"So basically when I read about the processes that occur in nature, I am reading about a plan and design."
but this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. i mean, do you understand where your attributes came from, the process? do you understand how every gene in your DNA is the result of a random mutation being selected by the environment?
/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo
its long, but i would really appreciate it if you watched it and applied it to your statements about design in nature.
"selected by the environment" so something is still decides and selecting things. Every gene a result of mutation? if I recall correctly, I believe my genes attributes were mostly determined by the genes from both my mother and father but its been a long time since bio lol. But yes there is always room for mutation. Can you remind me how random mutation is selected by the environment.
@PureHumanity "if I recall correctly, I believe my genes attributes were mostly determined by the genes from both my mother and father"
indeed, and they inherited their genes from their parents, and them from their parents, and so on for 4 billion years.
where do you think the genome of every organism came from if not from completely random, arbitrary mutations selected by the environments of their host organisms? their parents, all the way back to.... when god designed them?
if it is indeed found that we are just a bubble in an infinitely large foamy sea of universes, and that most of the universes are feckless, failed, useless wastes, it would be very difficult to fit in an omniscient creator, especially one that is supposed to be anything other than pitiless and indifferent about us and our existence.
hmm, for some maybe, but others could bring about a different perspective on this. for example, beauty does not become beautiful until it is compared with that which is ugly. So ugly is simply a manifester of beauty, it distinguishes beauty. Without things that are ugly, then there would be no appreciation for that which was beautiful. Just like without struggle and hardship, there would be no appreciation for or true understanding of ease.
So similarly, when the existence is looked upon as a whole, with all the universes under its scope, some might bring up this very point. that maybe in order for us to appreciate order then there has to be some type of disorder and chaos.
BUT, It could be said that the "failings" of the other universes is also a demonstration of order. How so?...
How so?.... well you spoke about how things would not have formed in other universes because of having a weaker gravitational pull among other things, and besides that which I mentioned already about the laws of other universes being possibly completely different then ours, these universes would be still following a law and order. This is because the law and order of nature/science would not allow them to form any formations. So they are simply obeying the order.
we should not be surprised to find ourselves in one of the ones that allow space, time, mass, stars, planets, carbon based lifeforms, conscious beings, because here we are. in an infinitely large number of universes, there will inevitably be a lesser-infinite number of universes that allow life. and a lesser-lesser-number of universes that include us, and so on until we have universes that are EXACTLY like ours.
but thats assuming the number is infinite, it might not be.
"But why do you say most of the other universes have failed?"
because each universe would have a different set of constants. some would not have allowed the manifestation of time and space, others would possibly have a stronger nuclear force, and would not have allowed the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen. some would possibly have a weaker gravitational constant and not allow for the formation of stars.
Interesting, the universe, ha we have yet to even scratch the surface of what it beholds.
I don't know much about the states of other universes so I can't really comment on the topic.
But I from what I do know, from watching the show "The Universe" on the history channel lol, is that other universes most likely have a completely different set of laws then ours. So we can't make our universe's laws the criteria of other universe's laws.
and if science has explained it, why is it so difficult to convey? the first time i heard about it was from you, and ive talked to dozens/hundreds of religious people, both IRL and on forums/youtube.
do you admit that its completely possible for there to be a breakthrough next week that shows the formation of universes are very ordinary events that happen all the time, like leaves falling off of trees, as the scientific concensus seems to hold?
I believe it is difficult to convey because much attention is given to the false ideas out their and the baseless beliefs that some religions come forth with which simply shut people off to either science or religion. Rarely will you find people who are moderate in their pathway of ideology. Usually the truth is in between two extremes.
"I am not speaking about what science can't explain, I am doing the exact opposite and speaking about what science has explained."
but youre not. and its so apparent that im surprised you dont see it. do you admit its possible that you could be wrong, as i do? if you admit that you could be wrong, then you dont KNOW. and if you dont KNOW, then how compelling is this evidence, really?
I always leave my self with an open mind, I am never going to close my mind for doing so will only be a barrier to progress. So I listen to what others have to say and I keep my mind open to the truth and reason which they present. I do not shut people off and refuse what they have to say before they ever get to saying it, that would be quite a condemned attribute by the intellect.
"It is more logical to say it was the product of intellect rather than nothing."
but how? is it more logical to say that quantum fluctuations are the product of intellect rather than nothing? because there probably isnt a physicist alive who would agree. the only source of intellect in the universe that we have identified, are humans. and every time we have attributed something to a designer, it has only ever turned out to have happened on its own or by natural processes.
the same order and organization that you speak of seems to be wasted on the people that discovered it. how would you determine order and organization from a lack thereof? what are you comparing it to? and im really unsure of what you mean by order an organisation. do you consider it to be order when pebbles are ordered on a beach by their mass, for example?
The criteria to determine what is organization for me is the intellect. I compare it to what I see us as humans organize. I consider something to be orderly when it follows certain laws, such as the laws of nature/science etc.
"We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe." - Victor Stenger
"Different constants and laws of physics" basically these are different ways of organization and order which are just all proofs of Allah. The one type of order that brought about life as we know it, is simply just one type of proof of God.
you think that the mere existence of constants and laws themselves are proof of a god?
if that is indeed the case, why do you think they are so remarkable? e.g. leaves were once thought to be proof of god, because it was not believed that leaves could grow without divine intervention, but you probably dont think much of it. what is it about the laws of physics and physical constants that make them so divine?
Every single existence is a proof of God and that is the view of Islam. Nothing exists without it being a proof of God's existence.
"you think that the mere existence of constants and laws themselves are proof of a god?" Yes
"why do you think they are so remarkable?" Because of their order and organization.
"what is it about the laws of physics and physical constants that make them so divine?" It is more logical to say it was the product of intellect rather than nothing.
"The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life."
I think I see where you might have misunderstood me on. When I speak about the universe being designed and ordered, I am not referring to it being ordered in a way for just life, I am speaking about order in all its respects such as the laws of physics. The laws of physics, whether they provide for life or not, are an order and proof of Allah. Life doesn't need to exist for the proof of God to still be there.
"... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon" - Victor Stenger
(another fine writer who specializes in physics, forgot to mention him earlier)
I mentioned this before in Mutahari's book in which he says that the theists approach of trying to prove God by finding things that science has not fully explained is completely incorrect and is a negative approach to the issue. Instead, he said, we should find God in the things that are clear and well known.
I am not speaking about what science can't explain, I am doing the exact opposite and speaking about what science has explained. It has explained the laws of the universe and those laws simply reveal an underlying intellect and authority aka God.
I believe that its highly possible for their to be infinite universes, I base this off things I have learned about from the TV series called "The Universe" lol. But it made sense to me and it was quite interesting.
But why do you say most of the other universes have failed? I didn't hear about anything like that on the TV series lol. They said that the other universes probably have a separate set of laws.
(if you want to send me links, just send me a pm, here on youtube. i dont check my emails as often as my inbox.)
im trying to narrow down the number of topics were discussing at once, and i intend to go back and read over your organisational argument for the existence of a god, do some research, and get back to you. again, sorry for taking so long to respond.
and im also 19 years old (20 in december) and i live in glasgow, scotland.
"You have not understood some of my main points it seems.
"natural means" are the means that God has set in place and they are the means by which God executes His Will in the universe."
no, i do understand. i just cant accept your conclusion if i dont accept the premise. of course, i will entertain the possibility that what you are saying is true, but i dont think its probable or that the evidence is indicative of it being probable.
a logical fallacy would be "muhammad ali is a muslim therefore islam is true" etc, which i do hear, sadly (obviously not from you). but i agree, and i have no use for faith. i read the books of all these people i listed and listen to what they say, thats how i know which things to link and recommend in response to specific points that have been made.
"One should not follow the beliefs of others blindly, yes listen to there arguments and there logic and consider what they have said but never accept what they say simply based on who there are in society."
if i want my car fixed, i go to a mechanic. if i want a tumour removed, i go to a doctor. expertees are valuable. im not appealing to the authority of the figures, but their expertees, which is not a logical fallacy. theres nothing wrong agreeing with physicists on physics.
This goes back again to knowing that Scientists cannot make remarks on things that go outside of their fields of expertise. They can only make remarks on things that can be put into an experiment and Allah is not a thing that can be placed in any physical experiment. Therefore a scientist's comment concerning God should not be seen as more valuable as that of a plumber's for that is outside of both their fields of expertise and the scope of their main studies.
@PureHumanity "They can only make remarks on things that can be put into an experiment and Allah is not a thing that can be placed in any physical experiment."
but theyre just doing what youre doing. the exact same thing only coming to the opposite conclusion. you say the universe looks designed, therefore god. theyre saying the universe doesnt look designed, therefore probably no god.
note that phyicists are the only people that know how the universe actually looks.
If they are saying that the universe is not organized then they are going completely against what their work, experimentation, and findings show.
I read their text books and all I see is an ordered way of life. If the text book shouts "Organization" and they shout "Disorganization" that quite a contradiction.
A friend was telling me last night some saying from Stephen hawking about how organized the universe is.
@PureHumanity so how do you account for this discrepancy? is there a massive conspiracy theory among physicists and scientists all over the world?
i would contend that a more reasonable explanation is that your interpretation of the evidence is flawed. ive read quite a few books by physicists in my time (hawking, feynman, kaku, greene, cox) and didnt come away from them thinking that the evidence/authors indicated a designed universe, especially in hawkings case.
It is never mentioned in the book that this universe is designed, it simply states that facts about the how things occur. It would simply explain complex processes that take place in nature, and what are processes? Processes are a systematic series of actions directed to some end. And systematic means having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan. So basically when I read about the processes that occur in nature, I am reading about a plan and design.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
all that is necessary for my argument to stand is for scientists and philosophers to be at least as good as the public at looking at the evidence and figuring out the truth. if this is the case (and it would be hard to argue against that), then there is an inverse correlation between understanding of logic and religiousity. scientists (physicists) are professional truth finders and they (almost unanimously) disagree with the fundamental notions of religion.
Philosophy is one of the subjects studied in the Howza (islamic seminary) so we have groups of believing philosophers. Though you stated that they might not the majority, some of the world's most famous philosopher's in the East are Muslims.
"It is a mistake to assume that these people are simply rejecting God because of their logic."
and
"You are assuming that these people are 100 percent people of logic without being affected in anyway by other factors."
i would argue that scientists and philosophers are more logical than the general public. but that doesnt matter, and nor does it matter if they are 100% logical (which i wasnt saying)...
well, i dont think this is a safe way of looking at it. its a fact that science is the best tool we have at our disposal for finding the truth about the nature of reality. its also a fact that the supernatural answer has never been the correct one, as of yet. obviously science is not perfect, but its the best lead we have to the truth and likely always will be. if you go ahead the modern scientific concensus, you are going against the evidence.
I love science and agree that it is so fundamental to to growth of society. Science needs to be taken in one hand, and religion in the other. Mankind requires both these tools in order to reach their perfection in all dimensions of their being.
All modern science has show me is support for my evidence of Organization. The laws of science demonstrate the order of the universe.
sorry for taking over a week to respond, was quite busy and didnt want to rush this response.
"And what many scientists agreed upon in the past came out? to be false now, so who is to say that what many scientists agree upon now won't be false in the future."
probably the most efficient way to continue would be for you to state which of your logical arguments is the best one, and stick on that one. we keep branching out and talking about 10 things at once, which means points can be left unresolved or forgotten about before any progress is made. would be simpler and much more productive if we just stuck to one issue, and the logical arguments topic seems to be the most pertinent and important, i think.
I just want to add that I have yet to watch some of the videos you have posted because I do not want to spend to much of my day on one thing lol, I get tired very easily.
But once I dive more into atheist books and etc I will take a look at them God willing.
but one thing we can completely agree on, and the most important.. i think, is that open and free dialogue is always good.
which reminds me of another issue, and not to provoke more 100 comment long exchanges (lmao) or anything, but what do you think about the 4 madh'habs?, specifically the concensus they have on condemning apostates, blasphemers (and also homosexuals but thats a different and equally massive issue).
Lol, like you said that is a massive topic that need in depth discussion and I am not the best one to discuss that with. I can simply send you a link to an article about the subject of apostates and blasphemers if you want.
I still have a hard time posting up links lol so send me your email address if you wish over a private message.
but ALL THAT aside, lets say i grant your logical arguments completely and unreservedly and ACCEPT that the universe seems as if it couldnt have come about through natural means, where is it logical to suddenly say "god did it?". and is it more logical to say that than "the flying spaghetti monster did it"? or, as i would say "i dont know yet, lets let science get on with it and see what comes along."?.
You have not understood some of my main points it seems.
"natural means" are the means that God has set in place and they are the means by which God executes His Will in the universe.
And the arguments I have provided in my 100 comment feat explain why one should say God exists. Organization being the foremost of the evidences in regards to the visible universe.
...the less susceptible they are to the sort of arguments you claim to be convinced by, as demonstrated by that second video using scientific papers.
either, 1. they understand the arguments less as they become more educated. (which would be extremely counter-intuitive) 2. there is a massive global conspiracy (really, really massive) or 3. the arguments, to be blunt, are just not very good.
The very first points I mentioned in my 100 comment feat were the some reasons why people disbelieve.
You are assuming that these people are 100 percent people of logic without being affected in anyway by other factors. Man has logic, yes, but many other factors in his beings might lead him to cover up or deny that which his logic proclaims to be true.
Also it is not that they understand the arguments less as they become more educated it might be that they never really delved into the arguments in depth in the first place or if they did, they only did so from the perspective of one religion and now others.
your logical arguments, if they were valid, would have taken the scientific community by storm and proliferated like wildfire (maybe as they have done before, in some bygone era), but as it is, the majority of scientists... physicists... members of the national academy of science, remain unconvinced. or more aptly put, the more educated someone is about the nature of the universe...
It is a mistake to assume that these people are simply rejecting God because of their logic. Many other factors play a role in determining whether a person believes in God or not.
One should not follow the beliefs of others blindly, yes listen to there arguments and there logic and consider what they have said but never accept what they say simply based on who there are in society.
there are so many great physicists and minds with so many great quotes that reject the god hypothesis: feynman, einstein, dirac, stenger, weinberg, greene, dennett, harris.. the great carl sagan... to list them all and the myriad of quotes would take forever.
...the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility. Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from our revolutionary new tools promise to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess.""
i think i might have already linked lawrence krauss' lecture, but here it is again in case i havent.
"Dr. Lawrence Krauss, in his article "Our Spontaneous Universe", wrote that "there are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence of the possibility that our universe arose from nothing. ... If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything...
@volound Part 6There are philosophers who are of the ideology that our universe is an eternal being and that it never "began" but they still believe in a God because they simply are of the view that this universe is a reflection of the attributes of God and hence in this case it is simply reflecting the attribute of eternity.
What distinguishes God from the universe is that God is completely independent and the universe is completely dependent.
How can there be a reflection if there is nothing to reflect?
Anywho so thats how some philosophers think and I mentioned this to show that even if this universe always existed or if it came from nothing that doesn't automatically negate God.
It is because of things like this that I say people to hastily decide on the issue of whether God exists or doesn't exist. They haven't understood that what might appear to be something that discredits the existence of God, might actually be a proof of God and a better way to understand God when looked at through a different perspective.
what we have here, is a large body of the most informed, educated people, who seem to be in strong agreement on this issue. being in the minority (and such a small minority) on this would cause severe cognitive dissonance, to me. i dont think i disagree with the mainstream scientific opinion on anything at all, and if i did i would want to appraise my views.
Again I don't think that Science and religion conflict, It is just a matter of understanding both.
Sadly most attention is given to people who want to separate the two rather than those who show their complimentary aspects. I take science and faith together, its not a matter of choosing between one or the other. We have extremist on either end of the discussion between science and faith, the correct path is in between these two.
i think it would be more productive though if i was to point out that there is an apparent concensus among physicists and cosmologists (the people that are experts in this field and discuss this stuff at length using empirical evidence) that these arguments are, in actuality, not compelling. i think something like 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences are atheists.
We went into this discussion about how scientists can only say "I don't know" since the topic of God is beyond the scope of their specialized fields. The flickering flame of the candle of science can never light and reveal the entire universe with all its secrets.
And what many scientists agreed upon in the past came out to be false now, so who is to say that what many scientists agree upon now won't be false in the future.
so you are obviously compelled by these arguments and find them convincing. and obviously im not. youve presented them at length and ive explained why i think theyre wrong as best as i can. so no point doing that again.
"You asked if I believe in God due to my logical arguments, Yes"
ok, thats very reasonable. quite a lot of religious people just say they have faith and the evidence be damned. but your position is rational. caring about the evidence is good, and believing in a logic necessitated god is rational. so if your logical arguments were to be pointed out to be invalid to your satisfaction, would you discard them along with the belief in god upon which they are based?
If it is logically proved to me that God does not exist, then of course I would drop the belief lol, falsehood is only detrimental to mankind. But I have only seen truth in the arguments put forward for belief in the existence of God.
When ever people bring new arguments to me I don't accept or reject them immediately, rather I would take their argument and begin to do research. I am not one to make hasty decisions :) like some people who switch religions every day, lol.
on a side note, if you ever have a couple of hours, id recommend a video debate between a few atheists and a sunni that occured recently.
/watch?v=OE2tFb0IsIs
its quite good, im recommending it because the muslim guy is apparently quite famous as an apologist/debater and he puts forward similar arguments to some of yours to atheists who represent my position almost perfectly. i found it quite entertaining as well as educational.
any god claim that contradicts evolution is inconsistent with reality and therefore logically impossible. i believe that pretty much all of the gods of organized religion that people worship are inconsistent with reality in one way or another.
darwin was probably a christian after all, and people like francis crick, ken miller, francis collins are/were christians.
"You can believe in the God who used Evolution as a means to bring about things, what holds you back from this belief?"
i accept that it is possible for a god to exist, and that evolution does not disprove god, but i am of the opinion that it is more likely that a god does not exist. i realize, however, that whether or not a god exists, evolution is true.
if so, which one? if not, then thats probably why nobody else does.
"Evolution is not a valid point on which to deny his existence, as I have already explained."
i absolutely agree and would not claim so. i would only say that evolution disproves the god of the qur'an (and any other god that seems to contradict reality), not any of the gods of any vague logical arguments.
"Now I have provided the logical evidences for the existence of God. What points now hold you back from testifying to his existence."
i think ive heard at least 100 different rehashings of every one of the popular logical arguments for the existence of a god and none of them stand up to scrutiny. from the KCA to the teleological argument, every one of them is flawed in one way or another. im curious, do you believe in god because of one of your logical arguments?
you didnt acknowledge that there are no miracles in the qur'an, or show that my refutations were flawed, so we didnt make any progress.
"Lets forget the Quran and go back to focusing on the existence of God. Let us not try to prove something through the use of anything except logic."
its not possible to prove the existence of a god using logic. over 2000 years have passed and no progress has been made. the majority of philosophy professors in america are atheists, after all.
"We have jumped from the discussion of the existence of God to the Quran."
yes we have, but i think that was because you claimed there were miracles in the qur'an that would necessitate a god. you listed some miracle claims and i explained why they were not miracles, then i think i tried to explain that there are actually errors in the qur'an, which would disprove the god of the qur'an.
im trying my best to explain my reasoning. if you want me to go on, or clarify anything ill be happy to. but these arguments seem very compelling to me, and concordantly conclusive. if you disagree then im all open to being proven wrong, of course.
another problem is that adam was allegedly 60 feet tall, and perhaps separately, that he lived to be centuries old. ive came across this in multiple sahih hadith and this is simply absurd. i hope i dont need to explain.
these are just some random examples. i could sit here all day and ponder, and come up with literally hundreds more. the more i think about it, the bigger the chasm between islam and evolution becomes.
every single attribute of every single human can be traced back to a mutation (mutations are errors). all organisms (including humans) are an accumulation of accidental, arbitrary, potentially lethal copying errors.
another thing i have a problem with is how god created angels and djinn without using evolution, but the notion here is that adam (and all other life) is different. this doesnt make any sense to me.
if an omnipotent god created humans (regardless of the process used), we would not expect to see such wastage and inefficiency. i would expect signs of deliberateness, intent etc. what we see is the opposite, and is exactly what i expect to see having asserted that evolution is an unguided process in a universe that is completely indifferent to us. the fact is that evolution is a very monotonous and wasteful process.
this is no problem at all to someone that doesnt believe in an omnipotent and benevolent god that concerns itself with our fate. but for someone that does, this seems like a problem.
another thing i have problem with is the fact that the majority of human DNA (and the DNA of all other species too) is junk. that is, it is useless, a waste. just like atavisms and vestigial organs are useless and wasteful.
Well I said this once and I will say it again, at least the purpose of my video was fulfilled.
We are talking like brethren in humanity and that is quite an accomplishment in my view.
Even though we have completely contradicting views at times, yet I am not yelling at you nor are you yelling at me and that is a beautiful thing in its essence,it is a peak of humanity that needs to be spread to others
for example, if we assert that god created humans through evolution, and also that god concerns himself with humans, then there is no way to rationalize the fact that humans could easily have turned out completely differently from how they are, or not have came to exist at all. e.g. as recently as the toba catastrophe, homo sapiens experienced a massive population bottleneck and nearly (and could easily have) resulted in extinction (most species to ever exist are now extinct).
Well it seems that me and you view the world in two completely different perspectives, what I see with certainty as design, organization, and wisdom you see as disorder,chaos, and mindlessness. I thought I represented my self pretty well just like you think you presented your self pretty well but maybe I am not yet adequate at presenting my ideas in a crystal clear way yet...
i am of the opinion that all the evidence i would expect to see is visible, should the qur'an not support evolution, and support creationism. i dont really know how else to explain it. i read my comments again to make sure i represented my argument compellingly and coherently and i think i did a decent job. i believe that any possible test that we can do to check if the qur'an supports evolution will come out in support of this, and that we can read about islam and evolution to check.
(which is strange if it was the process by which god created humans, and god has attempted to communicate with them before), to expect the qur'an to explicitly deny it would be an unreasonable expectation. all that we can reasonably expect it to do is to not mention/describe evolution at all, and maybe also to support conflicting notions, both of which i am fairly certain that it does, and feel confident that i have adequately conveyed why i believe this.
The logical arguments that I used as concrete evidence of the existence of God in my 100 comment feat are sufficient for me to believe in God for they have given me certainty in this issue.
Note: concerning hadith, there are tons and tons upon more tons and tons of hadith whose authenticity is questionable, lol there are some hadith out there that me and my friends roll around laughing about since they are so ridiculous and yet they are quoted as being "Sahih" lol.
"I do not see any contradiction to evolution in the Quran and the points you have stated were not a strong enough proof to change my view since things you brought up could be understood in a variety of ways."
well yes, theres no contradiction to evolution in the qur'an, but only in the same way theres no contradiction to ....e.g. a geocentric universe in the qur'an. evolution as a concept didnt even exist until 160 years ago..
Lol so far, it just seems that all our agruments to one another have not been sufficient for either side.
I can't say for certain if the Quran is against or for evolution for certain, I need to do more research and I will take the stance and admit my inadequate knowledge of the issue by saying as of now I do not know for certain but my thoughts on this topic have been expressed.
You asked if I believe in God due to my logical arguments, Yes
You asked if I came to the conclusion that God existed due to the use of my logical arguments, Yes that is exactly how I came to believe in God with certainty. The logical arguments that I stated in detail in my 100 comment feat (lol) were the organization of the universe, the divisions of existence, and causality I believe. There are many more proofs of God out there that I have not fully come acquainted with but when I do I will share them with you God willing.
I feel that people just don't know. We have only heard negative things about Islam in our media so what else is there for people to think?
I don't put all the blame on people who have such thoughts. I only blame them for not striving to hear the full story. I mostly blame the media for people's misconceptions.
jerry coyne wrote "why evolution is true", which i havent got round to reading yet, but i hear is good. another book that came out around that time was "the greatest show on earth", where dawkins goes back to pure biology.
the book i would recommend the highest would probably be "the ancestors tale". it would be difficult to read that and not come away with a strong understanding of human evolution.
i really look forward to hearing how it goes, talk to you soon :)
sorry I have been really busy with multiple things.
To sum up our conversation and to make clear my point...
I do not see any contradiction to evolution in the Quran and the points you have stated were not a strong enough proof to change my view since things you brought up could be understood in a variety of ways.
I will continue to do more research on this topic but I have nothing more to add, (never did ask questions about evolution to the scholars, soon will)
Evolution is not a valid point on which to deny his existence, as I have already explained. You can believe in the God who used Evolution as a means to bring about things, what holds you back from this belief? How is this concept of God false? Even IF the quran was wrong about anything, so what, then that book would not be from God but still the logical evidence of God's existence is still there so how can you deny?
Lets not focus on any specific religion or what their books say.
i would also recommend a few books on evolution that i think best convey the truth and elegance of it.
darwins origin of species is the obvious one, where it all began.
richard dawkins may be a prominent anti-theist right now, but his earlier books were purely academic. the selfish gene really was a great book. the ancestors tale specifically talks about human evolution.
carl sagan also wrote on evolution, in the dragons of eden, which was quite good i think.
Sorry for taking a week to respond, been extremely busy most of the start of the week. I’ve been typing this up in parts, in word, so hopefully its easier on the eye and clearer than usual. Look forward to your response, I’m very curious of what you think of these ideas.
But if the issue in question is whether or not the qur’an is successful in communicating with muslims (and any good book should, let alone a perfect one), then muslims are the relevant experts on this issue. If im claiming that the qur’an propagates pseudo-science, then we can test this claim by looking to the opinions of muslims (especially scholars) for empirical evidence on whether or not this is the case.
The Quran says that God is unlike anything but yet so called Muslims say that God has hands and feet and etc.
The opinions of Muslims and Scholars is nothing and is meaningless. Many of them interpret things in their own way and liking.
The only "opinion" that matters is that of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his 12 divinely appointed successors, and hence we must turn to their saying and speeches in order to understand the Quran and other Islamic concepts.
:) Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) spoke on a variety of scientific subjects.
I am not sure of who the author really is, but there is a book called "The Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher Imam Jafar Ibn Mohammed As-sadiq [A.S.]"
This book gives small glances at the saying of this Imam (divinely appointed leader, only 12) concerning some topics of science.
From the verses that you have cited, they do not negate any concept of a process occurring to bring about man.
The stance that I basically have right now is "I don't Know" "That could be a possibility but in the end it does not negate God and I do not see it being negated by the Holy Quran for as long as I have been reading it"
I am going to a religious youth camp pretty soon where Islamic scholars will be present, so I will get into a more in depth conversation with them about this topic and I will pass onto you what they say God willing. Then we can both ponder and think about the answers :).
You know, no where in the Quran does it say to pray 5 times a day.... Yet muslims know that the five daily prayers are a must and are the backbone of the religion.
You know how they know this, from the actions, sayings, and speeches of the prophet.
You have to take the Quran and the Ahlul Bayt (the prophet and his holy household, meaning his 12 successors as well as his daughter) together and if you leave one then the religion is incomplete. Together, the provide the straight path.
My main point is that many things that are not mentioned in Quran are mention in the Sunnah (the life of the prophet, his actions, sayings, speeches etc)
I would advise you to read into the life of Imam Jaffar as-sadiq (pbuh), one of the 12 successors of the holy prophet, for the content of his sayings might contain the things you are looking for. I mentioned him before as being a Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher.
Ive investigated every single miracle claim made by muslims, some of which even you would laugh at. Ultimately, I can find no evidence that the qur’an is divine. Every muslim I come across that rejects evolution just confirms my hypothesis. I know you said “Truth is not determined by the majority, but rather by reason and evidence.”, And I completely agree with this...
But when I read the qur’an with the knowledge that this is supposed to be the verbatim word of god, I cannot help but be overpowered by my incredulity. I simply could not make myself believe these claims, even if my life depended on it. Its contents simply wont let me. Ive discovered not one iota of divine insight or wisdom, or premonition, or scientific foreknowledge. To me it is as profoundly mediocre as the bible or bhagavad gita or any other scripture.
...I would be a muslim right now, and so would pretty much every atheist I know (Christians and jews etc. probably wouldn’t because they already subscribe to their own irrevocable dogma). If Muhammad did what Darwin or Einstein or Newton or Galileo did in 600AD, he would be hailed unanimously as either an unquestionable prophet, or a mastermind of impossible magnitude, and the foremost authority on whether or not there is a god.
I would probably go so far as to say that the qur’an could be improved profoundly by supplanting all of these verses with key sections from darwins origin of species. If the qur’an said:
“behold! from a single, tiny lifeform is all life on earth today, derived. From the black element (carbon) is all life on earth structured without exception.” (or something along those lines).
Or just something as simple as;
“energy is equivalent to mass (in reference to E=mc 2)”
away from it with little/no useful information. To be perfectly clear, the qur’an has hundreds of verses at its disposal with which to inspire with awe and convert anyone who reads it, especially the scientifically literate and educated elite, all it has to do is describe evolution. But it doesn’t. Its no more impressive to the curious, skeptical observer than the bible or any other scripture.
If humans are ever “perfect”, it will be through genetic engineering, which can hardly be attributed to god. One fact that strikes dissonance with me for this verse is that most of our DNA is functionally useless. We also have atavisms, just like most other organisms, especially mammals.
These are just a few examples. There are dozens, if not, hundreds.. of different verses in the qur’an that attempt to discuss the origin of mankind/life, and muslims have always came away...
82:7 “It is He Who created you, fashioned you perfectly, and made you with the right proportions..”
This cannot be in reference to evolution as the attributes of humans determined by their environment, and these attributes are far from perfect. These attributes have always been changing and continue to change. At no point in the past have humans ever been even close to perfect.
The translation I have is "who created you and proportioned you, and gave you upright nature."
Again here it is VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK...."BY WHAT 'MEANS' DID ALLAH CREATE, FASHION, AND PROPORTION US? we know God doesn't have hands nor does God have a body. So by what means?
Why are humans not perfect?
Is not the attribute of adaption a cause of perfection in the face of differing situations? (my own thought lol)
4:1 “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women…”
The only way this verse could allude to evolution, would be if it were to imply that every organism, ever, contains a soul. It would also imply that the first ever organism reproduced sexually - which is not accepted at all by any science. A much more reasonable explanation is that it refers to adam (one soul) and eve (its mate).
You are assuming that this verse is referring to the beginning of all life as we know it while God is simply speaking about mankind. Does the verse say " At the beginning of all things," no. So who is to say that there wasn't a process that created that "soul"?
P.S. in regards to you saying "...imply that every organism, ever, contains a soul." In Islam we believe that every material thing is simply a reflection or a shadow of higher spiritual reality.
@PureHumanity but the beginning of all life is the beginning of mankind, too, and all other extant species. there is no "first human". just as there is no "first second" in which a child becomes an adult. evolution is a process of gradation, which continues to this day. if you could look at the state of homo sapiens in 20,000 year slices, you would notice only very slight differences.
@PureHumanity "You are assuming that this verse is referring to the beginning of all life as we know it while God is simply speaking about mankind."
the beginning of all life IS the beginning of all mankind. humans are not of a separate tree from any other life on earth. every organism on earth shares a common ancestor with every other organism. humans are eukaryotes, as well as chordates, as mammals, as well as primates. if the qur'an says god created life, it MUST refer to abiogenesis.
@PureHumanity "In Islam we believe that every material thing is simply a reflection or a shadow of higher spiritual reality. "
sure, but do you accept that an amoeba contains a soul, and that the qur'an implies this? you must, if not, then you are implying that the qur'an does not agree with the divergence of species as implied by evolution.
It cannot be the first one unless god broke his promise to protect the qur’an. It cannot be the second one as that would imply that the qur’an has utterly, completely failed to communicate with its target audience. I believe it is the latter, and I believe that there are verses that support this view. For example;
1. the qur’an is actually unclear and therefore not perfect, as it has failed to communicate effectively.
2. the vast majority of muslims (and anyone who reads the qur’an and doesn’t learn about evolution) cannot understand clear instructions and concepts.
3. the qur’an doesn’t support evolution, but in fact supports the abrahamic creation myth, which opposes evolution.
Chapter 3 verse 7 in the Quran tells us that some verses in the Quran are definitive and others are metaphorical. So the interpretation of the verses of Quran is VERY important. But who should interpret them? Me? You? Some big Islamic scholar? no no and no. The only ones who can Interpret the verses of Quran are God's representatives on Earth which was Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) and His 12 God appointed successors that came successively after him.
@PureHumanity so why did god bother sending us the qur'an when he could have just gave us the actual interpretations? why draw it out and make it into such an ordeal? why not make the will of god accessible to everyone? why didnt muhammad and the 11 imams thus far just spend their entire lives explaining the exact meaning of every single verse, so there is no ambiguity, which there clearly is.
so what is the concensus of muhammad and the 11 imams thus far, on the origin of mankind?
(part 10) To clarify, we have an entire diverse group of people from all times, backgrounds and classes that are reading from a book they believe is perfectly clear, and are mostly coming to the alternative, false conclusion. There is a logical conflict here that can only be resolved in one of three ways.
“A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about 25% of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.”
...no semblance of evolution at all. If the qur’an talked about evolution, surely we would expect muslims to be the vanguard of it's discovery and advancement, instead of atheists and christians like Lamarck, Wallace, Darwin and Dawkins?
What we can demonstrate, is that the vast majority of muslims believe the qur’an is the clearest, most perfect, most concise book on any subject ever written. Disturbingly and unintuitively, they also believe the false abrahamic creation myth.
which took 1200 years more to be discovered, and each of which I could describe reasonably in a single sentence. It doesn’t say that all life descends from a single organism i.e. all life has a single, unifying, common ancestor (or progenitor). It doesn’t mention genes as being the actual vehicles for the inherent attributes of organisms, which even Darwin didn’t know. No mention of any of this. An excellent opportunity to impress readers of all times and places, wasted.
One of the foremost fundamentals of evolution is DNA. If we read the entire qur’an, very surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to make any efforts to describe DNA (or anything else too small to be seen with the eye, i.e. spermatozoon, ovum, cells, germs… which I find to be interesting, but decisive) which would absolutely, certainly be in any description by any informed person. It doesn’t describe vital mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations etc.
While the Quran contains scientific miracles, it is not a book of science. It is a book meant to guide man to become a true human being. The Quran was not sent to explain all of science, if it doesn't mention a scientific concept or explain one doesn't mean that the Quran is false.
So does the qur’an describe evolution? (this should be clear, because a perfect book is uncapable of being unclear). Well evolution is quite complex, but the more complex, the more opportunity to impress, surely? As a mere mortal, I can describe evolution reasonably well within a few paragraphs using only a few simple and easy to explain concepts. Darwin managed to explain evolution lucidly and convincingly. Surely this is the absolute minimum we can expect from an omniscient being.
And lets not forget that the qur’an also supports the idea of noahs flood, which is just as wrong, and has been demonstrated to have been scientifically impossible in so, so many countless ways. In addition to the creation myth, the vast majority of muslims also believe noahs flood happened, which raises a myriad of questions about the qur'an.
Interesting I will look into the event of Noah ark from the Islamic perspective and also could you send me some material to look into in terms of the flood being false?
When I read the qur’an, I didn’t think it managed to do either at all, and neither do most people who read it, muslims and non-muslims alike. When it mentions adam and eve, its not in a dismissive way as most scientists refer to it, and as the qur’an definitely, certainly should refer to it. If anything, it seems just like the bible, if not, worse. The qur’an hails adam not just as an actual person, but as a prophet.
Well, I think there are two main things the qur’an needs to do in order to be in line with the science of evolution. Primarily, it needs to positively describe evolution (this is imperative, if its going to attempt to discuss the origin of man or life at all), and secondly, it should make efforts to dispel the prevailing, false, orthodox, abrahamic beliefs of the time (that humans were created spontaneously in a garden), and most importantly, not uphold them in any way whatsoever.
Quran doesn't focus on the origin of man but on the current universe as it is. This is what the Author of "The Fundamentals of Islamic Thought" had mentioned in his book.
@PureHumanity but the qur'an does talk about the creation of the universe, and of the earth, and of life, including man.. surely? it does mention adam and eve and it does talk about clay, dust, sperm, blood etc.
are you saying that a book as large and as perfect as the qur'an doesnt talk about where man came from? surely thats worth at least one of the many thousands of verses at its disposal..
I think this is the crux. You believe the qur’an is completely right in everything it says, that evolution is true, and therefore that the qur’an is in line with evolution, because both are true. I believe the qur’an is not true, and that evolution is true, and that the qur’an contradicts evolution. So all there is left to do is to attempt to take measures to determine who is correct. Does the qur'an support evolution, or not?
I will go through your comments God willing and answer what I can. If there is anything I don't know the answer to then I will let you know and I will look into it God willing.
I will try to make some small feedback for each comment when necessary.
I did not say that the Exact Current Idea of Evolution is true rather I said that the Qur'an supports a "Process" in which man was created, whether that "process" is evolution or something similar to evolution is unknown to me.
@PureHumanity well, we know that man came about through evolution, as surely as we know the earth orbits the sun. the only question is whether or not the qur'an agrees with this. there is absolutely no question that evolution is true, and the origin of all species, including man. there are as many valid objections to evolution as there are to gravity, evolution is not contested among scientists.
i get the impression that you dont see it this way though, why are you unsure?
I think you may be right, in mentioning that there could be a discrepancy between our definitions of chaos. So here is the one I was referring to: chaos being "Disorderly, unpredictable".
By that definition, the universe is blatantly chaotic, there are so many variables to take into account, that we cannot possibly predict the majority of events within the universe. This is due to our limited intellect and the fact that we are not and can't become omniscient.
In regards to the sub atomic level and Quantum mechanics I spoke to a friend of mine that actually has been does studies in this field and he said that to say there is no organization on the sub atomic level is incorrect
In fact he said there is complex organization at this level and the example he used is that of the electron.
The electron is so organized that it must be on a certain "shelf" or "level" and it cannot be in between them.
part 8
"So basically when I read about the processes that occur in nature, I am reading about a plan and design."
but this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. i mean, do you understand where your attributes came from, the process? do you understand how every gene in your DNA is the result of a random mutation being selected by the environment?
/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo
its long, but i would really appreciate it if you watched it and applied it to your statements about design in nature.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 8
"selected by the environment" so something is still decides and selecting things. Every gene a result of mutation? if I recall correctly, I believe my genes attributes were mostly determined by the genes from both my mother and father but its been a long time since bio lol. But yes there is always room for mutation. Can you remind me how random mutation is selected by the environment.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
@PureHumanity "if I recall correctly, I believe my genes attributes were mostly determined by the genes from both my mother and father"
indeed, and they inherited their genes from their parents, and them from their parents, and so on for 4 billion years.
where do you think the genome of every organism came from if not from completely random, arbitrary mutations selected by the environments of their host organisms? their parents, all the way back to.... when god designed them?
:(
volound 6 months ago
part 7
if it is indeed found that we are just a bubble in an infinitely large foamy sea of universes, and that most of the universes are feckless, failed, useless wastes, it would be very difficult to fit in an omniscient creator, especially one that is supposed to be anything other than pitiless and indifferent about us and our existence.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 7
hmm, for some maybe, but others could bring about a different perspective on this. for example, beauty does not become beautiful until it is compared with that which is ugly. So ugly is simply a manifester of beauty, it distinguishes beauty. Without things that are ugly, then there would be no appreciation for that which was beautiful. Just like without struggle and hardship, there would be no appreciation for or true understanding of ease.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
@volound
Part 7 (part 2)
So similarly, when the existence is looked upon as a whole, with all the universes under its scope, some might bring up this very point. that maybe in order for us to appreciate order then there has to be some type of disorder and chaos.
BUT, It could be said that the "failings" of the other universes is also a demonstration of order. How so?...
PureHumanity 6 months ago
@volound
Part7 (part 3)
How so?.... well you spoke about how things would not have formed in other universes because of having a weaker gravitational pull among other things, and besides that which I mentioned already about the laws of other universes being possibly completely different then ours, these universes would be still following a law and order. This is because the law and order of nature/science would not allow them to form any formations. So they are simply obeying the order.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 6
we should not be surprised to find ourselves in one of the ones that allow space, time, mass, stars, planets, carbon based lifeforms, conscious beings, because here we are. in an infinitely large number of universes, there will inevitably be a lesser-infinite number of universes that allow life. and a lesser-lesser-number of universes that include us, and so on until we have universes that are EXACTLY like ours.
but thats assuming the number is infinite, it might not be.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 6
Yes, but again life is not the only proof of organization, our universe without life would still be a apparent proof of Allah.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 5
tinyurl . com / paralleluniverses
"But why do you say most of the other universes have failed?"
because each universe would have a different set of constants. some would not have allowed the manifestation of time and space, others would possibly have a stronger nuclear force, and would not have allowed the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen. some would possibly have a weaker gravitational constant and not allow for the formation of stars.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 5
Interesting, the universe, ha we have yet to even scratch the surface of what it beholds.
I don't know much about the states of other universes so I can't really comment on the topic.
But I from what I do know, from watching the show "The Universe" on the history channel lol, is that other universes most likely have a completely different set of laws then ours. So we can't make our universe's laws the criteria of other universe's laws.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 4
and if science has explained it, why is it so difficult to convey? the first time i heard about it was from you, and ive talked to dozens/hundreds of religious people, both IRL and on forums/youtube.
do you admit that its completely possible for there to be a breakthrough next week that shows the formation of universes are very ordinary events that happen all the time, like leaves falling off of trees, as the scientific concensus seems to hold?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 4
I believe it is difficult to convey because much attention is given to the false ideas out their and the baseless beliefs that some religions come forth with which simply shut people off to either science or religion. Rarely will you find people who are moderate in their pathway of ideology. Usually the truth is in between two extremes.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 3
"I am not speaking about what science can't explain, I am doing the exact opposite and speaking about what science has explained."
but youre not. and its so apparent that im surprised you dont see it. do you admit its possible that you could be wrong, as i do? if you admit that you could be wrong, then you dont KNOW. and if you dont KNOW, then how compelling is this evidence, really?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
part 3
I always leave my self with an open mind, I am never going to close my mind for doing so will only be a barrier to progress. So I listen to what others have to say and I keep my mind open to the truth and reason which they present. I do not shut people off and refuse what they have to say before they ever get to saying it, that would be quite a condemned attribute by the intellect.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 2
"It is more logical to say it was the product of intellect rather than nothing."
but how? is it more logical to say that quantum fluctuations are the product of intellect rather than nothing? because there probably isnt a physicist alive who would agree. the only source of intellect in the universe that we have identified, are humans. and every time we have attributed something to a designer, it has only ever turned out to have happened on its own or by natural processes.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 2
"Natural processes" would then seem to have some kind of underlying intellect behind them...
PureHumanity 6 months ago
part 1
"Because of their order and organization."
the same order and organization that you speak of seems to be wasted on the people that discovered it. how would you determine order and organization from a lack thereof? what are you comparing it to? and im really unsure of what you mean by order an organisation. do you consider it to be order when pebbles are ordered on a beach by their mass, for example?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 1
The criteria to determine what is organization for me is the intellect. I compare it to what I see us as humans organize. I consider something to be orderly when it follows certain laws, such as the laws of nature/science etc.
PureHumanity 6 months ago
hi ali, came across an interesting vid, thought i would link it before i forgot about it;
/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8&NR=1
thought you might also find it interesting, its very relevant to what weve recently been talking about.
i hope your day is going well so far.
volound 7 months ago
"We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe." - Victor Stenger
volound 7 months ago
@volound
"Different constants and laws of physics" basically these are different ways of organization and order which are just all proofs of Allah. The one type of order that brought about life as we know it, is simply just one type of proof of God.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@PureHumanity ahh.. i think i understand now.
you think that the mere existence of constants and laws themselves are proof of a god?
if that is indeed the case, why do you think they are so remarkable? e.g. leaves were once thought to be proof of god, because it was not believed that leaves could grow without divine intervention, but you probably dont think much of it. what is it about the laws of physics and physical constants that make them so divine?
any laws/constants in particular?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Every single existence is a proof of God and that is the view of Islam. Nothing exists without it being a proof of God's existence.
"you think that the mere existence of constants and laws themselves are proof of a god?" Yes
"why do you think they are so remarkable?" Because of their order and organization.
"what is it about the laws of physics and physical constants that make them so divine?" It is more logical to say it was the product of intellect rather than nothing.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
"The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life."
volound 7 months ago
@volound
I think I see where you might have misunderstood me on. When I speak about the universe being designed and ordered, I am not referring to it being ordered in a way for just life, I am speaking about order in all its respects such as the laws of physics. The laws of physics, whether they provide for life or not, are an order and proof of Allah. Life doesn't need to exist for the proof of God to still be there.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
"... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon" - Victor Stenger
(another fine writer who specializes in physics, forgot to mention him earlier)
volound 7 months ago
@volound
concerning victor's point.
I mentioned this before in Mutahari's book in which he says that the theists approach of trying to prove God by finding things that science has not fully explained is completely incorrect and is a negative approach to the issue. Instead, he said, we should find God in the things that are clear and well known.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@PureHumanity that is true. but it seems like your argument is something along the lines of:
1. physical laws/constants are amazing.
2. science cant explain how this is possible using natural means.
3. god did it.
which is like
1. trees are amazingly complex.
2. science cant explain the specified complexity, irredudicible complexity.
3. it must have been intelligently designed.
do you admit we could be one of an infinite number of universes? mostly all of which have failed completely?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
I am not speaking about what science can't explain, I am doing the exact opposite and speaking about what science has explained. It has explained the laws of the universe and those laws simply reveal an underlying intellect and authority aka God.
I believe that its highly possible for their to be infinite universes, I base this off things I have learned about from the TV series called "The Universe" lol. But it made sense to me and it was quite interesting.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
But why do you say most of the other universes have failed? I didn't hear about anything like that on the TV series lol. They said that the other universes probably have a separate set of laws.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 8
(if you want to send me links, just send me a pm, here on youtube. i dont check my emails as often as my inbox.)
im trying to narrow down the number of topics were discussing at once, and i intend to go back and read over your organisational argument for the existence of a god, do some research, and get back to you. again, sorry for taking so long to respond.
and im also 19 years old (20 in december) and i live in glasgow, scotland.
volound 7 months ago
part 7
"You have not understood some of my main points it seems.
"natural means" are the means that God has set in place and they are the means by which God executes His Will in the universe."
no, i do understand. i just cant accept your conclusion if i dont accept the premise. of course, i will entertain the possibility that what you are saying is true, but i dont think its probable or that the evidence is indicative of it being probable.
volound 7 months ago
part 6
a logical fallacy would be "muhammad ali is a muslim therefore islam is true" etc, which i do hear, sadly (obviously not from you). but i agree, and i have no use for faith. i read the books of all these people i listed and listen to what they say, thats how i know which things to link and recommend in response to specific points that have been made.
volound 7 months ago
part 5
"One should not follow the beliefs of others blindly, yes listen to there arguments and there logic and consider what they have said but never accept what they say simply based on who there are in society."
if i want my car fixed, i go to a mechanic. if i want a tumour removed, i go to a doctor. expertees are valuable. im not appealing to the authority of the figures, but their expertees, which is not a logical fallacy. theres nothing wrong agreeing with physicists on physics.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Response to part 5
This goes back again to knowing that Scientists cannot make remarks on things that go outside of their fields of expertise. They can only make remarks on things that can be put into an experiment and Allah is not a thing that can be placed in any physical experiment. Therefore a scientist's comment concerning God should not be seen as more valuable as that of a plumber's for that is outside of both their fields of expertise and the scope of their main studies.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@PureHumanity "They can only make remarks on things that can be put into an experiment and Allah is not a thing that can be placed in any physical experiment."
but theyre just doing what youre doing. the exact same thing only coming to the opposite conclusion. you say the universe looks designed, therefore god. theyre saying the universe doesnt look designed, therefore probably no god.
note that phyicists are the only people that know how the universe actually looks.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
If they are saying that the universe is not organized then they are going completely against what their work, experimentation, and findings show.
I read their text books and all I see is an ordered way of life. If the text book shouts "Organization" and they shout "Disorganization" that quite a contradiction.
A friend was telling me last night some saying from Stephen hawking about how organized the universe is.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@PureHumanity so how do you account for this discrepancy? is there a massive conspiracy theory among physicists and scientists all over the world?
i would contend that a more reasonable explanation is that your interpretation of the evidence is flawed. ive read quite a few books by physicists in my time (hawking, feynman, kaku, greene, cox) and didnt come away from them thinking that the evidence/authors indicated a designed universe, especially in hawkings case.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
It is never mentioned in the book that this universe is designed, it simply states that facts about the how things occur. It would simply explain complex processes that take place in nature, and what are processes? Processes are a systematic series of actions directed to some end. And systematic means having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan. So basically when I read about the processes that occur in nature, I am reading about a plan and design.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
And where do plans and designs come from? An intellect.
And so when I read these books, I simply increase in my certainty of the existence of an absolute intellect.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tinyurl . com / stephenhawkingonacreator
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
volound 7 months ago
Comment removed
volound 7 months ago
part 4
all that is necessary for my argument to stand is for scientists and philosophers to be at least as good as the public at looking at the evidence and figuring out the truth. if this is the case (and it would be hard to argue against that), then there is an inverse correlation between understanding of logic and religiousity. scientists (physicists) are professional truth finders and they (almost unanimously) disagree with the fundamental notions of religion.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Philosophy is one of the subjects studied in the Howza (islamic seminary) so we have groups of believing philosophers. Though you stated that they might not the majority, some of the world's most famous philosopher's in the East are Muslims.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 3
"It is a mistake to assume that these people are simply rejecting God because of their logic."
and
"You are assuming that these people are 100 percent people of logic without being affected in anyway by other factors."
i would argue that scientists and philosophers are more logical than the general public. but that doesnt matter, and nor does it matter if they are 100% logical (which i wasnt saying)...
volound 7 months ago
part 2
well, i dont think this is a safe way of looking at it. its a fact that science is the best tool we have at our disposal for finding the truth about the nature of reality. its also a fact that the supernatural answer has never been the correct one, as of yet. obviously science is not perfect, but its the best lead we have to the truth and likely always will be. if you go ahead the modern scientific concensus, you are going against the evidence.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Response to part 2
I love science and agree that it is so fundamental to to growth of society. Science needs to be taken in one hand, and religion in the other. Mankind requires both these tools in order to reach their perfection in all dimensions of their being.
All modern science has show me is support for my evidence of Organization. The laws of science demonstrate the order of the universe.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 1
sorry for taking over a week to respond, was quite busy and didnt want to rush this response.
"And what many scientists agreed upon in the past came out? to be false now, so who is to say that what many scientists agree upon now won't be false in the future."
volound 7 months ago
part 13
probably the most efficient way to continue would be for you to state which of your logical arguments is the best one, and stick on that one. we keep branching out and talking about 10 things at once, which means points can be left unresolved or forgotten about before any progress is made. would be simpler and much more productive if we just stuck to one issue, and the logical arguments topic seems to be the most pertinent and important, i think.
and hi ali, my names conor :)
volound 7 months ago
@volound Part 13
Agreed, as I said just recently in one of my past comments, Organization of the Universe is a major evidence of the existence of God.
well conor, where do you live and how old are you lol?
I live in the state of Arizona and I am 19 years old so to be 20 God willing :).
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
I just want to add that I have yet to watch some of the videos you have posted because I do not want to spend to much of my day on one thing lol, I get tired very easily.
But once I dive more into atheist books and etc I will take a look at them God willing.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 12
but one thing we can completely agree on, and the most important.. i think, is that open and free dialogue is always good.
which reminds me of another issue, and not to provoke more 100 comment long exchanges (lmao) or anything, but what do you think about the 4 madh'habs?, specifically the concensus they have on condemning apostates, blasphemers (and also homosexuals but thats a different and equally massive issue).
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 12
Lol, like you said that is a massive topic that need in depth discussion and I am not the best one to discuss that with. I can simply send you a link to an article about the subject of apostates and blasphemers if you want.
I still have a hard time posting up links lol so send me your email address if you wish over a private message.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 11
but ALL THAT aside, lets say i grant your logical arguments completely and unreservedly and ACCEPT that the universe seems as if it couldnt have come about through natural means, where is it logical to suddenly say "god did it?". and is it more logical to say that than "the flying spaghetti monster did it"? or, as i would say "i dont know yet, lets let science get on with it and see what comes along."?.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 11
You have not understood some of my main points it seems.
"natural means" are the means that God has set in place and they are the means by which God executes His Will in the universe.
And the arguments I have provided in my 100 comment feat explain why one should say God exists. Organization being the foremost of the evidences in regards to the visible universe.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 10
...the less susceptible they are to the sort of arguments you claim to be convinced by, as demonstrated by that second video using scientific papers.
either, 1. they understand the arguments less as they become more educated. (which would be extremely counter-intuitive) 2. there is a massive global conspiracy (really, really massive) or 3. the arguments, to be blunt, are just not very good.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 10
The very first points I mentioned in my 100 comment feat were the some reasons why people disbelieve.
You are assuming that these people are 100 percent people of logic without being affected in anyway by other factors. Man has logic, yes, but many other factors in his beings might lead him to cover up or deny that which his logic proclaims to be true.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Part 10 (2)
Also it is not that they understand the arguments less as they become more educated it might be that they never really delved into the arguments in depth in the first place or if they did, they only did so from the perspective of one religion and now others.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 9
your logical arguments, if they were valid, would have taken the scientific community by storm and proliferated like wildfire (maybe as they have done before, in some bygone era), but as it is, the majority of scientists... physicists... members of the national academy of science, remain unconvinced. or more aptly put, the more educated someone is about the nature of the universe...
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 9
It is a mistake to assume that these people are simply rejecting God because of their logic. Many other factors play a role in determining whether a person believes in God or not.
One should not follow the beliefs of others blindly, yes listen to there arguments and there logic and consider what they have said but never accept what they say simply based on who there are in society.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 8
there are so many great physicists and minds with so many great quotes that reject the god hypothesis: feynman, einstein, dirac, stenger, weinberg, greene, dennett, harris.. the great carl sagan... to list them all and the myriad of quotes would take forever.
volound 7 months ago
part 7
...the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility. Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from our revolutionary new tools promise to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess.""
i think i might have already linked lawrence krauss' lecture, but here it is again in case i havent.
/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
volound 7 months ago
part 6
"Dr. Lawrence Krauss, in his article "Our Spontaneous Universe", wrote that "there are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence of the possibility that our universe arose from nothing. ... If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything...
volound 7 months ago
@volound Part 6There are philosophers who are of the ideology that our universe is an eternal being and that it never "began" but they still believe in a God because they simply are of the view that this universe is a reflection of the attributes of God and hence in this case it is simply reflecting the attribute of eternity.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Part 6 (2)
What distinguishes God from the universe is that God is completely independent and the universe is completely dependent.
How can there be a reflection if there is nothing to reflect?
Anywho so thats how some philosophers think and I mentioned this to show that even if this universe always existed or if it came from nothing that doesn't automatically negate God.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Part 6 (3)
also,
It is because of things like this that I say people to hastily decide on the issue of whether God exists or doesn't exist. They haven't understood that what might appear to be something that discredits the existence of God, might actually be a proof of God and a better way to understand God when looked at through a different perspective.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 5
stephen hawking, for example, devoted an entire book (the grand design) towards (essentially) disagreeing with your arguments. he later said:
"One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
and next to nobody disagreed with him, apart from a few bishops and probably harun yahya of course.
and its not just him.
/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4
/watch?v=Urv-bqYrbfA
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 5
God willing I will soon get to reading the atheists books and trying to understand their arguments. :) it will be quite interesting.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 4
what we have here, is a large body of the most informed, educated people, who seem to be in strong agreement on this issue. being in the minority (and such a small minority) on this would cause severe cognitive dissonance, to me. i dont think i disagree with the mainstream scientific opinion on anything at all, and if i did i would want to appraise my views.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 4
Again I don't think that Science and religion conflict, It is just a matter of understanding both.
Sadly most attention is given to people who want to separate the two rather than those who show their complimentary aspects. I take science and faith together, its not a matter of choosing between one or the other. We have extremist on either end of the discussion between science and faith, the correct path is in between these two.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 3
i think it would be more productive though if i was to point out that there is an apparent concensus among physicists and cosmologists (the people that are experts in this field and discuss this stuff at length using empirical evidence) that these arguments are, in actuality, not compelling. i think something like 93% of the members of the national academy of sciences are atheists.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
We went into this discussion about how scientists can only say "I don't know" since the topic of God is beyond the scope of their specialized fields. The flickering flame of the candle of science can never light and reveal the entire universe with all its secrets.
And what many scientists agreed upon in the past came out to be false now, so who is to say that what many scientists agree upon now won't be false in the future.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 2
so you are obviously compelled by these arguments and find them convincing. and obviously im not. youve presented them at length and ive explained why i think theyre wrong as best as i can. so no point doing that again.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 2
Yup lol, it was quite a run with our past conversation going back and forth haha. Enjoyable though.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 1
"You asked if I believe in God due to my logical arguments, Yes"
ok, thats very reasonable. quite a lot of religious people just say they have faith and the evidence be damned. but your position is rational. caring about the evidence is good, and believing in a logic necessitated god is rational. so if your logical arguments were to be pointed out to be invalid to your satisfaction, would you discard them along with the belief in god upon which they are based?
volound 7 months ago
@volound
If it is logically proved to me that God does not exist, then of course I would drop the belief lol, falsehood is only detrimental to mankind. But I have only seen truth in the arguments put forward for belief in the existence of God.
When ever people bring new arguments to me I don't accept or reject them immediately, rather I would take their argument and begin to do research. I am not one to make hasty decisions :) like some people who switch religions every day, lol.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
Comment removed
volound 7 months ago
part 16
on a side note, if you ever have a couple of hours, id recommend a video debate between a few atheists and a sunni that occured recently.
/watch?v=OE2tFb0IsIs
its quite good, im recommending it because the muslim guy is apparently quite famous as an apologist/debater and he puts forward similar arguments to some of yours to atheists who represent my position almost perfectly. i found it quite entertaining as well as educational.
volound 7 months ago
part 15
any god claim that contradicts evolution is inconsistent with reality and therefore logically impossible. i believe that pretty much all of the gods of organized religion that people worship are inconsistent with reality in one way or another.
volound 7 months ago
part 14
darwin was probably a christian after all, and people like francis crick, ken miller, francis collins are/were christians.
"You can believe in the God who used Evolution as a means to bring about things, what holds you back from this belief?"
i accept that it is possible for a god to exist, and that evolution does not disprove god, but i am of the opinion that it is more likely that a god does not exist. i realize, however, that whether or not a god exists, evolution is true.
volound 7 months ago
part 13
if so, which one? if not, then thats probably why nobody else does.
"Evolution is not a valid point on which to deny his existence, as I have already explained."
i absolutely agree and would not claim so. i would only say that evolution disproves the god of the qur'an (and any other god that seems to contradict reality), not any of the gods of any vague logical arguments.
volound 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
part 12
"Now I have provided the logical evidences for the existence of God. What points now hold you back from testifying to his existence."
i think ive heard at least 100 different rehashings of every one of the popular logical arguments for the existence of a god and none of them stand up to scrutiny. from the KCA to the teleological argument, every one of them is flawed in one way or another. im curious, do you believe in god because of one of your logical arguments?
volound 7 months ago
part 11
you didnt acknowledge that there are no miracles in the qur'an, or show that my refutations were flawed, so we didnt make any progress.
"Lets forget the Quran and go back to focusing on the existence of God. Let us not try to prove something through the use of anything except logic."
its not possible to prove the existence of a god using logic. over 2000 years have passed and no progress has been made. the majority of philosophy professors in america are atheists, after all.
volound 7 months ago
part 10
"We have jumped from the discussion of the existence of God to the Quran."
yes we have, but i think that was because you claimed there were miracles in the qur'an that would necessitate a god. you listed some miracle claims and i explained why they were not miracles, then i think i tried to explain that there are actually errors in the qur'an, which would disprove the god of the qur'an.
volound 7 months ago
part 9
im trying my best to explain my reasoning. if you want me to go on, or clarify anything ill be happy to. but these arguments seem very compelling to me, and concordantly conclusive. if you disagree then im all open to being proven wrong, of course.
volound 7 months ago
part 8
another problem is that adam was allegedly 60 feet tall, and perhaps separately, that he lived to be centuries old. ive came across this in multiple sahih hadith and this is simply absurd. i hope i dont need to explain.
these are just some random examples. i could sit here all day and ponder, and come up with literally hundreds more. the more i think about it, the bigger the chasm between islam and evolution becomes.
volound 7 months ago
part 7
every single attribute of every single human can be traced back to a mutation (mutations are errors). all organisms (including humans) are an accumulation of accidental, arbitrary, potentially lethal copying errors.
another thing i have a problem with is how god created angels and djinn without using evolution, but the notion here is that adam (and all other life) is different. this doesnt make any sense to me.
volound 7 months ago
part 6
if an omnipotent god created humans (regardless of the process used), we would not expect to see such wastage and inefficiency. i would expect signs of deliberateness, intent etc. what we see is the opposite, and is exactly what i expect to see having asserted that evolution is an unguided process in a universe that is completely indifferent to us. the fact is that evolution is a very monotonous and wasteful process.
volound 7 months ago
part 5
this is no problem at all to someone that doesnt believe in an omnipotent and benevolent god that concerns itself with our fate. but for someone that does, this seems like a problem.
another thing i have problem with is the fact that the majority of human DNA (and the DNA of all other species too) is junk. that is, it is useless, a waste. just like atavisms and vestigial organs are useless and wasteful.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Well I said this once and I will say it again, at least the purpose of my video was fulfilled.
We are talking like brethren in humanity and that is quite an accomplishment in my view.
Even though we have completely contradicting views at times, yet I am not yelling at you nor are you yelling at me and that is a beautiful thing in its essence,it is a peak of humanity that needs to be spread to others
What is your name by the way, lol mine is Ali
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 4
for example, if we assert that god created humans through evolution, and also that god concerns himself with humans, then there is no way to rationalize the fact that humans could easily have turned out completely differently from how they are, or not have came to exist at all. e.g. as recently as the toba catastrophe, homo sapiens experienced a massive population bottleneck and nearly (and could easily have) resulted in extinction (most species to ever exist are now extinct).
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 4
Well it seems that me and you view the world in two completely different perspectives, what I see with certainty as design, organization, and wisdom you see as disorder,chaos, and mindlessness. I thought I represented my self pretty well just like you think you presented your self pretty well but maybe I am not yet adequate at presenting my ideas in a crystal clear way yet...
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 3
i am of the opinion that all the evidence i would expect to see is visible, should the qur'an not support evolution, and support creationism. i dont really know how else to explain it. i read my comments again to make sure i represented my argument compellingly and coherently and i think i did a decent job. i believe that any possible test that we can do to check if the qur'an supports evolution will come out in support of this, and that we can read about islam and evolution to check.
volound 7 months ago
part 2
(which is strange if it was the process by which god created humans, and god has attempted to communicate with them before), to expect the qur'an to explicitly deny it would be an unreasonable expectation. all that we can reasonably expect it to do is to not mention/describe evolution at all, and maybe also to support conflicting notions, both of which i am fairly certain that it does, and feel confident that i have adequately conveyed why i believe this.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 3
The logical arguments that I used as concrete evidence of the existence of God in my 100 comment feat are sufficient for me to believe in God for they have given me certainty in this issue.
Note: concerning hadith, there are tons and tons upon more tons and tons of hadith whose authenticity is questionable, lol there are some hadith out there that me and my friends roll around laughing about since they are so ridiculous and yet they are quoted as being "Sahih" lol.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
part 1
"I do not see any contradiction to evolution in the Quran and the points you have stated were not a strong enough proof to change my view since things you brought up could be understood in a variety of ways."
well yes, theres no contradiction to evolution in the qur'an, but only in the same way theres no contradiction to ....e.g. a geocentric universe in the qur'an. evolution as a concept didnt even exist until 160 years ago..
volound 7 months ago
"Hey man,
sorry I have been really busy with multiple things."
its cool. welcome back. i was away for most of the past few weeks too so np.
volound 7 months ago
@volound
Part 1
Lol so far, it just seems that all our agruments to one another have not been sufficient for either side.
I can't say for certain if the Quran is against or for evolution for certain, I need to do more research and I will take the stance and admit my inadequate knowledge of the issue by saying as of now I do not know for certain but my thoughts on this topic have been expressed.
You asked if I believe in God due to my logical arguments, Yes
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Part 2
You asked if I came to the conclusion that God existed due to the use of my logical arguments, Yes that is exactly how I came to believe in God with certainty. The logical arguments that I stated in detail in my 100 comment feat (lol) were the organization of the universe, the divisions of existence, and causality I believe. There are many more proofs of God out there that I have not fully come acquainted with but when I do I will share them with you God willing.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
how do u feel about people saying that Islam is not the religion of peace and its an evil religion?
RazziNDarkside 8 months ago
@RazziNDarkside
I feel that people just don't know. We have only heard negative things about Islam in our media so what else is there for people to think?
I don't put all the blame on people who have such thoughts. I only blame them for not striving to hear the full story. I mostly blame the media for people's misconceptions.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
jerry coyne wrote "why evolution is true", which i havent got round to reading yet, but i hear is good. another book that came out around that time was "the greatest show on earth", where dawkins goes back to pure biology.
the book i would recommend the highest would probably be "the ancestors tale". it would be difficult to read that and not come away with a strong understanding of human evolution.
i really look forward to hearing how it goes, talk to you soon :)
volound 8 months ago
@volound
Hey man, I have been really busy lately so I just wanted to apologize for not responding for so long.
I intend to respond once some good amount of free time comes my way Inshallah (God Willing)
PureHumanity 8 months ago
@volound
Hey man,
sorry I have been really busy with multiple things.
To sum up our conversation and to make clear my point...
I do not see any contradiction to evolution in the Quran and the points you have stated were not a strong enough proof to change my view since things you brought up could be understood in a variety of ways.
I will continue to do more research on this topic but I have nothing more to add, (never did ask questions about evolution to the scholars, soon will)
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
More importantly,
I have noticed that we have jumped topics.
We have jumped from the discussion of the existence of God to the Quran.
Lets forget the Quran and go back to focusing on the existence of God. Let us not try to prove something through the use of anything except logic.
Now I have provided the logical evidences for the existence of God. What points now hold you back from testifying to his existence.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Evolution is not a valid point on which to deny his existence, as I have already explained. You can believe in the God who used Evolution as a means to bring about things, what holds you back from this belief? How is this concept of God false? Even IF the quran was wrong about anything, so what, then that book would not be from God but still the logical evidence of God's existence is still there so how can you deny?
Lets not focus on any specific religion or what their books say.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
@volound
Anywho, I hope all has well with you for the past couple weeks and thanks for the book recommendations.
PureHumanity 7 months ago
i would also recommend a few books on evolution that i think best convey the truth and elegance of it.
darwins origin of species is the obvious one, where it all began.
richard dawkins may be a prominent anti-theist right now, but his earlier books were purely academic. the selfish gene really was a great book. the ancestors tale specifically talks about human evolution.
carl sagan also wrote on evolution, in the dragons of eden, which was quite good i think.
volound 8 months ago
(part 22)
..only 22 comments.... felt like 100 ;)
Sorry for taking a week to respond, been extremely busy most of the start of the week. I’ve been typing this up in parts, in word, so hopefully its easier on the eye and clearer than usual. Look forward to your response, I’m very curious of what you think of these ideas.
volound 9 months ago
(part 21)
But if the issue in question is whether or not the qur’an is successful in communicating with muslims (and any good book should, let alone a perfect one), then muslims are the relevant experts on this issue. If im claiming that the qur’an propagates pseudo-science, then we can test this claim by looking to the opinions of muslims (especially scholars) for empirical evidence on whether or not this is the case.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback to part 21
The Quran says that God is unlike anything but yet so called Muslims say that God has hands and feet and etc.
The opinions of Muslims and Scholars is nothing and is meaningless. Many of them interpret things in their own way and liking.
The only "opinion" that matters is that of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his 12 divinely appointed successors, and hence we must turn to their saying and speeches in order to understand the Quran and other Islamic concepts.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity the only problem i have with the whole
qur'an + sunnah + 12 imams
is that the work of darwin still isnt included anywhere, and that even more stuff about adam and eve is included now. :(
volound 9 months ago
@volound
:) Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) spoke on a variety of scientific subjects.
I am not sure of who the author really is, but there is a book called "The Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher Imam Jafar Ibn Mohammed As-sadiq [A.S.]"
This book gives small glances at the saying of this Imam (divinely appointed leader, only 12) concerning some topics of science.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
From the verses that you have cited, they do not negate any concept of a process occurring to bring about man.
The stance that I basically have right now is "I don't Know" "That could be a possibility but in the end it does not negate God and I do not see it being negated by the Holy Quran for as long as I have been reading it"
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
I am going to a religious youth camp pretty soon where Islamic scholars will be present, so I will get into a more in depth conversation with them about this topic and I will pass onto you what they say God willing. Then we can both ponder and think about the answers :).
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity sounds great. i wish i could be there with you.
a suggestion to make conversations like that as productive as possible would be to push them on the issue of evolution, and noahs ark etc.
e.g. if they say they think evolution is incompatible with the qur'an, ask them if they are completely sure and how they reached that conclusion etc.
volound 8 months ago
@volound
You know, no where in the Quran does it say to pray 5 times a day.... Yet muslims know that the five daily prayers are a must and are the backbone of the religion.
You know how they know this, from the actions, sayings, and speeches of the prophet.
You have to take the Quran and the Ahlul Bayt (the prophet and his holy household, meaning his 12 successors as well as his daughter) together and if you leave one then the religion is incomplete. Together, the provide the straight path.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
Side note: The members of the Ahlul Bayt are infallible that is why there are listened too and followed.
The concept of infallibility is a whole topic of its own lol.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
My main point is that many things that are not mentioned in Quran are mention in the Sunnah (the life of the prophet, his actions, sayings, speeches etc)
I would advise you to read into the life of Imam Jaffar as-sadiq (pbuh), one of the 12 successors of the holy prophet, for the content of his sayings might contain the things you are looking for. I mentioned him before as being a Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
(part 20)
Ive investigated every single miracle claim made by muslims, some of which even you would laugh at. Ultimately, I can find no evidence that the qur’an is divine. Every muslim I come across that rejects evolution just confirms my hypothesis. I know you said “Truth is not determined by the majority, but rather by reason and evidence.”, And I completely agree with this...
volound 9 months ago
(part 19)
But when I read the qur’an with the knowledge that this is supposed to be the verbatim word of god, I cannot help but be overpowered by my incredulity. I simply could not make myself believe these claims, even if my life depended on it. Its contents simply wont let me. Ive discovered not one iota of divine insight or wisdom, or premonition, or scientific foreknowledge. To me it is as profoundly mediocre as the bible or bhagavad gita or any other scripture.
volound 9 months ago
(part 18)
...I would be a muslim right now, and so would pretty much every atheist I know (Christians and jews etc. probably wouldn’t because they already subscribe to their own irrevocable dogma). If Muhammad did what Darwin or Einstein or Newton or Galileo did in 600AD, he would be hailed unanimously as either an unquestionable prophet, or a mastermind of impossible magnitude, and the foremost authority on whether or not there is a god.
volound 9 months ago
(part 17)
I would probably go so far as to say that the qur’an could be improved profoundly by supplanting all of these verses with key sections from darwins origin of species. If the qur’an said:
“behold! from a single, tiny lifeform is all life on earth today, derived. From the black element (carbon) is all life on earth structured without exception.” (or something along those lines).
Or just something as simple as;
“energy is equivalent to mass (in reference to E=mc 2)”
volound 9 months ago
(part 16)
away from it with little/no useful information. To be perfectly clear, the qur’an has hundreds of verses at its disposal with which to inspire with awe and convert anyone who reads it, especially the scientifically literate and educated elite, all it has to do is describe evolution. But it doesn’t. Its no more impressive to the curious, skeptical observer than the bible or any other scripture.
volound 9 months ago
(part 15)
If humans are ever “perfect”, it will be through genetic engineering, which can hardly be attributed to god. One fact that strikes dissonance with me for this verse is that most of our DNA is functionally useless. We also have atavisms, just like most other organisms, especially mammals.
These are just a few examples. There are dozens, if not, hundreds.. of different verses in the qur’an that attempt to discuss the origin of mankind/life, and muslims have always came away...
volound 9 months ago
(part 14)
82:7 “It is He Who created you, fashioned you perfectly, and made you with the right proportions..”
This cannot be in reference to evolution as the attributes of humans determined by their environment, and these attributes are far from perfect. These attributes have always been changing and continue to change. At no point in the past have humans ever been even close to perfect.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback to part14
The translation I have is "who created you and proportioned you, and gave you upright nature."
Again here it is VERY IMPORTANT TO ASK...."BY WHAT 'MEANS' DID ALLAH CREATE, FASHION, AND PROPORTION US? we know God doesn't have hands nor does God have a body. So by what means?
Why are humans not perfect?
Is not the attribute of adaption a cause of perfection in the face of differing situations? (my own thought lol)
PureHumanity 9 months ago
(part 13)
4:1 “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women…”
The only way this verse could allude to evolution, would be if it were to imply that every organism, ever, contains a soul. It would also imply that the first ever organism reproduced sexually - which is not accepted at all by any science. A much more reasonable explanation is that it refers to adam (one soul) and eve (its mate).
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback to part 13
You are assuming that this verse is referring to the beginning of all life as we know it while God is simply speaking about mankind. Does the verse say " At the beginning of all things," no. So who is to say that there wasn't a process that created that "soul"?
P.S. in regards to you saying "...imply that every organism, ever, contains a soul." In Islam we believe that every material thing is simply a reflection or a shadow of higher spiritual reality.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity but the beginning of all life is the beginning of mankind, too, and all other extant species. there is no "first human". just as there is no "first second" in which a child becomes an adult. evolution is a process of gradation, which continues to this day. if you could look at the state of homo sapiens in 20,000 year slices, you would notice only very slight differences.
volound 9 months ago
@PureHumanity "You are assuming that this verse is referring to the beginning of all life as we know it while God is simply speaking about mankind."
the beginning of all life IS the beginning of all mankind. humans are not of a separate tree from any other life on earth. every organism on earth shares a common ancestor with every other organism. humans are eukaryotes, as well as chordates, as mammals, as well as primates. if the qur'an says god created life, it MUST refer to abiogenesis.
volound 9 months ago
@PureHumanity "In Islam we believe that every material thing is simply a reflection or a shadow of higher spiritual reality. "
sure, but do you accept that an amoeba contains a soul, and that the qur'an implies this? you must, if not, then you are implying that the qur'an does not agree with the divergence of species as implied by evolution.
volound 9 months ago
(part 12)
It cannot be the first one unless god broke his promise to protect the qur’an. It cannot be the second one as that would imply that the qur’an has utterly, completely failed to communicate with its target audience. I believe it is the latter, and I believe that there are verses that support this view. For example;
volound 9 months ago
(part 11)
1. the qur’an is actually unclear and therefore not perfect, as it has failed to communicate effectively.
2. the vast majority of muslims (and anyone who reads the qur’an and doesn’t learn about evolution) cannot understand clear instructions and concepts.
3. the qur’an doesn’t support evolution, but in fact supports the abrahamic creation myth, which opposes evolution.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback on part11
Chapter 3 verse 7 in the Quran tells us that some verses in the Quran are definitive and others are metaphorical. So the interpretation of the verses of Quran is VERY important. But who should interpret them? Me? You? Some big Islamic scholar? no no and no. The only ones who can Interpret the verses of Quran are God's representatives on Earth which was Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) and His 12 God appointed successors that came successively after him.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
Part 2 of Feedback to part 11 (lol)
Only the representatives of God can interpret the Quranic verses and gives us insight into the numerous depths of meaning within them.
the other points mentioned I have responded to in past comments
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity so why did god bother sending us the qur'an when he could have just gave us the actual interpretations? why draw it out and make it into such an ordeal? why not make the will of god accessible to everyone? why didnt muhammad and the 11 imams thus far just spend their entire lives explaining the exact meaning of every single verse, so there is no ambiguity, which there clearly is.
so what is the concensus of muhammad and the 11 imams thus far, on the origin of mankind?
volound 9 months ago
(part 10) To clarify, we have an entire diverse group of people from all times, backgrounds and classes that are reading from a book they believe is perfectly clear, and are mostly coming to the alternative, false conclusion. There is a logical conflict here that can only be resolved in one of three ways.
volound 9 months ago
(part 9)
“A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about 25% of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.”
volound 9 months ago
(part 8)
...no semblance of evolution at all. If the qur’an talked about evolution, surely we would expect muslims to be the vanguard of it's discovery and advancement, instead of atheists and christians like Lamarck, Wallace, Darwin and Dawkins?
What we can demonstrate, is that the vast majority of muslims believe the qur’an is the clearest, most perfect, most concise book on any subject ever written. Disturbingly and unintuitively, they also believe the false abrahamic creation myth.
volound 9 months ago
)part 7)
which took 1200 years more to be discovered, and each of which I could describe reasonably in a single sentence. It doesn’t say that all life descends from a single organism i.e. all life has a single, unifying, common ancestor (or progenitor). It doesn’t mention genes as being the actual vehicles for the inherent attributes of organisms, which even Darwin didn’t know. No mention of any of this. An excellent opportunity to impress readers of all times and places, wasted.
volound 9 months ago
(part 6)
One of the foremost fundamentals of evolution is DNA. If we read the entire qur’an, very surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to make any efforts to describe DNA (or anything else too small to be seen with the eye, i.e. spermatozoon, ovum, cells, germs… which I find to be interesting, but decisive) which would absolutely, certainly be in any description by any informed person. It doesn’t describe vital mechanisms like natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, mutations etc.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback to part 6
While the Quran contains scientific miracles, it is not a book of science. It is a book meant to guide man to become a true human being. The Quran was not sent to explain all of science, if it doesn't mention a scientific concept or explain one doesn't mean that the Quran is false.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
(part 5)
So does the qur’an describe evolution? (this should be clear, because a perfect book is uncapable of being unclear). Well evolution is quite complex, but the more complex, the more opportunity to impress, surely? As a mere mortal, I can describe evolution reasonably well within a few paragraphs using only a few simple and easy to explain concepts. Darwin managed to explain evolution lucidly and convincingly. Surely this is the absolute minimum we can expect from an omniscient being.
volound 9 months ago
(part 4)
And lets not forget that the qur’an also supports the idea of noahs flood, which is just as wrong, and has been demonstrated to have been scientifically impossible in so, so many countless ways. In addition to the creation myth, the vast majority of muslims also believe noahs flood happened, which raises a myriad of questions about the qur'an.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback to part 4
Interesting I will look into the event of Noah ark from the Islamic perspective and also could you send me some material to look into in terms of the flood being false?
PureHumanity 9 months ago
(part 3)
When I read the qur’an, I didn’t think it managed to do either at all, and neither do most people who read it, muslims and non-muslims alike. When it mentions adam and eve, its not in a dismissive way as most scientists refer to it, and as the qur’an definitely, certainly should refer to it. If anything, it seems just like the bible, if not, worse. The qur’an hails adam not just as an actual person, but as a prophet.
volound 9 months ago
(part 2)
Well, I think there are two main things the qur’an needs to do in order to be in line with the science of evolution. Primarily, it needs to positively describe evolution (this is imperative, if its going to attempt to discuss the origin of man or life at all), and secondly, it should make efforts to dispel the prevailing, false, orthodox, abrahamic beliefs of the time (that humans were created spontaneously in a garden), and most importantly, not uphold them in any way whatsoever.
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Feedback on part 2
Quran doesn't focus on the origin of man but on the current universe as it is. This is what the Author of "The Fundamentals of Islamic Thought" had mentioned in his book.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity but the qur'an does talk about the creation of the universe, and of the earth, and of life, including man.. surely? it does mention adam and eve and it does talk about clay, dust, sperm, blood etc.
are you saying that a book as large and as perfect as the qur'an doesnt talk about where man came from? surely thats worth at least one of the many thousands of verses at its disposal..
volound 9 months ago
(part 1)
I think this is the crux. You believe the qur’an is completely right in everything it says, that evolution is true, and therefore that the qur’an is in line with evolution, because both are true. I believe the qur’an is not true, and that evolution is true, and that the qur’an contradicts evolution. So all there is left to do is to attempt to take measures to determine who is correct. Does the qur'an support evolution, or not?
volound 9 months ago
@volound
Hello,
I have been quite busy too lol.
I will go through your comments God willing and answer what I can. If there is anything I don't know the answer to then I will let you know and I will look into it God willing.
I will try to make some small feedback for each comment when necessary.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@volound
In the name of Allah
Response to part 1
I did not say that the Exact Current Idea of Evolution is true rather I said that the Qur'an supports a "Process" in which man was created, whether that "process" is evolution or something similar to evolution is unknown to me.
PureHumanity 9 months ago
@PureHumanity well, we know that man came about through evolution, as surely as we know the earth orbits the sun. the only question is whether or not the qur'an agrees with this. there is absolutely no question that evolution is true, and the origin of all species, including man. there are as many valid objections to evolution as there are to gravity, evolution is not contested among scientists.
i get the impression that you dont see it this way though, why are you unsure?
volound 9 months ago
ill be back on tomorrow. its been an interesting discussion, and more civil than any i can remember.
peace.
volound 9 months ago
I think you may be right, in mentioning that there could be a discrepancy between our definitions of chaos. So here is the one I was referring to: chaos being "Disorderly, unpredictable".
By that definition, the universe is blatantly chaotic, there are so many variables to take into account, that we cannot possibly predict the majority of events within the universe. This is due to our limited intellect and the fact that we are not and can't become omniscient.
Blackhawk1913 10 months ago
@Blackhawk1913
Hello,
In regards to the sub atomic level and Quantum mechanics I spoke to a friend of mine that actually has been does studies in this field and he said that to say there is no organization on the sub atomic level is incorrect
In fact he said there is complex organization at this level and the example he used is that of the electron.
The electron is so organized that it must be on a certain "shelf" or "level" and it cannot be in between them.
PureHumanity 10 months ago