The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

The_question
"Professor Stephen Hawking believes the laws of physics were behind the creation of the universe, not God"

So you will dismiss the existence of GOD based on what this man thinks or believes.

This man cannot give one proof to show that GOD does not exist, whilst GOD has shown his proofs through the horizons and within ourselves. In fact in his final testament to man GOD has made it clear beyond doubt that he does indeed exists and has always been in existence. We now have tangible evidence which proves once and for all the existence of the Almighty. A built in proof of divinity in his scripture.

So I suggest Stephen Hawking to study this miracle for himself and all those who believe with him.

"We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth. Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?" [Quran 41:53]

"Absolutely, (I swear) by the moon. And the night as it passes. And the morning as it shines. This is one of the great miracles." [Quran 74:32-35]

The miracle of 19!

www.submission.org

Thank you


lulz
Reply 141
Annoying-Mouse
1. Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth.

2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random.html

3. Aren't you an Ahamdi? I thought you guys believe in evolution more so than other Muslims (e.g. you take Adam as a metaphorical character).




I'm not arguing against evolution, I'm just arguing against the fact that it is a fact and not a theory with strong evidence. Adam was a real man, not metaphorical, but he wasn't the FIRST man on the earth, only the first Prophet of God.

1. and 2. are a person's opinions, have you even read 2.? the guy says 'Yes and No', and 'However, chance events play a big role too' Yeah. A pretty BIG role.

"A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, making a million exact copies of that junkyard, unleashing another million tornadoes, running another series of exhaustive tests, and so on, until you produce some kind of machine - no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like - capable of flying at least a few yards."

Even he's given this analogy as one for evolution. It still is extremely heavily dependent on chance. Actually it's quite a good analogy, the mechanics are basically the same as for evolution. How long would you think it would take to produce something capable of flying (or a mutation that is beneficial, is in the phenotype as well as the genotype, and the animal with the mutation doesn't die because of one of the million other ways that it ISN'T any better than other members of it's species), no matter what the laws of nature would dictate.

Then think about the number of species in the world (estimated 5-100 million) and all the extinct species before. Each was created out of a beneficial mutation, AND the organism with the mutation managed to survive and breed. Beneficial mutations aren't exactly common, especially when you look at how many times multi-cellular organisms actually breed. Very few from them are mutations at all, and the majority of mutations hinder the offspring with that mutation.

Even with the evidence, creationists can still say 'God created all those species in those orders and they didn't evolve'. I don't see how we can disprove that. Tbh, anything that is proven; like the laws of physics (gravity, etc.), or the Earth being round (even though some weird people argued against it, with quite hilarious evidence), and the fact that the Earth isn't 6000 years old, is not even up for debate amongst the general public. The mere fact that evolution is means there is not enough concrete evidence to prove it correct.
qasman
Even with the evidence, creationists can still say 'God created all those species in those orders and they didn't evolve'. I don't see how we can disprove that.


But, I don't see how we can prove it also? What is the point of saying that? It is rational to say that he didn't. For example, you see a banksy painting on your street. Someone claims to be responsible. Do you take his word for it? He refuses to paint and wants you to trust him.
AKA_Katie


You claim not to be religious, and I would hope that you're also a fairly peaceful and happy human being, so isn't it slightly patronizing to assume that people 'need' religion to achieve comfort and goodness if you yourself don't?

I agree that positive and beneficial communities have been built around religion, but they can just as easily be built around a shared admiration for the fascinating and incredible thing that is the natural and scientific world as it is, without needing to impose an almighty creator on it. I would prefer to get my 'spiritual warmth' from a solid foundation of research and knowledge than from an invented philosophical idea which has been and continues to be abused by many (not all) parties.

If you weigh it all out, the 'benefits' of religion can be found in other places, and the dangers are unfortunately considerable.


i agree with you in the fact about other ways of finding fullfillment however it is no-ones place to tell another that their deity does not exist, you would never see a sciantist saying the hindu or muslim god does not exist either. and even IF sciance is right, not every human being has the access to education that hawkin has. also sciance does follow a simmiler path to a religon, i.e. hawkin and inestine, are seen as sciantific "gods" because of their "knowlege" and people of lesser inteligence follow them and aspire to them. and yes people abuse their power and that gives religon a bad name, but didnt sciance give us weapons of mass distruction? tbh hawkin has opened a big can of worms and it may come back to bite him.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
so you need to be married to love someone and be a father to a child? roflcopter - marriage is just paperwork, nothing more nothing less


this is ture but ever scince marriage stopped becoming a majoraty thing, there has been a massive rise in fatherless and motherless children, and no i'm not being a dick and saying kids with one parent grow up troubled because i am the bastard child of a broken family and i now study CGI in university. but where i come from i would say 65-70% of children grow up with out 1 parents, hence why it has only a 30% pass rate GCSE a-c in its schools
Aphotic Cosmos
I much prefer the idea that my life is random, accidental. It makes me value both my life and the life of other people and organisms more than I ever did when I was an admittedly half-hearted theist. The knowledge of just how infinitesimal the odds were in all the events occurring that lead to my existence is reassuring in some way, affirming of my existence.

Purpose, if it is even necessary for a meaningful existence, is derived from life experiences that shape our views of the world and the actions that we believe we need to take. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god. Lack of belief in god does not lead to a purposeless, loveless life without meaning. On the contrary, I now know exactly what I want to do with my life (become a research scientist), I know exactly what my life and other life is worth, I know that my time on this earth is finite and there's nothing coming after it, and as such I should make the most of it, I know what my life means. I never knew any of that as a theist.



you may not need a deeper scence of existance but some do, that is why we are all different
Dusk Shard
you may not need a deeper scence of existance but some do, that is why we are all different


"Deep sense of existence"? Who is to say that a scientific explanation cannot provide a deep or deeper comprehension of the world and my place in it than religion?

I look at the incredible, interlinked complexity of the universe and am overcome with a sense of scale and wonder. Knowing that I am living out my fleeting glimpse of life on a tiny rock orbiting a nuclear fireball in the middle of a cluster of over 400 billion similar fireballs slowly orbiting a supermassive black hole, which in turn occupies a position on the expanding frontier of the universe, gives me an unrivalled perspective on the world.

There is incredible beauty in nature and the wider universe, and it's all the more beautiful to me for being a product of processes such as evolution.
Aphotic Cosmos
"Deep sense of existence"? Who is to say that a scientific explanation cannot provide a deep or deeper comprehension of the world and my place in it than religion?

I look at the incredible, interlinked complexity of the universe and am overcome with a sense of scale and wonder. Knowing that I am living out my fleeting glimpse of life on a tiny rock orbiting a nuclear fireball in the middle of a cluster of over 400 billion similar fireballs slowly orbiting a supermassive black hole, which in turn occupies a position on the expanding frontier of the universe, gives me an unrivalled perspective on the world.

There is incredible beauty in nature and the wider universe, and it's all the more beautiful to me for being a product of processes such as evolution.


Indeed!

Spoiler

Reply 148
RK
Your big problem there is that you a limiting God with time and to having a linear existence through time.

We can't limit God in any way, including limiting him to have a linear existence the same as we have. Time is a big part of this universe and God is outside of that. It's also can explain why he can know everything from all time.

So to say that God created science and then everytrhing acted itself out is not at all what I'm saying. Science appears to act things out in a linear existence, but it's all part of what God has done. To Him it all just IS.
OK, that was a bad explanation of my thoughts - I was just passing through TSR and didn't really have much time. I still believe that God obeys the laws that he sets down, but since he knows them all, having written them, he still has infinite freedom.

Latest

Trending

Trending