Even you are a slave to a Creator whether you like it not, don't believe me? Then try going breaking the laws of physics, you can't because those laws had to be imposed by someone. A law needs a lawmaker because laws don't make themselves.
Anyway believe want you want to believe, whatever makes you happy, I've tried being patient with you but your ignorance is just too much to for me to waste my time on.
Good luck too you too (and I mean that in an honest way NOT a sarcastic way)
I do actually hope that one day you will wake up and actually think for your self and not just be a slave to society and just repeat what other people say.
Thus you can not explain how Nature come about by using nature itself (that's could circular reasoning) hence one requires a higher domain above nature to explain nature. Once you move away from the lower spheres of knowledge (science) you move into the higher spheres of knowledge (Theology) and they compliment each other.[Part 9/9]
Science is the domain of the natural world, but science DOES have its limits. The limits of science are the observable Nature. IF however you wish to explain Nature itself, it's logically impossible. BECAUSE there is a big difference between explaining Nature and explaining Nature ITSELF.[Part 8/9]
Your partially correct, science is logical (using inductive proof) and is based upon the Scientific method (which was invented by Islamic scientists that gave birth to the modern sciences). Science and Religion actually are not in conflict or contradiction (at least not with Islam and science). This is one of the greatest misconceptions.[Part 7/9]
Clearly you do not believe in a Creator so logically that rules out Theist, and you claim not to be an Atheist, that logically means you would have to be an Agnostic. As an Agnostics you simply can not argue against OR for a Creator (because that would place you as an Atheist/Theist). So technically that would make you a liar or just plain confused.[Part 6/9]
You say you're not an Atheist and that you don't believe in any religion that's totally fine. BUT there is only three types: Theist, Atheist and Agnostic, (ignoring the subgroups of those) you can ONLY be one of those.[Part 5/9]
Thirdly numerous rational proofs of the Creator exits, so again you're factually in error again, in fact one of those proofs, known as the cosmological argument is in fact actually backed scientifically (known as the Standard model).[Part 4/9]
Factually speaking I can not be defined as an idiot, you however having demonstrated your total lack of knowledge of even the types of proofs and further even unable to grasp simple logical reasoning (you was unable to refute anything) actually defines you as an idiot.[Part 3/9]
Second fact, an idiot has many historic definitions, but in the most common use of the term, it usually refers to someone who has a low IQ and incapable of reasoning. Now I have an above average IQ, and I'm an engineer and Computer Scientist with a background in programming and debating.[Part 2/9]
Again you are factually incorrect, even in classical modal logic and mathematical logic; there exist 12 distinct types of proofs from induction to elementary proofs. Absolute proof (absolutism, meaning that which is true in every time and every place) can not be derived by classical logic (due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem).[Part 1/9]
"When confronted with logical responses and rebuttal you simply made yet more unqualified hollow statements."
Science is logical, yet Religion dismisses it and religious people choose to ignore Science, and listen to a book, a lie created by me, for the benifit of themselves.
You have clearly demonstrated a total lack of any real understanding of the subject matter, merely mouthed off typical ignorant stereotypes usually maintained by mainstream average laymen. When confronted with logical responses and rebuttal you simply made yet more unqualified hollow statements. Then you simply reiterated using circular reasoning the same point that was already refuted along with ad hominems.[Part 3/3]
Now I reiterate rationally prove your atheist philosophy with Absolute proof. Naturally you can not do it, thus the reality is: to quote yourself "you are the one lacking intelect if you're too thick to realise". You hold a position that is self-contradictory, you are unable to substantiate your statements, you are unable to counter-refute any of my points. You simply dance around pointlessly on the "prove the Creator" point, which I totally intellectually destroyed in my first post![Part 2/3]
There are two main types of proofs, Absolute proofs and rational reasonable proofs, if you want absolute proof of a Creator you will not find it, however this does not negate rational and logical and reasonable proofs. On the contrary there exist NO absolute disproof of the Creator, no man in the history of humanity has been able to prove the case that the Creator does not exist.[Part 1/3]
All your points in your original statements where refuted, you then made an rationally un-sustained generic weak atheistic point which I again refuted, now you continue to make hollow statements with no intellectual backing or qualified merit.
Rational arguments are not based upon the opinions of the participants, it is based upon the context of the logically qualified cases and points and statements, and you made unqualified statements that I have coherently refuted.[Part 2 & 3]
When unable to return with any rational recourse, it is typical behaviour of those who do not have the intellectual capacity to converse in logic to break down and resort to ad hominem and plain unasserted and ill qualified hollow statements.
However atheist do require intellectual honesty and must coherently present their own compound belief system, which in essence is a to believe that the belief in a Creator as null. As you can see without the ability to absolutely fulfil the rational burden of proof, they can only resort to believing the case to be true, thus their system is hypocritical since they deny the means upon which they are built on!
No absolute disproof of a Creator exist, this fundamental fact is accepted by strong atheism THIS is in itself enough to collapse the entire foundational structure upon which the atheistic philosophy is built from. Speak from rationality and logical and demonstrate your case, from a theist prospect rational and reasonable proofs exist for the case for a Creator, and thus a the burden of proof is not defaulted.
Weak atheist are unable to rationally justify their position, they instead shift the burden of proof over to theist asking them for proof of a Creator, your position demonstrates a classical weak atheist position, as such it is untenable because as an atheist the burden of proof lies under the atheist domain, they must fulfil there position from rationally or declare themselves an agnostic.
5 stars and note, only intelligent man can understand religion. Thank you for video.
Selam from Bosnia.
nicazeman 2 years ago
No we are all salves to a Creator, not a book,
Even you are a slave to a Creator whether you like it not, don't believe me? Then try going breaking the laws of physics, you can't because those laws had to be imposed by someone. A law needs a lawmaker because laws don't make themselves.
Anyway believe want you want to believe, whatever makes you happy, I've tried being patient with you but your ignorance is just too much to for me to waste my time on.
Anhar001 3 years ago
Good luck too you too (and I mean that in an honest way NOT a sarcastic way)
I do actually hope that one day you will wake up and actually think for your self and not just be a slave to society and just repeat what other people say.
Anhar001 3 years ago
You are a slave to a book.
A slave to the men who created religion.
I am a slave to myself.
What I say is what I say, I'm not a parrot.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
Pff, I'm not reading all of that.
Good luck with reaching Heaven.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
Thus you can not explain how Nature come about by using nature itself (that's could circular reasoning) hence one requires a higher domain above nature to explain nature. Once you move away from the lower spheres of knowledge (science) you move into the higher spheres of knowledge (Theology) and they compliment each other.[Part 9/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Science is the domain of the natural world, but science DOES have its limits. The limits of science are the observable Nature. IF however you wish to explain Nature itself, it's logically impossible. BECAUSE there is a big difference between explaining Nature and explaining Nature ITSELF.[Part 8/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Your partially correct, science is logical (using inductive proof) and is based upon the Scientific method (which was invented by Islamic scientists that gave birth to the modern sciences). Science and Religion actually are not in conflict or contradiction (at least not with Islam and science). This is one of the greatest misconceptions.[Part 7/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Clearly you do not believe in a Creator so logically that rules out Theist, and you claim not to be an Atheist, that logically means you would have to be an Agnostic. As an Agnostics you simply can not argue against OR for a Creator (because that would place you as an Atheist/Theist). So technically that would make you a liar or just plain confused.[Part 6/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
You say you're not an Atheist and that you don't believe in any religion that's totally fine. BUT there is only three types: Theist, Atheist and Agnostic, (ignoring the subgroups of those) you can ONLY be one of those.[Part 5/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Thirdly numerous rational proofs of the Creator exits, so again you're factually in error again, in fact one of those proofs, known as the cosmological argument is in fact actually backed scientifically (known as the Standard model).[Part 4/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Factually speaking I can not be defined as an idiot, you however having demonstrated your total lack of knowledge of even the types of proofs and further even unable to grasp simple logical reasoning (you was unable to refute anything) actually defines you as an idiot.[Part 3/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Second fact, an idiot has many historic definitions, but in the most common use of the term, it usually refers to someone who has a low IQ and incapable of reasoning. Now I have an above average IQ, and I'm an engineer and Computer Scientist with a background in programming and debating.[Part 2/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Again you are factually incorrect, even in classical modal logic and mathematical logic; there exist 12 distinct types of proofs from induction to elementary proofs. Absolute proof (absolutism, meaning that which is true in every time and every place) can not be derived by classical logic (due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem).[Part 1/9]
Anhar001 3 years ago
"When confronted with logical responses and rebuttal you simply made yet more unqualified hollow statements."
Science is logical, yet Religion dismisses it and religious people choose to ignore Science, and listen to a book, a lie created by me, for the benifit of themselves.
[2/2]
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
"There are two main types of proofs, Absolute proofs and rational reasonable proofs, if you want absolute proof of a Creator you will not find it,"
Look, there is 1 type of proof idiot.
There IS NO PROOF OF GODS EXISTANCE.
PERIOD.
"Now I reiterate rationally prove your atheist philosophy with Absolute proof."
I'm not an Atheist. I'm me. I don't believe in any kind of religion or religious related groups, I have my own set of beliefs. So you're false.
[1/2]
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
I'll say it again.
Religion is a total fake, there is no proof of Gods existing.
If you're too thick to realise, you're not worth listening to.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
You have clearly demonstrated a total lack of any real understanding of the subject matter, merely mouthed off typical ignorant stereotypes usually maintained by mainstream average laymen. When confronted with logical responses and rebuttal you simply made yet more unqualified hollow statements. Then you simply reiterated using circular reasoning the same point that was already refuted along with ad hominems.[Part 3/3]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Now I reiterate rationally prove your atheist philosophy with Absolute proof. Naturally you can not do it, thus the reality is: to quote yourself "you are the one lacking intelect if you're too thick to realise". You hold a position that is self-contradictory, you are unable to substantiate your statements, you are unable to counter-refute any of my points. You simply dance around pointlessly on the "prove the Creator" point, which I totally intellectually destroyed in my first post![Part 2/3]
Anhar001 3 years ago
There are two main types of proofs, Absolute proofs and rational reasonable proofs, if you want absolute proof of a Creator you will not find it, however this does not negate rational and logical and reasonable proofs. On the contrary there exist NO absolute disproof of the Creator, no man in the history of humanity has been able to prove the case that the Creator does not exist.[Part 1/3]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Religion is a total fake, there is no proof of Gods existing.
I think you are the one lacking intelect if you're too thick to realise.
It doesn't get more true than that.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
All your points in your original statements where refuted, you then made an rationally un-sustained generic weak atheistic point which I again refuted, now you continue to make hollow statements with no intellectual backing or qualified merit.
Rational arguments are not based upon the opinions of the participants, it is based upon the context of the logically qualified cases and points and statements, and you made unqualified statements that I have coherently refuted.[Part 2 & 3]
Anhar001 3 years ago
When unable to return with any rational recourse, it is typical behaviour of those who do not have the intellectual capacity to converse in logic to break down and resort to ad hominem and plain unasserted and ill qualified hollow statements.
[Part 1/3]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Holy shit, you Muslims don't give up.
Allah, Muhammed and the Quran are all made up.
It's all unproven bullshit.
I don't care what you have to say, for as long as you are thick enough to follow Islam, what you have to say isn't worth hearing.
You speak on behalf of your book, which tells you what to say. So, I don't care what you have to say.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago
However atheist do require intellectual honesty and must coherently present their own compound belief system, which in essence is a to believe that the belief in a Creator as null. As you can see without the ability to absolutely fulfil the rational burden of proof, they can only resort to believing the case to be true, thus their system is hypocritical since they deny the means upon which they are built on!
[Part 4/4]
Anhar001 3 years ago
No absolute disproof of a Creator exist, this fundamental fact is accepted by strong atheism THIS is in itself enough to collapse the entire foundational structure upon which the atheistic philosophy is built from. Speak from rationality and logical and demonstrate your case, from a theist prospect rational and reasonable proofs exist for the case for a Creator, and thus a the burden of proof is not defaulted.
[Part 3/4]
Anhar001 3 years ago
Weak atheist are unable to rationally justify their position, they instead shift the burden of proof over to theist asking them for proof of a Creator, your position demonstrates a classical weak atheist position, as such it is untenable because as an atheist the burden of proof lies under the atheist domain, they must fulfil there position from rationally or declare themselves an agnostic.
[Part 2/4]
Anhar001 3 years ago
As an atheist, there exist two main types, one classified as the weak atheist(weak atheism) the other known as the strong atheist (strong atheism).
[Part 1/4]
Anhar001 3 years ago
There is no proof of "The Creator"
Why would God test his own creation.
I don't want to sit about under a make-belief Gods commands, like a test dummie.
There's no proof God wrote the books you follow. You'd be thick to devote your life to someone you've never seen.
SASMOUNTAINTROOPER 3 years ago