The atheists talk (in this video) about the need for evidence(s) for God, which is a good and reasonable point. And because of a supposition that, “there is none”, they conclude: there is no God.
(See God Focussed or Self Focussed to see how Evidences for (or against) God can be (or can’t be) gleaned based on our perspectives. How can we be conclusive about the answer to this question? (See a later post, pending.) But the point that must be acknowledged is that there are evidences being proposed; not that there are no evidences for God.
ALLAH, Most Exalted, says:
“And on the earth are signs for the certain [in faith]
And in yourselves. Then will you not see?
And in the heaven is your provision and whatever you are promised.
Then by the Lord of the heaven and earth, indeed, it is truth – just as [sure as] it is that you are speaking.” (Qur’an, Adh-Dhariyat 51: 20-23)
Click on pic for the Facebook original video
I shared this post on facebook and was met by the subsequent conversation.
Allah, subhana wa ta’ala’s name
What follows is a continuation of a conversation discussing God, continued from the last post…
God Questions – Part 1
There was an article entitled ‘Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ seen in Nature for the First Time’. It began as follows:
“This image shows cog wheels connecting the hind legs of the plant hopper, a plant-hopping insect found in gardens across Europe – has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ‘teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump.
The finding demonstrates that gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent. Scientists say this is the “first observation of mechanical gearing in a biological structure“.
Through a combination of anatomical analysis and high-speed video capture of normal Issus movements, scientists from the University of Cambridge have been able to reveal these functioning natural gears for the first time. The findings are reported in the latest issue of the journal Science…” CONTINUED >
I commented: “These gears are not designed; they are evolved” … Or rather- “These gears are ‘evolved’… by The Designer…”
Theo Hobson identifies that though there is a stronger secular liberalism, which he acknowledges as more aggressive, he does spell out the existence of a softer, more inclusive one too. He asks the Muslim panel if they recognise and acknowledge the latter, softer type. I sense it is this question that is perceived as being (apparently) ‘skirted’: an accusation from the non Muslim party. The way the Muslim panel respond is as though this softer type of secular liberalism either doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter even if it existed. Presumably, this is because of soft liberalism’s perceived irrelevance given the current context of tighter measures around freedom and self autonomy ostensibly against terrorists but actually against mainstream practicing British Muslims. I sense the non Muslim cannot fathom the motivation for the Muslim panel’s defensiveness. They are accused of ‘playing the victim’. They respond: they’re merely representing reality.
QUESTION: Are children inclined to believe God to:
a) Be three-in-one persons;
b) Be One; or
c) Not exist?’
Be honest. Which are they more likely to naturally incline towards?
Goodbye ‘Religion Causes War’ Argument.