I have decided to go back and re-read your postings above. I regretfully realised that I projected my misunderstandings on you. I am sorry also for not directly responding to your postings. Oh yes, also please forgive me for trolling! In the meantime, I have made peace with your insulting way of communicating your ideas. It looks like you just cannot help it. I guess that what I responded to, in kind, when you rightfully noted my mask lifting a bit.

I must admit we are different wave lengths here. That is not a sin, at all.

Before, I sign off though, let me, at least, try to respond to your question in your latest posting, about who caused God to come into existence?

The simple and short answer is NONE caused God. God claims to be The First and the Last. The Eternal, as such no origin and no evolution. Yet,…

My fear is that it is such a metaphysical response, which may either be above or below your current level of mind evolution.

Being a Muslim, my primary source of God-related information is the Quran. In the Quran God has extensively dealt with all the questions you have in your evolving mind, including, how God came into existence. If fact, since, this question has, direct reference to God, it is better for me to allow God to respond further to your question, because, this is an old atheistic question!

God says that as sHe is The Primary Causer. sHe is not caused. sHe does not evolve and is not created by anyone else. In fact, God claims to be the Evolver of all and as such will remain after everything else has become totally extinct! God does not become extinct, so sHe claims in the Quran.

I must admit though that since I was not at the beginning of everything, including the Self-origin of God, I cannot verify this aspect of God’s origin.

However, what I am 100% certain of is that God has most defitely communicated to humans, through various means. e.g. Prophets and messengers, hence, the guided evolution of physical existence of Revealed Scriptures, references we can interact with in the physical world.

Obviously, God has also provided the freedom for all to critically scrutise and study them and then decided to believe or disbelieve, as long as everyone understands the consequences of either choice. In my case, I have chosen to believe in God’s revelations and established scientific knowledge.

I hope, on this one, I have tried my best to given an answer.

Take it easy.

Peace.

First things first: I actually wrote this and the above very calmly and unemotionally. Perhaps I felt a bit of frustration with your clear desire to avoid actually addressing anything in my post. I note that you did so again in your most recent comment.

One question for you. You said, “evolution has an EVOLVER and that origins of everything has an ORIGINATOR”. Does that include “God”?

You use loaded language as if you are unaware of the insults they sometimes imply, but you accuse me of being hostile. In your second comment it appears that your mask is slipping a bit. If you are bothered by the way I talk, then don’t talk to me. How about that? I don’t feed trolls. I don’t care if they are concern trolls or not; a troll is a troll is a troll. You have all the hallmarks of a troll. I shall trust that anyone reading these comments will be able to see that. Again, though, I encourage them wholeheartedly to visit your website and then visit the one I suggested. As for me, I am not here to accept your projections and misunderstandings. I suggest you move along, now.

Thank you.

I cannot speak on behalf of all believers, but my personal attitude is that I do not have any problem with objective science! I do not. It is not a sham, as you emotionally concluded. I do belive in considering evidence and knowledge BOTH from establised scientifc discovery and reliable revealed knowledge. That is a bit of difference between you and me. It is true, I do believe in both seen and unseen phenomena. No shame or apology.

Regarding the issue of origins and evolution, all I am prepared to say in brief is that what many of God and science believers such as me are pointing out to exclusive believers in scientism, is that evolution has an EVOLVER and that origns of everything has an ORIGINATOR.

It is like I say, there is SAYER and THINKER behind your words and that is you. Instead of simply saying, your words evolved into existence by chance, without your existing in the first place! Unless you believe that you do’nt!

Or you maybe, your mind is yet to sufficiently evolve to understand my logic! That is allright with me. I am prepared to wait until such a time, so that we calmly and rationally discuss these matters, without all the nasty name-calling and verbal abuse! Frankly, I do not high expectation, it is my wish.

Regarding the of origins and ethics, let us discuss this one, when you have calmed yourself and ready to engage in a civil dialogue with me.

Cheers

I checked out your website and was sadly unsurprised by what I found therein. I encourage folks reading this comment of mine to go and see for themselves before reading the rest of what I have to say.

OK? Right.

I must note that you did not bother to actually address anything I said in my post here. As you are probably aware, there is a significant difference between a ‘belief’ and a scientific theory. I do not “believe in evolution” any more than I “believe in photons” or “believe in mathematics”. Further, I do not “believe in the the theory of evolution”. This recent goal of creationists like you to turn the tables on people like me, by claiming that “evolutionists/Darwinists” are believers in some ungodly faith, is in the end a paper tiger many of us have already cut to ribbons. Whether it’s a stratagem on your part or a case of projection, reasonable people know that I’m not the one with a religious faith in things unseen. You, Abdul, are.

Your worst-of-the-web site is typically flashy, tacky, and impoverished. It also immediately shows your ostensibly science friendly stance is exactly the sham I expected it would be. Please allow me now to direct you (and anyone reading this comment) to Talk.Origins. I am afraid that the writers there will flatly contradict the Quran’s assertion that the earth does not move (27:61) and that the stars are either lamps (41:12) or darts (67:5). I mean, assuming that you are taking these assertions literally.

But you want to point out that there is a certain division of waters, and that these waters do not mix (55: 19-20). OK. Here’s a response to that. Do you see how silly this is? I mean, can you not grasp what a pointless exercise in niggling semantics and freshman academics this is? Why are you wasting my and your own time? It is clear that you are not interested in actual science, and it is clear (from your website) that you have an agenda that is anti-science at its core. Your website is especially hostile toward the theory of evolution and draws any number of unwarranted and unsupportable conclusions. E.g., the idea that somehow the theory of evolution undermines morality is baseless and stupid. You have completely ignored what I had to say in my post here, which addresses this issue.

You fail to provide any actual response to my post, then you put on airs and try to come off looking like some conscientiously concerned truth-bringer? I call it a bunch of bullshit.

not just theories, by the way!

It is always amazing to notice how some people when they emotionally talk of their strong belief in the theory of evolution and how it is the best way of believing, they seem to be giving an impression as if they are talking about the truth of evolution! There is a difference between a truth and a theory.

Clearly, there may never be a real meeting point between a conscious believer and conscious dis-believer or unbeliever (in God’s Creation).

We know that science has produced weapons of destruction, without the help of religion or even morality, but that does not diminish the importance of scientifc knowledge and empirical evidence. Same with religion!

If you are a true free thinker and scientific minded, then I challenge you to scientifically study the Quran and then publish your findings, especially on their the scientifc information in there! e.g. Quran 55: 19-20

No emotionality and topic avoidance – please. Just take courage and patience to study. You can take how much time and freedom you like.

You can start with this website: http://www.harunyahya.com

Scientifically yours.

I promise to never ask or persuade you to become a believer in God.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.

Every child is an atheist at birth, has no political affiliation, cares nothing for any but the most essential things, has no opinions, is, very nearly, a tabula rasa so far as the conscious world is concerned.

It takes experiences and education to bring about in the child opinions, concerns, affiliations, beliefs. Children model themselves after their parents. To indoctrinate a child is to purposefully set out to permanently alter that child’s sense of reality. It irks me terribly when people suggest that to teach a child evolutionary theory is to indoctrinate the child into “Darwinism”; it’s stupid and disingenuous. Aside from the fact that there is no such religion or belief system, science itself lays no claim on the purpose or being of any person; science is a system of methods designed by humans to learn what is in the world, and as such is subject to revision at any point where improvement is indicated. On the other hand, it is uncontroversial to note that it is indoctrination when one teaches a child that there is a magic man in the sky who is invisible, whose existence cannot be proved, but who cares enough to torture you eternally if you fail to believe properly. It is a betrayal of the child to teach such things as if they were unequivocally true, and as a betrayal it is easily seen as abuse once the ramifications are exposed and sussed out.

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.

I just read a story somewhere online in which the author made the tired old claim once again, that morality is the fruit of the religion tree. (Actually, he was agreeing with D’Souza when he said it.)

It never fails to puzzle me, either. From an atheistic perspective, it seems rather obvious that morality is “explained” by, and not created by, this or that bogey in the sky. We know—again, as atheists—that morality came first, and that various cults appropriated morals into their mythological systems because—well, because they didn’t know any better, at least in the beginning, and they wanted to lay claim to whatever they weren’t able to explain. But it stands to reason that, prior to any so-called religion making the scene, people were not running around just killing each other on sight and acting however they wanted to act without laws to stop them.

The appropriation of morality into this or that religion is convenient and useful to said religion, but it is clear that morality developed along with social interaction in times immemorial. We may not know for sure what ur-morality looked like, but we can be sure that it was what allowed humans to build civilizations.

I always doubt those who say they would become lawless animals without “God” there to threaten/encourage them. Batshit crazy people are, thankfully, not so common, though religion certainly attracts them to the fold. But, honestly, if one of these people were to lose his or her religion, I think it would make no difference. After all, it’s only belief that is ostensibly making a difference to them now; there is no “God” to enforce morality.