"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Now that makes perfect sense"
@1tabligh Haha, it's 100% definite...yet you do not have the smallest shred of evidence for this childish claim. You're like a kid that can't explain where the presents on christmas came from and therefore thinks that santa claus 100% exists. And you base all of your believes on the fact that you don't understand nature and the universe. And you want others to believe the same because you don't like the fact that we may not have the answers to everything. Pathetic.
@83Hammerhead With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
@1tabligh "If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?" Could you please translate this sentence to english? I know you've copied this sentence from some islamic book called "our philosophy" and have pasted it many times, not only on youtube. At least write it in your own words...
@83Hammerhead What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
@1tabligh Again, even if asked to use your own words, all you do is copy paste more stuff. Anyways, if you have questions about chemistry I suggest talking to a chemist or reading some chemistry books. There's also good information on the web (look up nucleosynthesis for example). This would take too long to answer in this comment section.
Did you ever investigate the questions you ask or do you simply just copy paste them to make yourself look clever?
@1tabligh What a weak argument. So in order to accept such a claim you don't have to go to all those places but if you want to deny it you have to??? I could ask you the same about all the other gods and supernatural beings that you deny...
Once again I go into your fallacious, childish claims without you actually addressing what was said before. Go on, copy-paste your next piece of text, I'm so excited!
@83Hammerhead So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
@1tabligh "you think He may exist and He may not exist?" As I said, demonstrate the existence of something with good evidence (not appeals to emotion or "I don't understand x, therefore god did it") and I won't deny it.
"It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,'" That is exactly what I am doing, but you don't do this, therefore I'm wiser than you. Of course I don't have evidence for no god (just as "no fairies", "no zeus", "no krishna"), but it is you who has to provide evidence FOR your claim.
@83Hammerhead What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
@1tabligh "furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?" Again, demonstrating the validity of something isn't just about seeing it, there are other forms of evidence.
"What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?" Not true, gravity is immaterial for example, yet it is part of the universe and demonstrable.
@1tabligh Yoiu know what, I'll just stop answering your questions until you stop being rude and start answering some of mine. You really need to take some lessons in having polite, fair conversations. Is this your tactic for converting people to islam?
@83Hammerhead All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy. ...
@1tabligh "There are many invisible beings in the universe." Such as? Do you have proof for them? I already told you that, yes, some things in the universe (such as gravity) are immaterial but that they are demonstrable and testable. Show me a scientifically verifyable demonstration of your god or "invisible beings" and I'll believe you. Yes beings produce energy, but that energy is measurable.
Again, you avoiding my questions shows how insecure you are in your beliefs or how deluded they are.
Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God!
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion. ....
What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
@1tabligh "without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation" For the last time, I know that there are things in the universe which we cannot use our senses for to detect but they are, as you say, detectable, measurable, inferrable by modern physicists. You have yet to provide the same kind of evidence that physicists provide for those things for your god or the "invisible beings" you talk about...
@83Hammerhead 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 "We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena" What is that law? And how is it able to interpret? "the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation" This is not true, again, there are other ways of demonstrating something (inference, calculations, etc.).
"many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing" By what means can they be perceived then?
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh Again, as long as you don't start answering my questions I won't bother going into what you wrote, what logical fallacies you copy-pasted this time and what's wrong with your arguments. You again provide no actual evidence for "the creator" but arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority. I'll just keep asking you questions but know you won't answer them, making you look like the demagogue.
@1tabligh "nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause" Explain why the reason or cause of something happening has to be supernatural, why can't it be natural?
"based on an established system and specific laws" Yes, natural laws, or do you know of any supernatural laws?
"it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles" It is surprising, why do you do it?
"a considerable number of scientists" What is that number and what science(s) do you mean?
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. ....
@1tabligh "even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists" I already said, we know that there are immaterial factors (such as gravity) in the universe. Show me one, just one, experiment that shows that an immaterial being exists! And you call us deluded...
@83Hammerhead (such as gravity) in the universe. Show me one, just one, experiment that shows that an immaterial being exists!
_______
Concerning Experimentalists
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things
@1tabligh "those who glorify experimentation" You're the one who said not even a tousand experiments could convince me...I asked you to provide one. You can't, so now you bash scientists for only testing what is testable? Only observing what is observable? Science deals with things that we can test, have evidence for, observe, measure.
beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation, we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea
except if they grasp its objective reality by one of their senses, then this will be a *blow* to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify. A dem.. of a scientific truth by expe....does not mean a direct sense perc.. of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
@1tabligh "When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?" When will you finally get it?? How many times do I have to tell you that our senses aren't the only things that can help us to find evidence for something. And of course you can perceive gravity with your senses, just take a stone and drop it on your foot, I'm sure your eyes and foot will sense what gravity does.
@83Hammerhead When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this ...
@1tabligh "he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force" Exactly...he observed and drew conlcusions from his observations (which had to be verifyed before being accepted)...what's your point? And besides (I think what you're trying to do is equate gravitation to god), gravitation can be expressed as numbers and units, measured, its effects observed. Can you express god in numbers and units, measure him?
phenomenon could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method ...
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is exactly the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
@1tabligh Besides I don't get what you're even trying to accomplish here...do you want to tell scientists that they should measure things that can't be measured, do experiments on things that are impossible to test. I know where you're try ing to go with this, there is complexity, intelligence and order in the universe therefore there must be a god and that's like a scientific observation and conclusion. The difference is that the conclusion you're drawing isn't testable, it's an assumption...
@1tabligh ...as opposed to gravity which is easily testable by, for example, letting a rock drop from a few metres and measuring the time it took for it to reach the ground. What you were saying is that newton didnt perceive gravity, but the effects of gravity and then came to the conclusion that there had to be a (natural) explanation for this. If you say the effects of god is order in the universe you still have to demonstrate the god part and that there isnt a natural explanation.
@83Hammerhead Can you express god in numbers and units, measure him?
______
"measure"
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty
@1tabligh "materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation" How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? I told you that if you provide some evidence for your god or "invisible beings" I'll examine that evidence with an open mind and draw my conclusions as to whether I think your evidence is sufficient or not.
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *"measure"* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *"measure"* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to
@1tabligh "they try to *"measure"* God, the spirit" I'm not trying to. I asked you why I should believe that your god exists. Don't focus on the measuring part now. But answer me these questions (I know you won't but this is the crucial question here): why do you deny the existence of other gods besides your own, of fairies, pixies, bigfoot, unicorns, demigods, etc.? Did you consider every single one of those?
*"measure"* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
@1tabligh And is there any evidence you would accept that would lead you to not believe in your god anymore? "This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature" Are you rebelling against all the other countless gods that man has and does believe in? Are you abandoning your original nature by not worshipping vishnu, mithra, zeus?
@83Hammerhead I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "zeus, apollo, thor " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "zeus, apollo, thor etc"I, But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
@1tabligh "But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God" I'm not claiming divinity for any of them, I'm asking you why you deny them, since you accuse atheists of being deluded for not believing in your god.
"The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!" Then prove what you claim already! So: 1. Why do you deny other gods (or fairies, pixies, etc.) and 2. Prove that your god exists.
@1tabligh Seems the reason you deny other gods is because no one has provided any evidence for them that was sufficient to you. That is exactly why I deny your god along with all the other gods, I have not seen sufficient evidence for all the supernatural claims I've seen. You're starting to understand, good.
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@1tabligh "If numerous gods ruled over the world [...] the universe would dissolve into anarchy." Can you prove that that would be the case? Could it not be the case that several gods could rule peacefully alongside each other, maybe each being responsible for a different part of life and the universe? How do you know it couldn't be like that? Quoting the quran is not prove for this, that would be called circular reasoning.
@83Hammerhead Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, ....
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
@1tabligh So now you just waffle on about how religion is part of our nature (I don't fully disagree with this, but it doesn't make the religious claims true...like I said you wouldn't accept the claims of any other religion besides yours), throw in a quran quote like it actually proves something, copy-paste, copy-paste, all along still refusing to answer my questions properly, throwing all atheists into one basket by saying they are ruled by passion and desire only...you're a great guy!
Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
@1tabligh You think you are so much better than atheists, or materialists, that you are superior to them because you worship some god...and you're telling me I worship myself? Seems to me you're the one who has a superiority complex here. I don't worship anything or anyone in a religious sense, meaning that I blindly and unconditionally believe that everything about this person or thing is true and right. Tragically you've been deceived to think that worshipping...
@1tabligh ...your god makes you better and all others are just self-worshipping, lost, blind, deluded humans who will be punished after they die while you get a reward. And on top of that you cannot properly have a discussion or formulate your own thoughts, you don't answer questions and think that you know the answer to all the questions. You truly are full of yourself.
@83Hammerhead Unless a man is possessed of a firm and stable faith he remains a stranger to the ways of those who know God. His scepticism grows. He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading.He discounts anything that his sciences do not prove or even try to prove for him. ...
@1tabligh "possessed of a firm and stable faith" Thank you I dont want to be possessed by faith, which is basically just believing in something despite not having good evidence for the belief. "His scepticism grows" Is scepticism a bad thing? Do you prefer blind belief? Is your scepticism towards zeus, thor, mithra, vishnu growing? "He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading" You only accept what coincides with the quran and your religion, don't you?
The basis of religious thinking is thus left untilled and untended. He considers undeserving of attention any problem which cannot be taken in isolation from all religion, be judged by its outward appearance, and proved by experiment. Having grown used to scientific language, with its formulae and equations, he regards religious matters as lightweight and commonplace.
@1tabligh And again, you ramble on about how close-minded atheists are, and that all they do all day is look at the world through scientific eyes, like we have nothing else in our lives...if only you knew how wrong you are and compartmentalized your views are. I'm guessing you don't know any atheists personally (and if you do you never really tried to get to know them), but your view of everyone outside of your own religion is saddening.
@83Hammerhead If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, ...
and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the divinity of "an *"individual devised god"*, "zeus, apollo, thor etc" or Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
@1tabligh Congratulations, once again you managed to not really address any of my questions or points...and proceed to talking about divinity (that I never mentioned).
You are 100% right, the one making a claim has to provide evidence for it. So provide evidence for your god and I will tell you what I think about it. I've told you why I reject your and any other gods or supernatural entities and you deny them for the same reason. Now it's up to you to prove your god.
@83Hammerhead If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
@1tabligh You're not answering my question...and what is this "theory of self-procreation"? And in what "light of scientific research" can it be dropped? And how can you prove that your answer to the question of how life arose on earth is correct?
Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells? If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
@1tabligh You're not answering my questions! "how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation" If you think about it for a minute, maybe it's because abiogenesis needs very specific conditions that just can't be found anywhere on earth anymore. Additionally, this planet is already full of life, what do you think would happen to newly emerging, very simple life-forms?
@83Hammerhead ....it's because abiogenesis needs very specific .....
____
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
@1tabligh "highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator" There are many examples in nature, chemical processes, where order comes about without any input by a designer or creator. Oh you poor deluded creationist, dodging ALL questions and quibbling in vain. Your arguments are nothing but great arguments from ignorance and a lack of understanding of basic chemical, biological processes...just because something seems absurd to ***you*** doesn't mean it's wrong.
@83Hammerhead If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present, whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature.
@1tabligh "What then made those laws and decrees different?" The appearance of life itself. A planet cannot have an atmosphere like ours if there aren't lifeforms changing the chemistry of the planet by producing gases. That is one reason why abiogenesis isn't occuring anymore today. We're also not being bombarded by meteorites anymore.
Another reason is that even if it did occur, there already is life here and the ones that already are here would outcompete the newcomers easily.
@83Hammerhead The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
@1tabligh Wow you are getting annoying again. You just keep changing topics everytime I answer one of your questions or address one of your claims. Have you no decency? Can you not stop being rude just once and acknowledge what I said or answer one of my questions properly once? Is it really too much to ask of you?
@1tabligh So if you want to have an honest discussion about this, you better start being polite instead of just continuously asking questions that you could find the answers to if you read some science books. I'm happy to provide answers as well, but you better start having an actual conversation rather then a monologue...no one will take you serious if you behave like this.
The world of matter and nature, conceived as a created whole, is the best, clearest and most universal evidence for the knowledge of God. The wise will of that Eternal Principle can be discovered in the very processes of material change. It is apparent that His eternal rays bestow life and sustenance on all beings, and that all of creation derives both its existence and its advancement from Him.
@1tabligh So basically you cannot provide good evidence, all you can do is point at the birds and the trees and claim (not prove) that there must be a god behind it all because you don't think it's possible for nature to account for it. You don't understand evidence. Just saying something like "his eternal rays bestow life" is not evidence, it's just a philosophical understanding of the world from a time before scientific discoveries.
@1tabligh So again, after some back and forth in which you never really addressed the things I said and just kept throwing question after question at me, me answering it and you completely ignoring what was said and moving on to your next copy-pasted piece of text because you can't answer me yourself, you go back to basically preaching. You assume that your god did it, without actual evidence, only an old book.
You don't want a real conversation, fine...I can keep going.
@83Hammerhead To study the different beings in the universe, the mysteries of the book of creation, the pages of which all bear witness to the operation of a lofty intelligence in its creation, provides, then, evidence on which to base knowledge and belief in a wise Creator Whose power is but slightly manifested in the order of beings for all their splendor and vastness.
@1tabligh What you are talking about is not evidence, it is not proof, no matter how often you say it is. If you think this is evidence, let me ask you this: what evidence would you accept that would disprove your god?
No one benefits from thinking like this, it stops honest investigation and inquiry. Study the different beings in the universe? Show me those studies.
@83Hammerhead Everyone, to the extent permitted by his capacity and vision, can see in all the phenomena of creation indications of connectedness, harmony, and purposefulness, and find in every one of the countless particles of creation a firm proof for the existence of the source of being.
The complete adaption of every species of animal to its conditions of life is a great sign of God; each has been created with all the particular instruments needed for its conditions of life.
@1tabligh "to the extent permitted by his capacity and vision" So once again, you just say that atheists are too blind to see god in nature, even though we can explain most of the things we see through natural causation, adaptation, ecolution, chemistry, physics. Nature is evidence for nature, if you want to argue that god created this you have to come up with more than just "it's all so complex, I can't think of a way this came about by natural causes, therefore there must be a god"...
@1tabligh *I meant to say evolution in my last comment*
"The complete adaption of every species of animal to its conditions of life is a great sign of God" No it's not, it's a great sign of adaptation. We can explain adaptation genetically, ecologically, on an individual as well as on a population level. Again, you can't use the natural as proof for the supernatural, because the natural wouldn't be natural if the supernatural was part of it.
@83Hammerhead Look carefully at the structure of the bird's creation; see how it has been created light and small in volume to enable it to fly. It was given only two legs instead of the four given to other animals and only four of the five toes they have on each foot. Birds have slim, pointed breasts to enable them to fend the air easily and fly in every direction. The long legs of the bird fit easily beneath its tail and its wings, and its whole body is covered with feathers so that air
might penetrate them and aid it to fly. Since the food of birds consists of seeds and the flesh of animals that they consume without chewing, they have no need of teeth. Instead, God created for birds a hard and sharp beak that cannot break when tearing off meat or suffer injury when gathering seeds. To enable this creature to digest the food it has not chewed, it has been given a
powerful digestive system and a warm body. Furthermore, birds reproduce by laying eggs so they can remain light enough to fly; if their offspring were to grow in their stomachs, they would become too heavy to fly.
Thus all the peculiarities of a bird's creation conform to its environment and its manner of life.
@1tabligh look you don't need to tell me that birds can fly and have a warm body, I'm a biologist and know quite a bit about these things. Again, these things are natural occurences, they are not supernatural. There are natural explanations for them, we know how these things work, down to the evolution of language. Just because you think that these things are too complex to come about naturally doesn't mean you can just say god did it.
@83Hammerhead Modern scientists have discovered a sophisticated system of communication among the animals that is more complex and precise than our own system of communication. Crissy Morrison writes, "If we put a female moth next to the window of our room, it emits soft signals that a male moth picks up from an incredible distance and it sends its own signals in return. However much you may wish to disturb this communication, you will be unable to do so.
Now, consider biology, or the science of life. You will find another great divine secret: namely, the vague secret of life, which fills the human heart with confidence in the theological notion and with solid conviction about it. In night of the science of life, the theory of self-procreation collapsed.
This theory prevailed in the materialistic mentality and was accepted by the superficial and the vulgar in general. They illustrated this theory by many examples of insects (sic], such as the worms that are formed in the intestines or in a piece of meat subjected to air for a while, as well as other examples inspired by the naivete of materialistic thinking.
Such things, according to them, appear to be reproduced by themselves under specific natural circumstances, and without proceeding from other living beings. However, decisive scientific experiments proved that this theory is false, and that worms are reproduced by the germs of life that are contained in the piece of meat.
@1tabligh "However, decisive scientific experiments proved that this theory is false" Tell me, which experiments (earlier you disregarded scientific experiementation by the way, whenever they dont support your god claims...but to you **everything** is proof for god anyways) show that abiogenesis is impossible? Name the papers with authors. We are getting closer and closer to making it possible for life to come from non-life in the lab.
@83Hammerhead Materialism attempted once again to establish the theory of selfprocreation when Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the first composite microscope. By means of this microscope, Leeuwenhoek discovered a new world of small organisms. This microscope succeeded in showing that a raindrop has no germs. Rather, the germs are produced after the raindrop touches the earth.
The materialists raised their voices and rejoiced in the new victory in the field of microbiology, after they had failed to discount the sperm, and to establish the theory of self-procreation with regard to animals visible to the naked eye. Thus, they returned to the battleground, but [this time, their disputation was] on a lower level.
@1tabligh "after they had failed to discount the sperm" Who wanted to discount the sperm and why? "they returned to the battleground" Wtf are you talking about? "By his scientific experiments, he proved that the germs and microbes" This isnt about germs and microbes (these are already more advanced than the first reproducing cells would have been), why do you even bring this up? You are confusing a few things here. Pasteur's experiements in no way disprove that life can come from non-life...
@83Hammerhead Once more, the materialists tried to cling to a thread of illusory hope. Thus, they abandoned the fields in which they failed and moved to a new field: namely, the field of fermentation. In this field, some of them attempted to apply the theory of self-procreation to the microscopic organic
beings that are the cause of fermentation. However, soon enough this attempt, like those before it, was also shown to be a failure at the hands of Pasteur, when he showed that fermentation does not take place in matter if matter is kept by itself and in isolation from the outside. Rather, fermentation occurs due to the transmission of specific organic beings to it and their reproduction in it.
@1tabligh Again, Pasteur has nothing to do with our modern theory of abiogenesis, and believe it or not, we've made some scientific progress in the last 120 or so years...
"it was shown [...] that life does not proceed except from life" No, that was not shown. It was shown only for the specific conditions and organisms that were used in that particular experiment. And, again, this was more than 100 years ago.
@83Hammerhead The materialists are in a difficult position with regard to this decisive conclusion.
It is curious that the Soviet scientist Obern, responds to this question as follows. [Even] if the production of life by way of along material interaction is still possible in planets other than ours (the earth), there is no room for it on this planet,
@1tabligh Are you just copy-pasting a whole book now? You're not replying to ANY of my questions and explanations now. Now you are talking about some soviet scientist who I tried to look up but, at least on the internet, couldn't find any reference to. And basically what he is saying is not that abiogenesis (this is what you mean by self-procreation I guess?) is impossible to begin with, but that once life has arrived, conditions change and abiogenesis becomes unnecessary (not impossible).
since reproduction here began to occur at a faster and a shorter [rate than that of production of life by way of material interaction], this being human reproduction by way of marriage. The reason is chat the new interaction replaced the biological and chemical primitive interaction, rendering it unnecessary.
It is indeed a strange answer. Reflect on how he judges that nature has no need for the operation of self-procreation, since this operation became unnecessary once nature found a faster and a shorter way for reproducing life. It is as if he speaks of a conscious rational power that abandons a difficult operation after its attainment of the goal was made available to it by means of an easier way.
But when did nature abandon its decrees and laws for this purpose?
@1tabligh "Reflect on how he judges that nature has no need for the operation of self-procreation" No, you (or the person that wrote the book you're copy-pasting) didn't understand what he was actually saying. He doesn't say there is no need for it at all, he says that once it happened successfully it became unnecessary. "It is as if he speaks of a conscious rational power" No it's not, nowhere in what you quoted is there anything about some conscious, rational power...
@1tabligh "But when did nature abandon its decrees and laws for this purpose" Which laws and decrees? And why do you say they were abandoned?
Time and time again you've been corrected by me, to which you didn't reply or defend yourself, but you just move on to your next copy-paste...which makes me think that you realize that your arguments aren't valid, but you don't want to admit it because you're too proud and too deluded to change your way of thinking.
@83Hammerhead Choosing the empirical sciences as a means of studying the infinite mysteries of the world has another advantage in addition to lying within the reach of everyone. It is that awareness of the wonders of creation and the order prevailing in it which naturally links man to the God Who has created it; such awareness displays to man the attributes of perfection, knowledge and limitless power that characterize the Creator and Source of all being.
@1tabligh In other words, you have no evidence. All you can do, in the end, is preach about who you think, but can't prove, created it all because that's what makes the most sense to you. You don't want to seriously investigate nature and the universe. You don't want to have a serious discussion with me or anyone about this unless they agree with you. You don't want answers, all you want is for others to believe what you believe, no matter where the evidence leads.
@1tabligh I don't want you to believe anything I'm telling you. I want you to investigate yourself, if you truly want to. I want you to critically analyze what I say. But, alas, you will not do that. You are too emotionally invested in your religion. I tried to open your eyes a little, and tell you where the flaws in your arguments are. You never acknowledged that, much less appreciated it.
Common now, bring your next copy-paste so I can tell you what's wrong with it.
@83Hammerhead This precise order indicates an aim, a plan, broad and extensive wisdom. What creativity, what power, what knowledge He has invested in all the world of being, in the smallest and the greatest of His creation alike—in the earth, in the atmosphere, in the heavenly bodies, in the heart of stones, in the heart of atoms!
@1tabligh "This precise order indicates an aim, a plan, broad and extensive wisdom" Maybe, but it doesn't **prove** a plan or aim, it only proves order, which is part of nature as much as disorder...
You can just keep going like this can't you? I don't mind I won't shut up as long as you don't.
"in the heart of atoms" that sounds interesting, what's the heart of an atom?
@83Hammerhead When we speak of "order" it should be understood that the concept of order is applicable to a phenomenon when its different parts are somehow interrelated in such a way that they harmoniously pursue a specific aim; the collaboration of the parts with each other must also have been taken into account.
Although those who deny the existence of order in the universe generally do not deny the existence of an active cause (since they accept the law of causality), what is meant by the principle of mutual acquaintance in nature is the ultimate cause, and this—implying as it does the intervention of aim and purpose in natural phenomena—they do reject.
@1tabligh "who deny the existence of order in the universe" Who denies order in the universe? Of course certain parts of certain organisms interrelate and achieve some aim by doing so...what's your point? You can't jump from that to there mus be a god. These are natural occurences.
"ultimate cause...they do reject" If by ultimate cause you mean god it is reasonable to reject it, since you've not provided any evidence for that "cause". Why can't matter and energy be eternal?
@83Hammerhead Why can't matter and energy be eternal?
____
Matter and energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
@1tabligh "The necessary being" What necessary being?
"Tell us who created primary matter" Why does it have to be a 'who'? Why can't it be a 'what'?
"what is the cause of matter" Again, matter and energy could simply be eternal (or only one of them since energy can be converted to matter and vice versa). But at this point my answer (and it would be better to ask an astrophysist) is that I don't know. Now go ahead and try to shove your god into my "I don't know".
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@1tabligh "they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter" We don't believe that as there is no definite answer to this question yet. But it is a possibility and a field of scientific research in which we will make a lot of progress in coming years. But again, I'm not an astrophycisist, so you may want to ask one, I'm sure there are answers to some of your questions already. Watch "A universe from nothing" here on youtube.
@83Ham..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, perception, nor the power of decision.
@1tabligh "believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will" Ok, where's your evidence? And you see, there is a difference and it's that materialists are not trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else like you. They don't tell you that you will suffer forever if you don't believe them or that a woman will be executed because she spent the night with another man or fly airplanes into buildings because they think they will be [cont]
"Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers" No, matter and energy are not beings, they don't tell you what you can't and can eat and drink, they don't tell you who you can sleep with or how many times per day you have to worship them. They don't make you feel guilty for having naughty thoughts, they don't tell women to cover themselves completely. They're just matter and energy. They don't ask for worship.
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
@1tabligh "ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!" If only you had ever bothered to answer my questions. You see how frustrating it is now? How big of a quibbling, dodging idiot you've been throughout almost all of this discussion?
@83Hammerhead Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
@1tabligh "The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity" However what you are saying does not make it clear why that should be so. But I'm sure you've studied years and years of astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics to truly understand the nature of these things...
And of course *everything* in the universe adheres to certain rules, only your god is the exception (even though you have no proof for that). How convenient.
@83Hammerhead All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
@1tabligh "First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation" Why should this be impossible? And why should it be impossible for death to enter the equation (remember, dying doesn't mean that matter disappears)?
"they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?" Look up the most recent work on abiogenesis (RNA world), I won't explain this again.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
@1tabligh And your next 2 posts are things you've posted (copy-pasted) before. Just a couple of insults, logical fallacies and non-sensical statements. I've replied to these posts before and will not go into what's wrong with them again...
Let me ask you this: are you even willing to learn something new, something about the wonders of this world, this universe? Or are you satisfied just saying "god did it" and that's all you need to know?
So much science for this pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "....(copy-pasted) ..."!
The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
@1tabligh "Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "....(copy-pasted) ..."!" Excuse me for calling you out on doing nothing but copying from islamic websites, not one personal thought. It is hard to communicate with someone who doesn't know how to hold a decent, polite conversation, who doesn't answer questions directly and instead copies stuff from other sites. It is especially annoying when you copy-paste something that you have before even though I've replied to it.
@83Hammerhead When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
@1tabligh "He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator" You keep saying that, but I want to know how you *know* that? "assert that God is free of all need for a cause" You *assert* it, you don't have any way of demonstrating that this is true. How do you know, for example, that your god wasn't created by an even more powerful god? A god that creates gods to rule over different universes. And since you know so much about your god, was was he doing before he created the universe?
@83Hammerhead How do you know, for example, that your god wasn't created by an even more powerful god? A god that creates gods....
____
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 "and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on" No, the god that created your god could be the eternal one. Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of having to prove that such a being exists, but it is possible that your god was created by an even more powerful, eternal god, is it not?
@1tabligh "and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on" No, the god that created your god could be the eternal one. Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of having to prove that such a being exists, but it is possible that your god was created by an even more powerful, eternal god, is it not? "a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe" Again, how do you know that cause is a being, and not a thing?
@1tabligh "But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there" So because I am here I have to say that god exists...what a non-sequitur. "we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker" What's the human maker? "the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man" So now he was created? These sentences are a bit too abstract and confusing to me as english isn't my first language. Try again please.
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.
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 "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" What theory is that? "From a *scientific* point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible" You're a liar, and you know it! Self-origination is a stupid term anyways. "All development and motion in the mineral realm" What's the mineral realm?
"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 Quoting the quran won't get you anywhere, that is circular reasoning and is not evidence or proof for anything we discussed here.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause" Life formed (it wasn't created) without an aim, it just happened (once it formed, it's aim was to survive and reproduce), but that doesn't mean that one can't find purpose and meaning in life...
"do they suppose that they are their own creators" No one supposes that.
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ...
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
LOL
GSA14101996 5 months ago
@GSA14101996 if you thought this was funny then you should watch hamzas "jinn babies" video
DuckingNDiving 1 month ago
God says: praise me
I say: fuck you
Satan says: praise me
I say: fuck you too
skaloon 7 months ago
Lol to funny
lildibalo 8 months ago
then satan unwillingly cooked God a margherita with sausage instead of wurstel,and he was sent to burn forever
TheWoodstock2009 8 months ago
that pizza looked gross..
SBizarre 11 months ago
god got pown'd lol
jcACF09 11 months ago
god is the most evil character ever invented, satan just seems to have a crap job
teedonster 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
Christianity 101:
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Now that makes perfect sense"
JesusWasAnAsshole 1 year ago
@glen12343 God could very well exist
_____
Not "could"!
Its 100% definite that God exists!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Haha, it's 100% definite...yet you do not have the smallest shred of evidence for this childish claim. You're like a kid that can't explain where the presents on christmas came from and therefore thinks that santa claus 100% exists. And you base all of your believes on the fact that you don't understand nature and the universe. And you want others to believe the same because you don't like the fact that we may not have the answers to everything. Pathetic.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead With regard to this issue, this is the only explanation that the dialectic can offer as a justification of the dynamism of matter. However, it is very easy to see why this explanation cannot be adopted from a scientific point of view. If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "If hydrogen were to contain its contradictory essentially and to develop due to this fact, in accordance with the alleged dialectical laws, then why is it that not all the hydrogen atoms were completed?" Could you please translate this sentence to english? I know you've copied this sentence from some islamic book called "our philosophy" and have pasted it many times, not only on youtube. At least write it in your own words...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Again, even if asked to use your own words, all you do is copy paste more stuff. Anyways, if you have questions about chemistry I suggest talking to a chemist or reading some chemistry books. There's also good information on the web (look up nucleosynthesis for example). This would take too long to answer in this comment section.
Did you ever investigate the questions you ask or do you simply just copy paste them to make yourself look clever?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
Have you ever ascended or visited this sky, which you behold with your eyes, or been in the depths of the earth?
Have you traversed the world, dived in every sea, and moved through the Universe?
To *presumptuously* deny the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator, you must have been to all these places.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh What a weak argument. So in order to accept such a claim you don't have to go to all those places but if you want to deny it you have to??? I could ask you the same about all the other gods and supernatural beings that you deny...
Once again I go into your fallacious, childish claims without you actually addressing what was said before. Go on, copy-paste your next piece of text, I'm so excited!
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "you think He may exist and He may not exist?" As I said, demonstrate the existence of something with good evidence (not appeals to emotion or "I don't understand x, therefore god did it") and I won't deny it.
"It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,'" That is exactly what I am doing, but you don't do this, therefore I'm wiser than you. Of course I don't have evidence for no god (just as "no fairies", "no zeus", "no krishna"), but it is you who has to provide evidence FOR your claim.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
What scientist rejecting metaphysics has ever been able to found his denial on logic or proof, or to furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "furnish evidence that beyond absolute non-being, nothing exists outside the seen realm?" Again, demonstrating the validity of something isn't just about seeing it, there are other forms of evidence.
"What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?" Not true, gravity is immaterial for example, yet it is part of the universe and demonstrable.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh Yoiu know what, I'll just stop answering your questions until you stop being rude and start answering some of mine. You really need to take some lessons in having polite, fair conversations. Is this your tactic for converting people to islam?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead All deluded atheists are aware that many of the things known to us consist of matters and realities that we cannot sense and with which we are not customarily familiar. There are many invisible beings in the universe. The progress of science and knowledge in the present age have uncovered numerous truths of this kind, and one of the richest chapters in scientific research is the transformation of matter into energy. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "There are many invisible beings in the universe." Such as? Do you have proof for them? I already told you that, yes, some things in the universe (such as gravity) are immaterial but that they are demonstrable and testable. Show me a scientifically verifyable demonstration of your god or "invisible beings" and I'll believe you. Yes beings produce energy, but that energy is measurable.
Again, you avoiding my questions shows how insecure you are in your beliefs or how deluded they are.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead
Belief in the Reality of the Unseen Involves More than God!
Modern physics tells us that the things of which we have sense perception are firm, solid and stable, and there is no visible energy in their motions. But despite outward appearances, what we, in fact, see and perceive is a mass of atoms that are neither firm nor solid nor stable; all things are nothing other than transformation, change and motion. ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
What our sense organs imagine to be stable and motionless lack all stability and permanence and immobility; motion, change and development embrace them all, without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "without this being perceptible to us by way of direct sensory observation" For the last time, I know that there are things in the universe which we cannot use our senses for to detect but they are, as you say, detectable, measurable, inferrable by modern physicists. You have yet to provide the same kind of evidence that physicists provide for those things for your god or the "invisible beings" you talk about...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena" What is that law? And how is it able to interpret? "the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation" This is not true, again, there are other ways of demonstrating something (inference, calculations, etc.).
"many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing" By what means can they be perceived then?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles,
1tabligh 1 year ago
primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Again, as long as you don't start answering my questions I won't bother going into what you wrote, what logical fallacies you copy-pasted this time and what's wrong with your arguments. You again provide no actual evidence for "the creator" but arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority. I'll just keep asking you questions but know you won't answer them, making you look like the demagogue.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh "nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause" Explain why the reason or cause of something happening has to be supernatural, why can't it be natural?
"based on an established system and specific laws" Yes, natural laws, or do you know of any supernatural laws?
"it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles" It is surprising, why do you do it?
"a considerable number of scientists" What is that number and what science(s) do you mean?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists" I already said, we know that there are immaterial factors (such as gravity) in the universe. Show me one, just one, experiment that shows that an immaterial being exists! And you call us deluded...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead (such as gravity) in the universe. Show me one, just one, experiment that shows that an immaterial being exists!
_______
Concerning Experimentalists
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "those who glorify experimentation" You're the one who said not even a tousand experiments could convince me...I asked you to provide one. You can't, so now you bash scientists for only testing what is testable? Only observing what is observable? Science deals with things that we can test, have evidence for, observe, measure.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation, we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea
1tabligh 1 year ago
except if they grasp its objective reality by one of their senses, then this will be a *blow* to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify. A dem.. of a scientific truth by expe....does not mean a direct sense perc.. of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?" When will you finally get it?? How many times do I have to tell you that our senses aren't the only things that can help us to find evidence for something. And of course you can perceive gravity with your senses, just take a stone and drop it on your foot, I'm sure your eyes and foot will sense what gravity does.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force" Exactly...he observed and drew conlcusions from his observations (which had to be verifyed before being accepted)...what's your point? And besides (I think what you're trying to do is equate gravitation to god), gravitation can be expressed as numbers and units, measured, its effects observed. Can you express god in numbers and units, measure him?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
phenomenon could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is exactly the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Besides I don't get what you're even trying to accomplish here...do you want to tell scientists that they should measure things that can't be measured, do experiments on things that are impossible to test. I know where you're try ing to go with this, there is complexity, intelligence and order in the universe therefore there must be a god and that's like a scientific observation and conclusion. The difference is that the conclusion you're drawing isn't testable, it's an assumption...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh ...as opposed to gravity which is easily testable by, for example, letting a rock drop from a few metres and measuring the time it took for it to reach the ground. What you were saying is that newton didnt perceive gravity, but the effects of gravity and then came to the conclusion that there had to be a (natural) explanation for this. If you say the effects of god is order in the universe you still have to demonstrate the god part and that there isnt a natural explanation.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Can you express god in numbers and units, measure him?
______
"measure"
Although science does not explicitly and definitively reject every unknown thing simply because it can have no access to it by means of its tools and instruments, patiently awaiting instead the day when it should be discovered, materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation; on the basis of their erroneous and hasty
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "materialists do not even approach the question of the existence of God with doubt and hesitation" How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? I told you that if you provide some evidence for your god or "invisible beings" I'll examine that evidence with an open mind and draw my conclusions as to whether I think your evidence is sufficient or not.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
prejudices, they pronounce their judgment that the Creator does not exist.
Such persons establish certain criteria and standards for themselves and are not prepared to apply a different criterion established for a definite purpose in a given area. For example, they would never use the criteria applicable to a surface to *"measure"* a body, but when it comes to *measuring* the supra-sensory world, they try to *"measure"* God, the spirit, and inspiration, with the same tools they use to
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "they try to *"measure"* God, the spirit" I'm not trying to. I asked you why I should believe that your god exists. Don't focus on the measuring part now. But answer me these questions (I know you won't but this is the crucial question here): why do you deny the existence of other gods besides your own, of fairies, pixies, bigfoot, unicorns, demigods, etc.? Did you consider every single one of those?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
*"measure"* the material world. When they find themselves unable to gain any knowledge of the entities in question, they proceed to deny their existence.
Now, if a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted him by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, he must recognize that this is a path he has chosen for himself; it is not the result of scientific investigation and experiment.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh And is there any evidence you would accept that would lead you to not believe in your god anymore? "This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature" Are you rebelling against all the other countless gods that man has and does believe in? Are you abandoning your original nature by not worshipping vishnu, mithra, zeus?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead I make a claim of ONE God ( Allah, Lord, Gud, Khuda, etc ) then I will produce the evidence to back it up!
Anyone who claims of "zeus, apollo, thor " etc or anything for that matter has to back it up!
You do not need to disprove the divinity of "zeus, apollo, thor etc"I, But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
I did claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "But if you claim the divinity of anyone besides God" I'm not claiming divinity for any of them, I'm asking you why you deny them, since you accuse atheists of being deluded for not believing in your god.
"The one who claims anything is supposed to prove what he claims!" Then prove what you claim already! So: 1. Why do you deny other gods (or fairies, pixies, etc.) and 2. Prove that your god exists.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh Seems the reason you deny other gods is because no one has provided any evidence for them that was sufficient to you. That is exactly why I deny your god along with all the other gods, I have not seen sufficient evidence for all the supernatural claims I've seen. You're starting to understand, good.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "If numerous gods ruled over the world [...] the universe would dissolve into anarchy." Can you prove that that would be the case? Could it not be the case that several gods could rule peacefully alongside each other, maybe each being responsible for a different part of life and the universe? How do you know it couldn't be like that? Quoting the quran is not prove for this, that would be called circular reasoning.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh So now you just waffle on about how religion is part of our nature (I don't fully disagree with this, but it doesn't make the religious claims true...like I said you wouldn't accept the claims of any other religion besides yours), throw in a quran quote like it actually proves something, copy-paste, copy-paste, all along still refusing to answer my questions properly, throwing all atheists into one basket by saying they are ruled by passion and desire only...you're a great guy!
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
Those who refuse to worship God find themselves prostrating before their inner idol; passion and desire rule every dimension of their beings.
Self-worship is a dangerous sickness that with its different manifestations in the individual and social life of man entails the most tragic misfortunes and disorders. It creates a powerful barrier between man and the truth and results in the breakdown of man's capacities of perception and the blinding of his inner being. ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh You think you are so much better than atheists, or materialists, that you are superior to them because you worship some god...and you're telling me I worship myself? Seems to me you're the one who has a superiority complex here. I don't worship anything or anyone in a religious sense, meaning that I blindly and unconditionally believe that everything about this person or thing is true and right. Tragically you've been deceived to think that worshipping...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh ...your god makes you better and all others are just self-worshipping, lost, blind, deluded humans who will be punished after they die while you get a reward. And on top of that you cannot properly have a discussion or formulate your own thoughts, you don't answer questions and think that you know the answer to all the questions. You truly are full of yourself.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Unless a man is possessed of a firm and stable faith he remains a stranger to the ways of those who know God. His scepticism grows. He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading.He discounts anything that his sciences do not prove or even try to prove for him. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "possessed of a firm and stable faith" Thank you I dont want to be possessed by faith, which is basically just believing in something despite not having good evidence for the belief. "His scepticism grows" Is scepticism a bad thing? Do you prefer blind belief? Is your scepticism towards zeus, thor, mithra, vishnu growing? "He regards as acceptable whatever in life coincides with scientific thought and reading" You only accept what coincides with the quran and your religion, don't you?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
The basis of religious thinking is thus left untilled and untended. He considers undeserving of attention any problem which cannot be taken in isolation from all religion, be judged by its outward appearance, and proved by experiment. Having grown used to scientific language, with its formulae and equations, he regards religious matters as lightweight and commonplace.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh And again, you ramble on about how close-minded atheists are, and that all they do all day is look at the world through scientific eyes, like we have nothing else in our lives...if only you knew how wrong you are and compartmentalized your views are. I'm guessing you don't know any atheists personally (and if you do you never really tried to get to know them), but your view of everyone outside of your own religion is saddening.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead If someone claims that you are an angel, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
The one who claims that you are an angel is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
When a person says that Jesus or Mohammad is a man, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
and not a God, he agrees with the accepted definition. Jesus lived like a man, looked like a man, slept as a man, ate as a man, and was persecuted like one. None of these facts need proof. This is not the case with the one who claims his divinity.
His claim is opposed to the common knowledge. Therefore, he, and no one else, has to provide the evidence for his claim.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Although the Muslims are not supposed to provide any evidence for the denial of the divinity of "an *"individual devised god"*, "zeus, apollo, thor etc" or Jesus, they can present more than one evidence.
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Congratulations, once again you managed to not really address any of my questions or points...and proceed to talking about divinity (that I never mentioned).
You are 100% right, the one making a claim has to provide evidence for it. So provide evidence for your god and I will tell you what I think about it. I've told you why I reject your and any other gods or supernatural entities and you deny them for the same reason. Now it's up to you to prove your god.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead If the theory of self-procreation is dropped, in light of scientific research, how then can they explain the arising of life on the face of the earth?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh You're not answering my question...and what is this "theory of self-procreation"? And in what "light of scientific research" can it be dropped? And how can you prove that your answer to the question of how life arose on earth is correct?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead
Would there be a way for the human heart after that to shut off its eyes in the light and to overlook the clear, divine reality that trusted the secret of life to the primary cell or cells? If this were not so, why then did nature turn away forever from the act of self-procreation?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This means that if the materialistic explanation of the primary cell of life by selfprocreation were correct, how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation in nature with the tong passage of tune?
Indeed, this is a perplexing question for the materialists.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh You're not answering my questions! "how could materialism then explain the nonrecurrence of self-procreation" If you think about it for a minute, maybe it's because abiogenesis needs very specific conditions that just can't be found anywhere on earth anymore. Additionally, this planet is already full of life, what do you think would happen to newly emerging, very simple life-forms?
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead ....it's because abiogenesis needs very specific .....
____
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator" There are many examples in nature, chemical processes, where order comes about without any input by a designer or creator. Oh you poor deluded creationist, dodging ALL questions and quibbling in vain. Your arguments are nothing but great arguments from ignorance and a lack of understanding of basic chemical, biological processes...just because something seems absurd to ***you*** doesn't mean it's wrong.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead If self-procreation took place at first, in accordance with certain laws and decrees, as water is produced due to a certain chemical composition between oxygen and hydrogen, it becomes necessary for it to be repeated in accordance with those laws and decrees, as the existence of water is repeated whenever certain chemical factors are present, whether or not water is necessary; for necessity in the natural sense is merely the necessity produced by the laws and decrees of nature.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "What then made those laws and decrees different?" The appearance of life itself. A planet cannot have an atmosphere like ours if there aren't lifeforms changing the chemistry of the planet by producing gases. That is one reason why abiogenesis isn't occuring anymore today. We're also not being bombarded by meteorites anymore.
Another reason is that even if it did occur, there already is life here and the ones that already are here would outcompete the newcomers easily.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Wow you are getting annoying again. You just keep changing topics everytime I answer one of your questions or address one of your claims. Have you no decency? Can you not stop being rude just once and acknowledge what I said or answer one of my questions properly once? Is it really too much to ask of you?
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh So if you want to have an honest discussion about this, you better start being polite instead of just continuously asking questions that you could find the answers to if you read some science books. I'm happy to provide answers as well, but you better start having an actual conversation rather then a monologue...no one will take you serious if you behave like this.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead The Manifestations of God in Nature!
The world of matter and nature, conceived as a created whole, is the best, clearest and most universal evidence for the knowledge of God. The wise will of that Eternal Principle can be discovered in the very processes of material change. It is apparent that His eternal rays bestow life and sustenance on all beings, and that all of creation derives both its existence and its advancement from Him.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh So basically you cannot provide good evidence, all you can do is point at the birds and the trees and claim (not prove) that there must be a god behind it all because you don't think it's possible for nature to account for it. You don't understand evidence. Just saying something like "his eternal rays bestow life" is not evidence, it's just a philosophical understanding of the world from a time before scientific discoveries.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh So again, after some back and forth in which you never really addressed the things I said and just kept throwing question after question at me, me answering it and you completely ignoring what was said and moving on to your next copy-pasted piece of text because you can't answer me yourself, you go back to basically preaching. You assume that your god did it, without actual evidence, only an old book.
You don't want a real conversation, fine...I can keep going.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead To study the different beings in the universe, the mysteries of the book of creation, the pages of which all bear witness to the operation of a lofty intelligence in its creation, provides, then, evidence on which to base knowledge and belief in a wise Creator Whose power is but slightly manifested in the order of beings for all their splendor and vastness.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh What you are talking about is not evidence, it is not proof, no matter how often you say it is. If you think this is evidence, let me ask you this: what evidence would you accept that would disprove your god?
No one benefits from thinking like this, it stops honest investigation and inquiry. Study the different beings in the universe? Show me those studies.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Everyone, to the extent permitted by his capacity and vision, can see in all the phenomena of creation indications of connectedness, harmony, and purposefulness, and find in every one of the countless particles of creation a firm proof for the existence of the source of being.
The complete adaption of every species of animal to its conditions of life is a great sign of God; each has been created with all the particular instruments needed for its conditions of life.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "to the extent permitted by his capacity and vision" So once again, you just say that atheists are too blind to see god in nature, even though we can explain most of the things we see through natural causation, adaptation, ecolution, chemistry, physics. Nature is evidence for nature, if you want to argue that god created this you have to come up with more than just "it's all so complex, I can't think of a way this came about by natural causes, therefore there must be a god"...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@1tabligh *I meant to say evolution in my last comment*
"The complete adaption of every species of animal to its conditions of life is a great sign of God" No it's not, it's a great sign of adaptation. We can explain adaptation genetically, ecologically, on an individual as well as on a population level. Again, you can't use the natural as proof for the supernatural, because the natural wouldn't be natural if the supernatural was part of it.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Look carefully at the structure of the bird's creation; see how it has been created light and small in volume to enable it to fly. It was given only two legs instead of the four given to other animals and only four of the five toes they have on each foot. Birds have slim, pointed breasts to enable them to fend the air easily and fly in every direction. The long legs of the bird fit easily beneath its tail and its wings, and its whole body is covered with feathers so that air
1tabligh 1 year ago
might penetrate them and aid it to fly. Since the food of birds consists of seeds and the flesh of animals that they consume without chewing, they have no need of teeth. Instead, God created for birds a hard and sharp beak that cannot break when tearing off meat or suffer injury when gathering seeds. To enable this creature to digest the food it has not chewed, it has been given a
1tabligh 1 year ago
powerful digestive system and a warm body. Furthermore, birds reproduce by laying eggs so they can remain light enough to fly; if their offspring were to grow in their stomachs, they would become too heavy to fly.
Thus all the peculiarities of a bird's creation conform to its environment and its manner of life.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh look you don't need to tell me that birds can fly and have a warm body, I'm a biologist and know quite a bit about these things. Again, these things are natural occurences, they are not supernatural. There are natural explanations for them, we know how these things work, down to the evolution of language. Just because you think that these things are too complex to come about naturally doesn't mean you can just say god did it.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Modern scientists have discovered a sophisticated system of communication among the animals that is more complex and precise than our own system of communication. Crissy Morrison writes, "If we put a female moth next to the window of our room, it emits soft signals that a male moth picks up from an incredible distance and it sends its own signals in return. However much you may wish to disturb this communication, you will be unable to do so.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Does this weak creature carry some kind of transmitter, or does the male moth have a receiver concealed in his antennae?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Again, these things are natural occurences, they are not supernatural.
_______
Again, these things are supernatural occurences, they are not natural.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead doesn't mean you can just say god did it.
____
doesn't mean you can just say nature did it.
1tabligh 1 year ago
I'm a biologist
____
Matter and Biology
Now, consider biology, or the science of life. You will find another great divine secret: namely, the vague secret of life, which fills the human heart with confidence in the theological notion and with solid conviction about it. In night of the science of life, the theory of self-procreation collapsed.
1tabligh 1 year ago
This theory prevailed in the materialistic mentality and was accepted by the superficial and the vulgar in general. They illustrated this theory by many examples of insects (sic], such as the worms that are formed in the intestines or in a piece of meat subjected to air for a while, as well as other examples inspired by the naivete of materialistic thinking.
1tabligh 1 year ago
Such things, according to them, appear to be reproduced by themselves under specific natural circumstances, and without proceeding from other living beings. However, decisive scientific experiments proved that this theory is false, and that worms are reproduced by the germs of life that are contained in the piece of meat.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "However, decisive scientific experiments proved that this theory is false" Tell me, which experiments (earlier you disregarded scientific experiementation by the way, whenever they dont support your god claims...but to you **everything** is proof for god anyways) show that abiogenesis is impossible? Name the papers with authors. We are getting closer and closer to making it possible for life to come from non-life in the lab.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Materialism attempted once again to establish the theory of selfprocreation when Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the first composite microscope. By means of this microscope, Leeuwenhoek discovered a new world of small organisms. This microscope succeeded in showing that a raindrop has no germs. Rather, the germs are produced after the raindrop touches the earth.
1tabligh 1 year ago
The materialists raised their voices and rejoiced in the new victory in the field of microbiology, after they had failed to discount the sperm, and to establish the theory of self-procreation with regard to animals visible to the naked eye. Thus, they returned to the battleground, but [this time, their disputation was] on a lower level.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "after they had failed to discount the sperm" Who wanted to discount the sperm and why? "they returned to the battleground" Wtf are you talking about? "By his scientific experiments, he proved that the germs and microbes" This isnt about germs and microbes (these are already more advanced than the first reproducing cells would have been), why do you even bring this up? You are confusing a few things here. Pasteur's experiements in no way disprove that life can come from non-life...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Once more, the materialists tried to cling to a thread of illusory hope. Thus, they abandoned the fields in which they failed and moved to a new field: namely, the field of fermentation. In this field, some of them attempted to apply the theory of self-procreation to the microscopic organic
1tabligh 1 year ago
beings that are the cause of fermentation. However, soon enough this attempt, like those before it, was also shown to be a failure at the hands of Pasteur, when he showed that fermentation does not take place in matter if matter is kept by itself and in isolation from the outside. Rather, fermentation occurs due to the transmission of specific organic beings to it and their reproduction in it.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Again, Pasteur has nothing to do with our modern theory of abiogenesis, and believe it or not, we've made some scientific progress in the last 120 or so years...
"it was shown [...] that life does not proceed except from life" No, that was not shown. It was shown only for the specific conditions and organisms that were used in that particular experiment. And, again, this was more than 100 years ago.
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead The materialists are in a difficult position with regard to this decisive conclusion.
It is curious that the Soviet scientist Obern, responds to this question as follows. [Even] if the production of life by way of along material interaction is still possible in planets other than ours (the earth), there is no room for it on this planet,
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh Are you just copy-pasting a whole book now? You're not replying to ANY of my questions and explanations now. Now you are talking about some soviet scientist who I tried to look up but, at least on the internet, couldn't find any reference to. And basically what he is saying is not that abiogenesis (this is what you mean by self-procreation I guess?) is impossible to begin with, but that once life has arrived, conditions change and abiogenesis becomes unnecessary (not impossible).
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
since reproduction here began to occur at a faster and a shorter [rate than that of production of life by way of material interaction], this being human reproduction by way of marriage. The reason is chat the new interaction replaced the biological and chemical primitive interaction, rendering it unnecessary.
This is Obern's complete answer to the question.
1tabligh 11 months ago
It is indeed a strange answer. Reflect on how he judges that nature has no need for the operation of self-procreation, since this operation became unnecessary once nature found a faster and a shorter way for reproducing life. It is as if he speaks of a conscious rational power that abandons a difficult operation after its attainment of the goal was made available to it by means of an easier way.
But when did nature abandon its decrees and laws for this purpose?
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "Reflect on how he judges that nature has no need for the operation of self-procreation" No, you (or the person that wrote the book you're copy-pasting) didn't understand what he was actually saying. He doesn't say there is no need for it at all, he says that once it happened successfully it became unnecessary. "It is as if he speaks of a conscious rational power" No it's not, nowhere in what you quoted is there anything about some conscious, rational power...
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@1tabligh "But when did nature abandon its decrees and laws for this purpose" Which laws and decrees? And why do you say they were abandoned?
Time and time again you've been corrected by me, to which you didn't reply or defend yourself, but you just move on to your next copy-paste...which makes me think that you realize that your arguments aren't valid, but you don't want to admit it because you're too proud and too deluded to change your way of thinking.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead Choosing the empirical sciences as a means of studying the infinite mysteries of the world has another advantage in addition to lying within the reach of everyone. It is that awareness of the wonders of creation and the order prevailing in it which naturally links man to the God Who has created it; such awareness displays to man the attributes of perfection, knowledge and limitless power that characterize the Creator and Source of all being.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh In other words, you have no evidence. All you can do, in the end, is preach about who you think, but can't prove, created it all because that's what makes the most sense to you. You don't want to seriously investigate nature and the universe. You don't want to have a serious discussion with me or anyone about this unless they agree with you. You don't want answers, all you want is for others to believe what you believe, no matter where the evidence leads.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@1tabligh I don't want you to believe anything I'm telling you. I want you to investigate yourself, if you truly want to. I want you to critically analyze what I say. But, alas, you will not do that. You are too emotionally invested in your religion. I tried to open your eyes a little, and tell you where the flaws in your arguments are. You never acknowledged that, much less appreciated it.
Common now, bring your next copy-paste so I can tell you what's wrong with it.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead This precise order indicates an aim, a plan, broad and extensive wisdom. What creativity, what power, what knowledge He has invested in all the world of being, in the smallest and the greatest of His creation alike—in the earth, in the atmosphere, in the heavenly bodies, in the heart of stones, in the heart of atoms!
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "This precise order indicates an aim, a plan, broad and extensive wisdom" Maybe, but it doesn't **prove** a plan or aim, it only proves order, which is part of nature as much as disorder...
You can just keep going like this can't you? I don't mind I won't shut up as long as you don't.
"in the heart of atoms" that sounds interesting, what's the heart of an atom?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead When we speak of "order" it should be understood that the concept of order is applicable to a phenomenon when its different parts are somehow interrelated in such a way that they harmoniously pursue a specific aim; the collaboration of the parts with each other must also have been taken into account.
1tabligh 11 months ago
Although those who deny the existence of order in the universe generally do not deny the existence of an active cause (since they accept the law of causality), what is meant by the principle of mutual acquaintance in nature is the ultimate cause, and this—implying as it does the intervention of aim and purpose in natural phenomena—they do reject.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "who deny the existence of order in the universe" Who denies order in the universe? Of course certain parts of certain organisms interrelate and achieve some aim by doing so...what's your point? You can't jump from that to there mus be a god. These are natural occurences.
"ultimate cause...they do reject" If by ultimate cause you mean god it is reasonable to reject it, since you've not provided any evidence for that "cause". Why can't matter and energy be eternal?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead Why can't matter and energy be eternal?
____
Matter and energy has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "The necessary being" What necessary being?
"Tell us who created primary matter" Why does it have to be a 'who'? Why can't it be a 'what'?
"what is the cause of matter" Again, matter and energy could simply be eternal (or only one of them since energy can be converted to matter and vice versa). But at this point my answer (and it would be better to ask an astrophysist) is that I don't know. Now go ahead and try to shove your god into my "I don't know".
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter" We don't believe that as there is no definite answer to this question yet. But it is a possibility and a field of scientific research in which we will make a lot of progress in coming years. But again, I'm not an astrophycisist, so you may want to ask one, I'm sure there are answers to some of your questions already. Watch "A universe from nothing" here on youtube.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Ham..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, perception, nor the power of decision.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will" Ok, where's your evidence? And you see, there is a difference and it's that materialists are not trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else like you. They don't tell you that you will suffer forever if you don't believe them or that a woman will be executed because she spent the night with another man or fly airplanes into buildings because they think they will be [cont]
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@1tabligh [cont] rewarded by their god.
"Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers" No, matter and energy are not beings, they don't tell you what you can't and can eat and drink, they don't tell you who you can sleep with or how many times per day you have to worship them. They don't make you feel guilty for having naughty thoughts, they don't tell women to cover themselves completely. They're just matter and energy. They don't ask for worship.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead
ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!" If only you had ever bothered to answer my questions. You see how frustrating it is now? How big of a quibbling, dodging idiot you've been throughout almost all of this discussion?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity" However what you are saying does not make it clear why that should be so. But I'm sure you've studied years and years of astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics to truly understand the nature of these things...
And of course *everything* in the universe adheres to certain rules, only your god is the exception (even though you have no proof for that). How convenient.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "First, if the material energy/matter/univers/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation" Why should this be impossible? And why should it be impossible for death to enter the equation (remember, dying doesn't mean that matter disappears)?
"they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?" Look up the most recent work on abiogenesis (RNA world), I won't explain this again.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead ...work on abiogenesis ...
______
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh And your next 2 posts are things you've posted (copy-pasted) before. Just a couple of insults, logical fallacies and non-sensical statements. I've replied to these posts before and will not go into what's wrong with them again...
Let me ask you this: are you even willing to learn something new, something about the wonders of this world, this universe? Or are you satisfied just saying "god did it" and that's all you need to know?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead ....(copy-pasted) ...
____
So much science for this pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "....(copy-pasted) ..."!
The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "....(copy-pasted) ..."!" Excuse me for calling you out on doing nothing but copying from islamic websites, not one personal thought. It is hard to communicate with someone who doesn't know how to hold a decent, polite conversation, who doesn't answer questions directly and instead copies stuff from other sites. It is especially annoying when you copy-paste something that you have before even though I've replied to it.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
1tabligh 11 months ago
He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator" You keep saying that, but I want to know how you *know* that? "assert that God is free of all need for a cause" You *assert* it, you don't have any way of demonstrating that this is true. How do you know, for example, that your god wasn't created by an even more powerful god? A god that creates gods to rule over different universes. And since you know so much about your god, was was he doing before he created the universe?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead How do you know, for example, that your god wasn't created by an even more powerful god? A god that creates gods....
____
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 11 months ago
@1tabligh "and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on" No, the god that created your god could be the eternal one. Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of having to prove that such a being exists, but it is possible that your god was created by an even more powerful, eternal god, is it not?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@1tabligh "and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on" No, the god that created your god could be the eternal one. Of course it wouldn't solve the problem of having to prove that such a being exists, but it is possible that your god was created by an even more powerful, eternal god, is it not? "a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe" Again, how do you know that cause is a being, and not a thing?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
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.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there" So because I am here I have to say that god exists...what a non-sequitur. "we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker" What's the human maker? "the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man" So now he was created? These sentences are a bit too abstract and confusing to me as english isn't my first language. Try again please.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
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 11 months ago
From a *scientific* point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh "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" What theory is that? "From a *scientific* point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible" You're a liar, and you know it! Self-origination is a stupid term anyways. "All development and motion in the mineral realm" What's the mineral realm?
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
"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 11 months ago
@1tabligh Quoting the quran won't get you anywhere, that is circular reasoning and is not evidence or proof for anything we discussed here.
"Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause" Life formed (it wasn't created) without an aim, it just happened (once it formed, it's aim was to survive and reproduce), but that doesn't mean that one can't find purpose and meaning in life...
"do they suppose that they are their own creators" No one supposes that.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago
@83Hammerhead
The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ...
1tabligh 11 months ago
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
1tabligh 11 months ago
@1tabligh Answer my questions before you move on, please, just once. I'll insist on it this time.
83Hammerhead 11 months ago