Why Science Fails To Explain God

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

OMG i thought it was only Mormons.

[Johnny B]

Sheikh Nur,

 

Despite the fact that you may be sincere in your engagement to save my 'soul', I'm having trouble with what you thus far helped me with, regarding my recollection, that is.

What I've no recollection of claiming and what you helped me with are again two different things.

 

For i never claimed that Atheism relies on more solid ground than Evolution.

That is wholly your own assertion, And lest I'm forced to quote myself i stand by my statement that Atheism is as old as Theism, while the scientific theory of Evolution is around 200 years old.

They're two different things altogetehr.

 

Since any argument has two sides, I helped define science. It would be fair to suggest that you, As an Atheist, use science to disprove God's existence.

I'm not sure if i understand what you exactly mean by argument having two sides, but It is neither Science's nor Atheism's task to proof a negative , namely a particular God's non-existence, it is on the Theists to proof his/her existence, since it is the theists who claim to absolutely know of his real existence ,and it's there where the trouble lays.

 

As for this thread , i haven't thrown my hat in , Since you corrected Hassan regarding the strength of the arguments Atheism raises, I thought you'd help Hassan realize the fallacies in the philosophy professor analogy.

 

As for the scientific theory of Evolution,I've no intention whatsoever calling you on your claim of it being 'the ultimate lie'.

[Nur]

Naxar bro.

 

you write:

 

science and faith strive to answer too different questions, why most there be a conflict?

 

 

Precisely brother, I agree with you on this, the problem in this thread was raised by a dialogue of an Atheist Professor who challenged Muslim students in his class to prove existence of god through Science.

 

As a Muslim, and a person who studied Science and Islam, I also find no contradiction at all, except when "Science" delves in an area its not qualified, like explaining existence of Allah.

 

 

Raamsade

 

I enjoyed reading your piece brother, in detail, like your name implies ( I chewed it well)

Your thought flow was smooth, and for many residents in the west, it does make sense, because your analogies are from the age old confrontation between the church and the scientific community. Galileo was hanged for his scientific findings that were against the church's teachings, thus, the problem of science and religion, is reduced to a problem between science and the Church.

 

the logical corruption takes place when we replace Islam in the place of the Church, and there lies the confusion of the latter day pseudo scientists, they take on a different challenge that they are ill prepared.

 

Scientific Method and Inquiry was brought to Europe by Islam, and for eight centuries, Islam helped Europe free itself form the juggernaut of the Church on science to propel the age of Scientific renaissance.

 

Science only explains what it can observe, its nature and transformations. Engineering uses this knowledge to improve our lives, and that is the end for science. Science, specially physics and biology, go back in time to explain the origin of the Universe and life. The Grand Unification Theory and Evolution respectively try and attempt to explain these origins, Physics stops at the Bing bang unable to explain what happened before that event, while Evolution, which is not as exact science as Physics tries to map the origin of the species, basing its theory on the economics of scarcity of resources and the survival of the fittest, not on an intelligent design that gave every species its unique design, for a purpose that Darwin did not understand, yet Darwin failed to account for the non material aspect of living things in his hypothesis. The definition of life and living things is the crux of the problem between the revealed science and the trial and error science.

 

Note that there is a revealed science!

 

The following verses revealed 1430 years ago illustrate the Big bang, the expansion of the Universe and the Big crunch respectively. Also, the fact that all life is water based.

 

Allah SWT says in Quraan:

 

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? Anbiyaa 30

 

With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof Dhaariyaat 47

 

And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it. Anbiyaa 104

 

These statements and more not only stand unchallenged by modern science to this day, but also, scientists are finding it empirically through the scientific inquiry method.

 

My question, is therefore, if science proves concepts from the revelations that predate its existence, will scientists accept the revelation as a source of Science?

 

 

Nur

[Nur]

Johnny saaxib

 

Of course Atheism and Evolution are different saaxib, my understanding was that the statement implied that Atheism stands on more solid proofs than the theory of Evolution alone, which I called their lethal argument and you challenged me to provide to Hassan with lethal argument to counter it.

 

An argument has two sides means two perspectives on every argument. You have to wear my shoes and walk a mile to understand my point of view, mind you, I used to wear your your shoes and know exactly your point of view.

 

If as the professor denied existence of God, you also deny God's existence by way of science, it becomes necessary for you to show the flaw in the logic that led in the belief of God, and that is exactly what the Professor in this thread was doing which attracted you to throw your hat in the debate.

 

By siding with the Professor, I thought may be you can show logically that God does not exist, if you decline, than there is no argument, for Muslims will derive their values from God, and Atheists will draw their values from their liking.

 

Kindly please answer my last question

 

Is there a possibility of God's existence in your opinion?

 

You can answer this question three ways:

 

A. NO

B. YES

C. I Dont Know

 

 

If your answer is B.

 

What is the implications?

 

 

Nur

[N.O.R.F]

My question, is therefore, if science proves concepts from the revelations that predate its existence, will scientists accept the revelation as a source of Science?

Very pertinent question and one I would like our scientists to answer.

 

 

If I may address Johnny’s earlier comments.

 

The basic definition of an Atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. However, evolution and Atheism cannot be treated as two mutually exclusive issues just because of a timeline. Using rational (heh), when one believes there is no creator (because there is no scientific proof) the only option left open to him is that he came into being through other means i.e. science (evolution theory is the only other theory out there). Something Johnny acknowledges and believes in.

 

Therefore, call it by default, Atheism and Evolution, although not connected as a belief/theory/system on the outset, cannot be de-coupled when rational (heh) is used. If an atheist tries to de-couple them when discussing the evolution theory, this will only be construed as intellectual dishonesty on his/her part.

 

In addition, considering the scientific community’s insistence on ‘scientific proof’, it is considered slightly hypocritical calling for proof of God’s existence whilst the very same principals are ignored when asked, for example, to prove the correctness of the evolution ‘theory’ which has many un-answered (or un-answerable) questions.

 

Therefore, considering the above, the position of Atheists should be Agnostic. Neither the existence of God (the creator) and the evolution theory (the only other option) can be proved 'scientifically' (the former according to them and the latter according to believers) which is pivotal to their decision making process.

[Nur]

Therefore, call it by default, Atheism and Evolution, although not connected as a belief/theory/system on the outset, cannot be de-coupled when rational (heh) is used. If an atheist tries to de-couple them when discussing the evolution theory, this will only be construed as intellectual dishonesty on his/her part.

 

Well said Norf, you said what I could not articlulate, baarkalllahu feek.

 

 

In addition, considering the scientific community’s insistence on ‘scientific proof’, it is considered slightly hypocritical calling for proof of God’s existence whilst the very same principals are ignored when asked, for example, to prove the correctness of the evolution ‘theory’ which has many un-answered (or un-answerable) questions.

 

double standard at its best!

 

Therefore, considering the above, the position of Atheists should be Agnostic. Neither the existence of God (the creator) and the evolution theory (the only other option) can be proved 'scientifically' (the former according to them and the latter according to believers) which is pivotal to their decision making process.

 

 

That was my last conclusion too, their concept revolves around ignorance!

 

Baarkallu feek akhi

 

 

Nur

[Sherban Shabeel]

Again, evolution HAS been proved scientifically and, again, I don't see how it denies in any way the existence of the Creator.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Nur:

Johnny saaxib

 

Of course Atheism and Evolution are different saaxib, my understanding was that the statement implied that Atheism stands on more solid proofs than the theory of Evolution alone, which I called their lethal argument and you challenged me to provide to Hassan with lethal argument to counter it.

This is the statement :

Since you know the necessity of Atheism relays on more and better solid ground than the young one's wanting but grotesque analogy of a philosophy professor, why don't you feed him with few of those 'lethal' arguments and let him wrestle with them.?

 

Originally posted by Nur:

An argument has two sides means two perspectives on every argument. You have to wear my shoes and walk a mile to understand my point of view, mind you, I used to wear your your shoes and know exactly your point of view.

Sheikh Nur,

The amount of miles it takes to walk to understand your perspective doesn't amount to much.

All that is needed is to have been born to a family that indoctrinates one from childhood into having faith in the existence of a Deity,without ever bothering the task of proving it, but i sincerely doubt if you walked an inch to understand my perspective, the reason is simple and obvious, you came up with totally different assertion than the one i made.

 

Originally posted by Nur:

If as the professor denied existence of God, you also deny God's existence by way of science, it becomes necessary for you to show the flaw in the logic that led in the belief of God, and that is exactly what the Professor in this thread was doing which attracted you to throw your hat in the debate.

Sheikh Nurow, what happened to the promised intellectual honesty , where is that sincerity that is supposed to help us debate thoroughly the subject matter and hopefully widen our horizons?

 

Firstly, Atheists don't 'Deny' the existence of a Deity, To do that would not only be difficult position to hold, but a cognitive deficiency of some sort.

 

To deny is totally different than to lack belief in, To claim that Atheists 'Deny' the existence of your Deity of choice you've to present your Deity of choice to them beyond question, which leads us to the following question, Do theists really present their Gods cogently and beyond question?,whose answer is overwhelmingly negative.

 

So accusing the Agnostics/Atheists of the Denial of the existence of one's choice of Deity is a but a lagging sagacity,It's like me accusing you of denying the existence of my choice of Ghosts, namely 'Casper' thus shifting the burden of proof for it's existence from myself to you, which can only mean a severe deficiency in intellect or pure intellectual dishonesty, and i tend to believe the later.

 

Originally posted by Nur:

By siding with the Professor, I thought may be you can show logically that God does not exist, if you decline, than there is no argument, for Muslims will derive their values from God, and Atheists will draw their values from their liking.

Of course, my position regarding the existence of 'Gods' is well known,as i lack belief in their real existence, but your belief in the existence of your Deity of choice is not supposed to be based on my ability/inability to prove or disprove it's existence,unless you believe in everything i lack belief in, which would be quite absurd. It's supposed to be based on your absolute personal knowledge of it.

 

As for the Moral values and where Humanity turns to , i think Human beings are social beings. and all social beings have to create a system of rules in order to live together without killing each other, There is no reason to bring an imaginary moral-making Deity into the equation, The word 'morals' is but a fluffy term for societal rules.

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Kindly please answer my last question

 

Is there a possibility of God's existence in your opinion?

 

You can answer this question three ways:

 

A. NO

B. YES

C. I Dont Know

 

 

If your answer is B.

 

What is the implications?

 

Nur

[/b]

My deep honest answer is C followed by what a god is , or ' I don't know what a god is '.

 

Now let me ask you what a God is? can you kindly answer me in a cogently manner?

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by Nur:

Raamsade

 

Galileo was hanged for his scientific findings that were against the church's teachings, thus, the problem of science and religion, is reduced to a problem between science and the Church.

A correction, for his views (Heliocentrism) Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life not hanged.

 

But my point remains. The problem IS between science and religion. Not between science and the Church as you claim. The evidence for this comes from you. You're not part of the christian Church and yet you're against science as exemplified by your rejection of evolution theory. Christian fundamentalists in the US are pushing creationism in schools as are Muslim fundamentalists in Muslim countries (for example, Turkey). Clearly as contemporary events show, among the faithful, particularly among Christians and Muslims, there's a deep skepticism of science. The source of this skepticism, however, is not based on reason or evidence. It's based entirely on religious dogma.

 

Earlier in this thread I sketched out the foundations for the apparent conflict between science and religion. Both science and religion make conflicting claims about natural history. The origin of humans is classic example of this conflicting claims. Science says man came about through the process of descent with modification (Evolution theory). Religion posits that man was specially created by God and all living humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve. You side stepped this point I made, it's the crux of the entire debate but fair enough.

 

I would also like to speculate as to why religious people vehemently oppose evolution theory out of all the other scientific theories that contradict what they believe? My believe is that evolution theory is the rapier the through the heart of religion. Other scientific facts can be explained away with generous interpretation of religious texts. Bro Nur gives a good example of this with his tendentious interpretation of the Quran to find support in it for the Big Bang theory. I disagree with this; and digressing a little would caution against this practice because science is inherently tentative. So what passes for accepted paradigm today may change tomorrow. What will you then do? Reinterpret the Quran in light of the new evidence? Evolution theory on the other hand can not be easily reconciled with the religious texts. Religions go into extreme details about the origin of humans and their narrative is in contradiction of the current scientific understanding.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

Science only explains what it can observe, its nature and transformations.

That's because science is based on the concept of falsifiability. For instance, if I claim that depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, I made falsifiable claim. If on the other hand I claim that depression is caused by invisible being called shaitaan, I made unfalsifiable claim. In the first instance, one can take samples of the patient to see if it is true. In the latter instance, there is nothing one can test to determine the veracity of my claim. It is because of the falsifiability concept that science makes genuine discoveries of new and useful knowledge.

 

 

Originally posted by Nur:

My question, is therefore, if science proves concepts from the revelations that predate its existence, will scientists accept the revelation as a source of Science?

Nur

This is a loaded question because it assumes that science accepts "revelation." Only once you accept "revelation" can you answer this question. But since science rejects, a priori, the supernatural this is a meaningless question.

[N.O.R.F]

Raamsade said:

 

I would also like to speculate as to why religious people vehemently oppose evolution theory out of all the other scientific theories that contradict what they believe? My believe is that evolution theory is the rapier the through the heart of religion. Other scientific facts can be explained away with generous interpretation of religious texts. Bro Nur gives a good example of this with his tendentious interpretation of the Quran to find support in it for the Big Bang theory. I disagree with this; and digressing a little would caution against this practice because science is inherently tentative. So what passes for accepted paradigm today may change tomorrow. What will you then do? Reinterpret the Quran in light of the new evidence? Evolution theory on the other hand can not be easily reconciled with the religious texts. Religions go into extreme details about the origin of humans and their narrative is in contradiction of the current scientific understanding.

You’re above argument is heading into a cul-de-sac. ‘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. 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). Now, unless you’re prepared to try and answer those questions for us and the gallery, your argument for evolution will be considered futile.

 

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).

 

Now, a question for you:

 

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

[Nur]

Raamsade bro.

 

Thanks for the correction on Galileo's fate, I always held that he was a victim of hanging.

 

My question was:

 

" if science proves concepts from the revelations that predate its existence, will scientists accept the revelation as a source of Science? "

 

 

Your answer:

 

"This is a loaded question because it assumes that science accepts "revelation." , Only once you accept "revelation" can you answer this question. But since science rejects, a priori, the supernatural this is a meaningless question."

 

 

Brilliant! This is circular logic at its best!

 

Here is an illustration of your argument :

 

Nur. Do you believe in Revelation?

 

Raamsade. No, because I only believe in Science, and there is no evidence in science that author of revelation exists.

 

Nur. Since science is evidence based,( By definition) do you believe that our scientific understanding of nature is evolving?

 

Raamsade. Yes

 

Nur. Then do you accept that people who lived 2000 years ago did not have access to the same scientific findings that are available to us today by virtue of our cumulative scientific research with our sophisticated tools and advanced computing mathematics available to us today.

 

Raamsade. I Agree.

 

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.

 

Raamsade. No

 

Nur. Then, wouldn't that knowledge be supernatural?

 

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!

 

Raamsade bro.

 

Could it be that as our knowledge we derive from science holds true only for what we are able to observe with our limited intellectual capacities and tools of modern technologies , and that as the circle of our observation increases, laws that govern science need to be reworked to cover the new horizon of findings, because, our perception of reality is limited by what we can observe and imagine, consequently, anything that falls out of imagination or observation can not be ruled out as non existent. Because there are :

 

1. Things we know that we know

2. Things we know that we don't know

3. Things we don't know that we know

4. Things we don't know that we don't know

 

Science grew from curiosity that led to observations of natural phenomena, and then as mathematics became the logical symbolic language of quantitative reasoning, scientists developed mathematical models for science, which widened the circle of observation and imagination, thus leading scientists to postulate the existence of what they could not have observed with bare senses. A case in point is the existence of dark matter in space which explained the validity of the big bang theory and that the universe had a beginning and its expanding. If there was beginning for the universe, then its follows that there is a Beginner (Starter) residing outside of His creation's space-time continuum. This beginner ( Starter) is not bound with the constraints of his own creation.

 

The mathematical tools and models afforded scientists deductive and inductive reasoning sense which called for experimentation to prove these theories. The progress of our understanding of the nature of the atom is a good example of the human journey to explain things we could not see, today, our understanding of the building blocks of matter is very complex, yet far from complete, we raise more questions with every discovery, because the experiments to prove these exotic theories can not be housed in our research labs, which shows that as our circle of knowledge expands, outside of its diameter, lies an infinite vast space of our ignorance.

 

You go on to say:

 

Bro Nur gives a good example of this with his tendentious interpretation of the Quran to find support in it for the Big Bang theory. I disagree with this; and digressing a little would caution against this practice because science is inherently tentative. So what passes for accepted paradigm today may change tomorrow. What will you then do? Reinterpret the Quran in light of the new evidence?

 

Here you are self contradicting brother Raamsade, if science is tentative as you claim, which means according to Websters:

 

1 : not fully worked out or developed

2 : hesitant, uncertain

 

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!.

 

What is true though is that the Interpretation of scientific evidence can change with time. As our horizon of knowledge widens with new discoveries, the same argument hold true for our understanding of subject matters explained by the Quraan. 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.

 

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? aren't you sentencing all of religion to be guilty until proven innocent by "Almighty Science?" ; is science Sovereign over the knowledge by way of revelation (which of course you don't accept)? because I believe that its the other way around, 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!

 

Does this look like the game of chance

 

 

 

Here is a man who is changing everything Science held true about sight, or vision. Do we see with our eyes or with our souls, or with both? find out link below!

 

 

 

Nur

[Sherban Shabeel]

Darwin and the Tree of Life:

 

http://www.ninjavide o.net/video/20936

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

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. 51:47. [/QB]

NO, you few mormons and Solers believe this, sane people except evolution, scientific debate about some the details is one thing, ignoring facts is another.

[Sherban Shabeel]

Evolution is fact.

 

As a believer, I believe that it is the mechanism of creation used by God.

 

But there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that evolution is fact.

[rudy-Diiriye]

evolution is not fact but theory saxib. And just because u believe in it does not make it fact.

 

its just a theory, go and read some more about it to refresh yourself. thnx