this letter dedicated to Rikbe

[Rikbe]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
Well, we have 3 choices. 1. An omnipotent God made something from nothing, 2. something made itself from nothing, or 3. something has always existed. I find 2 absurd and if 3 were true the universe should have reached its heat death a long time ago.

If you are refering to the entrophy, this is based on a wrong interpretion and application of the second law of thermodynamics.

[hakancan]

[quote]Originally posted by Shenlong
[b]

Originally posted by hakancan
i also wanna ask the same question to Shenlong

Shenlong;

why dont you believe in god?
becuase you cant see god.
am i right?

See Hakancan,
The real qustion here is why dont you believe in Zues, Isis, Odin, etc...

You will say because they dont exist

I will say "How can you tell?"

You will say, "Because there is no proof supporting their existence"

I will say, "Oh and there is proof for the existence of Allah?

Then you will say, "Yes"
look smart guy it is me has a right to answer for me not you
Then you will give me a whole bunch of scientific facts from the Koran like the "Embryo Theory"
that "Embryo Theory" is not the only proof

Then I will give you a logical explanation for each and every one of them like how anybody who opens the womb of a woman while pregnant can know that an embryo looks like piece of chewed bubble gum. Why would they open when it is at embryotic stage? Maybe because it was bad timing or its all for the cause of of a saddistic experimentation all in the name of blasphemy.
call it as saddistic experimentation but muhammed was not a scientist or a doctor,why only he claimed that?
as i told you before Muhammed known as "emin" trustable person ,even his enemies agree with this belief

If it was the true word of "Allah" passing down embryotic information to humanity then dont you think the all knowing "Allah" would have chosen a better way of explaining birth other then "Chewed Substance"? and would have explained the whole sperm and egg process as well?

Using the vocabulary of "Chewed Substance" to describe an embryo makes the "All Knowing" "Allah" sound like a he/she/it has the intelligence of a human being 2000 years ago.

Ultimately, I will find a logical explanation to every "Scientific fact" in the bible and strip you from your "evidences" for the existence of "Allah" untill you have no more evidence to justify Allah's existence. Therefore making Allah just like Zues, Odin and all the other Gods.

look "Zues, Odin and all the other Gods" that you mentioned are only a dream product and also good stories for literature and there i didnt see a book like Quran which belongs to them and i didnt see any mausoleum
but you can see the grave of Muhammed in Arabia


Then you will either awaken to reality or you will remain in denial.

Then I will contend that we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

the only thing that i understood from yours is you have prejudice and this hinder you too see the facts

[hakancan]

here is the some Scientific miracles of Qruan


THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
THE SPLITTING ASUNDER OF "THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH"
ORBITS
THE ROUNDNESS OF THE EARTH
THE PROTECTED ROOF
THE RETURNING SKY
THE LAYERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE
THE FUNCTION OF MOUNTAINS
THE MOVEMENT OF MOUNTAINS
THE MIRACLE IN THE IRON
THE PAIRS IN CREATION
THE RELATIVITY OF TIME
THE PROPORTION OF RAIN
THE FORMATION OF RAIN
THE FECUNDATING WINDS
THE SEAS' NOT MINGLING WITH ONE ANOTHER
DARKNESS IN THE SEAS, AND INTERNAL WAVES
THE REGION THAT CONTROLS OUR MOVEMENTS
THE BIRTH OF A HUMAN BEING
MOTHER'S MILK
THE IDENTITY IN THE FINGERPRINT


oh Mr SLy please explain these all with your logical explanations


do you think all there are found by saddistic experiments?
as you know these ones are the informations which are impossible to known 1400 years ago

how can an illetrate person know these all?


[Edited by hakancan on 2nd August 2003 at 14:24]

[hakancan]

What we have covered so far shows us that the attributes of the universe discovered by science point to the existence of God. Science leads us to the conclusion that the universe has a Creator and this Creator is perfect in might, wisdom and knowledge. It is religion that shows us the way to knowing God. It is therefore possible to say that science is a method we use to better see and investigate the realities addressed by religion. Nevertheless, today, some of the scientists who step forth in the name of science take an entirely different stand. In their view, scientific discoveries do not imply the creation of God. They have, on the contrary, projected an atheistic understanding of science by saying that it is not possible to reach God through scientific data: they claim that science and religion are two clashing notions.

As a matter of fact, this atheistic understanding of science is quite recent. Until a few centuries ago, science and religion were never thought to clash with each other, and science was accepted as a method of proving the existence of God. The so-called atheistic understanding of science flourished only after the materialist and positivist philosophies swept through the world of science in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Particularly after Charles Darwin postulated the theory of evolution in 1859, circles holding a materialistic world view started to ideologically defend this theory, which they looked upon as an alternative to religion. The theory of evolution argued that the universe was not created by a creator but came into being by chance. As a result, it was asserted that religion was in conflict with science. The British researchers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln wrote on this issue:

For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not separate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subservient to it… But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and established itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them.

As we stated before, the so-called split between science and religion was totally ideological. Some scientists, who earnestly believed in materialism, conditioned themselves to prove that the universe had no creator and they devised various theories in this context. The theory of evolution was the most famous and the most important of them. In the field of astronomy as well certain theories were developed such as the "steady-state theory" or the "chaos theory". However, all of these theories that denied creation were demolished by science itself, as we have clearly shown in the previous chapters.

Today, scientists who still keep to these theories and insist on denying all things religious, are dogmatic and bigoted people, who have conditioned themselves not to believe in God. The famous English zoologist and evolutionist D.M.S. Watson confesses to this dogmatism as he explains why he and his colleagues accept the theory of evolution:

If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

What Watson means by "special creation" is God's creation. As acknowledged, this scientist finds this "unacceptable". But why? Is it because science says so? Actually it does not. On the contrary, science proves the truth of creation. The only reason why Watson looks upon this fact as unacceptable is because he has conditioned himself to deny the existence of God. All other evolutionists take the same stand.

Evolutionists rely not on science but on materialist philosophy and they distort science to make it agree with this philosophy. A geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist from Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, confesses to this truth:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

On the other hand, today, just as in history, there are, as opposed to this dogmatic materialist group, scientists who confirm God's existence, and regard science as a way of knowing Him. Some trends developing in the USA such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" prove by scientific evidence that all living things were created by God.

This shows us that science and religion are not conflicting sources of information, but that, on the contrary, science is a method that verifies the absolute truths provided by religion. The clash between religion and science can only hold true for certain religions that incorporate some superstitious elements as well as divine sources. However, this is certainly out of the question for Islam, which relies only on the pure revelation of God. Moreover, Islam particularly advocates scientific enquiry, and announces that probing the universe is a method to explore the creation of God. The following verse of the Qur'an addresses this issue;

Do they not look at the sky above them? How We have built it and adorned it, and there are no rifts therein? And the earth - We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and caused it to bring forth plants of beauteous kinds (in pairs). And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops. And tall palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another. (The Qur'an, 50:6-7, 9-10)

As the above verses imply, the Qur'an always urges people to think, to reason and to explore everything in the world in which they live. This is because science supports religion, saves the individual from ignorance, and causes him to think more consciously; it opens wide one's world of thought and helps one grasp the signs of God self-evident in the universe. Prominent German physicist Max Planck said:

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.

All the issues we have treated so far simply put it that the existence of the universe and all living things cannot be explained by coincidences. Many scientists who have left their mark on the world of science have confirmed, and still confirm this great reality. The more people learn about the universe, the higher does their admiration for its flawless order become. Every newly-discovered detail supports creation in an unquestionable way.

The great majority of modern physicists accept the fact of creation as we set foot in the 21st century. David Darling, astronomer and author, says:

There were no landmarks here. No galaxies, no stars. Only a heartbeat ago the universe itself began in the most titanic of explosions, an explosion in which all the matter and energy there would ever be spontaneously appeared and was borne swiftly out upon the stretching fabric of space. One second old was the universe, and it was filled exclusively with the steaming, fertile brew of creation.

Besides, it is already known that almost all the founders of diverse scientific branches believed in God and His divine books. The greatest physicists in history, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.

In the time of Isaac Newton, the great physicist, scientists believed that the movements of the heavenly bodies and planets could be explained by different laws. Nevertheless, Newton believed that the creator of earth and space was the same, and therefore they had to be explained by the same laws. He wrote:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point. The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books in which he wrote:

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who founded thermodynamics, was a Christian who believed in God. He had strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution and totally rejected it. He explained shortly before his death that "With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power."

One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Matthews, states the same fact in his book published in 1992 where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God:

The whole process normally takes place in perfect harmony, producing a foetus, then a living baby, a child and finally an adult. Like so much in biology, the whole process is seemingly miraculous. How can such stunning complexity be produced from such simple beginnings? How, in short, does a single cell far smaller than the dot of this letter "i" produce a sentient being? Many of the processes involved remain mysterious, and constitute one of the most fascinating of all the Outstanding Mysteries

[hakancan]

these are the well known scientists who admit that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:



Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

[hakancan]

"But then again you think all science is Nonesense"

look smart guy i mentioned the importance of science in the first postand i still think the same i said yours are nonses because at the same time they are question for you
i wrote the importance of sicence
are you blind? i dont think so but you are trying to show me against to sicence!!! who are you fooling??!!! quit playing cheap games you can't fool anyone

[SoldierOfDarwin]

hakancan i will give you some examples to see god isnt exits

you are at the wrong side!!! you are using your logic very well but let me to show you the truths there is nothing like god

just look and see the facts

do you see your hand,shape of your hand,colour of your hand?
the answers are here
yes yes yes

do you see your eyes,shape of your eyes,colour of your eyes?
the answers are here
yes yes yes

do you see your hairs,shape of your hairs,colour of your hairs? the answers are here
yes yes yes

and finally

do you see your God,shape of your God,colour of your God? the answers are here
no no no
understood?
i hope you will understand the facts soon

[hakancan]

you made me feel i am wasting time in here

everyone like too much answering for others

your mentality is a typical example for prejudiced and hypocritical persons


look i am already at the right side and for me your examples are only nonsenses

---------------------------------------------------------
1- do you see your hand,shape of your hand,colour of your hand?
the answers are here
yes yes yes
-----------------------------------------------------------
2- do you see your eyes,shape of your eyes,colour of your eyes?
the answers are here
yes yes yes
-----------------------------------------------------------
3- do you see your hairs,shape of your hairs,colour of your hairs?
the answers are here
yes yes yes
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
4- do you see your intelligence,shape of your intelligence,colour of your intelligence?
no no no
then there is nothing exist like intelligence

5- do you see your mind,shape of your mind,colour of your mind?
no no no
then there is nothing exist like mind

6- do you see your love,shape of your love,colour of your love?
no no no
then there is nothing exist like love



look guy i dont know who you are or what you are
but i dont think you deny the exitence of the that things
(love, mind,intelligence)

but when the topic is god ,god doesnt exist

this is hypocrisy
just dont forget these
"Either exist as you are or be as you look."

[Rikbe]

Originally posted by SoldierOfDarwin
hakancan i will give you some examples to see god isnt exits

you are at the wrong side!!! you are using your logic very well but let me to show you the truths there is nothing like god

just look and see the facts

do you see your hand,shape of your hand,colour of your hand?
the answers are here
yes yes yes

do you see your eyes,shape of your eyes,colour of your eyes?
the answers are here
yes yes yes

do you see your hairs,shape of your hairs,colour of your hairs? the answers are here
yes yes yes

and finally

do you see your God,shape of your God,colour of your God? the answers are here
no no no
understood?
i hope you will understand the facts soon

I fear he will never understand the facts.

Welcome to the board and this cozy chat.

[hakancan]

dont fear my ridiculous friend his mentality completely wrong i explained it but you are using your horse glasses again and you cant see the facts

if we think as the same parallel with him there is nothing exist like love,intelligence and etc


this ridiculous mentality only idiocy

love,intelligence,mind these are all important for me
but i can see now not for you

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Soldier of Darwin, that was quite possibly the most idiotic proof of the non-existence of God I have ever read. You obviously have no experience in philosophy. Read a book.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

I will use { instead of [ in this post so you can see.

When you are quoting someone else's work, put {quote} at the beginning and {/quote} at the end.

To make something italic put {i} at the beginning and {/i} at the end.

Bold: {b}...{/b}

So the headings of your quotes might look something like this:

{quote}{i}Originally posted by SoldierofDarwin{/i}
I'm so smart I just disproved the existence of God. It was a philosophical discussion that took place over {b}thousands{/b} of years, but I ended it after two minutes in a second rate discussion forum! Yay for me!{/quote}

Replace the { with [ and it will look like this:

Originally posted by SoldierofDarwin
I'm so smart I just disproved the existence of God. It was a philosophical discussion that took place over thousands of years, but I ended it after two minutes in a second rate discussion forum! Yay for me!

And now it is simple to distinguish my writings from other peoples' writings which I am quoting. They aren't all jumbled together beyond recognition.

But beware: if you put one of the {b}tags in front of a word, but you never close it off with the corresponding {/b}, your whole post will be bold!!!

[hakancan]

Fear_nam_Beanntan thank you for the lesson about html tags
i really felt the need these things thank you