Debating a Muslim creationist

I’m up for a conversation. I’ll let you open it.
John, If you have time & if you are interested in knowing what i have to say, plzz tell me… ThanksTake care..

Let’s dig in. Where would you like to begin?
Sure.. Thanks for taking interest & taking out time..I would like to start by asking you a question..

If someday, a man with a knife & tatoos on his hand knocks at your door & asks you to let him in, he is the meter reader, what will you do?

Ask for ID.
Though I’m not sure what tattoos on his has to do with it.
so, you used reasoning & commonsense to answer this question… Now using reasoning & commonsense lets talk…How was the universe created?

It began with a singularity, or possibly several singularities, which were so condensed of mass that they were forced to expand, creating the big bang. While that is not the whole picture, that is the concept in a nutshell, and has been proven through study of the expanding universe and being able to see the past due to the rate of light travelling through the cosmos, through cosmic radiation study, and through quantum mechanics.
ok, so it means that the universe began to exist and everything that has a beginning has a cause. Now, if you think of the possibilities of how the universe was created, there can be 3 possibilities, i. Created out of nothing. ii. Created itself or iii. Has been created and has a creator. Can you think of any more?
Physicist Steven Hawkin has explained this through quantum mechanics. In short, the universe came out of “nothing”. Through scientific research and direct observation, we know that particle matter does pop into and out of existence regularly in the universe, and therefore is perfectly capable of “creating” itself without the need of any kind of intervention. Here’s an article to help: http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Are you still with me?
hmm, john, the purpose of asking the question was that we will reason by using our own brains & commonsense.
Reason is led by observation; science IS observation. Where’s the problem?
Knowing science is using one’s brain.
Lawrence Krauss in his book talks about the quantum vacuum & he gives this the label as nothing. But inside that quantum vacuum in His own words, There Is A Boiling Bubbling Energy.And energy sounds like something..

And in his one chapter, he actually says: Nothing isn’t nothing anymore, it is NOTHING..

So he is misleading or he has written an absolute blunder.. And a person like Lawrence cannot make such a blunder so it means he is trying to mislead the masses..

Coz, nothing refers to NOTHING meaning completely nothing..

We know you love the guy & we know you hate religion (Islam is a way of life more than a religion), but put things in perspective & lets be honest with ourselves in terms of knowledge…. Does this make sense?

Isnt, He clearly misleading.

the problem is that we are not idots to just believe in everything anyone tells us.. We should ask ourselves that does this make sense.. If it doesnt than it means there is some problem…
No, he’s not misleading. He’s quite right. And nothing he says contradicts what we know about the origin of the universe. I’m quite familiar with Kraus
‘s work
is energy nothing?
As for your claim that Islam is not a religion, that is just erroneous. That is like saying christianity isn’t a religion. Bill O’Reilly caught hell (pun intended) for claiming as much.
When islam calls for the death of all who do not believe in allah, that is religion.
i meant its a way of life..
When islam claims miracles, that is religion.
Religion is a way of life, but that doesn’t cause it to cease being a religion
ok, ok.. lets put islam aside & only use reasoning & commonsense…
So if we’re going to be reasonable, let’s not delude ourselves and let’s call a spade a spade.
If we are to do that, then let’s reason about the existence of god, or more specifically, your version of god.
Energy is not nothing, this is a fact which cannot be changed just like 1+1 will always equal 2..
It would seem, after all, that proving the existence of deity – and specifically, your notion of deity – is a good place to begin.
no there are no versions of God. There is only One god & every major religions scriptures talk about only one God…
yes i agree..
That itself is a fallacy.
There have been over 300,000 “gods’ throughout history. What makes your god special from the others?
The abrahamic god is not even the newest god to appear in history.
he’s just the most popular.
Ok, john.. i will use my brain & you use yours..tell me, If i murder someone & than i say, it wasnt me, it was someone like me, who popped into existence out of nothing, killed the guy & than popped out f existence.. Will you agree?

Let’s stick with reality. no one has ever simply “popped” into or out of existence.
If you murder someone, today we have forensic science that will most likely catch you.
so it means universe cannot come into existence out of nothing…
No, it doesn’t. I’ve already provided proof to that.
The universe is not a human being, an organism.
we are using our reasoning… And i can post many artiles that prove that the above is wrong..
Matter makes up an organism.
So, lets not paste artilcles & lets stick to reasoning..
Are they scientific and peer-reviewed and widely accepted in scientific circles
?
but universe is something that has a beginning…The big bang according to cosmologist is space, time & energy, the whole of space time was actually created & their are various models of the big bang, this is almost a concensus amongst the cosmologists, amongst the scientists. This is why alexander willinkan one of a good cosmologist on the planet , he says: this is proof now, the cosmologist cannot run away with this fact that the universe began to exist, it had a beginning in time & we also know that the universe must begin to exist….

i.e., evolution as a scientific theory is no longer debated in the scientific community; it is proven through germ theory and the use of antibiotics against evolving bacteria and inoculation against viruses.
And the universe DID begin to exist, not by any word spoken by any deity, but by laws of physics, specifically provable and observerable quantum mechanics
ok, we can talk about evolution after the existenc of God…So saying that universe came out of nothing is not logical….

Evolution is proof of the non-necessity of god.
The god you seem to be going after is what we atheists call “the god of gaps”.
Just because we do not yet have an absolutely complete understanding of the origin of the universe does not mean “god” did it; it means we are still learning and discovering. It does not, by any means, necessitate a deity,
if “god” can exist eternally, so can the universe – without god.
Look, john, i am not talking about God right now.. We are just looking at the possibilities that are logical… As you used your comonsense & reaosning for answering the first question, use it to think about the example i gave…
No the universe cannot, coz universe is needy, it has a beginning.. And big bang is proven fact & saying so also rejects the cause & effect principal..
Quantum mechanics doesn’t reject any of that.
Like I said, just because we don’t have ALL the answers does not necessitate a “god did it” conclusion.
OK. I can see this will take a few minutes. I’ll let you know when I’m done.
Oh, my. OK, I’ve heard this before. I’m VERY familiar with it. Did you know we’ve found over 1,000 planets in our galaxy alone with planets in that lovely “goldilocks” zone with the absolute potential for carbon-based life? In terms of sheer probability (mathematically speaking), the odds are 15% of those actually have life. That’s 150 in just that category. In terms of planetary masses around red dwarf stars (our sun is a red dwarf) which fall into the potentially inhabitable zone, the estimate is 4.5 BILLION. If only 1% are truly life-supporting, that’s still 4 million life-capable planets. It therefore — logically – is sheer hubris to think we’re “special”.
Further, the claim that a variation in earth’s orbit of more than several thousand km would fry or freeze us to death is just factually wrong. The earth’s distance from the sun varies by 5 million km due to the elliptical orbit.
LMK when you’re back.
I know you saw that last eleven minutes ago. Are you still up for this, or is the science bothering you?
John, can you explain me briefly, what has quantam mechanics to do with the creation of the universe??Lol! first lemme clear you this, islam is not against science neither we muslims are against it.. Please check the link below..

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200435817751098&set=o.103266689766171&type=1&theater

There are many other muslims who have done a lot in the fileds of science & technology…
Quantum mechanics explains in large part how the universe operates in terms of physics. String theory is its cousin. Hawkins has produced a unified theory that marries quantum and string theory into a full picture.
But it has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, ???
I am well versed in history, including the many scientific, mathematic, and architectural contributions of Muslim society in southern Europe.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the origin of the universe. That is why the unification of the two theories has been so important to our understanding of the universe.
thats good. So john, if we think logically, using commonsense & reasoning, the only conclusion we get is that the universe cannot come out of nothing…
Which, by unification theory, is totally acceptable
Even by stand-alone quantum theory, that is acceptable.
but it is not nothing, it is something… Without question, no atheist “scientist” is more popular than Lawrence Krauss (author of “A Universe from Nothing”) when it comes to calling something nothing in the name of science. But, Just because lawrence says it doesnt make it nothing..
2:57am
It’s not just Mr. Kraus who says this. They’ve reproduced this “something from nothing” quantum particle “popping” via the Large Hadron Collider many times over. It was what led physicists to the Higgs-Boson discovery.

Mus:
But they say that it has bubbling energy & energy is not nothing… They are misleading.. And we are not stupid

5:46am

Me:
No one is misleading; you are misunderstanding.

5:46am

Mus:
If we think & reason & think of examples, like i gave, it is impossible for a human mind to comprehend

5:47am

Me:
Energy is not nothing, I agree; but neither is it matter, and it is matter which physicists call “something”.

5:47am

Mus:
Physicists say, we dont know & WE WILL NEVER KNOW…

5:47am

Me:
no, they don’t
That is a fallacy
Physicists say “We don’t know everything, but we’re working on it.”

5:47am

Mus:
If you have seen the video, yo must know that they say so

5:47am

Me:
As I said earlier, not knowing does not equal “god did it”

5:48am

Mus:
Thats another story…

5:48am

Me:
I saw the video, and it’s factually wrong on many levels, which I pointed out already
Why is that another story?

5:48am

Mus:
ok so you are saying that the great physicists all are wrong?

5:49am

Me:
No, I am saying you are misrepresenting their intention and meaning.
or else you do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry.

5:50am

Mus:
i do but i also have a brain… I am not a fool to believe in what anyone says

5:50am

Me:
But you believe the Qu’ran without question?

5:51am

Mus:
We should think & reasonn
In Islam there is no room for blind belief. Not even for muslims

5:52am

Me:
What do you call supporting a theology that stones women for not covering themselves, daring to speak out of turn, preaching, and kills non-believers? I call it blind belief. What do you call it?

5:53am

Mus:
And where does Quran say all this…?
Only media tells you this & this is a LIE…

5:53am

Me:
Or do we need to talk about honor killing and genital mutilation in the name of Islam?
It is in the practice of Islam as seen throughout the Middle East.

5:53am

Mus:
hmm, john, muhammad maried a child, women treated as dogs, kill disbelievers
THESE ARE ALL WHICH ARE AVAIALABLE ON MEDIA BUT THEY ARE without context

5:54am

Me:
A religion is the behavior of its adherents. Just as Christianity is defined in part by its cruelty throughout history.

5:54am

Mus:
Islam is not what muslims do, islam is what muslims are supposed to do..
So dont judge it by looking at people…

5:55am

Me:
Context is irrelevant when a crime against humanity is committed. It is like saying that the slaughter of Jews at the hands of Nazis is taken out of the context.
I don’t judge by looking at people; I observe what is done and remark that it is done.
People ARE their religion via their actions.

5:56am

Mus:
No its not.. i can clearify you that later, but first lets talk about the existence of God??

5:56am

Me:
You cannot separate a religion from its followers.
Sure, let’s talk about the existence of God.
What proof is there that God exists?

5:57am

Mus:
Thats not the correct approach.If you want to know Islam, study Quran & authentic Hadith else you will never know the truth..
ok thanks …
So, by reasoning & logic we can conclude that the universe cannot come out of nothing…

5:57am

Me:
Are you saying it is untrue that Mohamed married a six-year-old and was a pedophile?

5:58am

Mus:
Can we discuss this later? after God..?

5:58am

Me:
Sure

5:59am

Mus:
Thanks…
So, by reasoning & logic we can conclude that the universe cannot come out of nothing…

6:00am

Me:
I have already shown through Unification Theory — backed by leading physicists the world over – that such a claim is false.
are we going to revisit that again?
You know, the LHC, the higgs-boson particle, quantum mechanics, etc…

6:01am

Mus:
Physicists say we dont know & we will never know…

6:01am

Me:
no they don’t
Repeating a false claim does not making it true

6:02am

Mus:
Plz watch the video again…

6:02am

Me:
Physicists say we don’t know absolutely, but we have a working model that fits the physical universe.
Further, if we assume we don’t know or are incapable of knowing for certain, that in no way requires a sentient god to fill the void.

6:03am

Mus:
watch 1:40 secs

6:03am

Me:
I did. And yet the claims made are false, and I have established that previously.

6:04am

Mus:
so, you say you dont know..!!

6:04am

Me:
We need to move past this circular reasoning you keep attempting.

6:04am

Mus:
you are saying that all the physicists are saying wrong just because you want to prove your point right

6:04am

Me:
I say I don’t know for certain, but that not knowing is not an excuse to jump to the god conclusion.

6:04am

Mus:
but how can we, when you are insisting on something that is totally unacceptable & illogical…

6:05am

Me:
But let’s go on. Let’s say, for sake of argument, you have a possible point.

6:05am

Mus:
ok.. dont jump to conclusion, REASON…..

6:05am

Me:
Which part is illogical?

6:05am

Mus:
Second possibility is that it created itself…

6:05am

Me:
That there is energy without matter? That something CAN come of nothing thanks to quantum mechanics?
OK, let’s say you’re right, that something cannot come of nothing, even though science has proven that notion false.

6:06am

Mus:
If there is energy, it is not nothing… & all the physicits cannot be wrong…

6:06am

Me:
For sake of argument…

6:06am

Mus:
ok, created itself, is this possible?

6:07am

Me:
Yes. Quantum theory has proven this possibility through reproduced experiments at the LHC in Europe.
Particles popping into and out of observable space has been recorded as fact and quantified repeatedly.

6:09am

Mus:
ok, This is crazy because, think about these points, firstly for something to self create it means it was in a existence & not in existence at the same time. For example, Can your mother give birth to herself? obv no, so saying that universe created itself is like saying, your mother gave birth to herself.

6:10am

Mus:
using reasoning & commonsense we cannot accept this….

6:10am

Me:
Birth is not the same as particle physics. Don’t confuse scientific disciplines.
The entire mammalian birthing process is the result of eons of evolution, not particle mechanics.

6:11am

Mus:
how?

6:12am

Me:
Matter and anti-matter. That is what the discovery of the higgs-boson proves.

6:18am

Mus:
Higgs bosson doesnt deny the existence of God..

6:19am

Me:
neither does it prove god

6:19am

Mus:
so its irrelevant to the topic we r discussing…
6:19am

Me:
true

6:19am

Mus:
So, the universe created itself cannot be a possibility than…

6:20am

Me:
How do you reach that conclusion?

6:20am

Mus:
as i said, firstly for something to self create it means it was in a existence & not in existence at the same time. For example, Can your mother give birth to herself? obv no, so saying that unverse created itself is like saying, your mother gave birth to herself.
universe was in a existence & non existence at the same time… This is illogical..

6:21am

Me:
again, you’re confusing biology with quantum mechanics

6:22am

Mus:
ok leave the example… still its illogical.

6:22am

Me:
It sound illogical; but so did heliocentrism.

6:23am

Mus:
what does heliocentrism has to do with God..

6:25am

Me:
We were talking about what’s logical. Heliocentric theory was considered counter-logical for thousands of years.

6:26am

Mus:
we are talking about the possibilities of the creation of the universe & existence of God..

self creation is also not logical…

6:26am

Me:
Yes. Let’s get back to that.
\
6:27am

Mus:
Thanks..

6:27am

Me:
go on

6:27am

Mus:
ok, so lets look at the third possibility..
As we now know that the universe is needy than this cause should be self sufficient else creation is not possible.

Therefore, we can conclude, that there is a being that is infinite, self sufficient, free of space & time, intelligent, that has will & has power.

6:29am

Me:
That is quite a leap of logic.
but let’s roll with it
go on

6:30am

Mus:
no i am not jumping, you tell me know, is this logical?

6:32am

Me:
I will suspend my conclusion for now. Please continue.

6:33am

Mus:
continue with what…This is the last possibility…

6:35am

Me:
OK. Are you therefore saying that the universe is the product of intelligent design?

Mus:
No i am asking you that is the above logical?

6:37am

Me:
No. Because the founding premise – that the universe is “needy” – is itself unfounded.

6:38am

Mus:
and what about the big bang?

6:38am

Me:
What about it? We have tons of evidence

6:38am

Mus:
And if it cannot create itself, neither it can come out of nothing than whats left??
I DONT KNOW//
yes thats what i am saying, big bang proves that the universe has a beginning & everything that has a beginning has a cause…
so this proves that universe is needy…

6:41am

Me:
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

The Big Bang – NASA Science
science.nasa.govThe night sky presents the viewer with a picture of a calm and unchanging Universe. So the 1929 discovery by Edwin Hubble that the Universe is in fact expanding at enormous speed was revolutionary. Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed pro…


6:42am

Mus:
what does this prove?

6:43am

Me:
That god is unnecessary to the existanceof the universe

6:44am

Mus:
where does this article proves that?

6:47am

Me:
Do you see anywhere in there the need for a deity in the explanation provided? Where’s deity in this scientifically accepted model?

6:48am

Mus:
its irrelevant than.. tell me is the 3rd possibility logical?
I am not talking with you to win or lose, i am just trying to share knowledge & encouraging you to think & reason…
Please tale it positively & think & after reasoning be honest & answer,,

6:51am

Me:
No, it is not logical. It requires a deity that is intelligent, yet removed; creative, yet bad at engineering (why does a created universe need quasars, for example); and sloppy (what was the purpose of this supposed creator when he put dinosaurs on earth long before man emerged?)
I suspect it may be time to move to another topic that may yield a more productive discussion. While cosmology has answered many questions, it is too easy to slip into “the god of gaps” mode.

6:52am

Me:
What say you we take a different approach. Let’s take a look at man from a created, designed point of view. Do you agree to this shift of focus?

6:52am

Mus:
dinosaurs, bad enginering they are also irrelevant to my question..
Physicists say that the universe is so finely tuned that it cannot be by an accident..
or by chance…
\
6:55am

Me:
Irrelevant how? You are essentially making the claim that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being created the universe. Dinosaurs and bad engineering are therefore extremely relevant.

6:55am

Mus:
It is accurately designed & a designed universe requires a designer..

6:55am

Me:
And no respectable physicist makes the claim you purport.

6:56am

Mus:
I think you havent seen the video. Coz all are respectable physicists.. But it seems like you are not willing to reason…

7:03am

Me:
Accretion – the formation of planets – is explained plainly in cosmology. That our piece of cosmic dust we call home is in the right area for life is not proof of any god; as I pointed out a few hours ago, there are thousands of planets in the same zone orbiting distant stars, and it is a statistical guarantee we’re not the only intelligent life in the cosmos.

7:05am

Mus:
Physicists comments prove: It seemed that hidden in the laws of nature was a value so precise that it was impossible to deny that our universe was designed, but a designed universe requires the existence of designer..
Most physicists said nothing about the the meaning of this discovery. The scientists own discoveries were pointing them to an intelligent designer.
And if you see the vid, richard dawkins in the video, he admitted that he made a mistake of using Weinberg’s name in the explanation… Again misleading masses…

7:05am

Me:
Precise? Remember that extreme difference in distance from the sun our planet moves through every year I mentioned some time ago? That’s hardly “precise”
Wait, what? You want to drag Dawkins into this? Are you sure?
Because if we’re going to talk about Dawkins, we’re going to talk about evolution.

7:07am

Mus:
i am not dragging him, you must watch the video, he is in conversation with weinberg…
I a not taking abt him, i am just telling you that he himself admitted… John,plz watch the video again. It will clearify you a lot of things.. What the physicists say, how dawking misinterpret it…

7:08am

Me:
I am revisiting the video now.

7:09am

Mus:
Yes thanks

7:31am

Me:
OK. That video takes an awful lot out of context. Here’s why:

“One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”
― Steven Weinberg

7:31am

Me:
http://youtu.be/rDgzRIiQ4b8

7:38am

Mus:
The point in the video is that dawkins is misleading masses..

7:40am

Me:
Ad-hominem fallacies don’t go far, and from what I just showed you, I don’t see him misleading anyone. the video I just watched (from you) DID mislead, as I just illustrated.

Mus:
And you ignored the set of numbers that the universe is designed of…. And winberg clearly said that in the end we would not be able to explain the world…

7:47am

Me:
I didn’t ignore the “constants”; that “set of numbers” is arbitrary to make the mathematical models work; changing any two of them carefully will produce the same results. This is the mathematical law of reciprocity. Ergo, those constants prove nothing of design from intelligence.

7:48am

Mus:
As for leonard.. He says it was an accident & that sounds very illogical after knowing the accurate & fine tuning of the universe..
Let’s take another example of something most of us have and use
on a regular basis: a mobile phone. Your mobile phone is composed
of a few basic elements. Plastic, glass, silicon for the chip, and some
precious metals. Plastic comes from oil, and glass and silicon from
sand. So basically, what you are holding in your hand is oil and sand.
Now, what if I told you that I was walking along in the desert of
Arabia (where there is lots of oil and sand) and picked up a mobile
phone which I found just lying there… a product of billions of years
of random events? The wind blew, the sun shone, the rain fell, lightning struck, the oil bubbled, the camel trod and after millions and
millions of years the mobile phone formed itself. And naturally I
pick it up, push the call button.
Is there a chance that this could have randomly formed itself
through natural processes?

7:49am

Me:
Ah, the watchmaker argument
This is just a reconstruction of the irreducible complexity logical fallacy.

7:51am

Me:
If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

7:57am

Me:
“I don’t need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that the universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of benevolence that might have shown the hand of a designer.”
― Steven Weinberg

One thought on “Debating a Muslim creationist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s