@guywithface99 One of the hypothesis (the best supported) is that it was once a part of the earth and was somehow separated (most likely a large planet sized object struck earth as it was forming).
@guywithface99 The accepted idea is that a large meteor/planet whatchamacallit hit the Earth, and clumps of rock flew into space, which collided together from gravity to form a large satellite of Earth.
"The change is not that people aren't still saying under-informed things, the change is that if you're in power and you say something under-informed, there are people people out there with a VOICE who will take you to task for having done so."
The look Neil was giving Roger throughout the whole interview seemed to me to be one of contempt and loathing. Did anyone else think this? I mean, Roger's annoying but he's not that bad.
when neil talks about his optimism about a more informed public arising from the communication of science and truth it really bring me to tears and gives me hope in humanity, when in the past i've mostly been cynical. thank you neil, you mean more to us than you even know
I personally try to be extra gentle with ppl in such situations only to find they'll quickly turn condescending and attempt to belittle in their own way. It's like f*#k I just can't win! (lighthearted comment)
@cobrasaboteur1: I know, it's a little uncomfortable to watch, I felt sad for the host, but I swear his mannerisms almost invite that upon himself. It's important to be aware of your own body language. It's your responsibility to yourself, and there's why.
The fact that the cells of the body have learned their functions without the aid of a supreme being is infinitely more inspiring and beautiful to me than the idea that it was guided by a creator.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@funkkyzenzei 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.
@funkkyzenzei 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.
My point exactly. There would be an infinite question about who made the maker. If a maker has allways been there, as you suggest. Then why not skip a step and say the multiverse has allways been there.
@funkkyzenzei 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, and compounding with other bodies.
I guess we will never convince eatch other of our beliefs.
People beleive what they wanna beleive. And if it gives them piece of mind beleiveing in a maker. I dont see a problem with that. As long as it dosnt hinder scientific progress in any way.
@funkkyzenzei As long as it dosnt hinder scientific progress in any way.
____
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@funkkyzenzei 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.
@funkkyzenzei If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@funkkyzenzei Then how can you delude yourself and 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 "If numerous gods ruled over the world" let me get this straight, you're quoting from your own religious text why other religious views are false. what laughable logic, it makes as much sense as me taking the bible or some other religious text and saying 'your religion is wrong because my holy book says you are wrong'. to which you would reply 'that's not proof!' and that is exactly what I say to you.
@AussiePolitics Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
@1tabligh who says our religious ties are an outgrowth of our nature? Its merely because primitive humans have wanted an explanation for the way the world worked and so they invented gods to explain things. its not different to the greeks explanation for thunder (thor's hammer) was invented - we didn't know something so religion filled the gap. your logic uses a religious book to try and prove that your god is true. that's as laughable as christians expecting you to convert because of the bible
@AussiePolitics Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being.
@1tabligh its funny how much you sound like christian fundamentalists who love to cite the bible when they say why people don't believe in their god. before you can cite your holy text to 'prove' anything you better provide some evidence that this book really is anything other than a book written by a human. you know, for those of us that weren't brainwashed from birth. the funny thing is if you'd been raised in a christian family odds are you'd be quoting the bible right now.
@AussiePolitics Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
@1tabligh " Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God." And there is your fallacy. Prophethood is conceivable in many ways, as a device of manipulation. It's conceivable as form of group psychology and the product of charisma and power. There are many who have claimed to be prophets who you would not believe, the same way as if a person would not believe in your prophet. Someone being called a 'prophet' is no proof of anything.
Look at it like this. The following are well established facts. This particular rock we call Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. The first hint of life took 700 million years to form, and then we had 800 million years of Prokaryote (very simple life). Now look at those numbers, that doesn't look like a plan. What that looks like, to me, is, given all the ingredients and the right conditions, it still takes a massive amount of time for cetain complex chemical reactions to place.
@slasherzedd However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of *neediness, dependency, and origination* in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect.
@slasherzedd Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot EXIST.
@1tabligh Who created this being? If he always existed, then why cannot the universe? We know ours has a beginning point. But who is to say that there wasn't a universe before that? The difference between you and me is that I find an uncaring natural world of chance and probability the most likely answer, and you believe an omnipresent being is the most likely. It would be fantastic if there was a being like that, it would give out lives meaning, but I can't believe in things out of want
@slasherzedd Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack.
Under such conditions will the attack ever take place?
@slasherzedd Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will *not* take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
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.
Funny how the people who actually STUDY the universe in great detail, account for the highest proportion of atheists in than any other group. G talk to them, you will be schooled.
@superhamzah85Belief 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.
@superhamzah85 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?
You have a massive ego. We're made of water, from hydrogen - the most common element in the universe, followed by carbon, which is also very common. Life is as natural an outcome as ANY OTHER outcome. It doesn't require a miracle.
@superhamzah85 With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
@superhamzah85 "And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
@superhamzah85 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?
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?
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. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
How is that for YOUR "make you a laughing stock." and answer the question instead?!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
The reason you are butthurt and resorting to insults is because you can't fulfil my request for evidence. This is expected from you - as it is with all religious people - none of whom can substantiate a SINGLE one of their claims with a shred of evidence. All you are displaying gaps in your knowledge - then filling those gaps with your fairy tale.
You are obsessed with atheism because you have doubts.
@superhamzah85 What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
@superhamzah85 Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
The dialectical explanation of composites is no more successful than the dialectical explanation of simple elements. If water had come into existence in accordance with the dialectical laws, this would mean that hydrogen can he considered as an affirmation, and that this affirmation produces its own negation by its production of oxygen. Later, the negation and the
affirmation come together in a unity that is water. We can also reverse the consideration, thus supposing oxygen as an affirmation, hydrogen as a negation, and water as a union that involves both the negation and the affirmation, and that emerged as a progressive product of the dialectical struggle between the two.
......why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
@superhamzah85 Are deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand?
I just answered you!
Are you playing monkey tricks with me?
READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
@superhamzah85 If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
Well, How can you say that He is not in those places where neither you *nor* your *senses* have ever been?
Perhaps He may be living there. Perhaps a person of extraordinary intelligence may reside in one of those places.
May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*
Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of.
Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
I have not been everywhere, so I will accept there is a possibility of a god. I have not been everywhere, I will accept the possibility of Zeus. I will accept the possibility of Horus and Thor. I will accept the possibility of Odin, leprechauns, fairies and Arihman. I will accept the possibility for everything. I will BELIEVE the evidence. Have you been everywhere? You must accept the possibility of Zeus, if you are honest.
@superhamzah85 Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
@superhamzah85 If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@superhamzah85 Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
@superhamzah85 Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being.
@superhamzah85 The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
@superhamzah85 What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
@superhamzah85 All duped and deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.
@superhamzah85 When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
@superhamzah85 Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God!
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion.
@superhamzah85 This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the duped atheists and deluded materialists.
@superhamzah85 Further, if self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present,
@superhamzah85 If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present,
whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature. What then made those laws and decrees different?
The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
@superhamzah85 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.
@superhamzah85 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.
@superhamzah85 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.
@superhamzah85 What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
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?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
@1tabligh "Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God" rubbish, your belief in god was not proceeded by your belief in a god. you were raised from childhood to believe that there was a god and islam was his religion. you were not raised and taught there was a god and to decide which religion spoke for him. in the quran it says that a babies bones are clothes in flesh. this is completely wrong.
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it.
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
@1tabligh "So how did each part of the chain" and there we have it, the basis for your belief. 'I don't know understand the universe therefore god did it, and because i was raised a muslim that was definitely the islamic god'. That is laughable logic. no scientist says 'it is unknown how this happened... so therefore it was caused by god because that way i dont have to think or prove anything".
@1tabligh does it, or does it not say in the quran that during embryonic development a babies bones are clothed in flesh? another incorrect scientific 'fact' stolen from the greeks who were also incorrect. the bones do not develop first. or are you going to say this is a metaphor? so anything in the quran that is wrong, is a metaphor while anything that happens to be right was serious?
@1tabligh the fact that you keep coming back with pathetic cliches tells me you are too afraid to question what you believe, you'd rather just believe what was brainwashed into you as a child rather than think for yourself. "whence did its existence arise" ready for the answer? i dont know. but guess what? no human does, and they are lying if they say they do. humans have invented gods for thousands of years to answer this, why is yours any different?
@yatter1 Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
@1tabligh I´m sorry, I didn´t mean to infer that I gave a flying fuck about your puerile opinons, I think you´re an arse of the worst kind and care not a jot about what you think about anything, and I´m using the word "think" quite wrongly when referring to you.
@yatter1 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?
@yatter1 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?
@yatter1 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.
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?
how'd the moon get there?
guywithface99 1 week ago
@guywithface99 One of the hypothesis (the best supported) is that it was once a part of the earth and was somehow separated (most likely a large planet sized object struck earth as it was forming).
crass770 6 days ago
@guywithface99 The accepted idea is that a large meteor/planet whatchamacallit hit the Earth, and clumps of rock flew into space, which collided together from gravity to form a large satellite of Earth.
jimmyphonghater 2 days ago
neil and brian cox need to get together and do documentaries on astrophysics and particle physics
gummylipstick 2 weeks ago
He voice alone makes me listen to this in its entirety.
vlassakj 2 weeks ago
66666 views.... am I the only one seeing this, or am I really the 66666th viewer....
manwithouthat44 2 weeks ago
@manwithouthat44 you are, enjoy your demonic achivement :P
nachoijp 1 week ago
I love this. Watched the whole thing.
Timodia 3 weeks ago 6
Oh comeon, the soundbyte opportunity...
should've gone: "I don't celebrate what we know today, I celebrate what we could know tomorrow"
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
Neil is the man.
getbuckist 1 month ago
"The change is not that people aren't still saying under-informed things, the change is that if you're in power and you say something under-informed, there are people people out there with a VOICE who will take you to task for having done so."
-- 55:46
yamenhawit 1 month ago 2
"You wouldn't catch me dead in a hospital using 1980s medical technology..."
Unintentional irony?
GypsyLeah 1 month ago
The Athiest guy? Really?
Inb4Reach 1 month ago
@Inb4Reach Atheist*
SquadFive 1 month ago
Roger looks like a psychologist
MrCrowley45 1 month ago
What can you say, Roger loves his transcripts.
swampfoot 1 month ago
The look Neil was giving Roger throughout the whole interview seemed to me to be one of contempt and loathing. Did anyone else think this? I mean, Roger's annoying but he's not that bad.
Matt7895 1 month ago
lmfao.. i skipped forward cause neil looked bored, and where i skipped to looked almost exactly the same.... Neil is so great. Thanks, Neil!
MediumNothinFull 1 month ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 1 month ago
Neil hated the interviewer haha
JG129 1 month ago
Niel is right, I'm watching their interview, not reading the manuscript
MightyKingYoung 1 month ago
Neil DeGrasse Tyson for President
PaintSlinger99 2 months ago
i love how he called him an asshole so intricately
nightreaper999 2 months ago
when neil talks about his optimism about a more informed public arising from the communication of science and truth it really bring me to tears and gives me hope in humanity, when in the past i've mostly been cynical. thank you neil, you mean more to us than you even know
MrDgaf12345 2 months ago
Still a better love story than twilight
mmhan 2 months ago
'World looks mysterious if you don't know pshysics'.....word
SizifWasStoned 2 months ago
Mr. Neil... would you be my dad?
PedroArquimedes 2 months ago 2
@PedroArquimedes ditto!!
headbonesconnected 2 months ago
Great comment on cable TV and the availability of more science channels .49:30
jeffreydebra1 2 months ago
33:34
jeffreydebra1 2 months ago
Neil is a genius communicator!
jeffreydebra1 3 months ago
I personally try to be extra gentle with ppl in such situations only to find they'll quickly turn condescending and attempt to belittle in their own way. It's like f*#k I just can't win! (lighthearted comment)
rencewelltube 3 months ago
@cobrasaboteur1: I know, it's a little uncomfortable to watch, I felt sad for the host, but I swear his mannerisms almost invite that upon himself. It's important to be aware of your own body language. It's your responsibility to yourself, and there's why.
rencewelltube 3 months ago
is it just me or does neil hate this guy? i dont like him either
ebruce03 3 months ago
neil's kinda being a dick here hahahaha
cobrasaboteur1 3 months ago
The fact that the cells of the body have learned their functions without the aid of a supreme being is infinitely more inspiring and beautiful to me than the idea that it was guided by a creator.
God takes all the beauty out of life.
CosmicLandon 3 months ago 25
Love this!
english4you99 4 months ago
I'm so glad Neil agrees with me on everything he says! ;-)
kjrunia 4 months ago
9:39-10:00 I agree 100%. If this question could be answered and solved, we would be on the moon B.C
jnwpse 4 months ago
Neil Tyson is one of my favorite people.
jnwpse 4 months ago
Neil Tyson is one guy that I'v seen that's always high on Science :D
forgottenmemories63 4 months ago
why is that stupid argument about transcrips was started in the first place by the interviewer at the beginning of this video.
RurickTheGreat 4 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh
Then who/what made god/allah/the maker?... Call it what you want
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei 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
It is scar that some people are satisfied with that answer, and not curious about "digging" deeper in to the origins of the universe/multiverse.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@1tabligh
It is scary that some people are satisfied with that answer, and not curious about "digging" deeper in to the origins of the universe/multiverse.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei 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.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh
My point exactly. There would be an infinite question about who made the maker. If a maker has allways been there, as you suggest. Then why not skip a step and say the multiverse has allways been there.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei 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, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh
Not according to Stephen Hawking.
I guess we will never convince eatch other of our beliefs.
People beleive what they wanna beleive. And if it gives them piece of mind beleiveing in a maker. I dont see a problem with that. As long as it dosnt hinder scientific progress in any way.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei As long as it dosnt hinder scientific progress in any way.
____
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh
Not yet...
But science is the best tool we have to ever find out.
A 2000 year old scripture is hardly proof of a maker of any kind.
The god delusion will allways exist as long as long as people wanna feel comfortet.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei 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
So I guess we cant rule out that there are pink unicorns somewhere either...
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh
Google "Psychiatric hospital"
Hope this helps you out.
funkkyzenzei 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "Psychiatric hospital"!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@funkkyzenzei Then how can you delude yourself and 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 4 months ago
@1tabligh "If numerous gods ruled over the world" let me get this straight, you're quoting from your own religious text why other religious views are false. what laughable logic, it makes as much sense as me taking the bible or some other religious text and saying 'your religion is wrong because my holy book says you are wrong'. to which you would reply 'that's not proof!' and that is exactly what I say to you.
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@AussiePolitics Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh who says our religious ties are an outgrowth of our nature? Its merely because primitive humans have wanted an explanation for the way the world worked and so they invented gods to explain things. its not different to the greeks explanation for thunder (thor's hammer) was invented - we didn't know something so religion filled the gap. your logic uses a religious book to try and prove that your god is true. that's as laughable as christians expecting you to convert because of the bible
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@AussiePolitics Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh its funny how much you sound like christian fundamentalists who love to cite the bible when they say why people don't believe in their god. before you can cite your holy text to 'prove' anything you better provide some evidence that this book really is anything other than a book written by a human. you know, for those of us that weren't brainwashed from birth. the funny thing is if you'd been raised in a christian family odds are you'd be quoting the bible right now.
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@AussiePolitics Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
1tabligh 4 months ago
A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh " Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God." And there is your fallacy. Prophethood is conceivable in many ways, as a device of manipulation. It's conceivable as form of group psychology and the product of charisma and power. There are many who have claimed to be prophets who you would not believe, the same way as if a person would not believe in your prophet. Someone being called a 'prophet' is no proof of anything.
slasherzedd 2 months ago
@slasherzedd How can great and complex beings emerge from infinite joinings of nonbeing?
Does life gush forth from the union of the numerous factors that bring about death?
1tabligh 2 months ago
Look at it like this. The following are well established facts. This particular rock we call Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. The first hint of life took 700 million years to form, and then we had 800 million years of Prokaryote (very simple life). Now look at those numbers, that doesn't look like a plan. What that looks like, to me, is, given all the ingredients and the right conditions, it still takes a massive amount of time for cetain complex chemical reactions to place.
slasherzedd 2 months ago
@1tabligh See my below post, forgot to click reply :(
slasherzedd 2 months ago
@slasherzedd However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of *neediness, dependency, and origination* in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@slasherzedd Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot EXIST.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Who created this being? If he always existed, then why cannot the universe? We know ours has a beginning point. But who is to say that there wasn't a universe before that? The difference between you and me is that I find an uncaring natural world of chance and probability the most likely answer, and you believe an omnipresent being is the most likely. It would be fantastic if there was a being like that, it would give out lives meaning, but I can't believe in things out of want
slasherzedd 2 months ago
@slasherzedd Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack.
Under such conditions will the attack ever take place?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@slasherzedd Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will *not* take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Who created this being?
___
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 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Funny how the people who actually STUDY the universe in great detail, account for the highest proportion of atheists in than any other group. G talk to them, you will be schooled.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85Belief 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 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Great and complex? Says who? You?
You have a massive ego. We're made of water, from hydrogen - the most common element in the universe, followed by carbon, which is also very common. Life is as natural an outcome as ANY OTHER outcome. It doesn't require a miracle.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Pseudo-science ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Why does it HAVE to be anything?
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 "And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
The Quran Chapter 8, Verse 22
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Proof that your book is man made.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Yes
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@sup..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 2 months ago
@1tabligh
The fact you can say so much - YET PROVIDE ZERO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GOD, is all one needs to dismiss you. God-of-the-gaps will get you no where fast.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 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. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
ERROR: Assumption that some things are "lower" and "higher". Such errors make you a laughing stock.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 ...make you a laughing stock...
___
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
How is that for YOUR "make you a laughing stock." and answer the question instead?!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
The reason you are butthurt and resorting to insults is because you can't fulfil my request for evidence. This is expected from you - as it is with all religious people - none of whom can substantiate a SINGLE one of their claims with a shred of evidence. All you are displaying gaps in your knowledge - then filling those gaps with your fairy tale.
You are obsessed with atheism because you have doubts.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
The big bang, the cause of which is unknown. Until EVIDENCE reveals it.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
What specific quantity?
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 What specific quantity?
___
The dialectical explanation of composites is no more successful than the dialectical explanation of simple elements. If water had come into existence in accordance with the dialectical laws, this would mean that hydrogen can he considered as an affirmation, and that this affirmation produces its own negation by its production of oxygen. Later, the negation and the
1tabligh 2 months ago
affirmation come together in a unity that is water. We can also reverse the consideration, thus supposing oxygen as an affirmation, hydrogen as a negation, and water as a union that involves both the negation and the affirmation, and that emerged as a progressive product of the dialectical struggle between the two.
......why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
WHAT specific quantity?
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Are deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand?
I just answered you!
Are you playing monkey tricks with me?
READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
We are in one glgaxy of hindreds of billions of galaxies. YOUR EGO is unjustified.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You STILL HAVE no evidence!!!!!!!!!!
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 You STILL HAVE no evidence!!!!!!!!!!
___
Nope!
It's right there in front of your nose!
But you refuse to acknowledged!
Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
NO EVIDENCE - YOU FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
Have you ever ascended or visited this sky, which you behold with your eyes, or been in the depths of the earth?
Have you traversed the world, dived in every sea, and moved through the Universe?
To *presumptuously* deny the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator, you must have been to all these places.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Well, How can you say that He is not in those places where neither you *nor* your *senses* have ever been?
Perhaps He may be living there. Perhaps a person of extraordinary intelligence may reside in one of those places.
May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*
1tabligh 2 months ago
Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of.
Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
1tabligh 2 months ago
So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
I have not been everywhere, so I will accept there is a possibility of a god. I have not been everywhere, I will accept the possibility of Zeus. I will accept the possibility of Horus and Thor. I will accept the possibility of Odin, leprechauns, fairies and Arihman. I will accept the possibility for everything. I will BELIEVE the evidence. Have you been everywhere? You must accept the possibility of Zeus, if you are honest.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Is it only God we cannot see with our senses?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
Numerous gods can exist if there are multiple universes. :-)
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
1tabligh 2 months ago
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 multiple universes
___
And where did they come from?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Zeus
The Qur'an is man made.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 The Qur'an says: "Do you not see the one who takes his own desires as god? God has made him go astray, despite his possession of knowledge; He has placed a seal on his ears and his heart and drawn a curtain of darkness over his eyes. Who other than God can guide him? Will you then not take heed?" (45:23)
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
You mean like 11 wives instead of 4?
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
More obscure words to avoid the fact you have NO PROOF of your own. None.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 All duped and deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
The Qur'an is man made.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God!
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
This is why the big bang is not a creation, it's a transformation. Thanks for disproving the need for God, all by yourself.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
@superhamzah85 If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
It didn't.
superhamzah85 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the duped atheists and deluded materialists.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
All explanations are false until proven.
superhamzah85 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 Further, if self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present,
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superhamzah85 If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present,
1tabligh 1 month ago
whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature. What then made those laws and decrees different?
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Anyone who claims to have all the answers is a liar.
superhamzah85 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Natural selection is not chance.
superhamzah85 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Wrong
superhamzah85 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh
Wrong.
superhamzah85 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superhamzah85 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 1 month ago
@superhamzah85 What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
The Qur'an is made, predicting disbelief in Islam is as impressive as predicting snow in winter.
superhamzah85 2 months ago
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?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh
STILL NO EVIDENCE
superhamzah85 2 months ago
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be futile to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God" rubbish, your belief in god was not proceeded by your belief in a god. you were raised from childhood to believe that there was a god and islam was his religion. you were not raised and taught there was a god and to decide which religion spoke for him. in the quran it says that a babies bones are clothes in flesh. this is completely wrong.
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@AussiePolitics The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
1tabligh 4 months ago
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it.
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "So how did each part of the chain" and there we have it, the basis for your belief. 'I don't know understand the universe therefore god did it, and because i was raised a muslim that was definitely the islamic god'. That is laughable logic. no scientist says 'it is unknown how this happened... so therefore it was caused by god because that way i dont have to think or prove anything".
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@1tabligh does it, or does it not say in the quran that during embryonic development a babies bones are clothed in flesh? another incorrect scientific 'fact' stolen from the greeks who were also incorrect. the bones do not develop first. or are you going to say this is a metaphor? so anything in the quran that is wrong, is a metaphor while anything that happens to be right was serious?
AussiePolitics 4 months ago 10
@AussiePolitics The existence of each part of the chain manifests inadequacy, impotence, and origination in time; whence did its existence arise?
1tabligh 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh the fact that you keep coming back with pathetic cliches tells me you are too afraid to question what you believe, you'd rather just believe what was brainwashed into you as a child rather than think for yourself. "whence did its existence arise" ready for the answer? i dont know. but guess what? no human does, and they are lying if they say they do. humans have invented gods for thousands of years to answer this, why is yours any different?
AussiePolitics 4 months ago
@1tabligh You do realise that you are a complete loon don´t you?
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
So much science for this stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh I´m sorry, I didn´t mean to infer that I gave a flying fuck about your puerile opinons, I think you´re an arse of the worst kind and care not a jot about what you think about anything, and I´m using the word "think" quite wrongly when referring to you.
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 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
@yatter1 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 No it isn´t, it´s just fucking silly.
yatter1 4 months ago
@yatter1 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
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