Asking questions is a way of learning.

However, when it comes to God, there has to be some ... discipline as while asking questions is good, making a wrong conclusion can be disasterful for teh imaan.

I think there is a hadith about the prophet approaching a set of companions who were discussing God and not being best pleased...

i think there should be a limit when its about God. Like, asking what does God look like etc... These are questions that dont need answer because what will you do with the answer?

Questions about God should be discussed and entertained - no matter what the question.

It soon unravels the mode of thought someone is employing on such a basic question as this, which usually ripples through the rest of their thinking.

No doubt there are limits to thought about God - God being eternal means visualising him is impossible as the mind can only visualise the limited having no experience of the eternal - but that aside, it makes for interesting discussions...

I'd be interested to see how people prove God's existence if a non-Muslim broached the topic...

I just find the idea of someone not believing in God incomprehensible and I have not debated it and i doubt I can present any convincing arguments to anyone though. I would just think "stop being so stupid!".

I may be able to point out some flaws though or see where they are not being logical, or just following popular quotes.

I've never had to try to convince someone that God exists but i wonder if this would work? or atleast make the person think? hmm

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

I've never had to try to convince someone that God exists but i wonder if this would work? or atleast make the person think? hmm

Amusing anecdote - however, it doesn't answer the question does God exist - it answers the question "does one need to see him to know he exists..."

You wrote:

I just find the idea of someone not believing in God incomprehensible and I have not debated it and i doubt I can present any convincing arguments to anyone though. I would just think "stop being so stupid!".

I may be able to point out some flaws though or see where they are not being logical, or just following popular quotes.

If they said that you were the one being illogical, the universe could be eternal, negating the need for a creator...

Anon, since you like/love/thrive in debate, when you are discussing with non-Muslims do you set out to 'convert' them.

If so, why?
If not, why not?

And if so, how do you go about it?

That makes no sense though - the way they get that by "rounding off" the start of the universe like Hawking did is just... well, it feels deceitful.

and if they accept the big bang, there is a lot of stuff that needed to happen precisely in a certain way for a series of events to unfold to get us to where we are now, events which are highly improbable, thus suggesting that there was no guiding hand, no creator is a less logical choice that accepting that there is one.

Ya'qub wrote:

Anon, since you like/love/thrive in debate, when you are discussing with non-Muslims do you set out to 'convert' them.

If so, why?
If not, why not?

And if so, how do you go about it?

An example discussion going on - maybe you can provide some pointers:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=395711569783&comments

PS if the universe was eternal, it would not be expanding... it would be static and we have I believe scientific proof that it is expanding (the red shift).

(I might have a better look at that link when at home, but at work, it is probably a bad idea.)

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

Anon, since you like/love/thrive in debate, when you are discussing with non-Muslims do you set out to 'convert' them.

If so, why?
If not, why not?

And if so, how do you go about it?

An example discussion going on - maybe you can provide some pointers:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=395711569783&comments

Your approach seems pretty similar to the one used on the Revival... You're being pretty much ridiculed... do you think you're doing a good job furthering Islam's cause when people say:

"She's the kind of woman that lectures you in your own house and then whines when you try to lecture her in hers."

or

"I wouldn't call the answer you gave me an answer at all. I'd call it obfuscation or rhetorical evasion, but not an answer."

I know you hate democracy, but how many people would it take to tell you that you smell before you accepted what they were saying and took a bath?

Ya'qub wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

Anon, since you like/love/thrive in debate, when you are discussing with non-Muslims do you set out to 'convert' them.

If so, why?
If not, why not?

And if so, how do you go about it?

An example discussion going on - maybe you can provide some pointers:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=395711569783&comments

Your approach seems pretty similar to the one used on the Revival... You're being pretty much ridiculed... do you think you're doing a good job furthering Islam's cause when people say:

"She's the kind of woman that lectures you in your own house and then whines when you try to lecture her in hers."

or

"I wouldn't call the answer you gave me an answer at all. I'd call it obfuscation or rhetorical evasion, but not an answer."

I know you hate democracy, but how many people would it take to tell you that you smell before you accepted what they were saying and took a bath?

Maybe you should take lessons from non-Muslims who decently argue their points through, like Alan Harvey who has presented arguments for his view, like YOU has done here, and unlike you who has to resort to your true self of vitriolic hatred and abuse... You also seem to have missed comments like the following which I expected from you:
"Fascinating response... as usual! "
"Hi Fatima,How are you? I do sincerely enjoy your responses. I may not agree with your points, but I do genuinely hope to understand them. I also hope you understand mine."
"Hi Fatima, I really appreciate you taking the time to keep this up."
"I have a feeling you adhere to a very different (milder?) version of Islam than some other Muslims, but I'm also sure you'll agree that the media image of Islam in the West may be a gross distortion, a caricature even?"
"Hi Fatima My messages are getting longer and longer but I hope that you, like me, are enjoying this and can find something positive from them?"

Even when you cite other's criticism, maybe you should cite their entire "balanced" views:
Your First Quotation had said:
"When western women can walk around Saudi Arabia without being subjected to having to wear hair covering, muslim women can completely cover their faces in the west.
Don't likke it? Too bad. Cultural sensitivity is a two-way street: respect our traditions in ouur house and we will respect your traditionjs in your house. Don't like it? That's cool... go move to where they let (force) women to wear the burqa."

Your Second Quotation had asked:
"What will happen to women who choose not to enter the mohammedan death cult, when as promised, Islam will eventually rule the world?"
To which my reply was:
"As and when Islam rules the world, women will have the freedom to wear the hijab, burqa or not at all. Those who wish it to be obligatory can also have that choice enforced. Such freedom and choices are not available in man made systems."

However even these kuffar did not resort to abuse!

And thank you for your constructive advice to the point under discussion - I kinda suspected that you would have no content to contribute to the proof of the existence of the creator.

You wrote:

PS if the universe was eternal, it would not be expanding... it would be static and we have I believe scientific proof that it is expanding (the red shift).

(I might have a better look at that link when at home, but at work, it is probably a bad idea.)

The refutation to that would be the universe could be involved in an infinite cyclical process resulting in expansion and contraction - as some scientists have suggested...

Anonymous1 wrote:

"Fascinating response... as usual! "
"Hi Fatima,How are you? I do sincerely enjoy your responses. I may not agree with your points, but I do genuinely hope to understand them. I also hope you understand mine."
"Hi Fatima, I really appreciate you taking the time to keep this up."
"I have a feeling you adhere to a very different (milder?) version of Islam than some other Muslims, but I'm also sure you'll agree that the media image of Islam in the West may be a gross distortion, a caricature even?"
"Hi Fatima My messages are getting longer and longer but I hope that you, like me, are enjoying this and can find something positive from them?"

Firstly can I congratulate you on your humility.

Secondly, I am fully aware I have been very rude to you. However, I did not do this out of anger of lack of ability to debate politely and sensibly.

When I started reading the discussions you were having on this forum, I wanted to join and contribute to something which I hoped would lead to greater understanding and knowledge (although I am aware that either of these is only beneficial if it leads to us becoming better Muslims in the long run) for all involved.

However, I was HORRIFIED by some of the things you were saying to people. The example that jumps to my mind were calling people 'Satan-worshipping Muslims' or similar. For me this is FAR worse than 'piece of shit'.

Forgive me for jumping to conclusions, but when I see a Muslim saying something like that to another Muslim, I don't immediately assume they have the best of characters.

Even so, I tried to join in the conversations, and every question I asked you, you ignored, every point I made you read (seemingly deliberately) out-of-context, then built it into a strawman which you then blew down and then made sarcastic comments and slights about my a)beliefs b)convictions and c)sincerity.

The ironic thing was that for most of what I was saying, I was in agreement with you!

And I spent ages answering almost every question you asked me, yet you didn't answer ANY of mine. This is plainly rude.

And furthermore, not only did u NOT answer them, instead you asked for the relevance of me asking the questions. Do you know what that suggests to me? It suggests that you are less interested in answering the question honestly, and more interested in countering the 'point' that you think I am making by asking the question in the first place.

For me, this is a snake-like property.

So.....

After all this (and ONLY AFTER) did I become rude to you. And this was only for one purpose: I wanted to show you how frustrating it is when genuine, heartfelt views and opinions are ridiculed for shallow and spurious reasons.

I wanted you to realise that shouting AT people doesn't do anything to change their views.

I have read HUGE posts from you and YOU. They are VERY different in tact. Completely ignoring the issues discussed, his are full of answers to your points and reasonable questions of his own; your posts are full of unrelated diversion tactics and snide remarks.

How you haven't realised this is actually baffling, because you are obviously very intelligent.

And yesterday I thought you went too far with a particular post, to someone who hadn't said anything bad to you, and felt that enough was enough. I don't swear for the sake of it, so when I do, it means I really really care.

You can disagree with me, but implying that my upbringing means that I am unable to discuss properly is an elitist slur.

You are my Muslim sister and I love you for the Sake of Allah (swt). I want you to forgive me for being rude to you, but I would be far happier if you didn't forgive me and instead acknowledged that you can be very abrasive and this can get in the way of the arguments and points you are making.

The world has enough hate already.

Ya'qub wrote:

I want you to forgive me for being rude to you, but I would be far happier if you didn't forgive me and instead acknowledged that you can be very abrasive and this can get in the way of the arguments and points you are making.

If you would be happier not being forgiven so be it...

I can be abrasive but do not resort to abusing someone or attacking their honor - you appear not to be able to distinguish application of someone's logic to extreme examples (devil-wroshipping etc) to show an absurdity and abuse...

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

PS if the universe was eternal, it would not be expanding... it would be static and we have I believe scientific proof that it is expanding (the red shift).

(I might have a better look at that link when at home, but at work, it is probably a bad idea.)

The refutation to that would be the universe could be involved in an infinite cyclical process resulting in expansion and contraction - as some scientists have suggested...

Not going to pretend I even understand the few bits I tried to read, but have you read incoherence of the philosophers by Imam Ghazali? the first (of then) questions was on the eternity of the universe and logical proofs against it.

It was coming from a different angle, so it may need to be adapted a bit, but it should be a good guide.

The universe, even if cyclice, would be created and destroyed. We cannot know wether it is cyclic though as nothing remains from one instance to the next so while there is a theory of that, AFAIK, there is nothing out there to suggest it. Or I may be wrong?

Even if the universe was cyclic, the initial big bang (at the start od every cycle?) would have to be incredibly precise to get into a situation where the universe expands as needed at the right pace, that there is the right imbalance of matter and anti matter, and a bunch of other things to get the universe be any near habitable.

Have you looked into the Fermi Paradox? While it does not give any direct answers on a religious or theological questions, it does pose some interesting questions for athiest minded folk.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

The refutation to that would be the universe could be involved in an infinite cyclical process resulting in expansion and contraction - as some scientists have suggested...

Not going to pretend I even understand the few bits I tried to read, but have you read incoherence of the philosophers by Imam Ghazali? the first (of then) questions was on the eternity of the universe and logical proofs against it.

I read it some years back - the problem is that it is generally outdated and its focus was on the muslim philosophers who were importing greek thought as opposed to refuting modern secular arguments. It was also refuted by Ibn Rushd in Andalus.

You wrote:

The universe, even if cyclice, would be created and destroyed.

Why would it need to be created/destroyed? why can it not expand and contract without the destructive element?

You wrote:

We cannot know wether it is cyclic though as nothing remains from one instance to the next so while there is a theory of that, AFAIK, there is nothing out there to suggest it. Or I may be wrong?

There are many instances of cyclical phenomena out there - just look at the water cycle. So why can it not be a possibility?

You wrote:

Even if the universe was cyclic, the initial big bang (at the start od every cycle?) would have to be incredibly precise to get into a situation where the universe expands as needed at the right pace, that there is the right imbalance of matter and anti matter, and a bunch of other things to get the universe be any near habitable.

Given an infinite period of time (eternal) some cycles may be inhabitable and some may not... but you seem to be accepting it as possible - which renders the existence of an external cause/God doubtful? Or at least possible he does not exist? IE not certain!

You wrote:

Have you looked into the Fermi Paradox? While it does not give any direct answers on a religious or theological questions, it does pose some interesting questions for athiest minded folk.

I hadn't seen it before - but not too sure of its relevance to the issue at hand... maybe you can fill the gap...

Why would it need to be created/destroyed? why can it not expand and contract without the destructive element?

Because in a cyclic universe, it would be. Or they can present their artifacts from an earlier universe.

There are many instances of cyclical phenomena out there - just look at the water cycle. So why can it not be a possibility?

The water cycle requires outside power to get it to function. it does not function of itself. The heat and rays of the sun and maybe even rays of other types have a big impact on it.

Even if the universe was cyclic, for it to be of infinite time, it would require each contraction and expansion to be perfect so that no energy is wasted or misplaced or lost. If it was, the cycles will eventually end.

Given an infinite period of time (eternal) some cycles may be inhabitable and some may not... but you seem to be accepting it as possible - which renders the existence of an external cause/God doubtful? Or at least possible he does not exist? IE not certain!

I am not accepting it. This is the issue of when after disagreeing with point one, you still discuss point two, people assume that the rejection at point one was not that strong.

I do not think the universe is part of an infinite chain of cycles.

I hadn't seen it before - but not too sure of its relevance to the issue at hand... maybe you can fill the gap...

The Fermi Paradox - if there should be life out there, where is it, why has it not been detected and why has it not detected us?

It is a question on how special earth is. On the one hand, if the earth is not special and there are multiple planets like earth, the earth is not in the oldest parts of the universe. there should be more similarly inhabited worlds. where are they?

It does not give firm answers, but it questions the theory of life and how it originated in interesting and unique ways and for me atleast it questions the idea that it somehow came about randomly when a random concoction of chemicals turned into a specific mixture and then it evolved to (eventually) gain intelligence and ask how it got there.

You wrote:

Why would it need to be created/destroyed? why can it not expand and contract without the destructive element?

Because in a cyclic universe, it would be. Or they can present their artifacts from an earlier universe.

What artifacts do you expect? Matter, energy in different forms? They exist - matter/energy keep changing shape and form...the law of energy/conservation contradicts your assertion of created/destroyed parameters...

You wrote:

There are many instances of cyclical phenomena out there - just look at the water cycle. So why can it not be a possibility?

The water cycle requires outside power to get it to function. it does not function of itself. The heat and rays of the sun and maybe even rays of other types have a big impact on it.

Irrelevant - the example shows cyclical behavior in nature - and that is the point to support the argument that the universe can be cyclical. You leave the possibility open...

You wrote:

Even if the universe was cyclic, for it to be of infinite time, it would require each contraction and expansion to be perfect so that no energy is wasted or misplaced or lost. If it was, the cycles will eventually end.

In a closed system, energy is preserved, and none is lost. Your argument has a problem...

You wrote:

Given an infinite period of time (eternal) some cycles may be inhabitable and some may not... but you seem to be accepting it as possible - which renders the existence of an external cause/God doubtful? Or at least possible he does not exist? IE not certain!

I am not accepting it. This is the issue of when after disagreeing with point one, you still discuss point two, people assume that the rejection at point one was not that strong.

Please explain - this para does not make sense.

You wrote:

I do not think the universe is part of an infinite chain of cycles.

Fine - you can believe in pixies - but an atheist would ask you to prove it is not an infinite chain of cycles and not thus eternal...

Nay, the athiest would have to prove that it is infinite... unless a discussion was being forced on the other.

Where is the proof that the system is closed? You need to challenge assertions.

If people want to harp on about science, science requires proof.

There is a reason many scientists believe in a god of some sort.

You wrote:

Nay, the athiest would have to prove that it is infinite... unless a discussion was being forced on the other.

Where is the proof that the system is closed? You need to challenge assertions.

If people want to harp on about science, science requires proof.

There is a reason many scientists believe in a god of some sort.

LOL You crack me up YOU.

You're a Muslim who's meant to be certain Allah exists - the atheist/secularist/agnostic etc consider it may be the case, it could be the universe is eternal (or from nothing).

Surely the onus is on you to refute these alternatives to show there is a creator who is the cause? You are making the assertion!

(If the universe emerged from a big bang it is a closed system as there is nothing outside it)

(If the universe emerged from a big bang it is a closed system as there is nothing outside it)

Except what would be outside the big bang...

You're a Muslim who's meant to be certain Allah exists - the atheist/secularist/agnostic etc consider it may be the case, it could be the universe is eternal (or from nothing).

Its about belief and I am convinced for myself. I dont need to convince anyone else. They have their own brains.

I will point out flaws where I see them, but it is not my job to get them to see the light.

You wrote:

(If the universe emerged from a big bang it is a closed system as there is nothing outside it)

Except what would be outside the big bang...

They would argue nothing!

You wrote:

You're a Muslim who's meant to be certain Allah exists - the atheist/secularist/agnostic etc consider it may be the case, it could be the universe is eternal (or from nothing).

Its about belief and I am convinced for myself. I dont need to convince anyone else. They have their own brains.

I will point out flaws where I see them, but it is not my job to get them to see the light.

This is my point - if our whole basis is constructed on faith, like those of other religions, we have missed an important point in Islam. The verses of Quran provide us with outline proofs so that we KNOW Allah exists and not just have faith Allah exists. We need to be certain and be able to articulate it to convince others when the dawa is done.

The problem you are having in arguing it is that you are not clear on the different streams of thought that can be utilised by humans, which ones are correct, and which ones are false. All can be presented to sound reasonable, but only rationalism is the valid type of thought. If you let points built on speculative thought/philosophy to enter the discussion, you can't prove anything for certain.

What's the difference? Rationalism requires all assertions to be underpinned with reasoning or empirical experience. Even possibilities need to be credible possibilities substantiated with some evidence. Otherwise they become fantasies or speculative possibilities which are nonsense and cannot be entertained...

Once this is agreed the arguments unravel quite easily and it is easy to prove God exists - you will always find those who disagree resort to speculative possibilities - something they would never do in their lives... which shows insincerity or extreme brainwashing not to accept the existence of God - it does make sense why the verses condemn the kafiroon to eternal hellfire...

ok.

I don't understand how the "scientific" explanation of the world makes sense. ok the big bang made the earth but did the animals just randomly appear or something :/ :S

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

I don't understand how the "scientific" explanation of the world makes sense. ok the big bang made the earth but did the animals just randomly appear or something :/ :S

It's called evolution!

However, the question is, where the matter/energy comprising the bang come from?

yeah i know its called evolution :/

but...so, animals evolved from matter??

that in itself is unbelievable, i don't understand how people can get their heads around the "fact" that matter became animal, something complex yet perfect.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

yeah i know its called evolution :/

but...so, animals evolved from matter??

that in itself is unbelievable, i don't understand how people can get their heads around the "fact" that matter became animal, something complex yet perfect.

Yep - from simple amoeba from the oceans they developed over billions of years...

The theory isn't bad on the face of it - it doesn't necessarily contradict with faith as one could easily reconcile it if it was proven. The problem is that it has so many holes in at the moment it is like a sieve...

Few people would say animals are "perfect" - they are limited and finite which in itself implies imperfection. The same applies to humans - and few could argue disabled people are perfect!

That's why arguments using that approach to prove existence of the creator always fall down.

It's the same with those who shallowly try to bring "scientific proofs" from the Quran to proof it is from God - it makes one cringe!

Where do you fit Hadhrat Adam (as)/humans into evolution?

(I am quite sure I have read that the Islamic view is that animals are born perfect... but I am less interested in this discussion.)

(a stumbling block with evolution could be "where did the amoeba come from?" - so far scientists have been able to alter existing life, make changes in eggs etc, but I do wonder how dificult using a concoction of chemicals to actually create new life from scratch would be...)