If God created everything, where is he? Above and beyond human comprehension, yet closer to us than our jugular vein. Evidence: an insignificant drop of fluid e.g. sperm to a clinging clot of congealed blood in the wound of the mother, under powerful microsopes, science in the late 1950s have discovered embryology develop in stages,. the human being.
i'm not sure i follow that logic.
is evolution compatable with islam? if not, then embryonic development probably isn't the best example of evidence for god.
The day merges into the night and night merges into day in a very calm and beautiful way. The estimated twenty thousand who died today and the suffering throughout history. It HAS to be made right.
that doesn't answer the question about anecdotal evidence. in fact, the day to night, night to day, almost sounds like you're saying god created evil to balance good? or did i get that wrong?
this whole thing of temporary life is a TEST.
what proof do we have that life is a test?
in every examination, there are a clearly defined set of rules. why though, are there so many conflicting rules out there?
we have had rules based on multiple gods, one god and no god.
we have had rules requiring animal sacrafice, human sacrafice and no sacrafice, at least none with blood.
some of these rules are in direct contradiction to the very nature that god, if he exists, created.
depending on which book of rules you choose to abide by, there are some very out of date methods of punishment.
that also begs the question of why this test has had so many different rules when we are all humans?
why does god allow his rule book to to be twisted in order to appease the selfish interests of evil men, thereby leading astray people who only wanted to serve him right...but causing them to do great harm to others?
Do what is right and be patient. So this whole God thing will make some sense and give us some real peace. I understand your feelings. Salaam, peace.
we live in a universe where the natural laws that the creator, if there is one, set with very strict, logic based guidelines.
true understanding came from using a very clinical method of getting to the crux of the matter.
these methods have completely changed our view of the solar system
these methods have allowed us to go from rocks and sticks to metal alloys, composites and electronics.
these methods have greatly altered our understanding of human behavior
and they have allowed us to make huge leaps and bounds in our understanding of the human body, allowing us to understand and come up with cures for diseases, understand the aging process slowly but surely, and they've changed our understanding of how the human body develops, as you mentioned...from the womb on up.
when applied to the information gleaned from the rule books, the rule books fall flat.
- there is plenty of homosexuality in nature. we have observable evidence of this.
From the university of Oslo:
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher.
so if god made nature, but homosexuality is a sin, why is so much of creation involved in a practice that is abhorent?
- sanctity of life in regards to abortion...
from the american pregnancy association
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
why do animals eat their young?
these aspects of nature seem to stand in direct contradiction to the teachings of today's religious institutions which base their teachings on the rule books from the creator of nature.
as i've mentioned the natural laws were only discovered using clinical techniques for investigation. everything required hard data. everything we know is provable and replicable by anyone. we can verify basic concepts of evolutionary science/biology, astronomy, physics and chemistry on our own.
we know better than to simply take fantastical sayings at word value without supporting evidence. if someone walks up to us and says the sky is green do we believe that? do we believe something of that nature when all the evidence points to blue? especially when we investigate by asking others what their data/observations are as to the color of the sky. so this one guy says green, all the data points to blue, do we accept that?
why then, would we rely on a prophet or miracles?
we have no evidence for a worldwide flood that necessitated building an ark that could hold 2 of every creature, and the only people who had any empirical evidence for a global flood and the existence of a boat in which 2 of every animal was successfully herded into and peacefully comingled for 40 days and 40 nights of that cannot backup their claims in a manner consistent with the methods of investigation which have provided truths and cleared away falsehoods from our understanding of the universe.
do we take their word that the sky is green? or do we call him out on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
we have no evidence that it is possible for someone to survive in the stomach of an animal for 3 days without access to oxygen or water, and it's very hard to imagine that one could survive in that environment without proper protection from the gastric acids. so far, there are no documented cases of someone survivng for even one day after being swallowed whole by an animal and the only person with any empirical evidence to this even being possible cannot backup their claims in a manner consistent with the methods of investigation which have provided truths and cleared away falsehoods from our understanding of the universe.
do we take their word that the sky is green? or do we call him out on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
there are tales of an exodus from egypt, and and an ark which has powers to melt your face off, but we have no evidence of either. now of course an artifact could be lost or missing, but no evidence for an exodus in which supposedly thousands escaped by truly miraculous ways, crossed a sea in an astounding manner, and spent 40 years wandering in a wilderness in which they didn't even write, "jacob was here" for us to find later is a bit of a stretch to say the least. none of those people with empirical empirical evidence that ANY of this was possible can backup their claims in a manner consistent with the methods of investigation which have provided truths and cleared away falsehoods from our understanding of the universe.
so...do we take their word that the sky is green? or do we call him out on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
we can go through this with every major religion, past and present.
i mentioned miracles that for sure jewish people hold dear, but these are also a part of the rule book for christians who hold that all these scriptures are inspired and beneficial for teaching and all that right? the christians too, have a LOT, frankly a LOT MORE in my opinion, to verify because none of the people in the jewish tradition had a virgin birth, or were god's son. at the very least, it was natural births and normal fathers. and he's a king in heaven now, or something like that. that's a lot to chew on and absolutely no evidence that any such thing ever happened. in islam, i believe it seems from wikipedia, that the prophet had to go to heaven to receive the qu'ran. buddha went through years of trials and if i remember right, at one point spent 40 days without food or water until someone gave him some milk among so many other miraculous events. interesting parallel to the christ, i must say...
we, and none of the 7 billion + people on this planet have any empirical evidence that any of this stuff is possible, unless you know of someone who can walk on water. literally, not figuratively.
is the sky their color? or the color 7 billion others have seen? and their parents, and their parents, so forth and so on.
science, critical thinking and data have taught us about the rain cycle and weather patterns. a natural phenomenon discovered by the methods used to discover the other natural laws that govern the universe that was supposedly created. this has allowed us to stop worshipping the sun and rain gods. we no longer have to perform animal or human sacrafices in order to appease the sun or rain gods thanks to science, critical thikning and hard data.
after careful study of our earth and space using the techniques that have clarified our understanding of the natural universe, we no longer believe in any of the old creation mythologies. why this one? especially when the tried and true methodologies explicitly state that we must have hard evidence and that we must present that data for all to see and look over critically.
i would think no one could honestly claim we have hard, observational data pointing to the existence of god. this stands in stark contradiction to the god who created all things that could only be properly understood by way of hard data.
the existence of life is not synonymous with the existence of god. the existence of the universe is not synonymous with the existence of god.
i see the same thing over and over.
Evidence that it was created by an intelligent being is the Big Bang itself and the creative expansion it provided.
how is the big bang evidence of a creator? it is simply evidence of a big bang. why that bang occured must be investigated, one cannot simply argue that it is somehow evidence.
this is usually accompanied by the line of reasoning which goes, "well what started it then? it came from nothing??? how does something come from nothing???"
yes, how? by that line of reasoning, who created the creator? who created the creator that created the creator? who created the creator that created the creator that created THAT creator? did those creators simply spring from nothing? what materials did the creators use to create the subsequent creators that created the creator that created the universe? or, if there were no creators that created the creator, what material did the creator use to create the universe? did that material spring ffrom nothing? if so, what then, is the difference between the universe springing from nothing from a creator, as opposed to a universe that sprang forth out of nothing without the help of a creator?
never mind that there might not have necessarily been nothing according to some theories.
we know of spontaneous reactions such as dropping a group 1a element like sodium into water. this is something anyone can do. sort of. small piece of sodium if you do. empirical evidence shows spontaneous reactions occur. so it would seem at least as plausible that the universe could have come from a spontaneous reaction requiring no outside input.
Also, the fact that we (matter) transcended into moral creatures 13.7 billion years later.
how is this proof? other animals have their own codes of sorts. some are nice, whereas male lions eat other male lion's cubs. some species even eat some of their own eggs. where is the moral consistency from the god that created morals? better yet, where is the moral consistency considering the corruption that permeates the fabric of seemingly every religion? or the moral consistency when we consider the atrocities religion (the means by which moral creatures have tried to submit themselves to god) has brought upon the world.
the existence of life, in and of itself, in no way is proof that there is a creator. it is simply proof that the conditions on earth were right for life. nothing more, nothing less. there are some unproven theories as to how life could have occured and none of them require the variable known as "god". the same goes for the existence of the universe. the conditions were right for it.
