Why don't you believe in God?

[yii yann]

I can be very blunt on these topics, and I type fast, so I apologize if you feel insulted by either what I say or the sloppiness of my writing. 

 

 

 

I think your entire answer focused on fighting the notion of organized religion. 

 

You provided quite a lot of the standard arguments that atheists provide. Some of them were quite valid. However, I feel that rejecting the existence of a god is a bit too arrogant of us. Yes, it may not be Jesus, Allah, Brahma, etc, but to say there is no god at all? The part I have trouble with is that we may simply not have reached that level of sophistication to understand the nature of a supreme being. 

 

From that viewpoint, I feel that the best answer is whatever works for each one of us. Certainly I am not happy about any religions per se, as most of them are being abused, but I do believe in some sort of a supreme being. I don't know if it's maybe sitting in a chair twiddling a million different knobs, edging us towards a particular event in our lives, or maybe its a mist with a type of consciousness that we simply cannot comprehend - like seeing a new colour! Either way, I think this is an argument that you or I, or indeed anybody, can't quite provide a definitive answer on - yet. 

[Andy Sebastian]

 

I think your entire answer focused on fighting the notion of organized religion.

 

Well, yes and no.  My points about the lack of evidence or testable predictions extends to deism/vague spiritualism as much as it does organized theism.  The latter may be an even harsher point against a deistic belief - how could you possibly test such assertions?  What information does it provide us with?  What evidence could possibly be better explained by invoking a divine entity?  It doesn't strike me as any different from positing the existence of invisible, intangible unicorns that sit on the statue of liberty - you can't disprove the idea, but really, how is it even meaningful knowledge?

 

You provided quite a lot of the standard arguments that atheists provide. Some of them were quite valid. However, I feel that rejecting the existence of a god is a bit too arrogant of us.

 

Is it necessarily more arrogant than rejecting the existence of flying lepricons, Santa Claus or adult male Justin Bieber fans?  There's no reason to state dogmatically that no god could possibly exist on principle, but I don't see any arrogance with simply stating that the existence of a creator is highly improbable given the body of our scientific knowledge.  We do that with ghosts and vampires.

 

From that viewpoint, I feel that the best answer is whatever works for each one of us.

 

With all due respect, you're acting as if the existence of a supreme creator is a value judgment, rather than a question just as much of fact as the question of the existence of giant crocodiles underneath the belly of Mount Everest.  It's not a matter of opinion, even if, in our sensibility, it is treated as such in our political/social discourse.

[yii yann]

 

 

I think your entire answer focused on fighting the notion of organized religion.

 

Well, yes and no.  My points about the lack of evidence or testable predictions extends to deism/vague spiritualism as much as it does organized theism.  The latter may be an even harsher point against a deistic belief - how could you possibly test such assertions?  What information does it provide us with?  What evidence could possibly be better explained by invoking a divine entity?  It doesn't strike me as any different from positing the existence of invisible, intangible unicorns that sit on the statue of liberty - you can't disprove the idea, but really, how is it even meaningful knowledge?

 

 

You provided quite a lot of the standard arguments that atheists provide. Some of them were quite valid. However, I feel that rejecting the existence of a god is a bit too arrogant of us.

 

Is it necessarily more arrogant than rejecting the existence of flying lepricons, Santa Claus or adult male Justin Bieber fans?  There's no reason to state dogmatically that no god could possibly exist on principle, but I don't see any arrogance with simply stating that the existence of a creator is highly improbable given the body of our scientific knowledge.  We do that with ghosts and vampires.

 

 

From that viewpoint, I feel that the best answer is whatever works for each one of us.

 

With all due respect, you're acting as if the existence of a supreme creator is a value judgment, rather than a question just as much of fact as the question of the existence of giant crocodiles underneath the belly of Mount Everest.  It's not a matter of opinion, even if, in our sensibility, it is treated as such in our political/social discourse.

 

 

Really, it is quite easy to poke holes in your arguments (your "I do not believe in god" has conveniently changed to "highly improbable"), but the whole point of what I'm saying is that this really isn't a matter that does very well under debate. I can't argue with you why I like red more than you like blue.

 

Yes, it is a value judgement because its presence in our lives is too large to ignore - you're talking about thousands of years of history here. That's why it's more significant than, say, "giant crocodiles underneath the belly of Mount Everest". 

[Andy Sebastian]

 

Really, it is quite easy to poke holes in your arguments (your "I do not believe in god" has conveniently changed to "highly improbable"),

 

 

Sorry, no change there.  Do you believe in unicorns?  No?  Do you think their existence is absolutely impossible, or merely highly improbable?  The latter?  Hypocrisy!

 

 

but the whole point of what I'm saying is that this really isn't a matter that does very well under debate. I can't argue with you why I like red more than you like blue.

 

"do you like red?" is a value judgment

"what is the wavelength of red light?" is a factual issue

 

"do you think religion is comforting?" is a value judgment

"does god exist?" is a factual issue

 

 

Yes, it is a value judgement because its presence in our lives is too large to ignore

 

Its cultural influence has nothing to do with the epistomology of the question; the assumption that the earth was flat played a big role in ancient chinese culture and religion, yet the question of the shape of the earth was always a factual one.

 

 

 

That's why it's more significant than, say, "giant crocodiles underneath the belly of Mount Everest". 

 

Sure it's far more significant; that doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the question and truthhood/falsehood of any particular answer.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Andy Sebastian

[Vioh]

I don’t really think that Andy Sebastian is only focusing on “organized religions”, but also on religions and gods as a whole. Many of Andy Sebastian’s points are relevant in the discussion such as when he mentioned “appeals to emotion & consequence”, or “mathematical universe”, and many more….

 

You provided quite a lot of the standard arguments that atheists provide. Some of them were quite valid. However, I feel that rejecting the existence of a god is a bit too arrogant of us. Yes, it may not be Jesus, Allah, Brahma, etc, but to say there is no god at all? The part I have trouble with is that we may simply not have reached that level of sophistication to understand the nature of a supreme being.

 

I really don’t agree with this at all. If you say that we have not reached that level of sophistication to understand the nature of a supreme being, then why do you still believe in god? If neither you nor anybody else are intelligent enough to understand what a supreme being is like, then are you intelligent enough to claim that he exists? This is like children saying “I believe in unicorns because no-one can disprove it”. Of course, not so many people believe in unicorns anymore, and this is because unicorns’ existence is simply not plausible (because there is NOT a single evidence supporting it); and likewise, god is not a plausible theory!

 

I noticed that your argument is kinda like that of many religious people (or at least people who believe in gods) who say that they believe in god, because science cannot disprove (i.e. refute) the existence of god. People often see science a ‘belief system’ that goes against religions. However, it is NOT! If TOK has taught me anything worthwhile, then it is the fact that ‘science doesn’t refute god’, even though to some certain extent it does. Science is NOT a theory, nor a belief system; it is rather a ‘method’ of seeking to describe the world. In other words, a scientist doesn’t believe in one belief; but his belief can change over time as new evidence comes in. If religious people are able to give an empirical good piece of evidence supporting that god exists, then the scientists are willing to listen to them, and can actually start believing in god. But until that day comes, then there’s really no reason to believe in god!

 

In general, my point is that science is humble (and NOT arrogant) as it only claims something to be true when science has enough evidence supporting that claim. Science never really says that it is 100% that god does not exist, but only says that it is very very unlikely that he exists based on all our current evidence! On the other hand, I think that religious people (again, at least people who believe in gods) are super-arrogant when claiming that god exists, which is based on NO single evidence, and then end the conversation by saying that science cannot disprove it (or by saying that we are not smart enough talk about him).

[Andy Sebastian]

These replies are somewhat late, but I just joined, so screw it:

 

People see that it is illogical to believe in God and because of that, tend to see 
intelligent people as non-believers in God. 
Doesn't anyone realize how fallacious, stereotypical such thinking is? 
My cousin is a Theology-major student (graduated as a top I.B. student from his school) and his previous major was Computer Science. 
He graduated from one of top major engineering universities with a very good score, and worked in a top company. 
And he was a "stereotypical" non-believer in God until a few years ago. 
But after he started studying Theology, he began to see how ignorant his past life was, and how 
he has foolishly dismissed the truth within Theology, the true knowledge within it. 
The problem is, in my opinion, is that people only see a very shallow cover of Christianity (or any other religion) 
and fail to see deep roots, the depth within it, leading to their misinterpretation of what faith, religion is. 
One who has not studied Theology (or background study of any religion) in depth and only saw their shallow cover
does not have much rights to "judge" and "evaluate" religion.
 

 

Did you seriously just try to refute a demographic trend with an anecdote about your cousin?  The inverse relationship between education, particularly in the natural sciences, and religiosity is well established, and finding individual exceptions does nothing to defy this.

 

 

They claim to not believe due to the fact that they did not have a fair chance at life.

 

Actually, research shows that lower income individuals are more, not less, likely to be very religious.

 

One girl claimed that she believed in God, however, she no longer believes due to the fact that her brother shot her mother.

 

How is this any less reasonable than the girl who believes in God because her grandmother was healed from a curable disease after intensive surgery and medical treatment?

 

Other students who do not believe in God would be the students who are very egotistical.

 

Do you see many atheists asserting that anybody who disagrees with them will be tortured after death for all eternity without respite, or that their word is backed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity that not only personally cares for and loves them, but actually created the entire cosmos just for their species?

 

Most of the students at my former school who believe in God at my former school, West Holmes High School, would be the students who were of the most intelligent, however, that could probably be concluded by summarizing the culture of the area and values of the vicinity in regards to the mentioned school. Overall, to answer this question, I would disagree that the majority of individuals who are extremely intelligent would be led go believe against the existence of God due to the circumstances that are attached to the context of this post.

 

...based on a few very subjective anectodes from your "former school"? 

 

 

 

I never said you did that. Your post gave me the fair impression that you've essentially ignored thousands of years of literature on the topic. To say there's no ground to believe in God from a philosophical standpoint is foolish. Especially given that there are many intelligent philosophers of religion who either believe in God or are much more sympathetic to the idea. I'm not sure I'd go to Russell for an atheist argument either. His specialty did lie in other areas.

By this logic, it's perfectly reasonable to believe in spontaneous combustion, because for thousands of years well respected scientists/natural philosophers accepted it as fact.

 

Yes there is. If you want to remain a strict agnostic then provide reasons for why you are one. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, then accept you can hold uncertainty in his existence while believing in him. And that wouldn't be illogical to do as long as you have good reasons for holding that position. I haven't even expressed my position on the issue so no, I'm not going to argue I know God exists. I never hinted at the idea that I would. 

 

You don't really need "reasons" to be an agnostic about God any more than you need reasons to be an agnostic about unicorns.  Burden of proof lies in the person making the claim, not the skeptic.

 

Evidence in the context of science presumes natural evidence.The reason why I say this is because when you ask for physical evidence for God's existence you're requesting something that 1) probably won't convince you and attribute to natural causes (since you've asked him to cause a natural thing) 2) asking for a supernatural thing to be presented naturally.

 

If God exists in a form remotely similar to any of our conceptions of him, he'd have effects on the physical universe.  For one, he'd have created it, quite possibly have some sort of intelligent handprint on its design and purpose, and quite possibly intervene and direct the course of events.  These are all testable predictions, and they have all been falsified.

 

Your analogy between God and string theory doesn't work. What if God isn't a theistic one so it's impossible for further evidence to be given?

 

Then it's not a falsifiable or testable assertion, and is therefore as meaningless as postulating invisible and intangible little green men that float around on clouds but never affect or interact with us in any way.  You may notice that disproving this assertion is impossible.

 

The majority of the arguments for God's existence are based on our experience. I don't think it's a scientific question.

 

It is a scientific question if you invoke God to explain a physical phenomona, such as the existence of the universe or your conceiving a child.  That is the domain of science.

 

 

The question should be treated the same with respect to rational inquiry. You wouldn't treat a sociology question in the exact same way you would a physics, biology, maths or philosophical one, why do the same for God's question? 

 

 

Ideally, sociology is a science that uses empirical methods.  God is an attempt to explain some sort of physical phenomona, and therefore falls within the natural sciences to falsify.

[Andy Sebastian]

 

From a strictly philosophical view you probably have even more reason to believe in God because the question of his existence is a philosophical question.

 

No, it's a scientific question.  Philosophy is no longer the most effective method to answer objective questions about reality - whether or not reality was created by/is influenced by a transcendant entity is certainly an objective question about reality.  That God himself is allegedly "supernatural" has nothing to do with the testability of the predictions made by his proposed existence.

 

It's best handled by philosophy and has been that way for thousands of years.

 

Yes, for thousands of years philosophy was our primary means of discussing questions of physical importance.  The astronomical progress our species has made in the past few centuries where philosophy had failed for the past several thousand is owed to science.  Such questions are not the domain of philosophy.

 

There are hundreds of theist philosophers and theologians who have respectable positions which aren't defeated by simply searching for counter arguments on wikipedia.

 

They are not respectable positions, appeals to authority and popularity notwithstanding. 

 

I have an issue with the word evidence in the context of this debate because it seems to imply there needs to some kind of physical evidence for his existence which arguably misses the point. 

 

I could substitute "invisible pink flying unicorns" for "God".

[Zane Price]

Really, the God question can be taken back to one question. Do you believe that the world was created by chance or divine intervention?

From there, you have some options. If you believe that the world was created by chance, consequently you are an atheist and will debate the God question with yourself no longer. But if you feel that the Earth was created by divine intervention, you have to decide what kind. And that is a whole new discussion.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited December 18, 2014 by Zane Price

[Emilia1320]

I'm an atheist and the reason is that I don't believe until there is evidence that supports the theory.

Even then I stay curious about topic, because science all time corrects itself and adds more detail. That is beauty of science over religion. Religion just says something is, without giving evidence, or giving change to question theories.

Good theories stand the test of time, false ones are corrected or forgotten and therefore knowledge on science all time becomes more accurate and increases. With religion this doesn't occur at all.

With religion you just can't say there is no God or it's not religion anymore.

With science you can say gravity doesn't exist if you can prove so. (I'm not to question Isaac Newton's theories - I totally believe they are true as I've seen it and it's perfectly logical, but I just used it as an example)

There isn't counterprove either - not sure knowledge about God not existing. But with knowledge granted by modern physics we can all time better know the structure of the universe, and with knowledge granted by biology we know that non-living objects do not think. On religious texts God is usually defined as acknowledging object.

To form life that is essential for thinking there should be at least water and amino acids. There might be on some other planet than Earth - again I don't have evidence to close out that possibility, or confirm it, but is an unknown life form a god anymore? I don't think so.

So, prove it and I believe.

But on science one who claims something is one to prove it.

I could claim that there is a flying Pegasus on my room, would you believe me until I prove it? I don't think so.

Difference between religion and science is evidence and self-correcting.

Science has taken us this far, with religion we would be on medieval era.

My pick is science.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Emilia1320

[Vioh]

Really, the God question can be taken back to one question. Do you believe that the world was created by chance or divine intervention?

From there, you have some options. If you believe that the world was created by chance, consequently you are an atheist and will debate the God question with yourself no longer. But if you feel that the Earth was created by divine intervention, you have to decide what kind. And that is a whole new discussion.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Whenever a person brings God into any discussions, I often tried to ask them "where does the god come from then? Who created god?" and I always always got the same reply: "God always exists". This is really frustrating, in my opinion, because it doesn't solve anything whatsoever. An atheists can say exactly the same thing: "The universe has always existed, thus needed no divine intervention". Beside this *causation*-thing can go on forever unless you can solve the question: "What is the first cause?"......

 

Science doesn't yet have an answer for how the universe actually begins. We know that the Big Bang happened for sure, but the Big Bang theory doesn't tell you *what* bangs or *why* it bangs. However, cosmologists are now currently working on it. There are many models out there, and one of the best model is the inflationary model of the universe which it explains the Big Bang as the result of negative pressure (repulsive gravity). There are some evidence supporting it, but we need more evidence before we put it in the so-called hard science. That's why I said that science doesn't yet know the answer, but one day we will and that answer will definitely be based on the empirical evidence, in contrasts with religions.

 

Finally, I must say that it has been proven beyond all doubts that the Earth is 4 billion years old, and only a *fool* would doubt that. The thing is that the Big Bang theory, the evolution theory, and all other proven scientific theories can explain everything about how our universe evolves over time, how the Earth was created, and how humans become the dominant species in our planet. There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting these theories, so religious people, don't even bother to argue against science here!

 

I feel pretty sad to see that many young people nowadays, instead of looking at the evidence before their own eyes and at how much science has influenced their lives, choose to believe in irrational thinking that they inherited from the old tradition within their families. Seriously people, don't let our society go back to the Middle Age!

[Emilia1320]

I feel pretty sad to see that many young people nowadays, instead of looking at the evidence before their own eyes and at how much science has influenced their lives, choose to believe in irrational thinking that they inherited from the old tradition within their families. Seriously people, don't let our society go back to the Middle Age!

Sadly many people raise their kids to religion.

My parents are religious, and I feared God during my childhood, and prayed him for help, just to get bitter and sad for never getting response and my life kept getting worse and worse due that my family was all time fighting and I got bullied in the school.

Then I kinda found science and for me it really helped and it was very big relief to live without having to fear making God angry. Irrelevant tought but for 12-year old me it was very real feeling.

I really hope parents would let their children choose what do they believe in.

[Sandwich]

Really, the God question can be taken back to one question. Do you believe that the world was created by chance or divine intervention?

From there, you have some options. If you believe that the world was created by chance, consequently you are an atheist and will debate the God question with yourself no longer. But if you feel that the Earth was created by divine intervention, you have to decide what kind. And that is a whole new discussion.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I really don't think so. God is an external force, so asking yourself an internal question is somewhat futile. Whether you "feel" the earth has been created or whether it happened by chance is neither here nor there, because one of those answers is right and the other one is wrong, regardless of personal feelings and beliefs. Indeed some religious people now say that god caused the big bang, in which case they're opting for both by chance and by divine intervention. Win-win. As an example, say I win the lottery. It doesn't matter that I might feel that God made me win the lottery, or I might feel that it was just chance that my numbers came up - because what I feel about it doesn't change what happened or why it happened, it's just my own interpretation. At the end of the day I can feel however I want about anything and make up my own facts on which to base everything else, but that doesn't make them even remotely true. Picking randomly between two arbitrary choices is to exclude the fact there might be another explanation.

 

The most rational thing is probably to say that we don't know how the world came to be so it's kind of stupid to try to pick between two options which might both be wrong. In this case, I think your question has skipped forward several steps rather than taking it back to the beginning by assuming A) they're both beliefs and B) they are equal beliefs. 'Chance' still essentially means we're not really sure, whereas 'divine intervention' is saying yes we're 100% sure we have found the cause. In which case they're not really equal at all because one of them is jumping to a conclusion with zero proof and the other one is just shrugging its shoulders. Similarly only one of them is a belief, the other one is speculation.

[SallyShariff]

I don’t understand the possibility of us determining whether God is good or not, to be honest.

 

You know ants? Like ants, on the ground, right?

 

Can an ant ever perceive of what it means to drive a car? Will an ant ever be able to understand what a car is, even?

No, the answer is clearly no.

 

Now, we, as human beings, can perceive of what it means to drive a car and we can understand what a car is, heck, we made them, right?

 

Now, the massive disparity between an ant and a human is pretty great, and humans aren’t even that special, but the gulf between our ability to understand and that of an ant is not that big of a deal, because we both die, we both eat, we both have births and what not.

 

Now, remember that gulf between an ant and a human? So, if God exists, and as far as this question concerns itself, God does it exist (and—this might come as a surprise—I personally believe in God) and so, if

 

God does exist, that means that we believe in God, and God is The Entity that just created things.

 

Like, space, time, matter, everything is made by God.

 

Now, what can we make? Children? That’s what we can make, on our own, and even then, we need food, and energy, and vitamins, etc etc. Right? So, just using what we have, like not tools and what not, the best thing we can make is another us.

 

Then, let’s factor in tools, and still, we make some cool stuff, but we can’t really make much. Right?

 

Now, if God is God, and The Source of everything, space, time, matter, blah blah, then, how in the name of The Lord is it possible, for me, a creature that can’t make anything, to suddenly perceive or rationalize the choices and motivations, and most importantly, characteristics of An Entity that just creates existence?

 

How can I compare that? How can I understand that?

 

If an ant can’t perceive of driving, what are the chances that I will be able to understand the ultimate definition or motivations of An Entity that is The Source of All Things?

 

That’s why I find these sorts of debates as odd, because they seek to impose limitations on The Limitless, and our stupid brains can’t handle the idea of Limitlessness. We just can’t, because we’re stupid and limited.

 

So, to attempt whether God is good is to rationalize and discuss God on our terms and not His. If you want to discuss God, and by this I mean God as described in The Qur’an, Bible and Torah, then that’s your discussion. To discuss just some sort of “general God†is odd, and more importantly, is simply a reflection of our concerns and perceptions and therefore becomes pure folly because we then go outside a definitional framework for what God does or doesn’t do, and to me, that’s useless.

 

Therefore, I find that The Qur’an describes God in a way that I feel is most important:

"[but] there is nothing like unto Him" [42:11]

"and there is nothing that could be compared with Him" [112:4]

 

To determine God is to be above The Creator, and that is impossible according to the 3 monotheistic religions, therefore, the question has no merit, because it has no possibility, which is the answer I find most satisfying, and logical.

Edited December 19, 2014 by SallyShariff

[Vioh]

I don’t understand the possibility of us determining whether God is good or not, to be honest.

 

You know ants? Like ants, on the ground, right?

 

Can an ant ever perceive of what it means to drive a car? Will an ant ever be able to understand what a car is, even?

No, the answer is clearly no.

 

Now, we, as human beings, can perceive of what it means to drive a car and we can understand what a car is, heck, we made them, right?

 

Now, the massive disparity between an ant and a human is pretty great, and humans aren’t even that special, but the gulf between our ability to understand and that of an ant is not that big of a deal, because we both die, we both eat, we both have births and what not.

 

Now, remember that gulf between an ant and a human? So, if God exists, and as far as this question concerns itself, God does it exist (and—this might come as a surprise—I personally believe in God) and so, if

 

God does exist, that means that we believe in God, and God is The Entity that just created things.

 

Like, space, time, matter, everything is made by God.

 

Now, what can we make? Children? That’s what we can make, on our own, and even then, we need food, and energy, and vitamins, etc etc. Right? So, just using what we have, like not tools and what not, the best thing we can make is another us.

 

Then, let’s factor in tools, and still, we make some cool stuff, but we can’t really make much. Right?

 

Now, if God is God, and The Source of everything, space, time, matter, blah blah, then, how in the name of The Lord is it possible, for me, a creature that can’t make anything, to suddenly perceive or rationalize the choices and motivations, and most importantly, characteristics of An Entity that just creates existence?

 

How can I compare that? How can I understand that?

 

If an ant can’t perceive of driving, what are the chances that I will be able to understand the ultimate definition or motivations of An Entity that is The Source of All Things?

 

That’s why I find these sorts of debates as odd, because they seek to impose limitations on The Limitless, and our stupid brains can’t handle the idea of Limitlessness. We just can’t, because we’re stupid and limited.

 

So, to attempt whether God is good is to rationalize and discuss God on our terms and not His. If you want to discuss God, and by this I mean God as described in The Qur’an, Bible and Torah, then that’s your discussion. To discuss just some sort of “general God” is odd, and more importantly, is simply a reflection of our concerns and perceptions and therefore becomes pure folly because we then go outside a definitional framework for what God does or doesn’t do, and to me, that’s useless.

 

Therefore, I find that The Qur’an describes God in a way that I feel is most important:

"[but] there is nothing like unto Him" [42:11]

"and there is nothing that could be compared with Him" [112:4]

 

To determine God is to be above The Creator, and that is impossible according to the 3 monotheistic religions, therefore, the question has no merit, because it has no possibility, which is the answer I find most satisfying, and logical.

 

I personally believe in creation, however it is quite hard to decipher whether or not there is a God. If we place faith aside for a moment, we cannot deny that we were created one way or another (scientifically or through means of creation).The fact is as humans we do not know. Because we are so minutiae, because we take up such a small portion of the great existence we are presently in, we must give purpose to all things. Absurdism is a concept based on the absurdity of our existence. It states that we, as humans "have no purpose" "no origins" and "things are just what they are." Personally I believe that it is hard to disprove God, because we are dealing with matters which extend beyond our human comprehension. We idealize the fact that God is a man, and because of this we lower this "superiority" of such, to our level or we just raise ourselves up to "God status". Proving God, is hard as well, but there is a personal journey (opinion) that one must make to realize such a fact, that God is real. I remember my first TOK class, my teacher said "you were created five minutes ago" and I could not able myself to comprehend such a concept, it wouldn't sit in my mind properly. It is honorable to believe in something greater than you, it makes you humble and gives you the realization that you are not everything, but only one thing.

 

"I think therefore I am" 

 

I'm not going to attack all points that both of you have made in your posts. However, it seems to me that you both think that we shouldn't discuss the existence of god because god is a power beyond our understanding, just like how an ant cannot perceive what it means to drive. So this is what i'm going to argue against.

 

First, i want to point out that it is the religions that assert that god exists! Science only claims 2 things:

1. We shouldn't believe in things that we have no proof

2. God is not necessary to explain the universe & how we got here

 

So why on Earth does science need to disprove god? The thing is, it is the religions that brought up god in the first place, therefore it is the religions' job to provide evidence for it. It's like me saying "I can communicate with my other self in higher dimensions" or some other fictional craps, and then ask the scientists to disprove my claim. Of course they can't, simply because this is not a disprovable theory. And the main point is that nobody believes in my idiotic theories, just like how no-one nowadays believes in unicorn or Santa Claus. And why? because we have no proofs that they exist, and they are not necessary to explain the universe! The job of science is to discover things and then attempt to explain the universe as it is, without the intervention of any humans' emotions (which according to TOK, is highly unreliable ). And this is exactly the reasons why science progressed a lot over time, while religions stayed in pretty much the same place over 2000 years.

 

Now, to say that we shouldn't discuss something that is beyond human's understanding is just lazy in my opinion; because in fact, science has been doing that for a long time. Let's look back at the history of physics, which basically started from the discovery of classical mechanics (a study of every-day phenomenon, which we're all familiar with). From that starting point, Einstein improved Newton's model to invent his general relativity which describes space and time as some sort of fabrics. Einstein's theory claims that space can actually be bent, curved, and dynamic. And to me, to imagine how the space is curved is mind-blowing, is beyond both my understanding and imagination. But the maths says that relativity is right. And the evidence says that it's right. So there's no reason to doubt it. Now, let's go to the end of 20th century. Physicists have already started to discuss the multiverse theory, string theory with 11 dimensions, quantum field theory, singularity inside a black hole, etc etc, all of which are totally beyond human understandings. So yeah.... this laziness in saying that "god's beyond our understanding thus just believe it and give up thinking about it" makes me grieve

 

So I guess my purpose for this post is to say that it is you religious people who believe in god in the first place, so it is you who have to provide evidence for it. It's not the job of science to disprove all 'idiotic' theories in the world. Science is a method of discovering things, not a method to disprove things. To be honest, I think the discussion of god would have ended a long time ago if people just tried to look at the scientific evidence before their own eyes to see how many things the bible & the quran (& many other scriptures) contradict with the real-life evidence. So please people, you don't want to be a slave to your own imaginative being who's watching you right above your head, do you?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Vioh

[SallyShariff]

 

 

 

 

So I guess my purpose for this post is to say that it is you religious people who believe in god in the first place, so it is you who have to provide evidence for it. It's not the job of science to disprove all 'idiotic' theories in the world. Science is a method of discovering things, not a method to disprove things. To be honest, I think the discussion of god would have ended a long time ago if people just tried to look at the scientific evidence before their own eyes to see how many things the bible & the quran (& many other scriptures) contradict with the real-life evidence. So please people, you don't want to be a slave to your own imaginative being who's watching you right above your head, do you?

 

 

What I don't understand is the modern notion that science and religion contradict. Many of our greatest physicists (including Isaac Newton), mathematicians and scientists were people of faith, and their discoveries only served to strengthen their faith.

 

However, you brought up point that the Bible and the Quran contradict with scientific evidence. I for one have not read the bible, but I have to say that the Quran by no means contradicts scientific evidence and in fact contains many scientific miracles that I know feel compelled to list lol.

 

1) Islam is in support of the Big Bang theory and the idea that the Universe is constantly expanding. "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(The Qur'an, 51:47)

 

20 One of the properties of seas that has only recently been discovered is related in a verse of the Qur'an as follows:

 

"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."(The Qur'an, 55:19-20)

 

This property of the seas, that they come together yet do not mingle with one another at all, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension", the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.

 

The interesting side to this is that during a period when people had no knowledge of physics, surface tension, or oceanography; this was revealed in the Qur'an.

 

3) We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? (Quran 21:30)

In this verse water is pointed out as the origin of all life, and what living beings consist mostly of. The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the microscope. 

 

There are many many other verses containing topics ranging from geology to the human embryo to evolution in the Quran, a book revealed 1400 years ago. It could not have been possibly written by a man.

 

The Quran is not designed to be a science textbook, but I suggest you look into it and try to find a single scientific contradiction , If you ask me, science is proof of God.

[sameera95]

 

 

 

So I guess my purpose for this post is to say that it is you religious people who believe in god in the first place, so it is you who have to provide evidence for it. It's not the job of science to disprove all 'idiotic' theories in the world. Science is a method of discovering things, not a method to disprove things. To be honest, I think the discussion of god would have ended a long time ago if people just tried to look at the scientific evidence before their own eyes to see how many things the bible & the quran (& many other scriptures) contradict with the real-life evidence. So please people, you don't want to be a slave to your own imaginative being who's watching you right above your head, do you?

 

 

What I don't understand is the modern notion that science and religion contradict. Many of our greatest physicists (including Isaac Newton), mathematicians and scientists were people of faith, and their discoveries only served to strengthen their faith.

 

However, you brought up point that the Bible and the Quran contradict with scientific evidence. I for one have not read the bible, but I have to say that the Quran by no means contradicts scientific evidence and in fact contains many scientific miracles that I know feel compelled to list lol.

 

1) Islam is in support of the Big Bang theory and the idea that the Universe is constantly expanding. "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(The Qur'an, 51:47)

 

20 One of the properties of seas that has only recently been discovered is related in a verse of the Qur'an as follows:

 

"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."(The Qur'an, 55:19-20)

 

This property of the seas, that they come together yet do not mingle with one another at all, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension", the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.

 

The interesting side to this is that during a period when people had no knowledge of physics, surface tension, or oceanography; this was revealed in the Qur'an.

 

3) We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? (Quran 21:30)

In this verse water is pointed out as the origin of all life, and what living beings consist mostly of. The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the microscope. 

 

There are many many other verses containing topics ranging from geology to the human embryo to evolution in the Quran, a book revealed 1400 years ago. It could not have been possibly written by a man.

 

The Quran is not designed to be a science textbook, but I suggest you look into it and try to find a single scientific contradiction , If you ask me, science is proof of God.

 

Thank you! Someone understands where I'm coming from I assume you're Muslim, right?

[SallyShariff]

 

 

Thank you! Someone understands where I'm coming from I assume you're Muslim, right?

 

 

You assumed correctly haha . 

[sameera95]

 

 

Thank you! Someone understands where I'm coming from I assume you're Muslim, right?

 

 

You assumed correctly haha . 

 

haha, me too

[alefal]

I did for a long time not want to involve myself in this debate, as I believe religion, no matter from what angle you look at it, is subjective and this a private thing. It shouldn't matter if one believes or does not believe in religion, we are all humans and should treat each other with respect. The bible says that you should 'love thy neighbour', and that particular phrase does not discriminate against anyone. In other words, it doesn't matter if your neighbour is an atheist, homosexual or of another faith, you should respect that person nonetheless. I am sure there are similar passages in the sacred texts from the other religions. And, as such, no one should be forced to argue in favour or against the existence of god(s), which is why I am not in agreement with the idea that the religious people should prove the existence of god nor the idea that science should disprove its existence. If someone finds strength through faith, isn't that fundamentally a good thing (because, after all, all religions teach us not to cause harm upon others)? Of course, as long as this does not lead to the imposition of those religious ideas upon others, that's something I cannot agree with personally, but I guess that's a slightly different matter. 

 

Now, just before we get into the more substantial things, please understand that I am not religious, nor am I an atheist. I am not saying that god cannot exist no matter what nor am I saying that such an entity exists, as there is currently no conclusive proof for either. I do know that my life philosophies are very compatible with the Buddhist thought, though I do not call myself a Buddhist because I have yet to make my mind up about certain aspects of Buddhism (such as reincarnation), nor have I done a thorough evaluation of most of the other religions and whether or not they provide with a better or worse depiction of the world than Buddhism. However, as for now, I associate myself the most with Buddhism, for the better or worse. I guess I currently is what is defined as an agnostic, though.

 

 

 

 

 

So I guess my purpose for this post is to say that it is you religious people who believe in god in the first place, so it is you who have to provide evidence for it. It's not the job of science to disprove all 'idiotic' theories in the world. Science is a method of discovering things, not a method to disprove things. To be honest, I think the discussion of god would have ended a long time ago if people just tried to look at the scientific evidence before their own eyes to see how many things the bible & the quran (& many other scriptures) contradict with the real-life evidence. So please people, you don't want to be a slave to your own imaginative being who's watching you right above your head, do you?

 

 

What I don't understand is the modern notion that science and religion contradict. Many of our greatest physicists (including Isaac Newton), mathematicians and scientists were people of faith, and their discoveries only served to strengthen their faith.

 

However, you brought up point that the Bible and the Quran contradict with scientific evidence. I for one have not read the bible, but I have to say that the Quran by no means contradicts scientific evidence and in fact contains many scientific miracles that I know feel compelled to list lol.

 

1) Islam is in support of the Big Bang theory and the idea that the Universe is constantly expanding. "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(The Qur'an, 51:47)

 

20 One of the properties of seas that has only recently been discovered is related in a verse of the Qur'an as follows:

 

"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."(The Qur'an, 55:19-20)

 

This property of the seas, that they come together yet do not mingle with one another at all, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension", the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.

 

The interesting side to this is that during a period when people had no knowledge of physics, surface tension, or oceanography; this was revealed in the Qur'an.

 

3) We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? (Quran 21:30)

In this verse water is pointed out as the origin of all life, and what living beings consist mostly of. The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the microscope. 

 

There are many many other verses containing topics ranging from geology to the human embryo to evolution in the Quran, a book revealed 1400 years ago. It could not have been possibly written by a man.

 

The Quran is not designed to be a science textbook, but I suggest you look into it and try to find a single scientific contradiction , If you ask me, science is proof of God.

 

 

SallyShariff, I found your post quite interesting, actually. Indeed, does religion and science really contradict? I think there's a fundamental flaw with your argument, though. The sacred texts of all religions need to be interpreted, and, as such, my reading of the Qur'an will be different from yours. For instance, let us consider your first quote from the Qur'an: 
"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

Now, you argue that this line is supporting the big bang theory and the idea that the universe is constantly expanding. Yes, that seems to fit very well indeed. I do not claim to know much about the context in which this is written, as I have not read the Qur'an myself, but I can see that this quote, when isolated, can lead to a number of different interpretations. In the modern age, you can see it as a proof for the big bang theory. However, is it not also possible to look at it differently, and assert that this quote actually says that we, the humans, have created the idea of heavens, and by increasing its popularity or influence, we are also 'steadily expanding it'? Now, of course, I understand that the 'we' most likely do not refer to the people at large. In fact, I read through the passage very briefly on a internet page containing all (?) the verses in the Qur'an, and apparently it refers to some guests of Abraham. Who, exactly, these guests are supposed to be is not clear to me, however. It has come across my mind that the 'we' actually could refer to Allah, in which case my attempt at an alternative interpretation is in vain. However, as an isolated quote, in the way you presented it, this is not described at all, and as such, for a person who's not familiar with the Qur'an (which, I presume, is a substantial part of the members here at IBS), such an interpretation is possible too. 

Beyond that, I also happened to come across another page where different versions of the Qur'an is set side by side. It seems like people who work with the Qur'an themselves have understood that phrase differently. For instance, Abdul Daryabadi translated that phrase as 'And the heaven! We have built it with might, and verily We are powerful,' and as such interpreting it very differently from your idea that it confirms the big bang theory. In fact, Daryabadi does not refer to such an expansion of space at all, but rather to the power of the speaker. Now, whether his translation is correct or not, I will leave it to others to decide, but this clearly shows that there are different ways of interpreting that passage, which implies that you might or might not be right in that it actually refers to the big bang. 

 

Also, a point of inquiry: If the Qur'an, with this phrase, actually makes reference to the big bang, then how come this wasn't discussed explicitly in Muslim texts ages ago? Why was it, then, that a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) who established the fundamental scientific building bloc for the big bang theory, and not one whose beliefs would support such a claim? It seems illogical that the discovery would come from someone whose faith says it is impossible when there's another faith, Islam, which, according to you, supports such a theory. 

 

And, apparently, the Qur'an is not scientifically accurate in all parts, even if you argue it is in others. For instance, consider this part, which was translated very similarly in various versions: Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered (Qur'an 15:26). Clearly, here, the Qur'an is saying that humans are created by clay. What? We're clay? I am pretty sure science has proven that we are not clay! 

From the Qur'an 23:14 - Then We turned the sperm-drop into a clot, then We turned the clot into a fetus-lump, then We turned the fetus-lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh; thereafter We developed it into another creature. So, glorious is Allah, the Best of the creators.

So, bones are created before flesh? I am also confident that science has proven that not to be the case. 

 

Clearly, then, the Qur'an and science contradict each other at some points, but can arguably support each other on different points. I'm sure that you'll see the same thing in the Bible, where some things can be interpreted as being compatible with science, and other things incompatible. As is the case with all sacred texts, I am sure. 

 

Now, does that mean that religion and science contradict each other? Not really. As I said previously, religion is personal and subjective, and as a result, it depends on your own interpretations of your religion. Do people really need to believe in everything that is proposed by the religious texts in order to be defined as a follower of a religion? I don't think so. I mean, referring back to the Catholic priest who essentially came up with the big bang theory, big bang is not a theory agreeable with Christianity yet the person who created the theory was a Catholic priest - and no one argues that he was not true to his faith. A huge number of similar situations have been attested for throughout history. As such, I think it is not necessary to believe in everything proposed by the religious texts. One could say that religion is not framed by the sacred texts, and that these texts merely give the foundation for the personal belief. As such, the religion you believe in might allow for scientific developments without it contradicting your own personal faith, but it might be very different for your neighbour, despite for the fact that you both claim to believe in the same religion. Does this make sense to the ones here who are actually believing in a religion, or is this just some late-night nonsensical rambling? 

[SallyShariff]

I did for a long time not want to involve myself in this debate, as I believe religion, no matter from what angle you look at it, is subjective and this a private thing. It shouldn't matter if one believes or does not believe in religion, we are all humans and should treat each other with respect. The bible says that you should 'love thy neighbour', and that particular phrase does not discriminate against anyone. In other words, it doesn't matter if your neighbour is an atheist, homosexual or of another faith, you should respect that person nonetheless. I am sure there are similar passages in the sacred texts from the other religions. And, as such, no one should be forced to argue in favour or against the existence of god(s), which is why I am not in agreement with the idea that the religious people should prove the existence of god nor the idea that science should disprove its existence. If someone finds strength through faith, isn't that fundamentally a good thing (because, after all, all religions teach us not to cause harm upon others)? Of course, as long as this does not lead to the imposition of those religious ideas upon others, that's something I cannot agree with personally, but I guess that's a slightly different matter. 

 

Now, just before we get into the more substantial things, please understand that I am not religious, nor am I an atheist. I am not saying that god cannot exist no matter what nor am I saying that such an entity exists, as there is currently no conclusive proof for either. I do know that my life philosophies are very compatible with the Buddhist thought, though I do not call myself a Buddhist because I have yet to make my mind up about certain aspects of Buddhism (such as reincarnation), nor have I done a thorough evaluation of most of the other religions and whether or not they provide with a better or worse depiction of the world than Buddhism. However, as for now, I associate myself the most with Buddhism, for the better or worse. I guess I currently is what is defined as an agnostic, though.

 

 

 

 

SallyShariff, I found your post quite interesting, actually. Indeed, does religion and science really contradict? I think there's a fundamental flaw with your argument, though. The sacred texts of all religions need to be interpreted, and, as such, my reading of the Qur'an will be different from yours. For instance, let us consider your first quote from the Qur'an: 

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

Now, you argue that this line is supporting the big bang theory and the idea that the universe is constantly expanding. Yes, that seems to fit very well indeed. I do not claim to know much about the context in which this is written, as I have not read the Qur'an myself, but I can see that this quote, when isolated, can lead to a number of different interpretations. In the modern age, you can see it as a proof for the big bang theory. However, is it not also possible to look at it differently, and assert that this quote actually says that we, the humans, have created the idea of heavens, and by increasing its popularity or influence, we are also 'steadily expanding it'? Now, of course, I understand that the 'we' most likely do not refer to the people at large. In fact, I read through the passage very briefly on a internet page containing all (?) the verses in the Qur'an, and apparently it refers to some guests of Abraham. Who, exactly, these guests are supposed to be is not clear to me, however. It has come across my mind that the 'we' actually could refer to Allah, in which case my attempt at an alternative interpretation is in vain. However, as an isolated quote, in the way you presented it, this is not described at all, and as such, for a person who's not familiar with the Qur'an (which, I presume, is a substantial part of the members here at IBS), such an interpretation is possible too. 

Beyond that, I also happened to come across another page where different versions of the Qur'an is set side by side. It seems like people who work with the Qur'an themselves have understood that phrase differently. For instance, Abdul Daryabadi translated that phrase as 'And the heaven! We have built it with might, and verily We are powerful,' and as such interpreting it very differently from your idea that it confirms the big bang theory. In fact, Daryabadi does not refer to such an expansion of space at all, but rather to the power of the speaker. Now, whether his translation is correct or not, I will leave it to others to decide, but this clearly shows that there are different ways of interpreting that passage, which implies that you might or might not be right in that it actually refers to the big bang. 

 

Also, a point of inquiry: If the Qur'an, with this phrase, actually makes reference to the big bang, then how come this wasn't discussed explicitly in Muslim texts ages ago? Why was it, then, that a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) who established the fundamental scientific building bloc for the big bang theory, and not one whose beliefs would support such a claim? It seems illogical that the discovery would come from someone whose faith says it is impossible when there's another faith, Islam, which, according to you, supports such a theory. 

 

And, apparently, the Qur'an is not scientifically accurate in all parts, even if you argue it is in others. For instance, consider this part, which was translated very similarly in various versions: Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered (Qur'an 15:26). Clearly, here, the Qur'an is saying that humans are created by clay. What? We're clay? I am pretty sure science has proven that we are not clay! 

From the Qur'an 23:14 - Then We turned the sperm-drop into a clot, then We turned the clot into a fetus-lump, then We turned the fetus-lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh; thereafter We developed it into another creature. So, glorious is Allah, the Best of the creators.

So, bones are created before flesh? I am also confident that science has proven that not to be the case. 

 

Clearly, then, the Qur'an and science contradict each other at some points, but can arguably support each other on different points. I'm sure that you'll see the same thing in the Bible, where some things can be interpreted as being compatible with science, and other things incompatible. As is the case with all sacred texts, I am sure. 

 

Now, does that mean that religion and science contradict each other? Not really. As I said previously, religion is personal and subjective, and as a result, it depends on your own interpretations of your religion. Do people really need to believe in everything that is proposed by the religious texts in order to be defined as a follower of a religion? I don't think so. I mean, referring back to the Catholic priest who essentially came up with the big bang theory, big bang is not a theory agreeable with Christianity yet the person who created the theory was a Catholic priest - and no one argues that he was not true to his faith. A huge number of similar situations have been attested for throughout history. As such, I think it is not necessary to believe in everything proposed by the religious texts. One could say that religion is not framed by the sacred texts, and that these texts merely give the foundation for the personal belief. As such, the religion you believe in might allow for scientific developments without it contradicting your own personal faith, but it might be very different for your neighbour, despite for the fact that you both claim to believe in the same religion. Does this make sense to the ones here who are actually believing in a religion, or is this just some late-night nonsensical rambling? 

 

 

What is important to understand is that the Quran is written in Ancient Arabic, and therefore a an attempt on interpreting a translation without understanding or much knowledge on the religion, language and Quran itself will not get you very far my friend

 

All reputable translations are correct however, which there are different versions of due to the complexity of the language, as certain words have double or triple meanings, which adds to the depth and the meaning of the text. However I will try to answer your arguments as best I can.

 

"Also, a point of inquiry: If the Qur'an, with this phrase, actually makes reference to the big bang, then how come this wasn't discussed explicitly in Muslim texts ages ago? Why was it, then, that a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) who established the fundamental scientific building bloc for the big bang theory, and not one whose beliefs would support such a claim? It seems illogical that the discovery would come from someone whose faith says it is impossible when there's another faith, Islam, which, according to you, supports such a theory."

 

I don't really understand what the point your trying to make here tbh. If I'm correct, you're saying, 'Hey the Quran mentions the Big Bang theory, so how come Muslims didn't come up with it first?" 

 

We've only had the technology to make such a discovery quite recently lol. The fact that a Catholic man has made the discovery does not contradict anything and in fact would only add to out understanding of the verse due to the knowledge we have now! Lmao Tell me how someone from the 7th century could have known that God was alluding to the Big Bang?

 

​And yes lol, when it says  'We' it is God referring to himself.

 

Moving on to your next point, until very recently, embryologists assumed that the bones and muscles in an embryo developed at the same time. For this reason, for a long time, some people claimed that these verses conflicted with science. Yet, advanced microscopic research conducted by virtue of new technological developments has revealed that the revelation of the Qur'an is word for word correct.

 

These observations at the microscopic level showed that the development inside the mother's womb takes place in just the way it is described in the verses. First, the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies. Then muscular cells that are selected from amongst the tissue around the bones come together and wrap around the bones.

 

This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

"During the seventh week, the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms."

 

If this isn't enough, heres more on the human embryo: In the Qur'an, it is related that man is created in a three-stage process in the mother's womb.

 

"... He creates you stage by stage in your mothers' wombs in a threefold darkness. That is God, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So what has made you deviate?"

(The Qur'an, 39:6)

 

As will be understood, it is pointed out in this verse that a human being is created in the mother's womb in three distinct stages. Indeed, modern biology has revealed that the baby's embryological development takes place in three distinct regions in the mother's womb. Today, in all the embryology textbooks studied in faculties of medicine, this subject is taken as an element of basic knowledge.

 

For instance in Basic Human Embryology, a fundamental reference text in the field of embryology, this fact is stated as follows: "The life in the uterus has three stages: pre-embryonic; first two and a half weeks, embryonic; until the end of the eight week, and fetal; from the eight week to labor."

 

Again, a book revealed in the 7th Century.

 

Ok now, a very simplistic reading of the text haha. "What??? We're not made of clay!"

 

 When the human body is examined today, it may be discovered that many elements present on the earth are also to be found in the body. Living tissues contain 95% carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur, with a total of 26 different elements. 

 

We created man from an extract of clay. (Qur'an, 23:12)

 

The Arabic word "sulala," translated as "extract" in the verse, means "representative example, essence." As we have seen, the information revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago confirms what modern science tells us-the fact that the same elements are employed in human creation as those found in the soil.

 

 

Alefal, I'm too stubborn, strong-headed and educated to believe something that is obviously false. If my religion told me I was made of fairy dust or something of that sort, you can count me out haha. But it makes sense and the more I learn and research about my faith the more I am confident in what I believe in.

 

And I get what you're saying, however muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. I can't only believe like 75% of what God is saying, y'know? I either believe it, or I don't.

 

It seems that you are kind of confused as to what you believe in, so I wish you luck on your spiritual journey and that you find something you are comfortable with

 

Don't forget, the Quran was revealed to an illiterate man, in the 7th century.