your great, great, great, great, great grandfather's existence
Does it means,
That you created yourself?
AM I BEING SUPREMLY AWESOME AGAIN AND AGAIN!
No! NO!
I’m just being simply rational!
As opposed to being arrogant.
“Or were they created out of naught? Or are they the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing! ,”
Holy Quran (Chapter 52: verse-35, 36)
.
You might not have noticed this, but Dr. Nimtz is not talking about Dr. Wang's experiment, at all. He is referring to an theoretical phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The whole point of quantum physics is that special relativity doesn't really work well to describe the behavior of particles on a very small (quantum) scale. While scientists are working on unifying quantum theory and special relativity, we aren't there, yet.
Now, let's follow your link, and see the context of your quote.
The third sentence (which you did not include in your quote) actually points to the reason that there is no conflict between Dr. Wang's findings and special relativity. Dr. Wang did not accelerate an object to faster than light speeds. What Dr. Wang discovered was a special property of light itself. In special relativity "c" is the constant of the speed of light as it travels through a vacuum. He was able to accelerate a pulse of light to a speed seemingly faster than its normal constant in a vacuum, by sending the pulse through a medium, in this case a cesium gas.
You keep harping on “there is no objective evidence..”
Absence of objective evidence does not mean absence of existence.
You are engaging in a classic logical fallacy.
You're the one making the assertion, here, my friend. And thus, the burden of proof lies with you. There is nothing to say that you cannot believe whatever you wish, but if you're going to tout your point-of-view as "rational," then you're going to have to build an argument that follows the basic rules of informal logic.
Can you prove that your great, great, great, great, great, grandfather existed?
And if there is no objective evidence to prove it, does it means that he never existed?
And if he never existed, does it mean that you do not exist?
Your use of the term "proof" here is somewhat imprecise, but I would say yes, I can prove to a reasonable certainty that my great (x5) grandfather existed. There is a massive amount of evidence that new humans are produced through the mating of a male and a female human. I am a human, and I have a mother and a father, so I fit the basic model. I also know (and have met) their mothers and fathers, as well, and even one more generation beyond that. I can go even one more generation, due to an early photograph that exists of my great-great-great-grandparents. That leaves us two more generations to go.
Now, based on the demonstrable pattern of human procreation, I can assert with a reasonable certainty that my great-great-great-grandparents had parents, and so did their parents. I can (and have) seen copies of the birth and death of certificates of most of my ancestors going back to well before the Civil War, due to my grandmothers (on my father's side) near obsession with family history and genealogy. These records are well-preserved, witnessed, and follow the expected pattern of similar official documents.
Now, one could suggest that there might be errors, or even that the particulars on those documents might included errors or could even be fabrications, and it would take a more detailed analysis to explore and then affirm or deny those findings, but based on my previous observation that my family lineage follows the patter of other humans, I can say with a reasonable certainty that my great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers (all 32 of them), actually existed.
And if there is objective evidence for your existence but no objective evidence for your great, great, great, great, great grandfather's existence
Does it means,
That you created yourself?
You argument is based on the false assumption that I have no evidence to support my belief in my great (x5) grandfather. As I demonstrated above, this simply is not the case.
AM I BEING SUPREMLY AWESOME AGAIN AND AGAIN!
No! NO!
I’m just being simply rational!
As opposed to being arrogant.
I think it is VERY arrogant to make baseless assumptions about the universe and then try to pretend that those assumptions are infallibly true. That's the other thing that you are missing in your argument (which is surprising, as I believe that we covered this in some detail in your previous blog).
EVEN IF your critique of special relativity and the other theories your misapprehended above were true, it would not help your argument one bit. The scientific method expressly expects its theories to change, as more and more data come to light. In fact, that's kind of the whole point of the process.
But your assertions are something different. You have crafted an argument that relies on belief rather than evidence. That in an of itself precludes your beliefs from being considered "rational."
“Or were they created out of naught? Or are they the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing! ,”
Holy Quran (Chapter 52: verse-35, 36)
There are a number of excellent theories that explain the possible origins of life on this planet that, unlike yours, actually have some evidence that supports them. The field of study is known as abiogenesis. We have a long way to go before we begin to truly understand our origins, but we are beyond the point where it is rational to assume that the ONLY way it could have happened is through supernatural means.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You might not have noticed this, but Dr. Nimtz is not talking about Dr. Wang's experiment, at all
Yes he is not talking about Dr. Wang, let me quote him again.
“For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of”
http://tinyurl.com/5fr8q2
Fact is we were told nothing can travel faster than speed of light and we are not talking about any object only,Nothing and that includes any kind of information.
Whether it violets any law or not is irrelevant because there is always possibility of another super duper relativity theory.
Here’s more
“Two of the best models of physical reality, relativity and quantum mechanics, appear to be fundamentally incompatible”
“Since the entangled items can be far apart when this occurs, the transfer of properties appears to be taking place faster than the speed of light.”
http://tinyurl.com/2w9w4t
“Strangely, entanglement appears to defy the light speed barrier rule. It doesn't appear to matter how far apart the particles are placed, they react to each other instantly. For more information, see the EPR Paradox experiment, or search for Bell-Aspect experiments, which describe how information cannot be transmitted faster than light speed.”
http://tinyurl.com/6mo9a4
Science does not prove anything it merely explains and this explanation is always open to revision and rejection.
"Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design.."
Absence of objective evidence does not mean absence of existence.
If you read again I am not claiming it proves existence but merely saying it does not negate it.
further more you are assuming there is no evidence for existence of God (my next blog inshallah)
I must clarify that when i say your grandfather, I do not mean any disrespect; he could be my grandfather or anybody’s, for that matter and if you are offended I will remove the reference.
I would say yes, I can prove to a reasonable certainty that my great (x5) grandfather existed
What prevents you from having absolute certainty?
I can go even one more generation, due to an early photograph that exists of my great-great-great-grandparents. That leaves us two more generations to go.
.
So grandfather(x5) does not have any photographs or birth certificate or any documentation.
And remember this is only grandfather (x5) and not (x10) or (x50).
There is a massive amount of evidence that new humans are produced through the mating of a male and a female human. I am a human, and I have a mother and a father, so I fit the basic model.
You are assuming that they mated because normally this is what humans do but this is your assumption and not proof.
You will have to prove that only through mating humans can produce and there is no other possibility however remote.
You must give actual objective evidence that human can never produce without mating.
You have not provided any actual objective evidence that mating took place.
Therefore using your logic that there is no actual objective evidence for existence God therefore God does not exist,
It can be concluded that your grandfather (x5) did not exist.
“There are a number of excellent theories that explain the possible origins of life on this planet that, unlike yours, actually have some evidence that supports”
You state there are number of theories.
Which one of the above excellent theory can provide actual objective evidence.
By presenting number of possibilities but without any absolute certainty you have validated the Holy Quran verse
“Or were they created out of naught? Or are they the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing! ,”
Now regarding “abiogenesis”
I am surprised that a person who regards himself logical and rational subscribe to a theory such as Abiogenesis.
Let me give you definition of abiogenesis from dictionary.com
“the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Abiogenetic&
“Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis”
http://tinyurl.com/6k9xeq
“The assertion that life can arise from nonliving matter is called spontaneous generation or abiogenesis. Here are the critical experiments that busted the myth.”
http://tinyurl.com/6zqf55
.
Fact is we were told nothing can travel faster than speed of light and we are not talking about any object only,Nothing and that includes any kind of information.
Well, that might be what YOU were told, but that isn't what the Special Theory of Relativity actually says. What the theorory actually postulates regarding the speed of light is this...
One of the reasons I directed you to the actual research paper published by Dr. Wang was so that you could see that it specifically refers to a special property of light, and that no objects were accellerated beyond light-speed in the experiment. As in the case of your previous blog, your assertions here are simply not based on a good understanding of the research or the Theories that you misrepresent. Dr. Nimtz is brilliant, to be sure, but he's also guilty in this case of using an imprecise turn of phrase to describe his experiment...
Note that even in the case of Dr. Nimtz's experiment, no objects were accelerated beyond the speed of light. Just as with Dr. Wang's work, Dr. Nimtz's experiment demonstrates a special property of light, itself.
Whether it violets any law or not is irrelevant because there is always possibility of another super duper relativity theory.
Well, of course there is. That's kind of the whole point of The Scientific Method.
If find it odd that you seem to view one of the greatest strengths of The Method to be a weakness. Scientific Theories do not claim to be absolute. By intention in The Method, all valid Theories must be falsifiable. To quote the famous Dr. Stephen Hawking...
This is how science works. You come up with an explanation that seems to work most of the time. Then you try to poke holes in that explanation. Everytime you manage to do it, you go back and refine the original explanation (or even throw it out altogether, if necessary) to resolve the error. When someone finds a "violation" of an established theory, THAT'S A GOOD THING. This kind of discovery gives us the opportunity to increase our knowledge of the Universe.
And interesting side note, is that The Scientific Method was actually introduced by a devout muslim scientist...Ibn al-Haytham. His work is a good example of how one can hold on to religious beliefs without letting them make you stupid. Perhaps some advice from him will drive home the point I have been trying to make to you...
If you read again I am not claiming it proves existence but merely saying it does not negate it.
Actually, that IS what you are saying. The title of your blog is "A rational argument for belief in Allah (swt)-2." The premise of your entire argument is that your belief a the supernatural being that you refer to as "Allah." That is a basic assertion of the existence of a specific object. At things stand now, you have provided NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to support that belief, which I would suggest by definition renders your belief irrational.
further more you are assuming there is no evidence for existence of God (my next blog inshallah)
One would think that if you DID have good, objective evidence to support your beliefs, that you would have been able to present at least SOME actual, objective evidence in your first two blogs on the subject.
What prevents you from having absolute certainty?
To quote a famous adage, "Only a fool knows everything. A wise man knows how little he knows." There is only ONE thing which I know with "absolute certainty," which of course is expressed by the Descatian principle of "Je pense donc je suis" (or if you prefer, "Cogito Ergo Sum," "I think, therefore I am"). EVERYTHING else is subject to question, and I would suggest that "reasonably certain" is as far as one can progress beyond the knowing of the self while still remaining "rational."
So grandfather(x5) does not have any photographs or birth certificate or any documentation.
And remember this is only grandfather (x5) and not (x10) or (x50)
Actually, the documentation I have access to (thanks to my Granny's obsession with our family's genealogy) goes back a bit farther than even my "grandfather(x5)," but eventually the documentary evidence does break down...which is why I only claim a reasonable certainty when discussing the existence of my far removed ancestors.
You are assuming that they mated because normally this is what humans do but this is your assumption and not proof. You will have to prove that only through mating humans can produce and there is no other possibility however remote. You must give actual objective evidence that human can never produce without mating.
Sorry, but this is the same negative-proof fallacy that you tried above.
You have not provided any actual objective evidence that mating took place. Therefore using your logic that there is no actual objective evidence for existence God therefore God does not exist, It can be concluded that your grandfather (x5) did not exist.
Factually incorrect. Because I know how humans reproduce (and there is a ludicrously large amount of evidence to support my assertion in this case), I can make reasonable assumptions about my ancestry, though those assumptions become less and less specific, the farther back you go. Until such time as someone could provide actual, objective evidence that sometimes humans are not born in accordance with the normal process of human reproduction, those assumptions remain a reasonable assertion. The falsifiable test would be for someone to hypothesize that another vector to be a possible vector for human existence, and then to provide actual, objective evidence to support that conjecture.
“The assertion that life can arise from nonliving matter is called spontaneous generation or abiogenesis. Here are the critical experiments that busted the myth.”
http://tinyurl.com/6zqf55
I can't help but notice that your article terminates its discussion with Louis Pasteur's expreiments in the 19th Century. In other words, you are WAAAAAY behind the curve on the research regarding the Theory of Abiogenesis. Serious research into various hypotheses of abiogenesis began again in the 1920's, and a lot of progress has been made in the last 90 years. Specifically, the most interesting (in my opinion) findings came as a result of the Miller–Urey experiment in 1953. In this experiment, scientists were able to create a "primordial soup" of chemicals and conditions that were similiar to what could have existed in the early development of the earth. Through the induction of eletrical charges through this mixture simulating lightning), the scientists were able to produce several amino acids and other organic "building blocks" of life. Other experiments followed which were similarly able to generate the nucleobases for DNA and RNA. The M-U experiment and its subsequent refinements provide a good model for how abiogenesis could occur under the right conditions.
The main issue that undermines your criticism of science is that you really don't seem to have been adequately educated in the subject matter that you criticize. Quote mining and religious apologetics are no substitute for actually studying the scientific disciplines you criticize.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
There is no objective basis for faith in ANYTHING: be it Allah, Yahweh, Xenu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Faith in a deity is, by definition, illogical.
Of course scientific theories change. That's the nature of science. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be talking about science.
I'm an atheist. I don't care about your or anyone's religion. I don't hate religious people unless they try to assert their beliefs as universal fact. Seriously, fundamentalists need to get over themselves.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
That would be great, but sadly enough not the way things work!
They are to intoxicated in order to create common sense.
To guide offspring is the only solution to eradicate future wannabe fundamentalist.
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm