That caller is such a typical religious idiot. You can tell he feels intimidated by evolution because he has to say its "quite clearly wrong", it sounds like he is intimidated by the fact that his whole belief system is bullshit.
ARE YOU OUT OF YER FREAKING MIND!? ---- Can't wait for evolution to deselect on people that write things like that you just did. Hope it does, sincerely, I can only hope people like you is not our females first choise and the only way for you to procreate is either thru rape or being a sperm donor.
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
I have received a request to cease replying to 1tabligh.
The request suggested that our discussion had reached the point of gross spam of the video to the disruption of all other commentary, and that 1tabligh was a "pig-blooded savage who wouldn't know science if it flew a plane into the Kabaa."
While I disagree with the tone, I think I had best respect the sentiment. I apologize for spamming up your commenting space. I should have known better than to try reasoning with a copy-paste bot.
FOX News is a tabloid. My psychotic sister off her meds is more fair and balanced than Faux News. At least she actually sees the things she says are happening.
you know what cause the extinctions of animals ?by refusing to adapt and evolve ,thats where we are going to if you stay with religious belief cause it is making you rigide in your thaught and refuse to evolve so it is gonna kill you as a speacies
Religious beliefs wreck everything...besides who created the creator then who created that creator etc...it's like looking in a mirrors mirror reflection it goes to infinity..this is why creationism is a fairy tail....we evolved through natural selection without a creator!!!
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies. ...
@rkyeun 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?
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?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
> 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?
It can't, and nobody reasonable would suggest it should. Obviously a purposeful, wise, and all-knowing god wouldn't have made this many mistakes. We could believe that matter's ability to combine into more complex forms as a result of well-understood chemical processes could be an incompetent god.
@rkyeun 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?
@rkyeun 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. ...
@rkyeun is merely a guess, which does not correspond with reality when tested.
______
"tested"
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. ....
Right. He denies the thing only when its existence would contradict what IS observed through the testing, and supposes no reason to believe in anything else until it can explain what is observed. A belief in god fails in every instance where it makes claims about the universe, and explains nothing that is observed instead of its false claims.
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.*
Of course we do not need to rely only on our innate senses, which are fallible and do not give us accurate measurements of the world around us. We verify with tools we have constructed to be more precise and accurate than we can be, with greater reach and scope and breadth. However if something never manifests, and as religious people claim never can manifest, it is exactly equal to nonexistence. Either god must eventually show up on our telescopes, or be forever banished from reality.
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *measure* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *measure* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to ...
When your religion makes a claim about the physical nature of the universe which is wrong, your religion is wrong. When your religion claims that the part of your religion that is wrong about the physical nature of the universe is the work of a god that is always correct, your god does not exist.
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. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
I do apologize, I thought better of that argument and deleted my post while you were responding to it. I suggest you also delete the comment which had replied to it.
@rkyeun No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy. ...
Wow. I can't even type captcha's faster than you can spam eight pages of bullshit. How about you slow down a bit and let me rebut the first point you make before you go on to make many more? How about you admit when I've refuted you, and stop jumping from topic to topic trying to avoid it. These are standard tactics you're using, straight from the creationist playbook.
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? ....
When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
How is that for YOUR "shouting wrong answers" and answer instead?
@rkyeun No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
The answer was no. I answered it. I did not dodge the question. I did not quibble. The answer is no. That is not the theory promoted by science. All things are made of matter, but matter is not the creator. Indeed, it appears there is no creator. Matter is not the creator of all things.
Matter is primarily the result of high energy density in the time very near the big bang. Under such conditions, leptons and quarks condense from the energy as steam condenses into water on a pane of glass. This has been verified by experiment in numerous high-energy tests and precisely matches the predictions of particle formation generated by the big bang theory's model of the early universe.
@rkyeun Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
Y̲e̲s̲. I am both descended from a primate ancestor and more recently a human ancestor.
I have taken to underlining my answers so you cannot say I have dodged the question.
Y̲e̲s̲. I understand English distinctly. I question if you do.
I have not dodged. I have directly answered and refuted you. I apologize that your religion is not congruent with reality and appears to cause you suffering.
N̲o̲, matter is not the creator. I have explained this clearly, and told you its origin as well.
We have made matter from energy. Cyclotrons produce both matter and antimatter from energy on a daily basis in labs all around the world. It's not even very expensive to run or build compared to some other tools. Do you live in the third-world portions of the middle east, where this might be new unknown technology?
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, ...
Oh no, and you were doing so well! You'd almost gotten the hang of this whole discussion thing. Please don't go off on another four page rant after asking a simple question in the first one that you've asked me to answer.
You've asked where energy comes from. Hold onto your pants, because we know the answer.
N̲o̲. It didn't come from anywhere. It always was. One of the rules of our universe is that while matter and energy, and perhaps even space and time itself, are interchangeable, energy in whatever form cannot be created or destroyed. That means your god can't make any, and when your religion claims he did, your god doesn't exist.
@rkyeun energy in whatever form cannot be created or destroyed.
_______
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that energy/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. ...
@rkyeun This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal energy/matter and that being arises from within the very nature of energy/matter, without any need for a creator.
In just the same way that the deluded atheists regard energy/matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: ...
both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being. ...
Moreover, energy/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 energy/matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. ...
they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
How is that for YOUR "third-world portions of the middle east"?
When and if rational deductions ever do point to a creator, we'll accept it. You however will still be shouting wrong answers about the god you already imagined, even when the actual god shows up to tell you otherwise.
The heart is an organ which pumps blood. It does not think or experience emotion, and does not process information about the universe. The conscience is a trait inherent in all social animals from ants to wolves to humans. It provides an instinctual reaction to other members of the species which form the basis of social interaction, allowing the species to act in a collective fashion.
Neither of those are pseudo-scientific, but ascribing supernatural properties to them is.
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but energy/matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheists, who believe that energy/matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of energy/matter ?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Eternity means no such thing. It means infinite time. No requirement for stability or immutability is made. Essence is not a technical term. You are attempting to poetically confound your language to dilute your point.
Physics justifies the eternity of matter and energy with observation and experimentation. The behavior of energy is not subject to your whim, not modified by your ignorance.
No matter how many times you copy and paste your "catchphrase", it will remain a wrong answer.
@rkyeun Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by energy/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 energy/matter. ...
The very nature of energy/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.
@rkyeun Physics justifies the eternity of matter and energy with observation and experimentation.
_________
Absolutely nonsense!
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat...
That's because he doesn't take the time to understand. You see, 1tabligh is a copypaster. He doesn't actually know what he's saying, let alone give it some thought, let alone give YOUR comments some thought. He just copypastes everything from pro-islam websites. My advice? Ignore him. It's useless.
Not all verbs are appropriate to all objects. You can't listen to the color blue. You can't feed a rock. You can't pet music.
And you can't debate a religious fundamentalist.
However there are those reading who may be "on the fence" so to speak, and seeing the inanity of one side and the response from the other may lead them to choose rational thought over psychotic delusion.
I realize the upside to that, but 1tabligh is not the proper person to use like a tool for that, especially because his comments don't really have any rhyme or reason. Most fundies use every-day English, and reading anything more than that... well... it makes their brain hurt.
What 1tabligh copypastes is flowery language translated from Arabic. There are way better people to expose like that. :-)
Also, I used to be a fundie and I changed my mind through debate. ;-)
@rkyeun The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was necessary for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature. How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
> they were non-existent, and then they became existent.
No.
> atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal
That would be the first law of thermodynamics.
> First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
No. That doesn't follow, even should an eternal being exist, which there isn't.
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that ...
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ 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.
How is that for YOUR "misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics is egregious. "?
of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies...
> iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it
The heat death of the universe is asymptotic, taking eternity to conclude.
> If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago.
The big bang is not the source of energy, merely a time beyond which we cannot yet see.
It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed anew into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world ...
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a proof of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *******expelled*****energy/matter from the stronghold of eternity. Science not only proves the createdness of the world but also bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
@rkyeun Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless unless it becomes subject to a force external to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we cannot, therefore, believe in a theory of probability or accident. ...
I tire of your obfuscating copy-paste poetry. I will not indulge it any longer. Use plain language of your own writing. Is your understanding of science, reality, and English language so poor that you can't express basic concepts like matter, energy, cells, and animals without the flowery prose that Muslim apologists use to hide their ignorance behind eight different ill-formed metaphors?
When these wannabe monkey atheists, can't refute your arguments scientifically, then they resort to the same stupid argument, "cut and paste " and hide their ignorance and arrogance under it's stupid pretext!
"...deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
So when I said earlier it wasn't about whether or not we wanted to be primates, you just ignored that completely because the website you're copying and pasting from doesn't address it.
Not a single motionless body has entered in motion up to now without being subject to an external force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force must exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
Drowning like a straw in a maelstrom of vicissitudes!
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion!
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
Experiment, testing, study, observation, and verification.
You know, that both eyes open stuff where we check to see if anything we said is actually true, instead of shutting the eye of reason like religion does, or shutting both eyes like fundamentalists do.
@rkyeun Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but energy/matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
@rkyeun 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.
Things which are not subject to any agent are not subject to the universe, and therefore do not exist by both the definition of "universe" and by the definition of "exist".
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. ...
If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or "testing".
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...
conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator. ...
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all, help cure your delusions!
@rkyeun Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty ...
No, they don't. YOUR god doesn't exist, because the properties ascribed to him contradict themselves. Others might. But there is no evidence for them and so no justification for belief.
@rkyeun Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
@rkyeun What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to ****measure**** a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *measure* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to ...
*measure* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. This kind of ,,,
Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion. ....
What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
@rkyeun With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
@rkyeun Energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
For the record, asking the same question made three times longer with your incompetent use of the language is not "making it easy to answer". In the future, ask what you mean to ask without adding meaningless phrases between every clause.
when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; ....
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
*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.
*measure* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. ...
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God. ...
Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Crap Theory Without evidence
Petunia668 2 weeks ago
adam peace upon him :rofl: :lol: XD crazy disrespectful caller didn't say hello to Richard!!
freiheitsalv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
importante pa ba yan pagusapan ngayon lahat naman ng naniniwala sa bible ay ipagdidiinan na si adam ang unang tao at nanggaling tayo sa kanya
The1211deep 1 month ago
That caller is such a typical religious idiot. You can tell he feels intimidated by evolution because he has to say its "quite clearly wrong", it sounds like he is intimidated by the fact that his whole belief system is bullshit.
Hellblazer311 2 months ago
Comment removed
NSnake91 11 months ago
the terrorist talking about how we came from adam is a fucking moron. dawkins instantly shut him down.
LordHines420 1 year ago 5
@LordHines420 and the victim talking about how we came from monkeys needs to shut the fuck up!
soulzlost 1 year ago
@soulzlost
ARE YOU OUT OF YER FREAKING MIND!? ---- Can't wait for evolution to deselect on people that write things like that you just did. Hope it does, sincerely, I can only hope people like you is not our females first choise and the only way for you to procreate is either thru rape or being a sperm donor.
DrErkencho 8 months ago 2
@soulzlost .we came from a common ancestor.Actually read the fucking thoery in dpeth,lok at the evidence and then write about how we came to be.
laudrup90 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Wyatt discovered Noah's Ark you can check his videos out right here on youtube. He also discovered the Red Sea Crossing site, the route of the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, Zedekiah's Cave, Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant. Now, please understand this, Satan is working overtime to try to debunk these discoveries and his sheep won't even consider checking them out. I post this so those who are seeking and not Satan's sheep will have the opportunity to see. Merry Christmas
thechessstick 1 year ago
I have received a request to cease replying to 1tabligh.
The request suggested that our discussion had reached the point of gross spam of the video to the disruption of all other commentary, and that 1tabligh was a "pig-blooded savage who wouldn't know science if it flew a plane into the Kabaa."
While I disagree with the tone, I think I had best respect the sentiment. I apologize for spamming up your commenting space. I should have known better than to try reasoning with a copy-paste bot.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Glad to see someone else who saw through this sham of a commenter.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
I love the fact that Al Jazeera is more fair and balanced on this subject, than FOX News will ever be.
simonwedege 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@simonwedege
FOX News is a tabloid. My psychotic sister off her meds is more fair and balanced than Faux News. At least she actually sees the things she says are happening.
rkyeun 1 year ago
you know what cause the extinctions of animals ?by refusing to adapt and evolve ,thats where we are going to if you stay with religious belief cause it is making you rigide in your thaught and refuse to evolve so it is gonna kill you as a speacies
mystisme 1 year ago
God is just an idea.
Lingerfoot 1 year ago
Religious beliefs wreck everything...besides who created the creator then who created that creator etc...it's like looking in a mirrors mirror reflection it goes to infinity..this is why creationism is a fairy tail....we evolved through natural selection without a creator!!!
togwm 1 year ago
@togwm then who created that creator etc...
_______
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe. Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> from a scientific point of view
> the creator of the universe
Sorry. You lost the game.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun 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?
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?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> 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?
It can't, and nobody reasonable would suggest it should. Obviously a purposeful, wise, and all-knowing god wouldn't have made this many mistakes. We could believe that matter's ability to combine into more complex forms as a result of well-understood chemical processes could be an incompetent god.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun 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 1 year ago
@1tabligh
All of them.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun 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 1 year ago
@1tabligh
That is because the "innate perception" and "perceived truth" is merely a guess, which does not correspond with reality when tested.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun is merely a guess, which does not correspond with reality when tested.
______
"tested"
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 year ago
@1tabligh
Right. He denies the thing only when its existence would contradict what IS observed through the testing, and supposes no reason to believe in anything else until it can explain what is observed. A belief in god fails in every instance where it makes claims about the universe, and explains nothing that is observed instead of its false claims.
rkyeun 1 year ago
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 year ago
@1tabligh
Of course we do not need to rely only on our innate senses, which are fallible and do not give us accurate measurements of the world around us. We verify with tools we have constructed to be more precise and accurate than we can be, with greater reach and scope and breadth. However if something never manifests, and as religious people claim never can manifest, it is exactly equal to nonexistence. Either god must eventually show up on our telescopes, or be forever banished from reality.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun give us accurate measurements
_______
God and Empirical Logic.
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty
1tabligh 1 year ago
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *measure* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *measure* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
When your religion makes a claim about the physical nature of the universe which is wrong, your religion is wrong. When your religion claims that the part of your religion that is wrong about the physical nature of the universe is the work of a god that is always correct, your god does not exist.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun your god does not exist.
______
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. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
You have not invalidated my previous statement with your rant.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun If your god exists, it is material.
______
Nope!
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I do apologize, I thought better of that argument and deleted my post while you were responding to it. I suggest you also delete the comment which had replied to it.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Yes or no?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
No, it is neither of those two things.
rkyeun 1 year ago
All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Wow. I can't even type captcha's faster than you can spam eight pages of bullshit. How about you slow down a bit and let me rebut the first point you make before you go on to make many more? How about you admit when I've refuted you, and stop jumping from topic to topic trying to avoid it. These are standard tactics you're using, straight from the creationist playbook.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
I will make it easy for you to answer!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe? ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Because knowledge of the entire universe is not needed to make a single specific statement. That is a fallacy.
rkyeun 1 year ago
When the beings and bodies that are visible in this world wish to produce energy, they are compelled to change their original aspect and transform it into energy.
Now is this energy—the axis on which turn many of the motions and changes of the universe— visible or tangible?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Living things produce chemical energy from the arrangement of molecular bonds. They do not transform their mass into energy.
The energy of the universe is both tangible and visible. We can observe and measure it.
Religion looks at the world with both eyes closed, gouged out, and demanding that all others gouge theirs out as well while shouting wrong answers.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun shouting wrong answers
_____
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
How is that for YOUR "shouting wrong answers" and answer instead?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
No. And if you'd studied the big bang even enough to read the definition, you'd know that's not what it says.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
The answer was no. I answered it. I did not dodge the question. I did not quibble. The answer is no. That is not the theory promoted by science. All things are made of matter, but matter is not the creator. Indeed, it appears there is no creator. Matter is not the creator of all things.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Where did it come from?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Matter is primarily the result of high energy density in the time very near the big bang. Under such conditions, leptons and quarks condense from the energy as steam condenses into water on a pane of glass. This has been verified by experiment in numerous high-energy tests and precisely matches the predictions of particle formation generated by the big bang theory's model of the early universe.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
YES OR NO?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Y̲e̲s̲. I am both descended from a primate ancestor and more recently a human ancestor.
I have taken to underlining my answers so you cannot say I have dodged the question.
Y̲e̲s̲. I understand English distinctly. I question if you do.
I have not dodged. I have directly answered and refuted you. I apologize that your religion is not congruent with reality and appears to cause you suffering.
N̲o̲, matter is not the creator. I have explained this clearly, and told you its origin as well.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
What man of science are you?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Apparently, a straw one.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
We have made matter from energy. Cyclotrons produce both matter and antimatter from energy on a daily basis in labs all around the world. It's not even very expensive to run or build compared to some other tools. Do you live in the third-world portions of the middle east, where this might be new unknown technology?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun And where did YOUR energy come from?
Was it from YOUR AW...?
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Oh no, and you were doing so well! You'd almost gotten the hang of this whole discussion thing. Please don't go off on another four page rant after asking a simple question in the first one that you've asked me to answer.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
You've asked where energy comes from. Hold onto your pants, because we know the answer.
N̲o̲. It didn't come from anywhere. It always was. One of the rules of our universe is that while matter and energy, and perhaps even space and time itself, are interchangeable, energy in whatever form cannot be created or destroyed. That means your god can't make any, and when your religion claims he did, your god doesn't exist.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun energy in whatever form cannot be created or destroyed.
_______
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that energy/matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@rkyeun This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal energy/matter and that being arises from within the very nature of energy/matter, without any need for a creator.
In just the same way that the deluded atheists regard energy/matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision. Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Moreover, energy/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 energy/matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!
How is that for YOUR "third-world portions of the middle east"?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
That's... rather EXACTLY like the third world portions of the middle east.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
When and if rational deductions ever do point to a creator, we'll accept it. You however will still be shouting wrong answers about the god you already imagined, even when the actual god shows up to tell you otherwise.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
The heart is an organ which pumps blood. It does not think or experience emotion, and does not process information about the universe. The conscience is a trait inherent in all social animals from ants to wolves to humans. It provides an instinctual reaction to other members of the species which form the basis of social interaction, allowing the species to act in a collective fashion.
Neither of those are pseudo-scientific, but ascribing supernatural properties to them is.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but energy/matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do deluded atheists, who believe that energy/matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of energy/matter ?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Eternity means no such thing. It means infinite time. No requirement for stability or immutability is made. Essence is not a technical term. You are attempting to poetically confound your language to dilute your point.
Physics justifies the eternity of matter and energy with observation and experimentation. The behavior of energy is not subject to your whim, not modified by your ignorance.
No matter how many times you copy and paste your "catchphrase", it will remain a wrong answer.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by energy/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 energy/matter. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The very nature of energy/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 1 year ago
@rkyeun Physics justifies the eternity of matter and energy with observation and experimentation.
_________
Absolutely nonsense!
The second principle of thermodynamics, entropy or the decline of thermal energy, teaches us that although we cannot fix a date for the appearance of the world, the world certainly did have a beginning. The heat in the world is gradually decreasing and falling, like a piece of molten iron that gradually diffuses its heat in the air until finally the heat...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics is egregious.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
That's because he doesn't take the time to understand. You see, 1tabligh is a copypaster. He doesn't actually know what he's saying, let alone give it some thought, let alone give YOUR comments some thought. He just copypastes everything from pro-islam websites. My advice? Ignore him. It's useless.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo
My goal isn't necessarily to debate him.
Not all verbs are appropriate to all objects. You can't listen to the color blue. You can't feed a rock. You can't pet music.
And you can't debate a religious fundamentalist.
However there are those reading who may be "on the fence" so to speak, and seeing the inanity of one side and the response from the other may lead them to choose rational thought over psychotic delusion.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
I realize the upside to that, but 1tabligh is not the proper person to use like a tool for that, especially because his comments don't really have any rhyme or reason. Most fundies use every-day English, and reading anything more than that... well... it makes their brain hurt.
What 1tabligh copypastes is flowery language translated from Arabic. There are way better people to expose like that. :-)
Also, I used to be a fundie and I changed my mind through debate. ;-)
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@rkyeun The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was necessary for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature. How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated.
No.
> It was necessary for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature.
No.
> How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
Asked and answered. It had the energy.
rkyeun 1 year ago
All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> All beings were originally non-beings
Yes.
> they were non-existent, and then they became existent.
No.
> atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal
That would be the first law of thermodynamics.
> First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
No. That doesn't follow, even should an eternal being exist, which there isn't.
rkyeun 1 year ago
"Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
"If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh
> if the elements comprising the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ are eternal by virtue of their essence
Essence is not a term with any meaning in this context.
> how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death
They don't. We do.
> how can life surge forth from them?
Emergent complexity.
> If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements
Living beings emerge from inanimate elements.
rkyeun 1 year ago
lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ 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.
How is that for YOUR "misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics is egregious. "?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler
Not necessarily.
> regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients
Yes, it is.
> and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves
No. We believe these things because they are demonstrably true.
> How is that for YOUR "misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics is egregious."?
You just tried to argue that life was an energy. You understand neither.
rkyeun 1 year ago
of the iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it.
If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago. In the course of a very long past, the heat of the world would have come to an end, for matter, in the course of its successive and continuous transformation, is transformed into perishable energies...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> iron will be identical with that of the objects and the air surrounding it
The heat death of the universe is asymptotic, taking eternity to conclude.
> If there were no beginning or point of departure for the world, all the existing atoms would have dissolved and been transformed into energy an infinite number of years ago.
The big bang is not the source of energy, merely a time beyond which we cannot yet see.
rkyeun 1 year ago
It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed anew into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place. But given that chemical action and reaction do take place that life is possible on the earth, and that a huge body like the sun is divisible each day and night into three hundred thousand million tons, it is clear that the world ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> It is not possible for all the energy dispersed to be transformed anew into matter and mass comfortable to the world of being.
Of course it is. You even claim your god did it once.
> In accordance with the principle just mentioned, once usable energy is exhausted, chemical action and reaction can no longer take place.
Not true. Heat death is asymptotic. Processes get slower but never cease.
> the world has originated in time.
If you mean universe, then no. If you mean planet, yes.
rkyeun 1 year ago
has originated in time.
The death of planets and stars, the disappearance of suns, is a proof of death and mutation in the existing order; they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
We see, then, that the natural sciences have *******expelled*****energy/matter from the stronghold of eternity. Science not only proves the createdness of the world but also bears witness that the world came into existence at a given time.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> they show that the world is advancing towards non-being and an inevitable conclusion.
Heat death is inevitable, but arbitrarily scaled. More pressing is the accelerating expansion of the universe.
> the natural sciences have expelled energy/matter from the stronghold of eternity.
No, the first law of thermodynamics remains strong.
> Science not only proves the createdness of the world
No. It proves a big bang, not createdness. You don't get to decide how it happened.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun Mechanics tells us that a motionless body is always motionless unless it becomes subject to a force external to itself. This law represents an inviolable principle in our material world, and we cannot, therefore, believe in a theory of probability or accident. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Probability is not relevant to standard mechanics. Accident is not relevant to non-sentient objects.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
The existence of each part of the chain manifests inadequacy, impotence, and origination in time; whence did its existence arise?
How can great and complex beings emerge from infinite joinings of nonbeing?
Does life gush forth from the union of the numerous factors that bring about death?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I tire of your obfuscating copy-paste poetry. I will not indulge it any longer. Use plain language of your own writing. Is your understanding of science, reality, and English language so poor that you can't express basic concepts like matter, energy, cells, and animals without the flowery prose that Muslim apologists use to hide their ignorance behind eight different ill-formed metaphors?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun copy-paste
______
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "copy-paste"!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Are you after truth or who is doing what?
You look at the world with one eye *closed* and, are unable to answer the questions! ..
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I think anybody can see that's not what's happening here.
rkyeun 1 year ago
When these wannabe monkey atheists, can't refute your arguments scientifically, then they resort to the same stupid argument, "cut and paste " and hide their ignorance and arrogance under it's stupid pretext!
"...deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
So when I said earlier it wasn't about whether or not we wanted to be primates, you just ignored that completely because the website you're copying and pasting from doesn't address it.
rkyeun 1 year ago
You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 8600 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science otherwise clock off!
Brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I would love to talk science. Unfortunately, that excludes you from the discussion.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
YOU look at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE!
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
What man of science are you?
1tabligh 1 year ago
copy-paste
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Did you get anything from nothing?
READ THE COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
copy-paste
rkyeun 1 year ago
Not a single motionless body has entered in motion up to now without being subject to an external force. So, based on this mechanical principle, a force must exist which being other than the world of matter, creates that world and imparts it with energy so that it takes shapes, differentiates itself, and acquires various aspects.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Forces are not matter. They are the exertion of energy.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
copy-paste
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Poor fella!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Do you have any questions I haven't answered yet, or have you copy-pasted the entire page of Muslim apologetics already?
What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun All of them!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Which question do you propose I have not answered?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
I said *all* of them!
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
You have asked those questions before and I have answered them.
You keep using the word pseudo-scientific. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes, I am descended from both a human ancestor and a primate ancestor. I am a primate and a human. So are you.
Yes, I understand English. I have corrected you on your usage several times already because you are incompetent with the language.
Any other questions? Pick one and I'll take MY turn to copy-paste from when I answered it.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
Drowning like a straw in a maelstrom of vicissitudes!
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion!
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
> Matter or God? Take your choice!
Matter. It exists.
> Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree.
No. Matter is not in constant development.
> matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation.
No. First law of motion.
> Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
No. Force causes change in motion.
Did I miss any of your questions?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun
I will make it easy for you to answer!
In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
**************** YES OR NO? ********************
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Asked and answered.
No. Forces cause change in motion.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun And where did YOUR "Forces" come from?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Forces come from the application of energy.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun And where did YOUR "energy" come from?
Was it from YOUR AW...?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
First law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The energy was always here.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun How do deluded atheists, who believe that energy/matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of energy/matter ?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Experiment, testing, study, observation, and verification.
You know, that both eyes open stuff where we check to see if anything we said is actually true, instead of shutting the eye of reason like religion does, or shutting both eyes like fundamentalists do.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but energy/matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Asked and answered.
No, eternity doesn't mean that.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun 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.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
No.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Things which are not subject to any agent are not subject to the universe, and therefore do not exist by both the definition of "universe" and by the definition of "exist".
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Experiment, testing,....
_____
If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Yes, we can dispose of impossible things that we have not observed.
rkyeun 1 year ago
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".
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...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
There is no scientific fact which cannot be tested. Facts are the results of the tests. Theories explain the facts.
rkyeun 1 year ago
conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
The existence of a creator does not follow from any scientific fact or observation.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all, help cure your delusions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Your assertion that scientists are overwhelmingly religious and becoming more so is false.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Is it only God we cannot see with our senses?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Energy is measured ...
_____
God and Empirical Logic.
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
No, they don't. YOUR god doesn't exist, because the properties ascribed to him contradict themselves. Others might. But there is no evidence for them and so no justification for belief.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Is it only God we cannot see with our senses?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Asked and answered. And asked again and answered again. This is the THIRD time you have copy-pasted this.
No, we cannot detect any non-existent things.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
1tabligh 1 year ago
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to ****measure**** a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *measure* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
There are no tools to measure the non-existent.
rkyeun 1 year ago
*measure* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. This kind of ,,,
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
There is nothing beyond the universe. That is what the word universe means.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun NOPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion. ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
You didn't read my comments the first time around.
Why should I expect you to read it a third time around?
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God.
...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun Energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
No.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@1tabligh
Energy is measured in Joules, which is in the dimensions of mass x length x length / time x time.
Your statement that it is "immersed in quantity and multiplicity" is meaningless incompetence in your use of language.
rkyeun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun And where did YOUR "energy" come from?
Was it from YOUR AW...?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun And where did YOUR "Force" come from?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
For the record, asking the same question made three times longer with your incompetent use of the language is not "making it easy to answer". In the future, ask what you mean to ask without adding meaningless phrases between every clause.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun And where did YOUR "Force" come from?
Was it from YOUR AW...?
1tabligh 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
*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 year ago
*measure* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Is it only God we cannot see with our senses?
1tabligh 1 year ago