Thank you! You give me confidence, that superstitious fools will not be the end of my species. If you watched this video, and believe in some form of god, you owe humanity an apology.
I prefer to see that the Bible may be poetically symbolic rather than having to be called wrong. It is my opinion that it was written as it was so that all could understand. We would need the total perspective beyond all dimensions and beyond science to know for sure. In other words we would need the eye and mind of God. It is somewhat arrogant of you in my humble opinion to be so sure that the perspective that you have is fully correct.
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@1tabligh science has not to disprove your beliefs, it is you that has to prove your beliefs when you want to convince rational thinking people, good luck with that.
or do you also belief in Hindu Creation myths? because science was never able to disprove their gods.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh LOL allah, the Koran is full of errors and full of claims but delivers not a shred of evidence for their claims. and half of the koran verses are about us atheists that do not believe in your sky daddy. the inventors of the koran propably thought it would scare atheists if they keep claiming stuff what will happen to them lol. its a laughable religion, just like all other religions.
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 duped 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?
@Aanthanur Still, how did the creator come into existence?
___
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
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.
@Aanthanur The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@Aanthanur The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
@Aanthanur Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
@1tabligh but somehow you know, your god was not caused. Why is it for you ok to claim something was not caused , when you yourself said "no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause."
@Aanthanur What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
@Aanthanur Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@Aanthanur The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
@1tabligh except for your god ofcourse, he has a special rule and is excluded and you know it is your god because it is your "holy" book that tells you so.
@Aanthanur Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
@Aanthanur If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
@Aanthanur Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
@1tabligh you make that post already a few days ago, and you know, nothing changed, it still doesn't make sense. You claim your god caused everything and you do so without a shread of evidence, science say we don't know what caused the big bang and they do so because they have no evidence. i prefer scinece's honesty above your fairytales.
@Aanthanur Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
@1tabligh how can an even much more complex being as your god exist wihout a cause when youyouself claimed that nobody ever saw something uncaused. you contradict yourself. you claim nothing is uncaused and then go on explaining how your god is uncaused. this is laughable.
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.
@Aanthanur 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.
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 "the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus? " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus? etc", But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
@1tabligh you first have to prove your god, i didnt claim any gods, i merely asked, why your god and not others, now you seem to claim that all other gods need evidence just not your god. he is somehow excluded..
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@Aanthanur It will be useful here to relate the discussion of our Holy Shiite Muslim 6th Imam Sadiq, upon whom be peace, with one of the materialists of his age. The materialist: "Out of what were beings created?"
The Imam: "They were created out of nothing (i.e., they were originally non-beings)."
The materialist: "How do they grow and emerge from nonbeing?"
The Imam: "Did I not say that all things in the world were created out of nothing?
@1tabligh no actually i am not convinced that anything can come from nothing, eventhough science is abe to demonstrate that with Virtual particles. very complex, but way above my head, and it didnt convince me. so no, i do not actually hold the belief that something can come from nothing.
@Aan---All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
@Aanthanur Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
Ask your scientists to repeat such experiments and get billions of dollars from *nothing*!
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?
@Aanthanur In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
@Aanthanur Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
@Aanthanur You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
@Aanthanur Now you may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come fom monkeys, chimps blah blah blah! Granted, Even then if you deny the existence of the first beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!
@Aanthanur experiments show you wrong. what evidence have you to refute science?
___
Absolutely nonsense!
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
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,
@Aanthanur 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.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
@Aanthanur Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
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.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy
@Aanthanur that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather,
@Aanthanur it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the duped 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?
@Aanthanur 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?
@Aanthanur Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
@1tabligh i don't think you are a scientist. and i ask you for your best evidence for the existence of your god. sofar you presented nothing convincing at all.
theist read their fairytale book and belief blindly even long disproven claims.
____
Nope!
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
@Aanthanur 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.
*AGAIN* READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
@1tabligh i do get your point, i just happen to think it is just nonsensical. I understand your "hypothesis of causality" and what you want to show with it, but it just doesn't convince me. the idea that some creature started the big bang or just sniped with his fingers or spoke us into existence , does not make any sense to me. especially does it not show why your god is the one.
@Aanthanur A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come *before* our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
@Aanthanur When our belief in God precedes any other religious belief, the evidence which produces such a belief must be universal and available to every rational being, whether committed or uncommitted to a particular religion.
The Holy Qur'an offers the universe as evidence on the existence of its Creator. The material world, its celestial bodies, the earth, and the other planets, are viewed by Islam to be the main evidence of the Creator of matter and energy.
@1tabligh i have read the koran, it offers nothing of any value to me. it just kept badmouthing me for half of the stupid book and i had the impression the inventors of the book thought they would frighten me with all that drivel about judgement day. parts of it atleast made me laugh out loud.
@Aanthanur The material world is observable by the atheist as well as by the believer, by the illiterate as well as by the philosopher. One may reflect on the formation of the heavenly bodies and the existence of the matter and energy without being committed to any particular religion or recognizing any religious book.
@1tabligh yeah the material world aka reality is enough for me, i dont need to invent some invisible sky daddys and paradises and hells and what have you not. reality is fascinating. gods are not. the are not impressive, not one of them.
@Aanthanur Now ask me like a scientist "But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter? Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator? Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views?
@1tabligh ok i ask you like you are a scientist. Do you have an scientific peer reviewed publication that deal with the claims you just made? i would like to read them.
Are you descending from a human ancestor or a monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
Talk to me like a scientist!
So much science for this stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old.
When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously.
@1tabligh actually a human ancestor but many many generations back that ancestor was more ape like than modern human like, and many many more generations back it was something we would clearly consider ape.
@Aanthanur Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
@Aanthanur The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
How is that for YOUR " more ape like ...we would clearly consider ape" and answer the questions instead?!
@1tabligh all your questions have been answered by science. and yes, Mutations and natural selsection and enviromental pressure are your answer. they have been observed in nature and laboratories.
@Aanthanur We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and *unbiased* naturalists do
@Aanthanur this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is *not* closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an *unbiased* investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the FOUR conclusions.
@1tabligh i get it, you think your beleif is better than scientific evidence, well guess what, it turns out that it is not. your beliefs are nothing more than your beliefs. they don't have any advantage for humanity while science gets you to the moon and lets see you billions of lightyears distant galaxies, it saves your life. so you can continue to deny scinece.
@Aanthanur There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
@Aanthanur There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
@Aanthanur Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.
@Aanthanur The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.
@1tabligh no no evidence for a designer. i don0t think you know what science or evidence is. you are indeed wastin gyour time here, you should first read about those things, inform yourself and learn. then come back.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
@Aanthanur Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *brainwashed deluded duped* ignorant atheists* say.
@Aanthanur It so happens sometimes that someone among them is *aware* of a thing but in his ignorance of its reality, purpose and need, begins at once to find fault with it saying, "it is untenably wrong."
The gnostics understand what is unintelligible to such *deniers*. It so happens sometimes that the creatures know not the wisdom thereof, though it is within the knowledge of the Creator.
If "superstitions" and religious myths are to be found among ancient peoples, constantly being infused into new moulds because of deficiency and weakness in thought and restriction in knowledge, this does not mean, then, that religion, with its doctrinal content, is false. Rather, it demonstrates the primacy and autonomy of religious aspiration in the very depths of the human soul and heart
@Aanthanur Moreover, from the science that seeks to explore prehistoric times, we cannot expect that it will uncover more of ancient religions than the traces of myths and "superstitions" decipherable in the vestiges of primitive man and beneath the earth.
The perception of great truths, is, then, impossible without logical examination, deduction and comprehensive study.
@Aanthanur Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@Aanthanur Western intellectuals were aware only of the *superstitious* aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
@Aanthanur Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of *superstitious* religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
@Aanthanur It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science.*!
@Aanthanur When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.
@Aanthanur To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to *admit* the need of a creator!
@Aanthanur No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped brainwashed *atheist* who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the *whole* concept of God.
@Aanthanur The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
@Aanthanur We find Einstein, the twentieth century scientific genius, expressing an opinion opposed to that of Russell, Darwin and Dawkin etc; he says "You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.
His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Can it be said that Russell Darwin and Dawkin etc; are familiar with the concepts of modern science whereas Einstein is ignorant of them?
@Aanthanur Can we say that William James, the monotheist or rather the mystic of his time, Bergson, Alexis Carrell and other such thinkers were ignorant of the scientific ideas of their time and their thinking was in tune with the ideas of a thousand years ago, while a certain *scientist* who does not possess a tenth of their knowledge and does not believe in God is familiar with the scientific ideas of his age?!
@Aanthanur At times one sees two mathematicians, one of whom believes in God and religion while the other is a materialist, or for that matter two scientists, two physicists, two biologists, or two astronomers, one with a materialist and the other with a theistic bent of mind.
Therefore, it is not that simple to say that the advent of science has made metaphysical issues obsolete. That would be a childish observation.
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life."
The materialist: "If matter is as you say, why are beings said to be eternal?"
@Aanthanur The Imam: "Belief in the eternity of the universe is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and *concoct* beliefs pleasing to themselves."
@Aanthanur You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
Because creationists (I am one) have a complete inability to carry on a basic logical discussion, and are unable to grasp the most elementary scientific concepts, I'M going to need your help here in explaining something to me
You should be well aware most of the genome is highly conserved, the proteins in the ribosome alone can not be changed (evolve) without effecting function
Tell me how does a theory that predicts 100% system change produce functional elements that can not be changed?
Shut up jerk. Evolution is a false theory and I bet you're a liberal too. Making the world a better place? By voting Barack Obama? Moron.
P.S. You can make scientific videos, but don't be bashing creationists such as myself that didn't even take part in this worthless attack. You scum aren't even worth my time to start a cyber attack on.
2. Obama is not perfect, but he's better than Bush;
3. Why is the theory of Evolution false and yours true?
4. Why is he a jerk?
Answer the 3 questions with valid evidence. Else you are exactly the kind of person cdk007 is talking about in this video: an ignorant, prejudicial prick.
1. He's a moron for believing that creationists are all cavemen people who wants to live in the stoneages (which is not true because that's actually Islamic countries that want that).
2. Oh, he's worse than Bush. Believe me, the tea party was established when Obama was president because he is the worst president ever according to the polls.
3. Because turning from monkeys to humans is just stupid altogether. Don't get me started on why.
I want to thank creationists for helping me discover more about evolution than I ever thought I'd want to know. After researching all your bullshit and finding the truth I am a wiser man. Thank you for lying for your god!
You rip off graphics from all over the place and you havent even payed for your software. You voice really DOES need to be heard. And that is not sarcasm?!
Science self corrects
Religion self corrupts
dkthg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you! You give me confidence, that superstitious fools will not be the end of my species. If you watched this video, and believe in some form of god, you owe humanity an apology.
davon2222 1 month ago
Comment removed
davon2222 1 month ago
Comment removed
davon2222 1 month ago
I prefer to see that the Bible may be poetically symbolic rather than having to be called wrong. It is my opinion that it was written as it was so that all could understand. We would need the total perspective beyond all dimensions and beyond science to know for sure. In other words we would need the eye and mind of God. It is somewhat arrogant of you in my humble opinion to be so sure that the perspective that you have is fully correct.
Paul
ConsciousCounseling 1 month ago
Hey creationists: Define your god in specific terms and present evidence NOT scripture to support your positive claim that a god exists.
dkthg 1 month ago
Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
1tabligh 1 month ago
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh science has not to disprove your beliefs, it is you that has to prove your beliefs when you want to convince rational thinking people, good luck with that.
or do you also belief in Hindu Creation myths? because science was never able to disprove their gods.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh LOL allah, the Koran is full of errors and full of claims but delivers not a shred of evidence for their claims. and half of the koran verses are about us atheists that do not believe in your sky daddy. the inventors of the koran propably thought it would scare atheists if they keep claiming stuff what will happen to them lol. its a laughable religion, just like all other religions.
Aanthanur 1 month 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 duped 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh so what created your Allah? did he create himself?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Still, how did the creator come into existence?
___
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
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 1 month ago
@1tabligh and you know that how?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so how then do you know that your god was not caused.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so in ither words, its made up and you have not a shred of evidence for your claims. thought so already.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh but somehow you know, your god was not caused. Why is it for you ok to claim something was not caused , when you yourself said "no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause."
and accidental does not mean uncaused.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so you can't answer the question...
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh more claims without any evidence. your claim is simply, everything had to be created expect for your favorite god.
why your god and why not the Hindu god? or Thor?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh except for your god ofcourse, he has a special rule and is excluded and you know it is your god because it is your "holy" book that tells you so.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh oh dear your drivel makes no sense at all. you make up nonsense as you go along.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you still dont make any sense, you merely make a special pleading for your god.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you make that post already a few days ago, and you know, nothing changed, it still doesn't make sense. You claim your god caused everything and you do so without a shread of evidence, science say we don't know what caused the big bang and they do so because they have no evidence. i prefer scinece's honesty above your fairytales.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh still no evidence for you god.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The existence of each part of the chain manifests inadequacy, impotence, and origination in time; whence did its existence arise?
How can great and complex beings emerge from infinite joinings of nonbeing?
Does life gush forth from the union of the numerous factors that bring about death?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh how can an even much more complex being as your god exist wihout a cause when youyouself claimed that nobody ever saw something uncaused. you contradict yourself. you claim nothing is uncaused and then go on explaining how your god is uncaused. this is laughable.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
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 1 month ago
@1tabligh that is what you claim, but you cannot know. you just make one huge special pleadeing for your favorite god.
why your god and not another god? like the the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur 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 1 month ago
the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus?
___
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 "the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus? " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "the hindu gods? or thor? why not Zeus? etc", But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did not claim the divinity
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you first have to prove your god, i didnt claim any gods, i merely asked, why your god and not others, now you seem to claim that all other gods need evidence just not your god. he is somehow excluded..
Aanthanur 1 month ago
of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22...
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you have no evidence that your god is the only god, you dont even have evidence that your god exists.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur It will be useful here to relate the discussion of our Holy Shiite Muslim 6th Imam Sadiq, upon whom be peace, with one of the materialists of his age. The materialist: "Out of what were beings created?"
The Imam: "They were created out of nothing (i.e., they were originally non-beings)."
The materialist: "How do they grow and emerge from nonbeing?"
The Imam: "Did I not say that all things in the world were created out of nothing?
My purport is this, that all beings
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so you belief that something can come from nothing. intersting.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur so you belief that something can come from nothing. intersting.
____
Vice versa!
READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no actually i am not convinced that anything can come from nothing, eventhough science is abe to demonstrate that with Virtual particles. very complex, but way above my head, and it didnt convince me. so no, i do not actually hold the belief that something can come from nothing.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Virtual particles
___
What man of science are you?
Talk to me like a scientist!
Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET YOUR SPECTACULAR "Virtual particles!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
Come back when you get YOUR "Virtual particles! out of nothing!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh actually scinetists have repeated such experiments and always confirmed, yes virtual particles come out of nothing.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aan---All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Ask your scientists to repeat such experiments and get billions of dollars from *nothing*!
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?
YOU GET NOTHING FROM NOTHING!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh experiments show you wrong. what evidence have you to refute science?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur In order to believe in something, you do not necessarily have to see it. You believe in electricity, yet you cannot see it. You believe in it only because you see its products such as light, heat, etc. If this is sufficient to make you a believer in the existence of electricity, the great universe should be sufficient to every human being to believe in the existence of its Creator.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Your very existence is a great evidence on the existence of Adam and Eve, or let us say the first two human beings. You did not see Adam and Eve, but you believe that they existed.
To make it more clear: You came through your parents. Your parents came through their parents, and your grandparents came through their parents, and so on.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur You may continue going back until you reach Adam and Eve. If you deny the existence of the first two human beings, you would be eliminating the first generation of their children. By eliminating the first generation, you eliminate the second and what is beyond it. Finally, you have to eliminate your own parents. Then you have to eliminate yourself. But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: Adam and Eve were there.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Now you may bring YOUR darwinian monkey tricks of evolution and say: But there was no Adam and Eve, we come fom monkeys, chimps blah blah blah! Granted, Even then if you deny the existence of the first beings, you would be eliminating the whole evolution!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur experiments show you wrong. what evidence have you to refute science?
___
Absolutely nonsense!
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion 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 delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur experiments show you wrong.
___
And where did you pull that from?
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,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur 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;
1tabligh 1 month ago
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.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh crazy drivel. have a nice weekend.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur crazy drivel. have a nice weekend.
___
So much science for this stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "crazy drivel."!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh is your god a god that punishes or rewards you on the Day of Judgment?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 13390 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!
The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 month ago
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
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
1tabligh 1 month ago
criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the duped 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh also a nice weekend to your god of the gaps.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur @1tabligh i dont know
___
You don't know?
Then why the hell are you quibbling in vain for?
What you think, you got the brain for? Eating bananas and thinking about your so called monkey ancestors?
Oh, grow up! Use you brain OR ask those who know instead of your quibbling in vain,
O' Brainless cuckoo atheists with asinine mind!
Give answer otherwise CLOCK OFF!
NO WASTING TIME!
The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh there is nobody that knows. not even science.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh theist read their fairytale book and belief blindly even long disproven claims.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh impossible to know. Usually soldiers don't reject orders. they follow them. not always, but mostly.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Talk to me like a scientist, and ask me!
"Should I understand from your statement that Islam offers for substantiating the existence of God some universal evidence which may be considered even by those who are not committed to any religion, such as the atheists and the agnostics? If this is what you mean, what is that evidence?"
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i don't think you are a scientist. and i ask you for your best evidence for the existence of your god. sofar you presented nothing convincing at all.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
theist read their fairytale book and belief blindly even long disproven claims.
____
Nope!
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh nonsense. without the koran you would just follow another cult you happen to fall for or be born into.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur 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.
*AGAIN* READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i do get your point, i just happen to think it is just nonsensical. I understand your "hypothesis of causality" and what you want to show with it, but it just doesn't convince me. the idea that some creature started the big bang or just sniped with his fingers or spoke us into existence , does not make any sense to me. especially does it not show why your god is the one.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur you happen to fall for or be born into.
___
Tell that to millions of converts!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come *before* our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so you started to belief in a god and then read religious books? wich ones?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh in some areas surely. not for you? you understand quantum mechanics?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur When our belief in God precedes any other religious belief, the evidence which produces such a belief must be universal and available to every rational being, whether committed or uncommitted to a particular religion.
The Holy Qur'an offers the universe as evidence on the existence of its Creator. The material world, its celestial bodies, the earth, and the other planets, are viewed by Islam to be the main evidence of the Creator of matter and energy.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i have read the koran, it offers nothing of any value to me. it just kept badmouthing me for half of the stupid book and i had the impression the inventors of the book thought they would frighten me with all that drivel about judgement day. parts of it atleast made me laugh out loud.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The material world is observable by the atheist as well as by the believer, by the illiterate as well as by the philosopher. One may reflect on the formation of the heavenly bodies and the existence of the matter and energy without being committed to any particular religion or recognizing any religious book.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh yeah the material world aka reality is enough for me, i dont need to invent some invisible sky daddys and paradises and hells and what have you not. reality is fascinating. gods are not. the are not impressive, not one of them.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Now ask me like a scientist "But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter? Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator? Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh ok i ask you like you are a scientist. Do you have an scientific peer reviewed publication that deal with the claims you just made? i would like to read them.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Poor fella!
Are you descending from a human ancestor or a monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
Talk to me like a scientist!
So much science for this stupid brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old.
When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh actually a human ancestor but many many generations back that ancestor was more ape like than modern human like, and many many more generations back it was something we would clearly consider ape.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one's environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?
The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?
Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution?
How is that for YOUR " more ape like ...we would clearly consider ape" and answer the questions instead?!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh all your questions have been answered by science. and yes, Mutations and natural selsection and enviromental pressure are your answer. they have been observed in nature and laboratories.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur You are NOT answering the questions and are quibbling in vain!
Are you playing tricks with me?
Are you wasting my time?
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
Ask you science teacher and your scientist, if you do NOT know the answers and then come back to me!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you don't talk science, you talk gibberish.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution. There are many other questions of this sort. Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and *unbiased* naturalists do
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investigation is *not* closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.
Now it may be said that if an *unbiased* investigator carefully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the FOUR conclusions.
You still don't get it?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh what? who considers any theory as final in science?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@1tabligh i get it, you think your beleif is better than scientific evidence, well guess what, it turns out that it is not. your beliefs are nothing more than your beliefs. they don't have any advantage for humanity while science gets you to the moon and lets see you billions of lightyears distant galaxies, it saves your life. so you can continue to deny scinece.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur There is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you might want to read about the latest discoveries in abiogenesis.
you are not up to date it seems. off by some 150 years.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no no evidence for a designer. i don0t think you know what science or evidence is. you are indeed wastin gyour time here, you should first read about those things, inform yourself and learn. then come back.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur no evidence for a designer
___
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *brainwashed deluded duped* ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh snowflakes are designed?
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur It so happens sometimes that someone among them is *aware* of a thing but in his ignorance of its reality, purpose and need, begins at once to find fault with it saying, "it is untenably wrong."
The gnostics understand what is unintelligible to such *deniers*. It so happens sometimes that the creatures know not the wisdom thereof, though it is within the knowledge of the Creator.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i dont think you have any wisdom, so many posts and not one bit of wisdom. only beliefs and superstition.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur only beliefs and superstition.
____
If "superstitions" and religious myths are to be found among ancient peoples, constantly being infused into new moulds because of deficiency and weakness in thought and restriction in knowledge, this does not mean, then, that religion, with its doctrinal content, is false. Rather, it demonstrates the primacy and autonomy of religious aspiration in the very depths of the human soul and heart
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Moreover, from the science that seeks to explore prehistoric times, we cannot expect that it will uncover more of ancient religions than the traces of myths and "superstitions" decipherable in the vestiges of primitive man and beneath the earth.
The perception of great truths, is, then, impossible without logical examination, deduction and comprehensive study.
The Development of Beliefs Through the Ages!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Western intellectuals were aware only of the *superstitious* aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of *superstitious* religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by *science.*!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur No darwinian monkey tricks in science!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no trick there, only evolution, no tricks needed.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh that is what you beleif, and i belief you have no clue about it, just like everyone else.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to *admit* the need of a creator!
O' grief!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped brainwashed *atheist* who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the *whole* concept of God.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i answered the question and i will again more clearly, i dont know and neither do you.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur We find Einstein, the twentieth century scientific genius, expressing an opinion opposed to that of Russell, Darwin and Dawkin etc; he says "You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.
His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur an utterly insignificant reflection.
This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
Can it be said that Russell Darwin and Dawkin etc; are familiar with the concepts of modern science whereas Einstein is ignorant of them?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Can we say that William James, the monotheist or rather the mystic of his time, Bergson, Alexis Carrell and other such thinkers were ignorant of the scientific ideas of their time and their thinking was in tune with the ideas of a thousand years ago, while a certain *scientist* who does not possess a tenth of their knowledge and does not believe in God is familiar with the scientific ideas of his age?!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur At times one sees two mathematicians, one of whom believes in God and religion while the other is a materialist, or for that matter two scientists, two physicists, two biologists, or two astronomers, one with a materialist and the other with a theistic bent of mind.
Therefore, it is not that simple to say that the advent of science has made metaphysical issues obsolete. That would be a childish observation.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur What is the PRIME CAUSE of YOUR "Virtual particles"?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i dont know
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent.
You wish to say that the world is eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
"First, if the material world is eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
"Second, if the elements comprising the world are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no i never ever said the world is eternal, im not convinced that there is anything eternal.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life."
The materialist: "If matter is as you say, why are beings said to be eternal?"
1tabligh 1 month ago
@Aanthanur The Imam: "Belief in the eternity of the universe is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and *concoct* beliefs pleasing to themselves."
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh you funny imam made up a strawmen and teared it down.
but has nothing to do with evidence for your god.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur What man of science are you?
Talk to me like a scientist!
Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
Come back when you get something out of nothing!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh ask a scientists then, the virtual particle part of particle physics is above my head.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i do not hold any belief regarding what caused the big bang, in case it was caused. i simply don't know.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@cdk007 Poor fella!
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 1 month ago
cdk
Because creationists (I am one) have a complete inability to carry on a basic logical discussion, and are unable to grasp the most elementary scientific concepts, I'M going to need your help here in explaining something to me
You should be well aware most of the genome is highly conserved, the proteins in the ribosome alone can not be changed (evolve) without effecting function
Tell me how does a theory that predicts 100% system change produce functional elements that can not be changed?
toobsucker 2 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 2 months ago
Shut up jerk. Evolution is a false theory and I bet you're a liberal too. Making the world a better place? By voting Barack Obama? Moron.
P.S. You can make scientific videos, but don't be bashing creationists such as myself that didn't even take part in this worthless attack. You scum aren't even worth my time to start a cyber attack on.
gamefreak1000000 2 months ago
@gamefreak1000000 are you serious?
How can you still believe that evolution is a false theory after watching cdk007's videos?
I'm not trying to insult you by any means, but are you sure you understood what he was trying to say?
dflxxhunterxx2 2 months ago
@gamefreak1000000 1. Why is he a moron?
2. Obama is not perfect, but he's better than Bush;
3. Why is the theory of Evolution false and yours true?
4. Why is he a jerk?
Answer the 3 questions with valid evidence. Else you are exactly the kind of person cdk007 is talking about in this video: an ignorant, prejudicial prick.
TheKainMan 2 months ago
@TheKainMan
1. He's a moron for believing that creationists are all cavemen people who wants to live in the stoneages (which is not true because that's actually Islamic countries that want that).
2. Oh, he's worse than Bush. Believe me, the tea party was established when Obama was president because he is the worst president ever according to the polls.
3. Because turning from monkeys to humans is just stupid altogether. Don't get me started on why.
4. See answer number 1.
gamefreak1000000 2 months ago
@gamefreak1000000 Failed, of course. Only got 1 right.
1. Name me a creationist that had his mind changed after a logical debate.
2. I did some research, turns out you are right.
3. Humans did not evolve from the apes you see today.
4. Answer 1.
TheKainMan 2 months ago
I want to thank creationists for helping me discover more about evolution than I ever thought I'd want to know. After researching all your bullshit and finding the truth I am a wiser man. Thank you for lying for your god!
thybigballs 2 months ago
The man on the left at 39seconds looks nice, I wonder if he likes cock? :)
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
How stupid - evolutionists do EXACTLY the same thing to creationists videos! big fail mate
EvolutionDismantled 3 months ago
Thank you creationists.
Thanks to you, I became an atheist.
I would've never been concerned about the issue of religion if it weren't for you fucktards putting bullshit in our classrooms.
lackrome 4 months ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
You rip off graphics from all over the place and you havent even payed for your software. You voice really DOES need to be heard. And that is not sarcasm?!
diosync 4 months ago
@diosync He used the software as intended by its authors. He didn't pay them but 90,558 people saw its name. Publicity.
It's like most of free content on the net. Funded by advertisement.
And images... most of them are free. And those that are not... find authors and notify them instead of useless accusations.
Glad1kun 3 months ago