:-) [الأرشيف] - منتدى التوحيد

darc

07-12-2010, 03:12 AM

welcome charlie
i hope you would enjoy your stay here
you said

what is your evidence charlie
i mean by evidence a set of ideas driven based on bare logic

you mentioned something very interesting here which worth to mention

well this is actually a problem that most people get trapped in, we call it the paradigm that people get imprisoned in. Actually this is totally aganist our religion. This doesn't mean that muslims don't do the same. Muslims are like others they are human beigns and they have desires. But the guidance ( the quran and sunnah) guides us and it is mentioned explicitly in the quran that this is the case

and when it is said unto them: Come unto that which allah hath revealed and unto the messenger, they say: Enough for us is that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever, and no guidance?
Almaeda 104

and even so we sent not a warner before thee (muhammad) into any township but its luxurious ones said: Lo! We found our fathers following a religion, and we are following their footprints.
Alzukhruf 23
#

so as you can see the quran blames people for just closing their minds and say we will follow what my parents followed

p.s my name in english is ibn alsunnah
best regards

مرحبا تشارلي اتمنى ان تقضيا وقتا ممتعا هنا

يقول تشارلي
انا لست في هذا المنتدى لابحث عن الله لانني متأكد 100 بالمائة انه غير موجود

ما هو دليلك يا تشارلي
لا اعني الادلة التي ليست مؤسسة على منطق صحيح

ذكرت هنا شيئا مهما وجذيرا بالذكر

يقول تشارلي
السبب الاخر هو اننا عادة ما نتبع الدين الذي علمنا إياه ابائنا.انه لصعب جدا ان تقبل من والديك ما يعلمانه اياك مما هو خاطئ

حسنا في الحقيقة هذا مشكل لا يعرف الكثير من الناس انهم وقعوا في شركه, نحن نسميه النموذج او
المثال الأعلى الذي يجعل الناس يتبعونه ويكونون محبوسون له . في الواقع هذا ضد ديننا. ولكن هذا لا يعني ان المسلمين لا يعملون نفس الشيء. المسلمون مثل غيرهم من البشر لديهم شهوات ورغبات. لكن القران والسنة يرشدوننا الى الحق
وفي القران ذكر الله مسألة اتباع دين الاباء
يقول الله تعالى في سورة المائدة:

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْاْ إِلَى مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُواْ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءنَا أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يَهْتَدُونَ (١٠٤)

وفي سورة الزخرف
وَكَذَلِكَ مَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ فِي قَرْيَةٍ مِّن نَّذِيرٍ إِلَّا قَالَ مُتْرَفُوهَا إِنَّا وَجَدْنَا آبَاءنَا عَلَى أُمَّةٍ وَإِنَّا عَلَى آثَارِهِم مُّقْتَدُونَ (٢٣)

من خلال الايات يتبين لك ان القران يلوم الناس الذين يغلقون عقولهم ويقولون بأننا سوف نتبع ملة ابائنا

تحياتي

darc

07-12-2010, 03:25 AM

so you blaim us that we follow our parents like you said, ok, that's true we have followed our parents till a moments when we have the basics and the necessary knowledge to make the decision, between creatism and evolution,

creatism: is a supranatural and very intelligent power has make the life in this world.
evolution: known as (darwinism) RANDOOM and COINCIDENCE make the all form of living thing in earth,

so as you can see, nobody has the good judgement can believe on somthing like coincidense as the creator of all matters.....

اذن انت الان تلومنا لاننا نتبع ابائنا, حسنا هذا صحيح نحن نتبعهم الى ان نبلغ ونكون ناضجين ونملك المعرفة ثم بعد ذلك نتخذ قرارنا اما مع الخلق او مع التطور
الخلق: قوة خارقة فوق الطبيعة هي سبب وجود الحياة على ظهر المعمورة
التطور: المعروف بالداروينية حيث ان الصدفة العمياء هي التي سببت بوجود الحياة على الارض

so as you can see, nobody has the good judgement can believe on somthing like coincidense as the creator of all matters

الاشبيلي

07-12-2010, 08:56 AM

hello charlie

u said

I am 100% sure he does not exist

this is wrong??why
because you there is nothing we are sure that 100%
even the evolution theory we aren't sure thats true

u said

Why I am here is to find out how it is possible that people still believe in gods in 21st century

yes you are right , maybe in 31st century , we will say how it is possible that people still believe in love or mercy ............etc

u said

Hello again. Someone whos name I can not read (because it is in Arabic) aked me why did I choose to be Atheist

this is me . my name is ashbely from yemen

u said

it is not a choice I made

u mean the atheist is a truth !!!

let me talk like u : i will say the religion is not a choice it is a truth way

ok

do u believe in soul ??????

with my best regards from ur friend ashbely
:emrose:

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 01:31 PM

Hi again guys,
Thanks for your comments. I am just sorry I can not read some of the messages, because they are in Arab language.
However, let me reply at the questions I could understand.
For the first it is true that science can not give answer on every question about life and the universe itself. But religion can definitively not do it.
I will have a chance to develop this more later but I try to concentrate now at the questions I got already. About evolution. Evolution does not work with complete random. Random changes that appear at the existing species work in all directions and not all the changes are good for the species. Actually almost all mutations are not good. Those will not survive. To make a simple example let us talk about a bird that will have a very big mutation (in reality mutations are almost always a lot smaller) Let us say a bird has a genetic error and it get a third wing! This is a huge mistake. If this bird would get chicks, it is very likely that some of them will get a third wing too, because the error is in the genes. But how likely is that this bird will get chicks? For the first, it would have problems flying and would most likely very soon be taken by a hawk or some other animal, before it gets adult. If it despite all would survive and become adult, how would the chances be to get the chicks? Probably it would be almost impossible, cause such bird would not be attractive to the other sex. Usually such bird would be mobbed out and never get a partner. It's modified genes would never get to the next generation. It's third wing would definitively not benefit this poor bird.#
Now lets look and another, more positive example. Another bird is being born with some modified gene that makes its wings slightly longer. Nothing very dramatic, but still a bit longer. Let us say this bird is an eagle, that is migrating by winter. It is using the thermal winds (winds that are blowing upwards when the ground is being heated by sun and which many big birds use when migrating). What would this mean to this bird? It would be able to soar a little bit higher and migrate a little bit faster because of this. It would reach the wintering area a bit faster than the other birds. It would spend shorter time and the dangerous migration. In the spring time when moving back to the breeding area, it would probably return back some day before the other birds of the same species. This would give it a chance to get a better nesting area with more food. Lets, say our eagle is a male. With a good area he would easily get a female. It's longer wings would not bother the female. The eagle still looks very normal. He would probably have a successful nesting and it's genes would be copied to the next generation., which will very likely have longer wings too, if they get their fathers genes, that shows to be good. After some generations, more and more birds will have longer wing. The species is changing a little. But why are eagles that are migrating not getting longer and longer wings than, if it is for their benefit? Well, the reality is more complicated than our little example. Long wings are maybe good for a long migration, but maybe not so good when hunting. Specially if a bird is hunting in the forest. So, in real world it is not sure that our eagle male would be so successful. He would maybe get a better area for nesting because he was there before the others, but he would maybe not be so good hunter and therefore not so successful in raising his chicks.
However, those two examples show how evolution works. This is not a silly thing. Evolution is real and it goes on all the time, even today. It is not even very hard to understand. It takes time, but it had time for billions of years and that is why it came so far.
The "engine" for the evolution is natural selection. There IS randomness in evolution, but only the mutations that are good for survive will survive in the long run. Sorry I wrote a long mail, but I tried my best to give a straight answer to the questions about evolution being "silly".
Best regard from Charlie :-)#

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Hi Ashbely,
Thanks for your comments. Well let me reply back.
You say nothing is 100% for sure? If I ask you how sure are you that the earth is a globe? Maybe you can not be 100% sure, but something like... let's say 99,999999% Maybe everyone is lying to you, while the world is in fact flat. Not very likely, but not completely impossible. To not use decimals you would say 100% sure. In the case of God I am more sure than that, but I choose to say 100%. Why so sure? Because the .
whole story is completely unbelievable, but we will have chance to talk more about it later.
#We will not be alive at the 31st century to see if there are still religions at that time. I doubt actually. I think humans have either destroyed themselves, or they have learned a lot more about life. I don't think there would be place for religion more than as something interesting that people used in the past to explain the world, since their knowledge was so low.

Best regards from Charlie :-)

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 02:01 PM

Forgot to answer to the question if believe in a soul. Well, if a soul is or mind that will live on after we die, than no. I don't believe in it.

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 02:19 PM

Darc, I almost forgot your message. Well, you do admit that you follow your parents. So do maybe 99% of the Christians and so do maybe 99% of the Buddhist, or any other religion. If you were born as a Buddhist you would almost for sure be a Buddhist and you would believe you are right. If you were open minded, and open for knowledge, than you would study Buddism too and the Bible and also Biological explanation, that means Evolution. That would give you a real chance to make a good decision. Well, you can always ask me beck, if I did the same thing? Well, I did not read Quran and did not read Bible either, although my mother sent me to a religious Christian "Sunday school" to learn about God when I was a kid. I am though reading about religions, even by Islam. But today I am adult enough to understand some things and there is no place for any religious believes in my world. If you really want to know the truth, than you will see I am right. Life did not appear just by sayng "Let there be life". You will see I am right, but ok... give it some time. Best regards from Charlie :-).

darc

07-12-2010, 03:58 PM

Hi again guys,
[QUOTE]. I am just sorry I can not read some of the messages, because they are in Arab language.

Hey Charlie, the Arabic messages you see here are only the traslation of what is written in English it is not a new messages
i just translate what is written here to be understood by those who do not understand English
Enjoy staying here

ابن السنة

07-12-2010, 04:39 PM

Dear Charlie
I will leave the discussion about Evolution to brothers who are more specialized in the area and there are a few here. I also hope that they would find your message and reply

I just want to introduce the islamic point of view of information
First there is the absolute truth or the fact
For example. I exist ; this is a fact if I deny it then there is no need to proceed further.
Then we have what is probably true.
For example this is the case of most scientific theories
The first principle is
TWO FACTS cannot contradict
The second principle is that WHAT IS most probable if it APPARENTLY contradicts a fact we have to accept the fact and interpret what is most probably true in its light.
If we can then this is fine
If we can't we will just say that the probably true statement is not correct

If the probably true statement is all what we have we will accept it until either it is proven to be a fact or reject it if it was proven to be incorrect
We don't reject what is APPARENTLY true unless it contradicts a A FACT

The Third principle is when we have two probably true statements
Well here we have to think more and may be it would be hard to say which one to accept.

I believe this is very important before going into real discussions

Do you accept this methodology

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 08:58 PM

I see no problem in this way of discussing things. The first statement could even be depicted in a way an ancient Greek philosopher said: "I think.... that means I exist"
. :-)#

المهاجر إلى ربه

07-12-2010, 09:15 PM

I advise you this link
http://www.alheweny.org/english/

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 09:19 PM

Evolution is very logical and not difficult to understand. You don't need to be an expert . Just listen to your biology teacher. To make it easier to understand, i will use some facts that are not controversial at all.: 1 Our bodies (and all living creatures) are built up by cells. 2 The cells contain DNA molecules that build up our genes. 3 Genes are unique for every living creature (exception are twins that grew from the same egg of the female) 4. The genes we get depend on what genes our parents had, but we will never get exactly the same genes as out parent. 5 Different gens means we are not same and we can impossibly be equally adapted to life. Some our better at running, some better at thinking, some better at something else.
These differences is what evolution work with. It is maybe not important if we have curly or straight hair, but in a world where an animal needs to hunt to get food and flee to not be eaten, it is very important to be smart, or if not smart than be able to run very fast. This is what evolution works with. Natural selection is not something that a god is choosing. Simply, the best ones survive and spread their genes to the next generation. It is very logical and it is not difficult to understand at all. Best regards: Charlie :-)

المهاجر إلى ربه

07-12-2010, 09:34 PM

the noble quran
http://www.alazhr.com/okdown1/en_quran.pdf

ابن السنة

07-12-2010, 09:44 PM

Dear Charlie
Yes I guess most people here understand Evolution and its mechanisms

Mutation and Natural Selection

But I am still not an expert, it is not my field of research. So thats why I said that I prefer that some of the brothers here who are specialized in biology would discuss it with you
Because If I discussed it with you I may not be very precise in the terminology

Lets separate between that it is easy and that it actually happened

Well since you agreed with us about the methodology I mentioned, then we can move and discuss something much more basic than evolution and how life started on earth
Lets start by discussing how this all began.
I hope that people with the knowledge here would join us :):

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 09:59 PM

I checked the site a little. But I am more interested to know what is the text at the picture of Rome. Could you translate to me? Also the text at the flags, please....
#

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 10:03 PM

Ok..... You tell me... How did it all start? What do you think? Someone said let is start? I don't think so... :-)

ابن السنة

07-12-2010, 10:24 PM

Dear Charlie,
Please visit this link: http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Books.htm
and read some of the articles there
I recommend this:

The Contemporary Physicists and God's Existence
The Attributes of God, an Islamic point of view
http://www.jaafaridris.com/English/Articles/creator.htm
The author has a complete book about physics and the existence of God, However it is in Arabic
The first article is just a very rough summary of the book

After reading the articles , you would have an idea of how we think
At least you would understand our point of view and why do we believe in a Creator in the 21th century
:):

Charlie1965

07-12-2010, 11:35 PM

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-13-2010, 12:33 AM

so charlie how can we descuss something that collapse from the first step: the formation of the first cell (amyba) the evolution theory is a dead doctrine, She appeared in a period when science was still under-developed when the cell is shown under the primary microscope like asimple bubble, but when science has developed we discoverer a lot of intersting things, the cell was considered as a big spacial ship, with millions of particles that are working with a very miraculous armony, and you try to convice us that the evolution is the explication of all this!! you have to pursue the last experience

read this:
Morowitz’s probability calculation

The probability calculations cited above are in agreement with a calculation by the biophysicist Harold Morowitz. He assumed he had broken all the chemical bonds in the E. coli bacterium and released all the atoms comprising it, and then calculated the probability of these atoms spontaneously recombining to give rise to the E. coli once again. In this theoretical experiment, all the atoms required are present in all the appropriate quantities, and it is assumed that no other atom can become involved from the outside. Nonetheless, he calculated that the chances of all the atoms coming together spontaneously in a specific order, despite their being in the appropriate numbers and in an appropriate environment, in such a way as to produce an E. coli bacterium was 1 in 10100,000,000,000.[3]This goes far beyond being merely impossible. Such a number reveals the impossibility of even the least complex organism in the universe forming by chance, even if all the conditions and materials are brought together. ,

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-13-2010, 12:36 AM

by the way sorry for not presented myself iam ahhmed fathy mouwahhid

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 12:37 AM

Dear....ehm.... Mr...
I have lots of links to send to you too. It is very boring to chat by sending links. If you need support by other writers, than maybe I am not the right person to chat with. I prefer an open debate where we both need to think and make up our own questions and answers. That is developing. Funny I often get links when I try to chat with Muslims. Why? Are you guys not feeling sure in yourself to run an own debate and tell me your own opinion? Why always asking for supports by websites? Best regards from Charlie

Charlie , I requested from you to read the links because I wanted to build a common ground for both of us.
In my opinion this would reduce the time of discussions.

If you don't like that ok lets start
What is the cause of the universe? I mean how did it come to exist?
I say: A creator since this is the only logical solution
All possible soutions are:
1- It is everlasting and eternal
2- It was found from nothing
3- It was found by a cause

Do you have any other opinion?

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 12:40 AM

Charlie, Do you prefer to talk with Brother Ahmed about the theory of Evolution and then we can talk about the creation and how it come into existence?

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 01:06 AM

Hi Ahmed,
Nice to meet you. Well, I see no reason why we should stop the discussion. I just presume that you would not like if i start bombing you with different links that will talk instead of me. Saying this, I think you understand why I don't like to get links myself(except for some special occasions)
#So let's go to the subject. You blame evolution being something invented by undeveloped science. This is a very interesting argument. Darwin's theory was presented some 150 years ago. Quran was written some 1400 years ago! This is the reason why Mohammad (or whoever wrote it) did not write about the evolution, if you let me be a bit sarcastic ;-) But, regardless to that Darwinism is not something that modern science denies. It confirms it! Darwin did not know anything about genetics. Modern science found support in Darwin's teaching right there in the genetics. It explains how natural selection and the evolution works. Darwinism is today being teched and studied in the top universities of the world, like Cambridge or Oxford! Which modern university will deny evolution, except for maybe some that are strictly in the hands of religious teaching? This is the way Islamic teaching works. If they find something that science supports, than they will say "Look, here we have evidence that Quran is a wholly book" If science finds something that is on the contrary of what Quran says, than they simply denies it by saying it is not true. That is not a serious way of debating, but a desperate way of protecting the religion which can not be true. If someone told you that moderns science denies evolution,, than he lie to you. It is a complete lie. You can check it if you really want. Funny world we live in... You don't need a microscope to get a good idea. But sometimes the microscope will confirm the idea. So it was in Darwin s case. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 01:11 AM

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 01:18 AM

Hi... yes i can talk to Brother Ahmed about the evolution and with you Brother... ehm.... about creation. You can tell me how can someone create a whole world from nothing? Would be very interesting to know :) Best regards, Charlie
Sorry Charlie My name is Ibn Alsunnah
Well before telling you my arguments, plz tell me what do you think is the probable answer first
1-Created from Nothing
2- Some cause created it
3- Eternal
4-Others
Best Regards
ibn alsunnah

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-13-2010, 01:28 AM

yeah charlie, your right, but still missing the target, i dont speak about religion here, even if iam a religious individual, i speak about logic, you steel cant give me the answer for this : how can we can discuss about a doctrine denied by many many scientist in the world?? i admit that she's the single theory explaining the apparition of life in earth i admid it... but i ask you why such a theory has borned dead still considered as the single answer of all question about the begining of life (the complex systeme can not be maked by randoomnes and coincidense) sorry for bothering you but this is 2 facts:

evolution is the single theory accepted in the big and great university around the world F/R : RIGHT

evolution can not give or at least remains and still remain unable to give an answer for the beginning of life, the harmony in the nature, ect....ect..... F/R : RIGHT!!!

from ahmed

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 01:58 AM

Hi Ahmed, Not sure I got your point. My English is not perfect either, so you may excuse , me for that. However some things I understood, that you misunderstood. Evolution does not work through randomness. Ok, genetic variations happen all the time (we are all unique) , but very few genetic variations will lead to evolutionary development. The engine is as I said the natural selection. Best evidence for this is maybe our own activity when making different races of dogs, cats, pigeons etc. We let some individuals that have the characteristics that we like, to produce themselves, while others are being removed. This is how we made all subspecies of dogs for example. Some are so different from other subspecies that in wild they would impossibly be able to get puppies. How did we do this? Are we gods? Of course not. We just use same methods that work in nature all the time. But we select with the goal we want to achieve and that makes the whole procedure a lot faster.
To your other statement. Well, evolution and big bang are two completely different things. Big bang theory (yes it is still a theory, although it looks more and more like the true fact) tells us about development of the universe. Nothing else. Evolution (not a theory anymore) explains us how species develop from one species to others. And yes.... Just as the word evolution means "development" it explains the development of life, not the start of life itself. Big bang is also talking about development of space.... Not about it's start. Not yet. What exploded and why it exploded, or was it really a start of the universe, or was there a universe even before? We don't know yet. This is a big task for science. But we know species did not just appear like they are now. They developed by millions and billions of years... This is a scientific fact, no matter what Quran says. Best regards from Charlie :-) a#

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 02:09 AM

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-13-2010, 02:14 AM

i admet that the discussion with you is intersting, not like the atheist arab, how are very stupid at least you admit that you havent the answer about the formation of the first cell that's what i want from you to say, because is imposible to creat a complex llife forme with only randoomness, you say that we imited what is goin on nature and you talk about natural selection engine?? abrother said: for me natural selection is like putting two boys in a swimming pool, one boy survived because he know how to swimm !..

natural selection still a randoom ((engine)) cant explain the varity on the nature

the fossil data deny the theory every day, wheres the the mutable form of the (between) creature,....

also: DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 02:31 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

You put a very short question and I thought it would be easy to answer, but when i read the alternatives, i found it being more tricky. That is why i choose to reply Ahmeds mail before yours, even though it looked more complicated at first view. Well I know alternative 1 is wrong. It presumes a creator, and that is impossible. That would not be a real start because someone would have to create the creator before that... and so on.. It makes no sense. Alternative 2 sounds ok because something must have caused it, otherwise we would not be here, nor would the space be here. I presume we talk about the origin of the space, not just the species. Alternative 3... hmm....maybe, but here we are in too deep water. Eternity is a too long time for me to understand. Alternative 4 is "other". I have no real idea what it could be, but if you give me some idea, than maybe I can tell you.. I hope my answer did not disappoint you, but I could not give a simple answer here. Best regards Charlie#

Thank you Charlie
Well I didn't mean it to be tricky to trap you or something. Lets admit that the question is tough.
Well may be option 1 of a creator shouldn't be discussed at this point
I guess, the second option makes sense.
Saying it is eternal is even aganist the Big bang ( if it is correct)
Come to existence from nothing without a cause doesn't make sense to me and it violates the basic logic. and I can say that it destroys science which depends on cause and effect.
Eternal and caused by a certain cause are the only two options ( in my opinion as we will discuss they will be reduced to a single point)

Lets stick now to caused by a cause? I will not say a Creator at this point because logic would say may be it is someything else right?

Do you agree on that ? Can we move forward or do you think that there is something strange in what I said?

Charlie, I hope you caught my way of thinking: I want to start from the very basic principles, as we do in mathematics.

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 11:23 AM

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 11:53 AM

Ahmed, you did not understand some basic things in evolution: The genetic variation is working with randomness, but the evolution does not! The natural selection only accept solutions that work. Only changes that are good enough will survive. Your example with 2 boys in the pool are not so stupid actually. One drowns, the other stay alive. Who will spread his genes forward? Well not the drown boy at least.
Your next statement that evolution can not explain the big variety of life on earth is also false. It can and if you understand how it works, you would see I am right. What do you think, that we would have just few species if evolution was right? Conditions at our planet are extremely various and they even changed throughout the earths history. The species have to adapt all the time and so they did. Those who did not, they did not survive. It would be very strange if the animals looked the same on the whole planet. About the fossils. They do not demand the evolution. They confirm it. You can see that for billions of years life was extremely simple. First about some 500-600 millions of years ago life started to give some more advanced animals like fishes for example. You will not see any birds, or mammals at this time. You will find them first hundreds of millions of years later. Why did your god wait soooo long time to create humans? You say there are no forms of life between the species? Look only at humans. There are so many forms and links between us and apes. And so you will find even among other animals. If you are the expert at the evolution, than I must say I am disappointed, but not too surprised. Evolution is the best evidence against creation, and DNA is the medium point in this evidence. DNA in our and all other creatures are unique for every individual. That gives evolution a chance to work. If we all had same DNA, there would be no space for evolution. We use evolution to change species of dogs, birds, cats, or whatever you want. How do we do that? By being gods? I wanted the answer on that question before, but you simply ignore questions you don't know how to answer. Other questions you reply very simple, like "DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation". In what way? Can you explain that to me? Best regards from Charlie#

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 04:44 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,

After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now. But it does not have to be start of the time and probably it is not. However it is very difficult to study what was happening before the great explosion that changed everything in our universe and made it start from zero.
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God? How could he just appear from nothing? Ok you can say he is eternal, but in that case you accept a cause that you don't accept for the nature itself? And not just that, you even get another difficult question to reply: How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids? Best regards, from Charlie#

Thank you Charlie for your message and interaction
I have some conservations about the law of conservation of energy :):
The law just says that if we have a box in space, then the energy in minus the energy out equals to the energy stored in the box. It is very hard to generalize the theory to all space, all time
why
Because General Theory of relativity doesn't conceal with Quantum Mechanics.
According to this condensed ( Matter and Energy) Quantum mechanics takes the role. But again QM cannot deal with gravity. Actually this point of concealing GR to QM is the work of research right now. I took last year a grad course in General University and I remember that the trend now is to conceal both theories but still no real progress has been done yet.

Actually this is just a side note :):

and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now.

Yes based on pure logic this can be true. That is why I said that it is caused by a certain cause.

Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God?

Lets not talk about God right now. Let our thoughts follow smoothly

You came to a very intuitive conclusion and I was actually planning to ask you that questoin but you answered by saying that the universe may be caused by a certain cause
Actually, I want to fix terminologies here
Lets define an event , E by saying it is an "entity" which needs an "external" set of rules to sustain its properties.
For example mass it can be converted to energy once the rule of "acceleration to hight speed is applied"
Time is converted to space when a huge object ( say a black hole) is introduced, so according to GR space-time will bend and time can be changed to space and vice- versa
Lets define a cause C by an entity which operates on an event E by the set of rules necessary to sustain its properties

In this case our universe is and event E, caused by a cause, C1 (1 here is just a label because we are not yet sure if this C1 is itself an event to another cause C2)
Like what you said previously Who created God :):

Do you agree on that Charlie

Best Regards Ibn Alsunnah

حسام الدين حامد

07-13-2010, 05:17 PM

Mr. Charlie

First of all you are welcome in the forum, hoping that you will know more about Islam.

May be you know that the doctrine that Mr. darwin came with in the "origin of species" , which is an incomplete work as Darwin himself stated, isn't new. Species transformation into another was adopted , in different ways of course, many centuries before Darwin was born. But, Did Darwin himself was an atheist?? Did he find his theory opposite to presence of God?!

Geoffroy, Erasmus Darwin, his grandson and Lamarack , as evolutionists, rejected direct independent creation of species but they didn't reject God. So, why atheists today claim that darwin got them their salvation from belief in God while Darwin himself didn't claim that?! Have they ,atheists, got a new evidence that God doesn't or didn't exist?? Have you such an evidence Mr. Charlie?!

If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

You put a book in your living room and left. Your son enters and see the book but he didn't know that you came in. So, he starts postulating some assumptions. First, let's say that the wind carried the book and put it on the table through that open window. And , of course, the issue of how the wind carries the book only is out of question now!! May be some future discoveries about the nature of the wind will answer it. Secondly, He ,your little son, assumes that the papers and glue on the table mingled together and the result was that silly book! And, again, there is no reason to omit that assumption because the mechanism of mingling will be answered in the future!

In that example, your son builds his "scientific" assumptions upon a base that you didn't exist! He didn't see you coming in! I don’t know how you will react in this situation and how will you ,as an evolutionist, prove that the little kid is wrong!?

To sum that example in a direct question I may say, how can you prove that direct independent creation of species is impossible?! How can you be so dead sure that independent creation didn’t exist??

You to your son: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't "see" that!

Me to you: God created all species as he told us!
You "may" say: I didn't "see" that!

Your answer to your son is my answer to your belief in evolution!

Is it that simple?! Yes indeed! But the struggle was between evolution and Christianity which had been corrupted and old myths got its way to its texts! That weak Christianity couldn't offer that simple logic as Trinity is no way a simple logic neither a logic in any way!

Back to the son, what did your son do?! He put assumptions that doesn't require your being and he did succeed! What did "atheist evolutionists" say?! They say they put assumptions that doesn't require God. Did they succeed?!

Here I quote your saying "evolution doesn't work with complete random". How do you deal with "evolution"?? What is that "evolution" that works and doesn't work?! Who or What made it work that way and what or who makes it doesn't?! Your "evolution" still needs God and doesn't omit the presence of God and that is why Darwin and his ancestors "couldn't" abandon the presence of God!

That bird that got a third wing! How can you be so "scientifically" sure that it can't have offspring?! "such bird wouldn't be attractive to other sex!" you say! How do you know?! On the other hand that "new look!" may attract another curious female! You just say so because you know it didn't occur so you fill it with the suitable answer but that is in no way a scientific method!

Another example is that eagle with the wings. Why the wings don't get longer and longer?! You say "in real world it is not sure that our eagle male would be so successful" .. Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! It is another answer based on what already happened not what would happen if you were in the position to predict. You answer , or Darwin's sexual selection answer, is not a scientific law!

Sorry for that long reply. I may sum it up in few questions:
* If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!

* How do you answer your son in the above-mentioned example?

hosam

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 05:24 PM

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 05:43 PM

Hey hey Ibn Alsunnah! I though you are trying to simplify this debate, while instead you make it very complicated by trying to dive into subjects I think neither you or I know very good. No, I can not agree with you. Maybe you are right, but I did not understand much of what you talk about now. Still I am a person who is reading a lot about space and recently I was reading a book about black holes. Still I don't know much about QM. And I think maybe 99% of people in this forum don't know much about it. For me it is not important to know the QM. I have much easier ways to show that religions belong to old times when people did not know so much as we know today. There is a way that we say: Dizzy speaking is dizzy thinking. Best regards, Charlie

Sorry Charlie, May be I was not clear. My reply to the law of conservation of energy was to what you said, however this is irrelevant to the discussion and I explicitly mentioned that.

Forget about all the defintions what do you think of the following statment
?

At the end we agree that the universe is caused by a certain cause C right
?
?

Note 1: Dr Hossam is very knowledgeable and I hope you will enjoy talking with him too

Note 2: About QM : I believe that many people here know alot about it to some extent

Note 3 : Your way of looking at religion as something from old days is a very unscientific argument. Remember that to discuss a topic with another team , both should agree on basic axioms which in our case are basic logic. So words like we know more everyday, Religion is just old stories, ...etc is not built on this common ground. The same if I say materialistic thinking is stupid,...etc

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 06:44 PM

HI Hosam, Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I feel sometimes that my questions are being ignored, while I try my best to answer all the questions when I can. So I try to answer your questions straight on. If I miss some, I apologize. You really wrote a long mail, so i might miss something.
About evidence that god does not exist. You have to be aware that it is very difficult to show evidence to a negative fact. In the court you are never asked to show evidence that something did not happen, before the other part shows evidence that it did happen. For example, If I say that Mickey Mouse lives at a planet out there how can you show I am wrong? It is not very likely.... it is unbelievable, but you can not give me evidence that it is not true. Can you? Same with God. You have to give me evidence that he DOES exist, before you ask me for evidence that he does not exist. So please go on. Give me evidence 1 and 2 that god exists. No one has yet succeded... so good luck...
The other central question is about the book and my son.#Well, I really hope I will not have a stupid son. I am sure he wil believe in the most logic thing. Not book being crated by wind, mixing the paper with glue. If I tell him I put it there he would believe I hope because it is the most logical answer. If he says he did not see me, than I tell him, "of course you did not... you were not in the room" and I am sure he would understand that. Kids are not stupid. He would take the most likely answer before those that are very unlikely. In the same way, I can not accept the idea of god, because it is very unlikely. You have to convince me I am wrong. If Quran would have included evolution and said "God started it all and started the evolution some billions of years ago", than it would be difficult to debate against it. But Quran does not say that. It says God created the species the way they are. And we know for sure that they changed a lot throughout geological history of earth and they change even today. It happens slowly so you can not see it at first view. The book is being brought into the room too slowly.. so you can not see it moving, unless you pay attention.
Anyway... about Darwin. It is funny how people like to concentrate on what Darwin believed or not.... did he regret his book or not... Did he believe in God or not. That is absolutely not important. Ok, I did read an article about his wife and she clamed till the end that Darwin was an atheist till his dead. She was not. She blamed the christian church to mislead the public by spreading wrong information about him. But this is absolutely not important. If I tell you I found water in the desert and show you the place, than you know it is there. It does not help if I deny it later. I opened your eyes and the water is there, no matter what I say later. So is the teaching of Darwin. Even if he would 100 times say "I was wrong" it would not change the fact that his teaching is correct. Species do change and we use the same principals to change the species.
It is also true that he was not the only one to come to the same conclusion. He even mentions that in the introduction of his book. I did read parts of it. It is very intresting that more than one person comes to the same conclusion that is very advanced, if it is wrong. This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran? O
You guys always claim that modern science do not confirm evolution of species, but denies them. Well, check any website of any famous university of the world and see it by yourself. I hate to send links, but in this case I will make an exception. You don't even have to read it. Just take a look. Oxford university near London, maybe the worlds most famous is celebrating 200 years of birth of Charles Darwin as one of the most famous scientist of the world. Check it here http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090210_2.html
Finally about the eagle and the evolution. You ask me "Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! " Well a simple answer is that if it works against than it can not spread it genes further. This is basic in the evolution. If it does not work, than it goes under. If it is successful, than it works and live on. About the bird with a third wing. It is a well known fact that animals mob out their mates that significantly differs from themselves. This happens among bird, among wolfs or any other animal that are living in groups. Not so strange actually. Usually it means that that something is wring with the individual. Better stay away from it. But even if it would find a female this bird would be very vulnerable. A third wing would make it more difficult to fly and make it an easy prey to a hawk. Even if it get chicks... and they also get the 3rd wing, it would cause them same problems. Such genes would not survive in the long run, but be erased very soon.
Finally, about what "works or does not work" for the evolution. This is very simple. If the animal (or a herb) has genes (construction) that stays alive and can reproduce themselves to next generation, than it works. No matter what tactics they use. If it works in given conditions, it will continue existing. If it does not work, meaning the individual will not survive to spread it's genes to the next generation, than it is out of the game and such genes stop existing. They die with the individual that had them.
Thanks for your questions. I hope you will see it is not so difficult to understand the evolution. You only have to be open to listen to the idea. You will see it explains a lot more than any religion ever will. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 07:09 PM

Hi again Ibn Alssunah,
Ok. let's bring the ball to the ground again ans simplify the discussion.
I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o
Note 1: I am glad to talk to such an expert as Dr Hosam. I am curious to see what new facts he can show me. o
Note 2: I would be very surprised if people in this forum know much about QM, but never mind. For me this is too deep water. Let's stay at the shallow. o
Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin. Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 07:35 PM

Thank you Charlie for your response

I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o

I didn't mention a purpose or denied its existence
The reason for a stone rolling down the hill is gravity. In another word gravity causes the stone to roll down the hill. I didn't pre-assume that the universe was caused on purpose at this point. Ok
?

If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly

Again Charlie, you cannot deny that there is a purpose. Not knowing that their is a purpose doesn't mean that there isn't right
?
Lets not pay attention to the point if this cause C is on purpose or not

About Dr Hossam, If I can interfere
His reply was a response to your statement that you are 100% sure there is no God
Being 100% sure means you have evidence. Again about your example of Mickey Mouse, yes If you told me that Mickey Mouse is living somewhere on a planet out there is most likely wrong but I cannot say I am 100% that he is not out there. I will just say ok you said so prove it to me
But I will not say I am sure that 100% he is not there
get my point
?

Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin

Again Charlie, Lets try to be objective, I will not say Darwinism is wrong because I don't like it or because I feel that Darwin is not handsome.
I still look at Darwinism as a paradigm. This is something you can discuss with Dr Hossam and Br Ahmed.

Lets stick to our point
C is a cause of our universe to exist right
So what causes C another cause
C2
?
and so on
?
Do you think there is no problem in that
?

Thanks Charlie

Charlie1965

07-13-2010, 11:14 PM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,

Please make it a habit to sign with your name in each message. I am having debate with more than one person here, so sometimes I am not sure who is writing. If you end your message with "Thanks Charlie" it can be misunderstood like I am writing it which I am sure you don't want to happen.
Anyway... back to the topic. About the stone rolling down the hill, i will make a minor correction. Yes gravity is part of the answer, but many stones are at the hills and not rolling down. Why? Because you need to put them out of balance to make them start rolling. Some outer force is necessary fore that. But ok. You understand this and it is not controversial for either one of us. I maybe sound picky by this comment, but I take the risk ;-) .
One thing you are completely wrong about me. You said I can not deny the purpose of everything. It is exactly what I am doing! If you talk about purpose of life, or purpose of universe, than automatically means that someone or something gave it a purpose. And that one has to be a thinking force. Who could give it but a God? Since I deny existence of God, I deny the purpose of everything. This is a bit difficult for some people to understand and a bit scary, to think we are alone in the huge space and there is no one above guarding at us. But for me this is a reality we have to accept. I hope I will be able to show you this in the long run. o
About Mickey Mouse if someone told me that he lives somewhere out there, I would for sure say I am 100% sure that is false. It is so unlikely that saying 99% sure would sound like a huge chance that he is right (1%). Existence of Mickey out there is not just not proven, but it is not even likely. Not even close to likely. For me it is the same case with
God. o
Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-13-2010, 11:45 PM

Hi Charlie,
I will sign with my name "Ibn Alsunnah" everytime , sorry for that

I don't feel it is scary that there is no creator so I stick with the idea that there is God. I am sure that there is a creator by both my emotions and my mind
anyway this is of no concern right now since emotions will not help here

Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.

So we have a chain of cause and effects
our universe <C1<C2<C3<C4<......Cn<Cn+1 and so
Here we can also consider the set of causes as the transforms which happen to the "eternal " matter. At this point we can see that the assumption of eternal matter is equivalent to a set of infinite causes.
Do u think that this chain of events can go up to infinity
?
Think for a while

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-13-2010, 11:45 PM

mr. charlie you see how the DNA claim the existence of GOD, i well tell you and you hnow it before me i think so, the DNA is a code and what we have here? the most delicate information about the personality, the hear skin color, and more more information loaded in this tiny chain, how could the coinsidense make that!! i cn't believe it... just the word randoom broke the whol harmony in the DNA, and how could somthing been making by coinsidense keep his stability after millions years, i think his fate is the demise... bot the evolution and developement

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 01:06 AM

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 01:13 AM

Hi Ahmed,
Despite what you think, there is a randomness in DNA that works on every living creature that is being born. A good evidence for that is this: If you have , let us say 4 children with same wife, none of them will have same genes to the other 3. The only exception is twins that grew from the same egg of the female. This randomness is what natural selection works with. If there was no randomness, than children of same parents would all have same genes. Thanks for reminding me of this example. Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 01:21 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah
Everything that happens is caused by something, and it causes something. Nothing can exist independent from the world around and nothing can exist without any rules of how it can behave and how it will behave. This is basic in my way of looking at the world and I will start there when I try to give you my picture. But I will be kind enough to not interrupt you with that now. It would just confuse the debate more and it is not something I want. Best regards From Charlie

Dear Charlie,
I didn't mean the world we see right now, there is no doubt that everything around us has a reason. This is consistent with the islamic view actually if things came with no reason then this is completely aganist islam.

My question is about the chain of causes which cause the universe to exist
Can this chain be infinite in length
Just start by saying If our universe exist then its cause C1 should exist, and for C1 and hence our universe to exist then C2 should exist,...and so

Can we go like this forever
?

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 01:56 AM

and i know that claim, but you talking about complete DNA (father and mother) given their Properties to their children , and this is normal (complete DNA) but, theres a big point here, even with therandoomnes that you talking about, we haven't never heard about correspendense of 2 DNA between two humans, even if they are twins... still with randoomness and coincidense,
every human has his personal propreties and this dna and evn with randoomnes and coinsidence in what you believe we can't see that correspendense...

let me ask you do you believe that birds are the descent of dinosaurs?

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 01:56 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah,
Probably we can go on forever, even beyond Big Bang. But the problem is that we don't know if there was something before Big Bang. Probably yes, but a huge explosion like this erased everything and all the evidences that we possibly could see so far. This stops us asking further. We simply can not know the answer and there it stops than. o
Best regards from Charlie

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 01:59 AM

excuse me charlie iam alittle tired and sick, so excuse me this is all for today, tomorrow we will continue ok, i have works to do:):

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 02:13 AM

Hi Ahmed,

What do you mean by correspondence of genes between 2 humans? I did not understand that. Could you ask in some other way? o
About the birds and dinosaurs. Well, the science says so and there is no reason for me to doubt that the birds origin from dinosaurs. But to make it clear to you, we are not talking about Tyrannosaurus rex being transformed into a sparrow, or something like that. Dinosaurs existed in many sizes, some a lot smaller than ourselves. Recent foundings show that most of the small dinosaurs (and even some bigger) had actually feathers, just like the famous Arheopteryx, that has been considered as a link between dinosaurs and birds. And even though Tyrannosaurus rex probably does not have any "grand grandchildren" on earth today some of his relatives obviously have. If we look at its bones they are almost a perfect copy of bones that we have in a ordinary simple hen (Chicken). o Obviously they have same origins. o
Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 02:57 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Hi Charlie
:):

Probably we can go on forever

No We cannot. This is impossible. If we go then forever then we wouldn't exist in the first place but since we are here and talking now so we exist
In another word
For my universe to exist then its cause should exist. But t cause C1 need another cause C2 to exist but wait C2 needs C3 and so
so if we go to C1000 and say it should exist so that c999 exists and to C998 to exist and so until C1 exists and then our universe

So as you see our existence will never be satisfied

But the problem is that we don't know if there was something before Big Bang. Probably yes, but a huge explosion like this erased everything and all the evidences that we possibly could see so far.

Not probably yes but absolutely yes
why?
because every "thing" in our universe cannot sustain by its own
If a "thing" cannot sustain by itself and need some external factors to keep it sustained then it can't exist without its cause
The same with this weired material which existed before the BB. This material itself didn't sustain and the evidence is our universe
As you said the traces of such material may not be available for us to study but that doesn't mean it was not there and we proved based on logic that it was there

This stops us asking further. We simply can not know the answer and there it stops than.

We couldn't know the answer based on natural science basis but that doesn't mean it is not there
Remember that our discussion started based on bare logic and natural science itself is based on such logics
So Natural Science is just a subset of this logic, We reason with it and we explain experiments using this very basic intuitive logical ideas.
But just assuming that since science cannot explain this then it doesn't exist is against the very basic logic

Either you accept what straight forward reasoning gives us or close your eyes

Best Regards Charlie and have a good night

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 05:05 AM

Dear Charlie,

Let me stop and clarify the situation right now.
We started by saying that the only possible answer for the question "How did the universe come to exist?"
was that it was caused by a certain cause. We didn't assume that this cause is God.
Then I started by asking the question about this cause and if it depends on
another cause which cause it to exist.
Lets assume that this chain of cause and effect is infinite and lets reason if this is possible or not
Let me explain this chain of causes in a different and I hope a simpler way:

The chain of infinite causes is equivalent to :
"I will give you a dollar after I gave you a dollar".The result that I will never give a dollar because the condition " after I gave you a dollar" will never be satisfied.

Equivalently:
step Cn to exist then step Cn+1 should exist
and the condition Cn+1 will never be satisfied

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 09:41 AM

what i mean by correspendence is having the same chain of dna, mean 2 individiuals having the same order in the chain,

and about the dinosaurs, the scientists have diclined this fantasic claim, how a land walker can evolved to an fliying creature, by speeedy run! is that a claim?! or jumping between trees?... why? to catch flies! is the claim of darwinistes and its a serious claim for them. so, i have a big question here, when dino. started to catch flies, in that period, how flies have evolved their flying engine, before dinosaurs??

moreover, lets imaginary takes that claim seriousely, how can a cold blood creature by a hot blood creature, an how he evolved further instead of scales, and how he evolved the perfect body and having hollow bones to be light weighted?? is to obviously inseane.

and about the Arheopteryx, is perfect bird not a transicional form, is a normal bird, but an extincted bird! he has what every bird in earth need it, actualy he has considred like a transicional form, but after a afew research and dissection the bird has considered like an extincted bird not a transicional form , by comparing his teeth (cuz, like you know he has teeths) and his leegs by his imaginary ancetors he has nothing commun, contrariwise... he has commun propreties with his family group BIRDS.

remeber: (how a FLIE evolved a flying systeme, before dino. do

ahmed

الاشبيلي

07-14-2010, 01:17 PM

Thanks for your comments. Well let me reply back.
You say nothing is 100% for sure? If I ask you how sure are you that the earth is a globe? Maybe you can not be 100% sure, but something like... let's say 99,999999% Maybe everyone is lying to you, while the world is in fact flat. Not very likely, but not completely impossible. To not use decimals you would say 100% sure. In the case of God I am more sure than that, but I choose to say 100%. Why so sure? Because the .
whole story is completely unbelievable, but we will have chance to talk more about it later.

ok dear i didn't mean the material expirment maybe u r right there are many thing we can sure 99.999999%

but i'm talk about byond the real life for example could the scientist know exactly how the earth consist

sure , noooooooo

so u say sure there is agod , u talk like who has an evidance that god is not exist

and let my whisper in ur ear

in islam ( god said that the earth is a glope not a flat like holy book

#We will not be alive at the 31st century to see if there are still religions at that time. I doubt actually. I think humans have either destroyed themselves, or they have learned a lot more about life. I don't think there would be place for religion more than as something interesting that people used in the past to explain the world, since their knowledge was so low.

yes i'm with u prophet mohammed (puoh)

said in the day near the doomsday there will not be there any body say oh my god the evil will spread in earth

الاشبيلي

07-14-2010, 01:21 PM

Forgot to answer to the question if believe in a soul. Well, if a soul is or mind that will live on after we die, than no. I don't believe in it

but if there is not a soul so we are like a rock

if my computer don't have a a software my computer will not work

the material is the body

the energy is the soul

what enistein said

the energy will not finish but change from state to state

so there is alive after death

with my best regards

ur friend ashbely

الاشبيلي

07-14-2010, 01:35 PM

next question

who let me a live

if there is not a perfect mind created me so , why i didn't appear in 1839 ,1765,1678,1543,1456

345 b .c

2066

seven handred years ago

no

after one century

i'm not important

so why i'm exist

if there is not a goal from my live so i hope i didn't exist

if there is not a goal from this live we must day after we born before we pain and suffer before we see the blood and the sad

before we think about the dei

how the nothing know me know my parents know my software know the place and the time that i will come

my mom lost ababy in 6 month after that i was born

ask yourself as i'm if my brother did'nt dei

do you think i will born and exist in this life

???????????????

think in yourself

and sya

حسام الدين حامد

07-14-2010, 04:59 PM

Hi Mr. Charlie

"It is difficult to prove a negative fact"! More precisely we say "Refutation of an allegation can't be done before proving it except when we are able to disprove one of its requisites"! In a court you can prove that negative fact that "You were not at the crime scene" by proving that you were elsewhere as you can't be in both places at the same time, and you don't wait until someone gives an "evidence" that you were there to prove your absence!

So, not all negative facts are difficult to prove, and that is why I asked you if you can prove that God doesn't exist. When you said that you are 100% sure that God doesn't exist, I thought you have something new rather than what all atheists count on! You just bet that I can't prove that God exists! Is that how you are 100% sure?! How do you know that nobody did prove that God exists?! Have you read what all believers said and falsified it?! Whatever the case is, you can't be 100% sure of something that you just bet that I can't prove!

Of course, I will proceed to proving that God does exist, but before that I have some more questions to ask!

Back to the son, let's put your answer in a dialogue form:
You: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't see that.
You " tell him: I put it there".
Your son: I "did not see" you.
You: "of course you did not... you were not in the room".
Then you say "I am sure he would understand that."

Ok I will quote your answer regarding the question of evolution as I said!
Me: God created all species as he told us!
You: I didn't see that.
Me: God tells us that He created them!
You: I "did not see" Him.
Me: of course you did not … you were not there.
I am sure you would understand that!

In fact neither you nor your son are convinced yet! Your son trying to act like you wants an evidence to believe that it is you who brought the book in! We know that you put the book but the question is that how you will prove it to you son! What kind of "evidence" you give him??

I said that you can't prove that independent creation of species is impossible! As you didn't comment, I will suppose that you agree that the presence of God that created the species independently is POSSIBLE! You agree with that?!

Regarding the rest of your reply, I will sum the answer up , trying to avoid another long reply, Yes Quran didn't include evolution and I will show you in the coming replies that we don’t need to believe in evolution! And I mentioned Darwin and his ancestors to say that the founders of evolution themselves didn't see it opposite to the presence of God. I tought you may disagree with them when you said you are 100% sure that God doesn't exist but apparently you agree with them that evolution is opposite to direct independent creation of species not opposite to presence of God. So, when I mentioned Darwin I had no interest in his religious beliefs before death, I really don't care!

But when you say that there is an article that says that Darwin was an atheist till the end, I'm obliged to quote Darwin saying (Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.) "origin of species". If you read the book you will know that Darwin believed in a God. Darwin wasn't an atheist! And he didn't see his theory opposite to the presence of God!

(This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran?)
We don't say that Mohammed peace be upon him is a scientist!! He is a prophet and a messenger from Allah! I don't know what is the point in your question!

A logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" describes well an argument that is based on that Oxford university celebrates Darwin's birth! So evolution is "confirmed"!On the other hand, I can "appeal to majority" ,another logical fallacy, and say that religion is confirmed because atheists are such a minority! Both arguments are not true! I hope we just stick to a rational discussion away from weighing the matter by who is "pro" and who is "against"!

Evolution is an abstract term that you use to describe the origin of species, it is not a subject that works and doesn't work. You may say " Surgery is well and the postoperative course is smooth!" but that doesn't mean that there is no "surgeon" behind that! You may say "I did this by chance!" but you can't say that the chance did this! That is why evolution still needs God! And as I said that is why founders of evolution didn't see it opposite to the presence of God unlike modern atheists !

Regarding the eagle and the three-winged bird, my point is still as it is, you assume that because that is what happened, you try to prove the possibilty of extinction of the later and success of the former beause that is what happened. You are giving an explaination but you are not "scientifically sure" that a three –winged bird wouldn't be able to fly, to mate, to have offspring and to survive. I will clarify that point further more in the following replies after you answer my example of the little kid!

To sum that long reply up:
We know that you put the book but the question is that how you will prove it to you son! What kind of "evidence" you give him??

I said that you can't prove that independent creation of species is impossible! As you didn't comment, I will suppose that you agree that the presence of God that created the species independently is POSSIBLE! You agree with that?!

BTW, I can't write more than one reply every two or three days so I am not able to keep up with your conversation with my brothers here!

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 06:10 PM

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 06:12 PM

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 06:29 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah
The problem with your chain of happenings is that it does not give ny answer at all. For the first we can not know the past by asking what was before, because we can not see so far. The other problem is that it does not give any answer of the cause. Religious answer at the final cause Cn can even by a child be asked: "But why did that happen?". That mean, if you say God started it, a curious child can ask, "But how did he do that?", or... "But who created God?" You get two difficult questions, that you can not answer without using either words "Eternity" or "came from nothing" and those are two words that you deny, only because you need to deny them to find a God in the story. So you tied up yourself in the logic. This you can not deny. Can you? Best regards, from Charlie

Dear Charlie
I didn't try to answer the question "What was before the universe?" . My original question was If there is something before the universe or not? and we agreed based on pure logic that answer is yes. And we also agreed that we will not say it is God for the time because based on pure logic it is just a cause
right
?
Then the question which flows smoothly was " Does this cause was caused by another cause and so on going to infinity
you replied that this is possible
and my reply was that this is impossible and I tried to explain that an infinite chain of causes and effects is not possible at all

Please Note that I didn't talk about God
Lets move step by step please
Do you think that an infinite chain of causes and events is possible
?
Please let the answer be either No ( then I will understand that you understood my arguments) or Yes it can happen because of such and such

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah#

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 07:01 PM

A side note Charlie
I see you confuse between two major things here
1- Reasoning and understanding
2- visualizing and imagining
visualizing and imagining is not taken into account in our discussion because they always mislead
Examples
A great mind like Maxwell "imagined" Electromagnetics wave as stresses in a material called ether
which turned to be false
A false image of an electron is a "sphere" of charge

Do you imagine a particle moving in a four dimensional space
?
No one can do so, although physicists do analyze these type of problems based on logic and reason

I will ask you a very simple question
We all know that this cable which feeds your computer with electricity supplies energy to your machine
Please point to where is energy in the cable
Can you do that
?
My discussion is based on the first type
understanding and reasoning
yes sure we can build images to what we discuss but don't let these images mislead you at the end
And please remember that I didn't say that God came out of nothing or God is eternal by the way you understand what "eternal" is
Remember also that "eternal" is not against logic because even atheists accept the concept and they attribute it to matter
Let me remind you of what you said previously

After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now.

:):
:):
:):

Dear Charlie I guess your main point is that at the end we have to stop at some point. You believers assume an extra step that there is a Creator and when you are asked ok how did he come into being you cannot answer
and since this extra assumption is not seen then it is just a claim
So
I (atheist) prefer to stop at what I can see and we don't need your extra assumption guys
right
?

Charlie, up to this point I didn't mention God in my discussion. Please just forget your question about who created God at this point. Although the answer to this question is very easy but I am afraid that because of the way you visualize God based on your Christian- atheistic background you will not understand it

Anyway I will give you the answer but we will not talk about it now
The question
Who Created God
?
Muslim: God is the Creator and the creator cannot be created so the question is wrong
You: Wait here I will say the same about the universe. The universe cannot be created and the question is wrong
Muslim: No Because the universe is not a creator. If you think that the universe is a creator then please point to this ability in the universe to create
The universe according to atheists is just matter and energy and everything is controlled by physical laws
So can these rules create themselves\
?
You remind me of Turning machine
Anyway this was just a side note
Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 07:09 PM

Hi Ahmed,
Of course 2 people can not have the same order in DNA since the chain is so long and complicated that even by pure random it will not happen. I heard about the numbers of how many different combinations there was, but I don't have the number now. We are talking about numbers far more than there are stars in the universe, or something like that. If you spread a pot of sand at the floor, the peaces will never fall all in exactly the same position to each other. Nothing strange with that.
About dinosaurs and birds. For the first, please don't say scientists deny something they don't deny. Religion denies it, but sometimes I wonder in what kind of school did you go guys, when you talk like that. Only an Islamic school? Read any scientific magazine in the world, that is not published by religious organizations and you will see it is all about evolution. No one denies it there. They analyze how it works and are fascinated by it. But back to the animal that evolved to start flying. The feathers that birds need to fly actually did not have that function from the start. Science is quite sure about this, because many species of smaller dinosaurs (and some bigger) had feathers that did not work for flying at all, but were excellent for keeping them warm. Some animals hairs evolved into something like dune feathers, to keep the animal warm and this function works great. Feathers keep the body warm better than the hair. Some of the small dinosaurs were tree climbers and jumped from tree to tree like a squirrel. When having a wide feather plumage they could maybe glide a little longer and this benefited them from individuals that had a poor plumage. In the long run, because they had "better genes" they became more and more common compared to those with poor feather plumage. After a while the feathers evolved to more and more the shape of feathers that birds have, meaning flat feathers (not dunes) that made it easier to glide and steer their flying and in the long run we had animals that actively could fly, meaning birds. But birds were not the only animals (nor the first ones) to start flying. Insects for example were much before them. I don't understand what do you mean, that this in strange? No one said that insects fly because they need to escape birds. There can be many reasons and benefits to fly, like easier moving from one feeding place to another, fleeing from other insect, or lizzards that wants to eat them, or impressing at the female. There are actually insects were only males can fly. So I don't understand in what way this should be controversial? o
Ahmed, please be careful using words like "insane" about something you obviously don't even understand. I would like to use it for religious ideas. For me that is insane, but that is not an argument. That is what we feel and think, but it means nothing in the debate. What is the problem of birds getting light bones with holes? This is a very easy thing for the evolution if you give it time. A heavy has more difficulties to fly. As we said before, genes are never same in two individuals. That means that some individuals easily could have get bones with some holes, because of a "mistake". Let's say that in everything else this bird was completely normal and could successfully raise the next generation. Some of it's chicks got the same "error", but in real life it shows that this was good for them. They were therefore more successful, in hunting, or fleeing, or if they migrated, the used less energy for that. In the long run more and more individuals will exist and in the end completely take over. Easy task for evolution and it does not even need to origin from just one species. Many different species could have "invented " such an easy thing as the holes in the bones independently, just like different species invented the flight. It is not insane. It is very logical.0
About Arhaeopteryx. It was indeed a completely normal animal, but it had some things that differs from any bird of today. For example it had a tail like a lizard. All birds today have tails that consist of feathers only. Arhaeopteryx tail did have feathers too, but growing at a lizard's tail. You will not find any fossils in transitional form as you call it. This is a big misunderstanding (probably intentional by religion) that evolution goes forward by creating species that will look for example like a fish with a mammals head, or whatever you want. Evolution goes in very small steps and all the steps, all the species are completely normal, well functioning. If not, than they will soon be erased by natural selection. Nothing strange that Arhaeopteryx is a normal animal, even though it has characteristic of both birds and lizards.
Best regards from Charlie#

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 07:24 PM

Hi Mr,,,, ehm.... With the coin sign (or whatever it is) o
It is nice that Quran says world is a globe. But, what you maybe don't know is that even long before Quran there were ideas like that. A Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes even calculated the size of the earth, by using the angle of the sun shadow falling down on earth at two different places, in what today is Egypt. And he was very near the true number. He calculated that the circle around earth was about 38 500 km (if I remember correct) while the truth is around 40 000 km. Very impressing and this happened l don't remember the exact year, but let's say about 1000 years before Mohammad. and the Quran. 0
I am sure there are many correct things in Quran like in every religious book, but it does not make it spectacular in any way. Is it true that some versus starts with "There is no God..."? It should have stopped there. That would differ it from other religious books and make it very interesting for people of that time who almost all believed in one God or another, because they did not know better.
Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 07:39 PM

Hi again Mr Ashbely, ( I see you are Mr coin) 0
We think, stones don't. We differ. But what I mean by soul is something that will keep our mids alive after we are dead. I don't see how are mind would live on after death, so I don't believe in soul. Still we think while we are alive. But after we die, we think just as much as we did before we were born. That means we don't think at all. Not so fun maybe, but life is not what we want it to be, but what it is in fact. 0
About Einstein, he said that material is just a form of energy. A huge package of energy. His formula E=mc2 explains the relation between them two, for someone who is better at mathematics than I am ;-) Our minds contain of a huge number of electrical signals in our brain. When it is damaged after we die, you can not restore it. It is gone forever, weather we like it or not. Scary but true. That is why people want to believe in religion. It promises something better than reality does. We are often weak to fall for someone who offers us something better. You are free to choose, but I prefer to live in reality and I hope some of you will have courage to make that choice as well. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 07:42 PM

I need to make a break here, but I will work on later. Thanks for your questions and for reading my messages. Talk to you later guys. Best regards from Charlie :-) o.#

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 08:26 PM

HI again Ashbely,

Who let you alive? What do you mean with that? Who has to let you alive? Who let alive every microbe, or every insect at the world? You think there is a God deciding about who will be born and who not? What a huge job to decide about everyone of the billions and billions of insects. Is he sitting there thinking for each case,... shall this bug have babies? Ok... I let him get them today... How many.. I give him 256.... "Next one please". Very fun....
Why are you not born some other year? Another fun question. Because you are born in the year...maybe 2004, because you think like a child sometimes...hehehe. But I don't understand what difference it would make if you were born another year... 0
You say you don't want to live if your life has no meaning. I want. We have to find a meaning and I feel sorry for people who can not find a meaning by themselves. Get a hobby or something. Try to learn about real world. Try to help people around you to have a happier life. Fight for human rights. Fight to protect the environment so that your children will live in a better world. There are so many ways to find happiness. Buddhist say that real happiness is when you learn how to be happy by helping others. I am not a Buddhist, but I like that idea. There are nice things in Islam too and other religions aswell. Life is very exciting. Find a challenge that will inspire you. If really religion is your only inspiration to live, than you have problems that day when you realize there is no God. Find your strength in real world. It is worth living in reality too :-) 0
I am truly sorry about your brother who died before he was born. Life is not fair. It often strikes against those who least deserve it. In this case a completely innocent child and people like you and your family who I believe did not deserve it either. No one deserves to die. It happens anyway. What is meaning with that? No meaning at all. There is no meaning with life beside life itself. If it works, life goes on. If not, it stops living. No higher power behind that. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 09:32 PM

Hi Mr.... long mail... Please guys make it a habit to sign your messages so I know who I speak to. I know you see your names in Arab letters, but I don't see that. I will understand while reading who it is, but please make it easier for me. 0

Back to the message. Wow... so long... I hope I can reply a bit shorter ;-) o
Well I am sure, if there was one single evidence that God existed, than it would have been shown everywhere and to everyone. I would not need to read what all believers did write. And an evidence would convince something very close to 100% of the population (there are even people who don't believe that humans landed on the moon and people who believe Elvis is alive, so maybe we would not reach 100% anyway) That is why I am sure there can not be any evidence. I would win a bet, right? 0 On the contrary there are evidences that Evolution works. We use it to change species by ourselves. We don't need God to do it for us. The main reason why some people still believe in God is that they simply want to do it. It is a nicer idea. 0
About the son and the book and God and the world. It is not that I don't believe in God because I did not see him creating the world. I did not see my mother give me a birth, but I believe she did because it is VERY likely. I did not see Napoleon loose the battle at Waterloo, but I believe it because it is likely that he did. I did not see Pluto but I believe it exists out there. It is VERY likely id does. But the idea of God is only likely if you choose to believe what you want to believe in. God is not likely. He is extremely unlikely and therefore I need a better "evidence" than "How can something exist if not created by a God?" I know evolution works while religion says, everything was created by god and Animals did not evaluate, but were created as they are. This is wrong . What else do you need to hear? 0
#As I told before. If religions would include evolution in the creation and say "God stated it all and started the evolution of species", than it would be more difficult for me or anyone else to debate against such religion. But religion does not say that. It says God created the species as they are right now. If holy books are wrong, than they are not holy at all. 0
You claim that creation of species is POSSIBLE. Well, that is maybe possible for science in the future. But for a single force that needs to be created by itself and create complete world with millions of species + everything else, that is EXTREMELY IMPOSSIBLE. We haven't seen anyone do that and we will never see it either. It simply does not make sense if you are honest to yourself. 0
About Darwin. I will try make it even shorter than your reply. It is not just not important in what he believed. It is not even important if he ever so said "I was wrong", which he of course never did. He showed us the idea how species evaluate and that can not be taken back, not even by him. Because we see the evidences in real. He is not a prophet whose words we blindly trust in. He is a human who showed us the way to the water in the dessert. If he denies it later, the water will still be there. Evolution is not accepted because " a prophet said it exists", but because we know it works in real. We use its principals to change the species. We follow the evolution throughout the past of the earth, by looking and fossils and we the genetics has shown why it works.0
What I meant by comparing Darwin's work with Quran is that Darwin's work would have been done by someone else if he was not born while Quran or Bible if you want so, would never been written if Mohammad or Jesus never were born (whoever wrote the book itself). You can ignore this comment, because this is just my opinion that I impossibly can prove.0
#About Oxford. I did not show you the site as an evidence that Darwinism is correct. I showed it because some people here deny that science admits Darwin's teaching. That was a good way to show those claims are false. Only that. Don't blame me for replying in a best way for a false statement that others do here. The site is not an Evidence for evolution, but an evidence for the scientific view at that topic.0
Evolution could be included in the religion, but the problem is that it is not! Any religion that would include all modern scientific discoveries would be difficult to debate agains. But the false facts in religios teaching makes it difficult for you guys to defend it. This is a reply to your claim about the surgery and the fortune. I already talked about this, so I will not prolong it.0
To my son... you know how I will prove him if he is too stupid to believe in something that is very likely? I would do the same thing with the book some other day in the same situation and record everything with a hidden video camera. Than I show him the movie. Is that good enough, or is he so stupid to not believe in what he sees? o
If he still does not believe, than I should send him to a doctor I think ;-) 0

Finally, I understand you can not reply every day. We all have our lives to live beside this forum. But see how I have. I have now 4-5 people writing quite long or sometimes very long messages. It is tiering, but also very interesting. I try my best. It takes a lot of my time, but I enjoy it. I have full respect that you can not be here all the time and I hope you all understand me if I am sometimes slow to reply, or some day do not reply at all. Best regards from Charlie :-) 0

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 09:43 PM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,0
To put your question in some other way, you ask me if there is eternity. Am I right? Due to Einstein and the energy that can not be lost or gained, I have to admit that maybe eternity is possible. But, I can not be sure. We are talking about a cosmological problem at the edge of what science knows today. I would not claim that I have a good answer here. I am not sure. If you are, and can show it, than you should be working at NASA ;-) o Best regards from Charlie :-) o

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 09:53 PM

a little point here: when i say insane (the evolution) i say it because i cant believe in randoomness and coinsidence, like you when you dont believe in god (same idea), is not because i'am religious, but open-minded... so....sorry,

*when i say; that "thing" is denied by scientist i dont say 100% of them deny it.. so let's make it clair... ok?

let's go back...
We are talking about numbers far more than there are stars in the universe, or something like that. If you spread a pot of sand at the floor, the peaces will never fall all in exactly the same position to each other. Nothing strange with that.

ok, and when i say that : evolution can not and well not give us the answer of the formation of a single protein by chance you reject it!, so why, you still talking about it, like we took an book, and we go trrought the final chapter trying to understand the whol hystory!! so, i think, you must think about it,

Many different species could have "invented " such an easy thing as the holes in the bones independently, just like different species invented the flight. It is not insane. It is very logical

invented? how invent here, the creature, the evolution process, how is the inventor here?

so.. can you answer me, how can flies, or what ever you want from insect have the great systeme of flying, before
the dinausors have it..

i wait your answer...

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 10:28 PM

HI again Ibn Alsunnah,

My head is heavy and I am getting tired, but it is difficult to stop this intresting debate. Damn, the stupid internet had an error ans I lost the message that was almost finnished... so i have to rewrite it :-( o
Anyway, I will just concentrate on few things here and skip the topics where I feel we are stuck. 0
Time is usually being considered as a 4th dimension by the way. Than it is easy to understand it.0
Energy in the cable is everywhere in it, but only when when the power is switched on. It is like a river that is moving. but the material itself is not moving in the cable. It is a wave of electrons going through the material that usually is copper or aluminium. I am not a physician to give you a nicer explanation. What was your pint here? 0 I will continue in next message because I need to copy some of your text and last time I did it, i lost the whole message. I don't want to risk it again.... to be continued... o

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 10:50 PM

The question
Who Created God
?
Muslim: God is the Creator and the creator cannot be created so the question is wrong
You: Wait here I will say the same about the universe. The universe cannot be created and the question is wrong
Muslim: No Because the universe is not a creator. If you think that the universe is a creator then please point to this ability in the universe to create
The universe according to atheists is just matter and energy and everything is controlled by physical laws
So can these rules create themselves\
?

Why can not a creator be created? How can something exist if it is not created? You talk about creator that must be a lot more advanced than anything in the universe and you say he just appeared from nothing!? 0
Ok. if I buy your explenation that such an advanced creature can exist without being created than it is far more easy to understand that the material can exist without creation. We have the evidence that is exists even, but we have no evidence that would make it even likely that God exists.
You ask about the ability of the universe to create. I just say Evolution. I also say chemical processes. I also say radioactivity. I say nuclear reactions. They all go on out there and here on eart. Why? Can you even imagine anything existing without any rules? I mean anything... sand in the dessert, air, or water.... or sounds, or whatever you want. Can it exist without any rules at all? It is not even possible to imagine that it can. And since we have something than it follows the natural rules, and by the time organize itself without any God steering it. 0 If you accept this than you took a first step to understand that material can organize by itself without any god and you took a first step to understand how universe works. No need to complicate things with a God.
And finally why are you asking me if natural laws can create themselves? Why are you not asking if God can create himself or create natural laws? Be critical to yourself when making a question. Best regards from Charlie#

Charlie1965

07-14-2010, 11:03 PM

Hi Ahmed, I used the words "invented" with the signs " before and after it. It means I don't mean literally that someone invented it. I just used the word to simplify the language. I thought everyone understood that, but i was obviously wrong.0

About the flying insects. I don't understand what is the problem. No one ever claimed that it should not be that way. Many species of animals "invented" - you see the signs?- the ability to fly independent from the other group. Bats also fly and they did not origin from birds at all. 0
Would be nice if someone of the other Muslims here would help me to reply some messages that even a Muslim see that they are wrong, like this with "invented". Some kind person could have helped and explained to you Ahmed what symbols "" mean. I would have appreciated that.0
Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 11:15 PM

Hi Charlie
I am sorry that you lost what you wrote previously
I know it is frustrating
My whole point about understanding and visualizing is that not every understandable point is visualized
A simpler example infinity

About the question Who created God, I told you that you may not appreciate the answer at this point
To answer this :

Why can not a creator be created? How can something exist if it is not created?

I didn't claim that God created himself or that he came out of nothing
We need to proceed with our original discussion

A quick comment on

You ask about the ability of the universe to create. I just say Evolution. I also say chemical processes. I also say radioactivity. I say nuclear reactions.

What about these rules themselves
?
You think that if we believe in a creator this means that we refuse the cause and effect principle
?
and this is completely wrong

We have the evidence that is exists even, but we have no evidence that would make it even likely that God exists

That is what we are proving right now

The important point is
1- "Eternal" as a concept is not rejected
2-

Do you think that an infinite chain of causes and events is possible
?
Please let the answer be either No ( then I will understand that you understood my arguments) or Yes it can happen because of such and such

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 11:25 PM

"", "i know what you mean dont overestimate yourself ...friend..., i feel some "upperlook here

dont wast your time to teach me the meaning of symbols...ok..?

when i talk about insect...:33: i talk about your theory evolution: you say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, by two way (evolution theory):

# 1--- : cursial theory: that the dino make a simple decision, is to run with high speed to fly from earth to sky....:confused: (denied by a couple of darwinist [U]evolusionists[/U, cuz is more insean that we can imagine...] )

# 2---: arboreal theor : that the dino. jumps from an branch to other branch,why... to catch flies... and with that the dino. evolved their ability and..then we have the creature named bird...

so, my question here, its about the second theory, how flies acquired the (evolved) the systeme of flying before dyno.

like i said i wait a response from you

ahmed

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-14-2010, 11:37 PM

3rd: this theory have more probleme than that, for exemple, history: the claimed ancetor of birds ( imean, the dino. that have the similars propretises "superficially" with the present bird, appered before 80 to 85 Millions years ago, and the most old bird until now appears before 150 millions years ago?!

ahmed

ابن السنة

07-14-2010, 11:49 PM

Dear Charlie
Don't hurry in answering my question
Just go and have some sleep and think of it deeply tomorrow morning
Think of everything and see if the logic flows or not
What is important for me that you get convinced
And I hope you would put aside your emotional ideas and pre assumptions
That is why I tried to my best to put aside any emotional evidence during the discussion

Ibn Alsunnah

الاشبيلي

07-15-2010, 11:45 AM

hi dear charlie
you said

But what I mean by soul is something that will keep our mids alive after we are dead. I don't see how are mind would live on after death

you don't see because you can't imagine so you can't think about the live after death because your mind and my mind and all minds of people weak can't imagine that like the eyes is weak can't see the cell or see the far star and galaxy unless we use the telescope or microscope .

you said

I don't believe in soul. Still we think while we are alive. But after we die, we think just as much as we did before we were born. That means we don't think at all

are you sure that there is not a live before we born ?????\

maybe we were a live but we cant remember because the brain and destroyed so the memory distroyed this is what the buddism say

u can not prove in any way that there is not a life before we born and you cannot prove in anyway that there is not a life after death

so don't say i'm sure 100% there is not a god or life after death

you said

Our minds contain of a huge number of electrical signals in our brain. When it is damaged after we die, you can not restore it. It is gone forever

when the antenna is damaged , thats mean the radio or tv or any data wave is damaged and gone forever !!!!

this is the first time i know that http://www.kalemasawaa.com/vb/images/smilies/p016.gif

to be cont...........

الاشبيلي

07-15-2010, 12:01 PM

you said

You think there is a God deciding about who will be born and who not?

yessssss because nothing can know my personality

my dad and my mom get a married and have a baby

but they know who i'm ???????

they know my software ( soul) in this hardware ( body)

i can to beget a child has black skin or white
i will get married from black girl or white

but can i know her or his personality i can't and you can't and every human can't do that

if we are a intelligence creatures can't know this personality of that human

how can the chance know that

and you know the chance is less intelligence than human ????????????

you said

But I don't understand what difference it would make if you were born another year

yes you don't understand because your mind is weak and this equation is far and a far than the mind ability .

the different between i was born in this year or that year is maybe i didn't exist is not born anyway
why i'm born who know me who know my personality

the chance i don't think so , i'm sure the chance don't know what is the chance

to be cont...........

الاشبيلي

07-15-2010, 12:16 PM

you said

You say you don't want to live if your life has no meaning. I want. We have to find a meaning and I feel sorry for people who can not find a meaning by themselves. Get a hobby or something. Try to learn about real world. Try to help people around you to have a happier life. Fight for human rights. Fight to protect the environment so that your children will live in a better world. There are so many ways to find happiness

if my life is without meaning the life is without meaning this is the truth

help people today tomorow they will day like me what is the benefits to help thim if there is any benefits like a money or interests why i will help thim

but in religion we help thim even god for give us for god make us in heven

but without religion and holy goals i will not help any body i will be like shark or snik

you said friend we must to fight for enviroment ????

we know that after millions year the sun will bomb and collapse the solar system

so if there is not any meaning from this life so let me interesting and i don't care by the next generation the important thing is myself only
this is the case of athiest

but in islam prophet mohammed ( peace up on to him) said

if you life in the last day and see the doomsday coming don't let the farm the earth
he said you must to learn from cradle to grave

with my best regards

your friend ###############ashbely########

darc

07-15-2010, 03:37 PM

the Hadith ( sayings of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him ) of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him in other way to be more understood

if you life in the last day and see the doomsday coming don't let the farm the earth

the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him says;

When doomsday comes, if someone has a palm shoot in his hand , he should plant it.

other Hadith:
he says:
“There is none amongst the believers who plants a tree, or sows a seed, and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats thereof, but it is regarded as having given a charitable gift [for which there is great recompense].” [Al-Bukhari, III:513].

also

There is no one among the believers who plants a tree, or sows a seed, and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats thereof, but it is regarded as having given a charitable gift [for which there is great recompense]. (Hadith)

الاشبيلي

07-15-2010, 09:45 PM

dear charlie

sorry to tell u this message

i should to stop here

for many reasons

my brothers will continue with u

i hope you know the truth

your friend ashbely

Charlie1965

07-15-2010, 11:03 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Looks like we are getting stuck with the logical thinking with what comes before Cn... the reason is that we can not know what happened before BB. Was there a universe before it, or did it all start there? If we look at the cosmic egg (as some call the thing that exploded at BB) we don't know what it really contained. The only thing that we know that can contain so much materia at one single place is a black hole. However this must have been a really huge one, if it was a black hole. But the problem here is that we don't know any way for a black hole to explode. This is beyond what science knows today. We know conditions in a black hole are extreme. Even the electrons and protons are crushed and the density can maybe be unlimited. Maybe when a black hole grows to this enormous dimension like the cosmic egg was, maybe there is a way for it to explode. Probably the conditions are extreme, even compared to ordinary sized black holes. This is of course just a speculation and so far impossible to test
This can sound like a weakness of science, but in fact it is it's strength. The science have no pressure to have all the answers, but accepts the facts that are proven. Darwinism is not a theory anymore, although many try to use this word, that has been used initially, even by Darwin himself

Back to the discussion between a fahter and a son. Did you think discussion between a Muslim and an Atheist could sound like this: 0
Muslim: Who created the life? 0
Atheist: It was not created. It evaluated from simple life to more complex.
Muslim: I can not see that
Atheist: Of course you can not see, because it goes to slowly to be seen in real time, but evolution had billions of years time to work since the earths "birth" 0

I am sure you would understand that... or am I wrong? A boy would understand that and so would my son. 0

Now I will continue with other mails and come back to other of your messages. Sorry I am delayed, but there is a lot to answer.

Best regards from Charlie :-) 0#

ابن السنة

07-15-2010, 11:59 PM

Dear Charlie,

Looks like we are getting stuck with the logical thinking with what comes before Cn

No I am not asking what caused the universe to exist. I mean it is not the intend of our discussion to explore the properties of such matter, Was it Energy, Was it elementary particles, Was it a material which we never investigate
All this is not important
What is important that there is a cause which caused the universe to exist
Lets assume that its name is C1

This can sound like a weakness of science, but in fact it is it's strength. The science have no pressure to have all the answers, but accepts the facts that are proven.

Dear Charlie
I am not against science so you don't have to defend the status of science
:):

About the dialogue between the Muslim and the Atheist, this is not related to the origin of the universe,as you said the muslim is asking about the origin of life and we are not talking about that right now
:):

I feel that everything converges to the same question

Do you think that an infinite chain of causes and events is possible
?
Please let the answer be either No ( then I will understand that you understood my arguments) or Yes it can happen because of such and such

This is my only question Charlie, I don't care the "nature" of this cause which originated our universe.

Thank you
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 12:18 AM

Hi Ahmed

I have no upperlook (as you said). Maybe I feel upperlook when talking about evolution against creation, but this is because I feel so sure about what I talk. As human being, or in any other way, I don't feel that upperlook, but I respect you as all other people. Without the respect, there is no way to have a good conversation. The reason why I explained the symbols " " is simply because you really seemed to not have understood how I used the word "invented" 0

Back to the topic. I still don't understand why do you see it as a problem that insects did fly before flying reptiles and birds? 0 Evolution is not like a straight line where some abilities that are "invented" necessarily have to appear at the most advanced species. If we look at the evolution and the species it would more look like a huge tree, where each leaf presents a species that is a alive today. The branches can show their way of evolution and two leafs near each other would be closer related than those at distant branches. The higher evaluated species are closer to the top of the tree, and more simple species lower. But there is nothing that says that a "leaf at the bottom of the tree can not have wings", but only the one near the top. Or, did I misunderstand your question? 0#
Bets regards from Charlie, I work on with other questions, as soon as i get time. 0

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-16-2010, 12:50 AM

i think you haven't understood my question, theres a cause for evolusion on "evolution theory", like the flying of dino.

like the theory says: theres two theorys or "causes" what i mean is the cause in the case of insects, knowing that the fossil records deny any transformation, i dont want

to put some liknks here because you dont like links, so let's get it here

3rd: this theory have more probleme than that, for exemple, history: the claimed ancetor of birds ( imean, the dino. that have the similars propretises "superficially" with the present bird, appered before 80 to 85 Millions years ago, and the most old bird until now appears before 150 millions years ago?!

you haven't reply to that?.... i wait for it

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 12:54 AM

ابن السنة

07-16-2010, 01:05 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

I will take your last message before the others, because it seems very important to you in our mutual debate. I take the other messages later. 0
Well, the problem in any case is that I don't know the answer at your question. I can think "yes", or think "no" but what would it mean when I don't know? If you know than please explain how it is and why it is that way.0

Best regards from Charlie

Simply if the causes can go up to infinity, then our existence condition will never be satisfied right
?
Because for us to be here, our universe should exist but our universe depends on its cause
In another word if this cause,C1, didn't exist then our universe will not exist and we will not exist
But for the cause of our universe,C1, to exist its cause (C2) has to exist
But for C2 to exist C3 should exist
But for C3 to exist C4 should exist
and so on
so our condition of existence will never be satisfied because it depends on an infinite chain of sequential events
This would lead to a paradox
We exist but an infinite chain of causes and effects says that we shouldn't
Therefore, An infinite chain of causes and effects cannot be true
Do you agree then that this chain of causes cannot be infinite
?
Please don't think of the nature of the causes, they are just "conditions which should be verified so that its effect takes place

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 01:37 AM

Hi Ashbely

Your comparing between a broken antenna and a dead person maybe sounds like a good compare, to compare a living creature with a technical product is quite irrelevant. You can not (yet) make a transplantation of a human brain and even if you could, that person would be another person, because our mind is in the brain. 0
#
About life after death. True... I can not be 100 sure, but somewhere around 99% or so. Why? Because if it is like you said that maybe we even lived before, but don't remember it. What could be the meaning of such reborn life? That is equal like someone die and another person being born. That is why I have no reason to believe in that. 0

You say God decides of who will be born. Does he do that only for humans, or even for every microbe and every insect? What a huge job... Maybe it is not so strange he does not have time to make a world better if he is doing that all days long :-P

And you say why are not black child being born by white parents and the opposite. What kind of question is that? This is basic in Evolution that kids get many of their parents abilities. The don't just have same color, but also similar look and similar abilities. But never exactly the same persons. This is what natural selection uses. The small differences. There is nothing in Darwinism that says two black parents will have a white child sometimes! That would be completely against the teaching. We are talking pure Darwinism here.0

#The reason why you are born one year and not another. What is that? It makes no sense and you sound quite confused there. If it is because problems with the language, than I hope someone can help to make me understand. Don't judge my mind as weak. I think with my own brain and I am in the minority no matter where in the world I am. I hope you understand that it takes some kind of strength to be in that position and not just follow what your own parents and the society you live in says. You may call me stupid, if you think so, but than you have to try talking smarter than me. But don't call me weak. 0

Next thing: If you really mean that you don't want to live if life has no higher meaning, than I don't want to debate with you anymore. I don't want to open your eyes and make you become suicide, or loose the lust to live. I don't want to have you at my conscience. I really mean it. So if you really mean that, than we stop here and I let you live in your fantasy. I really don't care about that, but it is a big shame that so many people preferto live that way. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 02:00 AM

Hi Ahmed,

Sometimes I don't understand your questions and just skip them. Sorry for that. This is because I have so many things to reply every day so I don't have time enough. Than I skip those that I don't understand and hope they will be repeated in some other way. 0

About the flying insects and the dinos. Please feel free to send me the link that you talk about. Sometimes it is necessary and I think in this case it is. Than I will probably understand the problem- o

About the dinosaurs and the birds. I did not check the exact time of the periods when the dinos and the birds appeared, but I have no reason to mistrust the years 80 and 150 miion of years ago, that you talk about. However i don't see a problem here either. You say "most of the birds" appear at that time, which means (and it is also true) that there were birds before that. The similar construction only means they very likely have the same relative, I say "very likely" because there is something called "convergent evolution". This means two species having similar look because they live in similar way, like swifts and swallows. They are not close related, but both spend most of the time flying (swift almost all the time) and hunting insects. This goes hand in hand and therefore they look similar. This comment should be considered as a side note, because in case of dinosaurs walking on the ground and birds that most of them are flying this can not be the case. There way of living is very different. The similarity in their construction is a sign of same origins. 0
Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 02:21 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

I appreciate your try to simplify the debate, but I still see it got stuck here. Ok, if we talk about C1, C2 C3 as a purely imaginary chain of cause and the effects, than maybe you are right and you want me to just look at it that way (to not involve god or creation at this stage), although you talk about universe and it's cause. Since you talk about it than you already involved it, so don't expect me to play games. We talk about universe and I don't know if this logic can be applied on it. If Einstein is correct that the energy can not be gained or lost and that talks against your point of view. But, I don't want to stop you from going further in this discussion, so I say... ok.... Let's say you are right. There is a cause. So, feel free to go further with this and let's see where we will end up. 0

Best regards from Charlie

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-16-2010, 02:36 AM

sorry about this, can not by helped, if you can't understand my question.....

now you start to eskape from my requested question....

but however theres the links:

http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=20594

you can take a look there

theres more and more but that will be fine

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 02:55 AM

Hi Ahmed
I am not escaping from any questions, but some I don't understand. Neither you or me have English as our mother language, so we have to be patient with each other. 0

By the way, why did God make Quran only in Arab and not in English or Chinese? At the time of Mohammad world was still very big and for example native people in America or Australia (for example) had no chance to read it. Did they end in hell because of this? Not really fair in that case. He should have sent Quran to every continent at least ;-) 0

I checked the link you sent me. What exactly did you want me to see in the link? A cat fish that did not change for 50 millions of years? This is not against evolution. Evolution is not a god that is necessarily changing the species. This fish obviously did not need to change. It worked anyway. It was not put to any hard challange by any outer factor. It is not strange that we find most of such species in the sea, where conditions did not change that fast and that hard, like they did on land. 0

Feel free to ask more. I am always glad if I can explain things to you or anyone else, as far as I can. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 02:57 AM

What question did I not reply, Ahmed? 0

ابن السنة

07-16-2010, 05:14 AM

Dear Charlie,

I appreciate your try to simplify the debate, but I still see it got stuck here. Ok, if we talk about C1, C2 C3 as a purely imaginary chain of cause and the effects, than maybe you are right

Well this is right for anything because it depends on logic. Even science depends on the same logic

and you want me to just look at it that way (to not involve god or creation at this stage), although you talk about universe and it's cause. Since you talk about it than you already involved it, so don't expect me to play games.

I don't want you to look at something against logic. If logic says it is like that then we don't have anything to do except accepting the facts. Remember what you always say about how people follow their parents and don't try to accept the reality?
I ask you to do the same. There is ONE and ONLY ONE common background between us in this discussion which is FACTS. What is driven from basic logic is a FACT.

We talk about universe and I don't know if this logic can be applied on it

If we don't apply this logic so what other type of logic can we apply then?
Do you want me to say a part is greater than a whole
and say these are the rules of logic which govern the universe at the very early times?

If Einstein is correct that the energy can not be gained or lost and that talks against your point of view.

When Einstein and any other scientists propose a theory, He or she uses the same logic that we use to reason about the experimental results and link it to its causes. Every human being uses this machinery.
So, when Einstein or Lorentz studied the MM experiment, they said ok the experiment gives results which CONTRADICT our equations so lets see how to fix this.
When M. Planck introduced his constant for the first time, he did the same. He was solving the black body radiation problem using thermodynamics and found that the result was strange, the energy radiated from the black body was infinity. So he said this is against LOGIC so we have to fix our understanding.
So to make long story short: The benchmark for every scientist is logic.
Einstein cannot say that energy is eternal forever, specially that his theory breaks before the Planck time.
Usually Scientists don't talk about things which is out scope of matter, But the problem with those who start building and ideology on the top of science, which when removed doesn't leave any trace on the scientific facts themselves
Even if he said so, I will not accept what he says. Remember what I said before if I have a fact and someone came to me and said something which appears to contradict it, I will say wait a minute a fact cannot be falsified, may be what you say has a different meaning, or may be it is not universal as you think.

But, I don't want to stop you from going further in this discussion, so I say... ok.... Let's say you are right. There is a cause. So, feel free to go further with this and let's see where we will end up.

Ok, I will continue:
If the chain of causes is not infinite, so it has to be finite, we don't have any option
Remember we said that all the answers to the question: How it all started was:
1-Created from Nothing

And we said this is impossible because it contradicts logic.
2- Some cause created it
May be
3- Eternal
May be but wait this also contradicts logic. Because if we assume that we are now in a certain state, then our state "evolved" ( I bet you love the term) from a previous state and so... and since we agree that everything has a cause so we will end up having infinite chain of causes which are necessary for forming our state right now. And this is impossible.
4-Others
We didn't find anything else

So the ONLY solution is caused by a certain cause

Then we asked the following question:
How many causes can we go to form our universe?
Can this be infinite?
Well no because the chain of infinite causes means that we don't exist.
So, we have to reject this assumption

So we end up with ONLY one possibility:

The set of causes is finite, which means it has a FIRST CAUSE

Lets try to understand some of the properties of the FIRST CAUSE
Lets ask this question:
Can the first cause be converted to a second cause, In a materialistic description: Can its material convert?
Well assume so, then it needs something outside it to cause it to convert, But it is the first cause by definition so this is impossible
And this where you find problems with most religions on earth including ChristianityCorollary 1, where they trapped themselves in a dilemma: How can God be not like the creation ( The father) but at the same time be like the creation ( the son ).
The FIRST CAUSE is different from other causes and events.

The FIRST CAUSE doesn't depend on any other causes ( if it does this means it is not the first cause )

Corollary 2

The FIRST CAUSE is self sufficient

These are all my arguments.
One very important point:
You may ask me to describe this FIRST CAUSE.
My answer is simply: I can't because of corollary 1: The FIRST CAUSE is different from anything which follows it, including our universe so how can I describe something which is not like anything else. I can't say its color is such and such. Why? because in this case I described the FIRST CAUSE as something which emits radiation ( photons ) and this contradicts corollary 1 and 2.

The FIRST CAUSE is GOD.
One of the attributes of God in Islam is the FIRST.
I will cite you some verses from the quran about that:

He is the First (nothing is before Him) and the Last (nothing is after Him), the Most High (nothing is above Him) and the Most Near (nothing is nearer than Him). And He is the All-Knower of every thing.
Alhadeed 3

The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer

ِAlshura 11

Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4)
Alikhlas

I hope Charlie that you will read more about Evolution and see what is true in it from what is false. I don't say that everything in Evolution is wrong. BUT building an ideology over a theory, just to negate the idea of a creator from the equation is unaccepted.
I just want to add another point about "Humanity" , "Helping others" and so....
What are the materialistic definitions of these words??
What is the materialistic meaning of justice?
Try to put a definition like this:
Justice is the force acting on a unit charge to........
This is the only type of a definition that is accepted from an atheist.
I know that you have good things inside you based on what we call in islam the human fetra or you can call it the basic human intuitive.
Actually this is also a prove of GOD.

I hope at the end that you will reconsider your ideas about yourself and your position in this universe. I also hope that you understood more about our faith and if you didn't convert to Islam than at least you know that we have something to say
And at the end it is all your choice and I will end up by a quote from the quran

So remind them (O Muhammad (SAW)) — you are only a one who reminds. (21) You are not a dictator over them — (22)

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

ابن السنة

07-16-2010, 05:56 AM

Dear Charlie
I hope that after you read my previous message, the answer to your question who created God
?
is very obvious
The answer is
God cannot be created because he is the First

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 01:53 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Very intresting and long mail. I take it step by step, as you did and I use logic just as you say you do
I jump over the initial part of the message, because I don't disagree there. We have to use logic as far as we can. I jump down to Einstein.0
True that not everything that Einstein calculated can be applied to such extreme conditions that existed at the time for Big Bang and is very difficult to check. It works perfect in our world, but what do we know at that time. So, ok... this is a theory about energy can not be gained or lost. But religions are not even a theory. It is a believe.

Please don't call Evolutions or Darwinism as an Ideology. It is not based on thephy. It was based on theory initially, but today it is accepted and confirmed by science. And we don't talk about "some scientist", but probably nearly 100% of scientists, if you exclude some "scientists" educated in striclty religious schhol that deny all science that talks against god. We have that in other religions too, not just Islam. Darwinism is not an ideology. It is the expenation of how species evaluate and is confirmd by genetics. I am sorry you don't like so much to talk about evoluton as brother Ahhmed does, but if you don't do it you miss a very important evidence against creationism.#
I will answer some of your questions in the long mail later, because i go to eat now and prey to Darwin (hehe... just joking). 0
I jump straight to your last and much shorter mail. You said : 0
The answer is
God cannot be created because he is the First

But this is no solution at all! First you say nothing can be created, from nothing, than you say God appeared from nothing and not just that! Now he created the whole universe from nothing! From one impossible thingyou make two impossible things! Where is the logic you talk about??? And you say that is obvious evidence??? 0
Best regards from Charlie :-) 0

ابن السنة

07-16-2010, 02:56 PM

Dear Charlie

But religions are not even a theory. It is a believe

Well true and false at the same time
True if you mean that prophets didn't claim that this was an idea or a proposal
But false if you mean it is just a blind faith, May be some religions are like that. But not Islam for sure . We can discuss with you everything, Even I can send you one of the transmission chains of how the Quran was transmitted to us. I can send you the huge tree with reciters, back to the prophet (PBUH)
I can tell you how the sayings of the prophet were written. Everything is stored
So, please don't put everything in one bag.

Please don't call Evolutions or Darwinism as an Ideology. It is not based on thephy. It was based on theory initially, but today it is accepted and confirmed by science.

Evolution is a materialistic description of the evolution of species. If you accept that nothing is beyond matter, then it is the ONLY solution.

And we don't talk about "some scientist", but probably nearly 100% of scientists, if you exclude some "scientists" educated in striclty religious schhol that deny all science that talks against god. We have that in other religions too, not just Islam.

Lets say 99% of Scientists
Many of them just accept it based on the media propaganda, and if they don't accept, they will be treated as non-scientific
By the way, I studied Evolution at high school back home ( Egypt). Remember also that we don't have a religious authority in Islam. We have Scholars but still they are not holy or can have this status. I can disagree with a scholar and follow what I feel is true.
Again, Countries in the middle east, where the majority of the population is muslims are governed by secular governments and not as you think in Sweden that we are in the church controlling phase
:):

Darwinism is not an ideology. It is the expenation of how species evaluate and is confirmd by genetics

One small correction
It is the only materialistic expenation of how species evaluate
Not true that it is confirmed by genetics. The other way happened: Evolution as a theory " evolved" to be consistent with genetics
:):

But this is no solution at all! First you say nothing can be created, from nothing, than you say God appeared from nothing

No, I didn't say God appeared from nothing. I just said he is the first which is completely different
Remember that to say that an "entity" is eternal is not against logic
:):

Now he created the whole universe from nothing! From one impossible thingyou make two impossible things!

First let me define "nothing" in this context, Nothing is the opposite of things
Appearing out of nothing is rejected because there is no CAUSE for it. But I am not saying that here. I am saying that the second cause if you want to call it is created by the First cause when the condition of its existence exists
Remember that for a cause which may be an event of the cause that proceeds it, for this cause to exist, a set of conditions should be verified. And these conditions are satisfied by the cause that proceeds it. Get my point
?
Our logic leads us to this point: The second cause is fully determined by the FIRST. But what is illogical is to say that something appears with no cause which is equivalent to say something appeared out of nothing ( Absolutely Nothing

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Altur 35

I am sorry that this is very abstract

I am sorry that I can't talk about Darwinism, since it needs me to go and open the books again and I am very busy these days
But, I remember a very good book which is written by an -Anti- Darwinism ( Phillips Johnson).He is the devil to Darwinists
I liked his book
I don't know if you read the book or not
Its name is Darwin on trail
I guess you can find it on the web

At the end as Dr Hossam said: What is the relation between evolution and that God doesn't exist
?
If you go step by step, You should say ok. I believe in God but I still don't believe in any religion.
Then move forward and say, I don't believe in religions because they are against FACTS such as Evolution.
Then lets discuss what is a fact in Evolution and what is just a philosophy
And at the end FACTS will always be accepted

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

المهاجر إلى ربه

07-16-2010, 03:00 PM

press here (http://www.tvquran.com/jleel.htm)

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 03:30 PM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

Back to the questions about materialistic point of view. First we have to keep it clear that the pint of view on justice, humanity etc have nothing to do with evidence of god, or evidence for evolution. This is a completely different topic, but I like to talk about it anyway.0

Humanity and helping others is normal to every human society, no matter what you believe in. So it is in the atheistic or materialistic world. I don't see why it would be in other way. We will not be payed back in next life or after death, but that just means our help and generosity is more honest.We don't do it a s a deal with god like "I do this and this and this and therefore you owe me a place in paradise". We do it because we think we can not be happy if seeing people suffer. This is of course an idealistic picture. Like in every society people are often selfish and not doing what they feel is right to do., but this is the problem in every society.0

Justice: I can only talk about my point of view, cause it is not same in the whole secularized world. Well, I am against death penalty, because it can never be right to kill. If people do wrong, there are always background reasons. No one is born evil. If killing a murder would give back the life to his victim, than I would be for it. But it does not work that way. Justice has to be a good example to people. It it is not right to kill, than you make no difference who kills. This person who did it has to be treated like human being, but also prevented to kill again. If necessary, stay protected in a jail whole life with being able to live a human life.#0
For minor crimes, like stealing, there should not be cutting of hands like Sharia says. This is so primitive. And it is also a good sign that Quran was not written by some god than by a human. A god who wants to put humans on try and see what they will do (despite that he already know as you all say) would punish this person when he comes to heaven, or just deny him the heaven. Not tell people to cut peaces of his own creation. 0
#What you call fetra is for me a desperate need to have someone strong at your side. It is a need for power and what could be a greater power than being on same side as the greatest powers of all. It is often used to mislead other people. I would like to citate words from Desmond Tutu, a Catholic priest from South Africa: Your enemies are not Gods enemies. No one has right to say who is gods enemy. I am not Catholic as you know, but I respect this man highly because of many smart things he said. However no one has ever seen this god and no one will ever do it, because it is just an imagination. Yes, it is difficult to prove that something don't exist, but it is quite easy to show mistakes in every religious book. And since there are mistakes, what else evidence do you need that the book is false? A fantastic idea is not just unbelievable but also proven to be false. 0
Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I learn a lot here and it confirms my suspecting that I had from the start. Some people believe in god simply because they want and because it is very hard to stand against something that all the society you live in is saying. I could put here any evidence at all against god and you would still believe in him. But did you ever ask yourself a question like this: Why are all religions wrong, but only my is true? That was one of my first thoughts. Analyze your own religion like you would analyze the others. You have denied all other religions so you are very near the truth. I can congratulate you there. You just need to reject one more - Islam.0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-16-2010, 03:31 PM

Mr Press Here, could you translate to me the post card from Rome?What is written at the flags and around the picture. Best regards, Charlie

الاشبيلي

07-16-2010, 03:49 PM

Your comparing between a broken antenna and a dead person maybe sounds like a good compare, to compare a living creature with a technical product is quite irrelevant. You can not (yet) make a transplantation of a human brain and even if you could, that person would be another person, because our mind is in the brain. 0
#

hi again mr charlie

i can to compare between my heart and the pump of water but between my life and another thing like wave no i cant to compare strange !!! anyway

you said

You say God decides of who will be born. Does he do that only for humans, or even for every microbe and every insect? What a huge job... Maybe it is not so strange he does not have time to make a world better if he is doing that all days long :-P

every microbe every insect? what a huge jop

do think god ability like human ??

you think that because your mind can't imagian how god can do that

but for your information

god created the time so noneed the time to do anything he want

you said

And you say why are not black child being born by white parents and the opposite. What kind of question is that? This is basic in Evolution that kids get many of their parents abilities. The don't just have same color, but also similar look and similar abilities. But never exactly the same persons. This is what natural selection uses. The small differences. There is nothing in Darwinism that says two black parents will have a white child sometimes! That would be completely against the teaching. We are talking pure Darwinism here.0

no you didn't understand my question

i know why ?

but my question is i can to expect the color or the hair or ...etc of any baby by his father and his mother

but i can't to know his personality in his body like me and you this is big question

you said

#The reason why you are born one year and not another. What is that? It makes no sense and you sound quite confused there. If it is because problems with the language, than I hope someone can help to make me understand. Don't judge my mind as weak. I think with my own brain and I am in the minority no matter where in the world I am. I hope you understand that it takes some kind of strength to be in that position and not just follow what your own parents and the society you live in says. You may call me stupid, if you think so, but than you have to try talking smarter than me. But don't call me weak. 0

what is that ???

no problem in my language

but didn't understand

i was born in 1982 in aden yemen

why i did'nt born in 1756 paris france

1656,2890,.....etc

why

the big question is

why i born in this life

it is possible to come this life and go without give me a life

why ????

i wish to understand me now

and i don't judge your mind

sorry if u understood my saying mean you

i say the truth our minds

are still weak can't understand all thing in this world and universe

not mean your mind dear !!!

i noted you always say your parents choice

do know who is my father

my father was communist

he lived in ussr ( sovit union)

in from 1973 to 1978

and my uncle esstablished the yemeni socialist party in south yemen from 1967 until 1989

my father was atheists also my uncle

and i live in the book of carl marx and angels and lenin .

this is my truth dear

Next thing: If you really mean that you don't want to live if life has no higher meaning, than I don't want to debate with you anymore. I don't want to open your eyes and make you become suicide, or loose the lust to live. I don't want to have you at my conscience. I really mean it. So if you really mean that, than we stop here and I let you live in your fantasy. I really don't care about that, but it is a big shame that so many people preferto live that way. 0

i mean that your believe make the life without meaning

and why you don't want to debate with me

hahahaha

dear friend

i'm read many book of athiesim from charles darwin to dawkins to sarter and other

don't think that i will be athiest in anyday or i will suicide

this life in my body i didn't created so who created me in this life he is only has the right to take my life

and my last word to u dear

i'm not live in fantasy i libe in the truth way

at all

this is my last message to u because as i told u

i can't to continue

for many reasons

my brother ibn alsunnah and doctor husam hamed will continue with u in this debate

nice to meet u dear

realy

i hope to know the truth

your friend ashbely

:ANSmile:

ابن السنة

07-16-2010, 04:12 PM

Dear Charlie
I can give you my definition to justice
It is all what God does and order
:):
You cannot say this is wrong by any means

About stealing and cutting hands, these are things in Sharia and has some conditions to be fulfilled before. You just go and look at the last scene in the movie.
ِAnd these are rulings like the law. It is for the sake of the whole community not because of what you said
Whatever your opinion about Capital punishment, cutting hands: It is all your opinion. I cannot force you to change it . But I still consider them as fair and just.
And since there is no "materialistic " definition for justice and since every atheist has his own view of the world then you can't deny others opinions

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I learn a lot here and it confirms my suspecting that I had from the start. .

Which is let me guess that there is no God
:):

Some people believe in god simply because they want and because it is very hard to stand against something that all the society you live in is saying.

We said previously that this is true but still this is not a prove of anything.
People who are born in a socialist country will likely be a socialist
what does that mean
?
Nothing

I could put here any evidence at all against god and you would still believe in him.

Well I remember that Dr Hossam asked you to put such an evidence
:):
So please put your evidence

But did you ever ask yourself a question like this: Why are all religions wrong, but only my is true? That was one of my first thoughts

Yes I did
If I said for example that I was a Christian and converted to Islam because I am sure that Islam is the true religion would you then think this is great
?
Do I have to change my religion to impress others
?
I was born for muslim parents, but at some age I started asking questions and I found my answers in Islam. Is that strange
?

Analyze your own religion like you would analyze the others.

I don't like to go and criticize others. I always try to find excuses for others.
But at the end that doesn't mean I have to leave Islam. Yes I believe that others have corrupted their religion but that doesn't mean that they are my enemies
And I ask God that I can help them as I can to show them the true path.

Anyway, this is very far away from our discussion which I believe came to an end

Actually, I don't know if you in the last message is talking to me or someone else
:):
I gave you my evidence that God exists and at the end you said you are following your parents and criticizing others

Is that your answer to my arguments
???
Anyway, I told you before you have the freewill to accept or refuse

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-16-2010, 10:35 PM

evolusion is so complicated, so we have some 300 millions or 100 M or 50 M creature that havent change since that age??? why evolution is so selective???

BTW, i know that evolution dont stop at any phase, so from your comment:

Evolution is not a god that is necessarily changing the species. This fish obviously did not need to change. It worked anyway. It was not put to any hard challange by any outer factor. It is not strange that we find most of such species in the sea, where conditions did not change that fast and that hard, like they did on land

or theres some new thzeory on the principe theory that evolution stop on some phase!

and why many of species disapear around the world, cuz the climat and human activities right?

so, why they did not evaluat on something more resistibl to that change?

what you have seen on the links, tigers, insect, bears, seal,..... limur...ect...is that a creature that lives on sea or ocean??

no comment.....

for your task:

By the way, why did God make Quran only in Arab and not in English or Chinese? At the time of Mohammad world was still very big and for example native people in America or Australia (for example) had no chance to read it. Did they end in hell because of this? Not really fair in that case. He should have sent Quran to every continent at least ;-) 0

i leave some one how has more deep knowlege on religion, cuz i have not the necessary knowlege ........... but i have some point here:

god send mohammad with arabic holy book to challenge the unbelievers of Makkah, cuz Muhammad (pbuh) was analphabet, so its strange that an alphabet man like him (pbuh) come with that book that contain the most straight arabic language in the arabic .............peninsula

like i said is just one of many reasons, isugger that you ask how have more knowlege than me....

What question did I not reply, Ahmed? 0

is the last question in my lasts comment..... so we dont have to repeated....

ahmed

مشرف 3

07-16-2010, 11:42 PM

الإخوة الأفاضل: سيقتصر الحوار -منعا لتشتيته- على الزميل شارلي وعلى د حسام الدين حامد وابن السنة

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-16-2010, 11:50 PM

ican't continue with you , because the directors here sugger that you continue the discussion with someone else - to not divide you -...is not in my hand unfortunely

and this is the message from supervisor 3:

الإخوة الأفاضل: سيقتصر الحوار -منعا لتشتيته- على الزميل شارلي وعلى د حسام الدين حامد وابن السنة

mean: dear brothers, the discussion will be limited between Charlie and Dr. Houssam Addin and Ibnoussunnah

....anyway...this discussion with you was intresting...so hope your enjoing your stay here.

shall we finish the discussion here?

last message from AHMED.....

Charlie1965

07-18-2010, 12:47 AM

Hi Ahmed and everyone else

About the evolution. It is not a proces going on with a special purpose. It is not someone steering it and wanting to make new species and change the species. If a living creature is well adapted to the surrounding it lives in than it will not necessarily change. But just because this fish did not change (or changed just a little so we can not see it clearly in an old fossil) it does not mean it did not change enywhere. This fish could have been spread on many seas around the world and in some parts it probably changed, but this is difficult to prove. If there are very similar species anywhere alse, you would call it a new creation of God. Up to you.
But did you think about this: Why do we find so many endemic species on islands far in the ocean? Why do you think God placed them there? The more distant, than the more endemic species. Like Galapagos in middle of pacific ocean. What do you think? 0
About the question that I did not reply, please repeat it anyway. I have not time to search for it now.
Best regards from Charlie :-) 0

PS, Sorry I am short this time... Don't have much time now. Thank you for your patience.

Charlie1965

07-18-2010, 10:56 AM

Message to the supervisor: I would like to know why the forum is limited just for me Dr Houssam and Inb Alsunnah? What is the reason? 0

Charlie1965

07-18-2010, 11:22 AM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

You wrote this: 0
Again, Countries in the middle east, where the majority of the population is muslims are governed by secular governments and not as you think in Sweden that we are in the church controlling phase

I really can not know how the political power is divided between the religions and the politicians. I know for example in Iranthere are political elections, but the candidates must first be appreciated by the religious leaders. There is no way a candidate that is not a strict Muslim and loyato the religious leadership will be accepted. I know it differs from country to country, but Iran is not the only example I am sure. On the other side we have countries like Turkey who is very secularized and maybe came longest on that way, in the middle east.
Since you mentioned Sweden, we divided the political power from the church completely.
The church has no political power. Only people who choose to do it pay money each year to the church. This is good I think. If you come here and live in Sweden, why should you pay anything to something you don't believe in`And same for me as an Atheist. Just wanted to clear this out, so there will be no misunderstandings. Politicians here are almost never even mentioning religion when they talk.0
Bets regards from Charlie#

ابن السنة

07-18-2010, 04:12 PM

Dear Charlie,
It is nice to see you again
:):
Charlie, Actually we don't have something called a "religious leader" in islam. Yes Iran has that, but this is not in Islam. I don't know if you are aware of the different between Shiaa and Sunnah or not

I see that you are looking at the relation between religion and the government from the church-state point of view. It is not like that in Islam.

Anyway this is very far away from our discussion

For our discussion to be fruitful we need to based it on some bases
My idea is as follows ( and this is the idea of telling people about Islam)
1- Prove that God exist if so then
2- Prove that Mohamed (PBUH) is his messenger if son then
3- Prove that the Quran was transmitted to us with no corruption

This is the logical way, Any other way will be a waste of time. right?
I am still not sure if you understood my arguments about Creation and ts need for a Creator.
I see here that we are going astray from our path. State-Church separation, Cutting hands, Capital punishments are all secondary points. For you you don't feel they are humane and for me they are just and humane. My reason is based on the 3 points above. And yours is based on you denial of them. So we can never agree on them
:):

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

حسام الدين حامد

07-19-2010, 06:55 PM

Saying that proving that God exists requires an evidence that 100% or most of the people accept, that is nonsense! Here you count on a logical fallacy "appeal to majority" to prove a fact! A fact is a fact regardless who believes in it! You sound very logic when you say that darwinism can be right even if Darwin said he was wrong, but you sound anything but logic when you count on the number of those who follow an evidence to accept it. Again and again, you can't be 100% sure of something that you just bet I can't prove and you don't even know what I would say!

I will concentrate on the meaning of evidence

Your kid didn't deny your ability of bringing the book to show him on a video tape or in reality that you can bring the book and put it on the desk! The issue is that he didn't see you on Sunday putting the book and thus he postulated two assumptions that explains the "origin of the book"! It is meaningless to put the book on Monday! He simply replies that he saw you on Monday and thus he believes it, then he rejects your story of Sunday event as he didn't see you! Your story is not liable to verification or falsification! He is trying to be scientific and till now you can't answer him!

Ok … it's likely that you put the book! But it is of the same likelihood that another person came in and put it! It is likely that Napoleon won and it is of the same likelihood that he didn't win! Why do you give preference to certain possibility on another

Independent creation of species by God is possible. Yes, I agree that it's impossible that a god created himself! We don't believe in a "created god" Mr. Charlie! I believe in God who created all the beings and He isn't created, God can create species independently .. is that possible?! Ok let's postpone this question for a while till we agree on the nature of evidence that you will use to persuade the little kid

That example that we discuss is my clue to show you the importance of (traditionary evidence) in your everyday life! How do you know that Mohammed Peace be upon him existed?! How do you know that Napoleon won!? How do you know that there is a country named India that you never went to!? Why do you ask your kid to believe you?! What are the standards you tell him in believing someone?! You tell him that you are the one who put the book and another one says "no! it's me who put the book", what standards you teach him to use in such situations?! Have you ever thought of these ideas and the standards you use in your everyday life

I tell you that God created species independently as He told us. But you believe only in what is falsifiable, experimental and observational. You didn't see the event and the revelation is not observational nor experimental. You are not denying His ability ,assuming his presence, but you want a scientific evidence.

To sum up in one question hoping that you got the idea:
The kid tells you he believes only in what is falsifiable, experimental and observational. He didn't see you putting the book and saying you did is not observational nor experimental. He is not denying your ability to put the book but he wants a scientific evidence.

I think it is time to teach the kid that not all evidences are experimental and we should believe honest men when they tell us about what they did or saw. Otherwise we won't be able to have a sane life in that world! What do you think Mr. Charlie

Hosam

مشرف 3

07-19-2010, 09:43 PM

Wow, so many messages today :-D Thanks a lot guys. Hope I have time to answer them all, one by one and excuse me if I forget something . Please remind me if I forget to answer at something important... I try my best. Charlie

have now 4-5 people writing quite long or sometimes very long messages. It is tiering, but also very interesting. I try my best. It takes a lot of my time, but I enjoy it. I have full respect that you can not be here all the time and I hope you all understand me if I am sometimes slow to reply, or some day do not reply at all.

our policy in the forum is to make it easy for members and readers to follow the discussion, and as you said a conversation with 4 or 5 persons is somewhat tiring and it distracts attention instead of concentrating on certain points

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 12:25 AM

HI Ibn Alsunnah

I did not start the discussion about the connection between politics and the religion. It was just a reply of what you said about the situation in Sweden which was wrong. I agree however this is a different topic and we don't have to talk about it here and now. 0
I know there are differences about Sunni and Shia but I am not very good on differences. I know one of them does not allowto make pictures of gods , profets or any wholy
person, but i forgot which side it is. 0

Cutting hands and killing is not a secondary point. It is a sign of human barbarian past that should not exist in a good world. For me cutting hand and killing people, no matter what is the reason is maybe not an evidence, but a good sign the religion origins from humans. If there was a god who wanted to try humans, than he would not need other humans "help" to judge or to cut peaces of his own creations. 0
By the way, did you think of this: 0
If you want to try if a person is honest (for example you want to let him work for you in your house, but want to test him first) . How would you check him? I would maybe leave some money on a place that looks like I don't know about that money and see if he will steal it or tell me that he found the money. That would be quite a good way. But your god is testing humans by let them know they will go to heaven if they live in a way he wants them to live. What kind of test is that? It is like I would tell a person in the example above that I am checking him!? That is not a try. You make the deal with god. That is not a test...... Think of that... 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 12:29 AM

I appreciate the supervisors help to make it easier for me to handle the debate, but why can I not choose who I want to talk to? Maybe I want to talk further with brother Ahmed? Is someone being scared I know more than him about the topic and I might show that I am right? I don't think that is very fair. Makes me doubt in intentions about this site...#0
Charlie

أحمد فتحي الموحد

07-20-2010, 12:53 AM

so being a responsable of his actions and being respectious mean for you scared?

no doubt... western community hase the reverse look on all the matters of all what's happening in the world, for ex.: resistence = terrorisme for west. community, respect the humanity dignity is complexity and knob for you, killing some invaders soldier is a crime and killing millions of chidren, woman, is just a MISTAKE....

i don't bleem you

ahmed

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 12:57 AM

Hi Hossam, 0

Yes a fact is a fact. A fact is that the species on earth did not just appear, but did evaluate through millions and even billions of years. For you it is nonsense we need 100% evidence about god. That is why you come to such wrong conclusion about him. I never says that majority opinion means that is correct. In that case I would not stand in the opposition to religions, because most of the humans believe in some kind of god. I just expect to see a single evidence if I should believe in something that is unbelievable. 0

About the book and my son and Napoleon. Yes, it is true I never saw Napoleon and I maybe it is whole a tale....just a story. But it is very likely. I am maybe fooled there, but my life experiences tells me that it is very possible and I don't doubt it. If there is any error about Napoleon, that is for the historicist to solve. Even if he did not exist it would not change my world very much. That is why I don't look for 100% evidence. If we talk about god I have no experiences at all in my life that would even make it likely that he exists. It is for me a complete tale, just like Santa. If someone wants to show me that Santa exists than I require evidences. I think you understand the differences between those two cases, from my point of view, no matter how the world looks in your mind. Maybe you saw god, or saw him do some things. I haven't. Same with the book and my son. It is very likely that I put the book there. At least for my son it is much more likely than that god put it there. If he saw me on video that put it there... ok... he would be surprised he did not see me do that in real, but if a god on put it there THAT I WOULD CALL A SURPRISE... not just for him, but for me and every person on earth.., even you and other people who believe in god. You never saw god do it, but you saw other people do it. Maybe you would even ask yourself "Is this real?" 0
##As long as the idea of god is very very unbelievable I will deny his existence. Yes I do it. That is common human logic. Anything else is a wish to believe, not common sense that you talk about. 0

Bets regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 01:04 AM

Hi Ahmed, 0

Welcome back. I will never defend any killing of humans at all. No culture, my own or any other will get my support for any kind of war, or killings. I hope you agree with me that would make a better world.

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

07-20-2010, 01:13 AM

Cutting hands and killing is not a secondary point. It is a sign of human barbarian past that should not exist in a good world.

Please Charlie, Don't talk like that about my religion

Words like "good" , "bad", ..etc dependon your paradigm. My paradigm is very different from yours so we will never agree on these concepts

It is better to talk about the main ideas, If you falsify the bases of my paradigm then everything else will fall.
You don't like cutting hands then you assume it is a sign that islam is a human creation
This doesn't depend on the common ground between us. our common ground is logic.
Capital punishment, cutting hands ,...etc cannot be driven from basic logic
REMEMBER
basic logic doesn't change with time
Yes we can go and evaluate more experiments and understand more about our universe but still we judge logic
Less than 40 years ago, punishment by killing was expected world wide. Then now it is not expected in some places
right
?
What changed?
just the taste of people
This is not logic
So please lets stick to our discussion

Do you find any problem in my arguments about the existence of God
?
If so please discuss it with me
and please I am not telling you to accept Islam
I am not arguing even about islam right now

Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 01:20 AM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I am returning back a little about your presentation of yourself. Sorry it is a bit delayed. Yes, I did not know about your origins from Soviet Union. Like many of us you have a very interesting past I see. But, let me surprise you now. I have origins from a communist country too. From former Yugoslavia. I was however never trapped there. My father was Swedish and I could freely travel and see different cultures and compare communist system with the western one. It learned me a lot. 0

I will give myself freedom to analyze some of your decisions in life. It is not so unusual that people who live under a very repressive regime turn them self to something that is completely in opposition with what they hate. I guess you hated the soviet system and therefore, what could be more against it that religion.. and even better if it is a religion as far as possible from the Russians original religion. You know the truth why you did it. I just guess.... 0
I never liked the communist system in Yugoslavia either, but the freedom I had kept me sober enough to see that no system is just good or just bad. There were good things in socialist Yugoslavia, but I hated many things too. Sweden looked to me like a much more human country, with no death penalty, and freedom of speech! Today I see that not everything is so pink in Sweden either, but when compared to a communist country, it really looks bright.

This is maybe a sidestep in our debate, but interesting anyway. 0
Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 01:26 AM

Hi again Ibn Alsunah

Just a short answer, because I am on the way to sleep
What is wrong with your logic about god? Well this is wrong: 0
You say nothing can be created from nothing but God still did it, you say. He created the world from nothing, you say. He did the impossible. And not just that. Where does he come from. You say he can not be create and nothing can be eternal. But still you say he exists. Where is the logic there? 0

Best regars, Charlie

ابن السنة

07-20-2010, 05:40 AM

Dear Charlie,
I am not from the Soviet Union , and I have never been there. I guess you misunderstood me

You said:
“
You say nothing can be created from nothing but God still did it, you say. He created the world from nothing, you say. He did the impossible.
“
Let me explain this in detail
Your point is that Creating anything when it was not there is impossible and this is according to Logic
Lets analyze this carefully because we can assume ( me or you ) that anything we don't like is against logic
What is the meaning of “Impossible”
How can we judge that this action is possible or impossible
A logical statement is false when it contradicts a fact or another logical statement driven from facts
Lets look at this example
One day before you go to bed, you left your son alone in the living room and there were
1- A painting brush
2- Colors
3- A piece of paper

The next day when you woke up, you discovered a very nice picture. You asked your son
Who draw it
He replied : No one
You said: Did it come by randomly?
He said: No
You said: How then did it come to existence
He said: No reason, it is just like that, no reason for its existence

Remember this other scenario
You: Who draw it
He replied: My uncle came and draw

Well this is acceptable, because now we have a cause behind the action
Before going to bed, the picture was not there, but after you woke up it was there.

So far so good?
But now you are going to wonder, but this is different from creation with no material, Yes it is different in only thing that the material is not there.
Yes we cannot visualize how this happened but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Now you will say but this contradicts logic.
My answer would be why?
The universe ( let it be the second cause in our discussion) came to existence when all the conditions for its existence are fulfilled ( like the picture, we have the raw material and the artist)
All the conditions for its existence are fully determined by the first cause. It doesn't depend on anything, unlike the picture which depends on some raw material beside the artist. But the universe doesn't depend on anything else than the first cause.

This is the first point
Remember Charlie that all other possibilities for our existence are rejected based on logic, The only possibility is that our universe was set by a cause and I said that the set of causes cannot go to infinity because if it happened then we have two contradicting results : we exist and we don't exist
So the only possibility is that the set of causes are finite. So we have a first cause, and the first cause is self sufficient and doesn't look like any of the other causes ( second, third,...etc ). Please examine this point carefully.
The first cause is very different ( completely different ) from anything else in our universe. We cannot imagine him. The first cause doesn't need anything outside himself. You may say this is impossible
Well this is not impossible, because by definition of “impossibility” it is a statement which contradicts a fact or something directly driven from it.
So lets examine this statement:
The first cause doesn't need anything outside himself
What does it contradict with?
If I said A bird doesn't need anything outside itself then for sure this is a contradiction.
But I am talking about a very different entity: an entity who is completely different from anything else
Is that clear??

So back to our point of how God created the universe out of nothing
Lets examine the statement closer:
God created the universe out of nothing
Or :
The First Cause created the universe out of nothing
Or
The only self-sufficient, and different from anything else created the universe out of nothing
Do you see here what is the difference?
I am attributing the action of creation to a very different entity.
If I am attributing the action to me or you, or even Obama then you should refuse it. Because we know that no “ normal” being can do that. But I am attributing the action to the First Cause.
I don't know if you recognize the attributes which can be directly driven about the First Cause or not
Let me try here
1- Self Sufficient
2- Doesn't Resemble anything else
3- Very powerful, The first cause was able to create this huge unbelievable universe, including the laws that operate it.
4- Understanding the behavior of the First Cause is impossible by our human mind
5- Visualizing the first cause is impossible

So, When I attribute the action of creation to the first cause, I know that the first cause has attributes which is completely different from anything else. So at this point I have to stop thinking: How the first cause did that?Why the first cause did that? .

Charlie: At this point we have to stop thinking about things we will never know by our minds

You said
“
#Where does he come from. You say he can not be create and nothing can be eternal. But still you say he exists
“
I hope the answer is clear from what I mentioned above

Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

07-20-2010, 11:33 AM

ابن السنة

07-20-2010, 03:04 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

That is fine, but you can use the same logic and say universe appeared by itself. It is the same logic. I am looking for evidence of god, but what you present to me is evidence that can be applied on universe without involving god. Can you see that? Don't dig yourself in words like creation, eternity, appearing or whatever. The fact is, universe exists... we know that. How it started we don't know. God is not an explanation, just a view that actually complicates the explanation even more, as I tried to explain to you before.

Best regards from Charlie

No Charlie
The Universe is an event, which means that it needs external factors to keep it in its state
Remember the weired material that existed before Planck time changed to some sort of energy and elementary particles, and everything after the Planck times changes.
Space changes, Time changes, Mass changes, everything in the universe changes
which means that it is an event and needs external factors

I said previously

Lets define an event , E by saying it is an "entity" which needs an "external" set of rules to sustain its properties.
For example mass it can be converted to energy once the rule of "acceleration to hight speed is applied"
Time is converted to space when a huge object ( say a black hole) is introduced, so according to GR space-time will bend and time can be changed to space and vice- versa
Lets define a cause C by an entity which operates on an event E by the set of rules necessary to sustain its properties

I hope the different between an event and a cause is clear right now
Putting it simply the universe cannot be the first cause because it is changing and anything which changes need a cause to change it
Please try to examine my arguments more closely in a neutral way
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

حسام الدين حامد

07-20-2010, 07:19 PM

Hi Mr. Charlie

If you read your reply to my questions again you will find it sarcastic and aggressive together with a great misunderstanding and you didn't even try to answer my questions! Ok let's ,again, put it straightforward!

We have two topics: 1st is Evolution – 2nd is the existence of God
My example of the kid and the "origin of the book" is apparently concerned with the 1st topic. However, you think that analogy is used in the 2nd context and say that "if you saw that evevnt …….etc "!! Is it really that difficult or you just don't want to give a straight answer?! I will go with the 1st possibility and state a direct question

Do you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences?

Hosam

Charlie1965

07-21-2010, 01:48 PM

Hi Hossam

I read my previous message again, because you find it agressive and sarcastic. I wanted to see... did I really write like that. But I can't see it that way. Maybe you feel my arguments quite convincing and true and therefore you feel i am agressive. Feel free to read it again and tell me what is wrong in my way of thinking?0
But back to your message anfd the question: 0
Do you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences? 0
I do believe in things that can be shown in other way than by experiment. I even believe in many things that there is no evidence about, if they are likely. I believe for example that there is life even on other planets in universe (some kind of life) even thought we don't know. But it is quite likely because there are so many different worlds and life seems to be very adaptive. It appeared on earth, so why not somewhere else? But I don't believe in things that has no other sign of being likely, but people wanting them to be true. Believing is nice, but believing does not make things become true.0

Best regards, Charlie

Charlie1965

07-21-2010, 01:55 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

No matter what you say and what you call event and what you call cause, this explains nothing. The question is too complicated to be explained with your logic. Even an event is a cause and even a cause is an event. God is here just an unknown factor that is supposed to explain the world but explains nothing, just giving us more difficult questions. Can you answer me the questions: 0
What is god?0
How does he look like? 0
How come he exists? 0
How can he create things? 0
Where is he? 0
Why can we not see him or feel him in any other way?0

Best regards from Charlie

أدري

07-21-2010, 03:02 PM

Good news : God’s existence is now known

Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness does not exist
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily fales
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness
Therefore , being as a whole is un limited
Is the world equal to the being as a whole ie. is it the only being?
The world is compsite thus, it allows for movement
Movement decreases distance in one direction and increases it in the opposite
What is decreassble or increasable is limited
What is unlimited canno be decreased or increased
Therefore, the world is limited in extension and duration
The world is not equal to being as a whole ie. it is not the only being
Therefore, there exists a being other than the world in addition to the world
The world is limited in extension and and thus limited in duration
The absolute is supernatural
This being is unlimitited in extension and duration, otherwise it would imply the existence of nothingness
This being is not composite otherwise it would be limited
This being is unchangeable because it is not composite
This being is one because: > 1 absolute implies either the existence of nothingness or another substance that seperates them which will make them 3 and so on endlessly
This is because the unlimited can not be the result of > 1 limited being
The absolute is unique
Other than the absolute belong to category of limited thus can be many in conception
The absolute dose not belong to a category for he is the only unlimited

For detalils see “book one “ by elaref ahmed” published 2008

ابن السنة

07-21-2010, 04:36 PM

Dear Charlie
I am sad that you didn't understand my arguments
Lets discuss every point

No matter what you say and what you call event and what you call cause, this explains nothing.
What does that mean
?
How this explains nothing
?

The question is too complicated to be explained with your logic.
What is my logic
?
Do I have a special logic
?

Even an event is a cause and even a cause is an event.
An event can be a cause to another event yes this is true. But it doesn't have to be all the time. Why does it have to
?
This is why I separated between an event and cause and I said that I want to fix definitions but you said this is complicated !!!!

God is here just an unknown factor that is supposed to explain the world but explains nothing
!!!!
God is not an unknown factor as you say. We arrived to his existence by logic. So God is not just an assumption

just giving us more difficult questions.
It seems that you didn't understand any of my answers Charlie

What is god?
The Creator, The first cause ( up to this point)

How does he look like?
Doesn't Resemble any of his Creation

How come he exists?
He is the first or Eternal as you can say

How can he create things? 0
Based on logic, He can create from nothing
But the mechanism is not known

Where is he? 0
He is not in space or time, because he is the creator if space and time

Why can we not see him or feel him in any other way?0
How do you want to feel him
?
I told you that the First cause is different from any of the creations
No access to him except with our intellect
and then the guidance

Charlie
Two points
WE DON'T VISUALIZE GOD THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE
Explain to me how do the 11 dimensions of string theory looks like
?
Explain to me how does energy look like
?
Not everything can be visualized
But you want to visualize God, You assume he is a human being sitting in the sky and throwing the rain and blowing with his mouth to generate the wind.
God is not like that
The other point: if you are not satisfied with my logic so please point exactly to a point where my logic is wrong
I mean say I don't accept that result given this premise
Don't just say you put many more questions
This is not an argument
Even in science, questions arise once you discover something new. This doesn't mean that what was discovered is wrong
!!!!

The second point is
How do you then explain the existence of our universe
?

So please answer these two question

I guess we are at a point where I gave my arguments and you should examine them carefully and refute them if you can
Don't refute them by raising more questions related to other points like what you said
Refute the logic itself
You have 3 options for the universe to come into existence
1- Came with no cause
2- Eternal
3- Came with a cause
You mentioned that option 3 is the correct one
then I asked you about the set of causes and we agreed that they should be finite
finiteness means there is a First Cause
and we discussed what can be deduced directly from that and we found some properties of the first cause
If you see something wrong with this logical derivation please say exactly what that is
But if you just keep saying this raises more questions, then this is not an answer as I told you before

Best Regards

Charlie1965

07-21-2010, 08:08 PM

Hello Ibn Alsunnah

You write many long messages so forgive me if I sometimes forget to reply some part of it. I try to not miss anything important. But you ask me same questions many times that I already did reply. If you read my messages, than please try to understand them too. Don't blame me for something you are doing yourself. But, ok, I will try to explain again what is wrong with your logic:0
You explain existence of the world with God. He started everything. Evidence: Nothing can appear (or be created, or starter, or whatever you want) without a cause. Fine. But god just appeared, or is eternal, or whatever you want. God just exists, without a cause. You explain your event (the world) with a cause that is not possible using the same logic that you use in the first part of your logic. Don't you see anything contradictory here? 0
Please, don't ask me the same question again, but read what I wrote and think... or try to think. What did Charlie write here? Could he be right? 0

What I mean about your logic that explains nothing is that, even though your problem is pointing at a missing cause in the start of the world, it still does not show the evidence of god. Something else could be the missing cause. That is what I mean by "explains nothing"0
You say god is not just an assumption, but we came to him by logic. This is not true. Remember I let you go on with some presumes, because we were stuck and I wanted to hear the rest of your way of thinking. I tried to follow you and listen to what you say, but I did not see a god there as something else, but a wish, or something that will fill in a missing link. Ok, but if you want to convince me, than you need something better. Is the logic we talked about above your best evidence of god, or can you present something that is more clear? 0

You did not answer many of my simple questions, but you answered something else, or gave answers that shows you don't know much about god. Check this:0
What is god? Your answer is that he is the cause. Yes, but what cause? In your answer god could be anything, even Big Bang itself, or anything else.0

I asked how does he look like? You say he does not look like anything of his creations. I did not ask what does he not look like. I asked what does he look like. Your answer means, you don't know. Better be honest so we can go on. 0

I asked how come he exists? You say he is Eternal. But before we already talked that nothing is eternal. Ok, god is obviously against logical rules, so he is still there and he is eternal. 0

I asked how he create things. Your answer here is very straight and honest. You don't know. Thanks. I don't know either. 0

Where is god? Again you answer where he is not, but can not answer where he is. I did not ask where is god not? I know he is not here, but I wanna know where he is, if so in another dimension, or whatever your answer is. 0

I asked why can we not see or feel him in any way? Your answer is a question of how I want to feel him. Well, in ANY way... True I can not see the electricity, in the wire, but I can feel it if I touch it, or I can use it, or by many other ways. About god... I wanna feel him in any way! Up to you. Just show me some way that is obviously god at work.0

I never said that things that we can not see do not exist! Where did I say that? Where did I even talk that way? Please don't presume things about me and than use that to show me like I am someone who is not thinking with logic. That is not very fair and it just makes the debate long and meaningless. Please read my messages and try to understand what am I talking about. 0

How do I explain existence of universe? Well, I don't. I know universe exists, because I live in it, but how it all started, that is not known as far as I know. Even if we accept BB theory, we talk about development of universe after BB. What exploded, or why it exploded is as far as I know, still a mystery. It is very difficult to prove a negative fact and say it was not god. But as far as there is no evidence that makes it even likely that such a force exists, there is no need to show the opposite either. It is up to religion to show evidence. What we know is that world did not appear as it is, just like that. A long evolution of the universe took part after BB. Universe did not look the same way all the time. Same about life on earth. It took billions of years for it to develop. No religion says anything about evolution of species, but only about creation. This is maybe not an evidence that god does not exist, but it is an evidence that current religions are wrong, so even Quran.0

Don't blame me for asking questions. I have many of them and often people here don't answer them. It is ok. I have enough of them anyway. We are here to ask and to answer. It is not just your privilege to ask and my duty to just answer.0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-21-2010, 10:41 PM

Hi guys

I will be away from tomorrow 22 of July and maybe a week forward. Hope you have patience to wait for me. I will be looking forward to chat with you again when I am back. 0

Best regards, Charlie

ابن السنة

07-22-2010, 01:27 AM

Dear Charlie,
First I hope you a nice week, And I hope that you will think deeply of our discussion

Secondly I am sorry for my long messages

But you ask me same questions many times that I already did reply. If you read my messages, than please try to understand them too. Don't blame me for something you are doing yourself.
I try to reply on any point you mention, that is why I always quote your point first, then reply

Fine. But god just appeared, or is eternal, or whatever you want. God just exists, without a cause.
My reply is that he is eternal
Remember:

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,0
To put your question in some other way, you ask me if there is eternity. Am I right? Due to Einstein and the energy that can not be lost or gained, I have to admit that maybe eternity is possible.

So God is Eternal and you cannot have any problem with that

Don't you see anything contradictory here? 0
Please, don't ask me the same question again, but read what I wrote and think... or try to think. What did Charlie write here? Could he be right? 0
Absolutely no contradiction dear,The universe is an event and God s eternal why this is contradictory
??

Could he be right?
No he couldn't
:):

How do I explain existence of universe? Well, I don't
Ok This is the most important thing you said
YOU DON'T KNOW
I know I say God created the universe
If you have a better explanation then please mention it

What is god? Your answer is that he is the cause. Yes, but what cause? In your answer god could be anything, even Big Bang itself, or anything else.0

No Charlie, God is not just a cause he is the first cause. The BB can be a cause but it can never be the first cause because it changes to something else
Did you understand what I mean
?

I asked how does he look like? You say he does not look like anything of his creations. I did not ask what does he not look like. I asked what does he look like. Your answer means, you don't know.

Examine your reply again
God is not like any of his creation so how do you want me to describe him
!!!!
It is not that I don't know and someone else can know that, This is impossible
The problem that you think that god is some physical object

You say he is Eternal. But before we already talked that nothing is eternal.
I replied to that above

Universe did not look the same way all the time. Same about life on earth. It took billions of years for it to develop. No religion says anything about evolution of species, but only about creation. This is maybe not an evidence that god does not exist, but it is an evidence that current religions are wrong, so even Quran.0

When you know how the universe existed
When you know how the first cell formed
Then come and say that the Quran is wrong

Please let me know if there are some other questions that I didn't answer it
Actually I was thinking where is the problem in our discussion, I discovered that it is in this question which you just go an rephrase it every time
:

God just exists, without a cause. You explain your event (the world) with a cause that is not possible using the same logic that you use in the first part of your logic

Which means
God created the universe, Who created God

I answered that previously and my answer followed directly from the arguments
Please think of my arguments and see my reply to these points that you asked about latter

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

حسام الدين حامد

07-27-2010, 06:58 PM

Is that something you call convincing and true?!

For you it is nonsense we need 100% evidence about god.

I didn't say that! I will bring you a 100% evidence! But I won't bring you an evidence that 100% of people believe in and follow! There is a great difference between the two issues!

I should believe in something that is unbelievable. 0

Maybe you saw god, or saw him do some things. I haven't.

That is not sarcastic?!

At least for my son it is much more likely than that god put it there.

You never saw god do it, but you saw other people do it.

Do you even imagine that I may say that I saw God?! If not, so why you keep bringing that nonsense over and over?! Isn't that a trial to be sarcastic?!

Ok Charlie, I hope you understand that we have so much misunderstanding! You didn't know so much about Islam in your life, You knew Christianity, but Islam and Christianity are so different! So, you should have enough patience to understand us and get our belief! That's not too much to ask, is it?!

For example

Believing is nice, but believing does not make things become true

Again, Do you even imagine that I may say that believing makes things true!?
You just think that you know what I would say, basing it on your previous christian experience, and so you proceed to answer what ""I would say""!! Ok, Just be patient till the end, as you don't even know what I'm going to say!

Anyway, Back to our discussion:

you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences?

You said

I do believe in things that can be shown in other way than by experiment.

That's not an answer, I didn't ask you about "things" you believe in. I asked you about "evidences". So, answering me by things that you believe without an evidence is not an answer.

In other words:
What are the kinds of evidences that you build your knowledge upon??

Hosam.

Charlie1965

07-31-2010, 08:16 PM

Hi again guys

I am back after a nice week on vacation. I see long messages wait for me again and I will try to make my answers short and clear... If i will succeed with that, we will see..... I take it one by one :-) Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

07-31-2010, 09:11 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Well, eternity is maybe possible I said. I agree. But that means that materialistic, or energetic eternity is possible. So it needs no god to create it. It just evaluated since BB (even before BB, if it is eternal).... both stars, planets, and the life itself. If I understood your previous messages clearly eternity is not possible by logical thinking.... except for god. Am I right? 0

So what I learned so far about god is this:0
We don't know what he looks like
We don't know where he is
We don't know how he can create things, including life
We don't know what he is (except that you claim he is the cause.. but still, what is he?)0
We know that the only way for him to exist, whatever it is, is that he must be eternal. And the eternity is impossible in the logic you talk about, cause everything needs a cause to exist. So the only "evidence" of god is against the logic. Very intresting.... You help me to show that god can not exist, despite all.0

You guys help me to confirm what I presumed from the first day I was here. People believe in god because they want to believe.0

Did you think about this? Every single person who believes in god believes that god loves him and is on his side. Despite all talk of hell for "bad people", nobody think he will end up there. Even people who kill, or steal, think god would understand them. Even me who talks against god and do not believe in him at all can think this way. I can not imagine a loving god could not love me, IF he existed.... Unfortunately for all of us, he is the biggest illusion on earth. Why do all people think like that? Because it is much more pleasant than thinking god would hate me. We humans tend to believe in what we like to believe. 0

You say you know god created the world. Well if you can not give a better explanation of the questions I asked above in this message, than it means nothing. I can also say I know energy and material are eternal. But without explaining how, it does not mean much. I am honest and I say I don't know how it started at the very beginning, while you say you know, but still can not explain how. Words like " god did it" and "i know it" means nothing if you can not give any answer of the questions above. I can say Mickey Mouse did it! Mickey Mouse is eternal! The missing link... 0

#You want me to explain how universe started and how first cell started. 0
The first part I already said I can not explain. Science did not come that far yet. You can not answer it either. If science would accept just the logic you talk aboiut, than we could say universe is eternal. But science needs more evidence than that. So, true, I don't know. Neither do you. 0
About the first cell, i suppose you talk about living cells, there is more known. Even today we have viruses that act like dead material and can exist like that for thousands of years. When coming into a living body they start acting like living creatures and reproduce themselves. Coming out of the body.... they are like dead minerals again. Viruses are the most primitive form of life that we know. It is probably with them life started to evaluate.0
And yes, I can say Quran is wrong (like all other religious books) because there are mistakes in it. How can a wholly book have mistakes? Unfortunately you said you don't know much about evolution.. Well you should start to read about it, cause evolution is not something we believe in just. We know it works even today and we use it's principals to change the species. Did god create the dog pudle? Well you will probably say no, but he started everything. Ok.... If he started everything and you would accept the evolution as a part of creation, than it would be very difficult for me to talk against it. But religions talk just about creation, not about evolution. So Quran is wrong. I will talk more about this later. I talked enough now and unfortunately it looks like I failed to write shortly. No one is perfect...hehehe.... joking just ;-) 0

Best regards from Charlie :-) 0#

Charlie1965

07-31-2010, 09:26 PM

Hi Hossam

I am looking for the 100% evidence you talk about. If it is even 80% likely I would be very impressed. Go on please. 0

I am sarcastic you say... because I say I did not see god, or see him do anything. Well, if truth is sarcastic, than I am sarcastic. It is true, I did not see, of feel him.... or see him do anything. Honestly. Did you? I admit I did not expect you to answer positive on those questions..... You are right there. 0

About my believes. Here you misunderstand my meaning of word "believe" in this case. For example I believe in evolution because there are so many evidences about it. I believe in what is likely and what is believable. Some things I don't know if I should believe or not, and some I don't believe in because they are so unlikely. Religions are an
example of that. 0

Logical thinking that bottoms in life experience is a good base for my view at the world. Is that answer good enough? I have experience of evolution, but no experience of creation.

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

08-01-2010, 12:38 AM

Welcome back Charlie

Well, eternity is maybe possible I said. I agree. But that means that materialistic, or energetic eternity is possible. So it needs no god to create it. It just evaluated since BB (even before BB, if it is eternal).... both stars, planets, and the life itself. If I understood your previous messages clearly eternity is not possible by logical thinking.... except for god. Am I right?

Eternity of energy or matter is impossible Charlie, I thought that you understood that.
Let me explain that for the last time.
Matter transformed from one state to another
Lets assume that we are now in state z S0, then matter transformed from state S1 to our state and then from S2 to S1 and so...
So we have an infinite set of states . For our state S0 to exist we need all infinite states to be there and this is impossible.

We know that the only way for him to exist, whatever it is, is that he must be eternal. And the eternity is impossible in the logic you talk about, cause everything needs a cause to exist. So the only "evidence" of god is against the logic. Very intresting.... You help me to show that god can not exist, despite all.0

Who said that everything needs a cause charlie???
What I said that anything which is transformed from one form or another needs a cause to change it.
Everything in our universe changes, so it needs an external factor to change it

You said:

So the only "evidence" of god is against the logic
This would be true if I said that God needs the universe to sustain, and I didn't say that at all
And God is not transformable to anything else.

Very intresting.... You help me to show that god can not exist, despite all

This is based on your very wrong arguments and way of thinking

You guys help me to confirm what I presumed from the first day I was here. People believe in god because they want to believe.
Sorry to say it Charlie, You are not objective in your thinking

god loves him and is on his side. Despite all talk of hell for "bad people", nobody think he will end up there. Even people who kill, or steal, think god would understand them. Even me who talks against god and do not believe in him at all can think this way. I can not imagine a loving god could not love me, IF he existed.... Unfortunately for all of us, he is the biggest illusion on earth. Why do all people think like that? Because it is much more pleasant than thinking god would hate me. We humans tend to believe in what we like to believe.

Please Charlie, Don't use your Christian background to judge about my religion. I don't care what other people say and think. Everyone is responsible for the way he thinks and my duty is to show the way and they have the free will to choose whatever they want.

So you like us to call the first cause any name, mickey mouse bla bla bla, But God is impossible.!!!
Do you think this kind of thinking is objective !!!!
Remember that I didn't say God until I started to talk about the properties of the first cause
But once you saw may saying God , then you started to feel that this is very offensive

Charlie, I told you before that I am not ignorant about Evolution but I am not a specialist in the field, I know enough to discredit the theory.
Actually, from you discussions here, I discovered that you don't know enough about evolution. You confuse the term of things changing with time with the technical term of evolution which means mutation+ natural selection
Would you please show me one only one positive mutation that was found or EVEN DESIGNED in the lab??

We know it works even today and we use it's principals to change the species
Well if you mean hybriding species?
This is not evolution, this is known from ancient times, The arabs used to do that all the time for horses.
You stick to something and consider this as the true evolution ppl talk about

And yes, I can say Quran is wrong (like all other
religious books) because there are mistakes in it
Like what?
Have you read the Quran Charlie? I remember you said before that you didn't

Your Benchmark is Evolution: Who says that Evolution is mentioned in his book then you will follow him
We have a rule Charile
That if evolution is really a fact it will not contradict the quran by any means
But what you believe in and I insist on the word believe is that evolution is the only fact we know in life
and this is not true
Charlie Are you a biologist
How much do you know about Biology?

I will give an explaination of how life started and I need your opinion
Some ancient civilization living on planet X was very advanced and they discovered that a certain comet is going to hit their planet at a certain time, so they designed an organic material and sent it through a spacecraft to a planet called earth, which they discovered and studied for sometime, so they selected a type of material which has a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000
chance of survival and another
1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000
of advancing
and what they expected come to be true
Do you think this is logical
please answer
yes
no

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

08-01-2010, 01:50 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

We need to short down the messages. Both you and me. Let's just agree that we don't agree on your talk of cause and event and what can and what can not be eternal. This is for me a bit playing with words and not with the reality. You don't think so. I hope you have a better evidence than that. 0

#I am not a biologist, but i did have biology as a subject in the school, the high school and the university. Not as the main subject, but still enough to learn a bit about evolution. I am very interested in nature and I study wildlife very seriously, but no need to go deeper into that now. So if you say I don't know much about evolution, you obviously know more. Your latest message does not convince me much about that. I am however aware of the fact that I used the word "evolution" in another way than biological evolution. I used it also in evolution of the space itself. I am sorry if this brought the confusion, but the word itself means something like "development". The space did develop since BB. I will avoid using this word in the future for anything else than as evolution of species to not bring more confusion. 0
You talk about hybridization of species. Well, this is not how a pudle was created or any other race of dogs. We don't talk about mixing 2 or more species. We change the species by choosing just 1 species and picking the individuals that have the characteristics we want to benefit. For example if we want a dog with long ears, than we pick dogs with long ears and let them have puppies. Than we choose the puppies who have the longest ears among those and let them have puppies... and so on. The ears will become longer and longer for each generation. It is a small evolution, but this time not picked by natural selection, but by humans. Same we can do with the colors, or behaviors, or whatever you want. It has nothing to do with hybridization. In the end we change the species. If you think evolution is about hybridization, than you really misunderstood everything. On the contrary. Hybridization of two species who stated to become 2 diffrent species would make them become just one species again, if it would continue going on. 0
I say Quran is wrong because it talks about creation of species, not about evolution of species. I don't need to read the whole Quran to understand that there are mistakes. Do you agree that IF something is wrong in Quran, than the book is not written by god? Please answer yes, or no. 0
You want an example of positive mutation created in the lab. I don't know where to start. Beside all subspecies of dogs, cats, birds fishes, horses, cows, we use mutations in agriculture to get better crops etc. I know it is also used in medicine, but this is not my subject. Are the examples above enough? 0
Your final example of how life started I don't understand. You talk about moving life from one planet to another, not the start of life itself. So it is meaningless of going deeper into that.
It is interesting that you say that evolution does not contradict to Quran. Does this mean that Quran talks about evolution and not about creation of species? Please a short answer at that.

Best regards from Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-01-2010, 03:07 PM

Hello guys, how are you all doing? And Charlie welcome to this forum.
I have spent the past couple of hours trying to catch up and read the interesting debate you guys wrote so far before I could jump in.
I know supervisor3 asked that we limit the conversation to 3 people (which Charlie wondered about but his question was left unanswered >>>>though the reason Charlie is that we can better organize thoughts and not have you get confused with who said what like when you confused Ibn Alsunnah and Alishbeli. This is known in this forum so no bad intentions here and please don't make intention assumptions (more on this later below). 
I kindly request that supervisor3 allows me participation in this conversation.
I understand that English is not your mother tongue, although I think you have a good grasp of it. Some of the brothers here are also ok. I don’t want the language barrier to interrupt the conversation. My point is we need to build on mutual agreements so please no assumptions from either side about intentions. They simply can not be proven or disproved
Now Charlie (assuming I get approval to join this conversation). I think we have to build a common base before we should proceed further, because I see a lot of contradictions in your way of thinking. We have to agree on what we accept as “evidence”. I would say logic is acceptable. I would also say scientific laws are acceptable. Science theories are also generally acceptable, but are not necessarily ABSOLUTE TRUE facts especially if there are opposite theories that contradict them. I’m sure you’re aware of the scientific method which you learned in elementary school or middle school.
We:
1- Observe a phenomena
2- Postulate a hypothesis
3- Perform experiments and gather data
4- Analyze the data and interpret it
5- Draw conclusions

If one theory comes up and another theory contradicts it, then we have to admit that the theory is not COMPLETE. It’s not necessarily wrong in all of its assumptions (and chances are it’s not since it passed many tests successfully before it became a theory), but it’s simply not COMPLETE.

So now when you tell me that GOD is not likely, we are already in a disagreement because we say: God is very likely to us. God is not likely to you only. God is very likely to us. God is very likely to many great scientists. And NO! Not scientist that learned only in religious schools. I’m talking also about scientists that were raised in the US and Europe, and elsewhere. To assume that we say that because our parents taught us so is WRONG. You can not prove that. Islam is actually the only religion that tells it’s followers not to blindly accept their parent’s faith. We assume that you refuse God simply because you don’t want any religion restrictions to be imposed in your life. I can really make my case in this argument, but I can certainly not prove it. See this will not take us anywhere! You’re going back to intentions and assumptions that you have to challenge my friend just like we are.
If you read or heard somewhere in the past that people follow religion based on faith and because it makes them feel better and hope for an afterlife, and that explanation sounded plausible to YOU, it does not mean that this explanation is correct. It needs to be proven! We also assume that no matter what we try to say and get you to think about, you want to reject since your self-ego refuses to simply “loose” this debate. Of course I don’t mean to make this sound like some kind of a battle, but I hope you get my point. We will not accept assumption! We accept logic and facts my friend. If you agree to this we can surely proceed further, but if you have a totally closed mind (no offense) then you wouldn’t be challenging your own “beliefs” and “assumptions”.

Another point: if any side makes a statement and asks for comments on its truth, the other side is ABSOLUTELY LIMITED to one of three options:
1- You agree with the statement.
2- You disagree with the statement.
3- You don’t know for sure.

Take your time in making your decision, but in debates like this, we must make a decision to build upon it.
This means you can’t simply say: Well, I will assume I go with option1 to see where you’re trying to go>>>then if the result leads me to something I don’t like, I might change my mind and go with option 2 or 3!

Sorry for the long post, but you know how it is. You start with a short post in mind, but it ends up being this long 
Best regards,
Stranger

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-01-2010, 03:32 PM

lol< I forgot to state the following at the end:
Charlie do you disagree to anything I have said, or do you agree to it all?
best regards,
Stranger

ابن السنة

08-01-2010, 04:48 PM

Dear Charlie
I completely agree with Brother Stranger, We started based on accepting facts as the common ground between us
But actually the problem started when you said that you will assume that my argument about the impossibility of infinite chain of causes is correct,
We shouldn't move from one point to another one until we BOTH agreed on the point at hand
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

08-01-2010, 07:23 PM

Hi Stranger

Welcome to the forum. I hope we will have an intresting and open minded debate here and hopefully move it forward and give it a view from some other angles. 0
First to your secons short message: I don't thinkk you expect me to to agree or disagree with everything you claim. You forgot a 4th option to a statement: partually agree. This is the option I would choose. But I take it one by one:0

You say you see a lot of contradiction in my way of thinking. Well, please present them. I am curious to see that. 0

It is new to me that God is unlikely only to me ;-) I thought many people around the world would agree with me, so even the science. It is true that not all scientists would agree with me, but than we probably talk about some scientists that are working with others sciences. Among biologist you will find very few who will deny evolution. It is almost like a monk denying god, or historian denying world war II. They are very few. However the number is not the evidence itself, but the facts are. 0
But you are right. There are such scientists. I don't have very high opinion about religious freedom in US, or in Arab countries either. It is maybe not written in law that you have to believe, but it is not really accepted to speak open against god in US, for example. For example a candidate for president in US has no chance at all if he would say he is an ahteist. In arab countries I would say it is a strictly authoritative society. Since the birth, people learn to obey: Obey your father, your older brother, obey the teacher, the religious leaders and god, etc. You may deny this, but I see this among Arab people who live here. This is a problem. Religions say people should look for the truth (this is not unique for Islam), but if the truth does not fit, than the truth is wrong. Feel free to disagree with me, but the facts speak by themselves. Evolution is denied, by religion and still it is here and it goes on as it did for billions of years. 0
##Ok, this message from me is maybe not filled with facts that can be proven, easily, but I had a feeling you wanted to come with some intresting facts. I am waiting for that. Feel free to continue. Best regards from Charlie :-) 0

Charlie1965

08-01-2010, 08:03 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

You said you accept Einstein and that energy can not be gained or lost. This means energy and material (which is a form of energy) are eternal. If that is correct, than we need no god. The missing link is not missing. I would not go that far to claim we have evidence for that cause we have very little knowledge of the very start, but if you push me about Einstein, than it means you accept it. I don't see how we can go further here, if you first claim nothing can be eternal, and than say god can and is eternal. If you are not willing to admit that this is not logical, i hope someone helse here will be honest enough to do it.0
Best regards, Charlie

ابن السنة

08-01-2010, 08:54 PM

Charlie,
I never said that "eternal " as a concept is rejected. I will not repeat and quote the statements that we both agreed that this is acceptable, so please don't put words on my mouth that I never said
What is the law of conservation of energy Charlie
Energy input to a system is equal to the energy output plus the increase of the stored energy.
Nothing more nothing less
It is agreed between physicists that the laws of physics is only applicable after the Planck time which is a bit later after the BB
Another point which is worth to mention here is the concept of the universtality of the physical laws
This concept cannot be proven but it is taken as granted by all scientists
Again and Again Charlie
Matter cannot be eternal because this means that a set of causes can go to infinity

The whole thing revolves around this concept which you don't understand
Let us return to this critical point again
Do you think that an infinite chain of causes and effects is feasible and possible
If you don't have an answer to this question then you will not understand any of my arguments

ابن السنة

08-01-2010, 09:01 PM

Summary
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
and why do we then have to assume another factor beyond matter
i.e. this is a rephrase of the famous argument of all atheists God created the universe but who created God
4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible
5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

08-01-2010, 11:03 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

For the first, I did not say material and energy are eternal for sure. That was your interpretation. I just said it is possible that it is. It seems to be so, but you are right we don't know if this works in the extreme conditions that must have been before BB. There you are right. But if we accept that conditions were extreme and the energy was maybe not eternal, but appeared somehow, than how can you be sure your logic works there? Is this game with "logical thinking" your only evidence of god? If you have something better, than please try with that. And after all... even if I would accept your logic and close my eyes to things that are not so logic, than what? Is that evidence of God? And even better... IS that evidence that Quran is right? Or is it evidence that Bible is right? Or any other religions book? It would just mean that something logical (or not logical) happened that started the world, but nothing else! Still not an evidence of God. 0
You say matter can not be eternal because it would mean a set of causes can go to infinity. Ok... Than I think it can go to infinity. Rather that than someone who is writing books started it all. 0
Need to go now.... Will reply the next message later tonight, or tomorrow. 0

Bets regrds, Charlie :-) 0

ابن السنة

08-01-2010, 11:30 PM

Dear Charlie,
Thank you for your reply
I will wait for your reply tonight
I don't want to branch the discussion because as I said previously it all depends on understanding that an infnite chain of causes and effects is impossible
Please Charlie lets look from a logicla point of view. I told you from the beginning that we are judging pure logic
We arrived at this point to two POSSIBLE causes for the universe to exist
1- Universe is eternal which means has no beginning or end
2- Caused by some cause
Both raise the question
Can states of the universe or causes of the universe go up to infinity
?
What is here against logic
?
Do you find anything against logic up to this point
?

Thanks Charlie
Ibn Alsunnah

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-02-2010, 04:23 PM

Hi Charlie,
How is it going today, hope all is fine.
Sure, I’d love to have an open-minded debate and thanks for the warm welcome.
And let me start off saying, please do excuse me if sometimes I take a long time to reply since I’m very busy these days preparing to defend my PhD thesis.

So Charlie I’ll be very honest and straightforward. You obviously have many assumptions like we all do and everyone is biased towards what he is convinced of. We try to be as objective as we can, but to do that, we have to challenge our very basic assumptions!

First to your secons short message: I don't thinkk you expect me to to agree or disagree with everything you claim.
I’m obviously not asking you to agree with everything I claim. I’m trying to build a common base so we can carry on a debate. So I wrote a couple of rules and I want to see if we can mutually agree on them, or possibly modify them first before we can proceed.

Let me try to simplify things. Think of the debate as a game. We’re right now at the phase of setting the rules of the game before we play it :). We can NOT change the rules of the game, but we CAN add to them as we play.

So to summarize the rules:
1- No assumptions can be made unless you can prove them to be ABSOLUTE FACTS (of course to a certain extent). I’m not talking about 1+1=2; I’m talking about statements like: “we believe because our parents taught us so” or a statement like: “you refuse to believe because you don’t want to accept religious restrictions on your life”…etc. These are assumptions/explanations and we can’t build on them before we prove them. Another assumption would be: God is not likely to me. We say: well God is likely to us. We are already convinced of that just like you’re convinced of the contrary. I can’t build my conversation on the assumption that God exists (although I personally totally believe in him), nor can you build your conversation on the assumption that he does not (although you are convinced so). Remember what might be a FACT for you, might not be for me and vice versa.

2- Only once we establish something in common (add a rule), can we then build upon it and can not break it. We have to make clear decisions on what we agree upon. You can’t initially start saying: I agree on rule1 above for example and then break it during the debate. You can’t either say: ok I will temporarily accept rule1 above for now to see where this takes me. It might lead you to something you don’t like and in turn you can come back later and say: well I assumed I believe in these rules, but not really! In other words, any two parties in the debate can lie or not conform to intellectual integrity (for example be convinced by an argument but not admitting it!). We really usually assume such an intellectual integrity by default; however such rules can help a little in sustaining this integrity during the debate as well as organizing thoughts.

3- Once agreed upon, these rules can NOT be changed, but we can add to them.

4- The process of adding a rule is as follows:
I make a statement (or vice versa of course):
You either
A) Completely agree with the entire statement, and then the statement would be added to the rules.
B) Disagree with the statement. Can’t be added as a rule and we try to see why we disagree or completely drop it.
C) Don’t know for sure. Will deal with it later.
Note: if you partially agree with a statement that falls under either disagreeing or not knowing for Sure.

5- Pure logic is fair game (ex: two ABSOLUTELY contradicting statements can’t be both true). And math falls under this category (i.e. 1+1=2, or probability of flipping a coin and getting a head is 50%...etc)
6- Scientific laws are fair game.
7- Scientific theories are not a 100% proof, but we can build upon them since they’re very likely to be true. If something contradicts the theory (maybe another theory), then we can NOT build upon it any more.

I will show you the contradictions I saw in your way of thinking, but let’s keep this point aside for a second.

It is new to me that God is unlikely only to me ;-) I thought many people around the world would agree with me
Are you serious man? I hope you’re kidding. You’re probably too confined to your experiences that are limited in Sweden. The last survey I’ve seen from the CIA’s world Fact book conducted in 2004 shows only 2.4% of the world’s population to be atheists. So yes God is only unlikely to you and the rest of the 2.4% in the world. God is likely to 97.6% of the world’s population! So NO! Most people in the world would NOT agree with you. And YES; there are still people in the 21st century that believe in God; they’re 97.6% of the world’s population.
You live in one of the most atheist countries in the world according to many studies my friend. According to one study in 1999 80% in Sweden don’t believe in God. A later study in 2005 shows 23% only with 53% believing in some kind of force, but not necessarily God. Hmm I guess we’re not the ones affected by our environment that teaches us about God and Islam. It seems to me like you’re the one affected by your environment that teaches you atheism.
See where such arguments take us? No where! That’s why I want to establish a common background (the game debate) because your assumptions that might be facts/true to you can be false to me, and vice versa!
Obviously we can start getting into arguments like: majority doesn’t matter because majority is not always correct as you stated…etc. I agree with that but at least it might have some kind of indication. Can I prove majority is correct: No. But when we start getting into: what I think is likely and what you think is likely, then majority and statistics do make a difference. Hope you now start seeing the importance of building mutual rules before we can proceed further with our own assumptions. I want to eliminate such assumptions.

It is true that not all scientists would agree with me, but than we probably talk about some scientists that are working with others sciences
Again, no I’m not talking other sciences (which you need to define anyways); I’m talking about biologists, physicists, chemists, cosmologists, astronomers, natural scientists… etc that believe in God and there are a lot of them.

Among biologist you will find very few who will deny evolution
See, you’re making an assumption here: you’re assuming that believing in God requires denying evolution, or that if you believe in evolution then you should deny God! (Obviously I disagree with this assumption:)) and you need to prove it, but that’s for a later point.

I don't have very high opinion about religious freedom in US, or in Arab countries either. It is maybe not written in law that you have to believe, but it is not really accepted to speak open against god in US, for example
Once again you got it wrong my friend. You obviously don’t know much about the US or the US law, so I don’t know where you get you opinions from. It’s called freedom of speech and is in the first amendment of the US constitution. You CAN talk open against God in the US. There are other limitations, but talking open against God is not one of them.
But once again this is all irrelevant. It will not help us discuss and debate to reach to mutual agreements on points.

For example a candidate for president in US has no chance at all if he would say he is an atheist.
Well, legally they can be atheist; however population won’t probably elect them. Did you guess why? Because it’s LIKELY for most of the population to believe in God and would consider it very UNLIKELY for someone like the president no to believe in God!

Do you have a problem with people learning to obey since birth? And no I do not deny it. Actually I’m proud of it. I’m adding years of someone else’s experiences to mine.
Or do you want to say people don’t get affected by their environment? We all know they do. You live in Europe, and know the history of the Church and state. Church vs. Science…etc. my explanation is that your environment must have had a bad experience against religious ideas and churches since they opposed science and did terrible things for many great scientists. But whatever your environment or mine taught us will not help in the debate because once again, it does not prove anything. I keep emphasizing so hope you understand this point clearly.

Religions say people should look for the truth (this is not unique for Islam), but if the truth does not fit, than the truth is wrong
Simply disagree. Hope you understand by now why.

Ok, this message from me is maybe not filled with facts that can be proven, easily
Facts? Facts to you only. To me, your facts are simply not facts. I wouldn’t call them facts unless they’re proven and we both agree on them. So I would call them explanations or something like that but not facts.

Of course feel free to comment on any of my comments, however I’m waiting to see if you agree to the rules I mentioned above so we can proceed further. If not, please let me know which one and why. They sound logical and clear to me, but I have to make sure they’re logical and clear to you as well. Looking forward to “playing this game” with you :) with a sincere intention that we present to you our point of view and hopefully convince you of what you’ve been missing in your life. Will keep you personally in my prayers
Stranger,

Charlie1965

08-03-2010, 11:24 AM

Summary"
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
and why do we then have to assume another factor beyond matter
i.e. this is a rephrase of the famous argument of all atheists God created the universe but who created God
4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible
5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments" 0

Hi Ibn Alssunah

Well these are my comments on this summary: 0
1Accepted (although no evidence for it, as you will see later) 0
2Not accepted. Why? Well by logical thinking. We don't know any way of destroying material or energy, without transforming it to some other form of energy or material. So: Logically, what can not be destroyed can also not be created and is eternal. However I would not go that far to claim this is an absolute truth, cause we talk about happenings that happened in extreme conditions, before the time that even looked similar to our time. I say this because I want you to be careful using logic in the way you do. Saying that there is god only because "material can not be a cause and bla bla bla" is like saying "Someone eat the grass in my garden! There must be an elephant there!" The space is too complicated to be explained that way. There are actually "evidences" that 2+2=5. I don't remember how it goes now and of course this evidence has a mistake, but normally people don't see it. So please don't make an elephant of missing grass. For me this is a typical example of believing in what we want to believe. It is not a serious evidence and would not pass in any court. 0
By the way, you said that all atheist say "If there is God, than who created god". You are actually flattering me there, cause I did not read this question anywhere. I came to this by pure logical thinking, by myself. It is a very logical question, although you don't like it. When thinking of this I also though of the next question: If god created the world, than how did he do it? So from one difficult question, you put in god and get 2 difficult questions. You see, me and the "other atheists" came to the same question by logical thinking. Thanks for showing me that. 0
4This conclusion i already commented above
5This is also explained above. 0

You still did not answer me many of my questions, but ok.. I will repeat this one:0
IF there are mistakes in Quran, do you still accepted as a book written by god? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-03-2010, 12:33 PM

Hi Stranger

Despite all talk of objectivity and avoiding talking about things we just presume, you still don't read my messages properly and see them in the way you like. After I explain to you what I talk about I expect a clear excuse here. Not hidden in 1000 words, but clear and visible to everyone. I talk about this: 0

I never said most of people in the world are atheists. I said many people beside me are. If the number 2,4% is correct, than we still talk about quite many. That was just my reply to your previous message where you claimed that "god is unlikely only to you Charlie". Obviously, there are some more around the planet... 0

Next: I never said it is written in US law that people must believe in god. Unbelievable you can even say something like that. I just said it is not publicly accepted! That is something completely different. I also said a president candidate would not have a chance if he said he was an atheist. I think religion should not be involved in politics. It is so easy to misuse it. Please read again what i wrote and do what you should do as a gentleman. 0

Third thing you don't need to apologies for, but I add it in this mail anyway, cause you talk about not involving things that are just presumed, not a fact, while you still do it and just get to the wrong conclusion. It is true I live in Sweden, but that is not the reason why I am an atheist. I was born and grew up in Yugoslavia and lived in a family that was moderate religious. I became an atheist there. So if you look for a reason why I am an atheist you should look there. Or maybe even better: Look in the logical thinking. 0

The rest of your mail I will reply after I get your honest apologize for the things above. It is meaningless to have a debate if my messages are treated that way. Someone who starts to read the debate from your message, could think I actually wrote that way. That is a sabotage of my arguments. 0

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

08-03-2010, 03:42 PM

Dear Charlie,
I will try to be very brief

2Not accepted. Why? Well by logical thinking. We don't know any way of destroying material or energy, without transforming it to some other form of energy or material. So: Logically, what can not be destroyed can also not be created and is eternal.
Remember Charlie, that the laws of physics apply after the Planck's time. So your statment is not correct before the Planck time
This is number one
Number 2 is that we all know that matter and energy are things that transform and they need "external" factors to transform and anything which needs an external factor and transforms means that it is not self-sustained
Get my point
?

However I would not go that far to claim this is an absolute truth, cause we talk about happenings that happened in extreme conditions, before the time that even looked similar to our time. I say this because I want you to be careful using logic in the way you do
I infer what you mean here Charlie
You mean that under exterme conditions things may change, yes this is true for sure. LAWS of physics may change but we still have the other way of knowledge which is logic and we can go with logic up to the point when we discover that it is impossible to go farther
So a question like what causes the BB ?
is completely valid since the BB is transformed to this marvelous universe,
So yes we can safely say that laws of physics don't hold but still logic holds

Saying that there is god only because "material can not be a cause and bla bla bla" is like saying "Someone eat the grass in my garden! There must be an elephant there!" The space is too complicated to be explained that way
Well Charlie, at the end we both agree that the grass was eaten by someone.
:):
I may call it an elephant, you may call it someone else
but if someone says that the grass disappeared for no reason, then this is unacceptable for both of us right?

There are actually "evidences" that 2+2=5. I don't remember how it goes now and of course this evidence has a mistake, but normally people don't see it
Yes I know these tricks charlie, it all depends on doing things which is illogical but many people under estimate it like dividing by zero both sides of an equation,...etc
but still this is a logical flaw
Yes I undestand what you mean and I hpope I answered that in the last 2 sections

If god created the world, than how did he do it? So from one difficult question, you put in god and get 2 difficult questions. You see, me and the "other atheists" came to the same question by logical thinking.
Again Charlie, knowing any fact opens more questions, this is not a problem. For example when the study of photons started in the last century we have thousands of questions like how, why , what
this is acceptable

You still did not answer me many of my questions, but ok.. I will repeat this one:0
IF there are mistakes in Quran, do you still accepted as a book written by god?
Sorry I haven't seen your question before
Well it is not related to our discussion but I can tell you that a contradiction with a fact certainly means that some book is not from God

ابن السنة

08-03-2010, 03:52 PM

Summary"
1- Eternity as a concept is accepted ------ This is settled
2- Ibn Alsunnah says that matter cannot be eternal
3- Charlie says that this is possible
Not yet agreed by both of us, I am still to my point that matter cannot be eternal and I gave my arguments again in the last message

4-Ibn Alsunnah justified his argumnent by saying that an infinite chain of causes and effects is impossible

5- So the question is how can Charlie justify his argument about the possibility of having an infinite chain of causes and effects which is the only way to prove that matter is eternal
Lets wait for Charlie's arguments" 0
Charlie answered that under exterme conditions laws will be different and Ibn Alsunnah replied on that

At the end I want to point to one point
based on logic if we say that an infinite chain of causes and effects is possibe then this means that we exist and we don't exist at the sametime
I ( Ibn Alsunnah ) say that this is unacceptable
Charlie , as I understand, says that well may be logic will not work here because this is an exterme condition
Do you agree on that this is correct Charlie
?

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-03-2010, 06:15 PM

Hi Charlie,
I already am truly enjoying this conversation as I’m already learning another example of how different people think with really different mentalities.
It’s unfortunate that you misunderstood my comments and my main point. My main point is that if we need to carry on this debate/conversation as objectively as possible, we have to eliminate assumptions and agree on common facts. When you talked previously about believing in God and religions, you said that you don’t believe in God/religion because they ARE “so unlikely”. This is the context in which you mentioned the word “unlikely”. When I replied and said God is unlikely only to you, you must have taken this literally when I meant it within the aforementioned context. My point was: when you say something is “so unlikely”, this is absolutely your own point of view. Yes it is the point of view for another 2.4% in the world, but the rest of the world obviously has a different point of view. So regardless of what your or my point of view is, to be able to carry on a debate, we have to build common facts and see where this would take us.

You never said it was written in the US law that people must believe in God. I totally agree with you. I never even claimed that you said that! The comment I was making in that regard was that if you don’t have high opinions of religious freedom in the US, I equally don’t have a high opinion about religious convictions in Sweden or Yugoslavia! Once again the “point” is: it doesn’t matter what your opinion is or what mine is as far as this conversation is concerned. What matters is what we can agree on (or disagree on) and how we can build upon our agreement points to prove to each other our view points and possibly change our views, or at least challenge them.
I really hope you don’t misunderstand my main point again. And I don’t really blame you since you might not be exposed to this way of thinking before, but hopefully you start seeing where we are not in synch.

When I said you are an atheist because you live in Sweden, I was NOT saying that as a necessarily “true fact” that you needed to nullify and tell me how that’s not true. It was not a presumption I had, but on the contrary I was saying: I can’t use such an argument even if that was what I believe in. In other words, I was making that comment to show you yet another example of how statements like: “you guys believe in God because you simply were taught that by your parents/environment”, would not help this conversation as they have no proof to them and are built on presumptions.
Read my words again carefully and you will clearly see that right after that comment I wrote:

See where such arguments take us? No where! That’s why I want to establish a common background (the game debate) because your assumptions that might be facts/true to you can be false to me, and vice versa!

As a matter of fact if you read each one of the points you demanded an apology for, you would find that at the end of each one of them, I keep repeating something like: “But all that does not matter because it does NOT proof anything”. Hopes this assures you that you took my words out of context.

Finally I honestly do not mean to disrespect you in any way shape or form. This is actually part of our own religion and convictions.

Let me also give you an advice regarding your last comment (feel free to reject it or possibly benefit from it as it’s clearly my own personal opinion and is not part of the debate):

Someone who starts to read the debate from your message could think I actually wrote that way. That is a sabotage of my arguments

My advice: revisit your intentions. Are you involved in this debate because you want to show people that you are “right”? People don’t matter, and don’t place this as hindrance to objectively trying to learn something out of this debate. People could greatly influence someone’s objectivity. I’m assuming you’re here to learn something because you did indicate that you joined this forum to see how we could believe in God and find out more about reasons of why we believe. I think being open-minded means that I would be willing to understand someone else’s view points and possibly change some of my own views vs. coming in with a predetermined mentality and not even thinking of the possibility that I could be wrong. So think about that for a second. Also let me know if it would help to carry on this conversation privately.

I swear every time I try to make my messages short, it just gets’s longer. We should probably have a maximum of like 30 lines per post 

We truly want you to enjoy your stay here, so really nothing personal and absolutely no disrespect and ill feelings.

Let me know if we can continue now and start a fruitful debate, if so refer to my previous post and check out the rules for the debate game and let me know
stranger.

Charlie1965

08-04-2010, 01:20 PM

Hi again Stranger

Actually I should have replied Ibn Alsunnah first, but since I will keep it shorter with you, I take you first. Well, I enjoy this forum a lot too. If you want to continue enjoying the debate, than better show respect. I had long and intensive debates here and although there is a big disagreement between me and the debaters here I learn something every day and we show respect to each others. Despite some hard talk sometimes#I did not experience anyone here trying to manipulate my words in a way you do. That is why I expect an apologize. If you are not ready to do what every gentleman would do, than there is no reason for me to chat with you. I don't see what this has to do with different mentalities. I though that in no culture it is ok to manipulate others words to make it look like the other side is talking stupid. If you want to call me stupid, that is ok. I can fight back in the same way, but I refuse to have a debate in the way you do. That is boring and tiering. I will not sink to that low level. Do you have problems taking responsibility for your own actions? Is that a mentality, or a cultural problem? Is it difficult for a man in your culture to ask for apologize for something he did wrong? Well, it is up to you and the way you were raised. I have other people here who respect me and I will gladly continue my chat with them. I don't have time to waste on things like this... 0

Charlie

Charlie1965

08-04-2010, 03:25 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Thanks for your latest reply. Before I go on answering your question, i will put one by myself:
Does Quran talk about creation, or about evolution? By evolution here I mean something like god created the world and the life and than make it evolute. 0

Back to your latest comments. 0
You insist on finding evidence for god by using "logic". Well, that sounds nice in our world. But as we did agree the extreme conditions before BB can not necessarily be explained by the logic from our time. You say however that logic is always the same. Well, you mentioned Quantum physics by yourself a while ago. In our world things can not go through a wall, or just appear on other place. This is not logical but in Quantum physics it is maybe possible. We don't know how material acts in such extreme conditions as it must have been at the time of BB. So don't say logic is always the same. That is why I mean, you make some too big conclusions about things we know too little about. 0
If you don't agree with me, than at least try to understand why I think the way I do. Your "evidences" are simply not convincing. Can you understand why I see it that way? Can you see the problem in trying to explain god by the logic you try to use? 0
For the same reason I don't push on saying that material is eternal, although the pure logic says it is. Can not be destroyed and can not be created..... just transformed. But is this valid even for the time before BB? I think, yes, but I can not prove that. We must be realistic and treat out own thoughts critically. 0
I agree that in science one answer will often open more questions. However in this case we have the basic question remaining. Beside the two questions I mentioned, we also have the question: what is god? So far I mostly got replies what god is not, what he does not look like, etc. The conclusion that there must be a god is leaving this too big question without a reply: What is god? We have an answer that is not an answer, if you understand what I mean. 0
It seems like this way of debating will not make us agree. I would like if you could tackle the problem from some other side. I hope this is not your only evidence of god, cause from my point of view it is a very poor way to convince an objective and critical person. 0
I did not understand your last statement: "If an infinite chain of causes and effects is possible than we exist and don't exist at the same time!" Can you explain this? Why would it have to be that way? 0

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

08-04-2010, 03:26 PM

Dear Charlie
Sorry for interruption but I feel that you misunderstood Stranger. Stranger means that we shouldn't discuss things which we cannot prove. Either from your side or from muslims side
I enjoy the discussion too and I hope we call it discuassion rather than debate because "discussion " is more friendly to me
I actually hope at the end, that you will learn more about how we think. Please be sure that I am not going to manipulate logic to convience you of something
I will not gain anything of doing that.
Again, I think you misinterpreted stranger's words

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-04-2010, 04:23 PM

Hi Charlie,
Hope all is fine for you. Take it easy my friend>,
Once again I do think you misunderstood my words. You're demanding an apology for me manipulating your words, but I thought I clarified in the previous post how I never manipulated your words.
I'm not saying your stupid at all and I never claimed that.
I really want to spend the time on a fruitful discussion and don't want to waste time on such things
I said it before and I'll say it again: I do respect you by all means .
If you will insist, show me again where I manipulated your words, and I will be more than glad to apologize if you can prove it.

Charlie1965

08-04-2010, 10:32 PM

Hi guys

It is amazing me that Ibn Alsunnah is saying I misunderstood Strangers words. It would have been more honest to defend him by saying he misunderstood my words. That would help him more.
This is very clear: I wrote #"It is maybe not written in law that you have to believe, but it is not really accepted to speak open against god in US (i was talking about arab countries too), for example. For example a candidate for president in US has no chance at all if he would say he is an atheist..." 0
Stranger replies: "Once again you got it wrong my friend. You obviously don’t know much about the US or the US law, so I don’t know where you get you opinions from. It’s called
freedom of speech and is in the first amendment of the US constitution..." 0

Next example. I wrote: "It is new to me that God is unlikely only to me (Stranger said so in the previous message). I thought many people around the world would agree with me, so even the science." 0
Stranger replies: "Are you serious man? I hope you’re kidding. You’re probably too confined to your experiences that are limited in Sweden. The last survey I’ve seen from the CIA’s world Fact book conducted in 2004 shows only 2.4% of the world’s population to be atheists. So yes God is only unlikely to you and the rest of the 2.4% in the world. God is likely to 97.6% of the world’s population! So NO! Most people in the world would NOT agree with you." 0

I never said they would. Read my messages more carefully before you reply. Is it a Muslims duty to always defend another Muslim#against a non-Muslim, regardless if he is right or wrong? If I had an Atheist here who would talk like that, I would not try to defend him, but correct him. I don't need any false evidences or arguments to defend the truth, which I always look for. 0

Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-05-2010, 12:06 AM

Hi Charlie,
Let me start off with a saying of our prophet (PBUH); he said: “Support your brother whether he is a transgressor or has been wronged; they said, Oh Prophet of God: we would support him when he has been wronged, but how would we support him when he’s a transgressor? The prophet (PBUH) said: “by stopping him from transgression”.

We don’t support each other blindly; we actually would stand on your side if you were wronged. Not sure why you seem to assume that we have bad intentions and purposefully manipulate your words to mean something else. We really don’t and I feel that you’re taking this way too personal.

Exclude the president and high political offices; anyone can actually freely talk against God in public, and that’s supported by freedom of speech. I see it here day and night and it is acceptable unfortunately. I really don’t see where I manipulated your words. I simply refused them or disagreed to them. We can argue over this for a long time, but Charlie, what would this add to the debate? Nothing! And this is my point I’ve been trying to make since my first post.

I already explained that you took the words too literal and out of the context of what likely or unlikely would mean to God. Think about the context:

You said:

Some things I don't know if I should believe or not, and some I don't believe in because they are so unlikely.

I said: God is unlikely to you only but is likely to us.

You took it literally to mean: (You’re the only one in the world who believes that god is unlikely). Clearly I know that other people besides you don’t believe in God in this world.
But what I meant within the context of my talk is: “you can’t use such arguments, because I can say God is likely to me. And if we look around the world we will see that actually God is likely to most people. So point: such arguments do NOT matter since again they will not help the debate. Once again I don’t see where I manipulated your words, I simply refused your argument and gave you an example of how such “opinionated” arguments won’t help in the debate. It’s facts and agreement points that we can build upon only. I really can’t be clearer than that!

Can we stop being too literal in understanding sentences.
Can we get started with a fruitful debate? Or will you not believe me and still cling to the idea that I have manipulated your words when I didn’t?

Charlie1965

08-05-2010, 12:40 AM

No Stranger, we can not go back to the topic as long as you don't understand what is a nice custom in having a conversation. The problem is not that you said I am the only one who think god is unlikely. The problem is that in next message you claim I said most of the worlds population is atheists, and you talk in a way "Are you serious!?" That is manipulation. The problem is not that you tell me about the US constitution, but that you talk in a way as if I claimed that there is no freedom of speech or freedom of religion in US law, which I never claimed. And you continue with "Obviously you don't know much about US law", or something like that. What is obvious? That you talk of what you want to hear from me, not what you heard. The problem is also that in the first message after i pointed this, you say "I already enjoy this debate" . What was so enjoyable in starting with manipulating my comments and making me upset? 0
What would you say if i debate this way: "Stranger! You are are so cruel! You should never beat up your mother! That is a bad custom!" You would be upset and say you never do it.... And than I could reply "I did not say you did! I just said you should not do it!" That would be a pathetic way to debate and would not lead us anywhere. As long as you don't understand that, what is the point of debating with you? 0

By the way, helping a human being is nice, by correcting him when doing wrong. Ibn Alsunnah who I respect highly as a conversation partner, (although I disagree with his way of thinking) is not doing that. He supports you in doing wrong. That is not what your prophet teaches, if I understand correctly. But since we talk about that, I agree that people should get a support when doing wrong. I support politic parties that are thinking that way. No one is born evil and if someone steals, the society should help him to come back to the right way. Not cut of his hands. No thanks, for that kind of help. 0
However, there is no need for you to reply this. At least don't expect much of an answer by me. Would have been easy to say:"Sorry Charlie". I did not read your message properly and that is why i misunderstood your messages." We would have put a line over it and continue the talk. Instead you try to make me "understand" that I did not understood your message.... I will continue my discussion with Ibn Alsunnah and the others online till you do what you should have done. I really don't need this way of debating. It is quite boring. We have much more interesting things to talk about.0

Charlie

ابن السنة

08-05-2010, 01:18 AM

Dear Charlie,
I am not supporting Stranger for doing something wrong. Actually I understood that he doesn't mean to hurt you , he was just giving examples.
Actually Charlie, many times you say very agressive statements and I just skip them because first they are out of our discussion and second because I know that your point of view is very different and I assume always that you don't mean any hurt
For example

No one is born evil and if someone steals, the society should help him to come back to the right way. Not cut of his hands. No thanks, for that kind of help
Well this is hurting to all of us, But I always try to skip such statements
Believe me Charlie, There is no bad feelings or intentions here. In contrary we are doing our best to make you enjoy your stay here
As I see from Stranger's comments in other places here, I infer that he is open minded and trying to b good with everyone. So I interpret what he says in a good way
Lets go to the real meat Charlie.
Best Regards

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-05-2010, 01:39 AM

Charlie,
I have no problems to say sorry I misunderstand your words, but I truely think that you're completely misunderstanding my entire argument. I probably said it 10 time so far. What really matters is the actual debate which has different points of views. What you think or believe and what I think and believe are already different. It seems to me like you just want to argue too much for something too personal. I can take things personal and show you how you have already showed disrespectful to us in many previous statements you made . We ignore these because we know you don't necessarily mean to be disrespectful and move on to the actual debate to get some intellectual profit out of a fruitful discussion>> .
The main problem I see here is to "agree" on anything. you're approaching a very different mentality and different way of thinking so don't expect assumptions on either side to be necessarily clear to the other side.
it's simple: you believe I intentionally manipulated your statements. I'm saying no that's sincerely not true. If we will get into each other's "intention" we will never go anywhere trust me.
I don't by the way see how the talk about helping others is relavent in this matter.
so hope we're clear now. If not then feel free to let us know. if so, let's finally move forward
stranger

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-05-2010, 01:44 AM

Charlie, I read Ibn Alsunnah's post after I posted mine (although his was posted first) Do you see the following coincidental similarities:
Ibn Alsunnah:

Actually Charlie, many times you say very agressive statements and I just skip them because first they are out of our discussion and second because I know that your point of view is very different and I assume always that you don't mean any hurt

Me:

I can take things personal and show you how you have already showed disrespectful to us in many previous statements you made . We ignore these because we know you don't necessarily mean to be disrespectful and move on to the actual debate to get some intellectual profit out of a fruitful discussion

Does this at least tell you something about how we're perceiving your comments? Would you please apologize for it?

أدري

08-05-2010, 02:05 AM

Hello guys,

I am following your discussions and after the permission of the supervisor and Ibn Suunna I would like to participate in the discussion

Hi Charlie and welcome

you said to Ibn Suunna in a statement summarizing the previous discussions

I would like if you could tackle the problem from some other side. I hope this is not your only evidence of god, cause from my point of view it is a poor way to convince an objective and critical person

And since the discussions on finding a better way of evidence or proof for god’s existence by using logic, I would like you to look into the following five statements below and comment if you agree with me or not as first step. And then we can move to the answer of the last question.

Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness does not exist
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness
Therefore, being as a whole is un limited

Is the world equal to the being as a whole ie. is it the only being?

To follow …

Regards from Ibrahim

Charlie1965

08-05-2010, 09:56 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Well, maybe my words can sound aggressive when I am upset, but I am not an aggressive person. In fact I am a very peaceful person, but I become upset when I hear what people can do to each other for some "higher purpose". I was actually thinking, should I mention the thing about cutting off hands, cause there was a risk it would steer away the debate from the main part of my message, about misbehavior that I saw in Strangers way of debate. However I took the risk because I realized that he refuses to see what he did wrong and you certainly did not help him, by "understanding him", and not understand me. It is up to you guys. 0
I will always be against cruelties that people do to each other. When you say you are all hurt by this, I did not understand if you are hurt cause I mentioned it, or because this happens in Islam? If it is the later case, than I completely sympathize with you and agree , with you. If it is the first case, than I have to ask you. Am I wrong? Is this not written in Sharia? If I am bad informed, than I would feel ashamed for saying this and even ask for apologize. If I am correctly informed (by my friend Abdellah, who wanted me to join this forum) than anyone who supports this should be ashamed. And I repeat the question: "Is this a way to help a brother"? 0
Finally I don't think this is so far from our initial debate. I would like to move it forward and show that Quran can impossibly be written by any kind of a god, but by a human with all human weaknesses, like Sharia shows. So far we spoke for 12 sides about "logic" and did not come very far. It is time to go further. 0

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

08-05-2010, 10:27 PM

I will always be against cruelties that people do to each other. When you say you are all hurt by this, I did not understand if you are hurt cause I mentioned it, or because this happens in Islam? If it is the later case, than I completely sympathize with you and agree , with you. If it is the first case, than I have to ask you. Am I wrong? Is this not written in Sharia? If I am bad informed, than I would feel ashamed for saying this and even ask for apologize. If I am correctly informed (by my friend Abdellah, who wanted me to join this forum) than anyone who supports this should be ashamed. And I repeat the question: "Is this a way to help a brother"? 0
It is the first case. Yes you are wrong because you accuse islam for being cruel. Your friend Abdalah told you that it is mentioned in the sharia and yes it is. But you may not be aware of how these punishments apply and what are the conditions that are applied before doing any punishment.
This is a way to help the community from Criminals. Please Charlie, "Cruel " "justice" and things like that are very vague. Can you define for me these terms
If you say it is cruel to cut hands, I will tell you not it is just, It is cruel to steal someone's wealth. And again you cannot apply these rules except if their conditions are satisfied, so if there is hunger, poverty or you cannot prove stealing by 100% then the punishment will not be done
So if someone just doesn't care of the punishment and was proven 100% to be guilty then the punishment will be applied if not then it will be suspended

Let me ask you do you want to our discussion about existence of God or no
?
because if you don't want to continue we can close this discussion and start another one about whatever you like

Thank you

Charlie1965

08-05-2010, 10:53 PM

Hi Ibrahim

Welcome to this forum. I will gladely look for new ways to tackle the problem. However after 12 sides of playing with words I would prefer any other sort of evidences. I don't want to disrespect your try, but looking for evidences for god this way is not a good way I feel. What Ibn Alsunnah can prove in best case is that there must be some explanation for the missing link in his chain. Nothing else. This link could be a god, but could also be any kind of abnormal behavior of universe due to the extreme conditions that universe obviously was in at the time for BB.#I will develope it more in the messages with IA, butI mention this cause I have a feeling you are at the same way. 0
Straight to your questions. First I feel we are playing a new word gamethat will not lead us anywhere and I feel there is no meaning for me to reply them and let you continue. I guess you would insist anyway, so I will try, but everything depends on what meaning you give to these words. ok..let's go: o
Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness sounds to me more like the opposite of everything. 0
Nothingness does not exist
It is a typical way of playing with words. If we say there is nothingness in the box, than it is a word that describes the situation in the box and the empty box does exist. 0
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false
I just gave you the example above. It is all about what meaning we give to the word. Nothingness can also be a completely abstract word, explained by number 0 (zero) in mathematics. To say that this is false is not true. So the statement should be false, because it talks about "any statement" 0
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness- Therefore being as a whole is unlimited
Honestly I am not understand this statement. Maybe it is my poor English that does it, or your english. Could you put it in some other way? If my trousers are whole, without any holes, does it mean they are unlimited, or they are not whole? You see we play with words... or maybe I missunderstood this latest statement. 0
Is the world equal to being as a whole ie is it the only being? 0
This one I also did not understand. Are we talking about world as the planet earth, or the whole universe? However it all depends on where we put the limit of what is universe. This is a question for the cosmology and there are so far just theories about is there only one universe, or more than that.... You maybe know. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-05-2010, 11:01 PM

Hello "Thank you" 0

If it is Ibn Alsunnah talking, than I would love to continue the debate. If it is Stranger talking, than I think we have finished. I prefer to talk to people who are showing respect to my opinion, regardless if they agree or not and who have the strength to admit they did a mistake, when doing so. So who is "Thank you"? 0

Charlie

ابن السنة

08-05-2010, 11:23 PM

Dear Charlie,
Sorry that I didn't sign in the last message
It is me Ibn Alsunnah
please lets be on track again
I believe I was the last one to talk about our topic , so please go back and have a look to what I said previously
Lets try to relax in our discussion and hope at the end that we will understand each other more.

Charlie1965

08-06-2010, 12:05 AM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I am trying to have a relaxed conversation. It is not always easy. I refuse to let people treat me personally in a bad way. It would have been easier if you helped your brother to see what he did wrong. If he manipulates my word, no matter, if he did it by purpose, or by mistake, it is just to admit that and correct it as a man. No more problems. Instead he continues with "enjoying" the debate, when he just heard he made me upset with a good reason. Up to him. I also prefer to #go on with our debate. 0

It is obvious that our worlds are very far from each other. I have a completely different view at how a good world should look like. Cutting off hands can never be accepted in my mind. Who should judge after all? You say it is "accepted" to steal if there is poverty. Not literally that way, but something like that. If I steal to give food for a child who is starving, than it sounds like I would be forgiven. If I am very poor, than maybe I would be forgiven stealing for myself too. But what if I am a little bit poor... Where goes the limit? Who should judge there? We talk about destroying a human life. How would this make a world better? You get a person who will probably not get a job and will be depending on begging for money or food or to steal again. Killing people to make a better world has been practiced throughout the whole history, with no good result anywhere. Do you know that countries with dead penalties also has the biggest crimes like homocides, in the whole world. US, is a good example. I don't have the numbers here, but I am sure you can easily find them on Internet. Compare for #example US, with Norway, or any of European countries without death penalties. In my opinion, if killing is not accepted as a method of solving problems, than the state should not kill either, but show good example
of how to solve problems. 0
My friend also told me that by stoning someone to death, you ensure he will end up in , paradise. I will ask you this. If you for any reason would get in a situation to be stoned (I really hope no one will ever be in that situation, but IF), than would you gladly accept it cause it should be a way to paradise, or would you ask for mercy? Would you accept to get your hand cut off, if promised a place in paradise? 0

Please don't look at this a not important. It is very important, and since I was following your way of debate for 12 looong pages, than it is not more than fair to let me steer the conversation a bit too. I understand you feel uncomfortable about this, but this is the reality. No other religion that I know is talking about such cruelties. What is cruel and what is not cruel is maybe relative, but this should go far behind any limit of cruelty. How can you deny that? Be objective about that. 0

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I want to continue our discussion about god.. I am doing it right now. We are talking about a book that you claim is written by god. I claim it is not and that many things in it shows it is much more likely it is written by a human. Much more likely! 0

Please answer me at this question. I asked it already before: 0
Is Quran talking about evolution or about creation, without evolution? 0

Best regards from Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-06-2010, 12:06 AM

Charlie,
I'm not sure whether you are aware or are acting like you're not aware of it, but you have already disrespected us so many times. It is an absolute basic understanding that when you talk with people that believe in God, you talk with respect to their God as well even if you disagree with their views or don't believe in their God. You have to understand that any kind of mocking is not acceptable and greatly offends every single Muslim in this forum. You refused to apologize for it too when both Ibn Alsunnah and I have made it clear to you that you are disrespecting us the way you speak. You have also made man incorrect comments about our intentions

I am actually not here to find God. I am 100% sure he does not exist. Why I am here is to find out how it is possible that people still believe in gods in 21st century.
No, sorry it's not possible for people to be that stupid although 97% of people still believe. What a nice introduction.
Suggested alternative: I would like to understand your perspective as I'm not convinced that there is God.

How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids?
No we don't see that. or are you saying that everyone who believes in God has a mind equivilant to a kid's mind?.
Suggested alternative: Can you explain to me how you think he created the world out of nothing? because I can't understand it

sometimes I wonder in what kind of school did you go guys, when you talk like that
Yes only stupid people that go to no school talk like that right
suggested alternative: sorry but I think I disagree with what you're saying.

Is it true that some versus starts with "There is no God..."? It should have stopped there. That would differ it from other religious books and make it very interesting for people of that time who almost all believed in one God or another, because they did not know better

Are you trying to mock at Quran or look funny? Extremly offending
suggested alternative: just don't make the entire statement.

You think there is a God deciding about who will be born and who not? What a huge job to decide about everyone of the billions and billions of insects. Is he sitting there thinking for each case,... shall this bug have babies? Ok... I let him get them today... How many.. I give him 256.... "Next one please". Very fun
NO NOT FUN!! Most disrespectful and offending remark in your entire conversations.
suggested alternative: What's your perspective on how God manages who will be born or not?

You say God decides of who will be born. Does he do that only for humans, or even for every microbe and every insect? What a huge job... Maybe it is not so strange he does not have time to make a world better if he is doing that all days long :-P
Don't show me smily faces right after making fun of my God. extremly offending
suggested alternative: How can God in your perspective handle so many things in the world?

Just a short answer, because I am on the way to sleep
What is wrong with your logic about god?
disrespectful.
Suggested alternative: I disagree with your logic.

I read my previous message again, because you find it agressive and sarcastic. I wanted to see... did I really write like that. But I can't see it that way. Maybe you feel my arguments quite convincing and true and therefore you feel i am aggressive
no that's not why, so don't assume anything about intentions again. It's because it was truly agressive and sarcastic and you should have apologized for it. Or do you have a problem taking responsibility for your own actions?

Please don't presume things about me and than use that to show me like I am someone who is not thinking with logic. That is not very fair and it just makes the debate long and meaningless. Please read my messages and try to understand what am I talking about
so you don't like that ha? Learn not to do it to others!

But for a single force that needs to be created by itself and create complete world with millions of species + everything else, that is EXTREMELY IMPOSSIBLE. We haven't seen anyone do that and we will never see it either. It simply does not make sense if you are honest to yourself
Don't make assuptions on our intentions because we always to try to give benefit of the doubt.
suggested alternative: it does not make sense to me. I see this to be impossible.

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I learn a lot here and it confirms my suspecting that I had from the start. Some people believe in god simply because they want and because it is very hard to stand against something that all the society you live in is saying
Again don't make assumptions on our intentions.

I have no upperlook (as you said). Maybe I feel upperlook when talking about evolution against creation, but this is because I feel so sure about what I talk. As human being, or in any other way, I don't feel that upperlook, but I respect you as all other people. Without the respect, there is no way to have a good conversation.
precisely, without respect, there is no way to have a good conversation. That's why I was not able to even start a conversation with you.

Is someone being scared I know more than him about the topic and I might show that I am right? I don't think that is very fair. Makes me doubt in intentions about this site
Everyone here knows that we limit conversations to organize them. if you don't want to believe that because you want to ,then we can't help it.

Next thing: If you really mean that you don't want to live if life has no higher meaning, than I don't want to debate with you anymore
By the way, I assure you that every muslim here truely don't want to live if life has no higher meaning. Does that assure you something else that you have suspected from the begining?

Hope it's clear now. let's see if you will apologize or have problems taking responsibility for your actions!

Charlie1965

08-06-2010, 03:25 PM

Hi Stranger

Although I gave up writing to you because of the reasons you know, I will still reply you here, because it could solve some problems. I will not even try to explain the words you mention above cause there would be to drown it in a long message. I will take other comments in another message. Here, I just wanna say this: I am truly sorry if I hurt anyones feelings. That is not the intention of my messages, although it sometimes can look that way at first view. Hope you guys accept my apologize so that we can stay chat friends and to learn about each others way of thinking. Hopefully we will come closer to the truth about the world. 0

Best regards from Charlie#

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-06-2010, 04:21 PM

Charlie, your apology is accepted, and we are in turn sorry if we hurt your feelings as it is not the intention of our comments either. With mutual respect we can certainly proceed but any comments like the one's above will certainly be a problem for all of us.
Furthermore, don't simply state statements about intentions because they are simply most of the time wrong and won't help the conversation. You obviously don't like me to simply say: "you're an atheist because you don't want to be told by someone what to do or what not to do". If that was my personal view, then I'll keep it to myself since it doesn't help the debate and can only hurt your feelings.
You need to truly understand that we don't just believe in God... end of story. God to us is more important than ourselves, our families, our lives, and that's why you read some comments about how we consider this life not worthy of anything without the meaning of God.
Don't tell me if you think this is being close minded, because we truely think the same for people like you. To us, God's existance is even out of the question like you're trying to deny something I "see" and "touch". If that's not the case for you unfortunately, then realize that you should not make any mocking comments about God... at least not here.
Also as you discuss with us, don't assume that we're dying to convince you of God. Yes we should deliver the message and would like you to accept it so you have a happy life, but you need to understand that we already have convictions just like you do. You obviously think you are right, but so do we. So when we talk to each other, we don't talk as if I'm the only person who's correct in the world and everyone else is wrong. That's simply the definition of arrogance.
We can respect each other and exchange our views of the world. You are here not to show us how stupid we are, but to explore how we think, just like we would like to see how you think.
Just like you're sure there is no God, we are sure there is God. Just like you might personally think we have a problem in the way we think, we also think you have a problem in the way you think.
From all your comments, I read, it seems to me that you are too self-centered (again personal view that I wouldn't state in a debate in case it offends you)>
FYI, these expectations I have mentioned are not my personal expectations, they're the expectations for everyone in this forum including atheists that come and discuss with us. We did have atheists that made comments like the ones you did before, we simply blocked their account. They're arab so we had a better understanding of how they think and what they mean by their comments. We already have given you the benefit of the doubt with your first few comments, and it was the main reason why I jumped in to the discussion. If you read my very first post you will see that I was trying to say: stop giving us opinionated comments (that already hurts our feelings and offends us), and let's talk debate and logic.
Anyways, now you know the rules I hope, and any additional disrespect will not be tolerated.
With this in mind, if you would like me to be part of this debate, I will be glad to. If not, you can simply state that, and I will pull out of it, while you can simply continue with the rest of the brothers.
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-06-2010, 04:27 PM

Hi again guys

After I was charged of being disrespectful and arrogant etc, I feel a need to explain why I am here and how I am debating. 0

I did not look up this site. A chat friend from Skype who I talk to, wanted me to do it. Actually he pushed me for months before I took the step to actually do it. Why? Because I want to make religious people angry? No, but because I was pushed and he wanted me to become a Muslim. Actually this was his intention from the first time he did contact me on Skype. I don't have problems with religions as long as people respect other peoples believes, but don't force me to believe in what is unbelievable for me. It is quite insulting actually. If I try to convince you about non-existence of god, it is because I took the challenge and I fight back with the same goal as you guys have. You want to convince me... i want to convince you. You believe in yours, I believe in mine. Or even more. I am convinced in mine (just as you are probably convinced in yours). 0

Let me say more about this. I travel quite a lot. Been to most of countries of Europe and some countries in Asia. I often meet people who are believers, from different religions. In Thailand people can say "We believe in this".. with a shy smile, knowing it maybe sounds funny to me. I smile back and we are friends. It would not even cross my mind to try to convince them#about something else. In fact I like many things in Buddhist religion. I don't believe in it, but I like it. It is making people better, I think. 0
I remember once I was in Malaysia (mainly a Muslim country), and sitting beside an older Malaysian gentleman. We were talking and we even did touch the religion. I remember the train passed some beautiful mosque, and I said something like "very beautiful". He did agree and was probably glad I did notice the beautifulness of the building that symbolizes something important in his life. I don't remember the whole conversation, but he was the one talking more than me and he said something like: "Religion is something you keep in your heart and it is not important in what you believe, as long as your faith is clear and your heart is clean". This is not a literal citate, but the message was something like that. It would never even cross my mind to try to convince him that there is no god. I enjoyed the conversation. He respects me (he probably thought I was a Christian) and what I believe. He probably even understood that the best way to convince people is to not push. If I would be more curious and open for Islam, I would ask him anyway. 0

Actually I like different cultures and I easily get friends when traveling. It is nice to travel and meet other cultures. Imagine how boring it would be if there were only Christians in this world, or only Buddhists, or only Hindu, or only Muslims, or whatever.... 0

So far I have only been pushed by Muslim people to make me get religious, by pushing on the chat (My friend Abdellah was not the first to try it). I wonder why? Maybe your religion says it is your duty, but for the rest of us it is both tiering and often quite respectles. I never look up for people on internet and try to make them become Atheists. That is not my task. If they are happy with it, so let them believe. But when people push me, than I fight back. That is how I ended up here. I did not come here to become a#Muslim, but really to understand why religion still exists. I do try to joke about wholly things sometimes, but as I said it is to show there is no reason to be scared. Just like you would not be scared to joke about Darwin. You will also notice that even if my comments can make people upset,i never lie. #I point at things that are logic to me and things in the religions that are not logic. I love to do that. However often those comments hurt the most., just because the opponent feels I hit the right place. I never try to manipulate other peoples comments. That would just degrade my own arguments and that is not what I need. 0
But back to my way of debating. For the first, I might sound disrespectful in some statements, but that is because I want to point at things that really sound funny to me. If I put a smiley, after making a joke about god, that is because I wanna show there is no reason to be scared of god. He does not exist. I could say worse things to my friend Abdellah before and joke about both God and Muhammad, for the same reason. I even asked for apologize sometimes, cause he was obviously offended. I pushed too far. Sometimes religious people make jokes about Darwin, comparing him with a monkey. To you that maybe sounds funny, but to me it is a disrespect, not only to him, but to me and everyone who knows evolution works, including the science. But I seldom feel offended by such things. I joke back. It is for me just a sign of how little they know. I am not saying I got that comment here (maybe I did, maybe not)... really don't remember, but I heard it more than once on chat. 0

Ok, I better stop here. Easy for me to write... some poor guys will need to read it all...hehehe :-P Hope you understand me a bit better now . 0

Cheers guys and best regards from Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-06-2010, 04:53 PM

So Charlie,
You're saying you're here because your fiend pushed you to be here. With my respect to your friend Abdellah, this is wrong. "pushing" is wrong. "caring" is right. I think he really cared about you so he insisted to ask you to come here.
Our religion prevents forcing itself upon others. It's clearly stated in the Quran if you care to know. In our religion, we are told to deliver the message. It's also clearly stated that our job is to deliver, and not to necessarily convince.
You're making the comparison that Darwin to you is like God to us. Darwin might clearly be important to you, but I assure you that he's not as important to you as God is to us. We live for God, we "breath" God all the time. I know you wouldn't give away your life for Darwin (let me know if I'm wrong), we do for God. So I personally think it's different, however in either case I disagree to mock at neither one. If someone made a funny comment about Darwin that offended you, then we're sorry for it. simply joking about God to us is not acceptable as we have utmost respect to him. So even it it sounded funny to you, please keep it to yourself!
It's good that you travel often and get exposed to different people. You obvioulsy have yet to experience people that think like we do. .
the reason for being here does not mean you were not disrespctful. If you were charged of it and disagree to it, don't apologize. If you apologized and we accepted your apology, don't bring it up again.
again let me know if you would like me to be part of this debate. If not I will leave the brothers to continue their conversations. If so, we'll get started.

أدري

08-06-2010, 05:28 PM

Hi Charlie

Thank you for your comments

Going back to the first statement

1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.

Here is a clarification on the term Nothingness as you requested to prove to you that I am not plying with words and hopping that you do the same.

Nothingness: is the absence of all beings. Nothingness is not the absence of all beings in empty space. Because empty space, is somethingness. Nothingness is the absence of what we call space. So nothingness is dimensionlessness

So if there is an atom, then nothingness cannot exist, because nothingness means no atom. Remember somethingness excludes nothingness, the two cannot exist side by side, it is either one or the other. The definition of a each is the absence of the other i.e. The absence of somethingness is nothingness, and the absence of nothingness is the somethingness. So the lack of existence of nothingness is therefore a necessity.(quote)

And here is also a clarification on the term being as a whole:

Being and sub-beings Man wants to know Reality. Reality consists of all/everything that exists and not necessarily confined to the empirical world. However, since we are part of the universe, we are led to think of galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, ourselves etc,. as existing and therefore we mistakenly treat them as beings, when in fact these are not beings, but they are constituent parts of a being, namely the universe. All these and the like, precisely speaking, are sub-beings and not beings. Once this distinction is borne in mind then we only need to focus on beings because sub-beings would be implicitly included in the discussion. Failure to keep this distinction inevitably leads to treating all that exists as sub-beings i.e., the universe is the only being. Lots of the confusions resulted from the lack of the distinction between, beings and sub-beings. If the world/universe were the only being then it would be equal to Reality but if God exists besides the universe then Reality would consist of the two together. .(quote)

Our goal is to know Reality in its broad sense. We need to have a conception and not a misconception of Reality .

2- Nothingness does not exist

It is the first analytical statement that is known a priori

(non-being is necessarily mental and impossibly real ) is a necessity

The truth and the falsity of statements depend on the relation between its subject and its predicate. Since Reality is one there should be only two types of relations: necessary and impossible. If the predicate of the statement is implied in the meaning of its subject then the relation would be one of necessity otherwise it would be one of impossibility

You said in your reply :

What Ibn Alsunnah can prove in best case is that there must be some explanation for the missing link in his chain. Nothing else. This link could be a god, but could also be any kind of abnormal behavior of universe due to the extreme conditions that universe obviously was in at the time for BB.

In my opinion what is wrong in the discussion is that:

when the inquiry is about existence, beginning with a concept entails an inconsistency i.e., claim of knowledge the nature of what may not exist! Beginning the inquiry with the concept ‘God’ prematurely implies awareness of all the attached information about a being [such as Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Perfect] the existence of which is yet to be determined!

Questions such as “does God exist?”, therefore, are very far fetching. Unless we know that God exists we should not have the concept in the mind nor the label in our terminology. The right beginning is to seek to determine whether a being other than the universe exists or not? In other words, is the universe the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe?

With respect to God’s existence, there are two types of arguments: religious and philosophical. Essentially speaking, there is no difference between the two. What lies behind both types is one and the same logic: seeking to establish the existence of a being (God) as a deduction from the nature of another being (the universe). This is true of both theism and atheism. Atheists seek to establish the non-existence of God as a deduction from the nature of the universe. The existence or the non-existence of ‘A’ cannot be possibly known by reference to the nature of ‘B’.

Any reference to other than the entity under scrutiny means that the answer is missing the point. The mention of ‘B’ when the question is about ‘A’ can never decide the matter. It yields belief only; it cannot lead to knowledge. When the question is about ‘A’ the answer should refer to nothing but ‘A’. the reference to other than ‘A’ means attempting to reach a conclusion supported by evidence when this cannot be conclusive because of the possibility of counter evidence. In order to decide a matter conclusively, there is a need for a proof.

We, therefore, begin the journey asking whether the universe is the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe? If there exists, at least, another being besides the universe we should not presume that it must be a universe. There may exist a being or more that are not universes similarly there may exist other universes. All these possibilities have to be taken into consideration/account and, at this stage, none should be dismissed from the inquiry.

The five statements now should be read in the context of the above explanation

1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.

2- Nothingness does not exist (a priori)

3- Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false

4- To say being as a whole (Being ) is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness

5- Therefore , being as a whole is un limited

Is the world/universe/s equal to being as a whole i.e. is it the only being?

To follow… if the above understood

Best Regards from Ibrahim

Charlie1965

08-06-2010, 11:36 PM

Hi Stranger

I am a bit confused about you. When you wrote the first message in this forum, to me..... the first part of it sounded very good.... I though it will be a pleasure to debate with you. But than came those comments that made me upset. Stranger, I did not ask for apologize about anyone hurting my feelings here. No one did that as far as I remember. I was asking for an apologize because my comments were presented as if I said things I did not say. That made me upset. And it was personal to you, so no need to say "we apologize". No one else did it. I called it manipulation of my words, you may call it mistake, or whatever, but all I got was comments like me misunderstanding you, although it was impossible to not see that I was right there. The messages are still there. Think I will give up asking for apologize. You apologized for something you did not need to apologize for, but to let the conversation go on, I accept it. But why are you continuing#in same message threatening me that you hope I "understood the rules and any disrespect will not be tolerated". It does not look good in a message where you are supposed to ask me for apologize. It makes the apologize look poor. Never mind. I just wanna say this: If you feel I don't fit here, just tell me and I will leave. No need to ban me from the site. I was asked to join the forum and that is why I am here. If you guys ask me to leave it, I will do that too... 0
I will continue in next message with your previous message (before the apologize message), because I have some interesting points of view at that, but maybe not today... It is getting late. 0

Best regards from Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-07-2010, 12:16 AM

Charlie,
To be realistic, I think it's not a good idea for me to be part of this conversation anymore. It's really unfortunate for me. There is no threaning or anything like that, just trying to build common grounds based on mutual respect; that's all we're looking for, but I seem not to be the right person.
I'm not going to comment on any of your comments.
Enjoy the rest of your stay.
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-07-2010, 11:23 PM

Hi Stranger, 0

Pity you think like that. I thought we are on the slow way to find anagreement in a way to chat and I was about to reply some of the questions you asked in a former message, but did not catch the time. I will say something I said to Ibn Alsunnah before. I am too tired now to write and I will go to sleep. This is not a way to disrespect you or him, as you said before. It is the opposite. I am really sleepy. Would it be better to not say that and just ignore the message? Check at the time that message to Ibn Alsunnah was written. I wanted to inform him that he should not wait for the reply by late night, but the next day instead. That is a sign of respect, not disrespect. But maybe you are right, we sometimes talk from diffrent point of view in diffrent cultures and therfore misunderstand each other. This is probably such a case. Talk to you tomorrow, if you are in the mood. 0

Best regards from Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-07-2010, 11:39 PM

Charlie,
I'm sorry I didn't carefully read the last part of your previous message. I did not mean to pull out before you continue with my message. I just decided to pull out as this better serves the purpose of this forum. Ofcourse I have no problem with you stating that it's getting late. That's surely nice of you. Please feel free to make any additional comments you may have.
Stranger

حسام الدين حامد

08-08-2010, 09:41 PM

What are the kinds of evidences that you build your knowledge upon

experience is a good base for my view at the world

can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

hosam

Charlie1965

08-08-2010, 11:36 PM

Hi again Stranger

Ok... than I hope we can continue with no bitter feelings. Be aware I will ask problematic questions though. I am sure you don't want me to pretend to agree when I don't, but also don't pretend to disagree, when I do agree. I will keep going on that way. So let's go to some older messages: 0

In one statement you say 97% of the world do believe in god. You know for sure that that is not any evidence at all. There are many examples of people believing wrong throughout the history. People believed that the earth was flat or even you as a Muslim will not disagree that ancient Romans or Ancient Greeks, or Egyptians did believed wrong. You will maybe even say 100% of the world believed wrong at that time, cause the "right prophet" did not come yet. So, in that statement we both agree, despite a completely different view at the world. Even today... ok... most people believe, but most people are not Muslims. Does it mean Islam is wrong? Of course not. That is worth nothing as an evidence for either statement of god. 0

Do you have any idea of how god could create the world? 0

Do you have any idea how a single force as god is, could control about all the births of all living creatures on earth, plus many many more things. Remember that if not controlling every single creature, than he is not controlling the world. Why? Because if , there is one single microbe being born unplanned, than it is possible that that single microbe will change the world. It might for example infect some person who should not be infected and change the future. Agree? 0

By the way.. don't push about the thing that I asked why someone has been asked to leave the chat. I was suspicious about the motives, but I got the answer once and accepted it. Did I push for that? No. So no need to dig in that anymore. 0

Hope you can give me convincing answers at the questions above. 0

Best regard from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-08-2010, 11:48 PM

Hi Hosam

First I though... What is uniformitarianism? I did not know the word, but checked on Wikipedia. If I understood it correct, than it mean that the same natural laws always existed in the universe. Well, I actually doubt that is true. Of course I have no other own experiences but these from the present time. However if universe (or our part of the universe origins from the singularity, than it is difficult to apply the present natural laws to that time. We simply don't know much how material acts inside something that looks like a huge black hole, with the extreme conditions inside. This of course does not mean there is anything supernatural about that time in the development of the universe. 0

Best regards, Charlie

حسام الدين حامد

08-09-2010, 12:17 AM

What a surprise

Stephen Jay Gould ,the famous evolutionary biologist, said that uniformitarianism is one of the rules of science that we even needn't to debate about it any more!!

How can you be an evolutionist and don't believe in uniformitarianism?! It is a base upon which Charles Lyell and Darwin built their doctrine about geology and biology

Again:
can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

Take you time in understanding the term before you answer and don't depend on wikipedia alone!

hosam

Charlie1965

08-09-2010, 01:00 AM

Hi again Hossam

I could be cynical and say that unlike religion, science do not require "just one truth" that can explain everything and can not be change by knowledge. We learn part by part. However the world uniformitarianism is new to me and I am not maybe the right person to explain it. But to say that physical laws can not fully be applied at the time for BB is not something that science denies. The laws are for sure universal, but we don't fully understand the conditions at the time before BB. That does not mean there is something weird about them and supernatural. I guess that is what Darwin meant. There is a natural explanation of everything around us, even though we can not explain everything to 100%. Religion can not do it either, so this is not a problem for the science, against religion.#0

Bets regards from Charlie and good night

ابن السنة

08-09-2010, 04:08 AM

Please don't look at this a not important. It is very important, and since I was following your way of debate for 12 looong pages, than it is not more than fair to let me steer the conversation a bit too. I understand you feel uncomfortable about this, but this is the reality. No other religion that I know is talking about such cruelties. What is cruel and what is not cruel is maybe relative, but this should go far behind any limit of cruelty. How can you deny that? Be objective about that. 0

Yes, Ibn Alsunnah, I want to continue our discussion about god.. I am doing it right now. We are talking about a book that you claim is written by god. I claim it is not and that many things in it shows it is much more likely it is written by a human. Much more likely! 0

Please answer me at this question. I asked it already before: 0
Is Quran talking about evolution or about creation, without evolution? 0

Best regards from Charlie
Dear Charlie
Sorry for being late
Well we can open a new discussion about sharia rulings
and another one about evolution and the quran
but to be honest I don't feel such discussion is beneifical right now because you don't believe in God so anything which depends on this point doesn't make sense to you

About Cutting hands I told you that there are conditions to fulflill applying it. For examlple one rule in sharia is the "Certainity cannot be removed with doubt" And what is certain that the default status of any human being is that he is innocient . So to change this status we need 100% evidence
Actually this concept is the invention of the islamic sharia
About Evolution, what I can say that some scholars like Dr Yousef Al Qaradawi say that the Quran can accept a kind of gradual change in creation but under some conditions
Other scholars reject this.
For me I don't care
you know why?
Because whether you like it or not evolution is not a fact
And as I mentioned earlier , We understand the quran in the light of facts. If something is a fact then we pick the meaning which agrees with the fact
Because A fact can never contradict with the Quran

If you want to continue the discussion about these topics we can open a new link
But lets keep this one for our discussion about how the universe came into existence
unless you accept the idea of Creator

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

P.S
I may be very busy for the coming month. Well we have a very important event as muslims in the next few days which is the month of Ramadan. We use to fast for the whole month and read quran and pray more than other days. I also have alot of work to do and finish so I will be a little slow in my response

Charlie1965

08-09-2010, 11:38 AM

Hi Ibrahim

I did read your previous message several times actually. I understand most of your statements about nothingness, the whole being and your statements as god and universe as two beings, or universe being just one being. I still feel we will play with words, not the reality, cause the search for the start of the world can not be explained by philosophical thinking. It has to somehow be proven in any other way.0
B"Being as a whole is unlimited"- Does this mean universe is unlimited, or is it whole? 0
Universe is definitively not unlimited. I am not talking now about the size, but by natural laws. 0
To your last question, if universe is the whole being, I would say yes... although I am not sure I understand the question.... Is it the only being? As far as we know. Yes. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-09-2010, 12:24 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

It is ok if you are a bit busy. Sometimes we all are busy, but it is good to let the others know, so they are aware of this. 0

First some short comments about Sharia, despite that you are not very comfortable with it. I am not either, because it gives me bad mood that people give themselves right to judge others like that. And doing it in the name of god! The problem is not just the punishment itself. The problem is that sooner or later an innocent person will be punished. You talk about 100% evidence. Someone here blamed me for being 100% sure and said it is impossible. And a punishment like cutting of hands, or stoning someone to death can never be undone, once it is done. Religion is in my opinion a way to control humans. It is difficult for someone to talk against injustice if a "god" says so. The fact that there is no evidence of god, does not count here. 0
You also did not answer me at the hypothetical question of how would you act if you guilty or innocent would be judged to some of those punishments. Would you ask for mercy or be glad that you soon will be in paradise? And the rest at this forum: How would you act? 0
About evolution. There is much more evidence of evolution (i will be glad talking more of it, once someone wants to hear it), than about god. Still you don't care about evolution. Why? Life on earth is either constructed and not changeable, or it is changing (regardless if it started by nature itself, or by god). This is a very important question and I am surprised you don't care about it. Excuse me, but this sounds to me like believing in what is more pleasant... and closing eyes for the reality.
Evolution is a fact Ibn Alsunnah. Beside the examples I gave you before I can add this: Have you heard off multi resistant bacterias? Those are organisms that caused diseases and we treated them with anti-biotic of different kind. After too generous use of anti-biotic, with great success in healing humans some of them started to change and are now immune to anti-biotic. This is a fast growing problems in the world. How come this happened? Did god change them so they can attack humans again? Of course not. In a huge population of bacterias there is always a genetically variation. Some are better resistant at anti-biotic. Those will survive better and get the next generation. Since they reproduce themselves very fast compared to mammals, birds, or any higher animal, the change goes relatively fast compared to the slower reproducing animals. The good genes (from the evolutionary point of view) will soon take over. Or do you think it sounds more
logic that a god does it?0

When you say a fact can never contradict with Quran it means you already accepted it as a fact. This is not a good position to really look for the truth. Ok, you can say the same about me. That is another reason why I am here. Try me. Try to show I am wrong. And try to show you are right. I don't want to believe. I want to know. Hope you want the same. I will try to show you are wrong. If there are mistakes in Quran, than Quran is wrong. That is why I need to know if it accepts the evolution or not. Both yes and no can not be the right answer, as Ibrahim would say.0

Best regards from Charlie

ابن السنة

08-09-2010, 03:52 PM

Dear Charlie
About cutting hands, stoning,...etc We can talk about that in a different discussion page. Sorry but I feel that this forum was talking about how we believe in God in the 21 century . and we started to discuss how the universe started and now we are shifting gears to something else.

About Evolution and the Quran, I am not aganist genetical variations and adaptation . This is not against Quran or Sunnah. Actually there is a saying by the prophet ( PBUH ) that the human's charcteristics are changingwith time. However we know that all these changes is within the species boundary. NO one proved the claims of the Darwinist that a mutation was able to change from one speices to another. I know that you are going to say that this happened over millions of years so it is not obvious. But again the probability of forming the first protein is extermely low. Evolution assumes that life started by any method, then depending on this assumption it started to evolve. The first question of how life started is not even answered!!
I also prefer if we can open another discussion form about Evolution
If you are not interested about talking about God existence we can then close this form and go to other forms
because ppl who are watching will then get confused
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-10-2010, 02:38 AM

Hi Charlie,
Hope you’re doing well.
Feel free to ask problematic questions, we’ll try to answer in our best capacity.
I have nothing much to discuss about the 97% percent of believers as I agree that it does not necessarily constitute an evidence, but to me at least it makes sense that if God exists (like we believe), he would make it a natural tendency for people to believe in him. So it does mean something to me in the middle of all other evidences; certainly not solid evidence by itself. One interesting research I read related to this topic was about some evidence that children are born believers in God:
It was conducted by Dr. Barrett, a PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell, and a senior researcher of the Center of Anthropology and mind and the institution for cognitive and evolutionary anthropology at Oxford University. You might find it interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

Before I could proceed, please allow me to make a couple of comments that will hopefully better help our discussion.

The first comment is as Br. Ibn Alsunnah have mentioned, in a couple of days, our holy month of Ramadan starts in which we fast and focus on more worshiping and prayers. I will try my best to come here, but our responses might be pretty delayed, so I kindly ask you to please be patient with me, or just defer the discussion until after the month.

Second comment is that in the context of you being here to learn our perspective of religion and God, I will try to the best of my abilities to clarify it for you. Feel free to disagree or ask for further clarifications on certain points. My goal is hopefully to convey the message to you and show you how and why we’re convinced about its truth. We already believe in God. You already don’t. So to me from what I understood from your reason of being here, I don’t see the burden of “convincing” you about God on me per say. I only see my job as a presenter to our way of thinking about religion and God especially that you mentioned that you don’t want to believe, you just want to know. Had you said, you would be open to possibly believe in God, I would’ve probably approached it differently. That’s just my perspective and the rest of the brothers, might approach it differently. So I will not consider this a “debate” although I have called it such many times before. Hope you’re ok with this approach.
.

Now Charlie we have to understand that our human mind is great and powerful, but is also still limited. Everything you input in your mind is based on what you get from your senses. Your brain has the power to manipulate things, put things together, separate things from each other, resize things, detect patterns, deduce cause and effect, and so on. All these operations have to be done on raw data inputted by the senses. My favorite example of this is blind people who were born blind. Did you know research showed that these people have no notion of visualization and images? As a matter of fact people who are born blind see dreams in only sounds and feelings/touch format. There are no images. There are no colors. They don’t know what colors are no matter how much you try to explain it to them. If their brain is not capable to even imagine or understand colors, it does not mean that colors don’t exist!

To answer your question now, I do not know how exactly God created the world. As you know we believe that God is all powerful and is dominant. He is certainly powerful enough to create the world. One of our biggest problems is that we always think that rules apply to God like they would apply to us. Human beings can focus on one thing at a time. Their brain is limited like I explained. God has no limits on what he can take care of at a time. As a matter of fact, we believe that he controls and knows every single thing in the world, including every single leaf falling from which tree. So yes I do believe that he controls everything in the world. I actually would NOT believe in a God if he did not possess these attributes. This is part of why I accept Islam vs. any other religion that will tell me God is fire, or God is the sun, or God is a cow, or God gets children…etc. (Another thread can be open on the topic of why Islam vs. other religions).
Not knowing “how” he controls or “how” he created the world obviously does not mean that we wouldn’t know “that” he created the world and “that” he does control every aspect of it.

I have a lot for you, but let me break them apart into different posts to better organize this discussion.

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-10-2010, 02:39 AM

Charlie,
Please allow me to summarize our logical evidence of God that Ibn Alsunnah tried to convey to you. This evidence is NOT based on playing with words. It does take deep thinking sometimes. This evidence is based on very basic logical statements that our minds operate on. In other words, refusing any of them means refusing absolute basic logic that we build are very science (and the scientific method) upon. This is about the start of the universe again. Checkout the following statements and read my comments afterwards. All atheists actually believe in the truth of these 3 statements, but the difference comes afterwards as I will clarify.

Statement1: From absolute nothing, you can not get something. (i.e. if you have absolute nothingness, no God, no world, just nothing, our minds completely refuse the idea of something suddenly emerging with no prior energy, no prior power, no prior matter, and boom Big Bang, universe is here. That’s against our very basic logic. Hope you agree with this.

Statement2: Everything we have seen and experienced is based on a cause and effect. You can never see a door suddenly emerge from absolute nothingness (statement1). It has to have come from somewhere. In other words, you can never see a real-wood door and not assume the wood did not come from some tree for example. You can never see a tree and not assume it came from a seed. You can never look at a falling ball and not assume a force pulling down (gravity)…etc. Cause and effect is everywhere and is consistent. The rule associated with this statement is: everything that “emerged into existence” (i.e. did not exist before and now existed), has to be caused (which is consistent with statement1).

Statement3: and infinite chain of cause and effect is logically impossible. This is a tricky one since it might sound counter intuitive for a second and takes sometime to think about. If I say that a door would only exist only if a tree existed (assuming real wood door of course). And a tree would never exist except if some seed existed, and we can go up the chain until we say, and the first seed would not exist unless the first cell existed. And the first cell would never have existed if no atoms existed… if we keep going back in an infinite chain of cause and effect, our door we’re talking about would never exist. Let me further clarify with an example. I will not give a dollar to my son, until my father gives me a dollar. But my father won’t give it to me except if my grandfather gaves him a dollar. But my grandfather won’t give it to my father except if his father gives him a dollar. If we keep going back to INFINITY, I will NEVER give my son the dollar!
That’s why it is logically impossible to have an infinite chain of cause and effect, because if the existence of what we see around us depended on the existence of earlier atoms…and if we keep going back to INFINITY, then the entire world would not have existed. But we know the world does exist, so an infinite chain of causes and effects can not be true. Think about this one for a second and hope it will become clear for you.

So far both atheists and Muslims believe in the truth of the three statements above by the way.

We all agree that absolute nothing can’t bring you something (w/o any external source of energy/matter…etc.). We also agree that everything has a cause and an effect. Finally we agree that you can never have an infinite chain of causes and effects because this world as we know it would not have existed.

What does this mean? This means the chain of causes and effects has to be terminated by a first cause. Don’t be scared by the term first cause since to you it implies God. It does not logically imply it. As a matter of fact here is exactly where atheists will differ with Muslims.
Atheists say: well, the universe as we know it has been ETERNAL because cause and effect only applies “within” the universe, and we do not know if it applies on the universe in totality. So yes we see a new baby born (existed after he did not exist), and based on statements 1 and 2 above, we deduce he didn’t emerge from nothingness; rather he did come from his parents. In other words, the first cause is matter itself as we know it. The first cause is the actual basic intrinsic physical properties to matter. It’s the fact that a negative charge attracts a positive one and here is where we choose to stop in our chain of cause and effects. Whey stop here (atheists say) because if you ask me what caused a negative charge and a positive one for example to be attracted to each other with a particular force, I would say either:

1- “nothing” since we don’t know any better; it’s just like that, or
2- something (which we believe is God), but then that something has to be caused (The who created God question) So if we have to choose where we stop in this chain to be the first Cause, it will be matter and its physical properties for us, and not a God.

Muslims on the other hand say: well we don’t buy the fact that First cause is the mere absolute physical properties of matter, we believe that if you go up the chain one further step, you would see that God created matter with such physical properties. And at God the chain stops to make God our First Cause.

Let me give you an example. If I ask you why your blood is red in color, you would say because of the red cells and hemoglobin…etc. If I ask why is hemoglobin red in color, you would say because… if I keep asking questions like that I will end up eventually asking you about why physical matter behaves as it does with such physical properties. In other words, I will end up asking you: why do two objects attract each other with a force directly related to their masses and inversely to the squared distance? That’s where you will stop and say: that is it. This is the first cause. It’s like that because it’s like that and no one can explain it any better! It’s pure physics.

Now here is the big question, and please do spend some time thinking about it. You decided to stop at the very essence of matter and could not go beyond it. And thus matter ended up being your eternal first cause. We took it one further step and said, but these physical laws even are created and maintained by God and so God in our view is the eternal first cause.

So we have two options here: we say God is the eternal first cause, atheists say: matter and its properties are the eternal first cause.

Why did we choose God over matter? To be continued in a different post.
Hope you’re starting to get a better idea of how we think.
Stranger

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-10-2010, 02:41 AM

Charlie,
Keep in mind we’re still discussing only one evidence (the logical evidence) for God’s existence. We have many more, but let’s take them one at a time. Please do forgive my long posts as once I start writing, I try to maintain my train of thoughts so I don’t forget my ideas.
Going back to our critical question of why Muslims believed in God rather than matter to be the eternal first cause. Here are the basic answers for that important question (please take your time to think about them):

1- To the best of science’s ability so far, science believes that best theory to explain our universe is that it started at a particular point in time (Bing Bang). They gathered many evidence including the background radiation detected by the couple that won the noble prize for it as you know. And also including the research on red shifts which proved that the universe is currently expanding (side note: our Quran states that universe is currently expanding and we do consider this a scientific miracle in Quran). The Big Bang theory has as much evidence as evolution. They both follow the same logic. They both explain things that happened in the far past in the light of different evidences that support the claims for these theories. In both cases, we never saw how it started. In both cases we have associated evidence that makes scientist believe they happened. So based on BB, our universe had a start point. So it emerged into existence after not existing. Per statements 1 and 2 above, it has to have a cause! Can we say the same about God? Did he emerge into existence after he did not exist? We believe no. We believe that God ALWAYS existed and thus is eternal. Since he always existed, and is thus eternal, his existence does not depend on any external cause. He’s is the ultimate end of causes. This also answers the “illogical” question of who created God. Why do I say it is illogical? Because the question assumes that God is not eternal. It assumes he emerged into existence after he did not exist, and so we asked what caused him. The answer is nothing caused him. He was eternal. Can we say the same about our universe? No because to the best of our knowledge it is not eternal, but rather started at some point in time.

2- Atheists claim that matter is eternal. We don’t believe in that. Why not? One important key difference between matter and God is that matter changes its attributes. The universe is in a constant change all the time. We believe that God is not the same. We believe that God is eternal in himself, but also that his attributes are eternal. Nothing changes about him. What does this mean? Logically change is a sign of a starting point. I’m claiming that if you change, you can not be eternal. How so? Let me clarify with an example. Let’s take the universe. It’s changing all the time. Let’s take a fixed moment in time (now). With this moment there are certain positions to objects/ parameters, and even every single atom. These positions can not be where they are right now, unless they were where they were in the previous moment. So the previous moment is a prerequisite for the current moment for where every single atom is right now. But in the previous moment, the positions of all atoms in the world depends on where all these atoms where in the moment before it. Each moment depends on the previous one as far as the position of every single atom in the universe. The current positions to all atoms would have never occurred if previous chain of positions within moments of time did not occur. What does this mean? This means if you claim this universe existed for eternity; it would never be the way it is right now at a single moment of time. It’s again the impossibility of an eternal chain of cause and effect per statement3 above. So we choose God to matter because matter changes all the time, but God is eternal in his existence as well as his attributes.

3- Assuming this universe is eternal leads us to a contradiction to thermodynamic laws. As you know the laws state that heat flows from hot to cold objects. In other words the sun is emitting light and heat (energy) all the time. This light and heat are will even out through the entire universe if you give it a very long time. If we take the sun as an example, the sun will keep emitting heat and light until it dies (in 4 billion year according to some scientists). Why would it die? Because energy will keep flowing from the hotter object (sun) to the colder (everything that receives this heat in our galaxy) including earth. If we claim that sun existed for eternity, per the thermodynamic laws, the Milky Way galaxy would have reached heat equilibrium by now and the flow of energy would have stopped. Scientists realized that this violates established laws, and this was an additional evidence to believe that Sun did not exist forever. Same argument applies to the universe. If our universe has existed for eternity, by now heat would have reached and equilibrium and the entire universe would have been at the same temperature (which surely leads to no life!). We either have to break these established thermodynamic laws, or deduce that there must be some external power/ external factor that started the universe (whether you want to believe it to be God or not). Again this makes us further believe that God exists since he is eternal, but universe is not.

4- Here is my favorite one and I ask you to really ponder upon it a little bit, so God may guide you to him. I will claim that laws can not exist without someone establishing and maintaining them. Let’s start with an example. If you see a computer right now that has running programs. They run with a certain behavior and follow a particular law. To use the computer and see the great things it can help us with, we would not hesitate to think that somebody was behind designing this computer and programming the different programs that run on it. If I really did not initially know much about computers or how they work, and I asked: how does this computer internally work? If I open up the computer and see a hard disk, RAM chips, motherboard, and see how they are connected and detect electric signals on how the different components communicate: will I say: I found out why we see for example the picture on the screen. It’s simply being loaded from the RAM to the monitor through the VGA cable. That’s why we can see the screen. What does this mean? Does this mean that no body designed this computer and programmed it just because I detected its behavior? I never explained why it behaves like that. All I saw is an observation or a particular behavior and guesses on why and how it works based on certain laws. I never explained why the laws work the way they do! I can’t say there does not exist a designer for the computer because these “laws that govern computers” just exist with no reason. They exist because there was some INTELLIGENCE behind them! This is exactly the biggest problem in how people think that science negate the existence of God. Old human beings maybe never knew how rain fell. Now science observed more and noticed that sun produced heat that vaporizes sea water and then this was carried in form of clouds that will eventually rain. This is exactly saying: we know how it works, but we can never explain why it works like that. Why do water particles vaporize like that when exposed to heat? Why do atoms behave in such a manner that maintains life on earth? Does this mean there is no “designer” or “intelligence” behind it just because we observed “how” it works? This is the greatest atheist fallacy in my opinion. Why do human beings survive? Because the heart keeps bumping blood. Why does it do so? Because it gets electric signals to bump like that. What triggers the electric signals? Nothing it just happens like that!!!
How do we comprehend things and have consciousness? Our brains have neurons and they get fired to represent different things and make us have our consciousness. But why at a random point in time does it trigger these neurons? What’s the key behind these laws? Don’t know, it’s just how the brain works. No: there is a great design and intelligence involved we say. If you carefully read all the questions above, you would see that it will always boil down to the same main question: why does matter behave the way it does right now and how does it with simple rules come up with such marvelous complexities (truly beyond description) of our current world. Both believers and atheists absolutely believe that there are a lot of amazing “fine-tuning” of parameters in the universe to allow matter with its own properties to become our universe as we see it. Dawkings admits to this too, and the best answer he can come up with is proposing a very mind-stretched multi-universe theory that has absolutely no support or evidence. Just anything to deny God vs. even exploring the possibility that he does exist!!
So my question for you and all atheists, that I never got a convincing answer ever so far, is: How do atoms randomly explode and have certain physical laws (like forces of attractions…etc) come up with such a marvelous universe randomly? Don’t tell me about evolution, I’m talking about before the first cell was composed. I’m talking about how earth rotates around the sun in just exactly the right speed and distance to support life. How did this greatly-finely-tuned universe come about the way it is right now with such amazing uniformity and organization out of a random explosion? This violates the second law of thermodynamics further (entropy). Natural tendency of matter as we know it goes from organization to chaos (unless an external force/factor is involved). This is by the very basic laws of physics. Don’t even attempt the (random chance) argument. Mathematically I can prove to you that the probability that from a random explosion of matter we can get what we see today in our world is way beyond even the possibility that 14 billion years will suffice for such a probability to occur. Did you think about the first cell? Did you think about the fact that to see life on earth, that first cell didn’t only have to exist, but also had to have the absolute correct (programming) of DNA that would enable the cell not to only survive, but to also have a mechanism to reproduce? Not only that, that DNA has to have information about how after the cell reproduces, it communicates with other cells! Not only that, it should also have mechanism to group together to form tissues and eventually organs. Not only that, it should have programming for these organs to communicate and work on the one goal: survival of the entire biological structure. Did you know when a cell reproduces to generate two new cells the DNA get’s split and a corresponding copy of the DNA (AT/GC) bonds is made. Once that copy is made did you know there are enzymes in the cell that goes to the new cell and checks the copying process to make sure it was copied correctly, and even correct wrong bonds!!!!! We see new “biological laws” emerging from pure “physics laws”. How did it emerge? Did all this occur randomly? I’m not even talking about evolution yet. All this is really right before evolution takes place. Did you notice that there is always a tendency for organization and survival!!! As if everything is being prepared “on purpose” for life to exist the way it does right now!!! To me my friend, the conclusion is inescapable, there has to be not only physics laws: there has to be some kind of “INTELLGENCE” and “DESIGN”. This is why Muslims choose God over matter. God has this required intelligence and design which is far beyond description. Matter as we know it today does not!

Sorry again for the long post, but once my fingers start typing, I just can’t help stopping!
I pray for you to see this and understand that we’re not simply ignorant people that don’t think about such major decisions about life. We do have a lot of evidence that make us very convinced of what we believe on (more to come). I’m not too worried if I make a mistake and believe when I should not have. I would be much more worried if I make the mistake of not believing when I should have, and carry the “eternal” burden of the consequence of such a decision. That is not to say that we’re not positive about God’s existence, but as a way for you to reflect upon the importance of why we take such matters very seriously.
Best of luck,
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-10-2010, 11:33 AM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I still think that evidence for god, or no god has to be looked for from many aspects. Even if the topic is "why we believe in god at 21st century", it still includes different aspects. For me it would be too much of a job to answer the comments of a new lines at this forum. Remember I am alone here at this side, while I always have 2 or 3 people replying. But, don't worry about other people who read this. I think it would be more interesting for them to get new aspects, than side after side reading of the same aspect, often repeated over and over again, without being convincing for the opponent. 0
But ok, you gave me one answer I needed: The species can not change that much to change into a completely new species, due to Quran. Just a little bit, so it still remains the same species. This is what I needed to know. I will do my best to show this is wrong. Don't you think this is a bit illogic: Species change, but there is a limit of how much they can change. And what is a species? There is no one 100% "waterproof" definition of what a species is, even among biologists. Why? We have species that are closer related to each other and species who are very distant. For example: There is no doubt that an ostrich and a lion are different species. They are so far related to each other that no one would doubt that. But if we talk about for example a herring gull (Larus argentatus) and a caspian gull (Larus michaelis) (you can look for them on Internet), they are so close related that even ornithologist have problems to see the difference. Sometimes they even mix. Still the latest geneticall analyses show they are different species (Until recently they were treated as just different races of the same species). Examples like that are many, many and are nothing new to the biology. That is why biologist do not only operate with the term "species", but also subspecies (sometimes called - race), and species are united in families, orders, classes, etc..... plus more. This is a try to show how related the species are with each other - related by the way they evaluated. 0
Think of this: Why would god create species that are not even clearly separated from each other. If he created them one by one, wouldn't they be 100% separated from each other? 0

Best regards, from Charlie

ps. message to Stranger: I am away for the rest of the day, so you will have to wait for a reply to your "book" you wrote above ;-) 0

ابن السنة

08-10-2010, 03:17 PM

Dear Charlie
I will just comment on this note

The species can not change that much to change into a completely new
species, due to Quran

I didn't mean due to the Quran, but what is proven. NO one proved that a random mutation happened and it was beniefical.
What I know that some muslim scholars like Dr Elqaradawi said that If something like Evolution s proved then we can then go and interpret versus in the Quran in the context of it. But we don't do that to just unless the theory is a fact
But at the same time some other scholars say that Evolution is inconsistent with the Quran.
I am not worried about that because I am sure that at the end the Quran will confirm with any facts
Anyway I will leave you with Stranger's message (book)
Best RegardsIbn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

08-10-2010, 10:10 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

Again I take your message before Strangers because it is a lot shorter. I have to admit that I am quite disappointed though. I asked before what does Quran says about creation or/and evolution. I did not get the answer. Both yes and no can not be the answer. I hope you agree there. The third option is that Quran does not talk about it. If that is the case than why so many muslims (and other religious people as well) get upset when evolution is being mentioned? There are even books written about it, with poor tries to deny the evolution. 0
Another reason why I am disappointed is that you simply deny some facts. Obviously evolution is not your specialty. I mentioned to you before how species change. This is not a theory. They do change and we use it to change the species too. I will gladly explain a lot about this, but this would make the message too long maybe. So I skip the idea this time. But one thing again. You addmited that species change. Than why would this change stop at some limit? Isn't it logic that it should go on and continue... and after a time long enough, the species is changed so much that we can consider it a new species? 0
Please read the second part of my previous message again and give me some comments. Don't ignore it. It is important for our discussion. Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-10-2010, 10:36 PM

Hi Stranger

Hey... you should really control yourself. It is not a good way to debate to write such long messages. I read them all, but I am sure I will forget to reply something that is important to you. Take it step by step.0
However the first long message is mostly about what Ibn Alsunnah already talked about in 12 long sides, or so. I already pointed at things that are not logic or convincing, but i will repeat some things again. 0
Statement 1 sounds logic to me. From absolutely nothing, you can not get something. 0
Statment 2 sound also logic. There is a cause to everything. 0
Statement 3: and infinite chain of cause and effect is impossible. Here we are getting problems. For the first we have no experience of eternity, but not just that:Einsteins says material/energy can not be destroyed or gained... just transformed from one form to another. If that is true, than you have a problem with science. But not just that. If we look it the other way and deny this last statement, than this logic means NOTHING is eternal. How can god be eternal than? 0
Guys I understand how you think but there is a lack of logic here. If you don't see that, than at least try to see why I am thinking the way I do. Do you see why this logic is not convincing to me and many other people? And not just this. This logic, even if we close our eyes to what I said above, is still no evidence of a god - just a try to show a missing link, that could be anything, but definitively not a god that is controlling all microbes in this universe, as someone claimed here. 0
I will take your next long message in another answer. I don't want to drown this one in too many words. 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 12:05 AM

Hi again Stranger

It is interesting that you say you write long messages to train your thoughts. I feel Muslims often come with same way of talk and are not good to reply when someone comes with a new point of view. Well, this is my experience at least. I am glad I can say I never did read any Atheistic site, or book. I did read some parts of Darwin's "The origin of species" and I saw a 45 minutes long movie by Dawkins. That is what I can remember so far. I did not even understand how big impact this Dawkins did (everything sounded logic to me), before I went to one Islamic website and saw how they tried to discredit him. Maybe I will buy a book by him, but so far I did not do it. I like to think by myself and not represent others ideas.0
But let's continue with the message. The BB theory is about universe that we know of today. It is not necessarily a start of time and space. There could for example have been another universe there before.... maybe that it was all "eaten" by a huge black hole, or whatever. It looks like there was a huge explosion some 15 billions of years ago from which all the universe that we know origins. This is so far just a theory and maybe impossible to ever show evidence for. Something exploded due to BB theory, but what it was, we don't know. Some scientists call this a "cosmic egg". Due to some theories the expansion of universe will stop by the gravitation and change to contraction. One day everything will again be united in a huge cosmic egg and maybe explode again in a new BB. This is a theory of pulsating universe. A problematic fact for this theory is that we so far can not see that universe is slowing down. In contrary it looks like the speed is increasing. Maybe there is not much material in universe to
You talk about sun not being eternal, and universe not being etarnal. No one says the sun is eternal. If god would create a sun, than it could be eternal, cause god obviously can do anything, even against natural laws. Since god did not create it than sun will "burn up". Same about the universe. Itr did have a start in BB, that we talked about above. But that does not mean this is the start of the time. There could have been and probably has been some universe there before, although we can not prove that scientifically. Just speculate about it, just as you speculate about god.0

Statement 4 in your last message: Your favourite one. If there is a law, than someone made it. Firs, I would change the word someone, cause it cpuld be something. But regardless of that, I will give you a completly diffrent view at the same problem. I ask you this: Can you even imagine something existing... even the most simple thing... or anything at all WITHOUT ANY LAWS? Can you? I can not. If we imagine just neutrons, or whatever you want, the first law that we maybe could mention is that they can not drop to each other. I talk about neutrons because I don't want to involve protons or electrons that has a positive and negative charge, which makes them more advanced. But however... as soon as you have anything it has to exist within some rules. Do you agree with that? No matter how the rules are created, but there are rules there. If those protons exist and they can not drop one into another, than they started to organize themselves. If we talk about something different as for example pieces of sand in the dessert, even if they look like they are there by completely randomness, we will both realize this is not the case. Even the sand peaces can not drop into each other. The wind makes them be placed in dunes... and the bigger ones will roll down more likely, which means there will be more bigger peaces at the bottoms of the dunes, than at the tops. Does it mean someone placed them like that? Of course not.. they follow the natural laws. Does it mean someone made those laws by purpose? Of course it does not mean that. Simply, if there is something, than it has to follow some rules. We call them natural laws, and as long as there is no problem with that, than why explain them as someone "wrote" them? This is another case where religions give an explanation that is not an explanation. 0

You mention something that Dawkins "comes up with" to explain universes existence, but you did not give me an explanation what it is. Do you have a link to his own website (which I suppose he has), where he is writing about it. That would be a better way for me to see what he wrote.

How earth rotates around the sun with the exact right speed and distance to the sun to contain life? Well, if it did not than we would not be here talking about it. You agree with that, I am sure. But the question back is why are so many other planets not doing that? So far we don't know any that contains life, although we know there are many more planets. Why would god create 8 planets and many more smaller planets only in our solar system if he wanted life to exist on just 1 if them? What a waste of energy and time, I would say. Not to mention many stars that probably can not contain life at any of the planets. It does not sound like a very great plan. 0

About the first cell: I did read about it a while ago. There are some very simple viruses that act like coal based crystals when outside the body. They can exist like that forever, probably. They are dead creatures. When coming inside a body they start acting like living creatures. I talked with a doctor about this not long ago and she agrees that here we probably have a connection link between life and dead material. Did you hear about that? 0 If there is something, it will just organize itself, not because someone wants it, but because it is impossible to not be like that. And once the life has started there was no way to keep it on virus level. It was just a question of time. The conditions on earth did change many times.... we know that. The only way for life to exist was to evoluate. This is logic. Otherwise we would not exist. 0
Hey, let us keep the messages shorter and clearer. There is no need to give 5 examples where one is enough. I will try my best and I hope you do the same. 0
Best regards from Charlie#

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 12:15 AM

To everyone,

Someone here claimed in some previous message that no Muslim would want to continue living if there is no god. This is to me very interesting. For the first I don't think anyone can say that for all Muslims. But regardless to that, if someone feels like that, than it is not a good position to look for the truth. If one truth makes you happy, while the others wants you to become suicide, than there is no way you will look for the truth. You will look for the happiness. This confirms my theory I wrote initially. People believe in god because they want. The truth is not offering them a place in paradise and it is not easy to admit that ones whole life is based on false imagination. It takes strength to honestly look for the truth, when it is far from what parents told you and what your society tells you.0
I hope I can help at least someone to open the senses and find the truth. 0#

Best regards, Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-11-2010, 02:50 AM

Hi Charlie,
Yes, I’m sorry I know it’s a lot and I don’t mean to drown things in too many words. I was just trying to put out as much as I could before I get busy with this month. I found out that I will unfortunately be busier than what I thought, so please do pardon me for not being able to continue our discussion in a timely manner starting tomorrow (maybe on weekends only or so).

Comments on what you wrote:

I know that because I wrote so many things, little details could be tricky to notice, but please do read this more carefully.
Statement2 says: Everything “we have seen and experienced” is based on a cause and effect.
The rule associated with this statement is: everything that “emerged into existence” (i.e. did not exist before and now existed), has to be caused (which is consistent with statement1

So statement2 does not say: there is a cause for everything. It says there is a cause for everything (that emerged into existence after it did not exist). This includes everything we experienced in this life, but not for example include our universe in totality until we establish that it emerged into existence after it did not exist.

As far as statement3, you said you have a problem with it because we have no experience of eternity. This is true, but this does not mean that we can not comprehend things related to eternity even if we didn’t experience it. For example mathematicians use infinity all the time in their equations. They have not experienced it for sure, but they can deduce things using it in their equations and come up with actual numbers. I’m sure you remember we did such things in our calculus classes.
I see my example very logical and perfectly fits the same statement. To put it differently, I would not be here if my father didn’t exist, and he the same…etc. if we keep going back in an infinite manner that would contradict my very existence. The chain should logically stop at an eternal first cause, whether we will claim that the first cause is matter, or claim it to be God.

Think about this: Science as we know it can NOT really answer what was before the Big Bang.
Remember we don’t oppose science nor have problems with it (in the sense that we will refuse it simply because it does not agree with what we believe). But scientists themselves believe that science is very limited to human experiences. It’s limited to the way the human mind thinks and deduces based on built-in brain logical principles. Science is built upon logic which is the very most basic unit of how our brains work. You realize that there are many scientific claims that contradict each other (relativity and quantum for ex). Our very basic brain function of logic tells us that two absolute facts can not contradict each other. Two opposing things can never be both true to our mind. If one is true the other has to be false. This is why we say, logic is the most basic unit and the first tool we would use in such a discussion because we can agree on things much faster than say scientific theories out there that have good evidence to them, but still can not constitute an absolute fact.

Conversation of energy is a known empirical physical law that Einstein supported with his relativity theory. This means it’s consistent for what we have observed in this universe. But notice the law says that the total amount of energy “in an isolated system or closed system” should remain the same. Can we say our universe is an isolated system? To the best of our knowledge, universe is expanding. We don’t really know if it’s isolated! Also to the best of our knowledge our universe started with the BB. So the real question is: can we apply physical laws (that are based on our experience “within” a limited area in this universe) to the universe in totality? If you say yes: this is why we say: the universe existed and has to have a cause! Based on our experience. If you say no, like most atheists, then we say such a law can not necessarily be applied on the universe in totality especially that we don’t really know that the universe is isolated. Even scientists say our physical laws don’t apply to matter when it was in the early few seconds after the BB!

I’m not sure how you deduced that statement3 necessarily states that nothing is eternal. You either misunderstood it or I misunderstood that comment. Remember statement3 is not talking about whether the first cause has to be God or not for you to ask how God would be eternal. Statement3 just states that going back infinitely can not be true logically because we would not have existed. It says that there has to be an eternal first cause to stop this logical chain. Statement3 does not confirm or negate whether this first cause is God or otherwise (matter as atheists say). So think about it once again and let me know if my clarifications helped at all. I actually don’t really see where the lack of logic is. Please clarify. This logic so far did not claim that the missing link is God. It claimed that there is a missing link that has to be there otherwise logic collapses. It is in my next posts where I establish why we believe it is God.

Regarding your last comment about how we do believe God does indeed control everything in this universe; I have mentioned that God is not limited in abilities in what we believe. I would bet that “if” you had to choose a God to believe in (assumption), you wouldn’t believe in a God that’s limited. By basic logic and intuition (for people who believe in God), God is unlimited and most powerful…etc. To me it’s very logical and makes sense. It does not seem so to you, so we can mark this as a point of difference if you wish.
Best regards,
Stranger

ابن السنة

08-11-2010, 01:07 PM

Dear Charlie

When you say a fact can never contradict with Quran it means you already accepted it as a fact. This is not a good position to really look for the truth

I guess you misunderstood my point. I mean that if something was proven by science to be a fact, then we as muslims will accept it. We don't have any problem with that
I will just stress on our methodology
First we believe in God based on logical steps (one of them is what we discussed before and you are discussing now with stranger)
then we say ok lets prove also that Mohamed (PBUH) is a messenger
then we say lets prove that the Quran was transmitted to us with no corruption.
We have chains of narration that trace back to the prophet. So for example someone say X who memorizes quran will say I learned it from Y and Y learnt from Z and so until we reach the prophet.
If we proved these three steps, then we say that the Quran is the words of God. We then conclude that Quran cannot contradict with a fact
So say that we have this fact that the earth is round. then we go and look at the quran what we are going to see?
we are going to see that it can be interpreted in a way which is consistent with the fact that the earth is round. This is just an example which comes to my mind, but this goes for anything.
The other way is also possible, something mentioned in the quran which is against what people consider as against reality and then when science adavanced we discovered that the quran was the right
For example, in the quran it is mentioned that every animal is created from water, 800 years ago a commentator of the quran wrote while he was discussing this verse that atheists at him time say that this cannot be true.
There is another verse which talks about the sperms and ovals originates in a certain place. It was known at his time that they originates in the human brain. Then as science advances we know that germ cells originate in the place mentioned in the quran and that as it moves afterward , it still gets its blood supply, nerve impulses and ...etc from this place.
Looking back to the verse we can see that this meaning is consistent with what we know from science today. So new commentators would give a brief note to the new fact a side note.
There are many other examples
and All these examples are under 4 categories
1- A scientific fact and a statement in the quran which can have many shadows of meanings
and we always pick the meaning which is consistent with the fact
2- A scientific fact and a statement in the quran which has a unique meaning
We say they will never contradict
3- No fact and a unique meaning
we will take the unique meaning and when science advances we will see that both would agree
4- No fact, many shadows of meanings
Here we will accept the most probable meaning
You keep saying that Evolution is a fact and why we are against evolution
Well Evolutionists don't just go and say that Design and purpose were behind it but they say there is no purpose behind anything!! and this means that there is no Creator which is against what was proven (at least to us)
That is why we are against Evolution
So lets assume that 70% of Evolution is a fact, then we will accept this 70% don't worry.
Have you watched the documentary "Expelled, No intelligence allowed" ?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed
I don't agree with everything in the movie for sure, but it is interesting to know that some scientists are against evolution. It is also interesting to see that evolutionists are fighting those who say evolution is a myth. We didn't find any physicist for example even cares to discuss those who deny gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics. Even someone like Einstein said that QM is not right, we say he was wrong and keep it going.
I don't claim here anything, I just want you to go again and check what is scientific in evolution and what is an ideology. And again please be sure that whatever is proven in science as a fact we will accept it

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 10:42 PM

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I asked a simple question. Does Quran accept the evolution. or does it deny it? Or does it not know? This is important. You can not say just that if science will prove it, than Islam will accept it. I want to know the position of Quran. You can not change it afterwards, just because someone proved the evolution. Ok, you can accept it as a human being, or as a Muslim, but Quran can not be rewritten if there is mistakes in it. Than it is not a wholy book.0
But please, I am asking for the third time for your opinion about what I wrote of the term species, and why no one can ever tell how many species there are in the world. Read my second to previous message that was posted to you. 0

And finally: If someone should give even one evidence of god, than, of course I would believe. I am not stupid to want to end up in hell. But no one has ever showed even ONE evidence of that. Not even close to it, despite all tries. It is all speculations, closing eyes to the facts and picking the facts that fit... as well as wishful thinking. That is my opinion and the messages I get here often confirm what I suspected when I joined. 0

Bets regards from Charlie

أدري

08-11-2010, 11:03 PM

Hi Charlie
I feel that it’s too difficult for you to read folllow and reply on all the messages you get in this discusions while you are alone , so I will let the others continue this discusion with you, I will pull out .You can send me any comments questions through my email.
Best of luck
From Ibahim

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 11:41 PM

Hi again Stranger

We are on the good way to write shorter messages. That is good. Not just because it saves us time, but because long messages often hide illogical things. Clear thinking can often be explained short. 0

It is funny for me that religions are going back to the point where science did not find the answers yet. This has been done throughout human history by different religions, many times. I will not go to different examples, because I am sure you know some by yourself. It just reminds me of one way of talking that fits good here: Where knowledge stops, fantasy takes over. 0

The problem in explaining things with god is that this is not any explanation at all. What is god? Creator? Ok... But still what is it, or he? A writer of a book in Arab language? And how did he create the world? Does he exist at all? Science would never accept such an explanation without evidences. Religions do. Ancient romans believed in Jupiter as the top god (they had more than one). At that time it was impossible to deny it. Ok... it was still very unbelievable for someone who think logic, but nevertheless, impossible to deny it. Your logic of god could have been applied in the same way for Jupiter at that time. One day science will maybe explain what happened in the first 1/1 000 000 of a second, after BB (yes, something like that...we are not talking about "a few seconds"). When that day comes you can be sure fundamental religions will accept it, and move the "evidence" to another level (Ok, I know you did not say that part of a second is an evidence... just a problem for the science, but you know what I mean). It is a problem for religions too... 0

o " Can we say universe is an isolated system?" 0
No we can not. This is what I claimed when I said BB is not necessarily beginning of time (and most likely it is not) and the energy or material probably just transformed into BB from something. And even if the birth of our universe looks like something enormous, it still might be just a small happening in a super universe that would make the observable universe look like a drop in the sea. This is of course just speculations so far. But can we say universe is NOT an isolated system? Is the cosmic egg the egg of everything that exist, or to just a small part of it? We simply know too little so far... Religion does not give us answer either. 0

The logic of infinite chain and the causes and effects we already talked about for many pages. I did understand what you mean, but please try understanding what I talk about. You don't have to agree, but try understanding my point of views (there is more than one angle): If nothing can be eternal, than god can not exist. Ok, you raise him above natural laws and above the same logic here, but I am sure you know what I mean. It is not a convincing logic. From another point of view: If material can not not be destroyed, than it can not be created either. We don't know any way to destroy or create it. In that case material is eternal. That is what we know so far. Talking about another universe from where it comes, is just a speculation. 0

Can you understand my point of view? I pointed at this many times, but still get back the same question. Did I miss something? Don't look at it as scientific comment. Look at it as my believe, if it makes it easier to accept. 0

Best regards, Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-11-2010, 11:43 PM

Hey Charlie, How is it going?
I’m curious by the way as to what you think about Dr. Barretts research and experiments. Did you get a chance to read the article?

Also I think that as you spend more time thinking about what we’re discussing, things will be clearer.

couple of things on your comments,

It is interesting that you say you write long messages to train your thoughts
Once again please read what I wrote carefully. I did not say I’m writing my messages to train my thoughts, I said:

Please do forgive my long posts as once I start writing, I try to maintain my train of thoughts so I don’t forget my ideas.
Train of thought = expression. Train as in: “bus, car or train”, not as in: “I’m trying to train my mind”. It's just an english expression. I'm basically sayin, I'm trying to organize my thoughts.

I feel Muslims often come with same way of talk and are not good to reply when someone comes with a new point of view
I hope this statement is based on the previous misreading of what I wrote. Also I request that you don’t share opinionated statements like this, especially when there is no supporting evidence. We actually like to see new points of view (we really do), and are very welcoming to reply to them. We do it all the time here so, try to avoid these presumptions.

I have mentioned Dawkins because he’s very known publicly to support atheism, and was just mentioning him in the context of his inability to answer the question I asked. Feel free to disagree with him and/or not take his ideas. Let’s discuss the arguments rather than people.

About the BB. You said:

This is so far just a theory and maybe impossible to ever show evidence for
I did mention the evidence that support the theory. Maybe you meant to say that the theory is not necessarily an absolute solid fact; exactly what I believe about evolution.

Due to some theories the expansion of universe will stop by the gravitation and change to contraction. One day everything will again be united in a huge cosmic egg and maybe explode again in a new BB
That’s why physics theorists insist on the existence of what they call dark matter although they have yet to prove it. But this pulsating universe theory has no evidence at all that I’m aware of. Actually like you mentioned universe is behaving to the contrary of what the theory says. Have you heard of the “theory” of God? The theory says: There is a God who created the world! I see this theory more, logical, convincing, and less of a mind-stretch with better evidence than a pulsating universe. Why are you open to the possibility of a pulsating universe, but are absolutely not open to the “theory” of God?

You talk about sun not being eternal, and universe not being eternal. No one says the sun is eternal

But that does not mean this is the start of the time. There could have been and probably has been some universe there before, although we can not prove that scientifically. Just speculate about it, just as you speculate about god.0
Charlie, after I read your comments on this one, I think I have identified a very important distinction that we have to note; and I think you will find this interesting. We might have been using the words “matter” and “universe” to mean different things. You seem to limit matter to only this universe as we know it, although I meant for it to be all matter. Let’s take the pulsating universe idea as example to clarify. You say, before the big bang, there could have been some universe before ours. That universe has matter in it. Now that universe is included in my discussion when I discuss whether matter/energy is eternal or not. There might have been some confusion using the word with interchangeable meanings. Think about applying the reasons of why we favor God to matter as the eternal first cause again. Matter changes its attributes all the time as far as we know. Whether in this universe as we know it, or in the previous one (assuming pulsating universe), or the one before…etc. I explained to you why we view change in attributes as a contradiction to eternal matter.

Logically we have two options:
Either the universe/time/matter all started at the Big Bang;
Or something existed even before the Big Bang.
Option1 makes us naturally ask, what started the BB? Our minds completely refuse an absolute-nothing-before-it idea (per statement1). Check out the following dialogue (hope it will clarify things a bit):
The question becomes, what existed before BB?

You say: ok more matter we don’t really know what it is, just as in a pulsating theory example.
We say: God.
If we say: but what was before the previous universe in your pulsating universe example.
you say: I can turn the question on you and ask: but what was before God.
If we say: Nothing was before God because God is eternal, he existed all the time to infinity in the past.
you say: Ok well I can say the same thing then. Nothing is before matter because matter is eternal, just like your God is eternal; it existed all the time to infinity in the past as well!!!!

We stopped here at some point in time. But I wanted to clarify to you why we choose God over matter to be the eternal “first cause”; and that was in one of my last posts.

So let me know what you don’t see logical if any so far. I’ll address the rules/law discussion in a different post.
Best of luck 
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 11:45 PM

Hi Ibrahim

I am trying my best, but you are right it takes time and sometimes I miss things. Maybe I should invite another atheist to help me to answer some of the questions.0
Thanks for your participation: Charlie#

Charlie1965

08-11-2010, 11:48 PM

Hi again Stranger. I did read your last message, but will wait for the previous one to be replied. We did write at the same time: 0

Charlie (maybe going to sleep now) 0

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-12-2010, 12:15 AM

Hi Charlie,
Just read your post.

It is funny for me that religions are going back to the point where science did not find the answers yet.

I truly see why you would think like that. I think I actually understand your view point. I simply disagree with it. You think that God is a fantasy; and an unknown entity that we will use anytime we feel we can’t explain things. You’re saying: We don’t know, so we claim God did it…end of story… because we don’t question God as he has unlimited abilities. I see your view point and do understand it. You give the example of previous religions in which they thought some planet was a God. You also think that God is not a scientific explanation. Science accepts evidence and religion does not. Again I think I see your view point and understand it, I don’t honestly think you understood my logic though.

You say: if nothing can be eternal, then God does not exist. You want God and matter to be the same. We believe God is not like matter and that’s why we said what we said. As you said we do raise him above natural laws; if you don’t think this is logical, I do actually.

Think about this for a second. “If” there was a God, do you think he is subject to scientific and physical laws of our universe? I’m sure you would answer no. So the question is: can science prove or disprove God. In that sense I don’t think so. I think science does prove him in a different way though. I’ll discuss that when I have time. But think about this for a second: Can you prove colors to a blind person. Blind person can develop his own “science” based on his perspective and observation of the world around him. Take it a step further. If the entire world’s population was born blind, we would live in this life, and even develop our science like we developed it now. It will be different though since there is no concept of images. Will we ever prove the existence of colors? Does it mean that colors don’t exist?
I think the rules/laws argument will clarify things a bit further. I need to find time to reply to it and clarify it through. I’ll keep it to a different post.
Just read your last post right before posting this. Sure, wait for my post on the previous one before we continue
Yours,
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-12-2010, 11:57 AM

Hi again Stranger (reply to the former post), 0

I did not read Dr Barrets research and never heard of him before, actually. 0

Next: I wrote something like Muslims avoiding to talk about religion and god from another point of view, than the one they are trained for. You say it is a presume. Well, I do base it on my experience. I asked the same question several times here (to Ibn Alsunnah) about the species. Why can we not know how many species are. You can read it in some of my former messages. If you are willing to answer it instead of him, than I will copy it for you again. I asked what Quran says about evolution: yes or no. No answer... just "Quran is not agains science". I tried to discuss how likely is that god would write something as Sharia law. This was avoided with the explenation it is not our topic, although the topic is (due to Ibn Alsunnah) "how come people believe in god in 21st century". It is definitivly inside the topic. I asked more than once if he would gladly accept to get his hand off, or be stoned to death, since it is a way to paradise. Or would he ask for mercy? No reply at all. But talking about a chain of causes and effects can be repeated over and over again, by him and by you. So what conclusions do you expect me to get from that? Uncomfortable angles of view are avoided, due to my experience. The examples are more. I can not remember I ignored some of your questions like that. Sometimes maybe missed in a long mail, but I never deny the answer over and over again. Do we see a lack of arguments here, or what is the reason? 0

You mentioned Dawkins and something he said. I asked for a reference on Internet and you say we should not discuss persons, but arguments. Well, I did not want to talk Dawkins as a person. I wanted to know what he said. You probably know much more about him, than I do (I really know a little, but getting curious). So if you say he said something, than show me where says so, if possible. It was quite a serious accusing of
him: "Anything to not accept god". 0

I am not positive to a pulsating universe. I just mentioned it as one theory that is not proven. Just like god. We talk about things that are very difficult for me and you to know. Here we do depend on other experts. I can not see the universe expanding, neither can you. I believe in science (and I know it can make mistakes) you believe in Quran and what other religious leaders say about it. Here we actually both believe, because none of us has the knowledge or the equipment to check this fact (about expanding universe). But I believe in science because it is much more convincing in things I can check. God is not convincing to me. For you it is the opposite. I think this is obvious. 0

About eternity of god, or material. What is not logical, you ask me and in the same time you repeat what I already said. But I can say it in another way: If material is eternal, than we don't even need a theory of god. Can you prove material is not eternal. Yes, I know you and IA tried over and over. I was not convinced. That is what I talk about initially. Why not try a completely new angle of view? Maybe I am stupid and can not understand this. So why not try something that I will understand? How many more sides will we repeat what already has been said? Is this your best evidence of god? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-12-2010, 12:04 PM

Hi again,

To make it short, just this reply to your latest comment. What is more likely: Something simple being eternal, or something advanced? If we did not know anything of what was written above and you see a Ferrari in a dessert. What is more likely: Ferrari being eternal, or the sand being it? Of course none of them is, because even the sand is not eternal, but if you had to choose one, not knowing better, than what would you think is more likely? Please answer straight and do not involve god. We talk about a Ferrari and the sand in the dessert, nothing else.0

Charlie

ابن السنة

08-12-2010, 12:52 PM

Dear Charlie,

Next: I wrote something like Muslims avoiding to talk about religion and god from another point of view, than the one they are trained for. You say it is a presume. Well, I do base it on my experience. I asked the same question several times here (to Ibn Alsunnah) about the species. Why can we not know how many species are. You can read it in some of my former messages. If you are willing to answer it instead of him, than I will copy it for you again. I asked what Quran says about evolution: yes or no. No answer... just "Quran is not agains science". I tried to discuss how likely is that god would write something as Sharia law. This was avoided with the explenation it is not our topic, although the topic is (due to Ibn Alsunnah) "how come people believe in god in 21st century". It is definitivly inside the topic. I asked more than once if he would gladly accept to get his hand off, or be stoned to death, since it is a way to paradise. Or would he ask for mercy? No reply at all. But talking about a chain of causes and effects can be repeated over and over again, by him and by you. So what conclusions do you expect me to get from that? Uncomfortable angles of view are avoided, due to my experience. The examples are more. I can not remember I ignored some of your questions like that. Sometimes maybe missed in a long mail, but I never deny the answer over and over again. Do we see a lack of arguments here, or what is the reason? 0

I answered several times about Sharia and Evolution . Please remember Charlie, that many people watch our discussion so we don't want to disturb them by jumping between topics. I also requested from you to open two new discussion forms , one about Evolution and the other about Sharia.
We cannot just go like that : One message cause and effects chains, another Sharia, third Evolution !!!!
This disturbs everyone!!!
Please Charlie, I never said we are feeling embarassed about anything. So don't pre assume something I never said please.

Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

أدري

08-12-2010, 01:23 PM

Hi guys
It's Worth mentioning that:
Reality is one that is there is only one true conception of reality .There is a difference between evidence and proof (belief and knowledge).tonight will be followed by morning!! why?(how do we know) because the nights before(trillion nights) are all evidence. The statement(verbal representation of a concept) is possibly true and the opposite(will not be followed by morning) is equally true this is belief=ignorance!! the method to know(proof) wait until the morning comes or not. this is in the empirical issues (experience is a method to proof=to know).every issue has one proof but to hold a belief as knowledge is very dangerous and irresponsible=irrational so what is knowledge and are we ever to have a true conception of Being(=all what exist and the nature)by means of a PROOF?

please contact me on my privet email for any comments
Ibrahim

Charlie1965

08-12-2010, 07:30 PM

Hi Ibn Alsunnah and Ibrahim

As you understand I can not run 3 forums at the same time. I am alone here, talking to usually 2 or 3 people all the time, often writing very long messages. I have a life beside this. So I will not do that and this includes private mails (they still take my time, no matter if here, or by e-mail). I thought this line was a little bit because of me. I was the one to try to understand how people believe in god in 21st century. But from the start we were talking same chain and cause, without getting longer than what we were at the 3rd side or so. Is this the only angle to tackle the problem? Remember, this is not the line about "Chain of causes, etc" Ok, I could close this line and open a new one, but I am not interested in evolution as itself. I am interested in evolution as the evidence that there has been no creation and I wanna know how religions can just ignore it. It is not beside the topic. Also remember that initially we did touch the topic and Ibn Alsunnah said that was not his specialty, but brother Ahmeds. He was here for a while and than asked to leave, because there were too many people here. But the evolution was here very early in the forum and at that time it was ok. Why is it not ok now? Who decides from which angle we should tackle the problem? I don't think that the other people who read this line want to hear same talk over and over again. Please move forward. 0

Charlie

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-12-2010, 10:54 PM

Hi again Charlie,
I read your comments again about my statement4 regarding laws and rules. Let me keep this post within this topic because like I said it’s my favorite one. This does not involve cause-effect and logic chains and whether we can apply our physics before BB …etc although I will come back to that topic later. I will reply to your later posts when I get time.

If we talk about something different as for example pieces of sand in the
dessert, even if they look like they are there by completely randomness, we will both realize this is not the case.

The wind makes them be placed in dunes... and the bigger ones will roll down more likely, which means there will be more bigger peaces at the bottoms of the dunes, than at the tops. Does it mean someone placed them like that? Of course not.. they follow the natural laws

Does it mean someone made those laws by purpose? Of course it does not mean that. Simply, if there is something, than it has to follow some rules
So Charlie, I gave many examples because I believe examples are very good tool of communicating ideas. Although I gave many, I think it was still not well-communicated what I wanted to relay to you. So let’s try to be a little patient with each other. We both have assumptions that we have to challenge as I indicated before.

I gave the example of a computer and you gave the example of sand and dunes in a desert. Let’s look at both examples a little more closely and see why I think they’re different. If we look at a computer along with all of the rules/laws it follows (computer rules/laws), you automatically logically deduce that there has to be someone who “created” or “designed” this computer. Let’s differentiate between the computer causes for how it works and our inference of the need of a designer/creator. Ever since we were born, we’ve seen sand and other things in life, and we did observe that wind can put sand into dunes. Does that mean there is a cause for the sand to form dunes: yes, and that cause is wind. We observed these laws and they became natural for us to observe. Does looking at the dunes make you think that there needs to be a designer and creator of the hills? Probably no. So what’s the difference between computers and dunes? Forming dunes is a simple phenomenon. There is not enough complexity involved that would make us ask: how did these dunes come together. But now if I ask you if you see in the desert sand in forms of letters and words and you read them to find a Shakespearean poem. You will not say: ok wind did it and nothing else. You will say: some intelligence was involved to write a poem because sand by itself including all of its basic physical properties along with wind can NEVER write such a poem no matter how much time you give it. So the difference between the two examples is in complexity. Complexity requires design. When new rules (ex. Computer rules) emerge, we deduce that these rules work perfectly and must have a designer/creator.

I think it takes thinking a little bit outside the box. “If” you argue and say: we see human beings that are very complex, you would not have gotten the point, because the very existence of human beings is what we’re discussing about. Attempt to answer the following question(s) and I think this will force your mind to look at it from our angel if you will:

Question intro: Before life even started, there were just atoms; and planets were cooling and forming…etc. There were no biological rules/laws. Then somehow life emerged on earth and somehow biological laws/rules were introduced. These rules are very interesting because they always tend to increase in complexity. These very biological rules eventually depend on sub-level rules of physics (forget about where these physics rules/laws came from, we’ll assume they were just there). Here is the problem now: according to physics law: matter tends to go from higher complexity/order to lower complexity/order randomly (entropy) unless external power is involved. If you look out our world you would notice that we see an overall trend of increase in complexity!

Question(s): How did these biological rules emerge to form such an enormous undeniable complexity in our world? How is it that these biological rules violate the essence of physics rules that they depend on? Were they developed in a completely random fasion that violates mathematical and physical laws of randomness?

We refuse to see a computer (with complex computer rules that emerged) and not deduce there must be a designer just like we refuse to look at the world and living things and not deduce there must have been a designer. And knowing a lot of how this computer works by opening it up and observing patterns in it to discover why we see the picture on the screen does not mean there is not enough complexity and design for the computer designer to exist. Just like knowing all the things we know about life from natural science does not mean that there is no one behind the rules by which the universe operates. We simply refuse the idea of total randomness that generates such amazing rules with such complex beings as a result, with no design and intelligence involved; again not because we want to believe, but because this leads us to believe.

Closely related to this is the talk about the first cell and viruses. I’m aware of the viruses you talked about. You said they act live and dead. This will really boil down to the definition of what “live” means! Biologist likes to call it dead since it doesn’t have mtabolic activities that we see in other living creatures. But keep this in mind: they have what we call the “secret of life”; DNA. Their DNA has instructions on attaching to hosts and replicating as a parasite on that host. For the sake of this discussion I would really consider viruses live because they have that very interesting “programmed” DNA along with biological rules/laws associated with its existence. It can act like “dead” since everything depends on pure physics at atoms eventually, but still has the DNA “code” in it while in that “dead” state. The question remains: how did these biological rules (that allowed viruses to develop in such a unique way, and allowed organisms to develop in such a unique way) emerge after they were not there?

Awaiting your answers,

Best wishes,
Stranger

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-12-2010, 11:32 PM

Why would god create 8 planets and many more smaller planets only in our solar system if he wanted life to exist on just 1 if them? What a waste of energy and time, I would say. Not to mention many stars that probably can not contain life at any of the planets. It does not sound like a very great plan

I wanted to comment on the above quote to make sure I address all of you comments.
It might not sound like a great plan to you true; but do you know if life would exist as it does now if these planets and other galaxies did not exist? This is like asking: why god created water for us to drink, can't we just live with no water? You realize that planets stabilize earth in it's orbit and without them life would not have existed on earth. Also the same can be said about stabilizing the galaxy's orbit around other galaxies.
We actually believe God made it so huge like this too for us to ponder and reflect on his greatness. In one challenge in the Quran, he states that we will never be able to permeate through all the heavens he created, which we have not yet. This is our perception of the universe that we're actually convniced of. Makes sense to me. .
best wishes,
Stranger

نور الدين الدمشقي

08-12-2010, 11:55 PM

Charlie,
Quick clarification on some comments I made. I used the words: complexity/design/intelligence quite interchangebly. The example of the computer.vs sand dunes is different because of the design shown in computers. Design involves more than just complexity. Design involves complexity plus order and an aspect of integration and functionality.
With that said: It would be more accurate for me to say: complexity plus order plus functionality and integration all require design and not just complexity requires design.
Just a point of clarification.
best regards,
Stranger

Charlie1965

08-13-2010, 12:12 AM

Hi again Stranger

I hope Ibn Alsunnah will let us talk about this, cause here we are touching the evolution and that has, due to him not the topic of this forum. We are in trouble... hehehe :-D

Anyway, I asked you before: Can you even imagine ANYTHING existing without any rules? Can you even describe something like that? It is impossible. There are physical and chemical laws that steer the biological rules. It is not like some new laws appeared after the earth cooled down after a billion of years or so and got a hard core and life started. It was a natural process. Science is explaining it more and more in details. I did not hear of any fundamental religious person (regardless of what religion we talk about) getting a Noble prize by studying holy books to make a discovery. Isn't that weird? Or isn't it a sign of how "serious" these book are from a scientific point of view? 0
The sand in the dessert is not only shaped by the wind, but also by physical laws in the peaces themselves. For example they can not fall one into other. We can understand why they are placed like that. Not for every piece independently, but in general. Your god has obviously control of every peace. So why is he not writing Shakespeare in sand after a dessert storm? Why are the stars not placed to form some shapes that we will recognize as human face, or some letters (in Arab, or whatever)? Any shape we can recognize. I think you agree that the shapes we see require quite a lot of fantasy to make us remind of what the star constellations are named by. Such clear shape would not even be a miracle for someone who is controlling every peace of sand, and birth of every virus and microbe. But, it will never happen.0
Since I did not get the answer from anyone else, can you answer me: Is Quran talking about creation OR evolution? Both can not be the truth, I think you agree. Or is it
perhaps not mentioning this at all? 0

About complexity and the tendency of matter to organize itself, or not. Nothing could have been much more unorganized than the time after BB. A very simple force made the atoms start to "organize" - gravitation. Of course it was not the only force (we have the electromagnetic force, the strong and the weak nuclear force, but no need to involve them here). Natural laws are same anywhere. They are universal and eternal. Just like the matter probably is. Weather you believe in it or not, it was impossible to the material to not follow any rules, after bb. Can you describe how such world would look like? I can not.
If you think something violates the natural laws, than you probably don't understand them well. Nothing can violate the natural laws. No god, or anything else. Once life started, it did continue to evaluate. Not because someone told it to do so, but because the fight for survival takes over. Species have to adapt, or to go under. How this goes on I talked about before, but I will gladly talk about it again, if I am allowed.#The diversity of the species is a result of long time evolution and many changes in climate, movement of continents and the big diversity in the environment on earth. It is not a miracle. But since I did not get the answer about Qurans position about evolution, maybe there is no need to talk about that. Maybe it will agree with me. I hope you will give me an answer about that. 0
The viruses and all life, just as everything else is made of same atoms, or if you want, neutrons, protons and electrons. So it is obvious they have the same origins. The viruses you talk about do have a simple DNA, but it is not made of something else, than the sand in the dessert is made of, if we go to the level to look into the atoms. Think about that. We see life from very simple viruses, at the edge of life,,,, there are crystals that act almost like alive, but still they are not and we have very complex forms of life, like ourselves for
example. It smells evolution, not creation.... What do you think? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-13-2010, 12:44 AM

Hi again Stranger

Nice you accept to talk of god from other angles of view. I like your explanation of why god made the universe so great (big) and made many planets without life. To stabilize the path of earth and of our galaxy. But this means he acted within the limits of natural laws. You say he is above the natural laws. Than he could have make the earth stable without the other planets. And actually the other planets are more destabilizing than stabilizing. The most stable path we would have with earth and sun alone. But regardless to that, that can not be the purpose because he did not need them for that, if he is above the natural laws. If the purpose was to show the greatness, than why did he not make anything that would show this is not natural. Like the stars placed to look like something. Than everyone would be amazed. 0
So, yes... the question why we need water is very good. A god above the natural laws could make us to not need water... or not need food... 0
Another question is if the world is perfect than why can we not live without killing other animals? I am not talking about animals we kill to eat. I talk about insects we step on when we walk? What is the purpose with that? It does not make much sence to me. 0
A final question just: What does Quran say of extraterrestrial life? 0

Best regards from Charlie

Charlie1965

08-15-2010, 12:28 AM

Hi guys

Did you give up, or is something wrong with the site? I am waiting for some comments... 0

Charlie

Light

08-15-2010, 12:37 AM

hi charlie
no . it's because ramadan . they don't have a lote of time

حسام الدين حامد

08-16-2010, 12:59 AM

What are the kinds of evidences that you build your knowledge upon

experience is a good base for my view at the world

can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

First I though... What is uniformitarianism? I did not know the word, but checked on Wikipedia. If I understood it correct, than it mean that the same natural laws always existed in the universe. Well, I actually doubt that is true. Of course I have no other own experiences but these from the present time. However if universe (or our part of the universe origins from the singularity, than it is difficult to apply the present natural laws to that time. We simply don't know much how material acts inside something that looks like a huge black hole, with the extreme conditions inside. This of course does not mean there is anything supernatural about that time in the development of the universe. 0

here you don't know the term and doubt its truth

What a surprise

Stephen Jay Gould ,the famous evolutionary biologist, said that uniformitarianism is one of the rules of science that we even needn't to debate about it any more!!

How can you be an evolutionist and don't believe in uniformitarianism?! It is a base upon which Charles Lyell and Darwin built their doctrine about geology and biology

Again:
can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

Take you time in understanding the term before you answer and don't depend on wikipedia alone!

Hi again Hossam

I could be cynical and say that unlike religion, science do not require "just one truth" that can explain everything and can not be change by knowledge. We learn part by part. However the world uniformitarianism is new to me and I am not maybe the right person to explain it. But to say that physical laws can not fully be applied at the time for BB is not something that science denies. The laws are for sure universal, but we don't fully understand the conditions at the time before BB. That does not mean there is something weird about them and supernatural. I guess that is what Darwin meant. There is a natural explanation of everything around us, even though we can not explain everything to 100%. Religion can not do it either, so this is not a problem for the science, against religion.#0

here you talk alot about something you just ignore! who spoke about the BB?! you just don't know uniformitarianism and dare to reply without the least knowledge and i really don't know why

anyway
you say you believe in experience
uniformitarianism can't be proven by experience as Gould said... do you still beleive in it and in the ideas based upon it??