A scientific evidence made a famous Professor Atheist believes in God

Ok, this isn't a new news but perhaps new for some member,
​

​

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
​

​

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
​

​

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.
​

​

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." [Read my comment on this#2]
​

​

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.
​

​

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.
​

​

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.
​

​

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" [Read my comment on this#3]
​

​

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
​

​

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.
​

​

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.
​

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.
​

​

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
​

​

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.
​

​

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."
​

​

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
​

[Please visit this link (The Darwinism fails)]
​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1483061&postcount=28
​

​

​

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.
​

​

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.
​

​

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.
​

​

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

​

​

I hope one day he will change his mind in this too Amen. Does he alive?
​

Quraan: 23: 115: Did you think that I had created you in play (without any purpose), and that you would not be brought back to me?
​

32:5: He manages and regulates (every) affair from the heavens to the earth
​

6: 91: They did not estimate Allah with an estimation due to Him when they said: '' Nothing did Allah send down to any human being (by revelation)
​

​

​

​

That is stupid to judge God according to his believers? If Saddam is bad it doesn't mean that the God that he believes in like him? What is the wrong with you professor Flew? Are you serious or kidding? Think a lot before talking.
​

Quraan: 22: 74: They have not estimated Allah his Rightful estimate.
​

​

4: 50: Look, how they invent a lie against Allah and enough is that as a manifest sin.
​

​

22:8: And among men is he who disputes about Allah, without knowledge or guidance, or a Book giving light (from Allah).
​

​

​

​

I hope one day he will change his mind in this too Amen. Does he alive?
​

My deepest best wishes goes to you Flew
​

Quraan: 23: 115: Did you think that I had created you in play (without any purpose), and that you would not be brought back to me?
​

​

22:5: O mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily, I have created you (i.e. Adam) from dust, then from a Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge i.e. the offspring of Adam), then from a clot ( a piece of thick coagulated blood) then from a little lump of flesh- some formed and some unformed (as in the case of miscarriage)- that we may make (it) clear to you (i.e. to show you our power and ability to do what I will)… And you see the earth barren, but when I send down water (rain) on it, it is stirred (to life), and it swells and puts forth every lovely kind (of growth). 6: That is because Allah: he is the truth, and it is He who gives life to the dead, and it is He who is Able to do all things. 7: And surely, the Hour is coming, there is no doubt about it; and certainly, Allah will resurrect those who are in the graves.
​

​

46: 33: Do they not see that Allah, who created the heavens and the earth, and was not wearied by their creation, is Able to give life to the dead? Yes, He surely is Able to do all things.
​

​

75: 36: Does man think that he will be left neglected (without being punished or rewarded for the obligatory duties enjoined by his lord Allah on him)? 37: was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female sexual discharge) of semen emitted (poured forth)? 38: then he became an 'Alaqah ( a clot); then (Allah) shaped and fashioned (him) in due proportion. 39: And made of him two sexes, male and female. 40: Is not He (Allah who does that) Able to give life to the dead?
​

​

36: 78: And he puts forth for us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: '' who will give life to those bones after they are rotten and have become dust?'' 79: Say: (O Muhammad) '' he will give life to them who created them for the first time! And he is All-Knower of every creation!''…… 88: Verily, his command, when he intends a thing, is only that he says to it, ''Be!"- And it is!
​

​

Read these verses very carefully:
​

​

19:66: And man (the disbeliever) says: When I am dead, shall I then be raised up alive? 67: Does not man remember that we created him before, while he was nothing?
​

​

30:27: And He it is who originates the creation, He will repeat it (after it has been perished); and this is easier for Him.
​

​

Clarifications:
​

​

Adam the father of the humanity wasn't existed before Allah created him and he created him from Dust , the dust wasn't existed before Allah created it, so Allah can create anything from nothing. Because from nothing he can create anything. Can we make a woodenchair without wood? No.
​

66: And man (the disbeliever) says: When I am dead, shall I then be raised up alive? 67: Does not man remember that we created him before, while he was nothing?
​

Allah is talking to those who don't believe that they will be raised up alive? So Allah saying if he (Allah) had canned create them from nothing so is it more difficult to raise him up alive? What is more difficult to you to create a computer (the first computer) or to put it together (you already had the computer's parts)?
​

​

So, 30:27: And He it is who originates the creation, He will repeat it (after it has been perished); and this is easier for Him.
​

​

​

​

​

​

Yeah, when you are sure that you're following the right path then don't ever never care if the other people will hate or leave you. Be with the truth, whatever happens, that's it.
​

​

Visit these links please (God existence)
​

​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100025
​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1476127&postcount=18
​

The Darwinism fails:
​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1483061&postcount=28
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

I read only the bits you highlighted, and there was no proof what soever. Basically it sounds as though being too lazy to try and figure out such complexity and whatnot he decided basically to give up and take the easy way out, saying some intelligence did it.

 

​

​

A Scientific Miracle in the Holy Quraan​

'' We will show them our signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quraan) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?''​

Chapter: 41, verse: 53​

God supported His last Prophet Muhammad pbuh with many miracles and evidences which proved that he is a true Prophet sent by God. Also, God supported His last revealed book, the Holy Quraan, with many miracles that prove that this Quraan is the literal word of God, revealed by Him, and that it was not authored by any human being.​

The Quraan, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quraan must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, and that the Quraan was not authored by Muhammad pbuh or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad pbuh is truly a prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods. One example follow. ​

1) The Quraan on Human Embryonic Development:​

Source: www.islam-guide.com ​

The Quraan on Human Embryonic Development:​

Source: www.islam-guide.com ​

In the Holy Quraan, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:​

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... (Quraan, 23:12-14) ​

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot. ​

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two1 as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.2​

Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)​

​

Footnotes:​

​

(1) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8. ​

(2) Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 36.​

The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.​

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)​

Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)​

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage3 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.4 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.​

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)​

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

Footnotes:

(3) Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, pp. 37-38.

(4) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 65.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”5 (see figures 5 and 6).​

​

 

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)
​

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)
B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed.
(Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Footnotes:

(5) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 8.
​

How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad ). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.6

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore7is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.
​

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quraan about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”8 (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here ).

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”9

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “....Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century.

The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”11 (View the RealPlayer video of this comment ).

Footnotes:

6) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 9.

(7) Note: The occupations of all the scientists mentioned in this web site were last updated in 1997.

(8) The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape). For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.

(9) This is the Truth (videotape).

(10) This is the Truth (videotape). For a copy, see footnote no. 9.
​

YoursSincerely,
​

CatStevens​

 

Surely God is existed Mr Flew J
​

 

Soulless||Chaos
​

​

​

​

RE: Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
​

​

If it has been said to us that: the white house or a school was formed and appeared as it is now by itself without an architect or mason, will we believe that? No.
​

Because the school with its rooms and beautiful building points to a smart engineer and builder, building isn't easy too complicated.
​

so how can we believe that this earth which we are living on it and these multifarious wonderful countless creatures has been existed by chance by itself without a creator who had existed them. Look to your self and body it is too complicated and there are countless nerves in your body which each nerve linked to an organ! Is that happened by chance?
​

​

Can you believe that a steamy machine or any kind of pumps has been formed by itself without an inventor and it started to work without who turned it on? No. so how can we then believe that a machine like the heart in the human body can be existed without a creator? The heart keeps on working regularly in its diastole and systole; it is the organ which points to the greatest and faculty of the God. The heart is a meaty myocardium but it is stronger than the iron machines, the heart starts its work since the embryo forms in his Mum's abdomen and keeps on working without stopping all during human's life which could extends to eighty or seventy years without needing to reform it as the need of the iron machines although it work for specific hours! Isn't that points to the existence of a creator?
​

Quraan: 51:20:
​

And on earth are signs for those who have faith with certainly.21: And also in your ownselves. Will you not then see?
​

​

A garage full of scraps metal & scraps iron, by chance there was a timed bomb between them, suddenly the timed bomb exploded, a Roserise car has resulted from that explosion. What an explosion it was!!
​

Look to the computer how it is complicated? Who is more complicated the computer or the human being's body? It is too clear, surely God is existed. What do you think? The eyes it self only, is more complicated than the whole computer? Think a lot, my deepest best wishes.
​

​

​

Do you have a sane theory?
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

He's an old man whos days are numbered, maybe thats why he suddenly believes in god. As for me, I believe in nature.

 

Dr. Flew's new found beleif in God highlights what I think is the main difference between science and philosophy/religion.

When we look back over the history of the universe, there comes a point where "what happenend before" has no explaination from our current knowledge. A scientist is willing to say "I don't know." A religionist says, "it must be God."

This dissussion also shows the different meanings of "why". "Why did an asteriod destroy the dinosaurs?" can be answered in a variety of ways.

"The world wide rare earth layer shows that an ansteriod eliminated the dinosaurs."
"The gravitational infuances of the heavenly bodies drove a comet to collide with the earth."
"The dinosaurs had to go in order to give mammals a chance to diversify."

These are all valid answers to the question "why". The third answer assumes that there is a goal that the world is reaching toward. Science does not assume such a goal.

There are two more things I would like to add to this thread.

1)catstevens does what many people do. Having presented an logical argument (albiet philosophical rather than scientific) for the existance of an ultimate designer or an uncaused cause, catstevens immediatly concludes that the Uncaused Cause made a covenant with Abraham.

2)Consider a woodworker planning a board. Each wood shaving has a more or less constant width and a very constant thickness. It is easy to see evidence of inteligent design and creation of a wood shaving. Similarly a table shows evidence of a designer. Can it be said that the woodworker "designed" the shaving? If you beleive that our universe implies a designer, is it the table or a shaving?

 

kif :
​

​

Who created the nature?
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

MikeE :
​

​

​

​

Quote from the Article:
​

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
​

​

​

​

​

​

I don't think so, many of scientists became believers after what did they see during their work. Science is another way to believe in God. An example I posted it in #4 did you read it, click here http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1645453&postcount=4
​

There are other examples too.
​

​

​

He already believed that there is a God, then he moved to embrace a religion which he believes that, that religion is the God's religion.
​

​

​

​

If the woodworker didn't shave the woods, then there wasn't any wood shaving? Neither table nor shaving è ( the woodmaker is the designer)
​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100025
​

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1476127&postcount=18
​

​

Allah said (in the chapter:52,verses:35&36):
​

​

Were they created from nothing or did they create themselves. Or did they create the heavens and earth?
​

​

Logic and reason is used to convince humans that there must be a Creator. Allah gives the three logical possibilities for human creation in these verses.
​

​

A) Human were created from nothing or by nothing. This proposal violates basic reason. Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing cannot create something.
​

B) Humans created themselves. This is also an illogical and contradictory proposition. To create one's self, one must already exist. But to be created one must first not exist.
​

C) Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist. If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc. And CN means that it has no beginning. Consequently, C1 cannot exist. In other words, if human existence is preceded by an infinite amount of causes requiring an infinite amount of time to take place, it is the same as saying that they will never take place. Human existence thus becomes impossible. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued similarly that the infinite regression of the cause and effect chain was impossible.
​

​

The only remaining possibility is that humans and other created things were created by a being which is not itself created.
​

​

My question: who created the universe? Sun, earth, etc. i.e. what is your belief?
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Cat, if God really was all that and a bag of chips, why woud he need you to spam him all over the place?

Misanthropy aside, at best, I'd give the universe a b-.

See me after class god.

 

catstevens,

I was discussing your proof, not your personal beleif. It seem that you, like many others, have used philosophy to prove the existance of a Designer. What is lacking is a proof that that Designer is the God of Abraham.

My issue is not your belief in that God. My issue is that your proof of the God of Abraham is missing many parts.

Assuming that a Designer can be infered from nature, there remain many questions:

Is that Designer self aware?
Is that Designer aware of all of its creation, specificaly is it aware of humans. (The power to create is not omniscience, nor is it onmipotence.)
Does that Designer care what humans do or think?
Did that Designer indeed interact with humans?
Does the Designer still have the power to affect things?

I could go on, but you get my point that proving the existance of a Designer is far from proving the existance of the God of Abraham.

 

Nature has always been. Who created your God?

 

Lodui ​

My god is neither a bag of chips, nor needs me, when you love something you will talk about it all the time. To me God was the best thing I have ever known in my life so I want to share it with others; I didn't obligate you or anybody to read my threads. I will write threads as much as I like as long as it doesn't disagree with the forum's rules.​

​

MikeE ​

Quote it.​

​

What's the wrong with that as long as it talks to your brain?​

​

Yub.​

​

Let me tell you something I didn't want to give a proof here I posted this thread as a story of an atheist who became a believer, what made him changing his mind: Quote: Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?", so I wrote my comments on the Article and I remembered the verse which Allah stated it: '' We will show them our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quraan) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?''41:53. 51:20: And on earth are signs for those who have faith with certainly.21: And also in your ownselves. Will you not then see?​

So, Mr. flew believed in God from the signs which Allah talked about it universe and we, then I posted an example http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1645453&postcount=4​

So if you believed in God then find out who is the true God and if you found it then check up what does that god said about himself, Allah said that he is the creator and the designer, The God of Abraham is the designer of the universe; stars , sun, first human being Adam etc. ​

Do you believe in God? What is your believe if not? ​

If you Again if you are disbeliever Atheist or deist and want to argue or discuss with me this issue to prove for me that you are right, then don't waste your time I am really a huge believer in God, never will be change.​

I love God. Proudly I am a believer from the top of my head to toe. ​

YoursSincerely,​

CatStevens​

 

kif :
​

​

Any proof or a theory?
​

​

None.
​

Myself, I think you have to believe in a God in the first place, and when you believe in a God then you must have evidences or something that make you believe that he is the true God, so then you have to search what did the God that you believe in say about how did he existed
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

What?

 

You can of course use science to argue for a god, a favourite argument is the wavefunction of quantum mechanics. Every system no matter how large has a wavefunction which has a number of possible solutions. The current interpretation of QM is that when a system is 'observed' one of the possible solutions is chosen by then system and it becomes observable, however it is not observed it has no definite physical properties. To cut a long story short one argument is that the universe must be being observed for its wavefunction to take a definiate state and thus allow us to exist. It doesnt take a genius to see possible ways out of this, but there you go its certainly an interesting thought and there maybe something in it.

As for using such arguments to pick a religion, here it seems to break down to personal belief. In my experience none of my experience with any religions make God despotic. God (or whatever you word is) seems gerenally gererous and forgiving fairly independantly of religion. Faith is a strange thing asking you to believe in something you dont necessarily know is there. I dont believe in god but only because I have no reason to. I dont believe that dinosaurs still walk this Earth but they might well be hidden somewhere, if were to start going to church it would be inconsistent of me not to buy a gun to protect myself against dinosaurs. To truely believe in God you need somekind of experience that allows faith to be more than a wild guess and science is not going to prove that one way or the other. Right now the only way I could pick a religion is to roll a many sided dice.

 

kif
​

fat_tony
​

​

​

Again, I meant that,
​

​

​

1) Is there a creator (how did the universe existed)? And if you believed that there is a creatorè 2) who's the true God (creator) and After you got evidences that the God which you believed in him is the true Godè 3) what is the true religion of God (the creator) and what did he say about his existence, how did he existed?
​

​

​

Do you mean you have No reason to believe in him if so, that's up to you but myself if God wants us to believe in him then I will , there must be a reason to believe in him, and every religion I guess has its reason.
​

​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Ok, here's how I feel. I have my beliefs, you have yours. I dont want to get into an on going argument about it becasue it is a no win situation for the both of us. We accept our beliefs as our own and thats what helps us get by, does for me anyway, and Im sure its the same for you. So to avoid conflict I'm bailing out of this debate. I respect your opinions and beliefs and you have the right to believe in what you want, as do I. So peace, love, harmony and all that good stuff brother. Never stop believing.