Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
and the best way to convince your audience of your argument is to belittle them at the end of the video. can't see it my way? you must be a stubborn dick, thats why i make videos, so they can try to convince you of my perspective, fail, and insult you. do you think people watching this video are doing so in order to reaffirm their belief in god? no, your audience is clearly unbelievers so why tell them theyre stubborn and ignorant etc when you should be trying to show them the light? hail satan
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
@dizzy8212 Just because someone disagrees with your beliefs, does not mean there bullshit haha. Its ok though, you don't know any better. At an early age you were already brainwashed with "If you don't believe us, then you will burn in hell".
Using the fear of death, to make people do what you want. Whats that called again...? Oh yea...terrorism
Wait, the universe formed out of pre-existing materials (mostly hydrogen and helium to begin with).
What did God do? If nothing existed before he created everything, what did he use? There was no pre-existing materials. Heaven didn't even exist.
Wait, if heaven didn't exist, where was God? If material didn't exist before creation, how was God a "thing" ? God couldn't just create everything and use nothing whilst he himself IS nothing since material didn't exist during and before creation.
The problem with our people is that when you hear the word "GOD" you think "Religion". That way of thinking needs to die out because religion for the most part is a total joke. The existence of a "Source" or God, etc. Its entirely possible.
1.) Definition of theory: unproven set of ideas in an attempt to explain something. 2.) it takes alot of faith that something can come from nothing. 3.) cosmology is the understanding of how God did it all
This video sucks. The maker of this video clearly didn't understand Stephen Hawking. I don't blame him, it is indeed very difficult. Stephen didn't say that there was an energy outside of the universe because there was no universe before the universe but he that that something evolved into the universe. So the before the universe there was a source of energy and THAT evolved into the universe. I am still trying to understand everything but seems to me this video is clearly a wrong interpretation
A dichotomous answer to the existent of energy is stupid. It's the same as saying: "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists" (Bush 2001). There are always other options, but energy isn't stupid because it's consciousness of it's existent. Energy just follows laws.
stephen hawking said that there is no God and there is no heaven but he didn't refer hell and the devil, is there any fear that is bound to him by not referring satan? does he believe in satan? if we don't believe in hell then why is the fear so real>?
Sometimes i feel we have God on one side Satan on the Other and me in the Middle. Everyone blames God when things go wrong - but does anyone ever blame Satan after all it says in the bible Satan is the current ruler of our time
@gamer1999able Nobody knows for sure how the Universe came into existence or what happened before the Big Bang or if these questions are even meaningful.
We know how human beings are created: sexual reproduction. And if you wonder how the first humans came into existence, it's through evolution from ancestral species. No "GOD" required.
@gamer1999able Okay, I have several things to say. 1: That was the most retarded thing I've ever heard anyone say. 2: You said if you don't believe in God, then how does the universe "existed". Well, the answer is we don't completely know yet, but saying "God dun' it" has no explanatory value. Saying god did it pushes out any natural explanations that we might discover in the next century. Seriously, if we don't know something, you're going to have to accept it until we've figured it out.
@SnippyDoughnut listen,i dont know if u respect my believes,and i dont care.i would be very pleased to discuss this with you,but the majority is people like you are.Anyway,i say God is required,and people have already figured it out,if you dont want to believe,then I DNT GIVE A DAMN.Ihave my believes,following my religion,you have yours,its alright.
yes energy has always existed and beyond the beginning of the observable universe. However it is a logical fallacy to claim that there thus must be a god, there is no logical connection between the fact and the argument.
I Used Infinite As A Substitute For Huge, The Big Bang Cannot Create Animals Because It Doesn't Have The Particles We Are Made Of, And If You Want Proof Then Google "Proof That God Exists" And Read 10 - 20 Paragraphs Then Come And Reply...
@Rithin101 "The Big Bang Cannot Create Animals Because It Doesn't Have The Particles We Are Made Of"
Huh? All the evidence points to the Big Bang making everything you see today including humans.
The "particles" were contained in the energy in the singularity that was later turned into elements, molecules and compounds by pushing them across the E=MC² equation. That's certainly how it appears if you look at the evidence.
@fredazbell How is it possible for a non-existing (nothing) thing to create another thing (*universe*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*universe*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing (nothing) thing having the power to create an already existing thing, (*universe*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh Scientist CAN say certain things about the Universe, while not knowing most of the Universe itself, because of mathematical reasons and so forth. But for the sake of argument, lets say that all of your problems with science are valid, that still doens't mean a God must exist. If the bigbang theory is total crap and there must be something that created the universe, that does NOT have to be allah or God or some kind of deity. There could be all kinds of physilogical explainations for it
And even if it has to be an intelligence, why Allah? Why can't the Hindoes be right and why couldn't there be 13 deities responsible for the creation of the universe? Also, the believe in a religion or God creates equivelent problems.Who created god, for example? But why do you believe in a God anyway, what are your reasons for the existence of a God and esp. allah in specific? And don't say something like science is wrong because of... That's a fallacy (Non-existing dilemma)
@tommyXBOX360 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh Im not saying the big bang or any other equivelent theory is non-contradictory and I am not holding such a theory as certain knowledge. But why is it necessary that there must be a creator for this vast and complex world? I know it can be hard to believe that there is no creator behind all this, but that doesn't mean there must be one. And if both something like the big bang and the believe in a god are equally contradictory, why do you believe in either one of them?
@1tabligh And why do you believe specifically in Islam? Why not christianity, Jewism or any other religion for that matter? And what about the questions that arise with the existence of a God. Who created God? And if he created himself how is that possible? How can a God be infinite?
Most importantly, what are your reasons for believing in God and why specifically the Islam over other religions?
@tommyXBOX360 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh Yes it IS possible that the cells of the body "learn" their functions without a conscious will behind it. Just because it is so complex and just because it seems so unlikely that this whole biological system functions without a intelligence, doesn't mean that there must be one. You must understand the difference between 'seems like' and 'must be'. Biology almost perfectly explains the whole process from the biogenesis (where aminoacids were created) untill present day.
@tommyXBOX360 What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@1tabligh Every realistic scientist would say that. Of course nature is not aware of itself. Nature is just a word that describes the manifestatation of everything that has to do with biology. Maby you could mind a better definition of nature, but nature is not a deity or a conciousness in any case. And the only thing that a kidney reveals is that it is very complex and functions properly in some way. It does NOT PROVE that there must be a intelligence behind it. Why should it?
@tommyXBOX360 Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@1tabligh It is understandable that you assume there must be an intelligence behind the kidney-example and I understand it SEEMS like there must be some consious mind behind this, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO. You examples are not proof of a God or some deity behind all this, at best is seems plausible. Look at stars for example. In the core of certain stars hydrogenatoms are eventually changed into much heavier atoms like iron. This process is very complicated and you could asume that there must...
... be some consiousness behind this, but it is not neccesary. In fact, all these processes work on their own according to the laws of physics and there is no room for a deity. The only difference is that biology is even more complex and gives a stronger illusion that there must be a consious intellegence behind it. But in fact, biology and science, without the need for a God or something equivelent, could explain everything from biogenesis all the way up to the complexity of a working kidney.
And why do you believe in Islam, why not Jewist or Christianity or why dont you believe in some multi-theistic religion? Since you have only asserted the need for an intelligence behind life (which is not needed), all of the above and more, are valid candidates. Do you understand you believe in a omnipotent God, which is in contradiction with free will? The believe in a God is not neccesary, but the belief in Islam is just a incorrect thing.
@tommyXBOX360 Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh You are avoiding my questions. I admit that I only hold the big bang theory for plausible, but do you think the existance of God is certain knowledge? And AGAIN, why do you believe in Islam specifacally? Do you understand that every religion is lacking evidence and that christianity and Islam hold so many contradictions and inconsistencies? For example, do you believe that God is omnipotent and that we have free will?
@tommyXBOX360 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@1tabligh Again you are avoiding all my questions, I really think I should stop this discussion if you keep, basicly, repeating yourself and do not answer any of my questions. The point is, we don't know the source and beginning of the universe. You can assume it must be an intelligence, you could believe in a big bang theory which is far from complete, but you are making a mistake if you think the existance of a God is a certainty. Don't you comprehend that?
@tommyXBOX360 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@1tabligh No he shouldn't accept that as absolute certainty. It is a metaphysical question. Nobody can answer the question "Who created the universe?". You can take a neutral position like me, or you could believe in a God. If your belief in a God is only based on the assertion that there must be a creator behind all this complexity and what not, your way of thinking is flawed. Do you understand that the existance of a God is plausible at best and that it lacks evidence.
@1tabligh But you even go a step further. You specifically believe in Islam, which doens't make sence, because the assumption that there must be a creator does not discriminate between any kind of religion. So why do you believe in Islam instead of Christianity, Jewism or any religion for that matter? Why do you think your belief in Islam has any logical basis?
@1tabligh Okay Im done. You avoid my questions over and over again, I've told you a million times that a intelligent deity is not neccesary for all the complexity and functionality of the universe. I also told you multiple times that this question of "who created the universe? " is a metaphysical one that cannot be answered with certainty. But still you believe in something without evidence, just because it basicly SEEMS plausible.
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh And I told to you so many times that it is not necessary for matter to have some kind of deity behind it or consiousness. Some other astrophysical cause could be behind the origin of the earth or it could always have existed, there are allot more possibiliteis between God and the big bang theory. But for the sake of argument lets say that a deity IS necesarry. Then why only one God and why the Islamic one specifically?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower.
@1tabligh Sorry but you are avoiding my other questions AGAIN. You are a worthless debater. Sorry for ranting on you but this is pathetic. I am not going to continue this conversation if you do not answer my questions. Are you afraid of them?
@tommyXBOX360 If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— .either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
@tommyXBOX360 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How is that for YOUR "You sir, are laughable." and answer the question instead?!
@1tabligh I understand the boundaries of the emperical science, it can not prove or disprove a God for example. I acknowledge that. And if there must be something that created matter, what created that? So if God must be the cause of all matter, who created him or was he eternal? You are, of course, not going to answer this question, because you didn't answer it the 4 times before. The point is, the cause behind the universe is either a material one or it is a non-material one.
@1tabligh And even if it is non-material it does not have to be the God you specifacally believe in. You failed to answer why your religion is true. You did not even gave proof that there must be a God. You just asserted there must be one, because how can matter create itself, right? But you just dont understand the existance of a God implies the same problem: Who created God? But whats the point of this, you are not going to answer this and just give me another "beautifull" story
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
@1tabligh What do you actually mean with your first comment? I assume you agree that we both can't answer the question "Who created God" and "What created the universe". So if we follow back the chain of causality a non-material cause such as God is equally problematic as a material one. The beginning and cause of all that exists is a metaphysical question that nobody can answer (yet). Btw. atheism is just the absence of the believe in a God nothing more.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh Conclusion: The belief in a God is as useless as any other explaination, either materialistic or non-materialistic. Religion lacks major evidence and the existance of a God is not a necessity. And probably my most important question: "Why do you believe SPECIFICALLY IN THE ISLAM AND NOT ANY OTHER RELIGION?"
@tommyXBOX360 The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
@1tabligh If we assert that God made the universe and that God was made by another God etc. etc.... an endless chain of Gods, that would not lead to denying the universe. It would essentially mean the same as an purely materialistic eternal universe. But you attribute eternity to God. In that case the universe could be eternal without a God just as likely. Then the universe would have always existed, not needing a creator. So what makes theism better then atheism?
@1tabligh And plz just answer this question: WHAT MAKES ISLAM BETTER THEN ANY OTHER RELIGION, WHY DO YOU SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE IN ISLAM INSTEAD OF OTHER BELIEFS? << I have to write this with capital letters in the hope you finally just answer the damn question. Btw: Atheism is just the disbelief in a God. Atheists can regard matter as eternal, as non-eternal (big bang theory for example) or basically any other theory possible (except those that contain a God).
@tommyXBOX360 Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
@1tabligh The removal of God does not solve any problem, I agree with this. But the problem itself cannot (yet) be solved. If we do or do not insert God, it doens't matter. If you assert that all that is is eternal you could either say God created the universe but God himself is eternal or you could say there is no God and the universe just always existed? Both of these claims are equal. None of them van be varified or falsified, hence the term 'metaphysical'.
@tommyXBOX360 plz just answer this question: WHAT MAKES ISLAM BETTER ....
___
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
And if you think there must be a beginning, the absence or presence of a God does not change anything. If you assert that God must be the creator, that would cause the same logical problems then if you assert that the universe came out of nothing (big bang theory) or that another astrophysical process caused the existance of the universe as we perceive it. So why do you think a theory that contains a God would be more viable then one that does not contain a deity of such nature.
@1tabligh I am sorry but your last comment does not really answer my question (at least you did not avoid it :) ).
Whatever the 'Western Intellectuals' thought, I don't care. Maby they judged the Islam totally wrong, but I want to know what YOU think about the Islam and what makes it better than any other religion.
@tommyXBOX360 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
@1tabligh Could you stop talking in so difficult words and abstract terms and ways of explaining, since I am not english and this distracts me from where this discussion is really about. Couldn't you just clearly and directly explain "Why is the Islam true and Hindoeïsm not, for example?" and I don't really understand the point in your theory about matter. Lets assume, for that sake of argument, that matter was always there, eternal. Why is that not possible, while a eternal God would be?
@1tabligh Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. <-- What do you exactly mean by that. Why does stable and immutable matter cannot accept movement and change. I don't really get the contradiction there. So because matter is not static and does change, that means it cannot be eternal? In principle, matter could change in all kind of ways or move whereever it "wants". Why is this possible according to you?
@tommyXBOX360 Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
@1tabligh Okay well if we assert that matter is eternal, where lies the contradiction? I understand that matter, if it is eternal, leaves no room for cessation. Can you give an example where cessation happens with matter? Maby a few examples would help me comprehend what you truely mean. But again, what differentiates your religion from others? Why do you consider Islam truth, but not buddhism, since I did not really got the answer to that question from you?
@tommyXBOX360 Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature" ___ How am I supposed to understand what this means? Eternity is incompatable with the mode of being possessed by matter?! Being possessed?! And what factors and attributes of matter literally are incompatible with eternity. You are not making this very clear, but very abstract and vague.
@tommyXBOX360 The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
@1tabligh Are you really sure matter refuses permanence and eternity? There is no real link between permanence and eternity and the fact that matter is either static and absolute or moving and relative. Why can't matter be moving and relative and be eternal in the same time. You told me this "fact" a few times now, but yet you have not explained why this is a clear contradiction.
@1tabligh Or are you talking about the fact that science points towards the fact that the way matter and the universe behave, matter is not eternal. Like in the big bang theory and the fact that space is expanding in a way it seems almost certain all that is had a beginning, an origin?
@tommyXBOX360 All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
@1tabligh 1. If matter is eternal, why should it be subject to change and cessation. Why can't matter be constantly the same if it is eternal?
2. Matter does not disappear of "embraces death"? ---> The law of conservement of energy and mass. can you name an example where matter disappears?
3. Life is a form of matter. What is considered life is all that falls under the biological definition off live, everything that shows sign of life (matebolism, reproduction etc etc).
Life was created because of biogenesis: The process where certain inorganic chemicals (ammonia, water, methane and a few more) formed, under the influence of electricity, organic materials (aminoaccids at first) and these polymerise into proteins and after that lies a huge process where different kind of chemicals are formed that make up al lthe organisms that we see today.
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves.
@1tabligh Conciousness is a hole other thing. Conciousness is the result of a certain state of devellopment of the brain. It is what makes us self-aware. This is directly related to the brain, a material manifestation. A immaterialistic component could be involved, but it is not necessary. Esp. because we haven't emperically demonstrated such a phenomenon yet, which makes it illogical to believe in such a thing (untill it is scientifically proven).
Also I would like to strongly point out I do not believe in eternal matter. In fact, since this is a metaphysical subject, I do not hold any point of view as absolute knowledge, I only state that eternal matter is a possible alternative for a creator such as God. You last sentence of your last comment was kinda ironic: "beliefs pleasing to themselves" mmm sounds very VERY applicable to most religious people instead of atheists.
@1tabligh And even if I accept your claim that there must be a creator that is immaterial and dispaces himself out of the boundaries of time etc. , what makes your Islamic theory of a God more true than any other religion?!
@tommyXBOX360 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@1tabligh The principle of causality is actually derived from inductive knowlegde, because we never seen something happen for no reason and we always see things happen according to the law of causality. Just like all inductive knowledge, which all science is, its not absolutely certain. But hold on.. we DID see things happen not according to the causal principles. Quantummechanics! The decay of protons in uranium atoms that happen in nuclear reactors, do not follow the rules of causality...
The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
@1tabligh Which proton decays is purely random and not bound to deterministic physical laws and in the world of quantummechanics certain particles pop into existance. So the Quantumtheory knocks over everything you have asserted about matter. These particles that suddenly pop into existance leaves room for the theory such as the big bang theory and totally destroys the assertion that matter must have a cause. Quantummechanics also excludes the possibility of a God as described in the Quran...
... Because that is where the omnipotence - free will contradiction steps in. God can do everything so he knows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore the future MUST be DETERMINISTIC, because if certain events occur without the causal principles, they cannot be predicted and known before the events actually occur. And because of quantummechanics and also because your own religious assertion of free will, gods omnipotence is impossible. So...
... the Quran contains a contradiction. But wait a minute... the Quran is the word of God whichs is perfect and absolutely true and it contains a contradiction? Well good luck with the Quran... Don't know exactly why I didn't bring this argument up before, it would have saved us both allot of time. Still, even if we assert there must be a creator, you yet did not explain why Islam would be true instead of any other religion. But I guess you want to avoid this question very badly ;)
@tommyXBOX360 Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
@1tabligh WTF... I just told you about quantummechanics. Look it up for yourself if you dont believe me. Quantummechanics concern matter, all but matter and according to this theory we see particlair appear out of nothing. Oh and btw... feel free to avoid the question about what would make Islam better than other religiions all you want.. it is just that I hear your religion dying from over here.
@tommyXBOX360 What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
@1tabligh The random and causeless appearence of 'virtual particles'. Those particles contain mass (seem to react with the Higgs field which means mass) and "borrow" energy from the vacuum and they disappear after a period of time giving back their "borrowed" energy as they do not compromize the law of the conservement of energy and mass. Google 'virtual particle' and click the wikipedia-link. If you don't find this convincing I could give you more examples, or you could search for yourself.
@tommyXBOX360 You're right about Quantum Theory but I don't think 1tabligh is likely to understand or accept it.
Any claim of absolutes like omni-anything will hit logical walls sooner or later. The random appearance of a sub-atomic particle would seem to be of little consequence in the big picture but you're right, it denies omniscience. These claims involving infinite concepts are ill-advised. It would be better to say "VERY intelligent" instead of omniscient. That gets around the problem.
@warren52nz All true. But the point is that both Islam and Christianity say that God is omnipotent and omniscient AND that we have free will. So both religions are self-contradictory. But or course this is far from the only contradiction that is contained in both the bible and Quran. I just don't understand people believe in a self-contradictory, illogical, irrational ideology that lacks even the tiniest bit of evidence, even if you totally explain this to them. Mehh.. stubbornness -_-
@warren52nz That is so true, well at least there are people like you an me... Rational intellegent beings that CAN think for themselves and do not walk around with ak-47's across the street screaming jihaad!! and killing other people because of there stupid beliefs.
@1tabligh No and there are more events that occur that knock over your perception of mass and these make theories like the big bang possible, making God unneccesary. And what do you literelly mean by accident? If you mean something like miscalculations, misinterpretations etc. I could ensure you that is not the case. And even if an event like 'virtual particles' accidently occurs, it would still mean that the causal and deterministic nature off mass is not absolute, because it defies it.
@tommyXBOX360 Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@1tabligh Well apparently, it doesn't always work that way. Virtual particles can pop into existance from nothing without a cause and purely random and they have mass and they were also emperically demonstrated, which means its not just a theoretical thing. Also the neutrons (or protons , doesnt really matter) in uraniumatoms during the nuclear reaction, decay not in a orderly fashion, but purely random. Causality and determinism are not undefyiable, absolute principles of matter.
@1tabligh You can deny this and keep repeating that matter only operates within the bounderies of causality and determinism, but that is not going to win the discussion. Surf the internet, read some books about quantummechanics or astophysics and you will discover allot more of these particular kind of events that occure in nature.
@tommyXBOX360 The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
@1tabligh Well... what about the random appearance of virtual particles that appear without a cause and purely random. The effect, the appearence of the partice, does not have a cause. So that means, in theory, the existance of the universe could have no cause. You are now back into your old habbit of repeating yourself.
@tommyXBOX360 Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
Finally, if being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
@1tabligh "How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?"
Simple if you have any training in mathematics. Show me the beginning of a circle. The Universe could be in a cycle of expansion and contraction in an eternal loop.
And don't say provocative things like "deluded Atheists". There's nothing delusional about NOT believing in something without evidence. Delusion is ACCEPTING something without evidence.
Metaphysical questions like the existance of the universe or the existance of a God cannot be answered by anyone, not by materialist and not by religious people who use made up fairy tales from 2000 years ago. There is no evidence for something non-material as it was never seen, neither its effects, so materialism is the best option for now. Just look at my questions, they point out the problem with your beliefs, but you keep ignoring them.
@1tabligh "how can they believe that hydrogen...should first produce themselves, ... and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?"
I understand what you're saying but the problem is that this is where the evidence points. Not understanding something has never been a golden ticket to guess that a super being zapped us here. Saying it doesn't add any information on the subject, it just creates a BIGGER question and you know what that question is.
@warren52nz Now science illumines a limited realm; the scientific worldview is a knowledge of the part, not a knowledge of the whole. Science is unable to demonstrate the aspect and form of the whole of creation. But at the same time, since the scientific mode of perception is precise and specific, belief in God acquires a more scientific natureand anewkind of logic through theadvancementof science.
@1tabligh "Science is unable to demonstrate the aspect and form of the whole of creation"
You should put "yet" on the end of that. One thing is for sure, a complete stab in the dark, imagining you know anything about a supernatural force in a vacuum of evidence gets you absolutely nowhere. And don't be too quick to slander science, have a look around you that all came from applying the Scientific Method!
@warren52nz Man's awareness comes into being through his perception of cause and effect, and one who believes in causality underlying phenomena cannot possibly ignore the role of the most fundamental factor that is at work over and above all other causes.
@1tabligh "one...cannot possibly ignore the role of the most fundamental factor that is at work over and above all other causes."
Of course one can. Does a dog ignore the existence of Jupiter? Your use of the word "is" is incorrect. You should use "might be" in its place since it's far from certain that such a "fundamental factor" is at work.
Until very recently, man imagined his own being to consist simply of a symmetrical and well-proportioned form; he was unaware of the complex mysteries contained in his creation. Today he has discovered astounding and far-reaching truths concerning the interior of his slight being, realizing that there are tens of millions of billions of cells in the body. This makes possible a particular appreciation of the greatness of the creator responsible for this artifact that was not possible in the past.
@1tabligh "appreciation of the greatness of the creator responsible for this artifact"
Not a all. Modern Biology has shown how this complexity evolved over billions of years. There's no need to invoke a supernatural power. I think most people just can't get a grip on how very, very, mind-boggling old the Earth is. Most people have trouble grasping the number "one million" let alone 4,600 of them in a row and each one representing a whole year!!!.
@warren52nz Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, unknowing and unperceiving, is his creator and that of all beings? Materialism looks at the world with one eye closed and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions.
@1tabligh You say a lot of things that aren't backed up by anything at all you know. Things like "his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter"
You can't possibly know any such thing. It's pure guesswork so don't be surprised when people dismiss it as nonsense. Especially when your "evidence" is biblical dogma. Thinking people reject that as ancient men speculating about reality and getting it completely wrong.
@warren52nz Can you help me understand what that 1tabligh guy is actually saying about matter. I can't figure out if he's airballing or that there are usefull facts in this comment. What the f does he mean with "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature" ??
@warren52nz If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh "If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible."
So where do you draw the line on what you believe? Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? If you believe things without evidence you will get it wrong every time.
@warren52nz We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
You just repeat yourself again and again and again. Each time the same air wrapped up with artsy language. Just because you talk like shakespear, doesn't mean you are an intellectual. You are a quasi-intellectual and it looks like they circumsized your brain as well. Just continue to believe in your flawed, illogical, immoral fairy tale while praying with your ass towards mekka. Your logical ignorance, stubbornness and illusion that you're an intellectual turns my stomach upside down. Bye!
@tommyXBOX360 we may think what we know is right, mby it is mby its not. what u have to do is look for things and evidence AGAINST what you believe in, DO NOT blindly follow others.i was exposed to god and the teachings of th bible, and went to mass every sunday and listend, it was not force fed down my throat like most parents do to their children. you need to challenge your beliefs look for and examine all evidence that denies it because if u dont how else are you going to know,FAITH LOL
@SeabasR I am an atheist and I think faith is for children, retards or the ignorant. I am not sure this message was meant for me since I see you sending it to different persons as well.
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
and the best way to convince your audience of your argument is to belittle them at the end of the video. can't see it my way? you must be a stubborn dick, thats why i make videos, so they can try to convince you of my perspective, fail, and insult you. do you think people watching this video are doing so in order to reaffirm their belief in god? no, your audience is clearly unbelievers so why tell them theyre stubborn and ignorant etc when you should be trying to show them the light? hail satan
slothscantswim 2 weeks ago
hey, let me explain something toward you....
slothscantswim 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
dizzy8212 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
dizzy8212 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
dizzy8212 2 weeks ago
ok god does exist OK sthepen hawking ansers are bullshit he is not the wordls smartest human so as i if there was no god or jesus christ no human would exist
dizzy8212 2 weeks ago
@dizzy8212 Just because someone disagrees with your beliefs, does not mean there bullshit haha. Its ok though, you don't know any better. At an early age you were already brainwashed with "If you don't believe us, then you will burn in hell".
Using the fear of death, to make people do what you want. Whats that called again...? Oh yea...terrorism
WhereDaXanax 2 weeks ago
Wait, the universe formed out of pre-existing materials (mostly hydrogen and helium to begin with).
What did God do? If nothing existed before he created everything, what did he use? There was no pre-existing materials. Heaven didn't even exist.
Wait, if heaven didn't exist, where was God? If material didn't exist before creation, how was God a "thing" ? God couldn't just create everything and use nothing whilst he himself IS nothing since material didn't exist during and before creation.
GenerationBright 1 month ago
@GenerationBright Wow. The plotholes begin at Genesis.
The God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) has thus forth been ruled out.
NEXT.
GenerationBright 1 month ago
The problem with our people is that when you hear the word "GOD" you think "Religion". That way of thinking needs to die out because religion for the most part is a total joke. The existence of a "Source" or God, etc. Its entirely possible.
StaticH4X 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.) Definition of theory: unproven set of ideas in an attempt to explain something. 2.) it takes alot of faith that something can come from nothing. 3.) cosmology is the understanding of how God did it all
Unbox4U 2 months ago
This video sucks. The maker of this video clearly didn't understand Stephen Hawking. I don't blame him, it is indeed very difficult. Stephen didn't say that there was an energy outside of the universe because there was no universe before the universe but he that that something evolved into the universe. So the before the universe there was a source of energy and THAT evolved into the universe. I am still trying to understand everything but seems to me this video is clearly a wrong interpretation
MrToerio 2 months ago
I agree
MultiLightning23 2 months ago
im not worrying for every single "thing" in the whole universe to be completely didmembred...it will take 10^100 trillion years :)
danysat1 2 months ago
You had a valid arguement until that last slide.
GamerRateBot 3 months ago 2
A dichotomous answer to the existent of energy is stupid. It's the same as saying: "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists" (Bush 2001). There are always other options, but energy isn't stupid because it's consciousness of it's existent. Energy just follows laws.
pakspul 3 months ago 4
@pakspul I AGREE MAN
danysat1 2 months ago
stephen hawking said that there is no God and there is no heaven but he didn't refer hell and the devil, is there any fear that is bound to him by not referring satan? does he believe in satan? if we don't believe in hell then why is the fear so real>?
joey143anna 3 months ago
Sometimes i feel we have God on one side Satan on the Other and me in the Middle. Everyone blames God when things go wrong - but does anyone ever blame Satan after all it says in the bible Satan is the current ruler of our time
blonde7000 3 months ago
If you don't believe in GOD,then how did the Universe EXISTED..and how is Human Being created,it's just ABSURD to ignore these facts...
gamer1999able 3 months ago
@gamer1999able Nobody knows for sure how the Universe came into existence or what happened before the Big Bang or if these questions are even meaningful.
We know how human beings are created: sexual reproduction. And if you wonder how the first humans came into existence, it's through evolution from ancestral species. No "GOD" required.
TaiFerret 3 months ago
@TaiFerret I THINK GOD HAS MORE SENCE THAN EVOLUTION
luisduarteful 2 months ago
@TaiFerret their are no "ancestral species" without a creator to make them!aka: GOD
danysat1 2 months ago
@gamer1999able Okay, I have several things to say. 1: That was the most retarded thing I've ever heard anyone say. 2: You said if you don't believe in God, then how does the universe "existed". Well, the answer is we don't completely know yet, but saying "God dun' it" has no explanatory value. Saying god did it pushes out any natural explanations that we might discover in the next century. Seriously, if we don't know something, you're going to have to accept it until we've figured it out.
SnippyDoughnut 2 months ago
@SnippyDoughnut listen,i dont know if u respect my believes,and i dont care.i would be very pleased to discuss this with you,but the majority is people like you are.Anyway,i say God is required,and people have already figured it out,if you dont want to believe,then I DNT GIVE A DAMN.Ihave my believes,following my religion,you have yours,its alright.
gamer1999able 2 months ago
and theres a difference between designed and designoid so stfu
Flappyization 3 months ago
yes energy has always existed and beyond the beginning of the observable universe. However it is a logical fallacy to claim that there thus must be a god, there is no logical connection between the fact and the argument.
alixaksionov 4 months ago
if energy has always existed then we have too, for the soul is the energy within us, there is no creator but ourselves
MrToiletface 4 months ago
@MrToiletface our sole is no diffrent to a bundle of wires in a quantum computer. nothing magical.
Brain + Current in brains connections = sole.
the engery when not inside your brain is not you.
is lightning a sole. is the socket you plug electronics giving things soles.
no
your brain. and your brains map is you so called "soul"
when it stops working so does your soul.
just like a computer
Flappyization 3 months ago
It a lie energy can't just be without been design
abulhaz 4 months ago
This will help me on my debates and for that I thank you. :D
kidasterorig111 4 months ago
so if god created the universe then who created god? hu?
SuperBman300 4 months ago
@SuperBman300 scholastic reasoning
eskatee 3 months ago
ya do realize that all the energy in the universe amounts to zero...
jacobpaprotskiy 4 months ago
I Used Infinite As A Substitute For Huge, The Big Bang Cannot Create Animals Because It Doesn't Have The Particles We Are Made Of, And If You Want Proof Then Google "Proof That God Exists" And Read 10 - 20 Paragraphs Then Come And Reply...
Rithin101 4 months ago
@Rithin101 "The Big Bang Cannot Create Animals Because It Doesn't Have The Particles We Are Made Of"
Huh? All the evidence points to the Big Bang making everything you see today including humans.
The "particles" were contained in the energy in the singularity that was later turned into elements, molecules and compounds by pushing them across the E=MC² equation. That's certainly how it appears if you look at the evidence.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz A million atheists are teaming up on me just because I'm religious.Wow.Just wow.
Rithin101 4 months ago
go die
Durgadurgadur 4 months ago
What a surprise...
Yet another theist lying about what scientists say.
MrFungus420 4 months ago
If nothing can come from nothingness, where did god come from?
fredazbell 4 months ago
@fredazbell How is it possible for a non-existing (nothing) thing to create another thing (*universe*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*universe*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing (nothing) thing having the power to create an already existing thing, (*universe*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 4 months ago
I don't understand how somebody can use Stephen Hawking as somebody that proves there is a God. He said himself that God DOES NOT EXIST!
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Scientist CAN say certain things about the Universe, while not knowing most of the Universe itself, because of mathematical reasons and so forth. But for the sake of argument, lets say that all of your problems with science are valid, that still doens't mean a God must exist. If the bigbang theory is total crap and there must be something that created the universe, that does NOT have to be allah or God or some kind of deity. There could be all kinds of physilogical explainations for it
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
And even if it has to be an intelligence, why Allah? Why can't the Hindoes be right and why couldn't there be 13 deities responsible for the creation of the universe? Also, the believe in a religion or God creates equivelent problems.Who created god, for example? But why do you believe in a God anyway, what are your reasons for the existence of a God and esp. allah in specific? And don't say something like science is wrong because of... That's a fallacy (Non-existing dilemma)
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Im not saying the big bang or any other equivelent theory is non-contradictory and I am not holding such a theory as certain knowledge. But why is it necessary that there must be a creator for this vast and complex world? I know it can be hard to believe that there is no creator behind all this, but that doesn't mean there must be one. And if both something like the big bang and the believe in a god are equally contradictory, why do you believe in either one of them?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh And why do you believe specifically in Islam? Why not christianity, Jewism or any other religion for that matter? And what about the questions that arise with the existence of a God. Who created God? And if he created himself how is that possible? How can a God be infinite?
Most importantly, what are your reasons for believing in God and why specifically the Islam over other religions?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Yes it IS possible that the cells of the body "learn" their functions without a conscious will behind it. Just because it is so complex and just because it seems so unlikely that this whole biological system functions without a intelligence, doesn't mean that there must be one. You must understand the difference between 'seems like' and 'must be'. Biology almost perfectly explains the whole process from the biogenesis (where aminoacids were created) untill present day.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Every realistic scientist would say that. Of course nature is not aware of itself. Nature is just a word that describes the manifestatation of everything that has to do with biology. Maby you could mind a better definition of nature, but nature is not a deity or a conciousness in any case. And the only thing that a kidney reveals is that it is very complex and functions properly in some way. It does NOT PROVE that there must be a intelligence behind it. Why should it?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh It is understandable that you assume there must be an intelligence behind the kidney-example and I understand it SEEMS like there must be some consious mind behind this, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO. You examples are not proof of a God or some deity behind all this, at best is seems plausible. Look at stars for example. In the core of certain stars hydrogenatoms are eventually changed into much heavier atoms like iron. This process is very complicated and you could asume that there must...
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
... be some consiousness behind this, but it is not neccesary. In fact, all these processes work on their own according to the laws of physics and there is no room for a deity. The only difference is that biology is even more complex and gives a stronger illusion that there must be a consious intellegence behind it. But in fact, biology and science, without the need for a God or something equivelent, could explain everything from biogenesis all the way up to the complexity of a working kidney.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
And why do you believe in Islam, why not Jewist or Christianity or why dont you believe in some multi-theistic religion? Since you have only asserted the need for an intelligence behind life (which is not needed), all of the above and more, are valid candidates. Do you understand you believe in a omnipotent God, which is in contradiction with free will? The believe in a God is not neccesary, but the belief in Islam is just a incorrect thing.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh You are avoiding my questions. I admit that I only hold the big bang theory for plausible, but do you think the existance of God is certain knowledge? And AGAIN, why do you believe in Islam specifacally? Do you understand that every religion is lacking evidence and that christianity and Islam hold so many contradictions and inconsistencies? For example, do you believe that God is omnipotent and that we have free will?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Again you are avoiding all my questions, I really think I should stop this discussion if you keep, basicly, repeating yourself and do not answer any of my questions. The point is, we don't know the source and beginning of the universe. You can assume it must be an intelligence, you could believe in a big bang theory which is far from complete, but you are making a mistake if you think the existance of a God is a certainty. Don't you comprehend that?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh No he shouldn't accept that as absolute certainty. It is a metaphysical question. Nobody can answer the question "Who created the universe?". You can take a neutral position like me, or you could believe in a God. If your belief in a God is only based on the assertion that there must be a creator behind all this complexity and what not, your way of thinking is flawed. Do you understand that the existance of a God is plausible at best and that it lacks evidence.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh But you even go a step further. You specifically believe in Islam, which doens't make sence, because the assumption that there must be a creator does not discriminate between any kind of religion. So why do you believe in Islam instead of Christianity, Jewism or any religion for that matter? Why do you think your belief in Islam has any logical basis?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Okay Im done. You avoid my questions over and over again, I've told you a million times that a intelligent deity is not neccesary for all the complexity and functionality of the universe. I also told you multiple times that this question of "who created the universe? " is a metaphysical one that cannot be answered with certainty. But still you believe in something without evidence, just because it basicly SEEMS plausible.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Hey just like everythin reveolves around the earth is plausaple FROM OUR POINT OF VEIW
SeabasR 4 months ago
@SeabasR At what comment are you replying on?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh And I told to you so many times that it is not necessary for matter to have some kind of deity behind it or consiousness. Some other astrophysical cause could be behind the origin of the earth or it could always have existed, there are allot more possibiliteis between God and the big bang theory. But for the sake of argument lets say that a deity IS necesarry. Then why only one God and why the Islamic one specifically?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 replace earth with universe im my first comment *
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh And the existance of your God will cause the same problems: Who created God or was it eternal?
If you don't answer these questions then discussing with you is very very useless.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Sorry but you are avoiding my other questions AGAIN. You are a worthless debater. Sorry for ranting on you but this is pathetic. I am not going to continue this conversation if you do not answer my questions. Are you afraid of them?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— .either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Just plz never argue anything on youtube ever again. I'm done. You sir, are laughable.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 4 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
How is that for YOUR "You sir, are laughable." and answer the question instead?!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh I understand the boundaries of the emperical science, it can not prove or disprove a God for example. I acknowledge that. And if there must be something that created matter, what created that? So if God must be the cause of all matter, who created him or was he eternal? You are, of course, not going to answer this question, because you didn't answer it the 4 times before. The point is, the cause behind the universe is either a material one or it is a non-material one.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh And even if it is non-material it does not have to be the God you specifacally believe in. You failed to answer why your religion is true. You did not even gave proof that there must be a God. You just asserted there must be one, because how can matter create itself, right? But you just dont understand the existance of a God implies the same problem: Who created God? But whats the point of this, you are not going to answer this and just give me another "beautifull" story
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 who created him
___
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh What do you actually mean with your first comment? I assume you agree that we both can't answer the question "Who created God" and "What created the universe". So if we follow back the chain of causality a non-material cause such as God is equally problematic as a material one. The beginning and cause of all that exists is a metaphysical question that nobody can answer (yet). Btw. atheism is just the absence of the believe in a God nothing more.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Conclusion: The belief in a God is as useless as any other explaination, either materialistic or non-materialistic. Religion lacks major evidence and the existance of a God is not a necessity. And probably my most important question: "Why do you believe SPECIFICALLY IN THE ISLAM AND NOT ANY OTHER RELIGION?"
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh If we assert that God made the universe and that God was made by another God etc. etc.... an endless chain of Gods, that would not lead to denying the universe. It would essentially mean the same as an purely materialistic eternal universe. But you attribute eternity to God. In that case the universe could be eternal without a God just as likely. Then the universe would have always existed, not needing a creator. So what makes theism better then atheism?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh And plz just answer this question: WHAT MAKES ISLAM BETTER THEN ANY OTHER RELIGION, WHY DO YOU SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE IN ISLAM INSTEAD OF OTHER BELIEFS? << I have to write this with capital letters in the hope you finally just answer the damn question. Btw: Atheism is just the disbelief in a God. Atheists can regard matter as eternal, as non-eternal (big bang theory for example) or basically any other theory possible (except those that contain a God).
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
1tabligh 4 months ago
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh The removal of God does not solve any problem, I agree with this. But the problem itself cannot (yet) be solved. If we do or do not insert God, it doens't matter. If you assert that all that is is eternal you could either say God created the universe but God himself is eternal or you could say there is no God and the universe just always existed? Both of these claims are equal. None of them van be varified or falsified, hence the term 'metaphysical'.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 plz just answer this question: WHAT MAKES ISLAM BETTER ....
___
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 4 months ago
And if you think there must be a beginning, the absence or presence of a God does not change anything. If you assert that God must be the creator, that would cause the same logical problems then if you assert that the universe came out of nothing (big bang theory) or that another astrophysical process caused the existance of the universe as we perceive it. So why do you think a theory that contains a God would be more viable then one that does not contain a deity of such nature.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh I am sorry but your last comment does not really answer my question (at least you did not avoid it :) ).
Whatever the 'Western Intellectuals' thought, I don't care. Maby they judged the Islam totally wrong, but I want to know what YOU think about the Islam and what makes it better than any other religion.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange,
1tabligh 4 months ago
and compounding with other bodies.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 4 months ago
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Could you stop talking in so difficult words and abstract terms and ways of explaining, since I am not english and this distracts me from where this discussion is really about. Couldn't you just clearly and directly explain "Why is the Islam true and Hindoeïsm not, for example?" and I don't really understand the point in your theory about matter. Lets assume, for that sake of argument, that matter was always there, eternal. Why is that not possible, while a eternal God would be?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Lets assume, for that sake of argument, that matter was always there, eternal.
___
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. <-- What do you exactly mean by that. Why does stable and immutable matter cannot accept movement and change. I don't really get the contradiction there. So because matter is not static and does change, that means it cannot be eternal? In principle, matter could change in all kind of ways or move whereever it "wants". Why is this possible according to you?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Okay well if we assert that matter is eternal, where lies the contradiction? I understand that matter, if it is eternal, leaves no room for cessation. Can you give an example where cessation happens with matter? Maby a few examples would help me comprehend what you truely mean. But again, what differentiates your religion from others? Why do you consider Islam truth, but not buddhism, since I did not really got the answer to that question from you?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature" ___ How am I supposed to understand what this means? Eternity is incompatable with the mode of being possessed by matter?! Being possessed?! And what factors and attributes of matter literally are incompatible with eternity. You are not making this very clear, but very abstract and vague.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Are you really sure matter refuses permanence and eternity? There is no real link between permanence and eternity and the fact that matter is either static and absolute or moving and relative. Why can't matter be moving and relative and be eternal in the same time. You told me this "fact" a few times now, but yet you have not explained why this is a clear contradiction.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh Or are you talking about the fact that science points towards the fact that the way matter and the universe behave, matter is not eternal. Like in the big bang theory and the fact that space is expanding in a way it seems almost certain all that is had a beginning, an origin?
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh 1. If matter is eternal, why should it be subject to change and cessation. Why can't matter be constantly the same if it is eternal?
2. Matter does not disappear of "embraces death"? ---> The law of conservement of energy and mass. can you name an example where matter disappears?
3. Life is a form of matter. What is considered life is all that falls under the biological definition off live, everything that shows sign of life (matebolism, reproduction etc etc).
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
Life was created because of biogenesis: The process where certain inorganic chemicals (ammonia, water, methane and a few more) formed, under the influence of electricity, organic materials (aminoaccids at first) and these polymerise into proteins and after that lies a huge process where different kind of chemicals are formed that make up al lthe organisms that we see today.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
1tabligh 4 months ago
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Conciousness is a hole other thing. Conciousness is the result of a certain state of devellopment of the brain. It is what makes us self-aware. This is directly related to the brain, a material manifestation. A immaterialistic component could be involved, but it is not necessary. Esp. because we haven't emperically demonstrated such a phenomenon yet, which makes it illogical to believe in such a thing (untill it is scientifically proven).
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
Also I would like to strongly point out I do not believe in eternal matter. In fact, since this is a metaphysical subject, I do not hold any point of view as absolute knowledge, I only state that eternal matter is a possible alternative for a creator such as God. You last sentence of your last comment was kinda ironic: "beliefs pleasing to themselves" mmm sounds very VERY applicable to most religious people instead of atheists.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh And even if I accept your claim that there must be a creator that is immaterial and dispaces himself out of the boundaries of time etc. , what makes your Islamic theory of a God more true than any other religion?!
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh The principle of causality is actually derived from inductive knowlegde, because we never seen something happen for no reason and we always see things happen according to the law of causality. Just like all inductive knowledge, which all science is, its not absolutely certain. But hold on.. we DID see things happen not according to the causal principles. Quantummechanics! The decay of protons in uranium atoms that happen in nuclear reactors, do not follow the rules of causality...
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Which proton decays is purely random and not bound to deterministic physical laws and in the world of quantummechanics certain particles pop into existance. So the Quantumtheory knocks over everything you have asserted about matter. These particles that suddenly pop into existance leaves room for the theory such as the big bang theory and totally destroys the assertion that matter must have a cause. Quantummechanics also excludes the possibility of a God as described in the Quran...
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
... Because that is where the omnipotence - free will contradiction steps in. God can do everything so he knows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore the future MUST be DETERMINISTIC, because if certain events occur without the causal principles, they cannot be predicted and known before the events actually occur. And because of quantummechanics and also because your own religious assertion of free will, gods omnipotence is impossible. So...
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
... the Quran contains a contradiction. But wait a minute... the Quran is the word of God whichs is perfect and absolutely true and it contains a contradiction? Well good luck with the Quran... Don't know exactly why I didn't bring this argument up before, it would have saved us both allot of time. Still, even if we assert there must be a creator, you yet did not explain why Islam would be true instead of any other religion. But I guess you want to avoid this question very badly ;)
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh WTF... I just told you about quantummechanics. Look it up for yourself if you dont believe me. Quantummechanics concern matter, all but matter and according to this theory we see particlair appear out of nothing. Oh and btw... feel free to avoid the question about what would make Islam better than other religiions all you want.. it is just that I hear your religion dying from over here.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh The random and causeless appearence of 'virtual particles'. Those particles contain mass (seem to react with the Higgs field which means mass) and "borrow" energy from the vacuum and they disappear after a period of time giving back their "borrowed" energy as they do not compromize the law of the conservement of energy and mass. Google 'virtual particle' and click the wikipedia-link. If you don't find this convincing I could give you more examples, or you could search for yourself.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 You're right about Quantum Theory but I don't think 1tabligh is likely to understand or accept it.
Any claim of absolutes like omni-anything will hit logical walls sooner or later. The random appearance of a sub-atomic particle would seem to be of little consequence in the big picture but you're right, it denies omniscience. These claims involving infinite concepts are ill-advised. It would be better to say "VERY intelligent" instead of omniscient. That gets around the problem.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz All true. But the point is that both Islam and Christianity say that God is omnipotent and omniscient AND that we have free will. So both religions are self-contradictory. But or course this is far from the only contradiction that is contained in both the bible and Quran. I just don't understand people believe in a self-contradictory, illogical, irrational ideology that lacks even the tiniest bit of evidence, even if you totally explain this to them. Mehh.. stubbornness -_-
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 It's caused by early brainwashing and a time proven formula:
.
1. Strip away self esteem, tell everyone they're worthless sinners from birth
2. Offer them a solution if they believe & obey
3. Tell them they will survive beyond death forever in paradise
4. Threaten them with the worst thing you can imagine if they DON'T believe
5. Reinforce it regularily with other people who support the belief
6. Tell them anyone who doesn't agree is EVIL
.
No evidence required.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz That is so true, well at least there are people like you an me... Rational intellegent beings that CAN think for themselves and do not walk around with ak-47's across the street screaming jihaad!! and killing other people because of there stupid beliefs.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh No and there are more events that occur that knock over your perception of mass and these make theories like the big bang possible, making God unneccesary. And what do you literelly mean by accident? If you mean something like miscalculations, misinterpretations etc. I could ensure you that is not the case. And even if an event like 'virtual particles' accidently occurs, it would still mean that the causal and deterministic nature off mass is not absolute, because it defies it.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Well apparently, it doesn't always work that way. Virtual particles can pop into existance from nothing without a cause and purely random and they have mass and they were also emperically demonstrated, which means its not just a theoretical thing. Also the neutrons (or protons , doesnt really matter) in uraniumatoms during the nuclear reaction, decay not in a orderly fashion, but purely random. Causality and determinism are not undefyiable, absolute principles of matter.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh You can deny this and keep repeating that matter only operates within the bounderies of causality and determinism, but that is not going to win the discussion. Surf the internet, read some books about quantummechanics or astophysics and you will discover allot more of these particular kind of events that occure in nature.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Well... what about the random appearance of virtual particles that appear without a cause and purely random. The effect, the appearence of the partice, does not have a cause. So that means, in theory, the existance of the universe could have no cause. You are now back into your old habbit of repeating yourself.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
1tabligh 4 months ago
Finally, if being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?"
Simple if you have any training in mathematics. Show me the beginning of a circle. The Universe could be in a cycle of expansion and contraction in an eternal loop.
And don't say provocative things like "deluded Atheists". There's nothing delusional about NOT believing in something without evidence. Delusion is ACCEPTING something without evidence.
warren52nz 4 months ago
Metaphysical questions like the existance of the universe or the existance of a God cannot be answered by anyone, not by materialist and not by religious people who use made up fairy tales from 2000 years ago. There is no evidence for something non-material as it was never seen, neither its effects, so materialism is the best option for now. Just look at my questions, they point out the problem with your beliefs, but you keep ignoring them.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@1tabligh "how can they believe that hydrogen...should first produce themselves, ... and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?"
I understand what you're saying but the problem is that this is where the evidence points. Not understanding something has never been a golden ticket to guess that a super being zapped us here. Saying it doesn't add any information on the subject, it just creates a BIGGER question and you know what that question is.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Now science illumines a limited realm; the scientific worldview is a knowledge of the part, not a knowledge of the whole. Science is unable to demonstrate the aspect and form of the whole of creation. But at the same time, since the scientific mode of perception is precise and specific, belief in God acquires a more scientific natureand anewkind of logic through theadvancementof science.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "Science is unable to demonstrate the aspect and form of the whole of creation"
You should put "yet" on the end of that. One thing is for sure, a complete stab in the dark, imagining you know anything about a supernatural force in a vacuum of evidence gets you absolutely nowhere. And don't be too quick to slander science, have a look around you that all came from applying the Scientific Method!
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Man's awareness comes into being through his perception of cause and effect, and one who believes in causality underlying phenomena cannot possibly ignore the role of the most fundamental factor that is at work over and above all other causes.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "one...cannot possibly ignore the role of the most fundamental factor that is at work over and above all other causes."
Of course one can. Does a dog ignore the existence of Jupiter? Your use of the word "is" is incorrect. You should use "might be" in its place since it's far from certain that such a "fundamental factor" is at work.
warren52nz 4 months ago
Until very recently, man imagined his own being to consist simply of a symmetrical and well-proportioned form; he was unaware of the complex mysteries contained in his creation. Today he has discovered astounding and far-reaching truths concerning the interior of his slight being, realizing that there are tens of millions of billions of cells in the body. This makes possible a particular appreciation of the greatness of the creator responsible for this artifact that was not possible in the past.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "appreciation of the greatness of the creator responsible for this artifact"
Not a all. Modern Biology has shown how this complexity evolved over billions of years. There's no need to invoke a supernatural power. I think most people just can't get a grip on how very, very, mind-boggling old the Earth is. Most people have trouble grasping the number "one million" let alone 4,600 of them in a row and each one representing a whole year!!!.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, unknowing and unperceiving, is his creator and that of all beings? Materialism looks at the world with one eye closed and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh You say a lot of things that aren't backed up by anything at all you know. Things like "his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter"
You can't possibly know any such thing. It's pure guesswork so don't be surprised when people dismiss it as nonsense. Especially when your "evidence" is biblical dogma. Thinking people reject that as ancient men speculating about reality and getting it completely wrong.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz Can you help me understand what that 1tabligh guy is actually saying about matter. I can't figure out if he's airballing or that there are usefull facts in this comment. What the f does he mean with "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature" ??
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tommyXBOX360 "Can you help me understand what that 1tabligh guy is actually saying about matter"
No sorry, I don't get what he's saying either and I have a University degree in Physics. Best to ask him but don't get your hopes up.
warren52nz 4 months ago
@warren52nz If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible."
So where do you draw the line on what you believe? Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? If you believe things without evidence you will get it wrong every time.
warren52nz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warren52nz We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 4 months ago
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 4 months ago
You just repeat yourself again and again and again. Each time the same air wrapped up with artsy language. Just because you talk like shakespear, doesn't mean you are an intellectual. You are a quasi-intellectual and it looks like they circumsized your brain as well. Just continue to believe in your flawed, illogical, immoral fairy tale while praying with your ass towards mekka. Your logical ignorance, stubbornness and illusion that you're an intellectual turns my stomach upside down. Bye!
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
@tommyXBOX360 we may think what we know is right, mby it is mby its not. what u have to do is look for things and evidence AGAINST what you believe in, DO NOT blindly follow others.i was exposed to god and the teachings of th bible, and went to mass every sunday and listend, it was not force fed down my throat like most parents do to their children. you need to challenge your beliefs look for and examine all evidence that denies it because if u dont how else are you going to know,FAITH LOL
SeabasR 4 months ago
@SeabasR I am an atheist and I think faith is for children, retards or the ignorant. I am not sure this message was meant for me since I see you sending it to different persons as well.
tommyXBOX360 4 months ago
Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 4 months ago