@aidan87l1 Then if God exists on a reality that has no time and space, prove that such a reality exists. Btw, how is God in it? How are things in it? Can God understand us as human beings if he is on such a different reality? Can God interact with us? Support your answers.
I answer all questions in the way that I feel God guides me to answer. He knows who these individuals are. He knows why they have asked questions. He knows if they are hurting, being facetious, being blasphemous etc. and He guides His own children regarding how to handle each individual and each question posed here.
Very poor reasoning. You forget science shows evidance of a realm outside of time and space, also a God would not be subjected to laws he made for his creation. Try again. God 1 Atheist 0
@aidan87l1 That science has not be proven. In order for it to get proven, it would have to show something outside our reality that didn't have to be subjected to its laws and didn't exist in our reality. Go ahead. Try it. It's impossible.
@aidan87l1 If it was real and it was your God and somehow worthy of worship, living in another reality would make your realation with him a bit problematic (how can he understand you as a human being if he is in another reality)?
God 0 Atheist 5
Science will then have to prove that the two realities could mix together and God's reality would have control over ours. Even proving 2 dimensions is giving a lot of fight, imagine this.
@aidan87l1 Those "other realities" that have more than our time and space have only be theoreticly shown (not proved. Just theory) on the String Theory. The String Theory hasn't been proved. Also, the String Theory is about Strings that are even smaller that the sub-atomic level. So small that even the most powerful microscope can't see them (that's why it can't be proved).
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?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Matter created the world. Two particles came out of nowhere, colided, and that was the Big Bang. Sounds more possible than God. Does it sound possible that the First Cause is a God that created the world with sin and then created Satan to have an excuse to place us in Hell and now everyday humans are killed/torurtured/suffering because he doesn't even care about that.
@WatchLearnSee Two particles came out of nowhere, colided, and that was the Big Bang.
__
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
@WatchLearnSee The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
@WatchLearnSee How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
@1tabligh The Universe wasn't created. It does not have a cause. That would require a "before" the big bang. But there was no "before" before the big bang.
@WatchLearnSee 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 I don't get your last claim. The particles don't require their non-being. If they do, so does Allah, because he also existed, somehow, before the Universe, when time didn't exist.
@WatchLearnSee God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors - matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced....., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
@WatchLearnSee ..provided to Greece instead to the Quaran. ...
___
Matter in Light of Physics
There are two scientific notions of matter that scientists have investigated and studied for thousands of years. One of these notions is that all the material things that are known to exist in nature are composed of nothing but a limited number of simple matter called 'elements'. The other notion is that matter is formed of very small or minute things called 'atoms'.
@WatchLearnSee The first notion was accepted by the *Greeks in general. The common view was to consider water, air, earth and fire as simple elements, and to reduce all composite things to them, since these elements are the primary matters of nature. Later, some Arab scientists tried to add to these four elements three more elements: sulfur, mercury and salt. According to the ancients the properties of the simple elements are marks that distinguish these elements from one another.
@WatchLearnSee Thus, no simple element can change to another simple element.
As for the second notion - namely, that things are composed of small atoms - it was the subject of disagreement between two theories: the theory of discrete matter [or the atomistic theory] and the theory of continuous matter The disjunctive theory is the atomistic theory of the Greek philosopher Democritus. It asserts that a body is composed of small parts permeated by void.
@1tabligh You can change oxigen into oxigen +1 just by removing one electron. If you remove 8, you will get ozon. You have now changed one simple element to another simple element. Review your physic lessons.
@WatchLearnSee Democritus called these parts 'atoms' or 'indivisible parts'. The continuum theory is more predominant than the disjunctive theory. It was adopted by Aristotle and members of his school. According to the claims of this theory, a body does not have atoms, and it is not composed of small units. Rather, it is one solid thing that can be divided into parts, separated by division. It is not the case that prior to division it has such parts.
@WatchLearnSee After this, modern physics played its role [with regard to this issue]. It studied scientifically the above two notions in light of its discoveries in the atomic world. Basically, it confirmed the two notions, the notion of simple elements and the notion of atoms. But it disclosed new facts in the sphere of each of them that were unattainable earlier.
@WatchLearnSee 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 science and polemics. 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 I find it amazing how you call me brainless just because I've asked you to support your arguments. Here are somethings you have in common with @Yah023weh:
1. You both claim your religion is the right one without proving it with science.
2. When your science comments are replied, you go back to unsupported religious claims.
3. If someone dares you to support them, you'll go back to religion, which proves nothing.
4. If they still reject them, you go for the personal side.
@WatchLearnSee God made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the *general relativity.*
@WatchLearnSee He is an infinite existence in all respects, such as knowledge, power, everlasting. and pre-existence. Therefore He will not be contained in time and space, while He is in everywhere and at any time, for being above space/Time. Yes, He is nearer to us than ourselves. He is with our soul, and He is everywhere, and in the meanwhile, He has not a certain place: sovereignty over every thing and every place. If we consider Him to have a certain place, we have limited Him
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 Either I am really dumb or you didn't explain anything at all. Can you please support it to be possible por a being to exist? You simply defined what "cause" means. I'm asking to support that it is possible for Allah not to have a cause.
@WatchLearnSee 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.
@WatchLearnSee 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.
@WatchLearnSee 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.
@WatchLearnSee 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 Then if his existence isn't coming from non-existance, where is it comming from? If it doesn't come from nowhere or he was always there, prove that such a thing is possible?
@WatchLearnSee 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.
@WatchLearnSee 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 I don't know how you complicate simple things that much using science. We aren't talking about cause and effect, are we? What phenomenon are you talking about?
Also, renember when you quoted Quaran about Allah and the athoms? The word "athom" was generated in Greece. It means "something which can't be divided". Man created that word, not Allah.
@WatchLearnSee All we can sense is what the brain was programmed to sense. Our brain receives billions of signals every second but only processes 1000, meaning there is alot of shit going around us that we cant sense at all. To say God has to exist within our sense to be real is hilarious, because then by saying that you are saying that everything we cant sense does not exist. Its true it does not exist in our reality but to someone that can sense it would say it exists. Just like the
@TheTheKRIT fact that I sense the world as spiritual therefore I do not need to prove anything to you because you cannot sense it. By saying all that exists is what we sense is actually saying that our minds are creating the universe. its true if our brain is picking and choosing what it can and cant sense and translate, then it is creating our reality. Without the brain we are in a different reality, but we do not die. You see to exist in this reality with these sense and feelings you need
@TheTheKRIT a brain. without one you are trapped in another realm of existence. There is no death or birth these are simply perceptions of our mind just like time and motion.
@TheTheKRIT I'm a Buddhist. It's an atheist religion. I know how the spiritual world is, so I'd like you not to make assumptions which are wrong. However, spiritualism is a state of mind, not another reality. If you can prove it is, go ahead.
We have no experiences of bodies without brains and brains without bodies. Our brain dies, we die. Support that it isn't this way.
@TheTheKRIT Ok then. First of all, I'd like to provide a source by what you are talking about brain. I'll asssume it is true, but I'd like to see your sources anyway.
Second, I'd like you to provide some examples of things we can't see. Provide true stories of those who can sense it that can be proven and can't be faked anyway.
Thirdly, I'd like you to realize that if there was more than this, why should your God, and not Allah, be there?
@WatchLearnSee "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
@1tabligh If God can't be seen or sensed in anyway, how is able to understand us as human beings? Prove that it is possible for this being to not have a cause and to react with our Universe.
by giving Him the attributes of His creatures, while we know that:- `nothing is like Him'. And: there is none equal to Him. God can never be seen by the physical eyes; because the object of seeing by the eyes, is a material body that has to have place, colour, form and direction. These are all the qualifications of the creatures, and not that of the creator. God is really far from that.
@WatchLearnSee In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
(And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in the heaven. Nor (is there) what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.) (10:61)
@WatchLearnSee In this beautiful verse Allah clarifies that nothing is hidden from Him in this universe, no matter how minute it may be. It was believed that the atom was the smallest entity in the universe. After it was split smaller entities were discovered having positive electrical properties, such as protons and negative electrical properties, such as electrons.
In 1939, the German scholars Hahn and Strassmann in the University of Berlin split a uranium atom. With further
@WatchLearnSee research particles which are minute may be discovered.
Modern sciences have reached a high level of technical development and scientific advancement in various fields of life. The future still holds for further development. This process will continue until the day of Requital. The collective efforts of all mankind in fields of knowledge will never measure up to or even come close to Allah's knowledge and ability.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@1tabligh You keep talking about science and repeating the same thing. I've told you there are more proves against God than only science and we've already said that science is mostly against God. However, you keep repeating it. And I've told you before that atheists are not science worhippers. Either you start learning and changing your arguments or an argument with you is completly useless.
If you want proof, join a missions outreach and go with a church that is spreading the gospel. If the truth is so important and you want to refute all the Christians in the world, why not go with them and see for yourself? I am sure any church will be glad to take anyone along that wants to see proof that God exists. Invest some money and learn the truth. Will be the best trip you have ever taken in your life. You will come back different and believing in Jesus.
Wrong assumption. God is Spirit. You think and talk like you have not imagination. Rooted in the earth. How do you answer; Where do we come from? How many different theories have been proven wrong in the last 100 years? All of them. Keep coming up with new theories to deny God. Just the fact that most people believe in a Creator makes your assumptions wrong. But of course people like you know better than billions and billions of other people.
@Walhei960 1. So, God is rooted around the earth uh? How do you know that?
2. Talking about how many people believe in something is a known logical fallacy called "Appeal to Numbers". It does not support your believes in any way.
3. Atheism does not involve omnipotence. I am willing to give up my desbelief if you show me undeniable prove that God is real. Until then, atheism is more rational and logic than theism, so WE ARE better than irrational theists.
@WatchLearnSee No, I said the presenter mind was rooted in the earth, this world. 2. Many of these people were the most intelligent in human history. Many were great inventors, sculptures, writers, professors. They were logical, not simple minded people who were easily fooled. A site I like is, reasons.org, click on resources, Dr.Ross said, click on any subject, look down left side of page. Try Bible controversies.
@Walhei960 4. Many theories have been proved wrong, yes, including religious believes (and Christian religion included). I do not see how this supports your belief, as modern theology is working on updating the theories of thjeology day to day, because they have so many flaws, that it is not theology anymore (that's why it is called "modern technology" instead of theology, like it was before).
@WatchLearnSee All religions are false and from Satan, except Christian religion. The Bible has never been proved wrong. There are things that cannot be explained yet. The Hittite nation was once an argument that the Bible was wrong, for hundreds of years. Then early the 1900's an archeologist discovered the Hittite Capitol. An officer is WW ! used the Bible to find a path through some mountains to get behind the Turks. Over two hundred prophecies now proved true. .
@Walhei960 The Bible has been proven to be logically contradictory and it shows your God to be a immoral monster. It does also promote rape, prostitution, murder, slavery and treats women like objects. About the prophecies, can you prove that they happened AFTER the Bible was writen?
@WatchLearnSee You just throw out accusations! Sounds like hate to me! It is so easy to apply today's morals to 3 or 4 thousand years ago!? Slavery was common everywhere. It was fact of life. Many preferred being slaves to rich than starving to death. Just depends on how poor you were. The Bible is the standard of moral behavior. Only recent laws, like protecting homos, has changed the great moral laws of God.
@Walhei960 If the morals of the Bible are the standard morals given by God (which include what I've said) that God is a monster and I'd not worship him. If you do, then you are a monster to. And I'm not throwing out acussations. This is how the world works. If your God was true and He did/was described in the Bible, he'd have done a better job
@WatchLearnSee There was 400 years of silence from God, after the Old Testament was written. Most prophecies were 400 to 3,000 years before Christ was born. 700 BC prophet Micah said the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. Probability 1 chance in 10 to the fifth power. 500 BC Zechariah 12:9 I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling for the World. See that now? 760 BC Isaiah said, Cyrus would conquer Babylon. This was 150 years before Cyrus was born!
@WatchLearnSee Source is the Bible. All the books of the Bible are dated. The Bible is best documented book in all of history. Over 25,000 ancient manuscripts and pieces of papyrus, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Very little for Homer, other ancient men, just copies of copies. The proof a man was a prophet was if the prophecy came true. If false he was stoned to death. Modern scientist are seeing design in cells. Darwin speculated based on few adaptations of animals, to get food
@Walhei960 You support your "proves" of the Bible in the Bible itself. This isn't a very logical thing to do, because the Bible is the thing being discussed in the 1st place. And again, if the Bible is true, is the God described on it someone you'd follow/worship?
@WatchLearnSee Of course!!! I worship God because He loved me first. Even when I was a sinner, more of a sinner. He sacrificed His son so I can live. His Son pain the price for my sin. Now I will live with Him in Heaven forever. Perfect in every way. No pain, no wants, all my desires will be satisfied. Only Bible confirmed true by History, Archeology, and Scientifically, and Logically. No other Religion is true. But God gives the decision to human. Must come to God our of love.
@Walhei960 The Bible has not been proved neither historically nor archeologicall nor scientifically, because the previsions it makes can't be dated back to before the events. Even the "roundness of the Earth" has already been found by Egypt cyvilizations 4000 bC, long before the Bible. The bible is also logically contradictory, so you've failled on every aspect of your last comment.
@WatchLearnSee For an intelligent guy you make ridiculous statements. How do historians find the dates of the Roman Empire? How about ancient Egypt? How do archeologist and historians know the dates of any ancient civilization. The same research and archeology is how they date the Bible. It has more documentation than any historical document! So all historical documents are false, you say? The Bible time were dated from reigns so Kings, like all document of ancient times.
@Walhei960 Ok. Let me tellyou what you are missing: doccuments on the Roman Empire and Egypt civilizations state the date of important things (like who was the pharao there and when, etc). Of course they did not have the same date format we have today, but they had other systems.
As you know, the Bible was divided on 2 books, whose name I don't know in English (the 1st about God, the 2nd about Jesus).
@Walhei960 How many non-religion texts (by texts I am talking about death/birth certificates, archeology, etc) do you think there are, from Egypt and Romanian history writers, about jesus? Zero! Not a single one.
@Walhei960 The first reference to Jesus was on a letter Plínio to the empire, on the 2nd century. On the 1st century, no non-religious writing about Christ was made. I'm going to tell you how the Bible (the "New Book" as I'm gonna call it - Novo Testamento in portuguese) was made: believers in Jesus ran away from the Roman army after hearing about his death. Then they heard he was going to come back to life, so they waited for him in Jerusalem.
@Walhei960 As they waited, they told histories about Jesus. They didn't thought they should write them, because most of them didn't know how to write, so they were oral stories. But those stories were changed in order to ilustrate situations that would solve some problems that came along. They took stories out of their inicial context.
But Jesus never returned and they started dieing, so they thought those stories should be writen, in order not to get lost.
@WatchLearnSee *Correction*: *They didn't thought they should write them, because most of them didn't know how to write, so they were oral stories (..) and they thought Jesus would come back soon, so there was no need for it.
@Walhei960 There were created dezens of books from different persons (over 30). When the army kicked the Christians out of Jerusalem, they were divided into several groups that believed in a different Jesus, each one of those following only the books they selected. The most organized of those groups was "The Roman Christians", that took Rome as their home. They deleted most of the books and only kept Paul, John, Tiago, etc.
@Walhei960 The oldest textes from this "New Book" date back to Paul. He was Jew and used to send letters to his followers (he spread the word of Jesus around Mediterranean sea) when they got out of way. This letters became usual and soon other leaders like Judah started using them. There are about 35 of this letters in the Bible.
@Walhei960 That's how the Bible was made. I just decided to share with you all we know about it. MY main point keeps the same: there are no non-religious textes in which you can trust to prove Jesus' existance. Only textes from those who believed and followed him. The other part (the part of the prophecies) I've already discussed before.
@WatchLearnSee This is found by Googling Apologetic or Biblical Archeology. Also one I like is reasons.org, click on resources, click on Dr. Ross said, click on any subject, look down left side. Get answers.
@Walhei960 5. Not all of the theories have been +proved wrong. Big Basng and Evolution, Gravity, etc. That is not true.
6. So if I have enough imagination to say that there is a perfect island or fairies pushing the earth, does that mean they exist? Iceland people believe in faries. Many people believe in a different God than yours. Do you think you are more right than them? Do you think you are better than them just because more people believe the same thing you do?
@WatchLearnSee The title said Why God does not exist. I hope we are talking about that. The theories I am speaking of are for evolution. There have been at least three. All have been proved wrong. Now men are putting forth a theory that this planet was seeded with humans from an alien race? That is nuts. Get more ridiculous all the time.
Einstein and Steven Hawking also said. It looks as thought the Universe was created for man. Para phrasing. .
@Walhei960 The Evolution Theory based on Darwin's Natural Selection is wrong? Really? What are your sources on that matter?
You are right, many inteligent people have believed in God, and many have not. That is another logical fallacy known as appealing to authority. Just because someone who is more X than you believe something, it must be true. You must recall that there was a time where the most wise men thought that fire was divine and the earth was flat.
@Walhei960 Greek philosofers like Aristotle did not believe in God, and his theories are accepted today, and he is seen as one of the wisest men of all time. Einstein was Jew, not Christian. Jew tradiction refuse the existance of Christ or it may claim he existed but was a false prophet/did not matter (deppending on the Jew in question). Does that mean the Bible is wrong? What about intelligent people that are not Christians too?
@Walhei960 My point is, if you start a claim with: X believe this, therefore this is true, you need to see that there are many things X can believe in and they are contradictory. Many wise people were part of contradictory religions (Buddhism, Christianism, Muslim, Islamism, etc) or with no religion at all. Yes, they were intelligent, but they can't all be right, can they?
If you want to discuss God, use arguments, not people.
@WatchLearnSee If you read any Holy Book you can see right away that it is true or not. Only the Bible has never been proved untrue. On the contrary there a many proofs the Bible is inspired by God. It was written over a period of fifteen hundred years, by 45 different people, of all occupations, yet it harmonizes perfectly! Over the years hundreds of very smart people tried to prove the Bible wrong. Most became believers!
@Walhei960 Again, the Bible has been proven to be logically contradictory. Therefore, either someone made a mistake, and this is perfectly fine for humans (because a tradiction could only mantain itself with contradictions), but not for a God.
Also, many prophets were wrong and their books thrown out of the Bible: only the ones that were right were mantained. What does this say about the Holy nature of the Scriptres?
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
@WatchLearnSee Jesus fulfilled dozens of Prophecies.The odds that Jesus would fulfill only eight, of the dozens, without Gods divine intervention, is ONE CHANCE IN 10 TO THE 2000 POWER. You have a better chance of Freezing to death, instantly, on a bright sunny day!. Read a few papers at reasons.org, resources, Dr. Ross Said, click on any subject, look down left side, Get some answers, or continue to deny the truth.
U use less than 10% of your brain and the most intelligent person on the plant possesses less than 1% of worldly knowledge. BUT, you're certain, with such little intellectual capacity and even less worldly knowledge that there is no God. One should be on a continuous search for the truth. To come up with such a conclusion on such a major subject is sad, pathetic, immensely glib and ignorant and cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a hint of intelligence and a progressive mind.
@SnoozersDog thanks for your comment. I think there is one folly in your reasoning though. You have assumed that everything that exists is made up of matter/energy. That does not account for how the universe began. If the universe had a beginning, it must have a beginner. If time/space/matter had a beginning, than that beginner is must be outside of your definition of existence. Something must be able to exist without being made up of time/space/matter. I believe that this being is God.
@iheartjkhalil You're biological body will eventually give out one day. You continue to insult a concept in which you don't understand, without proof you assert it doesn't exist, the oldest most ancient of things, something that speaks every language in this universe if you know what I mean. You will not meet him though, you will meet the american dream, the rape of Africa, the undying machine, he chants "From a throne of the bones I rule, these fools are my fuel so I make them cool."
THERE IS A CRIATOR - DESIGNER stop giving excuses to the obvious just because you want to take full advantages of the lust of this short life, that was meant to test us JUST YOUR HAND HAS ENOUGH PROOF THAT GOD (CREATOR) EXIST Some people don't have the Holy Spirit. They don't accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Things like that are foolish to them. They can't understand them. In fact, such things can't be understood without the Spirit's help I CORINTHIANS 2:14
@THEHELENOHENZO Why must some ignorant Christians ruin it for the rest of them, and have to force their religion upon all the people of the Earth? I'm an atheist and I generally conceive a true believing Christian to be a good spirited person, not some blathering idiot that makes the entire human species look like complete and total idiots. People like you are why I have absolutely no faith god exists.
@SnoozersDog By the way...it is not an opinion or being forced upon you. You feel as if it is being forced upon you because you do not want to accept it. The truth is...belief in God is not being forced upon you when it is the truth.
@Yah023weh That doesn't make no sense, it IS being forced on you if it is the truth or not, if I told you that being atheist was the truth and forced it on you, would it be ok if it were the truth?
@SnoozersDog No. If something is the truth...it cannot be forced.
Why would you want to believe a lie? If you have gone your whole life believing a lie and someone tells you the truth, wouldn't you want to live the truth? Why would you want to continue living a lie? Hence...if something is the truth it is never forced on you.
I like your twist of my words...I do enjoy word banter. One problem with your statement...Atheism is not the truth. So you could never convince me otherwise.
@Yah023weh If something is the truth, it can, and is being forced, by you, but that isn't my truth, my truth consists of something along the lines of "There is no god." your truth, on the other hand is "There is a god." and you are trying to force your truth onto my truth, therefore, Truth1 is being forced on Truth2. Truth can be forced
@Yah023weh The truth is relative to religion, if god is real, I will repent and pray that I get sent to heaven, but I haven't been shown enough proof that he is.
@SnoozersDog What disturbs me is that there are people that talk about needing proof when they just need to pay attention and quit chatting everything up to coincidence or whatever excuse they come up with. I am sorry to say...but you could have God standing on your toe and you will still say he does not exist. There have been people like this for years. Apparently their hand does not bleed when they cut it.
@Yah023weh If I had god standing on my toe, I would believe he existed, because he would be on my toe. I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic. I'm not sure if god exists or not, but until I see proof, he doesn't exist in my eyes.
@SnoozersDog If you really believe that you would believe in God if he was standing on your toe, read in the bible about all the people who saw a miracle performed by Jesus and yet still did not believe. How big of a toe does someone need?
@SnoozersDog If you really believe that you would believe in God if he was standing on your toe, read in the bible about all the people who saw a miracle performed by Jesus and yet still did not believe. How big of a toe does someone need?
@SnoozersDog religion is the foundation of the world, everything above it will have to go according to it GET USE TO IT how dumb can get you get to think that everything around you is self made and run OR YOU JUST WANT TO PUT GOD ASIDE SO YOU CAN FREELY LIVE YOUR WISH LUST WAY LIFE
If everything around us is self-made and perfect, I don't understand the nature of natural dissastres. I don't get how people can be born with deathly deseases or be killed by the world itself. I don't get how and why the eye is upside down, which reduces many of its advantages. I don't get how the brain is poorly built and easily infected (and then, deadly). And if the order of things mean they are created, who created God's organized mind?
@WatchLearnSee THANK YOU! I've been wanting to tell this guy to quit going into an all caps rage, and tell them that if god is perfect and created the world perfect, why are there diseases!
And how very true, if "You can't test god" is the best anwser believers have then by all means their god doesn't exist. At least not within our definition of existance!
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?"
Ahum if one can see that an apple falls from a tree and it happens again and again and again.. with obviously different apples and objects you stop talking about Belief!
You talk about Observation. Now observing a thing and knowing the how behind it is another thing that can take a long time of testing.
@masticina 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.*
The scientist, who doesn't has to be an atheist .. that is not connected to each other works in a world of evidence, testing, measuring and the ability to be wrong.
You ask about the beginning of space/time.. well ask the scientists not just a person on youtube like me. For what I understand they can go back some measure in time with measurements and predictions what they expect to measure. BUT the before.. before space time, there was no energy/matter to measure.
@masticina Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
This doesn't means "God did it" this means "we don't know yet!"
Again scientist doesn't equate atheist. The atheist says "I don't know yet.. " this leaves them open to allot of possibilities. The believer says "And so x happened and thus it is" .. what if the believer is wrong?
@masticina 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 Science makes no call over the existence or non existence of any god or spiritual matters. Because as you point out there are no tools to test such.
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
What are science worshippers, I know people worship allot but science. Science has nothing to do with religion really... if you want to know what Science is and does ask the scientists. One thing it isn't for certain a belief or a religion.
Does science has limits? Well yeah.. it has to be able to be tested. Else it is just a nice hypothesis at most.. to become a scientific theory it has to pass allot of poking and prodding.
> and even today scientists are hard at work revalidating known hypothsis and theories. Some will fail and will have to be thrown out or checked what went wrong. It says nothing about religion nor is a religion. Science is willing, MUST be willing to change fitting the evidence. Even if that means throwing out some long hold ideas. So be it! If it is shown false it has to be thrown out!
>> If in religion the claim is A=C and you have evidence, proof that A is definitely not C you are bound as believer to disregard the evidence and stick with an obvious fault. That is how it goes if you write things in stone! Unless there are some methods to later make additions and adjustments.. but even then you'll find that religion cannot fix some of its huge faults.
Yes we might know quite little, but a proven reliable fact in the hand is better then proven wrongs
@masticina 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.
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 they accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator
Lovely big words, seriously told you talk to a scientist. I am mere a laymen and as far as I understand these things yes there are limits to what you can do. And that is fine..
From a philosophical viewpoint a god might or might not exist.. sure..
@masticina 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,
@masticina 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.
In my views, and those are mine personal, a believer can belief and a non believer doesn't beliefs. So it be.. It is when believers try to enter territory, bring their unprovable god into a territory like science. That the believer does a great disservice to their own faith. And that is all :)
@masticina 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.
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?
Did you find this somewhere posted in a blog? Are you just copying a blog post?
... What the hell are you smoking dude copying blog posts like this .. just makes you look like a fool. Have fun I am not part of your "I will copy and past and copy and past in a sea like torrents..." .. you are not worthy. Not worthy our time, you are mere a spammer.. goodbye
this is great proof that god does not exist!!!
thacman55 6 hours ago
God have mercy on your soul.
27000000000000000000 1 day ago
Forget God. No one exists. There is no reality
TheZulu325 2 days ago
@TheZulu325 Yep. This is Matrix.
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
It is all 1 reality, because time and space has a birth there must be something outside of it that created it. This is God .
aidan87l1 3 days ago
@aidan87l1 Then if God exists on a reality that has no time and space, prove that such a reality exists. Btw, how is God in it? How are things in it? Can God understand us as human beings if he is on such a different reality? Can God interact with us? Support your answers.
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
I answer all questions in the way that I feel God guides me to answer. He knows who these individuals are. He knows why they have asked questions. He knows if they are hurting, being facetious, being blasphemous etc. and He guides His own children regarding how to handle each individual and each question posed here.
sorrow128 3 days ago
@sorrow128 Then tell me please... How does your God answer by you when I ask you why is there Evil in the World? Or why he made sin?
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
Very poor reasoning. You forget science shows evidance of a realm outside of time and space, also a God would not be subjected to laws he made for his creation. Try again. God 1 Atheist 0
aidan87l1 4 days ago
@aidan87l1 That science has not be proven. In order for it to get proven, it would have to show something outside our reality that didn't have to be subjected to its laws and didn't exist in our reality. Go ahead. Try it. It's impossible.
God 0 Atheist 1
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
@aidan87l1 Even if it was possible, it would not have to been your God in that "other realitiy".
Atheist 2 God 0
It may also be true that String Theory got proved and there were other realities. THat does not necessarily mean there's a God in one of them
Atheist 3 God 0
Even if there was a god in one of them, just existing wouldn't make him worthy of worship. There will be needed more things.
Atheist 4 God 0
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
@aidan87l1 If it was real and it was your God and somehow worthy of worship, living in another reality would make your realation with him a bit problematic (how can he understand you as a human being if he is in another reality)?
God 0 Atheist 5
Science will then have to prove that the two realities could mix together and God's reality would have control over ours. Even proving 2 dimensions is giving a lot of fight, imagine this.
God 0 Atheist 6
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
@aidan87l1 Those "other realities" that have more than our time and space have only be theoreticly shown (not proved. Just theory) on the String Theory. The String Theory hasn't been proved. Also, the String Theory is about Strings that are even smaller that the sub-atomic level. So small that even the most powerful microscope can't see them (that's why it can't be proved).
Is your God really that small?
Atheist 7 God 0
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
Comment removed
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WatchLearnSee *5 dimensions, not 2
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 3 days ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh Matter created the world. Two particles came out of nowhere, colided, and that was the Big Bang. Sounds more possible than God. Does it sound possible that the First Cause is a God that created the world with sin and then created Satan to have an excuse to place us in Hell and now everyday humans are killed/torurtured/suffering because he doesn't even care about that.
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Two particles came out of nowhere, colided, and that was the Big Bang.
__
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh The Universe wasn't created. It does not have a cause. That would require a "before" the big bang. But there was no "before" before the big bang.
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 3 days ago
@1tabligh I don't get your last claim. The particles don't require their non-being. If they do, so does Allah, because he also existed, somehow, before the Universe, when time didn't exist.
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors - matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced....., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh I also don't get how the atom's discover is provided to Greece instead to the Quaran. Can you please explain that part to me?
WatchLearnSee 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee ..provided to Greece instead to the Quaran. ...
___
Matter in Light of Physics
There are two scientific notions of matter that scientists have investigated and studied for thousands of years. One of these notions is that all the material things that are known to exist in nature are composed of nothing but a limited number of simple matter called 'elements'. The other notion is that matter is formed of very small or minute things called 'atoms'.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee The first notion was accepted by the *Greeks in general. The common view was to consider water, air, earth and fire as simple elements, and to reduce all composite things to them, since these elements are the primary matters of nature. Later, some Arab scientists tried to add to these four elements three more elements: sulfur, mercury and salt. According to the ancients the properties of the simple elements are marks that distinguish these elements from one another.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Thus, no simple element can change to another simple element.
As for the second notion - namely, that things are composed of small atoms - it was the subject of disagreement between two theories: the theory of discrete matter [or the atomistic theory] and the theory of continuous matter The disjunctive theory is the atomistic theory of the Greek philosopher Democritus. It asserts that a body is composed of small parts permeated by void.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh You can change oxigen into oxigen +1 just by removing one electron. If you remove 8, you will get ozon. You have now changed one simple element to another simple element. Review your physic lessons.
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee Democritus called these parts 'atoms' or 'indivisible parts'. The continuum theory is more predominant than the disjunctive theory. It was adopted by Aristotle and members of his school. According to the claims of this theory, a body does not have atoms, and it is not composed of small units. Rather, it is one solid thing that can be divided into parts, separated by division. It is not the case that prior to division it has such parts.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee After this, modern physics played its role [with regard to this issue]. It studied scientifically the above two notions in light of its discoveries in the atomic world. Basically, it confirmed the two notions, the notion of simple elements and the notion of atoms. But it disclosed new facts in the sphere of each of them that were unattainable earlier.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 science and polemics. 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 2 days 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 2 days ago
@1tabligh I find it amazing how you call me brainless just because I've asked you to support your arguments. Here are somethings you have in common with @Yah023weh:
1. You both claim your religion is the right one without proving it with science.
2. When your science comments are replied, you go back to unsupported religious claims.
3. If someone dares you to support them, you'll go back to religion, which proves nothing.
4. If they still reject them, you go for the personal side.
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee God made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the *general relativity.*
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh If time can't exist without matter and matter without time, when and where was God when he created the Universe?
WatchLearnSee 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee He is an infinite existence in all respects, such as knowledge, power, everlasting. and pre-existence. Therefore He will not be contained in time and space, while He is in everywhere and at any time, for being above space/Time. Yes, He is nearer to us than ourselves. He is with our soul, and He is everywhere, and in the meanwhile, He has not a certain place: sovereignty over every thing and every place. If we consider Him to have a certain place, we have limited Him
1tabligh 2 days ago
@1tabligh I've asked you to support that it is possible, not to quote me what Allah is.
WatchLearnSee 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee
WOW!
WAIT FOR THE ANSWERS!
O' wannabe monkey braggart!
YOUR vain bragging does NOT help at all cure your delusions!
READ MY COMMENTS WITH YOUR INTELLECT AND ABSOLUTELY NOT WITH YOUR WANNABE MONKEY EMOTIONS!
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 WAIT for the answers otherwise clock off!
The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 days ago
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 day ago
@1tabligh Either I am really dumb or you didn't explain anything at all. Can you please support it to be possible por a being to exist? You simply defined what "cause" means. I'm asking to support that it is possible for Allah not to have a cause.
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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.
1tabligh 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
1tabligh 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 day ago
@1tabligh Then if his existence isn't coming from non-existance, where is it comming from? If it doesn't come from nowhere or he was always there, prove that such a thing is possible?
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 day ago
@1tabligh Development in the mineral realm does not need your God. It can be done by scientific and natural ways. Like the star's evolution.
Stop using the Quoran and religious writings to support your claims unless you can prove the Quoran first.
WatchLearnSee 20 hours ago
@WatchLearnSee 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 19 hours ago
@1tabligh I don't know how you complicate simple things that much using science. We aren't talking about cause and effect, are we? What phenomenon are you talking about?
Also, renember when you quoted Quaran about Allah and the athoms? The word "athom" was generated in Greece. It means "something which can't be divided". Man created that word, not Allah.
WatchLearnSee 17 hours ago
@WatchLearnSee All we can sense is what the brain was programmed to sense. Our brain receives billions of signals every second but only processes 1000, meaning there is alot of shit going around us that we cant sense at all. To say God has to exist within our sense to be real is hilarious, because then by saying that you are saying that everything we cant sense does not exist. Its true it does not exist in our reality but to someone that can sense it would say it exists. Just like the
TheTheKRIT 17 hours ago
@TheTheKRIT fact that I sense the world as spiritual therefore I do not need to prove anything to you because you cannot sense it. By saying all that exists is what we sense is actually saying that our minds are creating the universe. its true if our brain is picking and choosing what it can and cant sense and translate, then it is creating our reality. Without the brain we are in a different reality, but we do not die. You see to exist in this reality with these sense and feelings you need
TheTheKRIT 17 hours ago
@TheTheKRIT a brain. without one you are trapped in another realm of existence. There is no death or birth these are simply perceptions of our mind just like time and motion.
TheTheKRIT 17 hours ago
@TheTheKRIT I'm a Buddhist. It's an atheist religion. I know how the spiritual world is, so I'd like you not to make assumptions which are wrong. However, spiritualism is a state of mind, not another reality. If you can prove it is, go ahead.
We have no experiences of bodies without brains and brains without bodies. Our brain dies, we die. Support that it isn't this way.
WatchLearnSee 16 hours ago
@TheTheKRIT Ok then. First of all, I'd like to provide a source by what you are talking about brain. I'll asssume it is true, but I'd like to see your sources anyway.
Second, I'd like you to provide some examples of things we can't see. Provide true stories of those who can sense it that can be proven and can't be faked anyway.
Thirdly, I'd like you to realize that if there was more than this, why should your God, and not Allah, be there?
WatchLearnSee 17 hours ago
@WatchLearnSee "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 1 day ago
@1tabligh If God can't be seen or sensed in anyway, how is able to understand us as human beings? Prove that it is possible for this being to not have a cause and to react with our Universe.
WatchLearnSee 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
by giving Him the attributes of His creatures, while we know that:- `nothing is like Him'. And: there is none equal to Him. God can never be seen by the physical eyes; because the object of seeing by the eyes, is a material body that has to have place, colour, form and direction. These are all the qualifications of the creatures, and not that of the creator. God is really far from that.
1tabligh 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee He has been existing since the eternity when there was no space devide into galaxies and no universe ( and no time also).
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh Can you prove it to be possible to a being to be eternal and have no cause?
WatchLearnSee 2 days ago
@WatchLearnSee In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh Can you explain how the Quran did already have knowledge of the atom before it was discovered?
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Allah says:
(And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in the heaven. Nor (is there) what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.) (10:61)
1tabligh 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee In this beautiful verse Allah clarifies that nothing is hidden from Him in this universe, no matter how minute it may be. It was believed that the atom was the smallest entity in the universe. After it was split smaller entities were discovered having positive electrical properties, such as protons and negative electrical properties, such as electrons.
In 1939, the German scholars Hahn and Strassmann in the University of Berlin split a uranium atom. With further
1tabligh 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee research particles which are minute may be discovered.
Modern sciences have reached a high level of technical development and scientific advancement in various fields of life. The future still holds for further development. This process will continue until the day of Requital. The collective efforts of all mankind in fields of knowledge will never measure up to or even come close to Allah's knowledge and ability.
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh So, Allah knows our future? Can he also prevent it?
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Yes
1tabligh 3 days ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 3 days ago
@1tabligh You keep talking about science and repeating the same thing. I've told you there are more proves against God than only science and we've already said that science is mostly against God. However, you keep repeating it. And I've told you before that atheists are not science worhippers. Either you start learning and changing your arguments or an argument with you is completly useless.
WatchLearnSee 3 days ago
@aidan87l1 Is there any prize I get if I manage to get 1000 points for Atheism?
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
If you want proof, join a missions outreach and go with a church that is spreading the gospel. If the truth is so important and you want to refute all the Christians in the world, why not go with them and see for yourself? I am sure any church will be glad to take anyone along that wants to see proof that God exists. Invest some money and learn the truth. Will be the best trip you have ever taken in your life. You will come back different and believing in Jesus.
Yah023weh 4 days ago
Wrong assumption. God is Spirit. You think and talk like you have not imagination. Rooted in the earth. How do you answer; Where do we come from? How many different theories have been proven wrong in the last 100 years? All of them. Keep coming up with new theories to deny God. Just the fact that most people believe in a Creator makes your assumptions wrong. But of course people like you know better than billions and billions of other people.
Walhei960 1 week ago
@Walhei960 1. So, God is rooted around the earth uh? How do you know that?
2. Talking about how many people believe in something is a known logical fallacy called "Appeal to Numbers". It does not support your believes in any way.
3. Atheism does not involve omnipotence. I am willing to give up my desbelief if you show me undeniable prove that God is real. Until then, atheism is more rational and logic than theism, so WE ARE better than irrational theists.
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee *omniscience
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee Thanks. Can't recall or remember those big words.
Walhei960 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee No, I said the presenter mind was rooted in the earth, this world. 2. Many of these people were the most intelligent in human history. Many were great inventors, sculptures, writers, professors. They were logical, not simple minded people who were easily fooled. A site I like is, reasons.org, click on resources, Dr.Ross said, click on any subject, look down left side of page. Try Bible controversies.
Walhei960 1 week ago
@Walhei960 4. Many theories have been proved wrong, yes, including religious believes (and Christian religion included). I do not see how this supports your belief, as modern theology is working on updating the theories of thjeology day to day, because they have so many flaws, that it is not theology anymore (that's why it is called "modern technology" instead of theology, like it was before).
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee All religions are false and from Satan, except Christian religion. The Bible has never been proved wrong. There are things that cannot be explained yet. The Hittite nation was once an argument that the Bible was wrong, for hundreds of years. Then early the 1900's an archeologist discovered the Hittite Capitol. An officer is WW ! used the Bible to find a path through some mountains to get behind the Turks. Over two hundred prophecies now proved true. .
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 The Bible has been proven to be logically contradictory and it shows your God to be a immoral monster. It does also promote rape, prostitution, murder, slavery and treats women like objects. About the prophecies, can you prove that they happened AFTER the Bible was writen?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee You just throw out accusations! Sounds like hate to me! It is so easy to apply today's morals to 3 or 4 thousand years ago!? Slavery was common everywhere. It was fact of life. Many preferred being slaves to rich than starving to death. Just depends on how poor you were. The Bible is the standard of moral behavior. Only recent laws, like protecting homos, has changed the great moral laws of God.
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 If the morals of the Bible are the standard morals given by God (which include what I've said) that God is a monster and I'd not worship him. If you do, then you are a monster to. And I'm not throwing out acussations. This is how the world works. If your God was true and He did/was described in the Bible, he'd have done a better job
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee *then God is a monster
*you are a monser too
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee There was 400 years of silence from God, after the Old Testament was written. Most prophecies were 400 to 3,000 years before Christ was born. 700 BC prophet Micah said the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. Probability 1 chance in 10 to the fifth power. 500 BC Zechariah 12:9 I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling for the World. See that now? 760 BC Isaiah said, Cyrus would conquer Babylon. This was 150 years before Cyrus was born!
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 Show your souces on that dates.
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Source is the Bible. All the books of the Bible are dated. The Bible is best documented book in all of history. Over 25,000 ancient manuscripts and pieces of papyrus, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Very little for Homer, other ancient men, just copies of copies. The proof a man was a prophet was if the prophecy came true. If false he was stoned to death. Modern scientist are seeing design in cells. Darwin speculated based on few adaptations of animals, to get food
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 You support your "proves" of the Bible in the Bible itself. This isn't a very logical thing to do, because the Bible is the thing being discussed in the 1st place. And again, if the Bible is true, is the God described on it someone you'd follow/worship?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Of course!!! I worship God because He loved me first. Even when I was a sinner, more of a sinner. He sacrificed His son so I can live. His Son pain the price for my sin. Now I will live with Him in Heaven forever. Perfect in every way. No pain, no wants, all my desires will be satisfied. Only Bible confirmed true by History, Archeology, and Scientifically, and Logically. No other Religion is true. But God gives the decision to human. Must come to God our of love.
Walhei960 5 days ago
@Walhei960 The Bible has not been proved neither historically nor archeologicall nor scientifically, because the previsions it makes can't be dated back to before the events. Even the "roundness of the Earth" has already been found by Egypt cyvilizations 4000 bC, long before the Bible. The bible is also logically contradictory, so you've failled on every aspect of your last comment.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@WatchLearnSee For an intelligent guy you make ridiculous statements. How do historians find the dates of the Roman Empire? How about ancient Egypt? How do archeologist and historians know the dates of any ancient civilization. The same research and archeology is how they date the Bible. It has more documentation than any historical document! So all historical documents are false, you say? The Bible time were dated from reigns so Kings, like all document of ancient times.
Walhei960 5 days ago
@Walhei960 Ok. Let me tellyou what you are missing: doccuments on the Roman Empire and Egypt civilizations state the date of important things (like who was the pharao there and when, etc). Of course they did not have the same date format we have today, but they had other systems.
As you know, the Bible was divided on 2 books, whose name I don't know in English (the 1st about God, the 2nd about Jesus).
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 How many non-religion texts (by texts I am talking about death/birth certificates, archeology, etc) do you think there are, from Egypt and Romanian history writers, about jesus? Zero! Not a single one.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 The first reference to Jesus was on a letter Plínio to the empire, on the 2nd century. On the 1st century, no non-religious writing about Christ was made. I'm going to tell you how the Bible (the "New Book" as I'm gonna call it - Novo Testamento in portuguese) was made: believers in Jesus ran away from the Roman army after hearing about his death. Then they heard he was going to come back to life, so they waited for him in Jerusalem.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 As they waited, they told histories about Jesus. They didn't thought they should write them, because most of them didn't know how to write, so they were oral stories. But those stories were changed in order to ilustrate situations that would solve some problems that came along. They took stories out of their inicial context.
But Jesus never returned and they started dieing, so they thought those stories should be writen, in order not to get lost.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@WatchLearnSee *Correction*: *They didn't thought they should write them, because most of them didn't know how to write, so they were oral stories (..) and they thought Jesus would come back soon, so there was no need for it.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 There were created dezens of books from different persons (over 30). When the army kicked the Christians out of Jerusalem, they were divided into several groups that believed in a different Jesus, each one of those following only the books they selected. The most organized of those groups was "The Roman Christians", that took Rome as their home. They deleted most of the books and only kept Paul, John, Tiago, etc.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 The oldest textes from this "New Book" date back to Paul. He was Jew and used to send letters to his followers (he spread the word of Jesus around Mediterranean sea) when they got out of way. This letters became usual and soon other leaders like Judah started using them. There are about 35 of this letters in the Bible.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 That's how the Bible was made. I just decided to share with you all we know about it. MY main point keeps the same: there are no non-religious textes in which you can trust to prove Jesus' existance. Only textes from those who believed and followed him. The other part (the part of the prophecies) I've already discussed before.
WatchLearnSee 5 days ago
@Walhei960 I messed up the names. I was talking about John, Matheus, Marcus and Lucas.
WatchLearnSee 4 days ago
@WatchLearnSee This is found by Googling Apologetic or Biblical Archeology. Also one I like is reasons.org, click on resources, click on Dr. Ross said, click on any subject, look down left side. Get answers.
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 5. Not all of the theories have been +proved wrong. Big Basng and Evolution, Gravity, etc. That is not true.
6. So if I have enough imagination to say that there is a perfect island or fairies pushing the earth, does that mean they exist? Iceland people believe in faries. Many people believe in a different God than yours. Do you think you are more right than them? Do you think you are better than them just because more people believe the same thing you do?
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee The title said Why God does not exist. I hope we are talking about that. The theories I am speaking of are for evolution. There have been at least three. All have been proved wrong. Now men are putting forth a theory that this planet was seeded with humans from an alien race? That is nuts. Get more ridiculous all the time.
Einstein and Steven Hawking also said. It looks as thought the Universe was created for man. Para phrasing. .
Walhei960 1 week ago
@Walhei960 The Evolution Theory based on Darwin's Natural Selection is wrong? Really? What are your sources on that matter?
You are right, many inteligent people have believed in God, and many have not. That is another logical fallacy known as appealing to authority. Just because someone who is more X than you believe something, it must be true. You must recall that there was a time where the most wise men thought that fire was divine and the earth was flat.
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@Walhei960 Greek philosofers like Aristotle did not believe in God, and his theories are accepted today, and he is seen as one of the wisest men of all time. Einstein was Jew, not Christian. Jew tradiction refuse the existance of Christ or it may claim he existed but was a false prophet/did not matter (deppending on the Jew in question). Does that mean the Bible is wrong? What about intelligent people that are not Christians too?
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@Walhei960 My point is, if you start a claim with: X believe this, therefore this is true, you need to see that there are many things X can believe in and they are contradictory. Many wise people were part of contradictory religions (Buddhism, Christianism, Muslim, Islamism, etc) or with no religion at all. Yes, they were intelligent, but they can't all be right, can they?
If you want to discuss God, use arguments, not people.
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee If you read any Holy Book you can see right away that it is true or not. Only the Bible has never been proved untrue. On the contrary there a many proofs the Bible is inspired by God. It was written over a period of fifteen hundred years, by 45 different people, of all occupations, yet it harmonizes perfectly! Over the years hundreds of very smart people tried to prove the Bible wrong. Most became believers!
Walhei960 6 days ago
@Walhei960 Again, the Bible has been proven to be logically contradictory. Therefore, either someone made a mistake, and this is perfectly fine for humans (because a tradiction could only mantain itself with contradictions), but not for a God.
Also, many prophets were wrong and their books thrown out of the Bible: only the ones that were right were mantained. What does this say about the Holy nature of the Scriptres?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Walhei960 Beside that, with over 500 historic writers near the Egypt, which described in every detail their daily life, only 12 people saw Jesus dividing the water and doing miracles and decided to write about it. Only the Bible was writen about this. Nothing else. Other writings about Jesus were only made 60 years after his dead. Kinda suspicious uh?
WatchLearnSee 6 days ago
@WatchLearnSee Jesus fulfilled dozens of Prophecies.The odds that Jesus would fulfill only eight, of the dozens, without Gods divine intervention, is ONE CHANCE IN 10 TO THE 2000 POWER. You have a better chance of Freezing to death, instantly, on a bright sunny day!. Read a few papers at reasons.org, resources, Dr. Ross Said, click on any subject, look down left side, Get some answers, or continue to deny the truth.
Walhei960 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U use less than 10% of your brain and the most intelligent person on the plant possesses less than 1% of worldly knowledge. BUT, you're certain, with such little intellectual capacity and even less worldly knowledge that there is no God. One should be on a continuous search for the truth. To come up with such a conclusion on such a major subject is sad, pathetic, immensely glib and ignorant and cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a hint of intelligence and a progressive mind.
jimbowillie121 1 week ago
Comment removed
jimbowillie121 1 week ago
define: worship
Noun:
The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity: "ancestor worship".
Verb:
Show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
11harrij 1 week ago in playlist Atheist Slide Shows
@spyrofoot IM sure god wouldn't approve of that language
eddy1397 1 week ago
straw man
patriotsundergod 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog thanks for your comment. I think there is one folly in your reasoning though. You have assumed that everything that exists is made up of matter/energy. That does not account for how the universe began. If the universe had a beginning, it must have a beginner. If time/space/matter had a beginning, than that beginner is must be outside of your definition of existence. Something must be able to exist without being made up of time/space/matter. I believe that this being is God.
tjbourbs 1 week ago
@tjbourbs When the universe began, time did as well, therefore, no before-times, the universe always existed.
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
Lol
When I begin talking to a girl, one of my first questions is always if she believes in God.
It takes a certain unintelligible person to accept something based on such little fact.
She almost always says yes, and I almost always lose slightly more hope for my race. Goodluck idiots ;)
iheartjkhalil 1 week ago
@iheartjkhalil You're biological body will eventually give out one day. You continue to insult a concept in which you don't understand, without proof you assert it doesn't exist, the oldest most ancient of things, something that speaks every language in this universe if you know what I mean. You will not meet him though, you will meet the american dream, the rape of Africa, the undying machine, he chants "From a throne of the bones I rule, these fools are my fuel so I make them cool."
DJRedSTUDIOS 1 week ago
THERE IS A CRIATOR - DESIGNER stop giving excuses to the obvious just because you want to take full advantages of the lust of this short life, that was meant to test us JUST YOUR HAND HAS ENOUGH PROOF THAT GOD (CREATOR) EXIST Some people don't have the Holy Spirit. They don't accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Things like that are foolish to them. They can't understand them. In fact, such things can't be understood without the Spirit's help I CORINTHIANS 2:14
THEHELENOHENZO 1 week ago
@THEHELENOHENZO Why must some ignorant Christians ruin it for the rest of them, and have to force their religion upon all the people of the Earth? I'm an atheist and I generally conceive a true believing Christian to be a good spirited person, not some blathering idiot that makes the entire human species look like complete and total idiots. People like you are why I have absolutely no faith god exists.
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog By the way...it is not an opinion or being forced upon you. You feel as if it is being forced upon you because you do not want to accept it. The truth is...belief in God is not being forced upon you when it is the truth.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@Yah023weh That doesn't make no sense, it IS being forced on you if it is the truth or not, if I told you that being atheist was the truth and forced it on you, would it be ok if it were the truth?
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog No. If something is the truth...it cannot be forced.
Why would you want to believe a lie? If you have gone your whole life believing a lie and someone tells you the truth, wouldn't you want to live the truth? Why would you want to continue living a lie? Hence...if something is the truth it is never forced on you.
I like your twist of my words...I do enjoy word banter. One problem with your statement...Atheism is not the truth. So you could never convince me otherwise.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@Yah023weh If something is the truth, it can, and is being forced, by you, but that isn't my truth, my truth consists of something along the lines of "There is no god." your truth, on the other hand is "There is a god." and you are trying to force your truth onto my truth, therefore, Truth1 is being forced on Truth2. Truth can be forced
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog Truth is not relative to viewpoint.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@Yah023weh Tell me why it isn't
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog If truth is relative, then nothing is the truth.
If I said I saw a tree fall to the ground and you did not see it.
It may be the first time in history a tree has fallen to the ground, but you did not
see it so you think that I am lying.
To me, the tree did fall and that is the truth.
To you, trees do not fall to the ground so that is your truth.
Do you see the problem with relative truth?
If truth is relative, then everything is a lie.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog If truth is relative, 2+2 does not always equal 4.
To me, I say it equals 5.
You say it equals 4.
My viewpoint determines that it equals 5.
Your viewpoint determines it equals 4.
Do you see the problem?
Let me think of another example why truth cannot be relative.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog Driving a car down the road.
I see the car going 55mph.
You see me going 45 mph.
Who is right then?
Which speed is the truth or are we both wrong?
Without something that determines the truth, it remains
relative and neither of us know the truth.
Do you see why truth cannot be relative.
If truth is relative, everything is a lie.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnoozersDog Let me correct my last one about the car.
Driving a car down the road.
I see the car going 55mph.
You see the car going 45 mph.
Who is right then?
Which speed is the truth or are we both wrong?
Without something that determines the truth, it remains
relative and neither of us know the truth.
Do you see why truth cannot be relative.
If truth is relative, everything is a lie.
Yah023weh 1 week ago
@Yah023weh The truth is relative to religion, if god is real, I will repent and pray that I get sent to heaven, but I haven't been shown enough proof that he is.
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
@SnoozersDog What disturbs me is that there are people that talk about needing proof when they just need to pay attention and quit chatting everything up to coincidence or whatever excuse they come up with. I am sorry to say...but you could have God standing on your toe and you will still say he does not exist. There have been people like this for years. Apparently their hand does not bleed when they cut it.
Yah023weh 4 days ago
@Yah023weh If I had god standing on my toe, I would believe he existed, because he would be on my toe. I'm not atheist, I'm agnostic. I'm not sure if god exists or not, but until I see proof, he doesn't exist in my eyes.
SnoozersDog 4 days ago
@SnoozersDog If you really believe that you would believe in God if he was standing on your toe, read in the bible about all the people who saw a miracle performed by Jesus and yet still did not believe. How big of a toe does someone need?
Yah023weh 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnoozersDog If you really believe that you would believe in God if he was standing on your toe, read in the bible about all the people who saw a miracle performed by Jesus and yet still did not believe. How big of a toe does someone need?
Yah023weh 3 days ago
@SnoozersDog religion is the foundation of the world, everything above it will have to go according to it GET USE TO IT how dumb can get you get to think that everything around you is self made and run OR YOU JUST WANT TO PUT GOD ASIDE SO YOU CAN FREELY LIVE YOUR WISH LUST WAY LIFE
THEHELENOHENZO 1 week ago
@THEHELENOHENZO Caps off.
If everything around us is self-made and perfect, I don't understand the nature of natural dissastres. I don't get how people can be born with deathly deseases or be killed by the world itself. I don't get how and why the eye is upside down, which reduces many of its advantages. I don't get how the brain is poorly built and easily infected (and then, deadly). And if the order of things mean they are created, who created God's organized mind?
WatchLearnSee 1 week ago
@WatchLearnSee THANK YOU! I've been wanting to tell this guy to quit going into an all caps rage, and tell them that if god is perfect and created the world perfect, why are there diseases!
SnoozersDog 1 week ago
FUCK GOD ! ! ! !
mark218sstc 1 week ago
Good video
And how very true, if "You can't test god" is the best anwser believers have then by all means their god doesn't exist. At least not within our definition of existance!
masticina 1 week 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 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Belief? Belief?
Ahum if one can see that an apple falls from a tree and it happens again and again and again.. with obviously different apples and objects you stop talking about Belief!
You talk about Observation. Now observing a thing and knowing the how behind it is another thing that can take a long time of testing.
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina 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 week ago
@1tabligh
The scientist, who doesn't has to be an atheist .. that is not connected to each other works in a world of evidence, testing, measuring and the ability to be wrong.
You ask about the beginning of space/time.. well ask the scientists not just a person on youtube like me. For what I understand they can go back some measure in time with measurements and predictions what they expect to measure. BUT the before.. before space time, there was no energy/matter to measure.
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
This doesn't means "God did it" this means "we don't know yet!"
Again scientist doesn't equate atheist. The atheist says "I don't know yet.. " this leaves them open to allot of possibilities. The believer says "And so x happened and thus it is" .. what if the believer is wrong?
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina 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 week ago
@1tabligh Science makes no call over the existence or non existence of any god or spiritual matters. Because as you point out there are no tools to test such.
Isn't that lovely?
masticina 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@masticina The atheist Delusion!
Your delusion that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your delusion is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 1 week ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
What are science worshippers, I know people worship allot but science. Science has nothing to do with religion really... if you want to know what Science is and does ask the scientists. One thing it isn't for certain a belief or a religion.
Does science has limits? Well yeah.. it has to be able to be tested. Else it is just a nice hypothesis at most.. to become a scientific theory it has to pass allot of poking and prodding.
masticina 1 week ago
@1tabligh
> and even today scientists are hard at work revalidating known hypothsis and theories. Some will fail and will have to be thrown out or checked what went wrong. It says nothing about religion nor is a religion. Science is willing, MUST be willing to change fitting the evidence. Even if that means throwing out some long hold ideas. So be it! If it is shown false it has to be thrown out!
Religion doesn't allows for such!
masticina 1 week ago
@1tabligh
>> If in religion the claim is A=C and you have evidence, proof that A is definitely not C you are bound as believer to disregard the evidence and stick with an obvious fault. That is how it goes if you write things in stone! Unless there are some methods to later make additions and adjustments.. but even then you'll find that religion cannot fix some of its huge faults.
Yes we might know quite little, but a proven reliable fact in the hand is better then proven wrongs
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina 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 week ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the they accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator
1tabligh 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Lovely big words, seriously told you talk to a scientist. I am mere a laymen and as far as I understand these things yes there are limits to what you can do. And that is fine..
From a philosophical viewpoint a god might or might not exist.. sure..
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina 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 1 week ago
@masticina 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 1 week ago
@1tabligh
You done? Just asking really!
In my views, and those are mine personal, a believer can belief and a non believer doesn't beliefs. So it be.. It is when believers try to enter territory, bring their unprovable god into a territory like science. That the believer does a great disservice to their own faith. And that is all :)
Have a nice week ahead rather chilly today.
masticina 1 week ago
@masticina 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.
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 1 week ago
@1tabligh
Did you find this somewhere posted in a blog? Are you just copying a blog post?
... What the hell are you smoking dude copying blog posts like this .. just makes you look like a fool. Have fun I am not part of your "I will copy and past and copy and past in a sea like torrents..." .. you are not worthy. Not worthy our time, you are mere a spammer.. goodbye
masticina 1 week ago