Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
superman

Cosmological Argument

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, superman said:

Theory of human evolution contradicts with Islam.

 

I saw a long video about this topic with a panel on it (Yasir Qadhi was there). The Muslim Biologists said that human evolution is very real, whereas the theologian (Yasir Qadhi) was saying that Allah created Adam and Eve directly. However he did clarify that Allah could have put Adam and Eve within the chain of primates to make it look like people evolved.. but that seems kinda reaching imo.

 

The only thing we know for sure is Allah created mankind from soil which actually contains all the organic compounds necessary to facilitate life. Whether this was through evolution, putting us in the evolutionary chain or just flat out creation doesn't really matter tbh, as all these theories can be explored given that none of them are establishable as irrefutable facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, superman said:

It probably is unreliable, just like Roman history in some aspects. But that doesn't make it useless -  just biased.

 

Yes, history can be biased. You can say "probably" to pretty much anything.

 

However, if you have no evidence or reasoning at all to say that something is biased, then rather it is you who is being biased. So going back, if history tells us that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasalam) was illiterate and that people were amazed when they heard him reciting the Quran for the first time, is that biased or not? You're probably going to answer "I don't know." But remember, there is more historical support for the idea that he was illiterate than otherwise, so shouldn't you be more inclined to believe that?

 

2 hours ago, superman said:

Nah - if we consider there could be thousands of theories for the origins of the universe - and God is just one of them... then its probably not that likely he does exist. I don't really have much more of an answer than that lol.

 

So I'd say you are leaning more towards atheism (as opposed to theism). I pray that this isn't something permanent though.

 

2 hours ago, superman said:

The Quran does have a slight issue in it's compilation. Western historians would use that as an opportunity to say that the Prophet's message has probably changed, but those who are deep in faith will say the Quran is uncorrupted. For me, faith is not enough by itself.

 

It depends on which historical account of the Quran has more weight and strength. It's not a black and white thing, but a matter of balancing which side's argument is stronger. And you said there is a "slight" issue. So, would you agree that the Muslim view of the Quran is a stronger position than those who might say that the Quran has changed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Haku said:

Frankly, your science and logic are pretty sloppy, only a shade better than Spiders.

 

So do you think there is a rational base behind your emaan, at all? If so, then I'd like to hear it, because you keep criticizing our own logic but you don't offer your own. Lol.

 

You should explain at least (and most likely I'll agree with you). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Haku said:

 

if you saw that long video, you'd have seen everyone in the panel except for the Harun Yahya representative concluded evolution is not incompatible with Islam. Yasir Qadhi maintains evidence of evolution doesn't contradict Islam, but the narrative is different. i.e., he believes (according to his interpretation) Adam and Eve were created directly but the observed chain of evolution doesn't contradict that narrative.

Frankly, your science and logic are pretty sloppy, only a shade better than Spiders.

 

EDIT: To the part in bold - yea there's a fallacy here I am sure of it. If I have a theory, and some evidence contradicts it, I can rework the narrative so that it fits in with my theory again. Kind of like what they did when they tried to justify the ether, or fit the motions of stars with the geocentric model. That is if you are saying Adam and Eve were put directly into the chain of primates.

 

If that isn't what you are talking about - then what evidence did Yasir Qadhi bring to support his position?

 

What is exactly sloppy about my logic? You know, it's quite upsetting when I spend the time and effort to talk about topics like these and all you can say in reply is "that was sloppy logic bro." Honestly, it just makes you sound insecure about your position.

 

As to my science being sloppy - I haven't really used scientific rationale here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spider said:

 

Yes, history can be biased. You can say "probably" to pretty much anything.

 

However, if you have no evidence or reasoning at all to say that something is biased, then rather it is you who is being biased. So going back, if history tells us that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasalam) was illiterate and that people were amazed when they heard him reciting the Quran for the first time, is that biased or not? You're probably going to answer "I don't know." But remember, there is more historical support for the idea that he was illiterate than otherwise, so shouldn't you be more inclined to believe that?

 

 

So I'd say you are leaning more towards atheism (as opposed to theism). I pray that this isn't something permanent though.

 

 

It depends on which historical account of the Quran has more weight and strength. It's not a black and white thing, but a matter of balancing which side's argument is stronger. And you said there is a "slight" issue. So, would you agree that the Muslim view of the Quran is a stronger position than those who might say that the Quran has changed?

 

 

So if most of the history of Islam is written by Muslims - then yes it is biased. Because Muslims will believe certain things and interpret events in a certain light. Now - if you can show me a source written by a non Muslim historian saying how beautiful the Quran is then that is a strong source.

 

Also even if he was illiterate how does that stop him from producing beautiful poems? Furthermore the Quran was compiled in written form years after his death - whose to say it was not changed in that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spider said:

 

It depends on which historical account of the Quran has more weight and strength. It's not a black and white thing, but a matter of balancing which side's argument is stronger. And you said there is a "slight" issue. So, would you agree that the Muslim view of the Quran is a stronger position than those who might say that the Quran has changed?

 

 

The issue is the compilation of the Quran after the Prophets death. You do interpret things strangely sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spider said:

 

So I'd say you are leaning more towards atheism (as opposed to theism). I pray that this isn't something permanent though.

 

 

I don't want to burn in hell either, but how can I truly believe something without proof or logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mo- said:

 

The only thing we know for sure is Allah created mankind from soil which actually contains all the organic compounds necessary to facilitate life. Whether this was through evolution, putting us in the evolutionary chain or just flat out creation doesn't really matter tbh, as all these theories can be explored given that none of them are establishable as irrefutable facts. 

 

You don't even need to go that far - God could have created us from anything. But I really can't see a reason to believe in Islam. If you could give me one I am all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Islam can be rationally proven. It's a test to believe. There are things that points to it. Depending on where you choose to stand, you can keep finding circumstantial evidence to support the faith or reject it.

that is my personal conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to add, proving Islam is one thing. Disproving it is another. If you apply the same rigor you require of proofs for Islam, then you'll see that all arguments put forth to disprove Islam falls apart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, superman said:

So if most of the history of Islam is written by Muslims - then yes it is biased. Because Muslims will believe certain things and interpret events in a certain light. Now - if you can show me a source written by a non Muslim historian saying how beautiful the Quran is then that is a strong source.

 

There could be some bias, yes, but you have no way to tell exactly to what degree it is biased and which parts of Islamic history is biased. Any judgement on these two things is ultimately bound to come down to a matter of trust (or, alternatively, faith).

 

8 hours ago, superman said:

Also even if he was illiterate how does that stop him from producing beautiful poems?

 

There is an astounding amount of complex rhetorical features found throughout the Quran. Also, actually the Quran is neither prose nor poetry. It is, essentially, a speech, but the rhythm and style of the speech is so unique that it's hard to put it into a precise literary category. All things considered, it would be extraordinary to think that the Quran is the work of single person, let alone someone who is illiterate. Of course, I'm not saying that this is 100% proof that the Quran has a divine origin, but it is a powerful argument which should appeal to a rational mind.

 

8 hours ago, superman said:

Furthermore the Quran was compiled in written form years after his death - whose to say it was not changed in that time?

 

The Quran was compiled years after his death, yes. But then again, you said that history written by Muslims is going to be biased. And what you know about the compilation of the Quran is itself known through Islamic history. So the question is, how come you are willing to accept that as a reliable history instead of being biased? Do you just arbitrarily decide which parts of Islamic history to trust and which parts to cast doubts on? How do you know if your own approach is consistent or not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, superman said:

Now - if you can show me a source written by a non Muslim historian saying how beautiful the Quran is then that is a strong source.

 

There is not one but many, many quotes by non-Muslim scholars and historians that acknowledge this.

 

Here are just a few:

 

"The Qur'an in its original Arabic dress has a seductive beauty and charm of its own. Couched in concise and exalted style, its brief pregnant sentences, often rhymed, possess an expressive force and explosive energy which it is extremely difficult to convey by literal word for word translation." - John Naish, The Wisdom of the Quran, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937, Preface, p. VIII

 

"It [the Quran] has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it" - Alfred Guillaume, Islam, Penguin Books, London, Reprint (1990), pp. 73-74

 

Hamilton Gibb, the famous Arabist from the University of Oxford, wrote:

 

"As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style ... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality." - H. A. R. Gibb, Arabic Literature - An Introduction, 1963, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. 36

 

There are countless more non-Muslim intellectuals who have echoed the same sentiments regarding the Quran, such as Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de Lamartine (1790-1869), a Frenc poet, writer, and politician, Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889-1975), a British historian, Hans Kung (b. 1928), a Swiss Catholic priest and a prolific author, John Louis Esposito (b. 1940), a Georgetown University Professor of Islamic studies, and so on and so forth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, superman said:

I don't want to burn in hell either, but how can I truly believe something without proof or logic.

 

Well, earlier you said that sometimes you can "couple faith with evidence and logic." But I would personally replace the words "evidence and logic" with "rational thinking," because evidence and logic by definition are too tight and rigorous. In other words, if you truly had evidence and logic for a particular claim, then there would be no room for faith, because you can never go wrong with evidence and logic.

 

And so the same applies to believing in Islam; it's a combination of faith and some rationalizing of the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Haku said:

I don't think Islam can be rationally proven. It's a test to believe. There are things that points to it. Depending on where you choose to stand, you can keep finding circumstantial evidence to support the faith or reject it.

that is my personal conclusion.

 

What are those things, exactly?


I'm not asking for any solid and rigorous proofs, of course. I just want you to be specific with regards to the comment in bold. You ridiculing my arguments for Islam and my faith suggests that you think that your own rationale for faith is better than mine, so I'd like to hear those.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Haku said:

to add, proving Islam is one thing. Disproving it is another. If you apply the same rigor you require of proofs for Islam, then you'll see that all arguments put forth to disprove Islam falls apart.

 

Islam is a claim. The burden of proof is on the believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×