Why Science Fails To Explain God

[Johnny B]

Sheikh Nurow, I don't think we have linguistic problem, lest you insist we do.

My question is simple and straight forward, namely , What is a God ( an 'Ilaah' if you like )?

and not Who is a God as you assumed.

 

Give us an humanly adequate definition of the Deity you worship, and then see if we're denying i's real existence or if you really are not communicating anything at al.

[Hassan_B]

Johnny B,

 

Can you tell us what you mean by "humanly adequate definition."

 

Secondly, by insisting that you be given a "humanly adequate definition," does that mean that you refuse to believe in what may not have a "humanly adequate definition?"

 

thirdly, we're not talking about 'a god', we're talking about The God: Allah! One can make anything 'an ilaah' all you have to do simply worship it and adore it and pursue it endlessly. We are talking about the Originator, Creator, and Sustainer of all things. He is alone without partner. When you say 'a god' it seems like your talking about a type of objects or something like that, something that is created. The One we're talking about is Uncreated, so there is no 'a something something' of Him. laysa kamithlihi shay': there is nothing like unto him.

 

 

p.s.: this is child-support

[Hassan_B]

Bismillah,

 

Originally posted by Johnny B:

Sheikh Nurow,...

What I'm questioning is your very knowledge of the Islamic God (your Deity of choice), such knowledge that you're so certain you can with pure sincerity , based on your knowledge about that Deity, define that Deity and present it to us.

 

Remember, if you can't define the Deity you claim to devote your life to, it's neither honest to accuse the Atheists of 'denying' it's existence, nor appropriate or just towards other religions that worship other Deities.

 

Once again , What is a God?

JB,

 

It seems that you're conflating two things. One is the knowledge of the existence of a being or a thing and another is the knowledge of what exactly that being or thing is. These are two different things.

 

To require that one must have the exact knowledge of what what is in order to believe in its existence is faulty logic to say the least. There are many things that we believe in, but at the same time do not have exact definitions.

 

For example can one define exactly what mass is? The answer is, at least not yet, one can point to mass using the effects of mass, e.g., its weight due to force of gravity, its inertia due to its resistance to acceleration, its size due to how it is structured atomically and sub-atomically, its ability to generate gravity (the bigger the gravity the bigger the mass). Contemplate on this example; even by disscussing just the attributes of mass alone, something we Western educated people take for granted, it was not long before we ended in a full circle, i.e., the definition of mass with respect to weight and the ability of objects with mass to induce weight on other objects with mass and on themselves.

 

One can do the same thing with respect to Time. In physics Time is a fundamental unit it is used to define other things however other things do not define it. Ask yourself this, is there such thing as time if there were no objects? How would one know such a thing in such a case?

 

Just by contemplating on these things, that we believe to be creations, we can clearly see the limitations of our intellects (another created thing one can contemplate on).

 

So ask yourself this, if we can't have exact definitions of the essence of created things, how can you even dream of having an exact definition of Allah, the Exalted, the Majestic, the Creator of all things, Who is Uncreated Himself and has always existed and will always exist?

 

How can we comprehend Him when we are unable to comprehend what He created? Subhaana! He is much above that and it is impossible!

 

Allah says in Surat 42:11:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you:

there is nothing whatever like unto Him,

and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).

He also says in Surat 6:103:

No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision:

He is above all comprehension

, yet is acquainted with all things.

Therefore, it is upon us to know that He exists! it is not upon us to know what He is exactly, it is neither possible nor necessary.

 

With respect of Muslims having Certitude, it is Certitude of His existence, of Him being without partners or having anything that is similar to Him, of Him being All knowledgeable, All Seeing, All Hearing, All Aware and so on... It does not mean that one has full comprehension of His Essence, this being human contemplation and whomever tries to contemplate on His essence will either go mad or come to a wrong conclusion.

 

As mentioned in the Book of Assistance of Imam Al-Haddad:

The Messenger of God, may blessings and peace be upon him, has said: 'Reflect on the signs of God, and do not reflect on His Essence, for you will never be able to give Him His due.'

I hope this helps.

[Nur]

Well said Hassan

 

 

Johnny Bro.

 

So what you want is actually a general definition of What God is?

 

God is the living, indescribable, uncreated, who created, subjugates and owns everything, beginner and repeater, omnipresent, omnipotent, unlimited, peace, caring, judge, self existent, eternal, internal,external, all knowing source of all reality and being

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Hassan,

The term ' Concept ' seems to be what you looking for, and I'm more than willing to help you out there, but for now let us concentrate on what Sheikh Nur believes a God is.

 

 

Sheikh Nurow,

 

If you worship something that is living,yet indescribable, and you KNOW of his/her existence, I'm afraid that you haven't communicated much.

Your Deity of choice seems to be a mystery for your own self .

Hence , Neither Atheists nor Theists of different religions have an inherent need to 'DENY' your mysterious Deity of choice, it's all in your head Sheikh Nurow.

 

My question remains WHAT is the God you worship?

Is s/he a Superman like figure that lives in a cosmic fortress of solitude with a single gigantic chair?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Originally posted by Nur:

Well said Hassan

 

 

Johnny Bro.

 

So what you want is actually a general definition of What God is?

 

... indescribable...

 

 

Nur

Conversation over/

[Hassan_B]

JB,

 

It seems that you're just playing games with us and you are not showing any signs of sincerely looking into this. I don't see why we should continue to even respond to you.

 

Addtion {

You should also be aware that when you insist on asking the question "What is XXXX?" you are in reality asking "What is XXXX with respect to things that are already in my repository of knowledge?" And this question is already answered in the Qur'an with respect to Allah, that 'there is nothing whatsoever like onto Him.' This is the only answer to your question. Really, there is nothing beyond this with respect to your question, I don't know why you bugging Br. Nur on this.

}

 

Conversation over/ indeed!

[Nur]

Johnny boy

 

You write:

 

My question remains WHAT is the God you worship?

Is s/he a Superman like figure that lives in a cosmic fortress of solitude with a single gigantic chair?

 

 

When you encounter the God that I worship, it will not be a joke, but before you, many people who spoke mockery at Allah have passed away, and you will also pass away, then will you tell me what kind of God He is.

 

Nur

[Castro]

Originally posted by Nur:

Johnny boy

 

When you encounter the God that I worship, it will not be a joke, but before you, many people who spoke mockery at Allah have passed away, and you will also pass away, then will you tell me what kind of God He is.

 

Nur

:confused:

 

Nur, he can't tell you anything when he's dead. Did I misunderstand you when you wrote this earlier:

 

Atheists have more arguments than the above, their most lethal lie is the evolution theory, which reduces life to chance,

their logical fallacies are helped by Christianity which lost its way

and Judaism which dropped Allah for the Gold.

How did you then turn around and quote from this Christian site to bolster your argument against evolution?

 

Anyhow, you capitulated to JB too soon. He is a lost soul but he has a certain honesty about him. Inshallah he will find the right path. Your mockery of his disbelief, as it were, and your tantrum at the end of this "debate" didn't help much.

[Nur]

Castro bro.

 

JB asked this question:

 

My question remains WHAT is the God you worship?

Is s/he a Superman like figure that lives in a cosmic fortress of solitude with a single gigantic chair?

 

 

As you can clearly see, this is not the kind of serious discussion I expected JB was engaging in, its more like a question by a four year old, not an intellectual debater. His imagination is quite limited to Superman and science fiction movies. That is when I lost interest of taking him serious.

 

Coming back to you pal, Now, you ask:

 

 

Nur, he can't tell you anything when he's dead. Did I misunderstand you when you wrote this earlier:

 

Brother, I hoped that you could easily connect the missing piece of resurrection, that is when all mankind will be brought before their maker to settle differences.

 

As for the the quote from the Christian site, can you tell me what is the problem you have with my reference to the scientific facts that question Darwins claims?

 

lol at Capitulation! I was not at war with JB, I was having good time debating him, (of course with some hope to show him the Light Of Allah), saaxib, but you can correctly say that he was evasive of my attempts to show him the way.

 

 

Nur

[Castro]

^^^ The almighty shows the way saaxib. All you're doing here is looking down on each other. He mocks you for your beliefs and you ridicule him for his disbelief. A rather fruitless game of tug.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Norf 2:

‘Religious people’ AS WELL AS many non-religious members of the scientific community oppose the evolution theory because it has failed to stand up to the many questions thrown at it from all quarters.

I think you're exaggerating with the "many members" part but who cares. You can always find "many people" in any community who reject the official position. But when all is said and done, Evolution theory is accepted beyond doubt as legitimate and bonafide scientific theory. Evolution is a demonstrable fact.

 

 

Originally posted by Norf 2:

Yet, somehow, you believe this THEORY to be fact and continue to champion it even though science itself (not just religion) has managed to challenge it (with no answers to-date).

I'm beginning to question your sincerity now. Science DOES NOT question Evolution Theory whatsoever. There maybe debates over a particular events which is normal in science but the theory is legit and a fact. Pursued me otherwise. Show me this "science" that challenges Evolution Theory. For your info, Creationist Gee whiz science doesn't cut it.

 

 

Originally posted by Norf 2:

Now, unless you’re prepared to try and answer those questions for us and the gallery, your argument for evolution will be considered futile.

If they're intelligent questions (i.e. not questions like: if we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?) and if I'm knowledgeable enough to offer answers, I'll give it a shot. So shoot away.

 

Originally posted by Norf 2:

Furthermore, your urgency to throw away Nur’s very pertinent question on the scientific discoveries post revelation only demonstrates your inability to articulate a robust response. Science does not need to accept revelation as you put it. All it needs to do is accept that the revelation was correct or had an element of truth to it and all you need to do is accept that the Quran has not changed in over 1400 years (or, if you want to be picky, in your lifetime at least).

See my reply to Nur below.

 

 

Originally posted by Norf 2:

Do you accept that the recent discovery by scientists that the world is still expanding was foretold in the Quran? See verse 51:47.

Of course not because the Quran doesn't say so. It's a complete lie. That's what enthusiastic Muslim apologists say in a bid to show the divine origins of the Quran. According to the Quran the entire world consists of Earth and Heavens (sky) and everything in between. No empty space, no galaxies, no solar systems, no black holes.

[Nur]

Raamsade:

 

You write:

 

"Evolution is a demonstrable fact"

 

 

Please Tell Us How This FACT Can Be Demonstrated to settle this discussion for good!

 

I am not asking YOU to demonstrate this Fact, Just point Us to Where , How and Who can do it or did it!

 

 

Nur

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Nur:

Brilliant! This is circular logic at its best!

How so? Circular logic is when your premise assumes your conclusion. In other words, your conclusion and premise are one and the same. For instance, circular logic would like this: Microsoft is best software maker because Microsoft said so. The proposition that Microsoft is the best software maker can not be proven by what Microsoft itself says.

 

I haven't done such thing. All I did was point out the fallacy of reasoning you committed. You asked a loaded question and I called you out on it.

 

Your question is similar to another popular loaded question: have you stopped beating your wife?

 

There is no yes or no answer to this question since the question assumes that I'm already beating my wife. The only apt reply to such question is qualified answer which is what I gave you.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Is it likely then that a person who lived at that distant time to reach a scientific finding that is as sound as our scientific understanding of today.

My answer would be it is possible. While new technology furthers our understanding of the world and increases our knowledge, it's not impossible for people with less fancy technology to discover scientific facts that are as true today as they were when initially discovered. History proves it. For instance, there is this Greek scholar who calculated the circumference of the earth, which was very close to what we know today, without the advantage of modern scientific knowledge and technology.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Raamsade: No, because Science does not believe in any Supernatural entity, and that no knowledge existed before advent of science, because if we accept that other knowledge existed before science based knowledge, then we have to accept in supernatural revelation which science rejects!

First, science rejects supernatural explanations

because there is no good reason or evidence to accept them in the first place. Why so? Because for thousands of years humans have been attributing to the supernatural everything from the movement of the sun to thunderstorms, from birth and death to good harvest and so on. Everything humans couldn't make sense of they imputed to supernatural forces. And they got almost everything wrong. Science and thinking people, therefore, rejected supernatural explanations for very good reasons not from some a priori prejudice as you hint.

 

Second, only one knowledge matters. And that is true knowledge. All other knowledge is useless.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

This description is opposed to the definition that we have agreed for science ( in this thread), I wrote that Science is Evidence based. So if we arrive at evidence, it should be believable science!.

You're missing the point. Science is always work in progress. The scientific method gives us the tools to discern facts from falsehood. If you use the scientific method you have better chance of discovering useful facts that help humanity than if you were using, lets say, supernatural based method. One gives objective facts, the other subjective facts.

 

The problem you're having is not too unfamiliar. Many people who are into supernatural explanations and "revealed truths" expect absolute and eternal facts. But the real world doesn't work like that. There is complete knowledge (absolute truths) and then there is no knowledge. In between is a continuum. Science gives us good confidence that we're, lets assume, 9/10th of the way on a lot of issues but we can't be certain. We still got some distance to go until we attain "absolute knowledge." But how do we know what absolute knowledge is? We have no way of knowing and for that reason science is tentative process. So we assume as if we're getting closer and closer to absolute knowledge.

 

I said don't fall for the trap that is "Science in the Quran." Science is tentative process. For instance, today scientists tell us that the earth's atmosphere has only 5 layers as opposed to 7 in the past. On the internet you'll find websites that claim the "seven heavens" mentioned in the Quran correspond with the original seven classifications of the earth's atmosphere. Now, science can afford to revise and augment old knowledge but the "revealed truths" can't afford such luxury they must always be right. What will those who pinned their hopes that the Quran is validated by the modern science do today? Will they say the Quran was wrong? That is what I meant when I said science is tentative process and as such you're playing dangerous game when you use it to prove the Quran.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

What is not correct though, is your attempt to disprove the validity of the Quraan's scientific revelations by arguing that Science is tentative, unreliable, uncertain and hence if the Quraan agrees with any of the scientific findings, the Quraan is also likewise unreliable.

Science is reliable and predictive. If it wasn't reliable, we wouldn't fly planes, build nuclear reactors for electricity generation, drive cars or use the internet. But it's a work in progress.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

If all of the claims of the revelation are false in your opinion unless verified by science, aren't you somehow acting as a new religion in the block of faiths?

No, because science is based on reason and evidence. Faith is the antithesis of reason and evidence. That's why it's called faith.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

aren't you sentencing all of religion to be guilty until proven innocent by

"Almighty Science?"

No, I'm not. I rather sentence no one.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Allah is the Sovereign Creator of the Universe and all inside it, who laid all the physical laws that govern it and only He has the keys to its mysteries known as al Ghaib!

That's ok, you can believe that if that is what sails your boat. Just remember that believing the above will not help us understand the world or improve it. That's why need science.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Nur:

Raamsade:

 

You write:

 

"Evolution is a demonstrable fact"

 

 

Please

Tell Us How This FACT Can Be Demonstrated

to settle this discussion for good!

By examining the fossil record for starters.

 

 

Where

 

In the fossil record

 

 

How

 

Natural selection

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Who

can do it or did it!

This is another loaded question. Who is "who?"