Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism
Wow at each and every single word. Not even atheists want to equal God with Harry Potter despite all the painstaking efforts to disprove His existence.
Secondly, another major wow, that is photons, pain , black holes can be measured. Go back and read again i wrote “seen” i never spoke of measured. Who cares measured or not when eyes are not seeing then why believe they exist, if God's existence has to challenged on a similar context.
I never said God is too huge to be measured, I instead said, if aforementioned processes like such can't be seen but felt then the entity behind the entire creation, how can He go unfelt.
Then the questions: 1. Which sceintific evidences suggest God exists?
Here is a verse I am quoting : "He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness." [Al-Qur'an 39:6] ** Do some search yourself and find out what three veils of darkness are? How many of us not well-versed in internal human body environment and how processes work knew of this already. How many parents before becoming parents knew of this. And these questions I am asking hold no significance either, as science has already proved this ever since the inventions of microscopes, sonography equipments, heck even **possibly(emphasizing possibly because history has given no such evidence yet, but still giving some room for doubt) since the introduction of C-sections that even predate sonos, micros etc. The century in which this verse was revealed: 7[SUP]th[/SUP] century. C section are known to mankind, oh yes I had to google it, since 16th century. The rest of the scientific inventions followed. And even the scientist admit the instruments inability to study human anatomy in intricate details. The prophet was not a magician. No magician ever revealed this information. Then how he narrated this information in these verses? Since, above quoted information was what I discovered on my own and it had exactly nothing to do with google search and am no science dignitary, and scientific-evidence seekers still seeking out more, for them whether enough or not, I am quoting a scientific authority’s statement here: “Prof. Marshall Johnson is one of the leading scientists in US, and is the head of the Department of Anatomy and Director of the Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in US. He was asked to comment on the verses of the Qur'an dealing with embryology. He said that the verses of the Qur'an describing the embryological stages cannot be a coincidence. He said it was probable that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a powerful microscope. On being reminded that the Qur'an was revealed 1,400 years ago, and microscopes were invented centuries after the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Prof. Johnson laughed and admitted that the first microscope invented could not magnify more than 10 times and could not show a clear picture. Later he said: "I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that Divine intervention was involved when Muhammad (peace be upon him) recited the Qur'an.”
And that is just one example i have quoted from Quran. I am not claiming Quran to be a book of science. If God to had to write a science book He wouldn't have given us a brain to go, research, think logically, do inventions. He gave us cues. Showed the connections. Elsewise He might have given a separate book on science only covering that and a brainless head to humans.
- Which sceintific evidence that has been proven false is used or 'cherrypicked' by atheists to further their cause?
May be you need to go back and read the posts even more carefully. I never said scientific evidences picked by atheists to prove their point were later proven wrong (the scientific evidences). I said they pick scientific arguments that suit their need and focus more on their cause, to negate God's existence. Back to your question, current day science has already proved the evolution theories to be highly fallacious and flawed. The study of human genes reveals it is not possible for humans to Here are important questions: Prove evolution of eyes through natural selection. If life is to grow out on its own, then why there is no life of mars, despite the presence of water. No evolution theory could explain the origin of matter, space or time. If humans had evolved on their own, then how come men and women’s reproductive systems not independent of each other, not designed as the way they are, working in pairs. A man could hold an egg whilst another guy producing sperm and a woman could produce sperm and another egg. Why such perfect synchronization? DNA of every species is exclusive and natural selection cannot transform one species’ in to another’s. Have you heard of humans displaying signs of natural selection based on environment? Seriously a thought that really bothered me is why if evolved from maankeys, then why there still are monkeys and apes. Shouldn’t they all have gone extinct or evolved into humaaans. And why haven’t we evolved further into something else. Like kakaballi evolving into beautiful mermaid wooed by evolutionists. The list is very long. How still you see theory of evolution carrying more weightage when even the evolutionists run out of arguments.
And then as you say: If 'some' atheists say something rediculous, please highlight that and ridicule them in public instead of denouncing ALL of them.
Nobody is here to ridicule any one in public, the purpose is to refute the arguments in a logical way or with as much effort that could be done. And yes another important thing, out of all the atheists on the planet, not all would have seen the face of school, not studied science, he will refute the existence of God not based exactly on scientific studies, but maybe through borrowed arguments/transferred knowledge or just plain excuse that God isn't seen so doesn't exist. So nobody is saying that all atheists do this, But there are those that we get to meet in our lives who use scientific arguments, quote xyz scientists, and then there are atheist scientists too who use scientific knowledge as a tool. Aren’t they representing their group? Why is the mainstream majority doing this? Here is a definition of atheism by a popular atheist and blah, the lack of empiricism is so prevalent and he defines atheism. “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is someone who believes that there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles*---except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand.”* Concentrate on the bold part, you lack evidence and yet you make claims (his books, publications). Like seriously? He debunked his own belief in a small part of his own definition.
rainydays - I like your style