Does science disprove the Creator?

[mindclear]

In reality science does not deal with 'why' things exist as they do but 'how' they exist. For example science can explain 'how gravity affects movement of bodies', but it cannot explain 'why gravity exists'. Science may explain the charge of an electron but it fundamentally cannot explain why it has a negative charge. Hence science has limited application to explain how the universe operates. In addition science requires to test and experiment the thing it wishes to understand, therefore the issue of a Creator will be beyond the ability to test and experiment upon thus the question of a Creator is beyond the remit of science. In order to illustrate this if we were to look at a painting in the light of science, then science can explain the different colours, the components that make the colours, the material used to make the canvas etc. But science could not explain that a painter was needed to produce the painting. Therefore science is limited to only studying that which is within the universe and can be tested and so it is invalid to use this approach in answering the question of whether a Creator exists or not. In fact science cannot even prove humans carry thoughts and concepts.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear In reality science does not deal with 'why' things exist as they do but 'how' they exist. For example science can explain 'how gravity affects movement of bodies', but it cannot explain 'why gravity exists'. Science may explain the charge of an electron but it fundamentally cannot explain why it has a negative charge. Hence science has limited application to explain how the universe operates. In addition science requires to test and experiment the thing it wishes to understand, therefore the issue of a Creator will be beyond the ability to test and experiment upon thus the question of a Creator is beyond the remit of science.

The reason why science cannot completely explain gravity is not because science does not wish to. It is because science is honest enough not to pretend to completely understand something that it doesn’t. Science is an honest human attempt to explore and explain reality. It does not presume to know what it is trying to discover. So a scientist cannot give you a complete explanation of charge not because they would not like to but because there is no currently well accepted complete explanation of charge and for the most part a scientist isn’t going to stand there and lie to you by pretending that there is. But a religious magical thinker has no problem telling you that there is a god, sin, hell, heaven, souls, spirits, angels and so on when they cannot even demonstrate that such things exist any better than leprechauns, the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. And of course it is these very supernatural constructs that the magical thinker uses to give what they claim to be a complete explanation of everything. The funny thing about it is even though they will make this claim most of them do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of nature and couldn’t explain how a light switch works.

Your distinction between science and religion simply illustrates that supernaturalist of most stripes are lying sacks of shit.

In order to illustrate this if we were to look at a painting in the light of science, then science can explain the different colours, the components that make the colours, the material used to make the canvas etc. But science could not explain that a painter was needed to produce the painting. Therefore science is limited to only studying that which is within the universe and can be tested and so it is invalid to use this approach in answering the question of whether a Creator exists or not. In fact science cannot even prove humans carry thoughts and concepts.

Your post very nicely illustrates that being a magical thinker means never having to have any idea at all of what you are talking about. Anything that is claimed to exist is open to scientific investigation. If paintings and painters exist then they are open to being explored and explained scientifically. In fact they have been explored repeatedly. There have been scientists that have tried to figure out what is attractive in art and test their ideas by building machines that create art. This is going on now. There is a huge amount of research in the area of understanding human behavior. In fact if god existed it too would be fair game for science. The only reason why science doesn’t investigate god is because based on the claims of its advocates there is no god to be found. Magical thinkers have created a self reinforcing delusion. They have created a magical world that cannot be verified and then they want to claim that it is as real as actual reality. It would be one thing if they had the honestly to admit that at best it is only a hope of theirs and at worse it is a delusion but no, they go way beyond that and claim that it is the “truth” and in doing so become dishonest. Some so dishonest that they are clearly in the lying sack of shit category.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Again, define your Creator, and tell us what we can do with the idea of Creator that we can't do without it, and I'll tell you whether or not such a thing can be proved or disproved.

Certainly, some aspects of what supernaturalists claims have been disproven.

Therapeutic Touch is a good example showing how people are sure that supernatural forces are at play, but science can show that those claims do not stand up under examination.

Tell us exactly what your claims are, and then you can find out whether or not those claims can be proven or disproven.

[mindclear]

Quote by: Starboy The reason why science cannot completely explain gravity is not because science does not wish to. It is because science is honest enough not to pretend to completely understand something that it doesn’t. - nay this is due to its limited role Your distinction between science and religion simply illustrates that supernaturalist of most stripes are lying sacks of shit. Again my distinction wasnt one between science and 'religion' it was between science and rational thought which you failed to understand. There is a huge amount of research in the area of understanding human behavior. Science cannot and will never achieve such a lofty ideal due to its limited application. Science has NO role to play when it comes to the intangible. Human behaviour is linked to the thoughts people carry and there instincts. In fact if god existed it too would be fair game for science. The only reason why science doesn’t investigate god is because based on the claims of its advocates there is no god to be found. ( SCIENCE CANNOT DEAL WITH THE INTANGIBLE..... THAT IS FACT. SCIENCE CONNOT PROVE A PAINTER IS NEDDED FOR A PAINTING) Magical thinkers have created a self reinforcing delusion. They have created a magical world that cannot be verified and then they want to claim that it is as real as actual reality. Starboy

IT IS YOU WHO IS LIMITING THINKING BY APPLYING SCIENCE ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE.... RATIONAL THOUGHT MATE THAT’S WHAT YOU NEED

[mindclear]

[quote=Gorgo]Again, define your Creator

As Muslims we would use a different method to establish our thoughts about the existence of a Creator and this method is termed as the 'rational method of thinking'. By this we mean that rational thought is built upon four components that is; the reality, the senses that transmit the reality, the distinguishing brain and previous information. Therefore, the process of rational thought is where one senses the reality using his senses that transmit it to the brain, which links the reality that is sensed to the previous information, hence producing a thought. If we return back to the example of the painting when we sense the painting we realise that the paint does not necessarily fall into an intricate pattern that produces the painting instead something other than the painting is also required to produce the painting - that is a painter.

So using this rational method of thinking we can discuss the rational proof for a Creator.

The rational proof for the existence of the Creator

In order to understand the question of whether there exist a Creator or not we first have to sense the universe around us. By doing so we come to the clear conclusion that everything within the universe is defined by certain attributes and that these attributes are quantifiable. So whether we sense water with its particular boiling point, or the sun with its particular size, shape and temperature, or if it's an atom with its particular atomic number all of these are definable and quantifiable - hence we would term these things 'limited'. So no matter what is sensed within the universe all things are ultimately limited. Further the universe is the sum of all that exists, and because all that exists is quantifiable and definable then the universe is the sum of all that is quantifiable hence the universe is also quantifiable. A further point to note is that all limited things that are sensed cannot exist on its own accord, that they also require other limited things to exist. For example, paper has a certain size and shape, thus we will term it limited but the paper also required wood to exist. Wood is also limited and also requires trees to exist in order for it to exist, and trees require sunlight and carbon dioxide for it to exist, the sun requires the fusion of hydrogen for it to also exist. In truth anything we observe or sense within the universe are limited and dependant, which is they require other things to exist in order for it to exist.

This leads us to three possible conclusions.
1. Everything depends upon each other in an infinite chain of interdependent limited things.
2. Everything depends upon other things in an elaborate cycle such that they achieve mutual dependence, without the need for something to initiate it.
3. There needs to exist something independent that initiates creation i.e. a Creator.

Firstly, it is impossible for everything to depend upon other things in an infinite chain. To prove this point imagine a row of dominos, for the last domino to fall over it needs to wait for the proceeding domino to fall first, and for that domino to fall over it also needs to wait for its' proceeding domino to also fall first. Now if there were an infinite chain of dominoes, meaning that there is no beginning domino to initiate the fall of dominoes, then would any of the dominoes fall over? Of course not. In reality an infinite number of dominos means each domino would have to wait for an infinite amount of time, meaning they would have to wait forever. herefore if everything in the universe depends upon another thing and this chain goes on forever then nothing would exist as they would continually wait for the proceeding thing to exist. Therefore a chain of interdependent things that goes on forever cannot exist.

As for the second possibility that everything depends upon every other thing in an elaborate cycle we can also show that this cannot occur. If we return to the analogy of the water cycle then we can say that for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water. However water does not exist as yet, hence nothing in the cycle exists until something initiates the cycle. Further we can understand this point by another simple illustration by stating that A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn't exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in a form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

Hence this leads to the final possibility as the only possibility to explain the universe around us. That is something independent requires to exist upon which every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that an independent, unlimited, intelligent force created the universe. For Muslims we call this Creator, Allah

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear IT IS YOU WHO IS LIMITING THINKING BY APPLYING SCIENCE ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE.... RATIONAL THOUGHT MATE THAT’S WHAT YOU NEED

You are correct. I am not a big advocate of magical thinking and irrational thought.

Starboy

[mindclear]

To suggest there isn’t an organizer behind the organization of the universe is irrational. :eek:

Science deals with the answers to how things happen. So Science is useful where the subject matter is tangibly observable i.e. something which can be tested in a laboratory environment. Science can measure and observe chemical reactions or phenomena that can be tested or experimented upon. This is important to understand the natural world and explore creation. Aside from this, Science has its limitations, as it can only propose theories as to how things came about. Theories are different from fact, because they are the conclusion of an individual scientist or group of scientists about a studied matter. They are often rubbished, evaluated or replaced by a new theory. I mention this as the basis for our discussion. Science must not be the criteria for determining the truth of the life of this world and its origin, what must be the basis is the reality we can perceive.

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alteration of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which he gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise." [The Quran].

[fedfem]

This thread implies the Creator is simply an unanswered question or a law of nature. (Deism--btw)

Science and reason have disproved the idea of an anthromorphic creator who likes the smell of ox burning or personally smites those who disagree or darkens the sun at will, stores rain in storehouses in the sky or sends rainbows as covenants etc...

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear To suggest there isn’t an organizer behind the organization of the universe is irrational. :eek:

You presume what you are trying to show and then think that is being rational. If it is organized then what is it organized for and what makes you think after looking at as much of the universe that you can that it has anything at all to do with what you think its purpose is?

Starboy

[mindclear]

If what I say contradicts the reality then that would be false, if however, I say that which conforms to the reality then this is true. I will only further discuss with you if you can first explain to me what rational thinking is. You seem to me extremely confused.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear If what I say contradicts the reality then that would be false, if however, I say that which conforms to the reality then this is true. I will only further discuss with you if you can first explain to me what rational thinking is. You seem to me extremely confused.

When it comes to your posts I agree. But hey, unconfuse me. Please state what purpose you think this universe is organized for.

Starboy

[mindclear]

If anyone would like to witness an atheist being intellectually ‘battered’ then do visit the following link

http://www.generationislam.org/multi...=1187_0_41_0_M

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear If anyone would like to witness an atheist being intellectually ‘battered’ then do visit the following link http://www.generationislam.org/multi...=1187_0_41_0_M

Mindclear, would you become an atheist if I could show you an example of a Muslim being battered by an atheist? Would you become a Christian if you were shown an example of a Muslim being battered by a Christian? Do you have any honest arguments?

Starboy

[mindclear]

starboy - Please state what purpose you think this universe is organized for.

I believe you will find that answer in the Quran. I suggest you read the Quran and ponder over it deeply and make your own decision.

[mindclear]

starboy
RE:Mindclear, would you become an atheist if I could show you an example of a Muslim being battered by an atheist? Would you become a Christian if you were shown an example of a Muslim being battered by a Christian? Do you have any honest arguments?

Yes I do apologize. That was an emotional statement. That is not how the truth is determined.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear starboy - Please state what purpose you think this universe is organized for.

As far as I can tell it doesn't appear to be organized for any purpose. But so what. I am not the one that is claiming that the universe is organized for a purpose. It is you. If you were honest you would have honest argument to make your case. I have been waiting patiently for you to present them. If you do not do it soon then I suggest that you just stop posting.

I believe you will find that answer in the Quran. I suggest you read the Quran and ponder over it deeply and make your decision.

If you were honest you would say that you have found the purpose for the universe in the Koran. But that is a very stupid way of trying to find the purpose of the universe. A better way is to look at the actual universe. The Koran is not the universe. It is yet another supernatural holy writing that makes claims about the supernatural and the natural that have no better reasons for accepting them than the bible or Star Wars.

Is it possible for you to present honest arguments?

Starboy

[fedfem]

Quote by: mindclear starboy - Please state what purpose you think this universe is organized for. I believe you will find that answer in the Quran. I suggest you read the Quran and ponder over it deeply and make your decision.

I know you were talking to Starboy, but I have read and studied the Quran and I wasn't convinced.

I do enjoy reading it and agree with much of its philosophy. I enjoy the Bible also and can say the same. Various scriptures, fables, Vedas, manifestos, etc are all great literary works and do let us understand much of history and anthropological thought.

[mindclear]

I believe the that the Quran is the speech of the Creator and Organizer and hence he is the one who can inform me what my purpose is.

[mindclear]

fedfem

Yes in Islam you can’t force people to except Islam. That’s your choice mate. However I would like to see how you would refute the verse

"And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah (chapter) like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot - and of a surety ye cannot - then fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for those who reject faith." [Quran 2:23-24]

[Starboy]

Quote by: mindclear I believe the that the Quran is the speech of the Creator and Organizer and hence he is the one who can inform me what my purpose is.

Why should I see the Quran in this way? Because you do? Why not be an atheist because I am an atheist? Are you capable of presenting any honest arguments?

Starboy