IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Open challenge to atheistic science

Author

Message

nothing

Senior Member

Joined: 09 November 2008
Location: Andorra
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360

Posted: 01 December 2012 at 1:44pm

Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part.

IP Logged

schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422

Posted: 01 December 2012 at 4:29pm

That's already been done, Nothing. However, when I get told on a debate site that I'm not allowed to disagree with his thesis, it tends to bring out my sarcastic side.

IP Logged

nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150

Posted: 01 December 2012 at 6:34pm

Originally posted by nothing

Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part.

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist.

I'm pretty sure Einstein never said that, and I don't know of any mainstream 'atheist scientist' who ever has. Richard Dawkins, for example, talks of probabilities, not certainties. In The Grand Design (2010), Stephen Hawking only concludes that supernatural intervention was not required. (Forget the silly newspaper headlines.)

God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.

IP Logged

Mohammad Shafiq
Male Islam
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 18 November 2012
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17

Posted: 02 December 2012 at 12:51am

Hawkings Tysons Krausses & Dawking are making claims on the basis of science which has been openly challenged and accordingly put for discussion here. They are making claims on the basis of paradigm defined by Einstein. Now this is straight & relevent to the discussion that Einstein has been mathematically, theoretically, experimentally proved to be great trickster in a published scientific research article titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012) available on the linkhttp://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html.
These being findings of scientific research article published in peer-reviewed journal so no Tom, Dick & Harry can reject or question the findings in the published article for which the well known & accepted scientific proceadure is publication of the valid rebuttal article in peer-reviewed journals. Till that time Einstein's brian is not to be considered as the brian of genius ever but that of the greatest trickster.Science proves without any doubt whatsoever that the universe exists because of a Creator and would annihiliate as & when the Creator desires. The Creator exists not by examination of wonders & also not by perfect design of the world & the universe but for the reason universe could not have been there without a Creator. Since humans cannot see the Creator, because of the shortcomings of the humans, deduction is also a very well known scientific method.
Consciousness & conscience being outside the domain of physical & biological sciences but as humans know about nature through consciousness then how could a scientific method be applied to know the nature, origin & purpose of humans. It has to be through philosophy and humanity would require very genuine philosophers to do it.
Uniform innate human morality is a very well known philosophical conclusion and if one considers the tenants of human morality it is designed so that humans could live in a society where peace & justice prevails.
For the corruptions of religions humans cannot reject God & instead of rejecting the God they should identify & rectify and reject the corruptions in religions.The basic facts about religions are very simple in principle and also very simple to explain. Humans have souls and souls possess following characteristics which every sensible human can perceive
1. Human Ego (the I of the individual)
2. Innate knowledge of the Creator
3. Innate Moral Law (innate knowledge of rightness & wrongness of all actions humans may do & even think of doing)
Now souls are not made up of matter and are made up of substance which cannot be physically seen. Every human can know these contents of their souls through 'Know Thyself' as said by Socrates.
God sent all the prophets to convey good news & as warners.
Good news is that human souls are eternal and warning is that humans will be answerable for the actions of their lifetime as to whether they lived in accordance with the defined Moral Law and in the afterlife their state of existence would depend upon their actions of the lifetime. These two facts are not innate to humans but scientifically we can easily know the eternity of the soul.
This is crux of religion & everything which contradicts these basic principles of religion is corruption. Corruptions in almost all religions could be rectified by the courageous philanthropist philosophers because such philosophers should have the courage to stand against everybody who would resist the rectification of corruption. Unfortunately they have to be against the whole world.
Now their has to be a system of governance where the law is based on Moral Law. These courageous philathropist philosophers could only conceive a practicable socio-political system under which peace & justice can prevail in the world.

IP Logged

Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 755

Posted: 02 December 2012 at 2:57am

Mohammad Shafiq has the right to question scientific hypotheses and theories. And the scientific community has a right not to embrace Mohammad Shafiq's findings. That's how science works. Peer review is critical. So far there are no peers with a good science reputation who endorse Mohammad Shafiq's views.

On a side note: Einstein and Planck can't both be right. Something's missing in either Einstein's general relativity or current quantum theory.

So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them?

A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt

IP Logged

schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422

Posted: 02 December 2012 at 9:20am

Matt, there's a huge difference between "Einstein and Planck can't both be right" and Einstein's theories being "trickeries and trash". Einstein's genius had nothing to do with his belief or disbelief in a God and he wasn't trying to and didn't prove or disprove God's existence.

IP Logged

nospam001
Male Agnostic
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2012
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150

Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:31pm

Originally posted by Matt Browne

So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them?

If God never violated natural laws then there could be no miracles, only remarkable coincidences. And what use is a miracle without at least one witness? e.g. Miracle of the Sun.

On the other hand, a lot of Christian theodicy (eg Plantinga) points to the relative scarcity of such good old-fashioned 'in-your-face' miracles. These days, it seems that God is more inclined to intervene mysteriously and indirectly, so as not to 'give the game away'. Revealing Himself would only make Faith unnecessary, which rather defeats the point. Even the most unworthy souls would start believing, fervently. But then, if everyone is special, no-one is. Which is why the tsunami of 2004 was made to look as if it had been caused naturally, by geophysical forces. No direct evidence of God's handiwork.

The same reasoning is relied on by creationists to explain away empirical observations that don't 'fit'. You could call it divine 'evidence tampering', but for a higher purpose. Let's face it, God is pretty clever. And whenever the end justifies the means, why would He not violate His own laws?

Edited by nospam001 - 02 December 2012 at 7:46pm

God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.

IP Logged

nothing

Senior Member

Joined: 09 November 2008
Location: Andorra
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360

Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:45pm

Originally posted by Helios

It is most interesting to read that someone would rely solely on a tale told by a fallible man than the product of millions of experiments on a singular question. Your logic speaks only of accepting an a truth that cannot proven beyond the word of man. I call this ignorance. I believe in God, the creator of all living and nonliving entities within the cosmos. However, Islam/religion in general is the product of man's, who in his essence is fallible, desire for power and control of the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Those who cannot find God within them and have to be shown God through a flawed creature is a creature that subconsciously wants nothing more than to be told what to do, how to do it, and when. I pity those fools of Islam.

You are drifting away from the current. I took a liberty by copy and paste it for you. Please don't be a couch potato.

Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq

I have put forward an open challenge and anybody who believes in the adopted paradigm of physical sciences where existence of God is not possible could participate in the debate.

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Science & Technology
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : General : Science & Technology

Topic: Open challenge to atheistic science
	<< Prev Page of 6 Next >>

Author	Message
nothing Senior Member Joined: 09 November 2008 Location: Andorra Online Status: Offline Posts: 360	Posted: 01 December 2012 at 1:44pm
	Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part.
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 01 December 2012 at 4:29pm
	That's already been done, Nothing. However, when I get told on a debate site that I'm not allowed to disagree with his thesis, it tends to bring out my sarcastic side.
	IP Logged

nospam001 Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 02 October 2012 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 150	Posted: 01 December 2012 at 6:34pm
	*Originally posted by nothing* Maybe a bit of respect is due to the OP author for presenting his case. Your disagreement can be presented by pointing directly to the particular part. Hopefully with this way it would keep the spirit of discussion alive. Please point it to him directly by clicking the "Quote" button so we know which one is being disputed as the disagreed part. *Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq* Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist. I'm pretty sure Einstein never said that, and I don't know of any mainstream 'atheist scientist' who ever has. Richard Dawkins, for example, talks of probabilities, not certainties. In The Grand Design (2010), Stephen Hawking only concludes that supernatural intervention was not required. (Forget the silly newspaper headlines.)
	God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
	IP Logged

Mohammad Shafiq Male Islam Newbie Joined: 18 November 2012 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 17	Posted: 02 December 2012 at 12:51am
	Hawkings Tysons Krausses & Dawking are making claims on the basis of science which has been openly challenged and accordingly put for discussion here. They are making claims on the basis of paradigm defined by Einstein. Now this is straight & relevent to the discussion that Einstein has been mathematically, theoretically, experimentally proved to be great trickster in a published scientific research article titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012) available on the linkhttp://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html. These being findings of scientific research article published in peer-reviewed journal so no Tom, Dick & Harry can reject or question the findings in the published article for which the well known & accepted scientific proceadure is publication of the valid rebuttal article in peer-reviewed journals. Till that time Einstein's brian is not to be considered as the brian of genius ever but that of the greatest trickster.Science proves without any doubt whatsoever that the universe exists because of a Creator and would annihiliate as & when the Creator desires. The Creator exists not by examination of wonders & also not by perfect design of the world & the universe but for the reason universe could not have been there without a Creator. Since humans cannot see the Creator, because of the shortcomings of the humans, deduction is also a very well known scientific method. Consciousness & conscience being outside the domain of physical & biological sciences but as humans know about nature through consciousness then how could a scientific method be applied to know the nature, origin & purpose of humans. It has to be through philosophy and humanity would require very genuine philosophers to do it. Uniform innate human morality is a very well known philosophical conclusion and if one considers the tenants of human morality it is designed so that humans could live in a society where peace & justice prevails. For the corruptions of religions humans cannot reject God & instead of rejecting the God they should identify & rectify and reject the corruptions in religions.The basic facts about religions are very simple in principle and also very simple to explain. Humans have souls and souls possess following characteristics which every sensible human can perceive 1. Human Ego (the I of the individual) 2. Innate knowledge of the Creator 3. Innate Moral Law (innate knowledge of rightness & wrongness of all actions humans may do & even think of doing) Now souls are not made up of matter and are made up of substance which cannot be physically seen. Every human can know these contents of their souls through 'Know Thyself' as said by Socrates. God sent all the prophets to convey good news & as warners. Good news is that human souls are eternal and warning is that humans will be answerable for the actions of their lifetime as to whether they lived in accordance with the defined Moral Law and in the afterlife their state of existence would depend upon their actions of the lifetime. These two facts are not innate to humans but scientifically we can easily know the eternity of the soul. This is crux of religion & everything which contradicts these basic principles of religion is corruption. Corruptions in almost all religions could be rectified by the courageous philanthropist philosophers because such philosophers should have the courage to stand against everybody who would resist the rectification of corruption. Unfortunately they have to be against the whole world. Now their has to be a system of governance where the law is based on Moral Law. These courageous philathropist philosophers could only conceive a practicable socio-political system under which peace & justice can prevail in the world.
	IP Logged

Matt Browne Male Christian Senior Member Joined: 19 April 2010 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 755	Posted: 02 December 2012 at 2:57am
	Mohammad Shafiq has the right to question scientific hypotheses and theories. And the scientific community has a right not to embrace Mohammad Shafiq's findings. That's how science works. Peer review is critical. So far there are no peers with a good science reputation who endorse Mohammad Shafiq's views. On a side note: Einstein and Planck can't both be right. Something's missing in either Einstein's general relativity or current quantum theory. So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them?
	A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
	IP Logged

schmikbob Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 27 June 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 422	Posted: 02 December 2012 at 9:20am
	Matt, there's a huge difference between "Einstein and Planck can't both be right" and Einstein's theories being "trickeries and trash". Einstein's genius had nothing to do with his belief or disbelief in a God and he wasn't trying to and didn't prove or disprove God's existence.
	IP Logged

nospam001 Male Agnostic Senior Member Joined: 02 October 2012 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 150	Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:31pm
	*Originally posted by Matt Browne* So far there hasn't been a single witness of God violating the natural laws. These laws are pretty reliable. And if God created them (as Muslims and Christians believe) why would He later get involved to violate them? If God never violated natural laws then there could be no miracles, only remarkable coincidences. And what use is a miracle without at least one witness? e.g. Miracle of the Sun. On the other hand, a lot of Christian theodicy (eg Plantinga) points to the relative scarcity of such good old-fashioned 'in-your-face' miracles. These days, it seems that God is more inclined to intervene mysteriously and indirectly, so as not to 'give the game away'. Revealing Himself would only make Faith unnecessary, which rather defeats the point. Even the most unworthy souls would start believing, fervently. But then, if everyone is special, no-one is. Which is why the tsunami of 2004 was made to look as if it had been caused naturally, by geophysical forces. No direct evidence of God's handiwork. The same reasoning is relied on by creationists to explain away empirical observations that don't 'fit'. You could call it divine 'evidence tampering', but for a higher purpose. Let's face it, God is pretty clever. And whenever the end justifies the means, why would He not violate His own laws? Edited by nospam001 - 02 December 2012 at 7:46pm
	God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.
	IP Logged

nothing Senior Member Joined: 09 November 2008 Location: Andorra Online Status: Offline Posts: 360	Posted: 02 December 2012 at 5:45pm
	*Originally posted by Helios* It is most interesting to read that someone would rely solely on a tale told by a fallible man than the product of millions of experiments on a singular question. Your logic speaks only of accepting an a truth that cannot proven beyond the word of man. I call this ignorance. I believe in God, the creator of all living and nonliving entities within the cosmos. However, Islam/religion in general is the product of man's, who in his essence is fallible, desire for power and control of the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Those who cannot find God within them and have to be shown God through a flawed creature is a creature that subconsciously wants nothing more than to be told what to do, how to do it, and when. I pity those fools of Islam. You are drifting away from the current. I took a liberty by copy and paste it for you. Please don't be a couch potato. *Originally posted by Mohammad Shafiq* I have put forward an open challenge and anybody who believes in the adopted paradigm of physical sciences where existence of God is not possible could participate in the debate.
	IP Logged