:-)

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

اقتباس:

---

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

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

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

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

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/news...ic-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.

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

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

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

Dear Charlie
I will just comment on this note

اقتباس:

---

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

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

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

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#

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

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

Dear Charlie

اقتباس:

---

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/expel...igence-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

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

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

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

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,

اقتباس:

---

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:

اقتباس:

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

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:

اقتباس:

---

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.

اقتباس:

---

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?

اقتباس:

---

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

---

اقتباس:

---

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

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#

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

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

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

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

Dear Charlie,

اقتباس:

---

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

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

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

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

اقتباس:

---

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

---

اقتباس:

---

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

اقتباس:

---

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

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

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

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

Hi guys

Did you give up, or is something wrong with the site? I am waiting for some comments... 0

Charlie

hi charlie
no . it's because ramadan . they don't have a lote of time

اقتباس:

---

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

---

اقتباس:

---

experience is a good base for my view at the world

---

اقتباس:

---

can you prove uniformitarianism by experience?

---

اقتباس:

---

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

اقتباس:

---

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!

---

اقتباس:

---

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??

Oh, yes I am a very bad person doing my best to answer others questions, while my questions are too often being ignored. At least I know the custom to sign myself when I write something. There is no need for me to reply a not signed message.0

Charlie

what question you asked and I didn't reply!! You are just trying to escape by saying that you won't answer my question BECAUSE I didn't sign my reply in which I quoted your saying (( HI HOSSAM)) What a bad person I'm!!!! Good luck and don't again try to defend something you don't understand as uniformitarianism or evolution

:emrose::):

انا لله وانا اليه راجعون,حياه الانسان قصيره,ومع ذلك لايفكر فى سبب وجود فيها ,وتلهيه الامانى,ولكن الموت يأتى بغته

انا لله وانا اليـــــــه راجعون ...
صادفت عدة أشخاص بنفس تفكير شارلي ... والمفارقه انهم ماتوا على ماهم عليـــــه ...!!
اللهم احسن خاتمتنا ولاتقبضنا الا وأنت راض عنا , نعوذ بك من ميتة السوء وخاتمة السوء .....
He said here before "Second Life after death a good idea but it is far from the truth" .. Now he has become in this life that he thought it was far .... And certainly saw the truth .... We sincerely hope that he heard telling the truth that everyone who tried to guide him and show him the way to ALLAH as ALLAH wants human beings .... But he was not see than what he settled in his mind from the wrong idea ... He died at the end of this already, but ALLAH gave him an opportunity here ...
SOUPHANALLAH.....!!