Since "God" is omnipotent and all knowing, when he sent himself to Earth to be tortured and killed, he would have known that he would be resurrected in 3 days. So how is it a sacrifice if he knew that he would come back from the dead only 3 days later.
Pressed rewind and there was no ridiculing of anything, there was merely considered opinion. The element of ridicule came from the fact that the story itself is ridiculous but Richard dealt with it with as much respect as it warranted. People would rather turn a debate into a quarrel over who said what and how than actually present a reasonable opposing argument... because there is no reasonable opposing argument.
Richard Dawkins is a militant bastard and would make a perfect new Hitler. This is totally stupid. One can not prove that God is real or that he is not. Therefore why be obsessed with such thing when one can accept new ways through inner light. I do not like atheistic and theistic militants. From history, militants only made more suffering.
Dawkins: "What kind of a horrible depraved notion is that?!"
So, in a way, I can see why people got angry with him. Nobody likes their treasured beliefs to be described that way. However, if we decided that pointing out the horror and depravity found in religious doctrine is disrespectful, then it means we can't even be honest with ourselves. If something horrible is in the bible, we must say so! Respect is good, but not if it forces us to deny what's right in front of us.
I can't listen to Tony Burke without cringing.. By the way I just "pressed rewind" and there was nothing dis-respectful about what dawkins said. He WAS merely stating it.
They seem to be confused about the definition of respect. There is no reason Dawkins should show respect to beliefs which he finds patently absurd. He should probably tolerate them, and he does, but there is no reason to give them any more respect than they deserve. Some say he is strident. I really don't see it. He is very measured and polite, but he is critical, and incisively so. Such claims about him lacking respect or being strident are silencing tactics.
What the fuck is it with all these respect demanding nutters? Hey, I believe there's a magic pink flying invisible unicorn that created the world, RESPECT MY BELIEF! Wtf man srsly
ok so god couldnt just forgive us since it was his fuck up that caused us to sin. Why send jesus as a sacrifice what good does that do god has the power to forgive it makes no sense. "god works in mysterious ways" no he works in a retared ilogical way that is the problem with the bible it jusr makes no sense.
What Dawkins doesn't see is the symbolism in Jesus. He gave up his ego, met the pain that it involves, died (representing death of the ego), and then was reborn as something more then a human. My statement here is supported by the other things Jesus said in the Bible, such as turn the other cheek, the one without sin throws the first stone, a good Christian gives excessive riches to people who needs more it and so fourth. But at the same time I think many Christians will miss this as well.
@Korvmannen What if there's actually a discernable way to permanently solve problems without god? Which there is. But even moreso, what if religion & similar ways of thinking stand in the way for such a thorough questioning of the world that could have created such solutions? Which it also does. Religion may cultivate good spirits in some, but it certainly does not effectively cultivate goodness in all. If you need a god to explain nature you simply don't understand nature very well
Dawkins is an arrogant prick who just does not understand what christian faith and belief is all about. He has made a career and a lot of money of ridiculing and humiliating religion and the many millions of people all over the world who not only (like myself) fervently believe in God, but also the many people who have dedicated their lives to his service. He is not as clever as he thinks he is.
The panel is a bad representation of Australia, Having went to a Catholic high school I have seen first hand the staggering ammount of atheists of today. Easily over 80% of the school was agnostic, and well over 50% atheist.
what are they talking about. How can people respect other peoples views of imaginary figures giving passes out to an afterlife paradise as long as they follow what's written in this book filled with bedtime stories. I can't respect that, its silly. I can't stand the deluded followers of gods, their blind faith and mindless preaching drive me up the wall.
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 it's called theories, which is a hell of a lot better then believing that there is a giant man thing floating above us that put the universe together in 7 days. Believing in childish stories like that as fact make me lose respect for all religious people.
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 & Yet! We don't need a god who puts his foot in the way of thoroughly questioning the world & creating permanent solutions for problems. Haven't you ever been moved by a movie or book about ficitonal characters? Your emotions may be real, but what you project them upon may not be. Without proof of God, this "theory" doesn't explain anything better than nature actually does if you take the time to really understand the information that is available.
@vidarmoose How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh because that's not a belief to begin with hahaha. We don't KNOW what caused it, what we do know are things like how heavier materials that life consists of amongst other things are created in the furnance of the sun. So no, it's not a belief in something we don't know, what you're talking about is perhaps the "theory" of an absolute beginning of matter that has not yet been fully understood. Read about evolution & understand it, then you wouldn't be asking these questions.
@1tabligh Science is the ONLY thing that has ever brought forth answers on how things work. READ & UNDERSTAND evolution & physics & you'll have your questions answered. But if you don't WANT to understand, then you must recognize that as your own choice & seriously consider if you're actually looking for truth or just looking to justify your god. Math is simply a human way to measure the world, saying the complexity is due to god has always put a foot in the way of progress
@1tabligh Particles are known to arrange themselves according to certain patterns, thus we have things like snowflakes & their intricate shapes, so tell me why god would bother to make each & every snowflake different? Or could it possibly be that life & material in itself is a factual wonder to behold at all times. Materials aren't ignorant by far & If that is your obviously highly qualified expert GUESS at how the world works you have a serious misunderstanding of reality.
@1tabligh & Lastly, you didn't do what i recommended before you replied again, which was to read & UNDERSTAND evolution, it is clear that you don't & we can't really have an informed conversation when you're making conclusions about subjects where your knowledge is lacking. Watch Carl Sagans cosmos here on Youtube til you understand it! Because right now, you have no interest in truth & you dishonor life by squandering your mind for a man made god.
@vidarmoose 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 Like I said, matter isn't mindless, it has no brain if that's what you mean haha, but no they shouldn't believe anything until proven. We know how things emerged from "mere" energies to forming life. It's not really that complex that it requires a god to explain it even. It seems like you're confusing the process of discerning truth through science for some "faith" or "belief", doubting the scientific method does in no way cultivate "faith", it simply means you don't grasp it
@vidarmoose Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh First: it's called dna. Secondly, there's more shit happening in the UNIVERSE that makes it very unlikely that there's a god behind ANYTHING then there are events that supposedly even support it. & Even then, HOW does it prove the guiding hand? It doesn't, you mean that it insinuates something "more complex" about particles, but particle physics IS complex in & of itself, with or without a "creator".
@1tabligh Nature doesn't care if you want there to be a god, nature is the way she is, you can choose to adhere to actual discernable truth or simply not. The latter being the definition of a mistake. Wishful thinking didn't bring you the computer, car, plane etc. Science did, & you'd do well to respect the genius who built our world & in contrast to them, question your actual position to assume the existence of a god. You'd might find that you're not qualified to make that statement
@vidarmoose 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 Wrong again, you really need to understand that just because you don't "get" the available information it somehow makes it okay dream up wild shit. The complexity OF biology lies in DNA. The only part about nature having no greater awareness is only true it seems when it comes to you, as you consist of the same energies yet reject your origin for an ignorant man made fantasy. DNA in itself carries more information than the thoughts in your brain, think about that.
@1tabligh Besides how come ALL holy books have a traceable origin back to man? All religions go back to the same roots, it was the same original idea about a god yet now they're somehow different? Learn your shit if you're seriously asking these questions because the information IS available. Or at least stop dishonoring life by squandering your life for LIES. Man once believed in witches & killed people for it, so I'd be pretty careful when believing ANYTHING superstitius he dreams up
@vidarmoose Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@1tabligh It's not logical because there is NOTHING that insinuates it other than your imagination, there is nothing in the physical world other than your imagination that you project, that doesn't make it "logical" it makes it a delusion as per definition. If anything it's a vague "theory" that has been disproved. But persists because people like you insist on having the knowledge to assume something so big without understanding why you do it. Questioning religion made all progress
@1tabligh & Unless you're actually gonna start answering my questions with viable & intelligent questions & not just keep asking the same thing "I don't understand this, it's so complex, so therefore, god made it right?". I said it earlier: You need to discern if you're actually looking for truth or just looking to justify your "god". So which is it? Are you prepared to question your god if it would make you understand these "complex" things you keep wondering about? Could if you would
@vidarmoose Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh Without actual proof of said creator it's not logical no. It's an assumption AT MOST. I'm not saying we know everything & I have no "faith" or belief but I KNOW what we've found out sofar about particles & how they arrange themselves to know that sofar, it seems there's no evidence of a god. Sure there are questions to be answered, but like I said: ALL scientific advancement was made through questioning what religion would not, throughout history! Ok?
@vidarmoose 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 That seems to be the case of nature sofar, so yes. But, if we learn more about the universe & find something that would insinuate we began somewhere else & have proof of it, the problem is that we've already found out enough to know that the type of god that you mention, does not exist & was certainly not the cause for life. Something else was, namely a combination of extraordinary energies, colliding like oceans into infinity & combining on perhaps other planets like ours
Some atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh I'm not saying we know HOW it all began, there are theories but it's certainly not going to be figured out by religious people. between "matter or god", I know I'll never believe in god but we don't know everything about matter yet, I enjoy the knowledge we have found sofar & the inventions made because of it, like this computer. How they can believe hydrogen & oxygen make the heavier elements is because it's been proven to be happening constantly in & on the sun, so yeah...
@vidarmoose Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
@vidarmoose either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
@1tabligh goodness gracious, please do READ about these subjects if you have questions. But like I said you really need to discern if you're looking for truth or simply looking to justify your belief in god. This is the end of our conversation, you will have to actually read the facts if you're serious about truth.
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 This is the difference between a religious fanatic & someone who knows what it takes to know something & the rigorous process to find out. I've only ever said that we DON'T know the cause for matter (if there is one, the evidence sofar seem to point at the idea that it's always existed in some form or other) but whether we know YET or not isn't the point, the point is just because we don't know yet it doesn't EVER constitute the right to MAKE SHIT UP in the place of knowledge
@vidarmoose 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.
@vidarmoose 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,
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence,
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
@1tabligh I attribute it to something that exists (Energy & materia), religious people attribute it to a man made idea about a god. If you're seriously saying that then it's only fair that you acknowledge what it means too. So no, they've got nothing in common, one is making up shit & the other simply looks at reality. Substituting answers with ideas like god to solve some question about the universe isn't how finding things out work, you look at reality for that
@1tabligh I don't, that's how, I acknowledge the fact that we HAVE NOT YET FIGURED IT OUT. That's what alot of top physicists are working on, but to reach the point we're at now required actual answers not found by saying "god did it", infact it NEVER did. Saying that you don't have the answer for something that humankind & all it's genius hasn't figured out yet isn't to be deluded nor duped, but arrogantly saying that you have by putting in the word "god" in place of science is.
@vidarmoose ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
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 What do you mean "answer the question", you mean about the origin of energy & matter? Well I can't, nobody CAN (yet), that's the point hahaha :P if you actually understood it yourself as well as you think you do then you'd be a leading scientist no doubt, but you're not, so you might want to consider your position since you obviously think you know more than the top physicists do about the origin of things. It's a shame you don't know what it actually takes to know something
@vidarmoose Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter 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.
@1tabligh You don't have the proof of such a god & his origin from man made scriptures that have done NOTHING to bring you the wondrous science of a computer for instance ;) Seriously though, you don't actually KNOW any of that, neither do I, because you can't prove it, nobody can & if religion persists I don't think anyone shall find the actual answer within our lifetime. Do you know the difference in finding out the answer & subsituting it with an temporary idea? It's called religion
@vidarmoose The very nature of matter 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.
@1tabligh so now suddenly we understand EVERYTHING about matter? We don't sorry, but no. Your god is nothing but a theory, & theories don't deserve "belief" no matter how "pretty" or how much they seem to explain in simplicity, if you can't test these things in undebatable proof, then you've got nothing but a thought, it might be a good thought, or it might be a bad one depending on how well it's insinuations actually aligns itself with present discernable knowledge.
@vidarmoose All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded 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.
@vidarmoose "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?
@1tabligh Well I don't think it's been proven if they're eternal in that sense. For instance, when we're alive our bodies pick up kalcium & uses it for our bone structure, when we die our bones become fozzils, they don't actually contain any useful energy, the energy has been effectively passed on by insects who devour our corpse & the deteriorating effect of rotting that separates the substances left & in some cases enrich the earth again. Do you understand any of this?
@vid...."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/...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 Right & that's what the books do & that's what the books are. I honor life, not man made fiction. I just explained how materials worked & asked if you understood what I meant by it, you didn't answer me. Meaning you neither understood the point of what I said, not the content of the message which makes me wonder why you're replying at all?
@vidarmoose The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@vidarmoose 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 yes but then you add a man made concept that is nowhere apparent in nature nor in this process of deduction. Your god is basically just a "guess", it's not deduction. Don't you see? With the process you just went through, you could place millions of different theories about how the universe began & you could make them all fit. Just becuase you believe doesn't mean that it's true, doesn't matter how plausible the concept, no proof then that's it, it's over.
@vidarmoose 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.
@vidarmoose 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 They aren't precise at all & so that is where your ability to deduct it's origin ends. Life has been caused by the collision of powerful energies, same goes for the universe, how it's done, nobody knows, but that it's done is evident all around & so that is where it ends until the next step in SCIENCE is made. You're not at a point where you can just conclude that it's god & if you think so then you are a fool & do not adhere to the methods that you constantly blabber about
@vidarmoose Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@vidarmoose The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
@1tabligh well then in that case: what caused god? Something even more advanced than us that you think surely had a more complex creator must certainly, according to that "reasoning" also have an EVEN more complex "cause". I still wasn't talking about the relationship between cause & effect, I was debating god, who is just a pitiful idea of a "cause" which doesn't explain anything but substitutes an actual answer & your conclusion of it demands practical proof of which you have none
@vidarmoose 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;
I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for polemics with your "you're the definition of a maniac."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
I thought you are very forbearing, dignified, reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk
very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain.
No wasting time!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
@1tabligh copy pasting alot? I've talked to you sensibly but you've rejected actual arguments, you've answered none of my direct & clear questions that would have settled it & saved time, instead you go off about somthing else. You have wasted your only time in life for nothing, there's a greater wonder in honoring life rather than desperate man made gods. But you'll never do that, because you can't let go of illogical bullshit even when it turns on you.
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.
@vidarmoose 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 In that case you must also ackowledge that just because there may be insinuations of a god according to you, it proves nothing. Which means there's not enough proof for you to actually warrant a believe in "him". The world does however constantly create life from simple materia, making it needless to include a god in our general theory until we can actually find evidence of him. Which we have not. They're speculations so far & you have to prove it before you can believe in it
@vidarmoose 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 Not one bit true & you know it. The proof? That we're using computers is one of many that truth can be discerned via the method of science, religion has NEVER conjured such a thing & been able to prove it. Why? Because it's a man made lie. Do you know how many scientists lived under religious regimes & how it pained them to question & eventually give up their god to find out actual truth? ALL OF THEM! Do yourself a favor & live out the rest of your life free from this lie
@vidarmoose When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
@1tabligh Still no proof, humanity doesn't even understand that much about nature yet & I assure you that it doesn't matter how smart the person is, how beautufiful the idea seems or if he's a scientist even, THERE IS NO PROOF. & No proof means they've found jack shit. The god that is mentioned in the SOURCE MATERIAL, that is your holy books, does not exist in the manner that the books describe. Science is based on the only method of discerning truth THAT EVER WORKED, not reflection.
@vidarmoose Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@1tabligh You didn't understand what I said. Treason to science would mean to: make assumptions, say they're true & go "well in this ONE case, we don't need proof". I have done no such statement or even insinuation, you have. I haven't "interpreted" materialism either, your god would have to contradict the world to be real. Stop using science as a reference, because it's clear that you don't really understand it, you get the results but not the method & there's an important difference
@vidarmoose Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh no it is based on the fact that there literally is nothing to look for that seems to be leading us even close to something that would insinuate a god. There is good reason to keep the imagination out when it has no grounds in known science or observation & can't be proved, infact it contradicts all manner of measurements like you said yourself & until something does pop up, any belief or even theory on it, at that level, has the same legitimacy as a science fiction novel.
@vidarmoose Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@1tabligh I've ONLY spoken about discernable truth that can be tested & proven. Again: Knowing what science supposedly does & HOW it actually does it are two entirely different things. The latter of which you don't grasp, proof? You wouldn't be saying these things if you did. Final analysis? Science is never concluded, we proove a small portion & carry on understanding the subject. I haven't denied anything that's proven, I have nothing to gain from disillusioning myself, unlike you
@vidarmoose Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
@vidarmoose If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
@1tabligh Already answered this several times: No such organism or living conciousness exists, it hasn't been observed, EVER. If you're talking about particles, sure, that's how they work, but I don't get how this has to have anything to do with your god? The particles & dna that created life is still in us, & so if it was a god who created us then he would be inside us, he's not. Everything human can be traced & deducted as chemistry, 300 millions of years of incredible chemistry
@vidarmoose Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
@1tabligh I know... so what's your point? As for the "necessary" attributes for life, we can't know what they are, we have hints & partial information but if we actually knew so much as to determine what is necessary for life would mean that we could recreate the process, which we can't. Proving we don't have enough information to make such a statement.
@vidarmoose Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
@1tabligh too bad everything IS MATTER. So no, we're not free, not in the least. We're an intricate composition thereof, of which there are many forms. Now stop using science as an example to explain something you can't, because your god & religion oppressed the same sciences you claim for thousands of years, you ought to be ashamed if you need them to explain your belief that oppressed them & their advancement in the first place
@vid...All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
@1tabligh Wrong. Science is a simple method: After obsvering & questioning something like apples falling from trees they guess at what could be the cause, the next step is figuring out how such a cause would look like/work & what it would imply if it did, lastly they experiment to see if it's discernable. & So! God isn't necessary for the initial guess & the insinuations of a god does not ring true to what happens around us ALL THE TIME & lastly there's no way to test it etc. = No God
@vidarmoose Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
@1tabligh uhm... yeah... I know, but whether we know the cause however is a completely different matter. I never said something didn't have a cause, I sinply said that there is nothing that insinuates a god, never was, never will be & in terms of the source of life & origin of the universe, there's already tons of problems with the idea of god at STEP 1. Which means, it's not a worthwhile idea to give into no matter how much time you fooled yourself to spend on it in your only life.
@vidarmoose Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to *non-existence*, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator *stops* working, all the bright lamps connected to it *fall* dark. It is for this reason that *cause and effect*, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed *nothing* would remain but darkness and non-being.
@1tabligh You already said that & if you had an ounce of deductive abilities you would have realized by now that I'm not estranged to the subject.
I already replied to this several times, will you use your head this time or echo your drivel once again? Whether humanity KNOWS the cause, through the ONLY method we know ANYTHING that has had practical, discernable consequence aka. science is a different thing than "making up god" "wanting to believe" & "indoctrinating according to a lie"
@vidarmoose No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world *until* a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is *free* from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being.
@vidarmoose But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of *neediness* continues under all circumstances. They are *never* free of need for a cause; it is *impossible* that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant *without* relying on a cause.
@1tabligh I know already, you don't actually get what I'm saying are you? Cause & Effect are basic, get over it, I'm saying that just because you don't get the cause, doesn't mean it's god. Take a look at history & name ONE scientific advancement that wasn't considered by ALL god religions to be the work of God. But then a funny thing happened y'see, THEY WERE ALL PROVED WRONG. It took them a couple of hundred years to realize it however, just like with evolution & religion right now.
@vidarmoose All phenomena—*all contingent* beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e., the *Necessary* Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being.
@1tabligh this is why I told you to not use scientific examples, because once again you suddenly only needed science & it's method to describe everything else but that one thing that A BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN tells you otherwise. Where does the process of logic & reasoning go into that? Nowhere. It has no more validity than any of the books of fiction that came before or after it with the same ideas. You were "told" it's right, & that is per definition NOT LOGIC, NOT REASON & NOT SCIENCE!
@vidarmoose We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
@1tabligh What does that even mean? You aren't making sense. This is not a useful process of deduction, because you already think you have the answer before you've done the work necessary to know it, it's called lying & fooling yourself, there are no other words for what you're doing. Concious beings have TONS of defects & limitations, your way of thinking is a great example of just that.
@vidarmoose The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause.
@vidarmoose The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause.
But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in which the law of causality operates.
@1tabligh Already been through this. Nothing in nature or the known observable UNIVERSE has such properties. No consciousness could ever exist without the base properties that all conscious life have incommon: cells & their Dna that is developed through evolution. Such a being would have neither & thus would be incapable of a concience obviously needed to "create" anything in the sense that you suggest. & So right from the start, there's no need to dig further, there's no god.
@vidarmoose If a being, by virtue of the perfection and freedom from need of its essence, stands in no need of a cause, it follows that no cause has fixed it at a given degree of being and that no cause can intervene in it.
@1tabligh nope we've already gone through it all, there's nothing left. If you want answers to the same questions over & over but reject to actually think them over, then you will have to read what I've already said. I've already answered everything you had, you've been repeating yourself for a while now so there's no point for me to continue. Answer me this though: What is it that makes you think you can't live without god? & What do you think god gives you that is so important?
@vidarmoose The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause.
The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
@1tabligh What is it that your god gives you, that you think you couldn't get without him? Say there was no god, for just a moment, & consider what is it that you can't do if there's no god? Exist? I understand how I exist WITHOUT a god, infact it's been proven, your theory about god is the only theory about the universe that has NO proof. do you understand what that means? For once, just answer my question instead of avoiding it would you
@vidarmoose The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence.
@1t Humans haven't figured out what causes particles & life, which leaves you with just a theory & a blindingly obvious fact that you don't even understand that much since you're trying to use theory for proof. I won't reply anymore now, you've wasted both our time with no will to discern truth. There is nothing after death & one day you'll find out, except you won't have a brain to know you're gone, not that you needed it in life since you squandered every bit of common sense & reason
@vidarmoose 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 A: because there's nothing to insinuate it & B: because it happens all the time inside & outside of our own damn bodies. Go figure it out genius, or keep making shit up
@vidarmoose We live in a world where all things are exposed to change and destruction; there is the mark of impermanence, subjection and indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven.
@1tabligh use some reason and look up the definition of a scientific 'theory', next step look into the process of the scientific method, you assume that progress in science has stagnated to what you yourself have learnt and consumed in the media. It a dynamic process and you can be expect to be put to task if you try to oversimplify it with erroneous claims.
@vidarmoose "He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise." Quran (35:15)
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.
@vidarmoose He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
@1tabligh If god is the source of all life, then how come he has completely different natural laws? If he's the cause to the complexity of life, then why does he have nothing in common with the complexity of life? Because that's the only part you managed to prove: your theory being completely contradictory
@vidarmoose From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving a
OMG, these cretins are leading politicians in Australia - no wonder we're so screwed...
chebizarro 4 days ago
Richard, you are right on. Some people are just plain dumb, and need to be told.
lfresearch 4 days ago
Since "God" is omnipotent and all knowing, when he sent himself to Earth to be tortured and killed, he would have known that he would be resurrected in 3 days. So how is it a sacrifice if he knew that he would come back from the dead only 3 days later.
AtheismForTheFuture 5 days ago
none of it happend so i dont give a shit.
tribesclan545 6 days ago 2
Beliefs don't deserve respect if you can't substantiate them. Dumb fucking Christians.
Megabob10 6 days ago
That guy at the end disgusts me.
ChainsawVsGod 6 days ago 2
He says bad things about Thinktanks that murdered people for thousands of years, that jerk!
resincoatedlungs 1 week ago
Pressed rewind and there was no ridiculing of anything, there was merely considered opinion. The element of ridicule came from the fact that the story itself is ridiculous but Richard dealt with it with as much respect as it warranted. People would rather turn a debate into a quarrel over who said what and how than actually present a reasonable opposing argument... because there is no reasonable opposing argument.
TheSoulOfMisterE 1 week ago
@TheSoulOfMisterE Exactly.
smartbluecat 1 week ago
@smartbluecat And who ever said that a debate should be pleasant? =)
TheSoulOfMisterE 1 week ago
@icarus313 thank you for that statement....I am in total agreement with you and so is any other rational person
EddieRHS 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins is a militant bastard and would make a perfect new Hitler. This is totally stupid. One can not prove that God is real or that he is not. Therefore why be obsessed with such thing when one can accept new ways through inner light. I do not like atheistic and theistic militants. From history, militants only made more suffering.
teslic100 3 weeks ago
@teslic100 And Godwin's Law still holds true.
ulf5 3 weeks ago
Dawkins: "What kind of a horrible depraved notion is that?!"
So, in a way, I can see why people got angry with him. Nobody likes their treasured beliefs to be described that way. However, if we decided that pointing out the horror and depravity found in religious doctrine is disrespectful, then it means we can't even be honest with ourselves. If something horrible is in the bible, we must say so! Respect is good, but not if it forces us to deny what's right in front of us.
icarus313 1 month ago in playlist More videos from nonameisacat 2
If you want respect, you have to earn it. Spouting bullshit doesn't cut it.
TomFynn 1 month ago
I can't listen to Tony Burke without cringing.. By the way I just "pressed rewind" and there was nothing dis-respectful about what dawkins said. He WAS merely stating it.
TheExCrisis 1 month ago
Tony Burke is a snotty twerp.
papersplease 1 month ago
I guess things got a bit too real for the other morons in the panel.
OutragedPanda 1 month ago in playlist More videos from nonameisacat
They seem to be confused about the definition of respect. There is no reason Dawkins should show respect to beliefs which he finds patently absurd. He should probably tolerate them, and he does, but there is no reason to give them any more respect than they deserve. Some say he is strident. I really don't see it. He is very measured and polite, but he is critical, and incisively so. Such claims about him lacking respect or being strident are silencing tactics.
fueledbymadness 1 month ago 25
What the fuck is it with all these respect demanding nutters? Hey, I believe there's a magic pink flying invisible unicorn that created the world, RESPECT MY BELIEF! Wtf man srsly
mimikawaii7386 1 month ago 18
@mimikawaii7386 And these people are Australian politicians. It makes me feel embarrassed to be Australian, who put these idiots in power...
KokoaShuzen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins gets powned again lololol
alpha2470 1 month ago
Dawkins gets powned again lololol
alpha2470 1 month ago
Respect?
Why respect such ridiculous views?
Ridicule them.
Yahweigh 1 month ago
ok so god couldnt just forgive us since it was his fuck up that caused us to sin. Why send jesus as a sacrifice what good does that do god has the power to forgive it makes no sense. "god works in mysterious ways" no he works in a retared ilogical way that is the problem with the bible it jusr makes no sense.
alexanderhulse 1 month ago
Happy Saturnailia, everyone!
EarlofCrawford 2 months ago
they just got owned
arkonastriborg123 2 months ago
What Dawkins doesn't see is the symbolism in Jesus. He gave up his ego, met the pain that it involves, died (representing death of the ego), and then was reborn as something more then a human. My statement here is supported by the other things Jesus said in the Bible, such as turn the other cheek, the one without sin throws the first stone, a good Christian gives excessive riches to people who needs more it and so fourth. But at the same time I think many Christians will miss this as well.
Korvmannen 2 months ago
@Korvmannen What if there's actually a discernable way to permanently solve problems without god? Which there is. But even moreso, what if religion & similar ways of thinking stand in the way for such a thorough questioning of the world that could have created such solutions? Which it also does. Religion may cultivate good spirits in some, but it certainly does not effectively cultivate goodness in all. If you need a god to explain nature you simply don't understand nature very well
vidarmoose 2 months ago
The guy wanting to oppose to Dawkins really thinks he's clevering him out. Which is quite funny.
TheDigitalStone 2 months ago
Julie Bishop respects my view. Well Julie your'e as a dumb as a rock!
genesarereal 2 months ago
Comment removed
genesarereal 2 months ago
Dawkins is an arrogant prick who just does not understand what christian faith and belief is all about. He has made a career and a lot of money of ridiculing and humiliating religion and the many millions of people all over the world who not only (like myself) fervently believe in God, but also the many people who have dedicated their lives to his service. He is not as clever as he thinks he is.
johnnyM809 2 months ago
truth hurts doesn't it
ascott2112 2 months ago
Its being respectfull of diffrent views which has led to so much death in the World.
dilwich123 2 months ago
The panel is a bad representation of Australia, Having went to a Catholic high school I have seen first hand the staggering ammount of atheists of today. Easily over 80% of the school was agnostic, and well over 50% atheist.
nevets7921 2 months ago
what are they talking about. How can people respect other peoples views of imaginary figures giving passes out to an afterlife paradise as long as they follow what's written in this book filled with bedtime stories. I can't respect that, its silly. I can't stand the deluded followers of gods, their blind faith and mindless preaching drive me up the wall.
brucewillis2 2 months ago
@brucewillis2 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh it's called theories, which is a hell of a lot better then believing that there is a giant man thing floating above us that put the universe together in 7 days. Believing in childish stories like that as fact make me lose respect for all religious people.
brucewillis2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brucewillis2 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh & Yet! We don't need a god who puts his foot in the way of thoroughly questioning the world & creating permanent solutions for problems. Haven't you ever been moved by a movie or book about ficitonal characters? Your emotions may be real, but what you project them upon may not be. Without proof of God, this "theory" doesn't explain anything better than nature actually does if you take the time to really understand the information that is available.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh because that's not a belief to begin with hahaha. We don't KNOW what caused it, what we do know are things like how heavier materials that life consists of amongst other things are created in the furnance of the sun. So no, it's not a belief in something we don't know, what you're talking about is perhaps the "theory" of an absolute beginning of matter that has not yet been fully understood. Read about evolution & understand it, then you wouldn't be asking these questions.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Science is the ONLY thing that has ever brought forth answers on how things work. READ & UNDERSTAND evolution & physics & you'll have your questions answered. But if you don't WANT to understand, then you must recognize that as your own choice & seriously consider if you're actually looking for truth or just looking to justify your god. Math is simply a human way to measure the world, saying the complexity is due to god has always put a foot in the way of progress
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@1tabligh Particles are known to arrange themselves according to certain patterns, thus we have things like snowflakes & their intricate shapes, so tell me why god would bother to make each & every snowflake different? Or could it possibly be that life & material in itself is a factual wonder to behold at all times. Materials aren't ignorant by far & If that is your obviously highly qualified expert GUESS at how the world works you have a serious misunderstanding of reality.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@1tabligh & Lastly, you didn't do what i recommended before you replied again, which was to read & UNDERSTAND evolution, it is clear that you don't & we can't really have an informed conversation when you're making conclusions about subjects where your knowledge is lacking. Watch Carl Sagans cosmos here on Youtube til you understand it! Because right now, you have no interest in truth & you dishonor life by squandering your mind for a man made god.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh Like I said, matter isn't mindless, it has no brain if that's what you mean haha, but no they shouldn't believe anything until proven. We know how things emerged from "mere" energies to forming life. It's not really that complex that it requires a god to explain it even. It seems like you're confusing the process of discerning truth through science for some "faith" or "belief", doubting the scientific method does in no way cultivate "faith", it simply means you don't grasp it
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh First: it's called dna. Secondly, there's more shit happening in the UNIVERSE that makes it very unlikely that there's a god behind ANYTHING then there are events that supposedly even support it. & Even then, HOW does it prove the guiding hand? It doesn't, you mean that it insinuates something "more complex" about particles, but particle physics IS complex in & of itself, with or without a "creator".
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@1tabligh Nature doesn't care if you want there to be a god, nature is the way she is, you can choose to adhere to actual discernable truth or simply not. The latter being the definition of a mistake. Wishful thinking didn't bring you the computer, car, plane etc. Science did, & you'd do well to respect the genius who built our world & in contrast to them, question your actual position to assume the existence of a god. You'd might find that you're not qualified to make that statement
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh Wrong again, you really need to understand that just because you don't "get" the available information it somehow makes it okay dream up wild shit. The complexity OF biology lies in DNA. The only part about nature having no greater awareness is only true it seems when it comes to you, as you consist of the same energies yet reject your origin for an ignorant man made fantasy. DNA in itself carries more information than the thoughts in your brain, think about that.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@1tabligh Besides how come ALL holy books have a traceable origin back to man? All religions go back to the same roots, it was the same original idea about a god yet now they're somehow different? Learn your shit if you're seriously asking these questions because the information IS available. Or at least stop dishonoring life by squandering your life for LIES. Man once believed in witches & killed people for it, so I'd be pretty careful when believing ANYTHING superstitius he dreams up
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh It's not logical because there is NOTHING that insinuates it other than your imagination, there is nothing in the physical world other than your imagination that you project, that doesn't make it "logical" it makes it a delusion as per definition. If anything it's a vague "theory" that has been disproved. But persists because people like you insist on having the knowledge to assume something so big without understanding why you do it. Questioning religion made all progress
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@1tabligh & Unless you're actually gonna start answering my questions with viable & intelligent questions & not just keep asking the same thing "I don't understand this, it's so complex, so therefore, god made it right?". I said it earlier: You need to discern if you're actually looking for truth or just looking to justify your "god". So which is it? Are you prepared to question your god if it would make you understand these "complex" things you keep wondering about? Could if you would
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Without actual proof of said creator it's not logical no. It's an assumption AT MOST. I'm not saying we know everything & I have no "faith" or belief but I KNOW what we've found out sofar about particles & how they arrange themselves to know that sofar, it seems there's no evidence of a god. Sure there are questions to be answered, but like I said: ALL scientific advancement was made through questioning what religion would not, throughout history! Ok?
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh That seems to be the case of nature sofar, so yes. But, if we learn more about the universe & find something that would insinuate we began somewhere else & have proof of it, the problem is that we've already found out enough to know that the type of god that you mention, does not exist & was certainly not the cause for life. Something else was, namely a combination of extraordinary energies, colliding like oceans into infinity & combining on perhaps other planets like ours
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I'm not saying we know HOW it all began, there are theories but it's certainly not going to be figured out by religious people. between "matter or god", I know I'll never believe in god but we don't know everything about matter yet, I enjoy the knowledge we have found sofar & the inventions made because of it, like this computer. How they can believe hydrogen & oxygen make the heavier elements is because it's been proven to be happening constantly in & on the sun, so yeah...
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection—
1tabligh 2 months ago
@vidarmoose either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh goodness gracious, please do READ about these subjects if you have questions. But like I said you really need to discern if you're looking for truth or simply looking to justify your belief in god. This is the end of our conversation, you will have to actually read the facts if you're serious about truth.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh This is the difference between a religious fanatic & someone who knows what it takes to know something & the rigorous process to find out. I've only ever said that we DON'T know the cause for matter (if there is one, the evidence sofar seem to point at the idea that it's always existed in some form or other) but whether we know YET or not isn't the point, the point is just because we don't know yet it doesn't EVER constitute the right to MAKE SHIT UP in the place of knowledge
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh your point?
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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,
1tabligh 2 months ago
without any need for a creator.
In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence,
1tabligh 2 months ago
perception, nor the power of decision.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I attribute it to something that exists (Energy & materia), religious people attribute it to a man made idea about a god. If you're seriously saying that then it's only fair that you acknowledge what it means too. So no, they've got nothing in common, one is making up shit & the other simply looks at reality. Substituting answers with ideas like god to solve some question about the universe isn't how finding things out work, you look at reality for that
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I don't, that's how, I acknowledge the fact that we HAVE NOT YET FIGURED IT OUT. That's what alot of top physicists are working on, but to reach the point we're at now required actual answers not found by saying "god did it", infact it NEVER did. Saying that you don't have the answer for something that humankind & all it's genius hasn't figured out yet isn't to be deluded nor duped, but arrogantly saying that you have by putting in the word "god" in place of science is.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
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 2 months ago
@1tabligh What do you mean "answer the question", you mean about the origin of energy & matter? Well I can't, nobody CAN (yet), that's the point hahaha :P if you actually understood it yourself as well as you think you do then you'd be a leading scientist no doubt, but you're not, so you might want to consider your position since you obviously think you know more than the top physicists do about the origin of things. It's a shame you don't know what it actually takes to know something
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter 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.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You don't have the proof of such a god & his origin from man made scriptures that have done NOTHING to bring you the wondrous science of a computer for instance ;) Seriously though, you don't actually KNOW any of that, neither do I, because you can't prove it, nobody can & if religion persists I don't think anyone shall find the actual answer within our lifetime. Do you know the difference in finding out the answer & subsituting it with an temporary idea? It's called religion
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose The very nature of matter 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.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh so now suddenly we understand EVERYTHING about matter? We don't sorry, but no. Your god is nothing but a theory, & theories don't deserve "belief" no matter how "pretty" or how much they seem to explain in simplicity, if you can't test these things in undebatable proof, then you've got nothing but a thought, it might be a good thought, or it might be a bad one depending on how well it's insinuations actually aligns itself with present discernable knowledge.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded 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 2 months ago
@vidarmoose "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?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Well I don't think it's been proven if they're eternal in that sense. For instance, when we're alive our bodies pick up kalcium & uses it for our bone structure, when we die our bones become fozzils, they don't actually contain any useful energy, the energy has been effectively passed on by insects who devour our corpse & the deteriorating effect of rotting that separates the substances left & in some cases enrich the earth again. Do you understand any of this?
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vid...."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/...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 2 months ago
@1tabligh Right & that's what the books do & that's what the books are. I honor life, not man made fiction. I just explained how materials worked & asked if you understood what I meant by it, you didn't answer me. Meaning you neither understood the point of what I said, not the content of the message which makes me wonder why you're replying at all?
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh yea... now you're just raving like a lunatic. Answer the question
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh yes but then you add a man made concept that is nowhere apparent in nature nor in this process of deduction. Your god is basically just a "guess", it's not deduction. Don't you see? With the process you just went through, you could place millions of different theories about how the universe began & you could make them all fit. Just becuase you believe doesn't mean that it's true, doesn't matter how plausible the concept, no proof then that's it, it's over.
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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 2 months ago
@vidarmoose 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh They aren't precise at all & so that is where your ability to deduct it's origin ends. Life has been caused by the collision of powerful energies, same goes for the universe, how it's done, nobody knows, but that it's done is evident all around & so that is where it ends until the next step in SCIENCE is made. You're not at a point where you can just conclude that it's god & if you think so then you are a fool & do not adhere to the methods that you constantly blabber about
vidarmoose 2 months ago
@vidarmoose Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@vidarmoose The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh well then in that case: what caused god? Something even more advanced than us that you think surely had a more complex creator must certainly, according to that "reasoning" also have an EVEN more complex "cause". I still wasn't talking about the relationship between cause & effect, I was debating god, who is just a pitiful idea of a "cause" which doesn't explain anything but substitutes an actual answer & your conclusion of it demands practical proof of which you have none
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh HAHAHAHAHAHAHA BULLSHIT! If you're going to suddenly defy the law you YOURSELF states as undefiable then you're the definition of a maniac.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose you're the definition of a maniac.
___
The argument of an IGNORANT!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance under your stupid pretext of "
you're the definition of a maniac."!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
1tabligh 1 month ago
You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 13390 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!
The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 month ago
I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for polemics with your "you're the definition of a maniac."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
I thought you are very forbearing, dignified, reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk
1tabligh 1 month ago
very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain.
No wasting time!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh copy pasting alot? I've talked to you sensibly but you've rejected actual arguments, you've answered none of my direct & clear questions that would have settled it & saved time, instead you go off about somthing else. You have wasted your only time in life for nothing, there's a greater wonder in honoring life rather than desperate man made gods. But you'll never do that, because you can't let go of illogical bullshit even when it turns on you.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose
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 1 month ago
@vidarmoose 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh In that case you must also ackowledge that just because there may be insinuations of a god according to you, it proves nothing. Which means there's not enough proof for you to actually warrant a believe in "him". The world does however constantly create life from simple materia, making it needless to include a god in our general theory until we can actually find evidence of him. Which we have not. They're speculations so far & you have to prove it before you can believe in it
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Not one bit true & you know it. The proof? That we're using computers is one of many that truth can be discerned via the method of science, religion has NEVER conjured such a thing & been able to prove it. Why? Because it's a man made lie. Do you know how many scientists lived under religious regimes & how it pained them to question & eventually give up their god to find out actual truth? ALL OF THEM! Do yourself a favor & live out the rest of your life free from this lie
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Still no proof, humanity doesn't even understand that much about nature yet & I assure you that it doesn't matter how smart the person is, how beautufiful the idea seems or if he's a scientist even, THERE IS NO PROOF. & No proof means they've found jack shit. The god that is mentioned in the SOURCE MATERIAL, that is your holy books, does not exist in the manner that the books describe. Science is based on the only method of discerning truth THAT EVER WORKED, not reflection.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You didn't understand what I said. Treason to science would mean to: make assumptions, say they're true & go "well in this ONE case, we don't need proof". I have done no such statement or even insinuation, you have. I haven't "interpreted" materialism either, your god would have to contradict the world to be real. Stop using science as a reference, because it's clear that you don't really understand it, you get the results but not the method & there's an important difference
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no it is based on the fact that there literally is nothing to look for that seems to be leading us even close to something that would insinuate a god. There is good reason to keep the imagination out when it has no grounds in known science or observation & can't be proved, infact it contradicts all manner of measurements like you said yourself & until something does pop up, any belief or even theory on it, at that level, has the same legitimacy as a science fiction novel.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I've ONLY spoken about discernable truth that can be tested & proven. Again: Knowing what science supposedly does & HOW it actually does it are two entirely different things. The latter of which you don't grasp, proof? You wouldn't be saying these things if you did. Final analysis? Science is never concluded, we proove a small portion & carry on understanding the subject. I haven't denied anything that's proven, I have nothing to gain from disillusioning myself, unlike you
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh what are you talking about?
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Already answered this several times: No such organism or living conciousness exists, it hasn't been observed, EVER. If you're talking about particles, sure, that's how they work, but I don't get how this has to have anything to do with your god? The particles & dna that created life is still in us, & so if it was a god who created us then he would be inside us, he's not. Everything human can be traced & deducted as chemistry, 300 millions of years of incredible chemistry
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I know... so what's your point? As for the "necessary" attributes for life, we can't know what they are, we have hints & partial information but if we actually knew so much as to determine what is necessary for life would mean that we could recreate the process, which we can't. Proving we don't have enough information to make such a statement.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is *free* of all such properties.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh too bad everything IS MATTER. So no, we're not free, not in the least. We're an intricate composition thereof, of which there are many forms. Now stop using science as an example to explain something you can't, because your god & religion oppressed the same sciences you claim for thousands of years, you ought to be ashamed if you need them to explain your belief that oppressed them & their advancement in the first place
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vid...All the phenomena that once did *not* exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a *cause* that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an *external* factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Wrong. Science is a simple method: After obsvering & questioning something like apples falling from trees they guess at what could be the cause, the next step is figuring out how such a cause would look like/work & what it would imply if it did, lastly they experiment to see if it's discernable. & So! God isn't necessary for the initial guess & the insinuations of a god does not ring true to what happens around us ALL THE TIME & lastly there's no way to test it etc. = No God
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause *never* loses its essential neediness; it will *always* remain a being characterized by *need*. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will *never* be severed for an instant.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh uhm... yeah... I know, but whether we know the cause however is a completely different matter. I never said something didn't have a cause, I sinply said that there is nothing that insinuates a god, never was, never will be & in terms of the source of life & origin of the universe, there's already tons of problems with the idea of god at STEP 1. Which means, it's not a worthwhile idea to give into no matter how much time you fooled yourself to spend on it in your only life.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to *non-existence*, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator *stops* working, all the bright lamps connected to it *fall* dark. It is for this reason that *cause and effect*, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed *nothing* would remain but darkness and non-being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You already said that & if you had an ounce of deductive abilities you would have realized by now that I'm not estranged to the subject.
I already replied to this several times, will you use your head this time or echo your drivel once again? Whether humanity KNOWS the cause, through the ONLY method we know ANYTHING that has had practical, discernable consequence aka. science is a different thing than "making up god" "wanting to believe" & "indoctrinating according to a lie"
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world *until* a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is *free* from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@vidarmoose But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of *neediness* continues under all circumstances. They are *never* free of need for a cause; it is *impossible* that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant *without* relying on a cause.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I know already, you don't actually get what I'm saying are you? Cause & Effect are basic, get over it, I'm saying that just because you don't get the cause, doesn't mean it's god. Take a look at history & name ONE scientific advancement that wasn't considered by ALL god religions to be the work of God. But then a funny thing happened y'see, THEY WERE ALL PROVED WRONG. It took them a couple of hundred years to realize it however, just like with evolution & religion right now.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose All phenomena—*all contingent* beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e., the *Necessary* Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh this is why I told you to not use scientific examples, because once again you suddenly only needed science & it's method to describe everything else but that one thing that A BOOK, WRITTEN BY MEN tells you otherwise. Where does the process of logic & reasoning go into that? Nowhere. It has no more validity than any of the books of fiction that came before or after it with the same ideas. You were "told" it's right, & that is per definition NOT LOGIC, NOT REASON & NOT SCIENCE!
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh What does that even mean? You aren't making sense. This is not a useful process of deduction, because you already think you have the answer before you've done the work necessary to know it, it's called lying & fooling yourself, there are no other words for what you're doing. Concious beings have TONS of defects & limitations, your way of thinking is a great example of just that.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@vidarmoose The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause.
But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in which the law of causality operates.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Already been through this. Nothing in nature or the known observable UNIVERSE has such properties. No consciousness could ever exist without the base properties that all conscious life have incommon: cells & their Dna that is developed through evolution. Such a being would have neither & thus would be incapable of a concience obviously needed to "create" anything in the sense that you suggest. & So right from the start, there's no need to dig further, there's no god.
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose If a being, by virtue of the perfection and freedom from need of its essence, stands in no need of a cause, it follows that no cause has fixed it at a given degree of being and that no cause can intervene in it.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh nope we've already gone through it all, there's nothing left. If you want answers to the same questions over & over but reject to actually think them over, then you will have to read what I've already said. I've already answered everything you had, you've been repeating yourself for a while now so there's no point for me to continue. Answer me this though: What is it that makes you think you can't live without god? & What do you think god gives you that is so important?
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause.
The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh What is it that your god gives you, that you think you couldn't get without him? Say there was no god, for just a moment, & consider what is it that you can't do if there's no god? Exist? I understand how I exist WITHOUT a god, infact it's been proven, your theory about god is the only theory about the universe that has NO proof. do you understand what that means? For once, just answer my question instead of avoiding it would you
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1t Humans haven't figured out what causes particles & life, which leaves you with just a theory & a blindingly obvious fact that you don't even understand that much since you're trying to use theory for proof. I won't reply anymore now, you've wasted both our time with no will to discern truth. There is nothing after death & one day you'll find out, except you won't have a brain to know you're gone, not that you needed it in life since you squandered every bit of common sense & reason
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose 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 1 month ago
@1tabligh A: because there's nothing to insinuate it & B: because it happens all the time inside & outside of our own damn bodies. Go figure it out genius, or keep making shit up
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose We live in a world where all things are exposed to change and destruction; there is the mark of impermanence, subjection and indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Comment removed
vgrasomni 1 month ago
Comment removed
vgrasomni 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh use some reason and look up the definition of a scientific 'theory', next step look into the process of the scientific method, you assume that progress in science has stagnated to what you yourself have learnt and consumed in the media. It a dynamic process and you can be expect to be put to task if you try to oversimplify it with erroneous claims.
vgrasomni 1 month ago
@vidarmoose "He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise." Quran (35:15)
1tabligh 1 month ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@vidarmoose He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh If god is the source of all life, then how come he has completely different natural laws? If he's the cause to the complexity of life, then why does he have nothing in common with the complexity of life? Because that's the only part you managed to prove: your theory being completely contradictory
vidarmoose 1 month ago
@vidarmoose From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving a