The Serie Of Islam From A Scientific Perspective by Dr Al Bouti-Ep.(3)-clip1

[ytbabbler]

This man is educated and know he telling a lie, he say THIS universe, and that is not the same as universe. Science can explain much of it, not all. But for a practical reason they let the time start from the "big bang", but nobody claim there is only one single big bang, but probably an infinite number of universal realms without start, center or end..

Adding a supernatural GOD as the answer solves nothing, it just add another problem, who make Gods, and how can they make things from nothing.

[dondertochop]

Hey guess what, Darwin was a 27th degree freemason...

"what's that?" the ignorant fool asks....

And so the journey starts

[Betelgeuse3000]

A hypothesis isn't something you pull out of your ass - like this guy thinks. A hypothesis a founded proposition, that is based on existing proofs, which are testable in controlled conditions.

The burden of proof is on this guy to demonstrate the existence of Allah and not to shift it to others to 'disprove' his magical friend.

This guy's whole diatribe is based on a logical fallacy, so everything he says subsequent to that is bogus.

By the way who created God? Nobody? How convenient.

[RoadToTheOne]

PART I; This scholar already explained in the past episodes the difference between proving / disproving what's perceivable with physical senses "testable in controlled conditions" & the metaphysical where 'testing' isn't applicable. Ur limited knowledge (reflected by ur shallow comment) limits u from comprehending the difference between a creation & a creator; creation = did not exist & came into being, creator = always existed therefore never been created otherwise becomes a creation.

[Betelgeuse3000]

RoadToTheOne - Ad hominem attacks aside for a moment - The very use of the word 'creation' is biased and fallacious. If you're referring to the universe, then why must it necessitate a creator? Why is it so impossible for the universe's energy to have always existed, without the need of a God or whatever you believe in?

[RoadToTheOne]

PART II: to give ur simple mind a simple example about limitlisssness; the largest positive number u can think of when multiplied by two gives u a larger number (tends to + infinity), the same applies to any negative number (tends to - infinity) . Numbers have no beginning & no end but r limited to the physical 'countable' world. A simple fact u observe in ur daily life, yet u find it hard to believe how can a creator have no beginning and no end and not have been created......

[Betelgeuse3000]

RoadToTheOne - PART II: I don't believe in a creator to begin with - so even contemplating its eternal nature is not something I'd waste my time with. Why do you find it so hard to believe that the universe had no begining? After all if this is a trait that some things can actually have (namely your God), why can't the universe hold the same attributes?

[RoadToTheOne]

2) Call the physical / material world whatever u like; I equally view ur comment as 'biased & fallacious' so focus on the idea instead of wasting time on labels. The idea is u wish to believe everything existed forever when all scientific facts ' testedunder controlled conditions' has proven this theory wrong by Cause & Effect. U r trying to apply the physical laws 'Cause & Effect' on a being (the Creator) who is nothing like matter found in the universe therefore u cannot 'test' Him.

[RoadToTheOne]

Betelgeuse - 1) The Static Universe theory (universe existed 4ever as u suggest) been proven wrong by the Big Bang - tested & officially registered as an Established Scientific Fact - proving the universe started from a point with infinite mass, zero volume, & 0,0,0,0 co-ordinates (x,y,z,time) = it had a start = did not exist and later came into existence = IT HAS BEEN CREATED! Einstein dumped the Static Theory (ur faith) admitting he wasted 20 years of his time trying to proven a false theory.

[Betelgeuse3000]

First of all, I never once intimated that our apparent universe is the be all, and end all of existence. Who's to say that our apparent universe isn't at the bottom of a black hole of a larger universe? My point is that there are a billion possible explanations of our existence (from multi-verses and string theory to white holes), yet you put all your stock into a mythical, magical super-dictator who cares about how humans have sex. To even entertain such a being is insulting to the intellect.

[RoadToTheOne]

Good to see ur last statement contradicts ur previous one. All parents who care for their children, all people who have a wife or or husband, they all care about how their beloved ones carry on with their lives & the habits (healthy/unhealthy) they adopt, including how u make sex & who u make sex to, and these are just humans' feelings towards other fellow mate humans. Imagine the being that created those humans & how caring he would be, therefore u'r whole comment is an insult to the intellect

[Betelgeuse3000]

So if something that exists must have a creator, then who created God?

[RoadToTheOne]

Pt.1) First, & to set the records straights: being unable to produce any registered successful observable change in structure of living beings or tmaking life from non-living matter is a proof Evolution is NOT based on credible scientific facts rather based on politically oriented mainstream media & academia. Second, asking the same question again that triggered this whole debate while completely ignoring all the answers given to u earlier is a clear indication ur argument reached a dead end.

[greycloud24]

islam fails to mention that scientists show that the concept of intelligent design is bogus and that we all evolved from common ancestors. i wonder why they never use the theory of evolution in their scientific look at islam?

[RoadToTheOne]

Because the theory of evolution is not an established scientific fact. A theory maybe right or wrong while an established scientific fact is simply a fact; throw a static object high up whose density is heavier than air, it will come down again. This is the 'law' of gravity - an established fact that no two scientists dispute with. There is no 'law' but instead 'theory' of evolution because legions of prominent scholars & scientists refute this theory on the basis of lack of credible proof.

[Betelgeuse3000]

Actually, evolution is an observable fact, which biologists from every credible academic institution overwhelmingly agree upon. As far as the word 'fact' goes - it is a statistical standard, not a black-and-white "it must be true' axiom, as you portray it. It is macro-evolution that is said to be theoretical however it is founded upon a plethora of evidence, supporting evolution (which simply means 'change over time'). Since you're so into scientific standards, what's your evidence for God?

[RoadToTheOne]

A- Evolution is a Babylonian myth re-promoted by Darwin who couldn't even see what's in a cell by the primitive microscopes then; he thought the cell was the simplest form of life made of a simple structure & his book 'The Origin of Species' has an appendix 'Difficulties on Theory' where he stated 140 DEFECTS in his theory & that he was counting on future technology to resolve them. He said: if cell turns out to be a complex structure, then my whole theory collapses!

[Betelgeuse3000]

Absolute crap. First of all, evolution is an observable which has been observed in labs, consistently yielding results adhering to theory. I'd ask you to look up studies of peppered moths and E.Coli by the University of Michigan but it seems you've already got your mind made up on how it all happened. Very open minded of you.

If anything "future technology" has done nothing but corroborate the very underlying principles of evolution and continues to do so.

[RoadToTheOne]

1) The claim that evolution is an observable fact is if a hoax and at best a myth. If any excuse Evolutionists keep giving people for not being able to come up with a living observable proof of evolution is that it takes millions of years to take place and therefore cannot be observed in one's lifetime. In order to cover up for their failure to show any credible evidence, Evolutionists tricked people into mixing between evolution and adaptation.

[RoadToTheOne]

2) Adaptation is the adjustment of living beings to their environment without the change of their structure; if we live in sunny places our skin becomes darker. But the structure of a black person's skin is exactly the same to that of a white one. No humans have ever been observed to have developed fur or feathers or fish scales; this would be change of structure and therefore evolution and you do not have a single observable fact of this kind and produce one if you can.

[RoadToTheOne]

3) Evolutionists claim life came into existence from non living matter. There's NOT ONE registered successful attempt to produce life out of non living matter; those who try to prove this false theory use life to extract life (like cloning or genetic modification etc). I challenge u to produce ONE successful attempt of producing life from non-living matter; until u manage to do so, know that your faith is based on fake 'scientific' reports & not facts & know who's mind is blindly made up here.

[RoadToTheOne]

B- Well guess what, modern technology magnified the cell & proved it to be a an incredibly complex structure; It has a data base if printed would require over one million pages (literally). It has a power plant, management & security system, entry and exist systems and many others where if you remove a single part the cell dies, therefore it could not have evolved, it had to exist as it is (was created); there goes Darwin's theory in his own words & challenge he posed himself with down the drain

[RoadToTheOne]

C- Evolution theory is taught in academia not as a fact but as a theory to counter creation & religion . CERN is the largest scientific project in the world built to research Big Bang not Evolution. A rational person (as u claim to be) would NEVER believe a simple bolt or robot exist without an intelligent maker, yet u naively believe that a carefully worked out cosmos & living beings (ex: humans), far more complex than robots evolved by chance with no intelligent maker! There's ur evidence.

[Betelgeuse3000]

So, by your own reasoning (or lack thereof)... if the universe, in all its complexity was 'created', then its creator would have to be considerably more complex by definition.

How could a super complex God exist without a creator? I ask you again - who or what created the super-complex God?

[RoadToTheOne]

Pt.2) Still, I will try (with God's will) to answer u again: the common problem with atheists / materialists is that they cannot think outside the context of Matter. Matter is not a physical derivation from God (manufacturing, chemical reaction, giving birth, cell division; requires matter to make matter) but rather the CREATION (making something out of nothing) of God; two completely different acts. The former limited to the world of matter and the latter solely attributed to The Creator.

[Betelgeuse3000]

Actually matter comes from energy and the first rule of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This supports the notion of an eternal universe that constantly changes.

You can't have it both ways - if something that "exists" needs a creator then by your logic - god would therefore need a creator. If God doesn't "exist" in the same manner things within the universe - then are you saying God doesn't exist? What does 'existence' even mean to you?

[RoadToTheOne]

I) Having failed to face the challenges I've posed u with regarding Evolution, u'r now trying to hide behind other ancient contradictory arguments that have long been debunked to cover up ur previous lost argument.

Now, does energy really exist? Describe it; how does it look like? colour? taste like? feel like? U'll never be able to answer any of those questions. As it is something u cannot see or describe with ur senses, by ur own definition, energy DOESN'T exist, yet u believe in it!

[Betelgeuse3000]

You have not provided any challenges regarding evolution. Your arguments have been very weak and have comprised of falsehoods. Couple this with the overwhelming amount of scientific data that supports evolution - there really isn't anything to discuss. If you insist your magical invisible space god 'did it'... then more power to you, but I'm not going to waste my time on that. I suggest you look up this data for yourself, read Dawkins and view the counter arguments to your creation myths.

[RoadToTheOne]

i) A well known indication of a party losing an argument is when they turn the debate into a personal attack & carry on living in denial.

To refresh your memory, the challenge was:

1- Provide ONE observable fact of change of structure of living beings (like humans developing feathers / gills / wings, etc) as u claim possible.

2- Provide a single successful attempt to produce life out of non living matter.

The above is the only scientific way with that can prove ur blind faith (evolution)

[RoadToTheOne]

ii) FYI, my college tutor was a 40 years dedicated atheist & evolutionist pioneer. He was dedicated to especially teaching Dawkins' ideas. I also researched about the man & found out that an official independent party was hired to check Dawkins' claim's & proved them to be OFFICIALLY fraudulent!

So do yourself a favour and stop preaching what you don't practice for if anyone needs further reading then it would be you.

[RoadToTheOne]

iii) Ur claim that no prominent scholars oppose evolution is more pathetic than ur entire argument; Dawkins was challeneged & embarrassed several times by prominent scholars the last of which was a debate that took place between Dawkins & John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics & Fellow in the Philosophy of Science at Oxford where Lennox demolished Dawkins infront of a vast audience. Since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creationists.

Look up the debate & c what happened to ur prophet

[RoadToTheOne]

iv) if u knew anything about the art of debate, u would have known better than to make comments like 'ur argument is weak, fallacious, crap, illogical' etc for this is purely ur own subjective opinion & has zero argumentative value or advantage. Ur arrogance resulted in u failing to realise that ur opponent may view ur argument as even more illogical & a complete nonsense.

With this, our debate is over from my end as there is no pointing debating a denier that goes in circles.

[Gnomefro]

@RoadToTheOne "if u knew anything about the art of debate, u would have known better than to make comments like 'ur argument is weak, fallacious, crap, illogical' etc for this is purely ur own subjective opinion & has zero argumentative value or advantage."

Not when your arguments actually are weak, fallacious, crap and illogical. The point one realizes this and calls the other party out of it the debate is pretty much over though.

[RoadToTheOne]

II) Let's agree that matter comes from energy (& energy belongs to this cosmos), the LAW that 'energy cannot be created nor be destroyed' is absolutely true but(!) applicable ONLY to helpless pathetic forms of existence like u & me who BELONG to this cosmos because we cannot destroy what we have NOT created & we cannot create what we cannot destroy! Science has proven through Big Bang that all matter / energy / whole cosmos had a beginning; zero coordinates, zero volume, zero time; WAS CREATED

[RoadToTheOne]

III) Big Bang was proven by the observation of the light coming from the stars as they'r ALL moving away from each other & NEVER towards each other; reverse the motion and they all start from exactly the same point in space. After the great explosion (Big Bang) causes maximum separation of stars, their masses will pull them towards each other again in the same but reverse order and ultimately causing the Big Crunch (the end of the universe). Therefore the cosmos is anything but eternal.

[RoadToTheOne]

IV) So, if nothing that belongs to the cosmos / universe can create or destroy (vanish) anything (as u've rightly mentioned), yet the cosmos/ universe - by proven scientific facts - had a beginning and will have an end. Therefore whoever created this cosmos (and able to end it) does not belong to it & therefore is NOTHING like it nor like anything YOU can think of; He is neither complex nor a 'simple entity' & indeed He is nothing like u can perceive.

[RoadToTheOne]

V) The best that we can conclude 'scientifically' is that this cosmos/universe had a beginning therefore must have had a creator. This creator cannot be 'scientifically' tested because He is nothing like anything 'testable' that we know of & is out of our reach. We know about Him through Himself only & what He has revealed to us through His holy books & Prophets, all of whom preached the same message; worship the ONE & only God that has created U from nothing & to Him U shall return.

[RoadToTheOne]

VI) Unable to think outside the box of materialism, u still think of God as a physical being. U'r mind is so limited to ur physical senses that is blinding u from 'seeing' beyond them; explain all u want to a man born blind about colours, will he be able to imagine or understand them? Will the deaf understand music? How many things exist in the universe that u cannot / will never be able to see? Just because u cannot see / hear / 'test' God is not a scientific proof that He does not exist.

[RoadToTheOne]

VII) There r two types of existences: A- Absolute existence (exists in a constant state, no beginning & no end; this is God the Creator) & B- Non-absolute existence (exists in a constant changing state, has a beginning & will have an end; this is the cosmos & everything in it). The logic used to prove that 'B' requires a creator to exist does not prove that 'A' also requires a creator for 'A' & 'B' r nothing alike.

Dear brother, modern science has come a long way since Darwin & Evolution

[RoadToTheOne]

VIII) Leading thinkers supporting the atheist Static Model r adopting Creationism like Antony Flew who famously said:

'Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will, therefore, begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning'

[RoadToTheOne]

XI) Finally, I invite u to read a very small research called 'Timelessness and the Reality of Fate' for Harun Yahya which has all the answers to ur questions & more. I also invite u to read the 'Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Qur'an' for Dr Zaghloul Naggar which proves that this holy book could've never been the work of a human (Muhammad peace be on to him) but rather an inspiration from the Creator of this universe.

U r welcomed to send me ur e-mail if u need further info.

Peace

[RoadToTheOne]

Pt.3) Based on Pt.2, the complexity of universe doesn't mean a 'complex' God; He isn't made of the matter He creates so the laws of the universe don't apply to Him. Ur mind / imagination is limited to the context He created u in so no matter how hard u try, u won't be able to imagine / conclude what He is like; all senses r related to Matter & not God. God is ONE; not made of complex bits of matter; doesn't change state or grow old or give birth etc, has no begging/end therefore can't b created

[Betelgeuse3000]

So, material or immaterial you're essentially saying that God exists as a simple entity, even though we cannot even begin to perceive such a thing. I'm curious to know how you know so much about this elusive character.

It can't be scientific because we'd be able to perceive or detect such a creature. It can't be logical because I can apply the same logic to an eternal universe. It can't be philosophical because I can counter propose a million other equally 'valid' hypothetical scenarios.

[modemkorv]

Seriously,what is this guy talking about?

[WankityWank]

Ha haha i thought he was wearing a santa clause hat lol