@PartyAllSeason Wrong, he sides with Einstein; I see you don't understand what that means. He likes the idea of physics being "god", he is not a deist.
keep up the good work on these videos! at least in the comments despite the trolling, which im sure is plenty, hopefully it promotes critical thinking. Though that is hard to ask from the devout, as critical thinking is to challenge and defend ones own points and even give ground when one reaches the limit of one's knowledge
It's amazing the hostility unbelief creates among those who choose to believe; the notion itself is simply a measure of personal perspective on what one understands as evidence -- and what one decides to reject as not.
Such spite over alternatives to traditional thought. Such fear.
The quote is from the video "Time - BBC - 2: Lifetime 4/6" and begins 2 minutes in. I invite anyone to have a look themselves at the context, because it does not affect the meaning of what he says in the slightest. Kaku does not hold a belief in a religious afterlife, or a personal god.
Your misleading comment just makes you look a bit foolish.
why are some genius ppl here unable to disconnect god from religion? most of these 100 guys are as spiritually advanced as random ppl you talk to everyday, why dont u listen to what dalai lama has to say about god ?
"why are some genius ppl here unable to disconnect god from religion? "
Belief in god(s) IS religion.
"why dont u listen to what dalai lama has to say about god ?"
I will, once he provides evidence for this god. Besides, the Lamas have a long history of establishing a terrible tyrannical theocracy in Tibet, and I don't feel inclined to listen to someone like that.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
@aurelius903 "It seemed to me that the poster of this video does not have any thoughts of their own."
Coming from a person that has posted, or rather spammed, multiple comments which are the same regurgitated and failed theistic arguments heard time and again. On the other hand you can find many "thoughts of my own" on my website.
"It seemed to me that you do not have any thoughts of your own. So I did a little research and have indeed found that you are simply copying and pasting other people's words "
And what do you imagine this video is? Your words????? Your not thinking for yourself by posting this propaganda video. Hypocrite!
@aurelius903 "And what do you imagine this video is? Your words????? Your not thinking for yourself by posting this propaganda video."
This whole point of this video is to quote the religious views of elite academics. The person who was posting other people's opinions was doing so as if they were his own thoughts. This is the difference between quoting and plaigiarising. It's really not difficult to understand, just try a bit harder.
Many atheists claim that the origin of mass in the Universe is quite speculative at this point in our history, but, perhaps someday scientific research will shed light on this mystery.
In other words, they admit that they do not know.
@aurelius903 You say that as though you think it's some sort problem. The origin of mass is a bit better known than you present, but that's beside the point. Scientists do not know for certain how mass originated, so they say so. You similarly don't know, so you say "God did it". That doesn't make you less ignorant that the scientists, it makes you less honest.
If this dense mass somehow materialized out of nothing, then where would the driving force be for the materialization?
Some claim the origin of this dense mass was outside our understanding of time, but if this is true, then how did this dense mass introduce itself into our present understanding of time?
If this dense mass originated from energy, that is, from Einsteins equation for mass, m = E divided by c squared, then where did the energy originate?
If this dense mass somehow materialized from the curvature of space, then where did space come from?
I really like this presentation. I don't find it to arrogant at all. I think it's great to point out exactly what kind of people are atheist. I live in the Southern US, and at least here, atheists are laughably represented as devil worshipers and the very worst kind of person without morals or conscience. It's good to know there are so many intellectual giants who share the same conclusion as I do. It helps me to know I'm in such good company. THANKS!!!! :)
@ivlfounder NO shit!!! I don't think it's hard to guess why they do it, but it's a human tragedy. Crap like this, is what gives power to assholes like Hitler. Not enough balls to stand by your intellect and go with what your logic tells you. SAD SAD.....
@ivlfounder I'm saying it's sad we foster an environment that forces people to bury deep down inside their real beliefs due to the very REAL fear that their view will cause them negative social and professional ramifications. I can't blame anyone who feels like they must hide their atheism, or even dissent from traditional christian dogma. I live in the south so I have a healthy understanding of that concept. It's not a good feeling to live that way, so I don't. It's had ramifications..
There are some things I don't like about the way this video is made.E.g. some parts are just snippets of important science guys saying that they are atheists. What does this prove? How is this about god? It's only about those people! Another thing is how everything concentrates on disproving certain (christian!) ways of thinking about metaphysics. Essentially, this video is atheist propaganda, which I'm sure some of the scientists in the video would not be okay with. Still proud agnostic!
Many of the speakers do not define themselves as atheists. Some are agnostics, some are sceptics, some are unlabelled.
"some parts are just snippets of important science guys saying that they are atheists"
Not everyone featured is interested in religion and god, hence the lack of explanation. But even just knowing about their nonbelief, given their academic excellence, is still useful in itself to make people think and investigate, hence their inclusion.
@JPararajasingham I see it more as a ride on an unnecessary wave of cult of personality. Of course, these people may have done great things in their fields. But why not put there famous bikers or cooks, telling you about their beliefs? I see the problem that atheists and agnostics alike are hit where it hurts by intelligent design - namely, the integrity of science itself. But this exactly means that they won't be swayed by some other scientist. It also comes off a bit elitist.
@Morboxx "But why not put there famous bikers or cooks, telling you about their beliefs?"
Because the God Hypothesis is correclty recognised by most sophisticated theists and atheists as a scientific and philosophical question, hence the specific inclusion of scientists and philosophers. Who knows science and philosophy best? Those who've studied them to the highest level of achievement. It's not meant to be elitist, it's simply that the God question IS academic.
@JPararajasingham But a lot of the scientists were not, in fact, associated with philosophy. I criticise a point of communication. By reproducing this issue as one of academics, I think people who not already see themselves as "part of the club" may become disaffected with it. I would either make this completely about science - hence leaving those "Hi, I don't believe in God as well" snippets out or extend it. But perhaps I'm just missing your point for the upload...
@Morboxx The point of my upload is to inform people of the views of elite scientists and philosophers, and to show the evidence of my conclusion stated at the beginning.
"But a lot of the scientists were not, in fact, associated with philosophy."
It would be great if there were many academics who've achieved eliteness in BOTH philosophy AND science, but there aren't. In fact I can't think of any. So the next best thing is to ask people that actually do exist, surely?
@Morboxx ""I would either make this completely about science - hence leaving those "Hi, I don't believe in God as well""
I don't follow you. Both scientists and philosophers have merely stated their nonbelief. And I've given my reason for including those bits, namely that it lends evidence to my conclusion stated at the beginning, and will still provoke people to think and investigate further. You've not really shown how this reason is a bad one, so I stick by it.
@JPararajasingham Ah, I sense a misunderstanding. I'm German and include humanities in the definition of science, but in this case regard (most of) the nonhumanistic sciences as not really relevant to the topic. A completely scientific handling of the situation for me would thus mean to leave out voices of people not associated with related sciences - physics, philosophy and theology. I guess that our perspectives are just very different. I wouldn't ask you to change yours ;-).
@Morboxx I think that a LOT of philosophy is based on science. Also Science has played a pivotal role in the confirmation or disproving of certain philosophies. I have read Hawking's book and honestly, if you read it, it IS completely about Science. Hawking very plainly states god was not necessary, and that gave some people the red ass. Wouldn't even be a discussion if there hadn't been such a huge religious backlash against this science. People were pissed Hawking's evidence lacked god.
@bimmerella Massive misunderstanding. I don't think that a god or something similar is necessary in any way. But I think the same way about atheism. And I know that "a lot of philosophy is based on science". Especially metaphysics. Still, there can't be clear evidence against metaphysical entities we don't know anything about. Atheism is a way of narrowing down your ontological focus in a similar way that religion does. And I simply don't think that it is completely satisfactory.
@Morboxx There is no working a priori refutation of scepticism and therefore there is no closure in any of this. Also, psychologically, there is no leaving our human subjectivities. We have a specific way of sensoric perception of the world, therefore we may not be able to see the big picture of the cosmos. And I don't think that Hawking would call his ideas absolute truths himself.
@JPararajasingham To see my point, try to see science as a discourse, Foucaultean. One that is not important to an awful lot of people. And one that seems to have replaced god for other people in more ways than is good.
I didn't try to criticise the speakers, but the way the video was made. E.g., the sentences at the beginning come off very atheist and very elitist.
On another note - have to admit that I was not quite through the video when I commented, and it got a bit better.
@Morboxx "the sentences at the beginning come off very atheist and very elitist."
The beginning paragraphs are merely my interpretation of what I've found after personally viewing and compiling these interviews. Having done the work myself, I thought it wasn't too unreasonable for me to voice my personal opinion. I didn't mention the word atheist once, so to say it "comes off very atheist" is without basis. I'm glad you at least thought it got better :)
CALLED **************************************JPararajasingham* ****************************who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc OR the divinity of Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
@craigslistflow // "Physicists may one day have found the answers to all physical questions, but not all questions are physical questions." —Ryle //
Your quote-mining will not hide the fact that Gilbert Ryle was not a Christian or a theist, who famously critiqued the idea that the mind was anything more than physical.
"Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine." - Gilbert Ryle
@JPararajasingham Why do you idiot atheists find something "convenient" (a favored word among your kind) out of something you've misconstrued and make NO ATTEMPT at understanding? You're obviously scared of the consequences of your beliefs being changed, so you act like a child and become irrationally argumentative.
@craigslistflow "You mean, "It is extremely difficult finding videos of elite academics who believe in God.""
Ah, so your new argument is that Christian Academics just don't like giving interviews about their belief, but they are as strong in number as the ones willing to not accept belief when asked? How convenient.
If you have told one lie, that makes you a liar. If you have stolen one thing, that makes you a thief. JESUS said; if you look at a person with lust, you commit adultery in your heart! Ever used GOD's name in vain; then you are a blasphemer and can't enter heaven! Revelation 21v8 says; "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire!" The bible says; No thief or adulterer will inherit GOD's kingdom! You broke GOD's laws; but JESUS paid your fine! Repent, and trust the Savior!
@JPararajasingham Thinking stats between Nobel winners and religious scholars matters is like thinking stats between chess players and football players matters. They're apples and oranges pal.
@craigslistflow "Because in that case, asking such individuals 'about God' would be as pointless as asking them how the weather was last week."
Not at all, because if the idea is as uninteresting as the weather to elite minds, that would be extremely interesting, as it is a complete departure from the general population. Given that the existence of God is a primarily philosophical and scientific question, whatever answer elite scientists and philosophers give will be interesting.
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?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 "how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves"
No one claims that. There is such a thing as accepting lack of knowledge and accepting having no answer. It's called humility, and recognition of human ignorance.
A made-up theory is not better than no theory. Think about it.
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.
@JPararajasingham When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs
on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@JPararajasingham 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 "wondrous laws and amazing interactions"
If your brain did indeed evolve to survive and not to do calculus, it makes sense that the laws seem wondrous, and it makes sense that at the edges of understanding we fail intuitively and rely on weak analogies (particle behaviour, spacetime fabric, strings, etc.). Other beings with higher IQs may find the laws pedestrian. It is a mistake to assume that our perception of wondrousness points to a higher mind. It's just higher nature.
@JPararajasingham 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@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Is it feasible to regard that organisms, with all their elements of design and adaptation to environment, are the outcome of matter in its ignorance? What you "feel" is unreasonable is not the issue, this is where your mistake lies. As humans we are ultimately useless in determining PURELY by our minds what is reasonable.
@JPararajasingham 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"
Can you name something you do not believe in, and tell me on what basis you deny its existence?
I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "something you do not believe in, " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "something you do not believe in, " etc, But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
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?
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 I'm not aware of ANY Science that has proven anything mystical. What I'm aware of that is known to you...is that you speak to an invisible and absent god. That you state there are invisible beings in the universe as fact is what throws me off and in the next breath try to equate that with science? Yeah, well sorry. I don't believe in invisible "beings" because I have seen no evidence of it. Show me some proof using science, and we might start to talk about it.
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?
@1tabligh Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Seems to me that science is getting it done....metaphysics, prayer, things outside of logic can't make the same claim. That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.
@bimmerella No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
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?
@1tabligh we are just now beginning to understand certain necessities, like the behavior of sub atomic particles. Just because we reach the limits of our science doesn't automatically indicate that we should consider something beyond the limits of matter. This has actually happened in the past, with such great minds as Issac Newton. It's called god of the gaps. Newton could not explain the variances in planets orbits, so he said it mus be god. 100 yrs later LaPlace explained it. NOT GOD.
@bimmerella 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 I don't have doubts concerning god. It's pretty simple. There is NO proof of the existence of such an entity. I operate on facts, and what those facts imply. I recently read the new Stephen Hawking book, "the Grand Design". In it he presents his theory, based on certain known laws, and other accepted Science including particle physics, on how the universe came into existence. The math, WORKS, and curiously, there is no need for god. I would believe in a god if it were PROVEN.
@bimmerella 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 Interesting you should mention that, because I prefer to understand what has these soldiers facing each other in the first place, and surely you cannot deny that RELIGION has been at the heart of a very large number of these conflicts. It's been historically their religion that has influenced these people to strike at the very heart, without pause, of that which they have been told opposes their very faith. God has inspired much blood, in fact religion is covered in blood historically
@bimmerella 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.
@bimmerella 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.
@bimmerella 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 Your statement: "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."
This particular idea is what ENDED the Golden age of Islamic Science. With the rise of the Muslim faith, comes the complete halt of scientific achievement in that particular segment of the world. It's a shame because so much knowledge and progress once came from there. Now....NOTHING.
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 It seems you are unwilling to answer my question, so I see no purpose in answering yours. You are clearly not interested in discussion, only preaching.
@JPararajasingham Can you name a specific thing you deny the existence of?
___
Yes I can!
I deny the existence of 31 years old angel called *JPararajasingham* who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc!
If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
@1tabligh "The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims"
I would agree, but what happens when I apply YOUR logic to this claim? So if I claim to be an angel, can I not say that I do not wish to prove it, and any scientific investigation you use will fail because my angelic powers are beyond science? Do you now believe me? This is precisely how you are suggesting people should believe in a god. It's irrational.
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of an angel called *JPararajasingham* who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc OR the divinity of Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists ***accept the principle of eternity and non-origination;*** they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
Matter/energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
@1tabligh Resorting to cut-and-paste I see. I'm not surprised you're having trouble thinking on your feet. You've decided god can eternally exist, I'm saying it's possible matter and total reality eternally exists, and the observable universe is merely a part of it. Any objection you make can be levelled at your description of and eternal, uncaused god.
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. 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 "In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God."
You are still not following. My answer was I don't know to the question of ultimate reality. It is POSSIBLE that matter is eternal, and existence/total reality is probably eternal. But I still recognise that I am speculating. Theists on the other hand are not speculating, you are asserting you have the answer despite having no epistemological access to know the beyond.
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.
@JPararajasingham 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.
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 Keep your eyes on CERN.....they are getting closer by the day. I don't really understand what your objection is, to people reserving their right to decide things, based on facts derived from investigation? Investigation implies that you go where the evidence leads you. Not trying to map a way to the answer you have already made a baseless assumption it is. That's just bad science. Progress in science has come along despite religion and is historically stymied because of it.
@bimmerella If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being."
@bimmerella Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.
Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.
@1tabligh Until you PROVE that, you can't say it is a fact. Particle physics is on the cusp of a breakthrough in that matter. The laws that have applied in physics are being proven to NOT be applicable in particle physics (sub atomic scale) . Much is not known, however it is being studied, and observed. The difference with science, is that laws are subject to revision when more is understood about them, and what u call phenomena is studied and proven to not be phenomena at all.
@bimmerella That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is *free* of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world,
@bimmerella and who impels the great panorama of creation forward to fulfil the purposes of the order of being.
By making the world non-created and eternal, the materialists try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow *independent* existence on the world. Their method, however, does *not* yield satisfactory results.
@1tabligh Oh don't you wish that were the case! The REAL truth is, the Science isn't looking for god. It's looking for the answer the science leads them to and that is why. The fact that god is nowhere in that as of yet is YOUR problem. This is where your thinking is critically flawed. Science has NO interest in anything other than understanding. If that hasn't led to god so far, it doesn't bother us. We haven't invented an explanation. I could see why you are so worried though....
@bimmerella The atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator.
@bimmerella This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination.
@bimmerella It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
@1tabligh Until we prove that there is a need for a creator, there is no need for one. Have you read the latest Hawking theory? You have thrown out there the need for a creator, yet so far you have yet to provide one shred of proof. NOT ONE. Since we are still only beginning to understand the nature of sub atomic particles, you can't really state anything having to do with their nature. And even IF what you say may be true, why would you assume it to be divine in nature?
@bim...The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
@1tabligh you said "*nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created. " ASSUMPTIONS.....merely your opinion. Every bit of this is unsubstantiated however stated by you as if it's proven fact. That just won't wash in the type of discussions you seem to want to involve yourself in. You should quit cut and pasting.
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "cut and pasting"!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have
@1tabligh Oh, calm down. I'm not the first person to call you out on that one. The more you rant the more desperate you sound. Point is, you can't prove ANY of what you are saying. I'm atheist, & I base my beliefs on what I feel is proven.So if you want to change my mind, or any other atheist, you damn well better just bring proof. Until then, no matter how many different papers you plagiarize, to mix in with your vast knowledge of physics...it just doesn't wash. Real Scientists know this.
beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would
have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible
on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*. Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
@bimmerella The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
@bimmerella 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 It seemed to me that you do not have any thoughts of your own. So I did a little research and have indeed found that you are simply copying and pasting other people's words from your favourite Islamic sites, including "makaremshirazi-dot-org" and "al-islam-dot-org". You are therefore spamming, and I am therefore blocking you.
Seriously, please, please try thinking for yourself.
I found the exact same thing!!! He is just re-gurging from Islamic sites. Notice how he TOTALLY skirted the issue of how the golden age of Islam just came to a screaming halt when the Muslim theocracy began. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great speech on that here on youtube called god of the gaps, about Al Ghazali and the end of academic progress in Islam due to the rise of the Muslim faith. Yeah, he's a total troll.
@JPararajasingham I know right?!! Makes me wonder if he truly understands how backward everything he has been posting sounds. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.....no matter whose it is ;)
@1tabligh How can god be supposed when we haven't fully reached the understanding of how things came to be? How can we suppose there is a god when we haven't been able to exhaust the limits of our knowledge? Do you suppose we should just stop looking into it and just say it's god? Do you know how detrimental to progress that has been in the past?
And how do you KNOW that matter itself through the natural processes is NOT the origin of millions of attributes? You don't. Get it??
@1tabligh Look up the odd phrase "Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery" and it takes you straight to the Islamic website you plaigiarised it from. Pathetic really.
Great video!! But seriously?? No Christopher Hitchens!?! Fucking blasphamy!!!
rkcraigslist51907 6 days ago
i love shelly kagan and recommend his classes in the "YALECOURSES" channel. He has a class on death and dying. its awesome
mleonsmith 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@PartyAllSeason Wrong, he sides with Einstein; I see you don't understand what that means. He likes the idea of physics being "god", he is not a deist.
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
Great series of interviews, thank you for putting this together.
andygray 2 weeks ago
11 dislikes? How? Why? *sigh*
odiabola 2 weeks ago
The sheer breadth of wisdom and intelligence shown by those in these clips is surely enough to make a believer realise his foolishness.
humptydance1 2 weeks ago
Respect 4 efforts 2 make this beauty of vid Man.
JUGAopet1 3 weeks ago
Religion is born out of fear and ignorance
XxFATfishxX 3 weeks ago
@XxFATfishxX could not have said it better myself.
FutebolFanatico001 10 hours ago
@FutebolFanatico001 thanks (:
XxFATfishxX 2 hours ago
keep up the good work on these videos! at least in the comments despite the trolling, which im sure is plenty, hopefully it promotes critical thinking. Though that is hard to ask from the devout, as critical thinking is to challenge and defend ones own points and even give ground when one reaches the limit of one's knowledge
projektEnigma 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from JPararajasingham
warning atheism brainwashing!
esraretin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@esraretin
"warning atheism brainwashing!"
Yes, telling people to think freely and be skeptical is "brainwashing". Right.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@esraretin - more like enema for religion - gotta get all that theist crap out! XD
theVIIStar 3 weeks ago
amazing compilation! subbed
squeeker1992 1 month ago in playlist More videos from JPararajasingham
Reading some of these comments...
It's amazing the hostility unbelief creates among those who choose to believe; the notion itself is simply a measure of personal perspective on what one understands as evidence -- and what one decides to reject as not.
Such spite over alternatives to traditional thought. Such fear.
jeanclaudevandamme 1 month ago
Michio Kaku quoted out of context
PartyAllSeason 1 month ago
@PartyAllSeason "Michio Kaku quoted out of context"
The quote is from the video "Time - BBC - 2: Lifetime 4/6" and begins 2 minutes in. I invite anyone to have a look themselves at the context, because it does not affect the meaning of what he says in the slightest. Kaku does not hold a belief in a religious afterlife, or a personal god.
Your misleading comment just makes you look a bit foolish.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago 20
Comment removed
PartyAllSeason 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham
?v=Hi6yPJvCFU0
"Michio Kaku on God"
He is a deist
PartyAllSeason 1 month ago
Religious people are fundamentally terrifying.
SwordInAir 1 month ago
read about "HINDU COSMOLOGY"
PartyAllSeason 1 month ago
@PartyAllSeason hahahahaha. And then onto muslim biochemistry.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
Tyranny
jpeeke5 1 month ago
Great series of videos, top job!
TrolleyDave 1 month ago
why are some genius ppl here unable to disconnect god from religion? most of these 100 guys are as spiritually advanced as random ppl you talk to everyday, why dont u listen to what dalai lama has to say about god ?
Thefox153 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thefox153
"why are some genius ppl here unable to disconnect god from religion? "
Belief in god(s) IS religion.
"why dont u listen to what dalai lama has to say about god ?"
I will, once he provides evidence for this god. Besides, the Lamas have a long history of establishing a terrible tyrannical theocracy in Tibet, and I don't feel inclined to listen to someone like that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hidden in Our Inspirations and Hidden all over this planet in the
Landscaping- God Hid Watermarks and in them He tells things about
the past, present and future. I found them and made videos out of
some of them. I found the Garden of Eden and I found what
happened right before that and it shows pictures of God in them.
Please come look and see something really fascinating. God's real
and I can prove it. Please help me share this.
downyourtube 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
"youtube.com/watch?v=INH-lNUQQZg"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It seemed to me that the poster of this video does not have any thoughts of their own.
aurelius903 2 months ago
@aurelius903 "It seemed to me that the poster of this video does not have any thoughts of their own."
Coming from a person that has posted, or rather spammed, multiple comments which are the same regurgitated and failed theistic arguments heard time and again. On the other hand you can find many "thoughts of my own" on my website.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago 22
@aurelius903 It is far better to keep an open mind and consider evidence than to hold any stubborn viewpoint which ignores evidence and logic.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@aurelius903
OWNED SEVERELY
mikeyanagita1 1 month ago
"It seemed to me that you do not have any thoughts of your own. So I did a little research and have indeed found that you are simply copying and pasting other people's words "
And what do you imagine this video is? Your words????? Your not thinking for yourself by posting this propaganda video. Hypocrite!
aurelius903 2 months ago
@aurelius903 "And what do you imagine this video is? Your words????? Your not thinking for yourself by posting this propaganda video."
This whole point of this video is to quote the religious views of elite academics. The person who was posting other people's opinions was doing so as if they were his own thoughts. This is the difference between quoting and plaigiarising. It's really not difficult to understand, just try a bit harder.
JPararajasingham 1 month ago 10
Many atheists claim that the origin of mass in the Universe is quite speculative at this point in our history, but, perhaps someday scientific research will shed light on this mystery.
In other words, they admit that they do not know.
aurelius903 2 months ago
@aurelius903 You say that as though you think it's some sort problem. The origin of mass is a bit better known than you present, but that's beside the point. Scientists do not know for certain how mass originated, so they say so. You similarly don't know, so you say "God did it". That doesn't make you less ignorant that the scientists, it makes you less honest.
Ironysandwich 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aurelius903
"Many atheists claim that the origin of mass in the Universe is quite speculative at this point in our history"
Correction: SCIENTISTS think that. There is a difference. Atheists don't have to form any opinion about the origins of our universe.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
If this dense mass somehow materialized out of nothing, then where would the driving force be for the materialization?
Some claim the origin of this dense mass was outside our understanding of time, but if this is true, then how did this dense mass introduce itself into our present understanding of time?
aurelius903 2 months ago
If this dense mass originated from energy, that is, from Einsteins equation for mass, m = E divided by c squared, then where did the energy originate?
If this dense mass somehow materialized from the curvature of space, then where did space come from?
aurelius903 2 months ago
@aurelius903 The energy didn't originate, it was always there.
kaga13 2 months ago
How did this dense mass originate from nothing?
Some claim mass existed from all eternity and hence had no beginning but, if mass had no origin, then how could mass presently exist?
aurelius903 2 months ago
Where did the dense mass come from that started the Big Bang?
aurelius903 2 months ago
Enjoyed this even more than the first one. Thanks.
Knight2e5 2 months ago
another amazing video thanks! :D
eatingtacos000 2 months ago
I really like this presentation. I don't find it to arrogant at all. I think it's great to point out exactly what kind of people are atheist. I live in the Southern US, and at least here, atheists are laughably represented as devil worshipers and the very worst kind of person without morals or conscience. It's good to know there are so many intellectual giants who share the same conclusion as I do. It helps me to know I'm in such good company. THANKS!!!! :)
bimmerella 3 months ago
@bimmerella
A more alarming question would be to ask what kind of people are atheist and pretend they are not?
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder NO shit!!! I don't think it's hard to guess why they do it, but it's a human tragedy. Crap like this, is what gives power to assholes like Hitler. Not enough balls to stand by your intellect and go with what your logic tells you. SAD SAD.....
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella
Are you saying they're gutless or that I'm gutless? :?
ivlfounder 2 months ago
@ivlfounder I'm saying it's sad we foster an environment that forces people to bury deep down inside their real beliefs due to the very REAL fear that their view will cause them negative social and professional ramifications. I can't blame anyone who feels like they must hide their atheism, or even dissent from traditional christian dogma. I live in the south so I have a healthy understanding of that concept. It's not a good feeling to live that way, so I don't. It's had ramifications..
bimmerella 2 months ago
There are some things I don't like about the way this video is made.E.g. some parts are just snippets of important science guys saying that they are atheists. What does this prove? How is this about god? It's only about those people! Another thing is how everything concentrates on disproving certain (christian!) ways of thinking about metaphysics. Essentially, this video is atheist propaganda, which I'm sure some of the scientists in the video would not be okay with. Still proud agnostic!
Morboxx 3 months ago
@Morboxx "atheist propaganda"
Many of the speakers do not define themselves as atheists. Some are agnostics, some are sceptics, some are unlabelled.
"some parts are just snippets of important science guys saying that they are atheists"
Not everyone featured is interested in religion and god, hence the lack of explanation. But even just knowing about their nonbelief, given their academic excellence, is still useful in itself to make people think and investigate, hence their inclusion.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham I see it more as a ride on an unnecessary wave of cult of personality. Of course, these people may have done great things in their fields. But why not put there famous bikers or cooks, telling you about their beliefs? I see the problem that atheists and agnostics alike are hit where it hurts by intelligent design - namely, the integrity of science itself. But this exactly means that they won't be swayed by some other scientist. It also comes off a bit elitist.
Morboxx 3 months ago
@Morboxx "But why not put there famous bikers or cooks, telling you about their beliefs?"
Because the God Hypothesis is correclty recognised by most sophisticated theists and atheists as a scientific and philosophical question, hence the specific inclusion of scientists and philosophers. Who knows science and philosophy best? Those who've studied them to the highest level of achievement. It's not meant to be elitist, it's simply that the God question IS academic.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham But a lot of the scientists were not, in fact, associated with philosophy. I criticise a point of communication. By reproducing this issue as one of academics, I think people who not already see themselves as "part of the club" may become disaffected with it. I would either make this completely about science - hence leaving those "Hi, I don't believe in God as well" snippets out or extend it. But perhaps I'm just missing your point for the upload...
Morboxx 3 months ago
@Morboxx The point of my upload is to inform people of the views of elite scientists and philosophers, and to show the evidence of my conclusion stated at the beginning.
"But a lot of the scientists were not, in fact, associated with philosophy."
It would be great if there were many academics who've achieved eliteness in BOTH philosophy AND science, but there aren't. In fact I can't think of any. So the next best thing is to ask people that actually do exist, surely?
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@Morboxx ""I would either make this completely about science - hence leaving those "Hi, I don't believe in God as well""
I don't follow you. Both scientists and philosophers have merely stated their nonbelief. And I've given my reason for including those bits, namely that it lends evidence to my conclusion stated at the beginning, and will still provoke people to think and investigate further. You've not really shown how this reason is a bad one, so I stick by it.
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham Ah, I sense a misunderstanding. I'm German and include humanities in the definition of science, but in this case regard (most of) the nonhumanistic sciences as not really relevant to the topic. A completely scientific handling of the situation for me would thus mean to leave out voices of people not associated with related sciences - physics, philosophy and theology. I guess that our perspectives are just very different. I wouldn't ask you to change yours ;-).
Morboxx 3 months ago
@Morboxx I think that a LOT of philosophy is based on science. Also Science has played a pivotal role in the confirmation or disproving of certain philosophies. I have read Hawking's book and honestly, if you read it, it IS completely about Science. Hawking very plainly states god was not necessary, and that gave some people the red ass. Wouldn't even be a discussion if there hadn't been such a huge religious backlash against this science. People were pissed Hawking's evidence lacked god.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella Massive misunderstanding. I don't think that a god or something similar is necessary in any way. But I think the same way about atheism. And I know that "a lot of philosophy is based on science". Especially metaphysics. Still, there can't be clear evidence against metaphysical entities we don't know anything about. Atheism is a way of narrowing down your ontological focus in a similar way that religion does. And I simply don't think that it is completely satisfactory.
Morboxx 2 months ago
@Morboxx There is no working a priori refutation of scepticism and therefore there is no closure in any of this. Also, psychologically, there is no leaving our human subjectivities. We have a specific way of sensoric perception of the world, therefore we may not be able to see the big picture of the cosmos. And I don't think that Hawking would call his ideas absolute truths himself.
Morboxx 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham To see my point, try to see science as a discourse, Foucaultean. One that is not important to an awful lot of people. And one that seems to have replaced god for other people in more ways than is good.
I didn't try to criticise the speakers, but the way the video was made. E.g., the sentences at the beginning come off very atheist and very elitist.
On another note - have to admit that I was not quite through the video when I commented, and it got a bit better.
Morboxx 3 months ago
@Morboxx "the sentences at the beginning come off very atheist and very elitist."
The beginning paragraphs are merely my interpretation of what I've found after personally viewing and compiling these interviews. Having done the work myself, I thought it wasn't too unreasonable for me to voice my personal opinion. I didn't mention the word atheist once, so to say it "comes off very atheist" is without basis. I'm glad you at least thought it got better :)
JPararajasingham 3 months ago
@JPararajasingham But I actually like your video, else I wouldn't write that much ;). Very engaging.
Morboxx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate 1
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, 2
the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, 3
the Master of the Day of Doom. 4
Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succour. 5
Guide us in the straight path, 6
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. 7
akeello5 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham for the denial of an angel"...contradicted ....
__________
CALLED **************************************JPararajasingham* ****************************who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc OR the divinity of Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
O grief!
1tabligh 4 months ago
You don't seem to have grasped my question. I'll ask it again: Can you name SOMETHING ....?
__
Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of.
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.
Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@craigslistflow // "Physicists may one day have found the answers to all physical questions, but not all questions are physical questions." —Ryle //
Your quote-mining will not hide the fact that Gilbert Ryle was not a Christian or a theist, who famously critiqued the idea that the mind was anything more than physical.
"Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine." - Gilbert Ryle
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham Why do you idiot atheists find something "convenient" (a favored word among your kind) out of something you've misconstrued and make NO ATTEMPT at understanding? You're obviously scared of the consequences of your beliefs being changed, so you act like a child and become irrationally argumentative.
dinopad10 5 months ago
@craigslistflow "You mean, "It is extremely difficult finding videos of elite academics who believe in God.""
Ah, so your new argument is that Christian Academics just don't like giving interviews about their belief, but they are as strong in number as the ones willing to not accept belief when asked? How convenient.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you have told one lie, that makes you a liar. If you have stolen one thing, that makes you a thief. JESUS said; if you look at a person with lust, you commit adultery in your heart! Ever used GOD's name in vain; then you are a blasphemer and can't enter heaven! Revelation 21v8 says; "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire!" The bible says; No thief or adulterer will inherit GOD's kingdom! You broke GOD's laws; but JESUS paid your fine! Repent, and trust the Savior!
EXALTEDDIRT 5 months ago
@JPararajasingham Thinking stats between Nobel winners and religious scholars matters is like thinking stats between chess players and football players matters. They're apples and oranges pal.
dinopad10 5 months ago
@craigslistflow "Because in that case, asking such individuals 'about God' would be as pointless as asking them how the weather was last week."
Not at all, because if the idea is as uninteresting as the weather to elite minds, that would be extremely interesting, as it is a complete departure from the general population. Given that the existence of God is a primarily philosophical and scientific question, whatever answer elite scientists and philosophers give will be interesting.
JPararajasingham 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JPararajasingham 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
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve 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 "how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves"
No one claims that. There is such a thing as accepting lack of knowledge and accepting having no answer. It's called humility, and recognition of human ignorance.
A made-up theory is not better than no theory. Think about it.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
Comment removed
1tabligh 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham 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 "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical*"
I didn't say that at all. Re-read what I actually said.
"Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories."
I have no claim - I'm rejecting yours. Again, read what I said more carefully.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause"
Yet you apply that causality OUTSIDE nature, when you claim god is the necessary cause of nature. Your error is very plain.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system"
What statistical data regarding the religious affiliations of elite scientists (who reside in countries where freedom of speech exists) do you have?
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham 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 "wondrous laws and amazing interactions"
If your brain did indeed evolve to survive and not to do calculus, it makes sense that the laws seem wondrous, and it makes sense that at the edges of understanding we fail intuitively and rely on weak analogies (particle behaviour, spacetime fabric, strings, etc.). Other beings with higher IQs may find the laws pedestrian. It is a mistake to assume that our perception of wondrousness points to a higher mind. It's just higher nature.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham 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 @1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Is it feasible to regard that organisms, with all their elements of design and adaptation to environment, are the outcome of matter in its ignorance? What you "feel" is unreasonable is not the issue, this is where your mistake lies. As humans we are ultimately useless in determining PURELY by our minds what is reasonable.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham 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"
Can you name something you do not believe in, and tell me on what basis you deny its existence?
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham Can you name something you do not believe in,
___
I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "something you do not believe in, " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "something you do not believe in, " etc, But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
1tabligh 4 months ago
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!"
This comment is very unclear. Can you name a specific thing you deny the existence of?
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham on what basis you deny its existence?
___
Intellect etc!
1tabligh 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
@1tabligh I'm not aware of ANY Science that has proven anything mystical. What I'm aware of that is known to you...is that you speak to an invisible and absent god. That you state there are invisible beings in the universe as fact is what throws me off and in the next breath try to equate that with science? Yeah, well sorry. I don't believe in invisible "beings" because I have seen no evidence of it. Show me some proof using science, and we might start to talk about it.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella 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?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Seems to me that science is getting it done....metaphysics, prayer, things outside of logic can't make the same claim. That is just a fact that cannot be ignored.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
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?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh we are just now beginning to understand certain necessities, like the behavior of sub atomic particles. Just because we reach the limits of our science doesn't automatically indicate that we should consider something beyond the limits of matter. This has actually happened in the past, with such great minds as Issac Newton. It's called god of the gaps. Newton could not explain the variances in planets orbits, so he said it mus be god. 100 yrs later LaPlace explained it. NOT GOD.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella 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
@1tabligh I don't have doubts concerning god. It's pretty simple. There is NO proof of the existence of such an entity. I operate on facts, and what those facts imply. I recently read the new Stephen Hawking book, "the Grand Design". In it he presents his theory, based on certain known laws, and other accepted Science including particle physics, on how the universe came into existence. The math, WORKS, and curiously, there is no need for god. I would believe in a god if it were PROVEN.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella 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
@1tabligh Interesting you should mention that, because I prefer to understand what has these soldiers facing each other in the first place, and surely you cannot deny that RELIGION has been at the heart of a very large number of these conflicts. It's been historically their religion that has influenced these people to strike at the very heart, without pause, of that which they have been told opposes their very faith. God has inspired much blood, in fact religion is covered in blood historically
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella 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
@bimmerella 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
@bimmerella 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
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Your statement: "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."
This particular idea is what ENDED the Golden age of Islamic Science. With the rise of the Muslim faith, comes the complete halt of scientific achievement in that particular segment of the world. It's a shame because so much knowledge and progress once came from there. Now....NOTHING.
bimmerella 2 months ago
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 4 months ago
@1tabligh It seems you are unwilling to answer my question, so I see no purpose in answering yours. You are clearly not interested in discussion, only preaching.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham Can you name a specific thing you deny the existence of?
___
Yes I can!
I deny the existence of 31 years old angel called *JPararajasingham* who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc!
If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims"
I would agree, but what happens when I apply YOUR logic to this claim? So if I claim to be an angel, can I not say that I do not wish to prove it, and any scientific investigation you use will fail because my angelic powers are beyond science? Do you now believe me? This is precisely how you are suggesting people should believe in a god. It's irrational.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
1tabligh 4 months ago
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of an angel called *JPararajasingham* who is a British medical doctor specialising in Neurosurgery, researcher and freethought writer, etc OR the divinity of Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Compare your two statements:
"If man.....cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence"
"Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of an angel"
As you can see, you've completely contradicted yourself.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham but what happens when I use YOUR logic, previously stated with respect to god, to this claim.
___
Of course you must!
Profess and believe ONLY if you have proof and evidence!
Belief in anything without proof and evidence is FUTILE, let alone God!
God and Empirical Logic.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Compare your new two statements:
"If man.....cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence"
"Profess and believe ONLY if you have proof and evidence!"
As you can see, you've completely contradicted yourself, even worse.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham Answer the questions!
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 4 months ago
@1tabligh Compare your new two statements:
"If man.....cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence"
"Profess and believe ONLY if you have proof and evidence!"
As you can see, you've completely contradicted yourself, even worse.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
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 "what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?""
I don't know - but it may be eternal, and therefore have no cause (i.e. the same claim made about god).
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
it may be eternal,
___
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
1tabligh 4 months ago
This means that the materialists ***accept the principle of eternity and non-origination;*** they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
Matter/energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Resorting to cut-and-paste I see. I'm not surprised you're having trouble thinking on your feet. You've decided god can eternally exist, I'm saying it's possible matter and total reality eternally exists, and the observable universe is merely a part of it. Any objection you make can be levelled at your description of and eternal, uncaused god.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. 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
@1tabligh "In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God."
You are still not following. My answer was I don't know to the question of ultimate reality. It is POSSIBLE that matter is eternal, and existence/total reality is probably eternal. But I still recognise that I am speculating. Theists on the other hand are not speculating, you are asserting you have the answer despite having no epistemological access to know the beyond.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago 9
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
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do brainwashed and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "cut-and-paste "!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence."
So you must believe that your stable and immutable god cannot move or change.
JPararajasingham 4 months ago
@JPararajasingham 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
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 Keep your eyes on CERN.....they are getting closer by the day. I don't really understand what your objection is, to people reserving their right to decide things, based on facts derived from investigation? Investigation implies that you go where the evidence leads you. Not trying to map a way to the answer you have already made a baseless assumption it is. That's just bad science. Progress in science has come along despite religion and is historically stymied because of it.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being."
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bimmerella Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.
Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Until you PROVE that, you can't say it is a fact. Particle physics is on the cusp of a breakthrough in that matter. The laws that have applied in physics are being proven to NOT be applicable in particle physics (sub atomic scale) . Much is not known, however it is being studied, and observed. The difference with science, is that laws are subject to revision when more is understood about them, and what u call phenomena is studied and proven to not be phenomena at all.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is *free* of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bimmerella and who impels the great panorama of creation forward to fulfil the purposes of the order of being.
By making the world non-created and eternal, the materialists try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow *independent* existence on the world. Their method, however, does *not* yield satisfactory results.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Oh don't you wish that were the case! The REAL truth is, the Science isn't looking for god. It's looking for the answer the science leads them to and that is why. The fact that god is nowhere in that as of yet is YOUR problem. This is where your thinking is critically flawed. Science has NO interest in anything other than understanding. If that hasn't led to god so far, it doesn't bother us. We haven't invented an explanation. I could see why you are so worried though....
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella The atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bimmerella This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bimmerella It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Until we prove that there is a need for a creator, there is no need for one. Have you read the latest Hawking theory? You have thrown out there the need for a creator, yet so far you have yet to provide one shred of proof. NOT ONE. Since we are still only beginning to understand the nature of sub atomic particles, you can't really state anything having to do with their nature. And even IF what you say may be true, why would you assume it to be divine in nature?
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bim...The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh you said "*nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created. " ASSUMPTIONS.....merely your opinion. Every bit of this is unsubstantiated however stated by you as if it's proven fact. That just won't wash in the type of discussions you seem to want to involve yourself in. You should quit cut and pasting.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella shut up. ... cut and pasting...
___
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "cut and pasting"!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Oh, calm down. I'm not the first person to call you out on that one. The more you rant the more desperate you sound. Point is, you can't prove ANY of what you are saying. I'm atheist, & I base my beliefs on what I feel is proven.So if you want to change my mind, or any other atheist, you damn well better just bring proof. Until then, no matter how many different papers you plagiarize, to mix in with your vast knowledge of physics...it just doesn't wash. Real Scientists know this.
bimmerella 2 months ago
beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would
1tabligh 2 months ago
have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible
1tabligh 2 months ago
on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
1tabligh 2 months ago
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*. Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh PROVE IT ;)
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@bimmerella 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh It seemed to me that you do not have any thoughts of your own. So I did a little research and have indeed found that you are simply copying and pasting other people's words from your favourite Islamic sites, including "makaremshirazi-dot-org" and "al-islam-dot-org". You are therefore spamming, and I am therefore blocking you.
Seriously, please, please try thinking for yourself.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago 5
I found the exact same thing!!! He is just re-gurging from Islamic sites. Notice how he TOTALLY skirted the issue of how the golden age of Islam just came to a screaming halt when the Muslim theocracy began. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great speech on that here on youtube called god of the gaps, about Al Ghazali and the end of academic progress in Islam due to the rise of the Muslim faith. Yeah, he's a total troll.
bimmerella 2 months ago
@bimmerella This guy is more of an advert for atheism than theism with his ridiculous rants.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham I know right?!! Makes me wonder if he truly understands how backward everything he has been posting sounds. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.....no matter whose it is ;)
bimmerella 2 months ago
@1tabligh How can god be supposed when we haven't fully reached the understanding of how things came to be? How can we suppose there is a god when we haven't been able to exhaust the limits of our knowledge? Do you suppose we should just stop looking into it and just say it's god? Do you know how detrimental to progress that has been in the past?
And how do you KNOW that matter itself through the natural processes is NOT the origin of millions of attributes? You don't. Get it??
bimmerella 2 months ago
@1tabligh Look up the odd phrase "Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery" and it takes you straight to the Islamic website you plaigiarised it from. Pathetic really.
JPararajasingham 2 months ago
@JPararajasingham +1 total pwnage!
bimmerella 2 months ago