-
Existence Of God Is Plausible But Is It True?
The opinion of members of Ghamidi school regarding existence of God is that it is a very plausible explanation which I agree it is. But as a science student I know and other science people here will agree that often what we think about the world, the most plausible explanations and perspectives turn out to be wrong. The only method which can give assurance is empirical testing which in this case is missing. Therefore, even if God is a plausible explanation of the facts of the universe, how is it guaranteed.to be correct?
-
12 Replies
-
Existence Of God Is Plausible But Is It True?
updated 2 years, 11 months ago
5 Members
·
12
Replies
-
The existence of God being the most plausible explanation of the universe is only the beginning of our journey. Moreover, it doesn’t provide the complete picture until we understand what is it that God is wanting to communicate with us. In short, He’s warning us that our lives on earth are for trial and the universe that we live in has an expiry date. On that date, this universe will be destroyed and turned into a brand new universe. Those of us who discover this truth using their intellect and accept it in their lifetimes will be entered into the best parts of that new universe where they will be able to enjoy eternal lives of joy and comfort; in contrast those who fail to do so will face difficulty and torment.
In order for this life to be based on trial, it’s necessary that God doesn’t prove His existence through direct experience. Moreover, direct experience is in no way better or worse than the knowledge that we obtain through inference. We don’t see gravity, but through inference we know that it exists. Similarly, we don’t see intellect, but we all know that we have it. In contrast, we may see water in a desert, but it might turn out to be just a mirage. We see the stars above every night, many of which don’t even exist anymore. In conclusion seeing something is not any better or worse than not seeing it.
The following two threads might help with details about the basic premise and understanding of religion in a more holistic way:
and
-
I never said that “seeing” God is necessary. We don’t see atoms and molecules but we infer their existence from our physical models. But atoms and molecules are not just logical inferences as is the case with God. There is a mathematical description which predicts certain numbers and those numbers are confirmed by experiments. They match exactly! Such level of rigour is not present in religious arguments and by nature can’t be present. Even gravity ( as you have mentioned ) is not just a label we have put on some phenomenon, we have exact mathematical laws which predict numbers and you can even test those numbers at home using a ball, an inclined plane, a ruler and a stop watch. On the other hand God is purely a plausible logical inference which could be wrong. If plausibility was the sole criteria then QM would have never been discovered. Coming to your last point that all this is a test. I think this analogy is also flawed because in a test the participants know that they are being tested. Here, the existence of the test itself is under question.
-
There is fundamental issue in your argument.
You need to understand the premise of science and and scientific experimentation. Science deal with material world. Also, inorder to experimentally observe anything, there should be change in some sort of properties of material eg dipole, amplitude momentum, contrast etc. I dont know any technique which can observe absolute phenomenon. Everything is relative to some other property. For observing God you should have known set of properties to compare it with.Another propblem is Science philosophy donot allow meta physical explanation. Otherwise this can happen to your work
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/08/creatorgate-how-a-study-on-hands-sparked-a-scandal-about-science-god-and-ethics-in-publishing/Since, God is metaphysical phenomenon so you cannot do experimentation.
You can read about philosophy of science elsewhere.Can you show me any thing which has a begining and come out of nothing? Answer to this question is your empirical evidence.
About your comments on test, read little bit about epistemology of testimony and threads link given above. Thats how we know this life is a test.
-
Precisely my point. Metaphysical notions cannot be tested in a rigorous manner. So, it is hard to know whether you have made a mistake since there is no external data point to confirm or dismiss it. You asked how can something come from nothing. I believe you are referring to the universe coming into existence from nothing therefore having a begining. First of all It is not entirely clear that universe had a begining despite the whole “Big bang” Pop science talks. You can confirm this, do not take my word for it. Now, let me give you some alternate explanations for the origin which do not include a God. 1) No boundary universe by Hawking : Spacetime is like a Sphere which is compact i.e has no begining or end , it is just circular. 2) Roger penrose has his version of cyclical universe
3) DeWitt’s idea that near the bigbang, length scales and time scales becoming extremely small and therefore quantum effects creep in which would make the whole notion of causality nonsensical, so the question of origin does not even come up. It becomes invalid in some sense. The purpose of all this detail is nothing more than to convey the point that the universe is extremely complicated and we know very little about it. Therefore, to conclude anything about its origins would be being too hasty or too arrogant in some cases. God is a very plausible explanation of most facts of the universe but it is not the only explanation and it can be wrong.
-
I agree big bang theory has flaws. Currently, experiments suggest that direction. Ofcoarse, this theory may modify in future.
About stephern hawkin theory, you can refer to this paper which criticized this theory.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.171301Here is another good read from William Craig that why eternal universe is not possible
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-quantum-mechanics-indicate-an-eternal-universe/ -
Peace!
First of all, for all the so-called “scientific” thoeries for the beginning of the universe (some of which you have mentioned), please watch the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhUCav_Jrk
These are all stories without evidence and this is coming from a theoretical physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder.
I believe God is the only plausible argument we have right now. But you are right, we can never be 100% sure as long as this world exists.
Feel free to ask further questions.
-
-
Can you empirically test intellect? Can you measure it? Can you test free will? And yet we experience them in our daily life.
In any case Science deals with facts and evidence. It does not deal with “Truth”. There is no absolute truths in science. There are only relative facts based on evidence, testing and observations. Which keeps on changing as the time goes on and progress is made in technology.
Truth claims are made by Prophets. Which bring the Message of Continuation of Life after death. Something which cannot be empirically verified.
However they can be rationally understood through common sense and our experience in this world.
-
@Ahsan Jalal. I will definitely go through this paper , Thankyou for sharing it.
Would you agree to this statement I made earlier ” God is a very plausible explanation of most facts of the universe but it is not the only explanation and it can be wrong” ??
-
To me this universe is not selfsustaining/eternal or created itself.
-
-
@Ishal Sadiq ( I saw the video you shared).I never claimed these are evidence based theories because then there would have been just one theory, the right one!. If you read my earlier post I have given them as alternatives which do not require a begining and therefore do not require a creator.I have very carefully mentioned in earlier post that the universe is complicated and claiming that we know how it originated would be too hasty a statement or perhaps too arrogant . I once heard even Ghamidi sahab say “ye kainat itni waseeh hai ki ye kehna ki hamne aakhri darje mei iska maqsad daryaft kiya hai, badi mushkil baat hai”. And what you are calling stories are very precise mathematical models, more precise than what we have for God. Because these models are atleast falsifiable.
I really had fun actually I am new here. God bless till next discussion 🙂Peace!!
-
Got it. Please share anything you find. That said, I wanted to clear some things: regarding your stance on the knowledge of the origin of the universe, I agree with you, that is why I said we can never be 100% sure. Regarding the fact that these are mathematical models, of course they are and they are falsifiable too, but as of yet, they have no substance, no evidence. Additionally, I don’t know if any mathematical model for God is even possible, but I don’t believe that belief in God is entirely unfalsifiable. This is due to the very core of His message: an afterlife.
كل نفس ذائقة الموت ثم الِينا ترجعون
Project Gilgamesh is ongoing and aims to bring an end to death. That would potentially close all doors for any possibility of God (at least God according to the Abrahamic religions). If God exists but is according to the deistic view, there is no reason to believe in Him as it doesn’t matter. Therefore, all (or at least most) debate to God will end.
Peace to you as well!
-
-
“you can even test those numbers at home using a ball, an inclined plane, a ruler”
As we know, Newton’s law of universal gravity only holds under certain conditions. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the gravitational force is just a fictitious force resulting from the curvature of spacetime. One can measure the effects of gravity, but it’s a very shallow understanding of science to say that you can measure it at home using an inclined plane and a ball. There are many things about gravity that we still don’t understand.
For example, in spiral galaxies the orbiting of stars around their centers can’t be explained by either Newton’s law of universal gravitation or by Einstein’s general relativity. In order to explain this, scientists come up with yet another unproven idea of dark matter.
“I think this analogy is also flawed because in a test the participants know that they are being tested”
Knowing that you’re being tested is not a pre-requisite for a test. That said, we do know that we’re being tested, however, to understand this you will have to spend enough time in understanding religion rather than drawing conclusions from the sidelines. The material that I shared with you above should suffice for at least the initial understanding in this regard.
“Metaphysical notions cannot be tested in a rigorous manner”
I’m not sure what rigorous means in this context. We witness matter turning into human bodies every day, those bodies acquire life, then those living beings acquire consciousness and intellect – is this not rigorous enough to ascertain a Creator? Please don’t bother telling me that there’s a scientific explanation for all of this – science can only show us how this happens, not why. Besides science knows very little about consciousness and intellect. It’s not even the domain of science. Moreover, we know that all humans experience pain and sorrow, regardless of their material resources. Can mathematical models tells us why? Religion does – because humans are sent to this earth for a trial, and pain and sorrow are essential ingredients for this trial.
“I have given them as alternatives which do not require a begining and therefore do not require a creator”
There are no alternatives which don’t require a Creator. With all due respect, anyone who claims as such is in fact not only ignorant about religion but also about science beyond what’s presented by the likes of Harris and Dawkins.
As for mathematical models you mentioned several times, please understand that a consistent mathematical model is no basis for reality. Besides all reality can’t be modeled using mathematics. Without God, there’s also no explanation for mathematics, let alone any laws.
I must end this with a note that while I might sound negative about science, that’s certainly not the case. I’m a scientist at heart, however, it’s very immature to put science against religion as most people do. Science and religion both have different domains and until one spends about equal amounts of time and effort in trying to understand each, they can’t adequately argue about either. My personal findings conclude that religion establishes itself on much firmer grounds than science, however, it’s not as evident on the surface.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
