A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
I think these guys are talking from a purely scientific/experimental point of view. The point they are trying to make is that since, at the time, there was no evidence for the existence of electromagnetic waves 3000 years ago, scientifically one would have said, at the time, that in all probability there is no such thing as an electromagnetic wave. That's how science works, something only exists (scientifically) once there is sufficient evidence and there is sufficient statistical significance (meaning that the results are most likely not due t chance). Science cannot work on the premise that something may exist but we can't prove it yet, you always assume the thing does not exist until it can be proven with high confidence that it does exist - the NULL hypothesis.
I agree with the bolded part completely and from that point of view they would be correct,but this isn't science so why take such a narrow minded approach to it,I understand how science works and why science works and how the null hypothesis was developed because I have studied,physics,mathematics and chemistry extensively and I enjoy it,the point is why try to make science your scapegoat to disprove religion,thats not the purpose of science is it.

The absolute existence of something logically does not need science to be able to prove it.The scientific model was developed to prove how the world works and render factual predictable results based on facts and evidence.I'm a huge fan of science but I don't understand why some people see the need to use it incorrectly to supersede logic.
 
Last edited:

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
I agree with falcon in that science cannot be used to disprove some parts of religions. Keep in mind though that a lot of claims within religions are physical ones and those can often be disproved. Claims like a literal Genesis creation for example.

The parts science can't disprove are the metaphysical claims. Things like "your soul goes to some spiritual realm after you die" or "my deity exists". However, while science cannot disprove these things, if you want to approach this world in a scientific manner then you should probably discard those claims as they have no support. This is ultimately how science works. It doesn't mean that the thing you discard is necessarily false, but that one cannot assume that it is true without throwing the scientific method out the window.

This is part of my whole "religion usually involves some anti-science" thing. Those who hold to their religious ideas are tossing out the scientific method as a reliable way to find the truth and instead are relying on faith. It isn't so bad when those who are relying on faith have resigned their deity to an entity that has zero measurable effect on the physical world... but then that deity is kind of a pointless and impotent deity anyway.
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
I agree with the bolded part completely and from that point of view they would be correct,but this isn't science so why take such a narrow minded approach to it,I understand how science works and why science works and how the null hypothesis was developed because I have studied,physics,mathematics and chemistry extensively and I enjoy it,the point is why try to make science your scapegoat to disprove religion,thats not the purpose of science is it.

The absolute existence of something logically does not need science to be able to prove it.The scientific model was developed to prove how the world works and render factual predictable results based on facts and evidence.I'm a huge fan of science but I don't understand why some people see the need to use it incorrectly to supersede logic.
Honestly Falcon, How is it logical to presume that something exists that you cannot feel, touch, taste, smell or see. Yet it is illogical for me to state that based on this, I am not going to put any weight behind the claim? Logic is bound to our physical realm just as much as science is, so how can you justify hijacking the one for your purposes, yet dismissing the other? It's just illogical.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Trying to play GOD?You've seen wrong I'm afraid, try another game maybe you'll be better at it.

Point is I believe its at your own cost if you don't wanna believe then thats your problem
I think you need to read up on Pascal's Wager, because that is the textbook claim right there. Nice try at turning it around onto me though..... not really. ;)

The fact is you don't have facts and neither do I at least I can admit it.Thats the difference,you seem to think you have scientific evidence of something not existing just because you haven't found it lol.Even more ironic is that it was never meant to be found.
You just don't seem to get my point of view. I have never said that I have all the facts. I have simply stated that you have none of the facts, therefor it is erroneous for you to make a claim when you don't have facts to back it up. I am not talking about Scientific facts here, I am merely talking about facts of any kind.
You can believe whatever you want, but don't think that that makes your beliefs beyond reproach. You believe that your religion adds value to your life. I believe that your religion inhibits the advancement of the human race.

So for me it is not about proving that your God does not exist, it is about helping people to free themselves from the oppressive cloak of religion. You can believe that there was a creator all you want. Hell, I even entertain the idea sometimes when considering the origins of matter and the universe. It is not the idea of a creator that I am opposed to, it is the deceitful and poisonous tenets of religion.

Except that electro magnetic waves did actually exist and probably always have,the people were just ignorant of its existence.Ignorance from the point of an observer does not change somethings existence.Thats my point.
Yes they did, but if your example that inside our planet is a gyroscope. The claim would have been just as unfounded, and later would have been shown to be wrong. So just because an analogy of something that does exist was selected, does not mean that your claim is more likely to be one that exists.

Neither of us have the facts, that is true. But only ONE of us is making a claim, absent of any facts.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Honestly Falcon, How is it logical to presume that something exists that you cannot feel, touch, taste, smell or see. Yet it is illogical for me to state that based on this, I am not going to put any weight behind the claim? Logic is bound to our physical realm just as much as science is, so how can you justify hijacking the one for your purposes, yet dismissing the other? It's just illogical.
I disagree that logic is bound to our physical world. It is used to demonstrate abstract principles all the time in mathematics for example.

I think we can all agree that there is not much that is "physical" when it comes to mathematics. One cannot see, touch, taste, smell or feel the work of Pythagoras, but one can prove the claims logically.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
I am not talking about Scientific facts here, I am merely talking about facts of any kind.
I'm not familiar with another kind of fact other than a scientific one. Could you provide an example of a non-scientific fact so I can better understand this?
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
I disagree that logic is bound to our physical world. It is used to demonstrate abstract principles all the time in mathematics for example.

I think we can all agree that there is not much that is "physical" when it comes to mathematics. One cannot see, touch, taste, smell or feel the work of Pythagoras, but one can prove the claims logically.
Okay sure I see your point. My mistake.

I'm not familiar with another kind of fact other than a scientific one. Could you provide an example of a non-scientific fact so I can better understand this?
I think that is the point. That surely if you can make metaphysical claims then there should be metaphysical facts to support those claims.

Anyway this is a bottomless pit of nonsense that I probably should not have gone down.

My point is only that a metaphysical claim is made, ie that there is an afterlife. Then the acceptance of that as true, makes people change the way they live and act in this life. Often to the negative side of the scale. Which is why I find the notion of an afterlife quite horrible. If there were no real world repercussions to believing this, then I would have no problem with the idea at all.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,780
I'm not familiar with another kind of fact other than a scientific one. Could you provide an example of a non-scientific fact so I can better understand this?
Hmmm interesting question and im just think out loud here so bear with me, could we not have facts on morals, ethics or history that are not based on scientific inquiry? I feel an argument like this could just all come down to definitions.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Okay sure I see your point. My mistake.



I think that is the point. That surely if you can make metaphysical claims then there should be metaphysical facts to support those claims.

Anyway this is a bottomless pit of nonsense that I probably should not have gone down.

My point is only that a metaphysical claim is made, ie that there is an afterlife. Then the acceptance of that as true, makes people change the way they live and act in this life. Often to the negative side of the scale. Which is why I find the notion of an afterlife quite horrible. If there were no real world repercussions to believing this, then I would have no problem with the idea at all.
Actually I may have answered my own question. There are facts in mathematics but they aren't usually based upon empirical evidence like a scientific fact is.

I agree though that mathematics and the metaphysical world are not the same thing. One should still expect a reliable method upon which unified confirmation of a conclusion is consistently obtained. (if you want that form of inquiry to be taken seriously that is)
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Actually I may have answered my own question. There are facts in mathematics but they aren't usually based upon empirical evidence like a scientific fact is.

I agree though that mathematics and the metaphysical world are not the same thing. One should still expect a reliable method upon which unified confirmation of a conclusion is consistently obtained. (if you want that form of inquiry to be taken seriously that is)
My original answer was actually going to be. "Ummmmmmm Pythagoras"? But then you asked for non scientific fact, not non physical fact. I would say that Mathematics is still scientific even though it is not physical. Of course you could build a model of a triangle and test Pythagoras' theorems. And I suppose you could essentially build a model or test for any mathematical equation. The scale of the physical models are sometimes beyond our capabilities to fabricate , but fundamentally everything can be tested physically.

Granted I am no mathematician and do not know quite how the really advanced formula would be physically tested.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
My original answer was actually going to be. "Ummmmmmm Pythagoras"? But then you asked for non scientific fact, not non physical fact. I would say that Mathematics is still scientific even though it is not physical. Of course you could build a model of a triangle and test Pythagoras' theorems. And I suppose you could essentially build a model or test for any mathematical equation. The scale of the physical models are sometimes beyond our capabilities to fabricate , but fundamentally everything can be tested physically.

Granted I am no mathematician and do not know quite how the really advanced formula would be physically tested.
Mathematics isn't really regarded as a science as it doesn't function on empirical evidence. Its heavy foundations of logic and peer review however put it closer to science than to anywhere else in practice.

Still a scientific fact is usually something empirical or stemming from the empirical. Mathematics contains none (or at least very little) of that. That is all I was saying.

As to the triangle we can't actually construct a triangle in our world. Triangles are two dimensional. Triangles exist only in the abstract as does a Cartesian plane. We can construct some representative of a triangle in order to demonstrate the abstract concept (we do this when we draw in mathematics notebooks or in modelling programs) however those aren't actual triangles.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Mathematics isn't really regarded as a science as it doesn't function on empirical evidence. Its heavy foundations of logic and peer review however put it closer to science than to anywhere else in practice.

Still a scientific fact is usually something empirical or stemming from the empirical. Mathematics contains none (or at least very little) of that. That is all I was saying.

As to the triangle we can't actually construct a triangle in our world. Triangles are two dimensional. Triangles exist only in the abstract as does a Cartesian plane. We can construct some representative of a triangle in order to demonstrate the abstract concept (we do this when we draw in mathematics notebooks or in modelling programs) however those aren't actual triangles.
Now you are nitpicking. Circles don't exist in our world either as they are two dimensional. But I can still take the measurements of the rim of my cereal bowl and apply Pi and other equations to it as though it were a two dimensional circle, because I ignore the 3rd dimension for the purposes of my measurements.

I agree with the rest though. That maths is more firmly routed in logic than physical science. But it can still be tested for, which the metaphysical cannot be.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Now you are nitpicking. Circles don't exist in our world either as they are two dimensional. But I can still take the measurements of the rim of my cereal bowl and apply Pi and other equations to it as though it were a two dimensional circle, because I ignore the 3rd dimension for the purposes of my measurements.
It isn't nitpicking. That is what is happening. You are using your cereal bowl top edge as a representation of a circle in order to demonstrate an abstract concept using physical objects. However your physical object is still not actually a circle. As weird as it may sound circles exist only in our minds.


I agree with the rest though. That maths is more firmly routed in logic than physical science. But it can still be tested for, which the metaphysical cannot be.
Sure but testing alone is not what constitutes science. It needs to be empirical or at least at some point based off of something empirical. Mathematics doesn't have to be. I agree with your point, it isn't comparable to what happens with metaphysical religious stuff. There is still a reliable framework in mathematics for the testing and we don't see that in religion.

I'm just amazed that it never occurred to me that I deal with non-scientific facts all the time. Mathematics. Duh. Silly me.
 
Last edited:

senyetse

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
791
That's where metaphysics/religion falls apart for me. The logic of maths and science is sound. You can expect consistent results. 1+1 is always 2. With religion that is not the case, anything is possible. It does not fit with what we observe in the real world. With religion, anything is possible. The fact that there are so many different religions and the fact that there are so many different versions within just one of those religions(Christianity, I know nothing of Islam so can't comment) is a problem for me. How can any one of these religions claim to know the ultimate truth (which many do) when there are so many different (and often conflicting) versions? An ultimate truth from an almighty creator should not be subject to misinterpretation, it should be bullet proof, consistent, logical, unchanging. The inconsistency in religion and the scriptures lead me to suspect that it is all man-made and not divinely inspired.
 
Last edited:

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
I think you need to read up on Pascal's Wager, because that is the textbook claim right there. Nice try at turning it around onto me though..... not really. ;)
Please dont take this personally but I think you need to read up on hypothesis in which neither can be proven firstly before you go on about science and continue making it your whipping boy.As for Pascal's wager I've been down that road a long time ago boet,but the fact that you would rather regard my answer as ignorance shows that you need to get your head out of you know where and listen to what I'm writing instead of guessing what I mean,I was not using pascal's wager at all in this instance.



You just don't seem to get my point of view. I have never said that I have all the facts. I have simply stated that you have none of the facts, therefor it is erroneous for you to make a claim when you don't have facts to back it up. I am not talking about Scientific facts here, I am merely talking about facts of any kind.
You can believe whatever you want, but don't think that that makes your beliefs beyond reproach. You believe that your religion adds value to your life. I believe that your religion inhibits the advancement of the human race.

So for me it is not about proving that your God does not exist, it is about helping people to free themselves from the oppressive cloak of religion. You can believe that there was a creator all you want. Hell, I even entertain the idea sometimes when considering the origins of matter and the universe. It is not the idea of a creator that I am opposed to, it is the deceitful and poisonous tenets of religion.
Sounds like you wanna start your own religion,maybe you'll call it "atheism".There are two types of atheist and I have been fortunate enough to meet many of both types,those that see it as religion and want the whole world to convert because then they would feel better about themselves and they preach atheism therefore making it a religion(take for example this very thread how you have hijacked a thread related to Islam and evolution to further your atheist beliefs) and then you get actual atheists who realize "hey look I don't know whats out there and I don't wanna go follow religion x and y because they sound far fetched to me so I'll go on with my life and enjoy it until I find the truth if ever."




Yes they did, but if your example that inside our planet is a gyroscope. The claim would have been just as unfounded, and later would have been shown to be wrong. So just because an analogy of something that does exist was selected, does not mean that your claim is more likely to be one that exists.

Neither of us have the facts, that is true. But only ONE of us is making a claim, absent of any facts.
Its not a "CLAIM",I don't CLAIM to know the existence of GOD as a fact,I simply believe there is a GOD.Belief is personal not scientific or a claim or factual.I think thats what you are failing to grasp.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
The inconsistency in religion and the scriptures lead me to suspect that it is all man-made and not divinely inspired.
then you get actual atheists who realize "hey look I don't know whats out there and I don't wanna go follow religion x and y because they sound far fetched to me so I'll go on with my life and enjoy it until I find the truth if ever."

I'm beginning to to think you are an actual atheist,rather than someone trying make a religion out of it ;)
I can understand what your doubts are...
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
My point is only that a metaphysical claim is made, ie that there is an afterlife. Then the acceptance of that as true, makes people change the way they live and act in this life. Often to the negative side of the scale. Which is why I find the notion of an afterlife quite horrible. If there were no real world repercussions to believing this, then I would have no problem with the idea at all.
Unless you can quantify this how can you make this claim?Lets talk science since you claim to be basing your notions on science.

Come on scientifically prove this claim and I'll concede that your are not making atheism a religion.Because as it stands right now it seems you have absolutely no proof of this claim.:whistling:
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,104
Haven't been following the altercation but I have some comments:
Sounds like you wanna start your own religion,maybe you'll call it "atheism".There are two types of atheist and I have been fortunate enough to meet many of both types,those that see it as religion and want the whole world to convert because then they would feel better about themselves and they preach atheism therefore making it a religion(take for example this very thread how you have hijacked a thread related to Islam and evolution to further your atheist beliefs)
Wanting to convert people to your way of thinking doesn't make your way of thinking a religion. Religion has a very specific use in the English language.

Also what are "atheist beliefs"?


then you get actual atheists who realize "hey look I don't know whats out there and I don't wanna go follow religion x and y because they sound far fetched to me so I'll go on with my life and enjoy it until I find the truth if ever."
For many atheists I have encountered it isn't nearly as subjective as "this sounds far fetched". It is more a case of "why believe this stuff?... where is your evidence?... where is your proof?...".


Its not a "CLAIM",I don't CLAIM to know the existence of GOD as a fact,I simply believe there is a GOD.Belief is personal not scientific or a claim or factual.I think thats what you are failing to grasp.
If you believe your deity exists then it means you have accepted that that statement, that claim (God exists), is true. In other words you are basically saying "yes, God exists. This is true.".

It doesn't mean you don't entertain the possibility that you might be wrong, but it does mean you accept the idea as true at this point. You should be able to provide a good reason as to why you accept it. For example I believe evolution is true. I could be wrong about it, and I'm prepared to change my stance should convincing evidence be presented, but I am able to provide reasons for why I accept evolution to be true at this time.
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Unless you can quantify this how can you make this claim?Lets talk science since you claim to be basing your notions on science.

Come on scientifically prove this claim and I'll concede that your are not making atheism a religion.Because as it stands right now it seems you have absolutely no proof of this claim.:whistling:
Terrorist bombings, Crusades, Inquisitions, Female Oppression, Scientific Oppression, Fake Faith Healings that suck the money out of honest yet gullible patrons, Stances on: Condoms as a preventative measure for aids, Gay Rights, Abortion, Genetic Experimentation, Stem cell research, Stoning Apostates.
The inability to find peace in the middle east because of differing religions, the list goes on.

All of these can be linked to Religion. Care to deny them?
 
Top