Bells said:
PM, I'd quote all that you replied to me but the pretty colours you used kind of made my eyes hurt so I shall just reply without the quotes this time. PM I asked you to show me absolute proof that God created everything, and you didn't. Instead you only regurgitated what was stated in the Quran. Until you or someone else can show me absolute proof, then I believe that science wins out in this case because they have proven themselves and backed up their findings.
Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the
philosophical arguments, specifically the
ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. Each of these arguments,supports a certain conception of God, and so supports each of the various religions to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument claims that the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn’t exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what “triangle” means makes it obvious that a four-sided traingle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that God’s non-existence is impossible.
There are many things that something would have to be in order to be properly called “God”. For instance, it would have to be all-powerful, because a part of what “God” means is “all-powerful”. To call something that isn’t all-powerful God would be like calling a shape that doesn’t have three sides a triangle; to anyone who understands the words involved it just wouldn’t make sense. Another part of what “God” mean is “perfect”; something can’t properly be called God unless it is perfect. This is the key idea behind the ontological argument.
If something is perfect, then it couldn’t possibly be better than it is; there can’t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine.
If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is. We would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that doesn’t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn’t exist could be better than he is.
The First Cause Argument
The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.
If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity. The first cause argument tells us that the second of these possibilities doesn’t make any sense, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false.
The idea that the universe has an infinite past, though, is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘
big bang’.
The Argument from Design
The argument from design focuses on the fact that the universe is fit for human habitation. There are many ways that the universe might have been, the argument from design tells us—it might have had different laws of physics; it might have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it might have begun with a bigger or a smaller big bang—and the vast majority of these would not have allowed for the existence of life. We are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does.
The Moral Argument
Most facts are facts about the way that the world is, It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France because there exists a city called Paris that is the capital of France. For most facts, there are objects in the world that make them true. Moral facts aren’t like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn’t a fact about the way that the world is, it’s a fact about the way that the world ought to be. There is nothing out there in the world that makes moral facts true. This is because moral facts aren’t descriptive, they’re prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands.
There are some things that can’t exist unless something else exists along with them. There can’t be something that is being carried unless there is something else that is carrying it. There can’t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this; commands can’t exist without something else existing that commanded them. The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality?
You wish to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, then so be it. But in the meantime, you should really refrain from calling others who believe in science and evolution "retarded". You expect others to respect your belief, have the same courtesy in respecting the beliefs of others.
I dont mean to offend you bells, but the Hopeless athiests always make fun of those who believe and have faith, so let them taste something from their own making.
PM, if we didn't descend from a common ancestor to the ape, how is it that we share so much of their dna? There's so much proof that we are a product of evolution PM, how can you just turn away on blind faith? It's your choice to do so I guess.
It is not evolution, it is ILLUSION, only the retarded would believe we came from common ancestor like the apes, otherwise how do you explain there are still apes until now who did not evoluve ??? how do you explain the EYE of the humans dont evoluve ?? do you really believe that a fish in the sea SUDDENLY decided to leave water into the earth ?? will not this fish DIE moments after leaving the water ????
Bells, with all due respect, evolution is the most illogical, the most absurd nonesense I ever heard in my life, I am glad we in the Muslim world
DONT teach our childern such garbage.