Islam vs. Science, Islam Loses

My posts have mostly slammed Christian creationists for their anti-intellectualism and pseudo-scientific ideas. So to be fair, I’m offering up this turd of a video featuring a Muslim creationist. He may have an accent, but he blabbers on like a Christian, using all the hackneyed arguments against evolution. He spins a caricature of Darwin and science for his audience, and hopes the sheeple will not question his lies.

The arrogant prick who posted the video on YouTube describes it as “Why Darwin’s theory is incompatible with the Quran”. A reasonable person, of course, would not have held a single book up as irrefutable. Science is open to being questioned; that’s why it works. Clearly, the Quran is a fragile text, one that crumbles under the slightest criticism.


Filed under Religion

71 responses to “Islam vs. Science, Islam Loses

  1. Possibly the most gay Muslim I have ever seen, note his flamboyant hand gestures.

  2. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” (Seinfeld)

    Except in the Muslim world, where there is. I guess calling a Muslim man gay is like accusing him of witchcraft in the 17th century.

  3. I loved how he brought up the “homosexuality is genetic” thing and then said “but the guy who did the study is gay!!”, like that brings it into question…because gay people have this massive hidden agenda…ITS A CONSPIRACAHHH

  4. thedarwinreport

    Haven’t you heard? According to some creationists, evolution is a huge conspiracy, by super rich, college professors. Richard Dawkins actually lives next door to Donald Trump and drives a bright red Ferrari. He’s also dating Paris Hilton. He just hides it all by riding a bicycle to work and wearing tweed. The sly dog.

  5. Tweed, when will the non-believers learn that it is synonymous with EVIL!

  6. I love Islam.

    To the non- Muslims whom think they have the right to critisise, yeah thats all good now but we’ll be LAUGHING at you while you burn.

    Compared to what follows, LIFE is unbelievably short. So say what you like now and lets see how arragont you are in the future.

    Love and peace

  7. Abdul Lateef

    So your answer to the chap in the video is to merely insult him. Unfortunately the drones who go along with this THEORY rarely question it. They blindly follow it and thus it becomes a dogma. Can you see the hypocracy? Refute, don’t insult did you know that the chap above has the largest personal library in the world? You say you people love logic but you quickly discard it.

    I know how you think but it is clouded by hate as I was once like you. But the fact you hate God means you have already lost. By hating God you admit he exists.

    It is logical to assume that a higher intelligence created this world. Just as if you walked in the desert and came across a radio. Now would you think this radio came about by chance or perhaps it was created by an intelligent being? A radio is simple compared to a living organism so why would you think an organism was created by chance?

  8. Abdul Lateef

    Another point about homosexuality and I’ll keep it brief. Identical twins….one is homosexual and the other hetrosexual. Many examples of this.

    Be prepared my friend..Islam is NOT Christianity.

  9. truth

    i respect all religion but the truth is..all religion isnt tell the truth..i dont believe islam,christianity,athiest etc…where is ur proof that Allah,God,etc is exist?if u believe that there is God,Allah etc so aliens are exist..This Allah, God are higher beings than us…their technology is advance almost million of years…To all muslim,christian friend this Alien are Gods,Allah they are pretend that they are creator…do ur research about Philip Schnieder? u will see the truth…killing the human being isnt good..killing because of friend if i were u i will quit ur religion….

  10. unknown

    how do u think u r fucking arrshole u bitch u gay motherfucker skelliot

  11. unknown

    who do u think u r skelliot u dont have the right to swere arshole

  12. thedarwinreport

    It is logical to assume that a higher intelligence created this world. Just as if you walked in the desert and came across a radio.

    I was walking in the desert the other day, and I came across god. Who created him?

    Scientists refute creationism all the time without resorting to insults. But creationists don’t listen then either.

  13. thedarwinreport

    how do u think u r fucking arrshole u bitch u gay motherfucker skelliot

    Don’t mess with the Skelliot. Anyway, I welcome the creative use of swear words on my blog. Over-zealous Muslims need a kick in the pants, especially when they spew pseudo-scientific garbage.

  14. Abdul Lateef

    The first thing you should understand is that argumentum ad hominem doesn’t wash in a debate. My analogy of the radio in a desert doesn’t work so well with changing the word to God. Would you admit that our minds are limited? If you agree to this then there will be questions out there we could never hope to answer.

    As for Allah being created this is what He said. Allah is One he begets not nor is he begotten. A very simple statement that has many meanings. It is first a rebuke to the christians who say Jesus is the literal son of God and also that Allah was not born of anything. Allah states he is before the beginning and after the end.

    We do not know of what form he takes but is not a human form. We aren’t encouraged to reflect on his shape or form as this leads to deviancy. In the Quran you can find the big bang theory as Allah states. “We created the Universe and are continually expanding it” The royal We is used here you can translate that to I as this Royal We is rarely used in the English language nowadays.

    I wish you all Peace and I pray that Allah guides you and I.

  15. thedarwinreport

    The first thing you should understand is that argumentum ad hominem doesn’t wash in a debate.

    What also doesn’t wash in a debate is unverifiable bullshit. All you’ve presented is religious faith and cheap interpretation. It’s not science. And it’s certainly isn’t reasonable or logical –two things I don’t really expect from Islamic thinking. anyway.

    Allah is One he begets not nor is he begotten.

    If the great complex Allah was not begotten, then why should it be so fanciful to believe that life came about by natural processes? There’s a glaring contradiction there that you’re too arrogant to acknowledge. Basically, all you’ve provided as an answer is ‘just because’. And that’s worth Jack Squat in a debate. So please don’t put on this pretense of wanting a fair discussion.

  16. I don’t want to be in deep discussions but referring to what is written “the Quran is a fragile text, one that crumbles under the slightest criticism”.

    Okay I honor your viewpoint and I am all ears so — name one?

    or should I take it as “fragile criticism”

  17. thedarwinreport

    I’ll name the biggest one. Why should I believe the Quran over any other religious text? Demonstrate your specific god exists before you ask me to believe in him.

    And I don’t honor your viewpoint. I want hard evidence, not the excuse of blind faith.

  18. Agnosdick


  19. Shadow

    Quick question, if you were created from an Ape, that means you are still an Ape, right?

    So basically the issue here is that, those who believe in God consider themselves Human and those who were created by evolution are considered Apes.

    And the evolutionists are now angry and they want us to call ourselves Apes instead of Humans.

    No thanks. I prefer being Human. You can go call yourself an Ape.

  20. thedarwinreport

    No. Humans are descended from extinct apes, not modern apes. But technically –behaviorally, anatomically, genetically– humans are apes. Sorry, but the only way around that fact is to be delusional. And finally your logic leads to one major problem for you– under the evolutionary framework, humans and modern apes are only cousins, but under creationism, humans and modern apes would be brothers, since they would have the same father. You lose. Better luck next time.

  21. fuck you

    islam is a big fucking lie its just a cult like the kkk so fuck all muslims and fuck the quaran and finaly fuck allah oh and prophet mohammed

  22. thedarwinreport

    All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads. So all toads are both toads and frogs. It’s not an either or question. Humans can be called both human and ape.

    From your answer I’d call you a non-thinking human.

  23. alien

    Muhamed is an illeterate poet & quran his poem,so it has nothing to do with Science.So better to talk about muhamed vs stoning vs sex with a 9 year old

  24. 100% MUSLIM

    Zaker Nayek is coming to our beautiful Maldives to teach Islam in order to threaten us with hell fire & stoning,beheading & other acts of terrorism.The thing I need the most is having wild sex with 72 virgins with huge breasts with full of milk in them,so pls Dr.Zakaru teach me how to have them.I am even ready to blow off my zakaru (dick) with a Bin Laden bomb

  25. nik

    well i wont go in the whats written in the quran as i havent read whole quran (i have just read one chapter , i it was unyielding in terms of knowlegde and wisdom so i gave in ) well if we see last 1000 years of islamic world i dont remember any major breakthrough discovery in science ( there are some but u can count of fingers and those discoveries came after invading india which at that time was at forefront of science ) but if u see the major discovery in science and mathematics came from india and western world ( western world questioned bible and viola science ushered in )
    in case of eastern civilization just google ancient science in india and discoveries in china.
    google this key word CHARAK this dude was world first surgion ( almost 2000 years old performed surgeries on appendics , skin grafting etc. imp thing this dude lived way before quran came into existance)
    by looking very facts stated here one can infer islam or islamic world has nothing to do with science , they just blindly foolow whats written and they just wanna prove in anyway that islam = science .

  26. nik

    and ya if some 1 say algebra was invented by islamic scholers or zero was invented by muslims plz alzebra and 0 are given by india from here the knowledge went to arab countries as india ws invaded my muslims .lets see if any 1 posts any major scientific or mathematical discovery me or the author here will be happy to post the original discoverer way back the date when the discovery is proclaimed by islamic scholer .
    isent it mr. darwin report

  27. isawlawevil

    They don’t allow depictions of allah because there is no way they could explain away the horns.



  29. thedarwinreport

    It’s the results of science that just allowed you to communicate your message by computer. So your comment would hold so much more weight if you were living in a cave with no electricity or modern convenience of any kind. Islam is prideful ignorance.

  30. Forget y'all

    I am a Muslim i wouldn’t want a fight over Islam Vs Science listen whatever you believe is what you believe. Talk bullshit about Islam, but other Muslims in the world don’t care.. believe there own religion. Islam is not pride… Hell No.. We don’t boast around. People say Muslims started the war, its the hypocrites true Muslims don’t go bombing around the place. You guys can criticize this however you want… Its my belief!

  31. Forget y'all

    But true what you guys say. This guy is really weird.

  32. red zuan

    Whatever you do in univ. is not good enough if you try to lecture us about Darwin’s On the Origin of Species comparing with the Qur’anic Science of Human Creation. I tell you to read but different sources if you want to be taken seriously. If the inventor of Dynamite and one of the biggest explosive manufacturer is giving the nobel peace prize, we all must see the strange. There is no different if they do the same today.Human inductive reasoning skill have it limitation. Therefore, it’s your choices to decide and think.

  33. thedarwinreport

    What a nonsensical comment.

  34. khan

    i dont discuss islam and science but i m going to refresh the minds of those guys who have little knowledge regarding islam,who so ever u r,consult first of all translations of koran in ur respective languages then go for criticism,discussions and so on. some one abuses islam its messenger,and holly book i think he had not till date read think before u speak; may almighty Allah forgive him for his mistake. science is not somebodies personal property so that he can impress world. there is contribution from every nook n corner of world.just go inside america how many scientists are muslims..?

  35. Mantoo

    I Love ISLAM.
    I have Proud to be a Muslim.


    Honestly, use ur common sense sumtymz. If u want to believe u came from a freakin’ ape, than think that. U sure think like one. any1 with a tiny bit of common sense can say that they never came from an ape. Ur the one who’s following darwin’s THEORY blindly. U SERIOUSLY NEED 2 GET A LIFE!!!

  37. Muslima and proud

    Islam v science? Islam loses? LOL! Correction- Islam always wins.
    Say what you want, think what you like.. Islam is no competition. Therefore you are wasting your time.

  38. thedarwinreport

    Science is the opposite of common sense. Common sense requires no effort. While scientific knowledge is the product of painstaking research. You can’t look into someone’s eyes and see DNA. It isn’t obvious that all life is connected.

    You make a blind religious assertion, but can you back it up. How does God’s creation work? You’re clearly just an anti-intellectual bent on keeping people ignorant.

  39. thedarwinreport

    Islam wins ignorance, poverty, and slavery. What a cache of wonderful prizes. Just look at the Muslim world; most of it is uneducated and illiterate. Women are treated like chattel. Way to live in the 12th century.

  40. scienceftw

    keep up the good work, someone has to educated the sheeps

  41. Student of knowledge

    Judging from my experience of sleep paralysis and narcolepsy(which really are the effects of witchcraft and demon spirits), there is no scientific medical cure for the medical condition(only treatment, no cure) because science cannot prove the existence of the unseen.

    So the logical thing to do was to consider a source of knowledge which states that there is a solution to every illness except death…so I put this to the test.

    I went to an islamic spiritual healer to see if he could help me with my chronic sleep paralysis problem. I then underwent his quraanic taweez treatment and guess what? IT WORKED!!
    I was under a magic spell and a demon spirit was troubling me(causing sleep paralysis).

    He used islamic knowledge to not only cure the problem(break the magic spell-narcolepsy) but also prevent sleep paralysis(demon spirit attack). Any wise person would know that prevention is a 1000 times better than treating it.

    Now the question we all need to ponder about is: How is it possible that islam has a cure for a problem that medical science has not discovered yet?? Makes one understand that science has flaws which religion can correct;)

    After doing more research I discovered that there are other people who found cures through islamic healing where medical science was ineffective…if this knowledge was revealed by the muslim God and messenger over 1400 years ago it means that scientists have been ignorant for over a millenium and have misdiagnosed spiritual problems as medical problems…how incompetent!!

    My message to everyone is that they should consider alternative sources of knowledge. The wise are students of knowledge. The fools are victims of ignorance. So lets go in search of knowledge without any bias…it may just benefit you like it did for me:)

    All the best guys. Keep the peace.

  42. thedarwinreport

    sleep paralysis and narcolepsy(which really are the effects of witchcraft and demon spirits)

    Everyone knows witches and demons only cause constipation. While sleep paralysis and narcolepsy are caused by long-winded post-modernistic pseudo-scientific anti-intellectual religious idiots like yourself.

    because science cannot prove the existence of the unseen.

    I cannot see oxygen or electrons or methane gas or magnetic fields. But science can test their existence.

  43. Student of knowledge

    In my comment the word Unseen relates to magic and demon spirits, which science cannot prove. Its like pain in your body, you cant see pain but you know it exists because you can feel its effect.

    “Never insult a person because you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend what they say or brainpower to prove them wrong. Rather insult them by proving them wrong, using their own proof against them when they are wrong”

  44. Energy

    Law Of Conservation Of Energy : Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can only change from one form to another. Total energy in the universe remains constant.

    Islam : Goa creates energy and mass.

    Islam fails at every provable law of science which are simple and which you can see in day to day life. One who creates energy does not belong to this universe. Or if someone has discovered a technique to create mass and energy then please scientifically tell us how he/she has created the energy?

  45. Energy

    and if human being didn’t evolve from ape then from where did human being come from??? The arabic god created the human, he only knows where and sent human being in a space shuttle to earth? hahaha. Concept like u will have 72 virgins in heaven and bullshit lol. How can one bring the two words Islam and Science in 1 sentence. 1 can be proved and the other one believes in some magical creature in the sky sitting there enjoying all the powers and myths like that. Sorry i don’t believe in illiterate magical stuffs.

  46. Energy

    @ Student of Knowledge
    lol dude, pain ain’t magical you can feel pain because you have nerves, neurons and sensory organs in your body. Its ain’t magic, there is nothing called as magic. Everything has its scientific method. Islam says someone creates energy and mass….now thats called as magic. and there is no such thing as magic. Get over your demons. They are your imagination.

  47. Student of Knowledge

    If we do research we will discover that medical science does not have a cure for chronic sleep paralysis patients. However, islamic healers have been curing these patients with the use of the Quraan for centuries…it is known by these healers as witchcraft and demon problems but science named it “sleep paralysis” in modern times. It’s the same problem with different names. Islam had the cure for it over 1400 years ago and yet science incorrectly states that there is no cure for it today.
    The cure(basicly prevention of SP/jinn attacks) is by reading the 3 quls and ayatul kursi before sleeping…it’s a proven method, no medication involved.

  48. zeeshan

    my brother you asked me a question to show that who created is present in every said energy is constant.Whenever a new baby is born energy is given to millions of people born but only thousands die so how is energy constant.and can science give life atleast to a animal?i respect all religions but i find Islam the best you all please read and understand than follow.Islam was invented very earlier and not yet changed all the scientific facts are already writen in holy book of Islam.and never abuse any ones religion it may hurt please be kind.

  49. HonestPrettyGirl

    Ok all of you who have criticized Islam, Good Luck when you burn in hell. If you have nothing good to say then keep your mouth shut. I love Islam, but i dont say that i HATE the other religions and im not gonna CRITICIZE those who say that they love christianity or judism. So that just proves that Muslims and people of other religions who have good minds ( not ALL muslims , but a majority of them ) are sane enough to hold their tongue and use it properly and not swear like arrogant crazy people who seriously cant control themselves, i mean you could probably explain ur POV without swearing, so TRY IT its not difficult. And keep your mouth shut if you cant, and i dont care if the darwinreport welcomes swears, if thedarwinreport told you to go jump off a cliff i dont think you would have.


    Your title should have been: Science vs Christianised-Islam.

  51. qwert

    Darwin Himself said what ever he is saying is just an imagination of what may actually have, had and will. he has no proof of whatever he is saying except for some skeletons. No one can proof what Darwin said. Each Darwinian has what we call as just assumptions. Even Einstein said his theories are not absolute, can change if some more discoveries are made. And even if there is any possibility of Darwin Theory to be correct, then all religions and their holy scripts are false according to you. You must be really an atheist.
    But nevertheless, Islam has given the “Qur’an” which has proven it is right and absolutely pure form of knowledge. If atheists like you start praying today and start believing in “Almighty” the Supreme of all beings.

  52. thedarwinreport

    I doubt you’ve read any of Darwin’s works. And you likely know nothing about evolutionary biology. So you’re mouthing off from a position of ignorance and religious gullibility. Your religious books are irrelevant to scientific questions. Next victim.

  53. Islam101

    The darwin report,ur telling us who created our god, and things like that, but what created the particles and matter that collided to make the “big bang”, think about it because your only contradicting yourself as well. The reason why we have a better answer, it is the quran. Before you judge anything.. Read and learn about it, I promise you that it will answer all your questions. You are just being stubborn not accepting anyone elses opinion other than you and your crew of monkeys because u can’t admit to be wrong sometimes. May GOD direct you to the correct path.

  54. ObjectiveAnalyzer

    Where exactly did you get the notion that “particles and matter collided to create the big bang” ? Instead of showing pure ignorance the way you just did , please go and study astrophysics and cosmology and learn something about the Big Bang before making such idiotic statements .

  55. ObjectiveAnalyzer

    Actually the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly 0. This validates “creatio ex nihilo” about which theists are constantly whining about.

  56. Islam101

    How bout you explain me the big bang, and how it proves that it wasnt created by god, a supreme power who creates all. How bout you show me how you can dissapprove the theory that matter isnt created out of anything. How bout you show me every single thing that proves im wrong….

  57. ObjectiveAnalyzer

    Nowhere did I mention anything about God in my post . However , because you so desperately begged me, therefore I will educate you(something your parents apparently failed to do).

    1.) You want to know about the big bang . Here is my answer :
    “The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion years ago,[2][3] which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred.[4][5] After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
    The Big Bang is a well-supported scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.Georges Lemaître first proposed what would become the Big Bang theory in what he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom.” Over time, scientists would build on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein’s general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble’s observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.
    If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of this model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
    Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative “steady state” cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.”

    2.)You want to know about why the Abrahamic/Islamic God in all likelihood does not exist . here is my answer :

    1.Empirical arguments:
    Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions:
    The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur’an, Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon or the Baha’i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to knowledge of God’s existence.
    The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
    The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.
    The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
    The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
    The argument from parsimony (using Occam’s razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
    The analogy of Russell’s teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist.

    2.Deductive arguments
    Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.
    The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
    The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: “Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?” or “If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than himself?”
    The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God’s omnibenevolence or omnipresence.
    The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.
    A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument (“chicken or the egg”) takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
    Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.

    3.Inductive arguments:
    Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
    The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre’s phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie’s novel Grimus: “That which is complete is also dead.”
    The “no reason” argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God’s Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Mises’s “Human Action.” He referred to it as the “praxeological argument” and claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants faster—showing it imperfect.
    The “historical induction” argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts’ popular quotation:
    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    4.Subjective arguments:
    Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
    The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
    The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect.
    The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God. ”

    3.)There is no known scientific theory that claims “matter isn’t created out of anything”. However , there is the Zero-Energy Universe hypothesis which states that “the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero” . Hence , in a way it validates “creatio ex nihilo” as I explained to Energy in one of my previous posts. And why should I disprove it ? In no way does it support the argument for God’s existence . Different religions have different take on this matter , while some like Islam don’t have a consistent take on it . The Qur’an for example , in one verse claims that “man was created out of a mere clot of congealed blood”, in another verse it claims that “man was created from clay” , in another it claims that “man was created from dust” , in another “man was created from water” , in another “man was created from nothing” . These glaring contradictions within the Qur’an clearly show that Islam is no authority on the subject regarding” what are humans made of “?

    4.) I have pretty much given you all the explanations that you asked for .As far as proving you wrong goes , you didn’t really provide any argument for your claims at all , and I doubt that you’ll even be able to provide any reason for your nonsensical beliefs which I haven’t already soundly rebutted in the above arguments that I presented , so that’s that.

    And by the way , your information , I have a B.Sc in Physics while my brother is doing his doctorate in Philosophy. He was the one who introduced me to this debate , and from what I have learnt from him , the theist arguments by and large are filled with circular reasoning and logical fallacies , while the atheist arguments generally have a solid backing from scientific evidence and are logically sound .

  58. Islam101

    Lets start at my basis here, I dont need claims and detailed evidence on what to prove and how to prove it, its all infront of your eyes but you are yet to realize it because of your non-humanical mind is trying to comprehend what is incomprehendable:
    1) First of all I’m going to be clear and simple, if you do not want to believe me then that is your choice. I do not lose anything when not believing your theory of God’s existence, but what you lose is something you will regret when the time has come. Your telling me that the big bang was just the universe that was a dense hot spot, and then when it cooled down and expanded that is the state that we are in today.

    (1) If reason exists then God exists.
    (2) Reason exists.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
    (2) I say the universe must have a cause.
    (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) I define God to be X.
    (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
    (2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
    (2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn’t it complex?
    (2) Only God could have made them so complex.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
    (2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) My aunt had cancer.
    (2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
    (3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn’t have cancer.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
    (2) That all changed once I became religious.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
    (2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    (1) If there is no God then we’re all going to not exist after we die.
    (2) I’m afraid of that.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    If you want a christian point of view here it is:

    By Marilyn Adamson

    Just once wouldn’t you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God’s existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, “You just have to believe.” Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

    But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…

    1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

    Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

    The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

    The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

    And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

    Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

    It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

    Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

    Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

    Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

    Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

    Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

    The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

    The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

    The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages — simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain — the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

    2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?

    Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

    Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”9

    Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”10

    The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

    3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

    Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.

    How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

    “The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”11

    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”12

    4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.

    All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It’s made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

    Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

    Why is this so amazing? One has to ask….how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person’s body should develop.

    Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

    5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

    I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people…to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

    I didn’t realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn’t escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God’s existence, my prayer began with, “Ok, you win…” It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

    I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, “I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued.” C.S. Lewis said he remembered, “…night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.”

    Lewis went on to write a book titled, “Surprised by Joy” as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God’s existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

    6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

    Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

    He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”15

    Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism are all very similar religions and each one has proof that God is existent. You have to see beyond the Universe. IF the universe is constantly expanding, that what is in the part that it hasn’t expanded to yet. There could be “nothingness”, but that is why we can only use 20% of the human brain. We are not capable of comprehending the true meaning of life and its creator.

    2) Here are some of your philosophers indireclty proving god’s existence (Including Sartre’s):


    One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God’s existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.

    There are many traditional “proofs” for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.

    Traditional “proofs” of God’s Existence

    1) The argument from Design.

    If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.

    Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.

    2) The ontological argument

    God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

    3) The cosmological argument (God as “First cause”)

    Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This ‘prime mover’ or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

    Pascal’s Wager

    The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God’s existence.)

    His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.

    If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

    Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?


    Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.

    For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.


    Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel’s Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.

    Feuerbach and Marx

    For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather “God” is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions.”

    Søren Kierkegaard

    Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
    Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.

    Nietzsche: The Death of God

    “Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, ‘I seek God!, I seek God!’ … Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?… The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

    “‘Whither is God’? He cried. ‘I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers…'”

    “…the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. ‘I came too early,’ he said then; ‘my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man.”

    In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.

    Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.

    In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn’t quite ready to own up to it yet.

    Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God’s existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.

    The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God’s death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.

    The twentieth century

    Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.

    Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.

    The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.

    Just to relate back to all the other posts and their aethiest whimsical attempts to deny God. If you hate God, then you know there is God, and therefore you believe in God. You can not hate nothingness, you just dont want to believe that you are wrong. Learn not be stubborn. One of the many characteristics that learns to simply disappear when you realize the true path. Dont tell me, “You are bing stubborn bla bla bla by denying the truth. I am not being stubborn, I am being true to my words on my oath to the existence of god.”
    May you be directed to the rightful path.

  59. ObjectiveAnalyzer


    As I had mentioned in my post , most of your arguments are already soundly rebutted in my post . However , I think I probably didn’t address the fine tuning and ontological arguments , so here goes:
    1.)Victor Stenger has debunked the fine tuning argument by simulating different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that “a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes”. Fred Adams has performed a similar study with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C, and he reached a similar conclusion as Stenger . Furthermore, Harnik, Kribs and Perez have argued for the viability of a universe with no weak interaction at all. However, they noted that their analysis does not extend to the supposed fine tuning of the cosmological constant, and concluded that “the fine-tuning problems associated with the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant appear to be qualitatively different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe.”
    2.)The ontological argument(as presented by you) can be refuted in the following ways :
    if there are two characteristics necessary for God’s perfection that are incompatible with a third, the notion of a supremely perfect being becomes incoherent. The ontological argument assumes the definition of God purported by classical theism: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. There exist arguments that suggest that the combination of these characteristics is logically incoherent. For example, a morally perfect being must be perfectly merciful and perfectly just. Perfect justice requires punishing every person exactly according to what they deserve; perfect mercy requires punishing some people less than they deserve. This would make moral perfection inconsistent. Furthermore, the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence could be incompatible. The problem of divine foreknowledge is that, if omniscience includes the ability to know exactly what will happen at any given moment, and free will means the ability to make free choices at any given moment, then God cannot logically know what a being with free will shall choose to do. If he does, then the being does not have free will. However, if God is omnipotent (with the ability to do anything), then he should have the ability to create being with free will. This would suggest that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. If any properties of a supremely perfect being are incompatible, the idea of a supremely perfect being becomes incoherent. Thus, the ontological argument does not work.

    Also , I can prove that ID doesn’t work via contradiction(assuming that the Intelligent Designer in question is God):
    1.The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2.The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3.The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4.The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6.An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God that did not exist.
    6.Therefore, God does not exist.

    Plus , as I had mentioned was the trend with theists , there is a horrible amount of circular reasoning and logical fallacies in your arguments .
    And why are you claiming that Jesus is God ? Aren’t you a Muslim ? Isn’t it the general consensus among Muslims regarding Jesus’s divinity that , while Jesus was a prophet like Muhammad , he wasn’t the literal “Son of God”.

  60. Islam101

    Ok, this time I will actually make it simple for you:
    * Just a note here… I said before those 6 points that this is a Christian point of view, i do not believe Jesus is God, nor the Son of God. But unlike you, I do not prosecute them, and atleast accept other people’s opinion while not hammering their minds with unethical ideas.
    1) But are Stenger, Harnik, Kribs, and Perez are they not? The equations and calculations they have theorized are not certain to be true or correct. it is just the assumption that we humans make, as to believe what we want to find. “You hear what you want to hear”- If you want to be stubborn and call us crazy than do so, the only thing you are doing is not considering other people’s arguments. And by that I mean go read the Qur’an and understand it correctly please.
    2) And as to your 6 steps of refuting God’s existence, there is only one way to answer it: First of all, we humans the lesser beings created by God have the free will to decide on our lives. And yes God knows what we will decide if we change our mind, even before we think about it. This is a test put on us to understand if we are actually true religous people or not. It is in a way free will, Even though we change our mind, and God is omniscience and knows all, but he does not change our minds, we do.
    3) How can you explain the idea of something being created from non existing thing. “Now you will think that, (Then how can you believe in God, if he is the first cause but everything is created by another ex infinity)” Well that is what our minds cannot comprehend, therefore you have not used all the capabilties that we do hold, since what we hold but havent used could lead to the proof that god does exist.

  61. Islam101

    *Also as a fourth note. I am a 15 year old boy, a 15 year old Muslim boy to be exact. I go to an American school and I understand your environment. I can promise you that if you ask a senior Muslim knowledgeable person, he will provide with ten times the ideas I have, and show you what you have not learned( and what your parents “failed to teach you”).
    This was very interesting, but in the end it comes down to one choice. The choice that you make to believe what you want to believe. The choice that God gives us, and knows we are going to choose but does not interfere with our choice as a test for us.
    Thank you.

  62. ObjectiveAnalyzer


    First of all , I haven’t prosecuted anyone here . When I first posted , I merely pointed out the incorrect stance you took with respect to the Big Bang . You’re the one who assumed that I was attacking your beliefs. And you CLAIM that you ACCEPT other people’s opinions yet apparently for you , “other people” doesn’t really include atheists seeing that you have used such flawed arguments to justify your stance against atheism . I can understand your need to defend your beliefs , but then don’t sugar coat your comments with statements like “I accept other people’s opinions” and then in the very next line , call them stubborn for not believing in your beliefs. And you didn’t make anything simple for me , you only made things simple for yourself . Let me show you how :

    1.) First of all , the equations that Stenger, Adams , Harnick , Perez and Kribs were indeed precise , because if they were not , the programs that Stenger and Adams used to run their simulations based on their equations would have produced an error instead of producing the results that those scientists observed . Similar reason for Harnick , Perez and Kribs (even though their equations were aimed at pointing out the viability of any arbitrary universe with modified parameters , and not necessarily a habitable universe) . As far as the Qur’an goes , in my previous to previous post , I had pointed out an inconsistency in the book regarding the creation of man , and don’t get me wrong , these sort of inconsistencies are present in all the religious books , be it the Bible or the Torah. What you must understand is that these books were written during a time when humanity was extremely superstitious , and therefore shouldn’t be taken literally as the word of God. Of course you can interpret them in an allegorical or metaphorical manner , but what you must understand is that not everyone is capable of differentiating between a metaphor and a literal statement which is what leads to religious fundamentalism . This is the reason why Christian extremist from the bible belt of the US end up blowing abortion clinics and halting necessary scientific research while Muslim extremists from Western Asia , end up flying planes into buildings . This is not to say that religion is only necessarily a harmful thing . If you have studied evolution , you would know that evolution supports religion , which is more than one can say for the vice versa . And that’s because , humans , being social animals , need large groups to survive and thrive in nature , which is exactly what religion enables us to do , along with some form of spiritual experience(although one need not necessarily be religious in order to be spiritual) .

    2.) While I admire the considerable knowledge and intelligence that you have shown for a 15 year old , you should understand that my own knowledge comes from my older brother , to whom I would be able to make an appeal ti authority in a few months , once he completes his PhD in analytic philosophy . Here , first of all you should know that I was refuting ID take on God . There are a number of takes on God , among which my personal favorites are the pantheist and deist takes on God , which(though refutable) appear to be the most philosophically and logically sound pro-God ideas put forward . Back to your counter-argument though ,you’re making an intuitive fallacy , in that you are assuming that you know for sure how God operates , when nobody in this world , dead or alive knows how God operates . Furthermore , God’s foreknowledge of what choice we would make still contradicts free will , irrespective of whether or not its a test of our religiosity or not . It doesn’t really matter if we change our minds or not , because once we make a choice , it cannot be reversed , and God , being the omniscient entity that he is , already knows what choice we are going to make and its ultimate outcome .

    3.) You are once again raising the issue of “creatio ex nihilo” , which I already addressed multiple times in my previous posts , but for your sake I’ll do it again . First of all , why would you be worried about this issue , when a verse in the Qur’an(even though it contradicts a couple of other verses) states that “God created man out of nothing” , thereby accepting Creatio Ex Nihilo from the Islamic point of view ? But even if you do have a problem with it , let me repeat what I told you before :
    The zero-energy hypothesis in physics calculates the total amount of energy in the universe to be exactly 0 . When it was first discovered , physicists were shocked by this result . So they rechecked their data and equations , and the result remained unchanged . This shows us that the only type of universe that could come from nothing(here I am using the physical definition of nothing) is our universe , which validates Creatio Ex Nihilo .

    I have many Muslim friends , and most of them have told me that they prefer to debate atheists instead of Christians , when it comes to their beliefs , because unlike the atheists Christians end up looking like hypocrites when they point out the “horrible atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Allah” mentioned in the Qur’an , while conveniently forgetting all the barbarity mentioned in the Old Testament.

    Oh ,and by the way I wish you luck and hope you succeed in whatever endeavor you pursue in life (irrespective of your beliefs) . Peace 🙂

  63. Islam101

    *By other people I mean Christians and Jews. In Islam we have the statement ‘people of the book” which refers to the Jewish and Christian community. These are the communities in which we are tolerable to not atheists and whatnot. That is my point on your argument talking about how I am being the disrespectful one.

    1)As far as the scientists that you mentioned, I must research the further in their exploitation against atheism. About the Qur’an, it is known in Islam to be adaptable to different times and places. Back then, it was understood broadly because they didnt not have the masteries of science back then. One of the verses of the Qur’an talks about how the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was asked to prove his miracle and the existence of only one God. So he prayed and asked the mighty God to split the moon in half infront of their eyes, and He did so. Here is an article talking about how recently the moon has discovered to have been cracked before:
    This holy book that has been written 1000 years ago, when scientits weren’t able to discover such a thing, has been proven now. That is a obvious proof of the existence of God.
    2)We dont know exactly how God operates, but we understand his ways of operating. We dont assume these things, they are all written in the Holy Qur’an. The Qur’an is God’s words. Therefore if the Qur’an is God’s words then the verses in the Qur’an that explain the powers of God and his capabilities is not our knowledge, it is His. He tells us what he wants to learn, but we barely have any knowledge anyway. Im going to explain this to you again. The reason why most people do not believe in God is because there is no physical proof that God exists. But there is. But these people want to see God for themselves, but we cannot understand and comprehend God’s powers, it is out of our knowledge. There is a first cause for everything, nothing starts from nothing. Even if you say that there is zero energy, there is always a first cause for everything. On a note of that, when we talk about the evolution of organisms it all started from a cell, but this cell didnt have the knowledge to create a more advanced organisms. Just like we are now we dont have that knowledge. There must have been a blueprint for the organism to develop into that already had been created, from God.
    3)Even though the verses in the Qur’an talk about how man was created from this and from that, you are telling me that it contradicts itself. The problem is you are interpreting it wrong. When man is created from water, right now it is interpreted that man’s necessity live is water, does it not? Man is created from dirt soil and clay, as if you see the statistics of soil : soil is one that is 45% minerals, 25% water, 25% air, and 5% organic material, both live and dead. We have minerals and water and air and organic material all and such that are already contained in soil.

    Peace to you 🙂

  64. Saadiq

    Big Bang Theory. You believe this is right! i have one thing to say. Read up the definition of Theory!!

  65. maaz khan

    La, darwin..
    You first study deeply about Islam and Qur’an.
    Qur’aan proving divinity itself.
    I cant write a long
    Qur’an talking about
    *The big bang theory
    *Human embroy***
    *oceans and interwaves
    *exodus pharao’s body
    *sun and its orbital
    *universal expandation
    *life originates frm water
    *barrier between two seas
    *lowest place in the world
    *oxon layer protecting earth
    *reproduction b/w plants (male and female)
    *sun as lamp moon as light…etc,
    and according to Maurice buccaille, he define in his book “Qur’an,Bible and Science ” the Darwin’s evelution is already can see in Qur’an
    think… there hv a miracle for thinkers

  66. maaz khan

    G enerator
    O rganizer
    D estrorer
    Islam the great religion
    Quraan the great book
    Muhammed (S) the great prophet…

  67. Paulino DiCorleone

    You come up with all kinds of scientific findings which has already been ‘told/predicated’ or has a ‘basis in’ the Quran. And if not the Quran does not negates these findings.

    1) If it was already common knowledge among Muslims, then why did non-muslim (mostly atheists) instead of Muslims researched and proved it? Very strange, because Muslims already had all the knowledge…

    2) I am not going to attack all of these ‘quranic science’, because many of them are just a matter of interpretation of the holy scriptures. But I can point at one where the Quran actually claims to describe the development of the embryo. This knowledge is claimed to come directly from Allah.

    3) A) Quran is claimed to be the word of Allah B) Allah is claimed to be perfect and flawless C) Therefore Quran is claimed to be perfect and flawless

    4) The quranic embryo development disagrees with the PROVEN and FACTUAL scientific embryo development. In the next post I will show the huge contradictions between the quranic and the scientific PROVEN explanation of the embryo development.

    5) Conclusion: D) Quran contains huge flaws in relation to the embryo development E) Therefore Quran is not flawless because either the Quran is not the word of Allah or Allah is not flawless or Allah does not exists. F) Main and central claims of Islam logically disproven G) Islam is not true.

    6) The quranic embryo explanation contains EXACTLY the same mistakes as the Greek explanation during the lifetime of Mohammed. I will show you in the next post.

    7) Mohammed with his status, power and vast network of people you can assume he had access to this kind of knowledge. I show you in the next post.

    8) Because Mohammed made the EXACT same mistakes as science did of his day you can assume Mohammed copied the established and well accepted knowledge about embryo development.

    9) Conclusion: D) Quran is not flawless because either Mohammed did not get his revelation about the embryo development from Allah or Allah made a mistake or Allah does not exist. E) Main and central claims of Islam disproven. F) Islam is not true.

  68. Paulino DiCorleone

    For all the promised proof I refer to

    This video first shows you a debate during a dawa about the quranic and scientific embryo development process. During this part you first see the arguments against the quranic explanation and then you will see the arguments in favor of the quranic explanation.

    In the second part every argument against and in favor of the quranic explanation is being scrutinized. Both sides make good and bad points.

    Very interesting to watch indeed.

  69. Paulino DiCorleone

    After the attempted attacks of atheist, as described in my posts here above, on the quranic embryo development explanation Dr. ZAKIR NAIK a great Islamic scholar defends it with heart and great delivery.

    He basically shows how the beginning of modern Western studies of embryology in the 70s has been greatly influenced by the Quran. These days although, science no longer agrees with the ‘outdated’ knowledge of the 70s on embryology.

    But, very interesting to watch indeed.

    After reading all my posts and watching my videos its up to you what you believe is true or false.

  70. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you really recognise what you are talking about!
    Bookmarked. Kindly additionally talk over with my web site =).
    We will have a link change contract among us

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s