I am a huge fan of science, a patron of the sceptical movement and an avid benefactor of the school of rational thought. This over self-complimentary introduction does serve a purpose. A defence strategy to immunise my credibility and self-respect from the following act that could only be described with adjectives such as unproductive, fruitless and meaningless. A confession: I am Achluophobic. Yeap, I am afraid of the dark. Most importantly I might be a tad plamophobic. Yeap, I am afraid of ghosts too.
I absolutely don’t believe in these malevolent imaginary beings……but still, as a male in his early 20’s, would drape quilt over my head in the middle of the night when my mental faculties are capable of conjuring up scary thoughts( Freddy or to be more specific, the demon from Paranormal activity). Until now I was too terrified to use my scientific toolkit to confront my unreasonable fear of ghosts so I decided that I should do something about it; chant…
View original post 318 more words
Tags: Allah, Atheism, Existence of God, Insha Allah, Islam, Muslim, Quran, Souls, Zakir Naik
This is obviously….clearly…. unquestionably the continuation of EVIDENCE FOR GOD series where I have decided to put together a list of arguments sent to me, with the intentions of saving my soul for an eternal hell fire. Religious folks are truly awesome, ok?! We live in a world where nearly 3 billion people don’t have access to clean water, we live in a world where people still starve to death, we live in a world where communities belonging to minorities are subdued and their rights violated, we live in a world where donating a £1 a month could help people have access to clean fresh water and we live in a world where donating £5 a month could help a child in a 3rd world country lead a more decent life. But these are only temporary. The problems of our body and not our soul. Our materialistic existence is only a test, it doesn’t mean much in the greater context. The real unselfish act would be to save all these wretched souls from an eternal hell fire by explaining the importance in believing in an all Loving GOD….. and many have embarked on this holiest of the holy crusade and my hats off to all those gentlest women and men.
This is from a muslim brother who uses the words of the truly amazing Zakir Naik to prove the existance of God. A gold mine of infallible truths. He is a doctor, so he claims to be one, so he has to….there is no way around it…….he has to be right!
2. whats purpose of life?
3. Apart from scientific evidence, what else would make you acknowledge the existence of God Almighty? Proving the Existence of Allah to an Intelligent Atheist (i.e sincere atheist)
by Dr. Zakir Naik CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, ” My special congratulations to you”, because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief – he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, “Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?” The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ – meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities – therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.
If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.
Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE — COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?
THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.
QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
“Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?”
To become a muslim, just make a declaration sincerely that, ‘there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and Muhammad is a messenger of Allah’.
Questions on the truth of islam welcomed! Dont be shy!
Tags: BIBLE, Biblical miracles, genesis, God, Hydrothermal vent, Jesus, Jobs, Matthew Maury, Pleiades, Psalm, Science, Southern Ocean, William Harvey
This is the continuation of the argument in support of the biblical god and in part-deux he tries to draw a connection between science and the Bible. Well I still have not had the time to study the actual passages that translate into these scientific miracles but I promise that I’ll do my research and post the complete verses that reveal these magnificent truths. Lo and behold, THE SCIENTIFIC BIBLE!!!!
Since God is all knowing, you would expect him to know a fair bit about the natural world, correct? The Bible ISN’T a science book. It wasn’t written to put a man on the moon, cure cancer or create mobile phones. Never the less, when the Bible touches on natural things it is very accurate. Let’s look at a few examples.
Pleiades and Orion:
The first known practical telescopes were not invented until the early 1600s. Using modern telescopes, we can make numerous accurate observations of many star clusters. Two of these star clusters are Pleiades and Orion. Pleiades is very tightly bound by gravity. Then you’ve got Orion, whose gravitational field holds it together like a thin piece of string would hold me to a wall. Job 38:31 says “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? This is God’s message to us. “You see Pleiades? Totally bound by gravity. See Orion? Flying apart rapidly. I set those laws in motion you know? Know what else I can do? I can forgive you for every sin you’ve comitted, because I died on a cross for you.”
“Springs of the deep” (Hydrothermal vents)
I’m not much of a geographer, but I do have mild knowledge on hydrothermal vents. They’re basically cracks or holes in the ocean that fire out hot water, minerals and bacteria. But get this, they were first discovered in 1977, which would make the books of Genesis and Job younger than my mum if they were written after the discovery of Hydrothermal vents, not the 3000 years old that they actually are!
Now let’s see what these verses tell us.
Hydrothermal vents are found in the ocean (the great deep).
Genesis 7:11 describes the “springs of the deep” bursting forth. As in all of the hydrothermal vents eyrupted at once.
In Job 38:16 God asks if Job has journeyed to the “springs of the sea”.
Obviously, a pre-first century man couldn’t possibly walk in “the recesses of the deep” (about 7000ft average). They could not have discovered hydrothermal vents. And, more importantly, Job could not travel to the springs of the deep.
William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life in 1616. We all know how important our blood is today. It carries oxeygen from our lungs to our body, removes waste material from the cells of the body, controls our body temperature (which you will notice when you jog and your heart pumps blood all over your body much faster than usual and you heat up) and it carries water and nourishment right around your body. Without blood, your physical body would die. Well let’s look at Leviticus 17:11. It says For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Jesus’ blood attones for all of our sins in the modern day, but what’s important here is what the verse says about how important the blood is for life. Harvey’s discovery confirms what the Bible has been telling us for over 3000 years now.
Jacobson’s Organ on the snake
Gensis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
This verse is commonly cited as evidence that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, as we “know” snakes do not eat dust. Originally I had 2 inerpretations of this (which, unfortunately, Micah 7:17 proved wrong). The first is that maybe it is a metaphor, like when a defeated foe is described as having biten the dust, or when a racer tells his opponant to “eat my dust”.
Unfortunately, most critics will just blindly laugh whenever you say “metaphor”, as they believe the Bible is always intended to be taken literally. When you tell them otherwise, they start telling you off for forcing your interpretation (which they, themselves, are doing). This does make it rather difficult to talk to them, but in this particular case I managed to shut them up by finding another, more intelligent way around this supposed inaccuracy. I asked them where the Bible says animals were made from. They replied some were made from water, others from dust. I then asked if the snake ate these animals. While the lesser educated people hold that the corn snake is herbivorous, the more educated critics usually admitted that all snakes were predators. Since animals are ultimately made from dust, and since snakes eat said animals, snakes do effectively eat dust.
I held those 2 interpretations until rather recently, when I read an article on Creation.com about how snakes really DO eat dust! Since Micah 7:17 says They will lick dust like a snake, like creatures that crawl on the ground. They will come trembling out of their dens; they will turn in fear to the LORD our God and will be afraid of you. I think it is fair to say I was wrong to believe that snakes eating dust is a metaphor. My second interpretation isn’t quite as bad, but on it’s own it doesn’t quite hold up. Nevermind though. While I make mistakes, other people correct them.
As it turns out this is another situation where new evidence shows that the Bible is not only accurate, but is accurate to the smallest detail. Snakes DO eat dust!
On the roof of the mouth, snakes have what is known as a jacobsons organ. This is used as an additional sensory system for detecting smells. When it’s tongue flicks forward, it picks up dust samples, which the snake can then smell using it’s jacobsons organ. Of course, once the snake has smelt the dust, the tongue needs to be cleaned before use. Gulp.
As you can see, snakes really do eat dust. Since the idea that snakes do not eat dust was used to prove the Bible wrong, I think it’s fair to say that this is a scientific anachronism, not a scientific blunder.
Here’s one that most critics don’t like. The argument is that the Bible does not help us make scientific discoveries (which isn’t what it’s meant for anyway, which defeats the argument straight away) so it must be false (strange argument, as factual documents do not need to help make scientific discoveries).
However I can give one example of a man who did use the Bible to aid science. Matthew Maury (January 14, 1806– February 1, 1873) used the 8th Psalm to discover that the currents of the ocean follow a specific path, a scientific fact which was used to help decrease the time it takes to traverse the seas. I’ve never heard so much as an attempt at a response to this one.
That’s just the scientific stuff. Can I provide more? Yes, plenty. But honestly I can’t be bothered. You can find a more complete case (all my own work) here:
Tags: Argument for God, BIBLE, Christianity, Cosmological, Existence of God, God, Jesus, law of biogenesis, Moral, Religion and Spirituality, Teleogical
I have been debating with a Christian lately regarding the existence of the biblical God. According to him, he had been a non-believer most his life and is now a believer due to the presence of “irrefutable” evidence and logic in support for the existence of the biblical god. He sent me a long list of what he claims to be evidence for god, so I thought why should I be the only luck soul(if I have one) to have seen this intellectual revelation. Without further ado, THE EVIDENCE FOR YAHWEH!!!! The only two things missing are; thunder and lightening.
Very common, I’m sure you’ll have heard of it. It is a FACT that everything that had a beginning needed a cause. But if everything had a beginning, nothing would ever begin. Only something eternal, that is NOT limited to time and had NO beginning could have caused this universe to exist. The universe is finite, therefore it had a beginning. I shouldn’t need to back this up with evidence, but if you’re an eternal universe man I will gladly do so upon request. Moving on: The Bible tells us that God existed BEFORE TIME BEGAN. In other words, he’s not bound by time. If he can create the universe in 6 days, and snatch control back at any time, do you think he’s limited to science either? This alone doesn’t prove the Biblical God, but it proves a supernatural existence. If nature is all there is, nature itself wouldn’t exist.
The law of biogenesis:
It’s a well established scientific law. Without the supernatural, life can only come from life. Though we’ve tried many times the only way we’ve managed to successfully create life is by breeding an already existing life form, which came from an already existing life form, which came from an already existing life form. To add to that, each life form was the same kind as it’s offspring. Slight differences, yes. Major? Not likely. There’s always a stop limit preventing such different creatures breeding together. But that’s a topic for another discussion. Basically, the law of biogenesis means that either we would have to return to the eternal universe theory, which we should both know is a wash, or we would have to return to a supernatural power that/who can create life. Alternatively, scientists could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. Even so, this alternative is the second least likely.
So we’ve established that the law of biogenesis suggests a supernatural power, but so what if there is one of those? That doesn’t prove it’s a god. It could just be a force of some kind. So how do we prove the supernatural force is intelligent? We’re moving into the realms of Intelligent Design here. The best evidence for I.D. is irreducable complexity.
Design detection is a legitimate field of science, and is possibly one of the oldest. Basically, it’s easy to know when something is designed because it is both specified and complex. I may be able to convince you that a familiar shape in the clouds, such as a fish, sheep or love heart, as just chance. It’s specified, but it’s not complex. I may be able to convince you that a paint spillage is accidental. It’s complex, but it’s not specified. But would I be able to convince you that Mount Rushmore and the Mona Lisa are without designer? Of course I wouldn’t. Could I convince you that I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and that every mail you recieve from me is the result of me dropping marbles on my keyboard then pressing send blindly? I’d seriously hope I couldn’t.
Could I convince you that a mouse trap was not designed? Given how easily people assumed “tool shaped” stones were designed, I think I’d have some trouble producing a fully functional mouse trap and convincing you it just formed by accident. If one piece is absent, or not in it’s correct place, or defficient, it ain’t gonna trap Mickey. So why is Darwin able to convince you that something as complicated as a cell, nevermind everything else, is the result of chance? Like the mouse trap, if one piece is absent, not in it’s correct place or defficient, it doesn’t work. It would fall apart. It would not function. If I cannot convince you that a mouse trap formed after I dropped a piece of wood and some springs, why can I convince you that numerous componants that I can’t even be bothered naming could POSSIBLY form without a designer? Every machine mankind has EVER created is inferior to near enough EVERYTHING we find in nature.
Isaac Newton used this argument frequently. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognised at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits.
Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, “My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?” Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, “Nobody.”
Quickly turning to Newton, his friend said, “Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?” Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in.
The astonished man replied with some heat, “You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!”
Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, “This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know, – and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with it’s much more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?” – The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.
Can you answer Newton’s question? By what sort of reasoning do you come to the conclusion that even the simplest things, like a mouse trap, NEED a designer, yet infinitely more complex, specified things such as D.N.A., the universe, cells, solar systems etc. do not?
Moving along, a moral code exists. How can this be without a higher authority? If there is no god, mankind is the highest authority. It’s a do what you feel world. God calls that kind of attitude “sin”. Rejectors of God call that nature. But in a do what you feel world, there are some obvious drawbacks. Firstly, is it wrong for me to destroy a majority of the human race? There’s 7billion people on this Earth now. That’s more than enough to run us out of non-renewable resources (which are actually creatable but the cost of such would aparently be astronomic) in less time than would be covenient. Why couldn’t some smart arse kill off 90% of humanity? Dr. Pianka was applauded for such an idea! Surely you see this as morally wrong? This is because there is a moral code. As long as you have any opinion on right and wrong, you believe in an objective morality, which CANNOT exist without an objective source. If morality is subjective, it lives and dies with the individual. Was it wrong for Pope Innocent the third to slaughter more Christians in an afternoon than any Roman Emporer in his entire reign? Yes, of course it was. But I live here, now. How can I judge that without a moral source? Because morality is objective, not subjective.
So I think we’ve established that an eternal, intelligent designer exists, but even then how do I know it’s Jesus? Hundreds of religions claim their god is the real creator. Let’s get into the specific evidence that the BIBLE, and not some “other” god, is true.