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
-
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#Leave a comment:
-
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 AlsunnahLast edited by ابن السنة; 07-14-2010, 07:04 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Dear Charlieالمشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965 مشاهدة المشاركة
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#Last edited by ابن السنة; 07-14-2010, 06:35 PM.Leave a comment:
-
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. CharlieLeave a comment:
-
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 CharlieLeave a comment:
-
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!Leave a comment:
-
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 syaLeave a comment:
-
but if there is not a soul so we are like a rockForgot 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
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 ashbelyLeave a comment:
-
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
yes i'm with u prophet mohammed (puoh)#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.
said in the day near the doomsday there will not be there any body say oh my god the evil will spread in earthLeave a comment:
-
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
ahmedLast edited by أحمد فتحي الموحد; 07-14-2010, 09:46 AM.Leave a comment:
-
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 AlsunnahLeave a comment:
-
Hi CharlieHi Ibn Alsunnah
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 existProbably we can go on forever
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
Not probably yes but absolutely yesBut 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.
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
We couldn't know the answer based on natural science basis but that doesn't mean it is not thereThis stops us asking further. We simply can not know the answer and there it stops than.
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 nightLeave a comment:
-
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 CharlieLeave a comment:
-
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
ahmedLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: