@stormydragon Thick of me, but yes, thanks for the clue. After I asked my intuition was kind of going with the Lucy - I, Lucy - y; but for an emotional fog I suppose, coupled with that adage about looks being deceiving. Thanks.
Yeah I think Sam Harris said it best when he said that if the person you are talking to doesn't value evidence, then no evidence is going to change their mind.
Allah set a ..... conference ......and playing golf with zeus....
____
Umm, and where did you pull that from?
Was it from your .....?
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
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.
@misterdeity 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 Exactly! That's why scientists don't add to their ignorance by claiming that some supernatural Being exists on top of everything else. Better to stick to what can be observed and leave the unknowable alone. But let's hand it to the scientists who've stuck to the material world. In the last 400 years, they've made the world such a better place. And for heaven's sake, they put a man on the moon! Religion can't even come close!
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh Atheist don't say that there couldn't be a God. We simply say that there is no compelling evidence which pushes such a claim over the threshold needed for us to give our provisional assent. Based on what we observe in the Universe, there may or may not be some creative force. But there's no reason to assume such a force is a personal being. And it seems clear that such a force (if it exists) has absolutely no regard for humans. Again, what's the point?
@misterdeity 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.
@misterdeity We simply say that there is no compelling evidence ....
___
Absolutely nonsense!
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them.
It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@miste.....We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh Well, according to Hawking and M-theory, there is no need for a God to explain the Universe. But that won't satisfy you, will it? Perhaps matter/energy is eternal having no cause. You believe is a God with no cause, so clearly things can exist without being caused. Perhaps our entire Universe is uncaused. What holds true within the universe does not necessarily hold true for the Universe as a whole.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@1tabligh Nor can any experiments demonstrate that a non-material being or factor exists. That's why referring to God is completely useless. No on -- and I repeat, NO ONE knows anything about such a realm or the Being(s) who may or may not exist in that realm. And since we can't even know that such a being exists, we can't possible pretend to know what such a being might want from us. God is irrelevant!
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.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
@1tabligh Until we KNOW of something existing beyond the material world which can be independently observed and measured, science will have nothing to say about these assumed non-material realms. Science is about what can be measured. If you have proof of some other, non-material realm scientists can look into, by all means, let them know so they can set about figuring that out too.
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation;
on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *measure* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration,
it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
So much science for misterdeity pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
@1tabligh Well, what exactly are you worshiping. And how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over... say, Joseph Smith's God, or the Christian God? How do you know anything about a Being whose existence is not demonstrated?
and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
@misterdeity Well, what exactly are you worshiping. And how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over... say, Joseph Smith's God, or the Christian God? .....umm, job security, sending them back to stone age.... umm!
___
Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Bhagwan etc), as long as the word is not contaminated, (does not conjure up a mental picture)
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah (the bible calls God ALLAH in arabic bible) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
@misterdeity how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over...
___
Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability.
This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead.
@1tabligh How do you know which is the true God? Maybe you're worshipping a false God -- one made up by some guy 3000 years ago? And don't give me some pat answer that you read somewhere. Answer me human to human -- how do you KNOW you're not worshiping the false God?
@misterdeity ..Because some guy said so 1500 years ago? Really? ...
___
Btw, can I call you misterintelligent instead?
Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet.
Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, *must* be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, *not* vice versa.
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, deluded and brainwashed *atheist* who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the *whole* concept of God.
@1tabligh First, I don't know why you insist on using terms like "duped, deluded and brainwashed." I'm simply a person who sees things differently from you. And using name-calling hardly makes your arguments more persuasive -- just the opposite. But the fact that no one agrees on the Holy Books or prophets (or the existence of God for that matter), suggests that there is nothing to KNOW. Again, you speculate without justification. Anyone can do that -- and the do for UFOs, Bigfoot, etc...
Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
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.
@1tabligh It would dissolve into anarchy? Really? How do you know? For all you KNOW, there are in fact numerous gods each acting in accordance with his own will. Look at the stuff that you write here! You make these wild claims to know things none of us know anything about. But you assert them as though they are absolute, incontrovertible fact. That's what I, and every other Atheist is against -- people who claim to know things they can't possibly know. You're a perfect example.
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@1tabligh No. The Materialist says, we don't know exactly how or why. If there's a Creator, we're open to that, but at this juncture, the evidence is not such that positing a Creator adds any useful information or moves us forward in our knowledge about the actual Universe. It simply adds another unexplained thing into the mix. According to the principle of parsimony, an addition which adds nothing is unnecessary and possibly harmful. That's what the Materialist says.
@misterdeity Perhaps matter/energy is eternal having no cause.
____
In just the same way that *respected* atheist regards matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision
@1tabligh Exactly! But under the rules of "logic" and reason, you use Occam's razor (or parsimony) and assume as little as possible. In this case, we know matter and energy exist. We don't know that God exists. Likewise, your God hypothesis requires even more leaps into the unknown adding additions traits (wise, all-knowing, power of decision), which should not, nor cannot be assumed without evidence. This is science -- you assume the least, rather than multiply beyond necessity.
and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter/energy is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter/energy and essential stability are two mutually
@1tabligh Do you have any awareness that everything you just wrote is nothing more than pure assertion? No on knows anything about "eternity" or what's compatible with what. All we have is this Universe with ITS rules. We have no idea about what's possible before or after or in whatever omniverse may exist. We know nothing, but you're hear telling us the way it has to be. That's the arrogance of religious thinking.
@misterdeity It simply adds another unexplained thing into the mix.
___
Nope misterintelligent!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter/energy and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter/energy.
@1tabligh Or so you say. But since we don't even know if such a being exists, and can do no measurements of such things, your assertions are merely that -- assertions. Unfounded, unwarranted, unproven. You can theorize all day about God, but the fact is, we know nothing more today about a God or god than some wandering tribesmen did 4000 years ago. Because there's no way to learn anything about this being who you claim exists.
The very nature of Matter/Energy refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
M/E is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. M/E requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding M/E is this. Can the M/E in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
@misterdeity Oh, so you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I didn't know Muslims believed in Jesus as the incarnate God of the Universe.
___
No.
Jesus is one of the greatest Prophet of God.
When the angels said: O Mary, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. christ, JESUS son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
Jesus, according to the teaching of Islam, is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the Creator of every spiritual and material being. The Holy Qur'an is clear on this point:
@1tabligh So basically, the Christians are wrong because your holy book says they're wrong. Well, that's a convincing argument. You're all just a bunch of people making unwarranted assertions based on nothing. That's not the way I want to live. Sorry.
"And (they) impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and high exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him). The Originator of the heavens and the Earth! How can He have a child when there is no consort for Him, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? Such is God, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things." 6:100-102
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the divinity of "..an *"individual devised god"*, "zeus, apollo, thor etc" or Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
@1tabligh I have seen no evidence yet for your God. I seen all kinds of argument for such a being and I find none of it intellectually compelling. The same is true for Bigfoot and UFOs. Give me some actual evidence rather than a bunch of words re-asserting your initial claim.
@misterDirector...which should not, nor cannot be assumed without evidence. This is science -- you assume the least, rather than multiply beyond necessity.
___
Of course!
Profess and believe ONLY if you have proof and evidence!
Belief in anything without proof and evidence is FUTILE, let alone God!
You are a one of those good Actor and Director, how about acting and directing a humble believing servant of deity and playing a role of creature of deity instead of a deity?
In this case, we know matter and energy exist. We don't know that God exists.
____
All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves.
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
Then read the comments with your intellect instead of your emotions?
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 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.
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
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.
For all you KNOW, there are in fact numerous gods each acting in accordance with his own will.
___
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
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.
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.
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*.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe, and those who guard (against evil) shall be above them on the day of resurrection; and Allah gives means of subsistence to whom he pleases without measure.
@1tabligh Since most scientists at the upper end of the scale don't believe in God, I don't think this is in any way compelling. What you have is a ton of arguments from ignorance. That we don't know how the Universe works or how it came to being doesn't mean the only answer is a God. And even if it idid, so what? We have no reliable/testable way on communicating with this God in order to know what it's all about. And even if we did, He could lie and say he wants x when he wants y. So who cares?
@misterdeity 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.
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.
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?
When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
@1tabligh Well, that's the point, isn't it... you merely assert that God is free of all need for a cause. Everything you believe about God is mere assertion or argument. What I need is actual evidence of such a being's existence, not mere assertion or argument. Then, I need a way to know about His character and what He wants from me, if anything. None of your arguments get you anything being a basic Deistic God. Again, who cares?
@misterdeity The atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator.
This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination.
It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*.
Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
No Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery misteropenmindedDirector!
The followers of metaphysics are convinced that in just the same way that experiment and testing are the method of investigation and cognition to be followed in the sensory sciences, it is *intellection* that is the means of discovering the truth in metaphysical matters.
After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision.
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to *logic* and human *intelligence* and waging open war on the truth.
Where is your logic and intelligence misterintelligentDirector?
....free of all need for a cause...... Everything you believe about God is mere assertion or argument.
___
Nope misterDirector!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view.
If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
[In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.
There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts.
One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try.
@1tabligh Exactly. We have absolutely no way to know anything about this being even if He does exist. Thank you. That's my entire point. Belief in such a being is meaningless because of exactly this point. For all we know, He prefers non-believers to believers, because they do not simply believe what someone else says without sufficient evidence. How do you know that's not really what God wants? You don't!
Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
@1tabligh Which is exactly why I don't believe that Moses, or Muhammed, or Joseph Smith was actually speaking with this supposed Being -- He cannot be perceivable by the five senses, and that's all humans have to go on. Thanks for making this great point!!!
@misterdeity He cannot be perceivable by the five senses, and that's all humans have to go on. Thanks for making this great point!!!
___
Above all them, are the atheists to be pitied, who demand to see with their physical eyes One Who is inscrutable even to the intellect. This being impossible, they took to flat denial of His Existence. They demanded, why He cannot be encompassed within the intellect?
He transcends intellect just as things beyond the visual field cannot be perceived by the eyes. As an example, if you see a piece of stone flying up in the air, the logical conclusion you draw is that someone has hurled it above. The eye may not have seen him/her/it and yet the intellect realises it because of its discerning capacity, in that the piece of stone cannot go up by itself. You see that the eye stopped at a point and could not advance further. Similarly the intellect stops short
@1tabligh So make up your mind! You can't have it both ways. Either He can be perceived by our senses (intellect is part of our senses), or he can't. Stop saying whatever suits you at the moment. Please attempt to be intellectually consistent.
at its prescribed limit in the matter of the Divine Immanence. It cannot advance further. We say, however, that the intellect which perceives that man possesses mind and soul, notwithstanding the fact that no one has seen the mind with the physical sense, the same intellect should be able to realise and admit the Existence of the Creator, without being able to perceive His Essence. And if they now ask why He laid the obligation on the puny man to acquire cognisance of Him by his
@1tabligh You use terms which are not in evidence. The dualist idea of mind/body is either dead or near dead as we come to understand that what we used to call "mind" is merely a function of the brain (body), and ceases to exist when the brain dies. Likewise, I do not accept the mere assertion of a soul. You're preaching to yourself. If you want to convert someone who thinks differently, you have to at lease use agreed upon language.
intellect seeing that he cannot recognise Him fully, the answer will be that the demand to recognise Him is conditioned by the extent to which human intellect can possibly do, by the powers it possesses. It is to believe in His Existence and to obey His Commandments and Prohibitions. They are not required to encompass His Immanence and his Attributes. No ruler requires of his subjects to know the sovereigns stature or completion. All that is required is loyalty and obedience.
@1tabligh This is where we most disagree. Because we can't directly perceive your God, then the loyalty and obedience you ask for is loyalty and obedience to another mere mortal who says that he is speaking in the name of your God. That's where I say, BULLSHIT! PROVE IT! And so far, none of these so-called prophets of God has given us anything that even slightly resembling the divine or transcendent. Indeed, most of it is barbaric, tribal nonsense.
simply believe what someone else says without sufficient evidence.
___
Nope!
Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident.
Not a *single* motionless body has entered in motion up to now *without* being subject to an *external* force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force *must* exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
@1tabligh Once again, you are assuming that what is true within a system must be true of the entire system itself. It does not follow. All you are doing is repeating the argument from ignorance over and over and over. Try something new. This is not intellectually compelling.
Based on the law of probabilities, the result of universal independent motivation could be only dispersal and anarchy, tending to a uniform death.
The law of probabilities also decisively *refutes* the appearance of the world by way of accident, considering it irrational and impossible. Even calculations based on the mathematical law of probabilities confirm the necessity of correct guidance and planning for the world,
@1tabligh What law of probabilities? We don't have all the facts about the initial circumstances which gave way to our universe. Unless you have all those facts, you can't do a probability analysis. Hawking doesn't believe God is necessary for the creation of the universe(s), and he knows a lot more about this stuff than either of us. Neither did Feynman.
It is shown by the opposing statements of these people that they are ignorant of its essence. Intellect has been incapable of realising the essence of the sun which the eyes can see and the senses can recognise, how can then His Essence be comprehended Who is beyond the pale of senses and hidden from the imagination?
If atheists, then say why He is hidden from the imagination, the answer will be that He is not hidden by an artifice as one may behind the doors and curtains from the sight of other men. When we say that the Almighty Allah is invisible to the eyes we mean that His Immanence is too fine for the imagination and physical senses to be comprehended, just as the soul is so fine, although it too is one among the creation and yet is beyond the compass of the imagination.
If atheists now say as to why He is so fine a Being superior to everything, the question would be untenable, in as much as the Creator of everything has to be superior to everything; and distinct therefrom.
If atheists ask as to why it has been known that He is superior to everything and distinct therefrom, the answer will be that there are four criteria of knowledge in this behalf.
(1) To see if the existence of a thing is established.
(2) The real nature and essence thereof.
(3) What attributes are possessed by it?
(4) The why and how of its existence.
No creature can know to apply these criteria in regard to the Creator, except to know that He exists. No one can know about His essence. To ask the why and wherefore about Him is altogether untenable, seeing that He is the Creator of everything, and nothing can stand as the cause of His Existence.
As men have learnt that He exists, it is not necessary that they should know His Essence as well, just as awareness of the soul does not entail a knowledge of the essence. Similar is the case of the other spiritual entities. If atheists say that you speak of Him as above cognition as He is an unknown Being, the answer will be that from one point of view it is so in fact, if the intellect seeks to attain the knowledge of His essence.
From the other point of view, however, He is nearer that anything, seeing that effective arguments serve to prove His Existence.
From one point of view, therefore, He is Manifest, and hidden from none, from the other point of view He is hidden out of the reach of human senses. It is the same with intellect. It is known by argument and evidence but its essence is a mystery.
@1tabligh Everything is a mystery. For all we know, what He considers evil, is what we consider good. Do you not see that you're merely blathering on about something of which no one knows anything? You act like you know all this stuff about a Being whose existence can't even be clearly demonstrated -- acting as though you're so much more intelligent and enlightened. You know nothing about a supernatural realm or supernatural beings. Nothing! But here you are going on and on. What for?
@misterdeity Even slight and simple occurrences in the world result in the creation of remarkable images that are harmonious and consonant with the aim of creation. This is itself an indication of the truth that behind all the stupendous changes, a conscious and powerful force is engaged in creating and producing the wondrous system of the universe: it gives shape to the remarkable crystallization of the world of creation and traces out the plan and order of being.
The harmony and interconnectedness of millions of natural phenomena and their relationship to life can be explained on the basis of one hypothesis only—namely that we conceive of a Creator for this vast system Who has established the diverse elements of life on this globe by means of a limitless and infinite power and drawn up a program for each of those elements. This hypothesis is in conformity with the harmonious links that we see embedded in a phenomenon.
If we do not accept this hypothesis, how likely is it that such harmony should have come about—accidentally and without purpose among the variegated orders of being?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh Argument from ignorance again? These are good questions, but that's all they are. "How could it be?" That's what the ancients thought about thunder and lightening -- what Bill O'Reilly still thinks about the tides and the sunrise. You presume all natural phenomena are the result of a deity because you can't imagine otherwise -- just like the ancients couldn't imagine thunder without a god. But every time we discover the cause of such phenomena, we find out that no deity was required.
If the world of being did not exist, with all its wonders that bedazzle the intellect and the splendor of which human knowledge cannot fully comprehend, and if the universe consisted simply of a mono-cellular being, still the possibility that such a slight and insignificant entity, together with the order prevailing over it and the necessary conditions and materials, should come into existence as a mere chance, a possibility, an accident,
@1tabligh You purposely speak in a flowery language that ultimately amounts to absolutely nothing. You muddy the waters to make it seem deep. The very fact that you spent so much time commenting about your beliefs is a true testament to your fanaticism. The idea of a god raises more questions than it answers, and is infantile, to me, at least. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not everyone's opinion is equal. You regurgitate the same bullshit without ANY evidence. STFU.
@xXubermimXx In fact, no experiment can be set up to determine whether a non-material being exists or not, because only that which can be negated by means of experiment can be proven by means of experiment.
Science and metaphysics are two forms of knowledge which enjoy equal degrees of validity and authenticity.
@xXubermimXx A meta- physical law neither arises from experimentation nor can it be negated by experimentation. Thousands of scientific experiments are designed to prove that all things are material; they will all fall short of their goal.
The empirical scientist has the right to say, "I have found such- and-such," or "I have not found such-and-such." He does *not* have the right to say, "Such-and-such a thing does not exist."
I assume you talking about Rick Perry's wife?
yislamislame 1 week ago
LOL !!!!
ryantheatheist22 1 week ago
Supertrampy.
kappapi560 1 week ago
you are awesome :D
Bardslain 4 weeks ago
I am planning to buy this. I do buy this, and forward it. Even with the world economic implosion.
But, what's a 'Lucy'? Is she luck? Or, Gaia or some skank?
Strike that—she is perfect. I get awkward feelings when she's there.
antuerius 1 month ago
@antuerius Lucy is the devil (Lucy-fer)
stormydragon 4 weeks ago
@stormydragon Thick of me, but yes, thanks for the clue. After I asked my intuition was kind of going with the Lucy - I, Lucy - y; but for an emotional fog I suppose, coupled with that adage about looks being deceiving. Thanks.
antuerius 2 weeks ago
So god is a moron. Figures
ehd543 1 month ago
When I saw you eating a banana, I knew it was a reference to Ray Comfort...but I wasn't expecting the punchline....brilliant!
ChuckyJesus666 1 month ago
Love the bananaman reference. Great episode, lots of clever little mentions, well done you guys.
reveivl 1 month ago
What's PZ? Apart from that cool atheist professor.
McPrfctday 1 month ago
@McPrfctday Science adviser to Mr. D.
kokofan50 1 month ago
Supertrampy? Excellent.
viridismonasteriense 1 month ago
Is there a jpeg of that equation? It is awesome and needs to be plastered all over social networks.....and the rest of the world.
EncompassOSM 1 month ago
@EncompassOSM I second that....we need an image to share!!
ChuckyJesus666 1 month ago
I actually enjoy your comments AFTER the skits just as much as the skits themselves...Hilarious!
calesuar1 1 month ago
@calesuar1
Fuck it, make it a T-Shirt, I will buy that!
Garf640 1 month ago
If I buy Mr. Deity merchandise at Cafe Press, do you guys benefit from it financially?
hstg98 1 month ago
@hstg98 Yes, but very little. Their margins are ridiculous.
misterdeity 1 month ago
Yeah I think Sam Harris said it best when he said that if the person you are talking to doesn't value evidence, then no evidence is going to change their mind.
Ch1nn1s 2 months ago
"just need to slip it past a school board or two" classic!
sudburylawyer 3 months ago
Everyone calm down. Let's all just agree to disagree
TheShortGirl666 3 months ago
The possibility of the world just "coming into existence" obviously isn't inconcievable because:
1 Since time didn't exist before the big bang there was an indefinite period for this event to occur in, and
2 It did happen, so logically can't be mathematically impossible.
MrBob493 3 months ago
Allah set a ..... conference ......and playing golf with zeus....
____
Umm, and where did you pull that from?
Was it from your .....?
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
1tabligh 4 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Perhaps. But religion doesn't even have a match, let alone a candle. I'd say, it doesn't even know about fire.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Exactly! That's why scientists don't add to their ignorance by claiming that some supernatural Being exists on top of everything else. Better to stick to what can be observed and leave the unknowable alone. But let's hand it to the scientists who've stuck to the material world. In the last 400 years, they've made the world such a better place. And for heaven's sake, they put a man on the moon! Religion can't even come close!
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity Umm!
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Atheist don't say that there couldn't be a God. We simply say that there is no compelling evidence which pushes such a claim over the threshold needed for us to give our provisional assent. Based on what we observe in the Universe, there may or may not be some creative force. But there's no reason to assume such a force is a personal being. And it seems clear that such a force (if it exists) has absolutely no regard for humans. Again, what's the point?
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@misterdeity We simply say that there is no compelling evidence ....
___
Absolutely nonsense!
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them.
1tabligh 4 months ago
It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@miste.....We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Well, according to Hawking and M-theory, there is no need for a God to explain the Universe. But that won't satisfy you, will it? Perhaps matter/energy is eternal having no cause. You believe is a God with no cause, so clearly things can exist without being caused. Perhaps our entire Universe is uncaused. What holds true within the universe does not necessarily hold true for the Universe as a whole.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Nor can any experiments demonstrate that a non-material being or factor exists. That's why referring to God is completely useless. No on -- and I repeat, NO ONE knows anything about such a realm or the Being(s) who may or may not exist in that realm. And since we can't even know that such a being exists, we can't possible pretend to know what such a being might want from us. God is irrelevant!
misterdeity 4 months 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.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim,
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Until we KNOW of something existing beyond the material world which can be independently observed and measured, science will have nothing to say about these assumed non-material realms. Science is about what can be measured. If you have proof of some other, non-material realm scientists can look into, by all means, let them know so they can set about figuring that out too.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity independently observed and measured
___
Umm!
God and Empirical Logic
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation;
1tabligh 4 months ago
on the basis of their erroneous and hasty prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *measure* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to measure God, the spirit, and inspiration,
1tabligh 4 months ago
it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
So much science for misterdeity pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Umm, "my own version" of science!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Well, what exactly are you worshiping. And how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over... say, Joseph Smith's God, or the Christian God? How do you know anything about a Being whose existence is not demonstrated?
misterdeity 4 months ago
and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
1tabligh 4 months ago
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.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
Umm, Allah discovering science?!
1tabligh 4 months ago
@misterdeity Well, what exactly are you worshiping. And how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over... say, Joseph Smith's God, or the Christian God? .....umm, job security, sending them back to stone age.... umm!
___
Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Bhagwan etc), as long as the word is not contaminated, (does not conjure up a mental picture)
1tabligh 4 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious:
by whichever name you invoke Him,
He is always the One -- for His are all the attributes of perfection."
The Quran 17:110
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh How do you know his attributes are the attributes of perfection? Because some guy said so 1500 years ago? Really?
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity or the Christian God?
___
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah (the bible calls God ALLAH in arabic bible) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Quran [2.62]
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh How do you know?
misterdeity 4 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
(Quran Chapter 2, Verse 136)
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Oh, so you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I didn't know Muslims believed in Jesus as the incarnate God of the Universe.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity how did you come to know of it? And how did you determine the reality of your God over...
___
Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh "Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature." How do you know?
misterdeity 4 months ago
This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh How do you know which is the true God? Maybe you're worshipping a false God -- one made up by some guy 3000 years ago? And don't give me some pat answer that you read somewhere. Answer me human to human -- how do you KNOW you're not worshiping the false God?
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity ..Because some guy said so 1500 years ago? Really? ...
___
Btw, can I call you misterintelligent instead?
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.
1tabligh 4 months ago
Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, *must* be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, *must* come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, *not* vice versa.
1tabligh 4 months ago
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with a duped, deluded and brainwashed *atheist* who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the *whole* concept of God.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh First, I don't know why you insist on using terms like "duped, deluded and brainwashed." I'm simply a person who sees things differently from you. And using name-calling hardly makes your arguments more persuasive -- just the opposite. But the fact that no one agrees on the Holy Books or prophets (or the existence of God for that matter), suggests that there is nothing to KNOW. Again, you speculate without justification. Anyone can do that -- and the do for UFOs, Bigfoot, etc...
misterdeity 4 months ago
Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
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.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh It would dissolve into anarchy? Really? How do you know? For all you KNOW, there are in fact numerous gods each acting in accordance with his own will. Look at the stuff that you write here! You make these wild claims to know things none of us know anything about. But you assert them as though they are absolute, incontrovertible fact. That's what I, and every other Atheist is against -- people who claim to know things they can't possibly know. You're a perfect example.
misterdeity 4 months ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh No. The Materialist says, we don't know exactly how or why. If there's a Creator, we're open to that, but at this juncture, the evidence is not such that positing a Creator adds any useful information or moves us forward in our knowledge about the actual Universe. It simply adds another unexplained thing into the mix. According to the principle of parsimony, an addition which adds nothing is unnecessary and possibly harmful. That's what the Materialist says.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity Perhaps matter/energy is eternal having no cause.
____
In just the same way that *respected* atheist regards matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Exactly! But under the rules of "logic" and reason, you use Occam's razor (or parsimony) and assume as little as possible. In this case, we know matter and energy exist. We don't know that God exists. Likewise, your God hypothesis requires even more leaps into the unknown adding additions traits (wise, all-knowing, power of decision), which should not, nor cannot be assumed without evidence. This is science -- you assume the least, rather than multiply beyond necessity.
misterdeity 4 months ago
and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter/energy is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter/energy and essential stability are two mutually
1tabligh 4 months ago
exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do *respected* atheists, who believe that matter/energy is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Do you have any awareness that everything you just wrote is nothing more than pure assertion? No on knows anything about "eternity" or what's compatible with what. All we have is this Universe with ITS rules. We have no idea about what's possible before or after or in whatever omniverse may exist. We know nothing, but you're hear telling us the way it has to be. That's the arrogance of religious thinking.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterdeity It simply adds another unexplained thing into the mix.
___
Nope misterintelligent!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 4 months ago
Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter/energy and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter/energy.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh Or so you say. But since we don't even know if such a being exists, and can do no measurements of such things, your assertions are merely that -- assertions. Unfounded, unwarranted, unproven. You can theorize all day about God, but the fact is, we know nothing more today about a God or god than some wandering tribesmen did 4000 years ago. Because there's no way to learn anything about this being who you claim exists.
misterdeity 4 months ago
The very nature of Matter/Energy refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
M/E is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. M/E requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding M/E is this. Can the M/E in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 4 months ago
@misterdeity Oh, so you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I didn't know Muslims believed in Jesus as the incarnate God of the Universe.
___
No.
Jesus is one of the greatest Prophet of God.
When the angels said: O Mary, surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. christ, JESUS son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
The Quran [3:45]
1tabligh 4 months ago
Jesus, according to the teaching of Islam, is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the Creator of every spiritual and material being. The Holy Qur'an is clear on this point:
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh So basically, the Christians are wrong because your holy book says they're wrong. Well, that's a convincing argument. You're all just a bunch of people making unwarranted assertions based on nothing. That's not the way I want to live. Sorry.
misterdeity 4 months ago
"And (they) impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and high exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him). The Originator of the heavens and the Earth! How can He have a child when there is no consort for Him, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? Such is God, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things." 6:100-102
1tabligh 4 months ago
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
1tabligh 4 months ago
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the divinity of "..an *"individual devised god"*, "zeus, apollo, thor etc" or Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
1tabligh 4 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.
[112.2] Allah is He on Whom all depend.
[112.3] He *begets* not, nor is He *begotten*.
[112.4] And *none* is like Him.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@misterdeity Anyone can do that -- and the do for UFOs, Bigfoot, etc...
___
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 "UFOs, Bigfoot, etc..." or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the "UFOs, Bigfoot, etc..." , But if you claim anything, you need to prove your claim.
1tabligh 4 months ago
@1tabligh I have seen no evidence yet for your God. I seen all kinds of argument for such a being and I find none of it intellectually compelling. The same is true for Bigfoot and UFOs. Give me some actual evidence rather than a bunch of words re-asserting your initial claim.
misterdeity 4 months ago
@misterDirector...which should not, nor cannot be assumed without evidence. This is science -- you assume the least, rather than multiply beyond necessity.
___
Of course!
Profess and believe ONLY if you have proof and evidence!
Belief in anything without proof and evidence is FUTILE, let alone God!
You are a one of those good Actor and Director, how about acting and directing a humble believing servant of deity and playing a role of creature of deity instead of a deity?
1tabligh 3 months ago
In this case, we know matter and energy exist. We don't know that God exists.
____
All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
1tabligh 3 months ago
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that
1tabligh 3 months ago
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves.
1tabligh 3 months ago
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 3 months ago
What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 3 months ago
Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
1tabligh 3 months ago
I find none of it intellectually compelling.
___
Then read the comments with your intellect instead of your emotions?
The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link."
1tabligh 3 months ago
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it.
1tabligh 3 months ago
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
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 3 months 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 3 months ago
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.
Simple common sense misterDirector!
1tabligh 3 months ago
For all you KNOW, there are in fact numerous gods each acting in accordance with his own will.
___
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
1tabligh 3 months ago
to that religion.
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 3 months ago
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.
It is true that certain religions,
1tabligh 3 months ago
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 3 months ago
"But at least we do it here with laughter and a smile......Well, sometimes there are ideas and beliefs that need to be attacked, or at least mocked."
___
Are you mocking us because we believe in God and collecting the donation at our expense?
O' grief misterintelligentDirector!
I have some good advise for you.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
[2.15] Allah shall pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
1tabligh 3 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe, and those who guard (against evil) shall be above them on the day of resurrection; and Allah gives means of subsistence to whom he pleases without measure.
The Quran [2.212]
1tabligh 3 months ago
@misterdeity I find none of it intellectually compelling.
___
Oh yeah?
Then try "intellectually" to answer the following question!
Creation or existence without Creator presumes a single pattern, why should there occur two different movements on a definite pattern and quantum?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Since most scientists at the upper end of the scale don't believe in God, I don't think this is in any way compelling. What you have is a ton of arguments from ignorance. That we don't know how the Universe works or how it came to being doesn't mean the only answer is a God. And even if it idid, so what? We have no reliable/testable way on communicating with this God in order to know what it's all about. And even if we did, He could lie and say he wants x when he wants y. So who cares?
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterDirector
I have a question.
Is Lucy on your video refering to Lucifer or an angel or satan who tempted Adam and Eva etc?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Yes.
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity 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 3 months ago
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 3 months ago
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 3 months ago
When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Well, that's the point, isn't it... you merely assert that God is free of all need for a cause. Everything you believe about God is mere assertion or argument. What I need is actual evidence of such a being's existence, not mere assertion or argument. Then, I need a way to know about His character and what He wants from me, if anything. None of your arguments get you anything being a basic Deistic God. Again, who cares?
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity The atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator.
1tabligh 3 months ago
This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination.
1tabligh 3 months ago
It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
1tabligh 3 months ago
The universe is constantly advancing toward collapse and dissolution. For the energies existing in the world are gradually becoming dulled; atoms become energy, and active energy becomes inactive and motionless. Once the atoms are uniformly and equally divided, *nothing* remains but absolute silence and immobility. It is, therefore, *impossible* to regard matter/energy as the *eternal* essence or substance of being, and there is *no* choice but to regard the world as created.
1tabligh 3 months ago
...you merely assert that God ...
___
Nope!
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
1tabligh 3 months ago
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies. It is *not* possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed a new into matter and mass
1tabligh 3 months ago
comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can *no* longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world has *originated* in time.
1tabligh 3 months ago
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a *proof* of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *expelled* matter/energy from the stronghold of *eternity*.
Science not *only* proves the createdness of the world but *also* bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
No Sumo science!
1tabligh 3 months ago
The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was *necessary* for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
No Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery misteropenmindedDirector!
1tabligh 3 months ago
I find none of it intellectually compelling.
___
Well then, where is your intellect?
Use it!
The followers of metaphysics are convinced that in just the same way that experiment and testing are the method of investigation and cognition to be followed in the sensory sciences, it is *intellection* that is the means of discovering the truth in metaphysical matters.
1tabligh 3 months ago
After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision.
1tabligh 3 months ago
This being the case, those who ascribe all the beings in the vast system of the universe, together with their complex and mysterious properties to the blind and unconscious forces of matter, are, in reality, doing violence and injustice to *logic* and human *intelligence* and waging open war on the truth.
Where is your logic and intelligence misterintelligentDirector?
1tabligh 3 months ago
....free of all need for a cause...... Everything you believe about God is mere assertion or argument.
___
Nope misterDirector!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 3 months ago
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view.
1tabligh 3 months ago
If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
[In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
1tabligh 3 months ago
I need a way to know about His character...
___
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.
1tabligh 3 months ago
There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts.
1tabligh 3 months ago
One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Exactly. We have absolutely no way to know anything about this being even if He does exist. Thank you. That's my entire point. Belief in such a being is meaningless because of exactly this point. For all we know, He prefers non-believers to believers, because they do not simply believe what someone else says without sufficient evidence. How do you know that's not really what God wants? You don't!
misterdeity 3 months ago
Things are compound elements atoms etc, made of parts. Every compound elements etc possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay.
1tabligh 3 months ago
For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses for, He is not a thing-which is compound elements etc or created. If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being compound and created and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Which is exactly why I don't believe that Moses, or Muhammed, or Joseph Smith was actually speaking with this supposed Being -- He cannot be perceivable by the five senses, and that's all humans have to go on. Thanks for making this great point!!!
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity He cannot be perceivable by the five senses, and that's all humans have to go on. Thanks for making this great point!!!
___
Above all them, are the atheists to be pitied, who demand to see with their physical eyes One Who is inscrutable even to the intellect. This being impossible, they took to flat denial of His Existence. They demanded, why He cannot be encompassed within the intellect?
1tabligh 3 months ago
He transcends intellect just as things beyond the visual field cannot be perceived by the eyes. As an example, if you see a piece of stone flying up in the air, the logical conclusion you draw is that someone has hurled it above. The eye may not have seen him/her/it and yet the intellect realises it because of its discerning capacity, in that the piece of stone cannot go up by itself. You see that the eye stopped at a point and could not advance further. Similarly the intellect stops short
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh So make up your mind! You can't have it both ways. Either He can be perceived by our senses (intellect is part of our senses), or he can't. Stop saying whatever suits you at the moment. Please attempt to be intellectually consistent.
misterdeity 3 months ago
at its prescribed limit in the matter of the Divine Immanence. It cannot advance further. We say, however, that the intellect which perceives that man possesses mind and soul, notwithstanding the fact that no one has seen the mind with the physical sense, the same intellect should be able to realise and admit the Existence of the Creator, without being able to perceive His Essence. And if they now ask why He laid the obligation on the puny man to acquire cognisance of Him by his
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh You use terms which are not in evidence. The dualist idea of mind/body is either dead or near dead as we come to understand that what we used to call "mind" is merely a function of the brain (body), and ceases to exist when the brain dies. Likewise, I do not accept the mere assertion of a soul. You're preaching to yourself. If you want to convert someone who thinks differently, you have to at lease use agreed upon language.
misterdeity 3 months ago
intellect seeing that he cannot recognise Him fully, the answer will be that the demand to recognise Him is conditioned by the extent to which human intellect can possibly do, by the powers it possesses. It is to believe in His Existence and to obey His Commandments and Prohibitions. They are not required to encompass His Immanence and his Attributes. No ruler requires of his subjects to know the sovereigns stature or completion. All that is required is loyalty and obedience.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh This is where we most disagree. Because we can't directly perceive your God, then the loyalty and obedience you ask for is loyalty and obedience to another mere mortal who says that he is speaking in the name of your God. That's where I say, BULLSHIT! PROVE IT! And so far, none of these so-called prophets of God has given us anything that even slightly resembling the divine or transcendent. Indeed, most of it is barbaric, tribal nonsense.
misterdeity 3 months ago
simply believe what someone else says without sufficient evidence.
___
Nope!
Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless *unless* it becomes subject to a force *external* to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we *cannot*, therefore, believe in a theory of probability *or* accident.
1tabligh 3 months ago
Not a *single* motionless body has entered in motion up to now *without* being subject to an *external* force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force *must* exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Once again, you are assuming that what is true within a system must be true of the entire system itself. It does not follow. All you are doing is repeating the argument from ignorance over and over and over. Try something new. This is not intellectually compelling.
misterdeity 3 months ago
The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Based on the law of probabilities, the result of universal independent motivation could be only dispersal and anarchy, tending to a uniform death.
The law of probabilities also decisively *refutes* the appearance of the world by way of accident, considering it irrational and impossible. Even calculations based on the mathematical law of probabilities confirm the necessity of correct guidance and planning for the world,
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh What law of probabilities? We don't have all the facts about the initial circumstances which gave way to our universe. Unless you have all those facts, you can't do a probability analysis. Hawking doesn't believe God is necessary for the creation of the universe(s), and he knows a lot more about this stuff than either of us. Neither did Feynman.
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity (intellect is part of our senses),
___
Nope!
It is shown by the opposing statements of these people that they are ignorant of its essence. Intellect has been incapable of realising the essence of the sun which the eyes can see and the senses can recognise, how can then His Essence be comprehended Who is beyond the pale of senses and hidden from the imagination?
1tabligh 3 months ago
If atheists, then say why He is hidden from the imagination, the answer will be that He is not hidden by an artifice as one may behind the doors and curtains from the sight of other men. When we say that the Almighty Allah is invisible to the eyes we mean that His Immanence is too fine for the imagination and physical senses to be comprehended, just as the soul is so fine, although it too is one among the creation and yet is beyond the compass of the imagination.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh How do you know? You don't. These are merely opinions that you have. I simply don't share your opinion.
misterdeity 3 months ago
If atheists now say as to why He is so fine a Being superior to everything, the question would be untenable, in as much as the Creator of everything has to be superior to everything; and distinct therefrom.
If atheists ask as to why it has been known that He is superior to everything and distinct therefrom, the answer will be that there are four criteria of knowledge in this behalf.
1tabligh 3 months ago
(1) To see if the existence of a thing is established.
(2) The real nature and essence thereof.
(3) What attributes are possessed by it?
(4) The why and how of its existence.
No creature can know to apply these criteria in regard to the Creator, except to know that He exists. No one can know about His essence. To ask the why and wherefore about Him is altogether untenable, seeing that He is the Creator of everything, and nothing can stand as the cause of His Existence.
1tabligh 3 months ago
As men have learnt that He exists, it is not necessary that they should know His Essence as well, just as awareness of the soul does not entail a knowledge of the essence. Similar is the case of the other spiritual entities. If atheists say that you speak of Him as above cognition as He is an unknown Being, the answer will be that from one point of view it is so in fact, if the intellect seeks to attain the knowledge of His essence.
1tabligh 3 months ago
From the other point of view, however, He is nearer that anything, seeing that effective arguments serve to prove His Existence.
From one point of view, therefore, He is Manifest, and hidden from none, from the other point of view He is hidden out of the reach of human senses. It is the same with intellect. It is known by argument and evidence but its essence is a mystery.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Everything is a mystery. For all we know, what He considers evil, is what we consider good. Do you not see that you're merely blathering on about something of which no one knows anything? You act like you know all this stuff about a Being whose existence can't even be clearly demonstrated -- acting as though you're so much more intelligent and enlightened. You know nothing about a supernatural realm or supernatural beings. Nothing! But here you are going on and on. What for?
misterdeity 3 months ago
@misterdeity Even slight and simple occurrences in the world result in the creation of remarkable images that are harmonious and consonant with the aim of creation. This is itself an indication of the truth that behind all the stupendous changes, a conscious and powerful force is engaged in creating and producing the wondrous system of the universe: it gives shape to the remarkable crystallization of the world of creation and traces out the plan and order of being.
1tabligh 3 months ago
The harmony and interconnectedness of millions of natural phenomena and their relationship to life can be explained on the basis of one hypothesis only—namely that we conceive of a Creator for this vast system Who has established the diverse elements of life on this globe by means of a limitless and infinite power and drawn up a program for each of those elements. This hypothesis is in conformity with the harmonious links that we see embedded in a phenomenon.
1tabligh 3 months ago
If we do not accept this hypothesis, how likely is it that such harmony should have come about—accidentally and without purpose among the variegated orders of being?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Argument from ignorance again? These are good questions, but that's all they are. "How could it be?" That's what the ancients thought about thunder and lightening -- what Bill O'Reilly still thinks about the tides and the sunrise. You presume all natural phenomena are the result of a deity because you can't imagine otherwise -- just like the ancients couldn't imagine thunder without a god. But every time we discover the cause of such phenomena, we find out that no deity was required.
misterdeity 3 months ago
If the world of being did not exist, with all its wonders that bedazzle the intellect and the splendor of which human knowledge cannot fully comprehend, and if the universe consisted simply of a mono-cellular being, still the possibility that such a slight and insignificant entity, together with the order prevailing over it and the necessary conditions and materials, should come into existence as a mere chance, a possibility, an accident,
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh You purposely speak in a flowery language that ultimately amounts to absolutely nothing. You muddy the waters to make it seem deep. The very fact that you spent so much time commenting about your beliefs is a true testament to your fanaticism. The idea of a god raises more questions than it answers, and is infantile, to me, at least. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not everyone's opinion is equal. You regurgitate the same bullshit without ANY evidence. STFU.
xXubermimXx 3 months ago
@xXubermimXx In fact, no experiment can be set up to determine whether a non-material being exists or not, because only that which can be negated by means of experiment can be proven by means of experiment.
Science and metaphysics are two forms of knowledge which enjoy equal degrees of validity and authenticity.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Any theory that is completely unfalsifiable is clearly weak. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Period.
xXubermimXx 3 months ago
@xXubermimXx A meta- physical law neither arises from experimentation nor can it be negated by experimentation. Thousands of scientific experiments are designed to prove that all things are material; they will all fall short of their goal.
The empirical scientist has the right to say, "I have found such- and-such," or "I have not found such-and-such." He does *not* have the right to say, "Such-and-such a thing does not exist."
1tabligh 3 months ago