Posted: Jun 29, 2016 12:27 pm
by Al-Fatihah
Alan B wrote:
Al-Fatihah wrote:
Alan B wrote:Since you claim that Allah exists, would you like to have a go at this? This request has been put forward to some Christians here without much enlightenment. As a Muslim, can you do any better?
('Allah' substituted for 'God' for your benefit).
"What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical Allah and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe."

Response: A rational discussion means no hypocrisy. Meaning the same standard you ask of religious people, which is not to appeal to authority or claim something is true because a book says so, you should not be a hypocrite and do otherwise when the tables turn and I begin asking you of proof of evolution and other claims. Let's see if you can. Moving on for now.

There is nothing hypocritical in my approach. It is a straightforward question about your claim that a god exists You make the assertion, you provide the evidence. With regard to 'proof of evolution and other claims' that you might ask of a non-Muslim, well, I might not be able to answer since I may not have the appropriate knowledge with which to comply. That doesn't make my question hypocritical.

The proof of God's existence is based on observable, testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. The evidence is as follows:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject: You.

Experiment: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:

Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

Furthermore, it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

You claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

:think: Now, where have I seen this argument before. Something to do with watches and watchmakers, methinks.

Response: I don't know where you've seen it before because it is my own original argument.