Some ex-muslims telling "why I left Islam..??"

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
[Quote]

What do Explosions do?

Explosions tend to harm,and destroy as fire damp explosions, volcanic explosions, solar explosions or atom and hydrogen explosions etc..They all have destructive effects and cause chaos.

"The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect - with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies."
(Sir Fred Hoyle)

Not to mention it, this also resulted a planet inhabited with life, it is all too obvious everything in universe was created, measured and maintained by a will.

42

Basic force is a Hindu, Take my word for it ;)

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakora: *
Basic force is a Hindu, Take my word for it ;)
[/QUOTE]

If someone wants to not believe in Islam that is his choice but that does not make him a Hindu. Your comment is malicious.

44

well!!! my comment wasnt based on the above mentioned supposition, I have my ways .

so please Maaf kar!!!!!!

45

Astagfirullah min Zalik
Idid not read the full thread nor the threads in support.
O, You ignorant people who argue about the only religion from God Almighty DO YOU KNOW WHAT ISLAM MEANS LITERALY. It means “TOTAL SURRENDER” to God Almighty. Its up to you to accept it or reject it. Of course You will be responsible for the choice you made. Oh Allah forgive me for reading the rubbish on the thread.Its upto YOU to give hidaya to them or not. HUJJAT has been established. Allah humma Ashad

46

I just wanna say... "RELIGION DOESNT GO BY LOGIC" its a faith... man..BUT FOR U... i think u should read quran.. more carefully.. you will find all the logic.. and its not written by Some Scholars....take ma words.. read Quran carefully... and u will understand..ahh..man... i feel sad for u..

47

Just a correction in my earlier post ...

Dark matter constitute of more then 90 % of the universe..not Antimatter.

Note: Many posts in this thread (including mine)are largely off-topic. We can always discuss Scientific theories and studies in S&T forum. I am going to open a thread in that forum for further discussion shortly. Thanks :)

48

Iqraa_k:

[Quote]
A scientist? u mean "scientists"; Let me elaborate it for u "The Big Bang",or that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of this explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. "Zero volume" means saying nothing. The Universe came from nothing, therefore had a beginning, and is expanding.

The Big Bang took place with the explosion of the point which contained all the matter/energy of the universe and its dispersion into space in all directions in terrifying speeds, that is why it's called an Explosion. This 'explosion' resulted into a great balance containing stars, sun, earth, galaxies and all other heavenly bodies. Along with the universal laws or the 'laws of physics', which are constant. All these indicate that a perfect order came after the Big Bang.
[/quote]

So you are saying that only "volume" was created because the following physical quantitities, according to your ownself, already existed;

1) "Point mass" containing all that "matter" of universe already existed.

2) "Immense gravitational force" also existed before your "big bang" explosion.

3) The "point" contained all the matter/ energy of the universe. So matter/ energy also had their existence before your big bang and also note that "universe" was also present.

All the above three points I have taken from your own words which I have highlighted in red color.

So according to you, only the volume was "created" as a result of that "big bang" explosion...!!! because other physical things such as "Point mass", "immense gravitational force", "matter/energy" and "universe" etc. all had their existence even before that "big bang" explosion.

Iqraa_K,

I should not accept that "volume" was absent whereas "matter" was present because "volume" is included in the definition of "matter".

Anyhow, even if I accept that only volume was absent and other physical quantities were present, even then my this acceptence cannot help you in any way. Your god is still not the creator of above mentioned things. He is (according to only your interpretation) only the "creator" of volume. I think, in such a situation, better explanation would be that "volume" just evolved as a result of that explosion because other physical quantities were already present. Volume only evolved from already existed "matter", "energy", "immense gravitational force" and "point mass" etc. etc.

See your words:

"Zero volume" means saying nothing."

A thing having "point mass" and having "zero volume" is still believed to be existing even in the present world, by some scientists. And that "volume-less" thing is the "electron". In some scientists' opinion, electron is a "zero volume point mass".

If zero volume means saying nothing then you should consider electrons to be nothing also. But before doing that keep in mind that other physical quantities/ charactristics are present in electron.

So you have been unable to prove the "beginning" of the universe. What maximum you can claim after now is only that the "volume" was created only because it is the only point which you yourself has not accepted oppositely, so far.

And about all other physical quantities, you yourself has accepted that they already had been existed.

[quote]

The laws of physics that emerged together with the Big Bang have not changed at all in 15 billion years. And these laws stand on calculations so exact that even a millimetre's variation from their current values can result in the destruction of the whole universe as we know.

"If at the time the pattern of expansion was already firmly established, the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than one in a billion billion, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The big bang was not, evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude."(Sir Fred Hoyle a world renowned astronomer,)

Simply if the rate of expansion was faster it would be to fast to form all heavenly bodies. or if slower nothing would come into exsistence.
[/QUOTE]

If big bang was really accurate then so what....?? It is after all not mentioned in your holy book. Your holy book dose not talk of any point mass etc. Your holy book only says that "heavens" and "earth" were "joined" together (like two pieces of flat sandwitiches).

And I tell you that universe is not as perfact as you think of it. Out of billions of stars and plannets, only our earth happens to have (known) life. Only our earth happens to have "nice" balance in the environment etc. For example environment of mars or jupiter is not "balanced". How will you account far this imbalance...???

Our earth happens to have supporting balance may be just by a chance.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Iqraa_k:

[Quote]
So you have been unable to prove the "beginning" of the universe. What maximum you can claim after now is only that the "volume" was created only because it is the only point which you yourself has not accepted oppositely, so far.

And about all other physical quantities, you yourself has accepted that they already had been existed.
[Quote]

Basic Force, take a breather and consider
What importance, did the fact that the universe expands have on the existence of the universe?

The expansion of the universe implied that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this ‘single point’ that harboured all the matter of the universe should have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’. The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called.

It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth, ‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
As u yourself said,

[Quote]
I should not accept that "volume" was absent whereas "matter" was present because "volume" is included in the definition of "matter".
[Quote]

I am honored u consider 'zero volume' is my innovation, I suggest u familliarize yourself with 'The Big Bang' and consider that great minds of 21th century also acknowledge it.

[Quote]
If big bang was really accurate then so what....??
[Quote]

This simply states the universe was created by a Creator. If ppl like u can prove otherwise with truth and evidence bring it on. Until now all truth and evidence uncovered by scientists, goes against what u and ppl like u would want everyone else to to beleive in that 'everything in the universe happened by chance'. But what are the odds in that, when even the universe was created.
U put forth manipulation and 'Mere smoke' on the Truth and evidence -nothing more.

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqraa_k: *

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Iqraa_k:

[Quote]
So you have been unable to prove the "beginning" of the universe. What maximum you can claim after now is only that the "volume" was created only because it is the only point which you yourself has not accepted oppositely, so far.

And about all other physical quantities, you yourself has accepted that they already had been existed.
[/Quote]

Basic Force, take a breather and consider
What importance, did the fact that the universe expands have on the existence of the universe?

The expansion of the universe implied that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this ‘single point’ that harboured all the matter of the universe should have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’. The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called.

It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth, ‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
As u yourself said,

[Quote]
I should not accept that "volume" was absent whereas "matter" was present because "volume" is included in the definition of "matter".
[/Quote]

I am honored u consider 'zero volume' is my innovation, I suggest u familliarize yourself with 'The Big Bang' and consider that great minds of 21th century also acknowledge it.

[Quote]
If big bang was really accurate then so what....??
[/Quote]

This simply states the universe was created by a Creator. If ppl like u can prove otherwise with truth and evidence bring it on. Until now all truth and evidence uncovered by scientists, goes against what u and ppl like u would want everyone else to to beleive in that 'everything in the universe happened by chance'. But what are the odds in that, when even the universe was created.
U put forth manipulation and 'Mere smoke' on the Truth and evidence -nothing more.

51

Iqraa_k:

[Quote]
Basic Force, take a breather and consider
What importance, did the fact that the universe expands have on the existence of the universe?

The expansion of the universe implied that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this ‘single point’ that harboured all the matter of the universe should have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’. The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called.
[/quote]

Universe is expanding. If it goes back sides it shall go to zero volume.....!!! Like a bomb which blasts, its particles expand everywhere. If particles start moving backside, shall they reach to zero volume....????
Surly the particles of bomb, if start going backside, they again come at the original size of the bomb which has non-zero positive volume.

Now first of all you should accept that particles of bomb if go backside, shall reach a zero volume. Will you accept it....????

If not then why you apply same results to same but big phenomeno.....???

If yes then let me try to counter that;

1- Point-mass theory is only an assumption. It is not a proven fact. The only proven fact is that universe is expanding. The backward calculations you are talking about are based on mathematical equations derived from Eienstien's reletativity theory. There are various solutions to these equations. Not all solutions lead to your zero volume hypothesis. Consider the following.

2- There is a new version of this big bang theory which is known as "Evolutionary Big Bang Theory" which states that universe, in the first "1 raised to the power of 34th" fraction of a second expands about "1 raised to the power of 50 times" of the original size of big bang. Then this expansion rate slows down and become constant at todays rate of expansion.

Now note that universe expanded to 1 raise to the power of 50 times to its "original" size of big bang within the tiny fractional part of very first second of big bang explosion.

I think you should have got the point I am trying to say;

The big bang expanded to the "multiple" of a very large number to its original "size" in the fractional part of very first second of original big bang blast.

And the point is that if the original size was zero then its mutiple should also be zero. But since after the blast, you yourself know, that universe was converted into huge volume, so the huge positive volume cannot be the "multiple" of zero. Can it be............?????

So the big bang never had zero volume. It had very compressed and compacted volume. May be very small volume as minimum as to accomodate all the matter of universe in the maximum possible compact form. Then as a result of immense blast, that compacted matter started expanding every where resulting in the expansion in the universe.

Big bang was a stage of this universe which can be treated as the starting point of a new phase of this universe. It cannot be treated as the starting point of universe itself. Universe had no beginning at all. Before big bang there may be a contracting universe moving "backside" towards a common center. Ultimately that contacting universe may had become a "big bang", then that "big bang" blasted resulting in a "expanding" universe. This "expanding" universe, may again become a "contracting" universe again resuting in another "big bang" and this process may continue for ever for both past and future times. You appear to be good in science knowledge. You must be knowing that a "contracting" universe is still a possibility, i.e. at some time our present "expanding" universe may start "contracting", scientists are considering this possibility also.

[quote]
It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth, ‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
As u yourself said,
I should not accept that "volume" was absent whereas "matter" was present because "volume" is included in the definition of "matter".
I am honored u consider 'zero volume' is my innovation, I suggest u familliarize yourself with 'The Big Bang' and consider that great minds of 21th century also acknowledge it.
[/quote]

Zero volume is out of possibility as per the new version of big bang i.e. evolutionary big bang theory, I have shown it already.

You are applying my wordings in sense of your interpretation. Use my wordings in sense of "my" interpretation. "matter was present which is the proof that volume was also present." You already has accepted the presence of matter in your previous post.

[quote]

If big bang was really accurate then so what....??

This simply states the universe was created by a Creator. If ppl like u can prove otherwise with truth and evidence bring it on. Until now all truth and evidence uncovered by scientists, goes against what u and ppl like u would want everyone else to to beleive in that 'everything in the universe happened by chance'. But what are the odds in that, when even the universe was created.
U put forth manipulation and 'Mere smoke' on the Truth and evidence -nothing more.
[/QUOTE]

Universe had no beginning, I have shown it. If no beginning, no creation and so no creator is involved. But lets suppose ok! may be a creator but then not your god. because your god dose not talk of your accepted "point mass" and "zero volume" theory. Also your god dose not talks of evolutionary big bang. Your god only talks of a sandwith of two flat physical objects i.e. earth and heaven. Such type of sandwich is out of possiblities according to science. Also note that this sandwitch must have a non-zero volume.

And now please do not try to say that since this sandwitch had a non-zero positive volume so it is compatible to the evolutionary big bang theory. Be honest, I know you claim that your religion teaches you honesty.

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Code_Red: *
Just a correction in my earlier post ...

Dark matter constitute of more then 90 % of the universe..not Antimatter.

Note: Many posts in this thread (including mine)are largely off-topic. We can always discuss Scientific theories and studies in S&T forum. I am going to open a thread in that forum for further discussion shortly. Thanks :)
[/QUOTE]

These are the issues of science and religion and are not the issues of sience and technology.

Dark Matter, even if it is invisible or undetectable to us, but after all it is a physical thing and is a physical part of this universe. We cannot see it, we cannot detect it using our electromegnatic radiation technology ** but we can detect it using the mathematical calculations and this is what we have done.** Dark matter, so is also not any spiritual sort of thing as you might wanted to say in this forum. There is a possibility that this dark matter may consist of an elementry particle know as "neutrino" with mass.

This is a chargeless tiny fundamental particle. It is chargeless so it is not detectable using the electromegnetic radiations. It is tiny so it is invisible to us. Normally neutrino have very little or no mass. But there is a possibility that neutrinos with mass may comprise that dark matter.

53

[Quote]
Now first of all you should accept that particles of bomb if go backside, shall reach a zero volume. Will you accept it....????

If not then why you apply same results to same but big phenomeno.....???
[/Quote]

"The Big Bang also shows that at each stage, the universe was shaped by a controlled creation. This is made clear by the order that came about after the Big Bang, which was too perfect to have been formed from an uncontrolled explosion." The famous physician Paul Davies

U cannot compare apples and oranges because they are fruit.

Refresher course on 'Explosions' they tend to desintirgrate and destroy matter. 'The Big Bang' was the beginning of the universe.

[Quote]
Big bang was a stage of this universe which can be treated as the starting point of a new phase of this universe. It cannot be treated as the starting point of universe itself. Universe had no beginning at all. Before big bang there may be a contracting universe moving "backside" towards a common center. Ultimately that contacting universe may had become a "big bang", then that "big bang" blasted resulting in a "expanding" universe. This "expanding" universe, may again become a "contracting" universe again resuting in another "big bang" and this process may continue for ever for both past and future times. You appear to be good in science knowledge. You must be knowing that a "contracting" universe is still a possibility, i.e. at some time our present "expanding" universe may start "contracting", scientists are considering this possibility also.
[/Quote]

U mean 'the oscillating universe model' , claimed that the present expansion of the universe will eventually be reversed at some point and begin to contract. In other words it purposes, the universe exists for eternity but it expands and collapses at different intervals with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle. The universe we live in is just one of those infinite universes going through the same cycle.

The proposed scenario is unsupported by results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years, which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe idea to come into being. The laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point: it ought to stay just as' it is.' Neither do they offer a reason why an expanding universe should ever begin to contract in the first place." Even if "contracting" universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing"

'Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing. Even if "open and close" universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing"'.

( William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design)

U have said alot with little substance and once again proven nothing, other than feebly trying to mask the evidence.

54

Iqraa_k:

Universe always had been a “controlled” phenomeno in the “control” of “creator”…!!!

That is a very knowledgable point of view…!!! It is the point of view of weak minded ppl who cannot even try to understand real phenomeno. Since they cannot understand so they always tend to have an easy and ready-made interpretation of reality. The easy interpretation is that every thing is done by god. We do not need to investigate etc. etc.

Correct yourself. I am not comparing apples with oranges. I am comparing small bundle of matter with very large bundle of same matter.

You see order in the universe. Go to mars and tell me what order is there for you…??? The “creations” of human mind seem to be equal in status of natural order. Humans still have not created animals but your god also have not created the computers.

And why are you focusing on big bang. All what science knows about big bang, mostly comprises of speculations. Big bang theory is not the final and ultimate theory of science. Science dose not have any such claims.

I told you about new version of big bang theory which is known as evolutionary big bang theory. You have completely ignored that theory in your reply.

And you are very much surprised about the order you see in the universe. And according to you, un-controlled explosion cannot result in such an orderly expansion etc.

And following are your words:

“This is made clear by the order that came about after the Big Bang, which was too perfect to have been formed from an uncontrolled explosion.”

I tell you, you can experiment an “un-controlled” explosion. If you closely see the results of that “un-controlled” explosion, You will not see any disorder in that. You will not see any imperfactness in that.

So what is special if the uncotrolled big bang explosion resulted in an orderly universe expansion…???

And why you insist that big bang explosion was the beginning of universe when you know that various universal entities such as mass, matter, gravitational force etc. were already present…??? You are not consistent with your own knowledge.

And what you want to show by doing that (i.e. to be not consistent with your own knowledge)…??? I can conclude that muslims try to deceive others by wrongly manupulating even the scientific facts.

You have to tell me why even before beginning of universe - matter, mass and gravitational force etc. existed…???

Because big bang, after all, was composed of these things. And it is in your knowledge. You yourself accept it.

You talk of zero volume but I already have shown that zero volume is out of possibility as per the interpretation of new version of big bang theory, i.e. the evolutionary big bang theory.

And do not quote the names of those “famous” scientists who have been unable to see those inconsistencies which even I can identify.

You copy pasted it from some religious site. Following is the evidence of contracting universe from a scientific site.

Source

Title: Observational Evidence from Supernovae for a Contracting Universe

Author: Sumner Willium Q.

“New precision in measuring extragalactic distances using supernovae has confirmed with high probability an accelerating increase in redshift with distance. This has been interpreted as implying the existence of dark energy in an expanding and accelerating, flat universe. A more logical explanation of these observations follows directly from an observation made by Erwin Schrodinger in 1939 that in a closed Friedmann universe every quantum wave function changes with spacetime geometry. Double the size of the universe and both the wavelengths of photons and the sizes of atoms double. When the evolution of atoms and photons are combined, the meaning of Hubble redshift is reversed. Redshift is characteristic of contracting universes. The magnitude-redshift curve for a contracting universe has exactly the accelerating form recently observed and is in excellent quantitative agreement with the data of Riess et al. 1998, Knop et al. 2003, and others. An observed maximum redshift of 1.3 gives a minimum age estimate for the universe of 114 billion years. The time until collapse is estimated to be 15 billion years or less.”

I can say same thing for u…

55

Mods, shouldn't this thread be moved to S & T or closed now?

56

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Iqraa_k:

Universe always had been a "controlled" phenomeno in the "control" of "creator"....!!!

That is a very knowledgable point of view..........!!!! It is the point of view of weak minded ppl who cannot even try to understand real phenomeno. Since they cannot understand so they always tend to have an easy and ready-made interpretation of reality. The easy interpretation is that every thing is done by god. We do not need to investigate etc. etc.
[/Quote]

Why don't u explain what u mean by real phenomeno that ppl are superficially heedless too? On the contrary feeble minded ppl are those who have the facts right in their face and they manipulate and twist it so they can take comfort in their 'ideas'. Look about you: Does what you see appear to be a disordered jumble of matter haphazardly scattered this way and that? Of course not. But how could matter have formed organized galaxies if it had been dispersed randomly? Why has matter accumulated at certain points and formed stars? How could the delicate balance of our solar system have emerged from a violent explosion?

[Quote]

Correct yourself. I am not comparing apples with oranges. I am comparing small bundle of matter with very large bundle of same matter.
[/QUOTE]

then it is reasonable to expect that matter should have been scattered everywhere at random. And yet it is not. Instead it is organized into planets, and stars, and galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies. It is as if a bomb that exploded in a consturction site and made a sturucture and foundation of a building to stand and all the windows and electrical and plumbing intact. instead of dispersing all the material.

[Quote]
You see order in the universe. Go to mars and tell me what order is there for you...??? The "creations" of human mind seem to be equal in status of natural order. Humans still have not created animals but your god also have not created the computers.
[/Quote]

And u don't see order? The universe runs precisely on the laws of physics;where do u think the laws of physics were derived from? U talk of science and investigation, but seem to be absent to them, instead you pick and choose information as if in a buffet . Do u know where light impulses are processed in your brain? In the posterior part of the brain that is insulated from light or is pitch dark. The eye is but a sense organ that serves the processing of seeing, where in reality u watch a multi colored world in the darkness of your brain. This is also true to the sense hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Your brain is insulated from sounds, smells, hot or cold,nor does the brain actually has ever touched an object or tasted anything. Yet our entire lives are spend in the perceptions of brains. No computer can come close to an iota of the magnificance of the 'Brain'. And a 'brain is nothing,' but a mass of lipids and protein molecules, without a soul to perceive it. There will never be or ever was another person that is uniquly you in this world, why do u choose to believe u came into being ' by chance'. That the lump of flesh in your mother's womb started moving, hearing, feeling, seeing, had a will one day was all' by chance'.

It is He Who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when you knew nothing; and He gave you hearing and sight and intelligence and affections: that you may give thanks (to God). (The Qur'an, 16:78)

Contracting Universe universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing"'.
The article fails to mention why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point; it should stay the same or why a expanding universe should begin to contract in the first place to the accordance to the laws of physics.

[Quote]
This has been interpreted as' implying the existence of dark energy in an expanding and accelerating', flat universe.\ When the evolution of atoms and photons are combined, the meaning of Hubble redshift is reversed.
[/Quote]

This is speculation^ .Here, the author is suggesting that cosmological redshift has been misinterpreted, and that it means contraction of the universe in his own opinion.

Still the fact remains the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe implied that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this ‘single point’ that harboured all the matter of the universe should have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’. The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called.

It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth, ‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness.

57

Philosopically speaking... No one can say there is definently NO god or entity that created the Universe. Where did it all come from then? The Universe must have had a source. Now what that source is, i cant say, can be anything, but to say that it definently is or isnt what we know of to be god, is giving ourselves to much cedit. Fact is we just dont know enough about the Universe to make such a bold assumption.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PaKpatriot1: *
Philosopically speaking... No one can say there is definently NO god or entity that created the Universe. Where did it all come from then? The Universe must have had a source. Now what that source is, i cant say, can be anything, but to say that it definently is or isnt what we know of to be god, is giving ourselves to much cedit. Fact is we just dont know enough about the Universe to make such a bold assumption.
[/QUOTE]

You are right in your philosophy. But if the claimed god give us contradictory, illogical and scientifically wrong information, then ofcourse he is not the true god. Then why to believe in him and why to kill others in his name....????

And Mr. Iqraa K.

Either you have not picked my point or you are delibratly diverting from the real issue.

I already told you that you can experiment an "un-controlled" explosion. and I told you that you will NOT see any disorder in that.

Why you assume that order only come as a result of involvement of god.

Universe is orderly by itself. No god has put order in that. Even any "un-controlled" explosion shall result in an ORDERLY scatter of its particles. It shall be in accordence with rigid physical laws and shall not be due to the involvement of any god.

Order is the innate property of the universe. Universe do not need any god. It is autometic.

And your god even do not know the contents of this universe. Your god talks of heavens which is NOT present in the universe. There are other un-proven things such as hell, heavens, jinns, satan, angel etc.

Now you will say that these meaningless entities also are scientific.

Your god teaches us wrong astronomy, wrong embryology etc. etc. After all he is un-aware about the true facts. He require his believers to kill others in his name.

Now please only try to prove scientifically, the existence of hell, heavens,paradise, hoors, jinns and angels/ satan etc. OR STOP CLAIMING THAT YOUR BOOK IS FULL OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

59

Dear Friends,

I must agree that there is no proof of existence or nonexistence of god per se but one thing is certain that man is curious be it by his nature and that is what causes him to try and find out about things that he does not know. As part of natural process, it was in this context that earlier man raised the questions relating existence of the creator of the universe because originally he did not know anything about the world in which he existed. This was the natural consequence of man trying to wake up to reason by way of understanding the mechanism at work in the nature. The man has yet to arrive at the conclusion and we are all part of this process.

What made things potentially dangerous was the fact that some people began to invent ideas and impose them on others for political, social, cultural and economic reasons instead of spiritual reasons. This is what is causing extremism even today. There is no danger of any sort in the idea of questioning the existence of god, regardless we really find any answers or not. The real obstacle is the stance that some-one claims to be right without any proof whatsoever, and the danger is that he wants to control everyone else’s beliefs and deeds to his liking so that all this serves his and only his intended purpose.

That is so because once we accept some-one right without any proof by fear of consequences for refusal, we become vulnerable to all sorts of dangers from each other. The history is a witness to the fact that people who invented and promoted or imposed organised religions destroyed humanity wholesale. There is no exception. Hindus enslaved people and so did parsees, jews, christians and muslims. The holy scriptures of each religion themselves bear evidence to this fact. What more wrong can we do to each other than kill, enslave and make each other suffer so badly and we do all that without any good reason. The Vedas, The Avesta, The Torah, The Gospels and the Quran all contain information which clearly points to human atrocities to each other in the name of this kind of religious movements. People have invented gods like we invent characters for our fictions and then attributed to them whatever they wanted them to be or to do, so that they could justify their beliefs and actions against the rest of the humanity. So our debate about existence of god is irrelevant to actual problems or dangers we face from each other. For example, if a people cannot prove the existence of their god quite clearly then they should not take the next step against humanity ie that their this god has said or did this or that and that it must be imposed on the rest of the human beings. This leads only and only to trouble because when some people raise such claims, the others seek proof of them- to ensure they are not being made fool of or taken advantage of- but there is none forth coming. Thus organised religion divides people into us and them on religious basis. This divide is not only between theists and atheists but also between theists belonging to different religions. In fact, the divide goes beyond that ie the very people who claim to belong to a particular religion condemn each other as heretics accusing each other for misrepresenting and misinterpreting the scriptures and are ready to beat the hell out of each other or even kill each other.

This is why people need to realise, we are all human beings and we only know as much as is within our capabilities. This being the case we need to work together to figure out our problems in the daily life and their solutions. The real questions for us are like, what are our needs and how can we meet them? For this, we must invent ideas, structures, systems and practices as mechanisms otherwise we can try all we like but we will not be able to meet our set out goals. The problem organised religions cause here is the fact that they oppose new ideas and political, social, cultural and economic, structures, systems and practices and thus try to hold us back from getting what we really need. Yet these very people have the audacity to blame others for the very problems they themselves cause. This is where free and fierce discussion is needed to bring down the false notions, wrong perceptions and misconceptions. We can know for a fact what is true and what is false because the truth proves itself true, for it works and so fulfils its purpose but falsehood falls apart ie it does not work when put to the test.

The sense of good and bad is not as clear in practice as we assume it to be. There are many instances where even the religious people themselves are confused in this regard who claim to know all in all, for they assume guidance from on high. One has to read history of religions to realise that, especially since progress has speeded up in recent centuries. There is hardly any evidence for the lead by the religious people in any field of knowledge of human concern but there is plenty evidence that they tried to stop progress by mobilising masses against those who tried to help humanity progress. This is the reason these people cannot be trusted and therefore should not be followed at all and especially not blindly. Each and every person therefore must learn to be wise oneself for oneself and wisdom would lead us all to the very same place when it comes. Our judgement must be based upon fairness and evidence collected impartially. Thus we must not call anything bad or evil for humanity unless we are sure that it is truly bad or evil. Just as we all arrive at the same conclusion that existence of god cannot be proven due to our wisdom, so will we all arrive at the very same conclusion about other things as well if we all followed the reason. Seeing the insurmountable problem of evidence we are all forced by reason to hold back our baseless claims or back down from our positions of imaginary certainty if situation so demands. This leads us closer to each other because we can clearly see the difficulties of each other and therefore are forced to tolerate or even accommodate each other.

This also goes to show that the nature of good and evil is not decided by any god or any godsend scripture but people themselves. The evidence is clear that all people in the world come from different times and places and so they have different experiences in life which makes all of us different from each other biologically as well as psychologically. We therefore have different goals and ideas as well as structures, systems and practices and so we define good and bad on that basis in that context. What is therefore good or bad according to one people is not necessarily good or bad according to another people. The differences arose amongst us due to our lack of knowledge and isolation from each other or our inability to resolve our conflicts of interests. If we realise that whatever is said by our ancestors or scriptures is not writing on the stone but open to many questions when carefully examined then we will not impose it on others as the only truth and others will therefore not be forced to fight back either. This is what will solve the problem of intolerance based on religious differences. Likewise we need to solve our political, social, cultural or economic differences. To solve all such differences is of such importance that one cannot over emphasise the issue, for otherwise peace between people is impossible which is a necessity for progress and prosperity of humanity.

As for comparing ideologies and their political, social, cultural or economic, structures, systems or practices; one needs to take into account their contexts according to their purposes or if you like goals. In other words, one has to compare one building with another as a whole as well as bit by bit, each in its context according to its own purpose. For example, religious ideologies can be compared to each others as well as with secular ideologies, as a whole or brick by brick but only and only in context of their goals. One can then realise which of them is true or false, better or worse and why? An ideology must stand on its own merits or for that matter fall on its own demerits or defects. The problem with religious ideologies is that if one finds anything wrong with them, one is stuck with them because one cannot modify them, for that would be up to god. So the only way forward in that case is to leave such ideologies behind partially or totally. Thus secular manmade ideologies are advantageous that if we find something wrong with them we can change them for the better straightaway without waiting for intervention from god, which in any case is never forth coming, because if that ever happened it would have proven existence of god beyond a shadow of doubt. So if origin of an ideology is false then so is its modification in the name of god.

60

I think it is also important to mention that religious people should not make the mistake of judging nonreligious ideologies on the basis of their religious sense of right and wrong or their judgement would be invalid. It is precisely because the allegedly god revealed scriptures cannot be proven as such that the existence of god cannot be proven, therefore it is not valid to judge anything by these scriptures that requires proof and proving beyond a shadow of doubt. It is precisely the reason that faith is accepted as a matter of personal interest of the individual, for there is no any solid evidence that god does not exist. However, faith in god is based on one’s personal assumptions and so cannot be taken into consideration in matters of worldly importance, for there is no guaranty that whatever one assumes about god is true or is exactly what god wishes for the individual or the world. The question is, are people sensible if they follow some one in important worldly matters who claims to be a guide or an agent of god without any clear proof? Particularly if that person tells them to take leave of their senses at the very crucial moment in time when the only thing they need most is sense to make sensible judgement? This is where faith in god is left behind and faith in self proclaimed god-sent leader/s takes over and the masses turn into political mobs and even thugs to achieve objectives other than of spiritual nature, for which they condemn everyone else.

It is for this reason the faithful cannot afford to set political goals, social goals, cultural goals or economic goals, for all these are testable mechanisms for achieving material goals for life in this world having nothing to do with individual’s faith in god. In fact one has to ask oneself, does it make any sense whatsoever to believe and follow a person who cannot prove existence of god beyond a shadow of doubt yet speaks on behalf of god as his self proclaimed agent as to what sort of goals god has set for all the rest of human beings to achieve in this life? It is for this reason vitally important that all people question self appointed agents of gods and their teachings other than spiritual and personal. Another point I would like to raise is that people changing their own minds through sharing views and spiritual experiences with each other in an open and friendly way is different from someone actively trying to convert people from what they believe by way of condemnation, use of force or by threat of use of force etc etc. In other words we all need to be free to think for ourselves than being pressurised by others for their own ends.

I hope this helps clarify the real issues for discussions and also lays the fears of theists and atheists that one people want to destroy the others. Belief and disbelief in god is part of a natural process that cannot be destroyed by anyone. One only has to ask, if people were born theists then who turned them atheists? Or if people were born atheists then who turned them theists? On the other hand despite all the freedom in the free world, theism is still very strong. Likewise, despite all the oppression and suppression in religiously controlled states, atheism continues. All this shows that we cannot kill a natural thought that arises in every human mind anywhere and everywhere. So let there be freedom of thought and expression and let nature take its course, for this is such an issue that only nature can decide it for us in its own time. There is no need whatsoever for us to fight over something that we are not capable of deciding, because we are unable to obtain the related proof one way or the other. It is for this reason that separation between religion and state is necessary to avoid one kind of religious people trying to taking over the others hence raising such troubles where there are none.

So my very dear friends, be fair to have peace by spreading love and knowledge to help each other to progress and prosper so that together we could deliver humanity from poverty, pain and suffering that we all see all around us.

Regards and all the best.