There is evidence, the evidence is even empirical. From the constellations to the architecture of DNA is all empirical that there is something making sure it's working properly. If you just look at how these two minor examples are formed by the golden ratio, you have no choice but to accept an 'in your face' remark. Empirical evidence stipulates that anything which is observable and will repeat itself in same given conditions, is proof.
You are talking about the teleological argument (or argument from design) for the existence of god. Lets keep this discussion on the cosmological argument because thats what this thread is about. If you wish to debate this alternative argument then I will be happy to if you make another thread. but just to give you a brief refutation of the argument from design I can tell you that what we see as "design" in this universe is the product of random collisions and mutations. chaos results in order if given enough time. let me give you an example - the formation of the plants and stars. how did they come about? well the answer is gravity. we have seen that gravity causes objects to clump together and condense to form a planet. where do the different elements come from? - stellar nuecleosysnthesis, gravity causes starts to form and because of the high temperature atoms fuse together to create entirely different atoms (the new elements). all you need to create complexity is a few, basic simple laws. we have observed this happening in so many different physical phenomons.
another counter argument to the teleological argument is the topic we are discussing now - if there is actually a god who created matter and designed it - then where did that god come from?
also. the teleological argument does not actually prove that a god such as allah exists. all you can conclude from it is that a creator exists, you cant say that the creator has such and such qualities such as loving, all powerful all knowing etc.
but anyway, we can discuss this on another thread.
you talked about the quran being the best evidence for allah, but you did not say how it is the best evidence. is it because it contains scientific facts? well I have offered 2 refutations to that in my posts to leo.
To prove or disprove God's existence becomes absurd because the reference points we have are incorrect. i.e. one who is in the realm of created cannot interact with the realm of uncreated. However, one in the realm of created can interact within the realm of created.
this is a weak argument. you can apply the same logic to anything and anyone. I could say God X is real but you cant disprove him and its absurd to try and do so because the "reference points are incorrect" (whatever that means) and because we cant interact with him. do you understand what i am trying to say? - you are not offering anything here, your just making unsubstantiated claims and conjecture. (something that you have blamed me for). its just too easy for anybody to say something like this. the Christians or hindus can say this and how would you respond? they could say the god surya has no reference point and we cant interact with it and so you to proove/disprove him is absurd.
also you say that it is absurd to proove Gods existence and at the same time you are trying to prove that Allah exists using the quran and the teleological argument. you are being very inconsistent here...
either you can prove god exists or you cant, which one is it?
There is nothing beyond the observable universe because for there to be something, it must be observable (in it's broadest sense - not just talking about 5 senses). Logic dictates this.
For there to be something, there must be something else which created this. This is mathematical logic. The one who created must therefore be outside the realms of space, out of time and therefore must always have been there. The All-knowing is logically proven because there is a cause for ALL effects. The one who causes is the one who knows about it's effects, ergo all-knowing.
no it could be unobservable to our senses and all our equipment but we know that the there are parts of the universe we cannot observe because our equipment is not yet advanced enough. but we cant say anything about what is there or the lack thereof, just because we cant detect it does it mean nothing is there. so for example, just because we cannot physically detect allah does it mean he does not exist? no.
also you make a bit of a weird statement when saying this. if the unobservable universe is unobservable in the "broadest sense" (as you said) then how do you know it exists in the first place? - you dont.
the only reason why cannot see what is in the unobservable universe is because light has not yet reached us from there. and all our equipment detects electromagnetic frequencies such as light waves.
These are not just some terms some people invented. These attributes can be deduced with mathematical logic. These attributes of the God we believe in are in favour of one who is uncreated, to which we say does not reside in something beyond the observable universe...but He is transcendent of 'residing' in anything. You said somewhere as well (this is why I do not like quoting piece by piece as you can see..it's very non-academic) that I try to limit God and that I say He can't do something. It's not that I say He can't do something, it's just that some things are not applicable to Him and His being.
sorry but what mathematical logic? i have no idea what you are getting at. you havent provided any "mathematical logic" your link doesnt provide any of this logic either.
What surprises me is that you say the singularity is external to the universe? How can it be external when that what came out of it is the universe in which we reside?
It is external to the universe in the sense that its physical laws are different to ours. for example the universe it limited by time and space. the singularity isnt because there was no time and space before the big bang.
1. Again.. God cannot enter the universe, because 'entering' is not applicable to Him
2. This is what the Mujjasima have done, to attribute God with attributions that are applicable to created things. We of Ahle Sunnah reject this.
you have acknowledged that Allah cannot do something. and if he cannot do something, then he is not all powerful and therefore does not exist. if he is all powerful he should also be able to do thinks that are applicable to created things aswell, it makes no difference! and if you reject that allah can do things applicable to what created things can do then you must accept that allah is not all powerful. do you accept this then?
what do you mean it is not applicable to him? he cant do it? he wont do it? explain what it means exactly.
The absurdity is another word of saying that certain things are not applicable to Him. Often I find myself in discussion of the Arabic term "Istiwa" upon the throne. Istiwa is translated with "Istiqrar" which means 'settledness' by the anthropomorphists. Settling implies that one is to have physic contact with something, like a book that is settled on a table. When you ask me a question regarding the settling of the book upon the table, I can give you the details of this modality, since the reference points are created. However...when you ask me the modality of something, which reference points are uncreated and one which are created..this becomes a logical absurdity. This is not dodging, this is a form of syntax error.
again, what does it mean when you say Allahs reference points are uncreated? to me it just sounds like words without any substance. and I can again ask you the same question as a did before - any person can say this about their god. the hindu can say my gods reference point is uncreated - how do you respond to the hindu?
Eternal regression is illogic. For there to be something (that which was not there in its entirety but afterwards came into existence), something must have created it. If that something consisted of matter, then something created the matter and something created that matter and this goes into eternal regression.
if the creator is not subject to the laws of physics then you answer the eternal regression problem! this is what muslims have said for generations. and then you come along and say Allah is actually not corporeal! but you still have not answered the questions. lets say that Allah is not corporeal and he is not made of matter (which i believe you agree with) then how did he create matter? everything that we see is a part of god isnt it? because all matter came from god, there is nothing apart from Allah yes? (because All matter, time, space and energy comes from him) then how can he (who is not made of matter) create atoms and energy? (which is made of matter).
Hahaha, we are doing that! I am very glad you said this. It just happens to be that this singularity has a will. Furthermore we refer to this singularity in a masculine way, while saying masculine is not applicable to Him. Also He has chosen to send us a message, along with a messenger, backed up with what is the greatest miraculous proof...The Quran. Every Muslim will endorse the fact that the Quran is the greatest proof of existence of God. If you succeed in discrediting the Quran, you will disprove the existence of God Almighty. Go ahead.
1) you are giving the singularity emotions and qualities.
2) you are saying that Allah is a living entity, whilst we know the singularity is not.
3) you are adding so many more additional qualities such as all knowing and all powerful to the singularity
4) you have not solved the problem of how matter can come from non matter if the singularity was non physical.
I believe I have shown that the quran is not the world of god by demonstrating that evolution is true, you can follow my evidence and the debate in these threads.http://www.wup-forum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 0&start=75http://www.wup-forum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 2&start=25
you are right in saying that the quran does not disagree with everything in evolution. but it clearly is against human evolution and that fact that we had a common ancestor with chimps. and that is all I need. one contradiction.