Also what if the opening wasn't perpendicular to the source, but was instead angled like "/ \", wouldn't that have the increase in pressure without increasing the size of the opening. That would increase the height at which the water would spew.
Every creationist/ theist is an expert in physics, math, chemistry, biology, philosophy, theology and world history. Their view will not change the world so I truly don't care what they have to say. I don't listen to doomsdayers, people who think they are vampires, flat earth society, etc. I love these videos because they make so much sense and I get a good laugh at creationists expense.
I've stopped debating creationists for the same reason I won't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. It doesn't matter how much evidence is piled all around them, "show me the evidence" is the very next statement. They think physicists say that the universe was created from nothing over and over again. They think Atheism means to hate God or is a religion over and over again. They are trying to have a pissing contest into the wind.
Hooray. Clearly, none of you understand what it truly means to escape religion. You just went to the other side of the coin instead of getting off the coin entirely. God..
@MorpheusOmikron Science has proof. You see that last clip where the hammer and feather fell at the same rate? That's more proof that science works than there's proof of any sort of god existing.
Science has proof? Of what? Of natural laws? Show me where science has proof that there is NO God, rather than mentioning it has no proof of a God. It has none. You can't prove a negative. Nor does ANY of science's claims have any spiritual or moral worth. It CANNOT replace religion. Ever.
@MorpheusOmikron Actually, that's completely correct. It is not the purpose of science to find out whether or not there is a god or gods, but to expand our knowledge of the natural world. Also, you are correct in that science does not dictate our spirituality nor our morals, because that's not it's job. Science can't replace religion, because science is not based on superstition. Also, the burden of proof on the existence of god is on the one making the claims.
Both hard atheism and theism have burdens of proof, sir. The hard atheist MUST provide proof for his assertion "there is no God." How could he possibly know? But you are correct that the theists also must provide proof that there IS a God, and God cannot be proven with material means, the only means the secular world will accept. So really it's personal choice.
You said earlier "science has proof."
Science has no proof regarding ANYTHING I care about in a spiritual degree.
Science heats my home. Great. Science gets me to work on time. Yep. Science entertains me with the internet. Ok. But I am a deep person, and my needs run deep. I need communion with God, and science can never offer me that, or even a substitute.
Since that is my #1 need, I'll stick with God, and be glad science is taking care of the base things in life. Things that, by the way, you no longer even need when you're dead.
@MorpheusOmikron Ok, I don't really see a problem there. Just don't bash science, and I think things will work out fine. Just one question, why won't God take care of those things? Why even give us physical bodies if we should focus on the spiritual?
Science and spiritualism are not ACTUALLY intertangled at all, except in the minds of "science worshipper" atheists, who don't understand what science even is. They turn it into a religion and go batshit insane.
I've seen that phrase re-worded, re-made, re-applied thousands of times, as if the two are intertangled in some kind of duality, when they are not.
I'm a little bit surprised you even asked for an example, as if you don't see this going on around you. The transformation of science from a noble pursuit for material truths, into the "answer for all"...it is everywhere in atheism. Though, not all atheists think like that, many, many do.
@MorpheusOmikron I can see people believing in scientific explanations for things like the origins of life as opposed to believing that it was just a godly being. But no, I don't see it going on at all. In fact, you seem to think that atheism is some sort of organized belief system when it's not.
The narrator of the video has obviously explained sense, but the reason he gives for disproving The creation is bull shit, "IT WORKS". Why not use science to change the minds of terrorists and make them peace loving people...you know why? Because "IT DOESN'T WORK". He has very conveniently taken the example of a very illogical gentleman to demonstrate the so called shortcomings of The creation. Now this, makes him equally irrational and could be laughed at.
How come I am 27 years old, and I have never seen that hammer/feather footage!? I actually just cried a little bit because my brain just comprehended how little America cares about science...
@eahazell I should have said "the general american public." I am dissapointed at how much more the average american cares about Dancing With The Stars and football, than awesome stuff like science and philosophy.
@FoxOutsideBox try living in an intellectual pit. I know that we Americans have a reputation, but there are quite a growing number who are reaching out. Keep in mind at 15% Atheists are the fastest raising group in the US. We are waking up
@FoxOutsideBox i actually never cry when i think that people never think about this world, and don't care to think about it...it serves US(us all) right for letting stupid people rule us....
There are no incurable diseases. It's just a temporary lack of knowledge about these diseases that is addressed by scientific research and lack of new technologies that allow the cure (also designed by using scientific knowledge). Religion is just a mental distraction and horribly idiotic illusion.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@InternetDarkLord 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!
@InternetDarkLord 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 Let's test this bull shit. Scientists are working on the idol of earthly immortality. You die for your beliefs and see if the afterlife is real. I will try immortality, and have a drink on the beach.
@InternetDarkLord Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@InternetDarkLord It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
@InternetDarkLord Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
@InternetDarkLord How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@InternetDarkLord Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
@InternetDarkLord Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@InternetDarkLord Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
@InternetDarkLord 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?
@InternetDarkLord 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?
Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
@InternetDarkLord 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 OK, if you think I am quibbling, then kill every single human being you love with your hate-soaked garbage, your spouse, your children, your aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, every single one of them, you genocidal moron! Kill everybody, but don't ever change your mind, or you will be standing next to your loved ones graves, century after century, knowing you killed them all, and no matter how hard you want them back, you can never see them alive ever again! You make me sick!
@InternetDarkLord 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?
@InternetDarkLord 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?
@InternetDarkLord 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 duped, deluded and brainwashed atheists and the materialists.
@InternetDarkLord Further, 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. What then made those laws and decrees different?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
@1tabligh BULL SHIT, the Anthropic Principle answers that question. NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION!!! HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM YOUR HATE SOAKED DOG SHIT?
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
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?
B. When somebody refuses to stop killing millions of people because they answer your question with hare-brained banal lies over and over, I call them as I see them. Tell me your an unfeeling, emotionless computer spitting out canned answers. I am sickened by being the same species with emotionally crippled garbage like you.
Now kill you mother with emotionless trash, and prove I am right.
@InternetDarkLord Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do the deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
@1tabligh You won't answer the first question I asked, so why should I answer yours? Any sane human being can answer the question "Are you going to kill more people than Osama bin ladin", with a simple and straightforward answer. So call a doctor: 800-969-6642
@1tabligh After the 1,000,00th time you ducked the question of how many people you are going to kill, something occurred to me: All the people you will kill are Muslims. That is OK. Only Islamic fanatics will die from your stupidity, and its legal, considering killing them with cyanide, hanging, or guns is illegal. So you go ahead, ducking the issue, and asking very dumb rhetorical questions, and see how many Muslims you can kill before dying. Try to kill every Muslim on earth. Have fun.
@InternetDarkLord Second, if the elements comprising the world are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
@InternetDarkLord "If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
@InternetDarkLord The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was necessary for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature. How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
@InternetDarkLord Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/Jesus /and other man made gods are in its/theirs essence compendium of forces and potentialities; they are relativity themselves, totally caught up in living and dying.
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.
@InternetDarkLord Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves..
@InternetDarkLord We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
@InternetDarkLord The primary cause is the primary cause by virtue of possessing perfect and unlimited being; not being subject to any agent, it is free from need, condition and dependency, and it contains no trace of mutability or change.
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@vatiz93 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@1tabligh I.e. God is incredibly inept in the act of sharing the true word of himself. What you are proposing is an impossible game, there are multiple religions and you know they can't all be right. They all claim to know the truth, but they cannot provide real evidence for their claims. Keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, because without evidence there is no way to distinguish between them. E.g choosing your religion becomes like picking a lottery ticket.
@vatiz93 Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
@1tabligh True, but it is justified. Without evidence there is no reason to conclude that there is a God, however, to the contrary we cannot conclude that there is no God either. What you get then is agnosticism, and since we do entirely know what the 'concept of God' wants then there is no way to tell what this entity (if it exists) wants. E.g agnosticism turns into apatheism, which means that we simply don't care whether God exists or not because it doesn't matter. We don't know what he wants!
@1tabligh I'm sorry, made a typo: meant to say "-what you get then is agnosticism, and since we do *NOT* entirely know what the 'concept of God' wants". I'm dangerously close to circular reasoning, but hopefully you get the point. As for your next reply, we have the internets, if people have proof that their religion is the one true path to God and that he does indeed exists, it would be all over the place. But atheists have refuted it, time and time again.
@vatiz93 It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
@1tabligh Question is; how do you tell false religions from the ones that might be true? Basics would be ruling out mythology that teaches the world is flat, next we have the age of the earth which rules out all of the abrahamic religions. Problem is; they either distort science and the age of the earth, or deny/reject this notion of there Bible teaching that the earth is 6000-10k years old.
@vatiz93 Bible teaching that the earth is 6000-10k years old.
___
I am not a Christian!
I am a Shiite Muslim!
The Holy Qur'an does not define the age of the universe in any way. Science so far is not able to tell exactly when the universe began. The Holy Qur'an had been introduced in a non-scientific age when people were not able to conceive the stretch of time into billions or millions of years.
@1tabligh Only if it is taken literally, which in most cases it isn't. But some people insist that it is indeed 6k-10k years old, but that was just an example. I had no idea what your position was, but I'm glad you told me. I myself is a secular freethinker, who was raised in a protostant/liberal Christian home. I'll get back to you on the Qu'ran. I don't know much about it, but I am currently studying Islam in my religion, worldview and ethics class.
@vatiz93 Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
@1tabligh You forget yourself, Islam is an Abrahamic religion. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt related to Christianity, however, the Qu'ran does refute the Bible. But it has one problem, how can we have freewill (it says we have freewill) and yet have everything that is going to happen being written with more ink than of all the sea? It says Allah chooses who is going to be saved, and some people are not going to make it. I.e only a fraction of all humanity is going to enter heaven, rest burns.
To exclude Islam from all the worlds major religion, and call the rest of the bounch superstitious is simply arrogant and hypocritical. You are being biased towards your own religion. You, like many apologetics before you, as you cannot justify how 'God' favors your religion. How is that defective and illogical when you do need meet the sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim?
The question of man's religious accountability, the sending of the Prophets, the proclamation of divine messages, and the principle of resurrection and judgment—all these rest on man's free will and choice in the acts he performs.
It would be completely meaningless were God, on the one hand, to compel men to do certain things and, on the other, to reward or punish them.
It would surely be unjust were the Creator of the world to set us on whatever path He chose,
by means of His power and His will, and then to punish us for actions we have committed without any choice on our part.
If the deeds of men are, in reality, the acts of God, all corruption, evil and cruelty must be regarded as His work, whereas His most sacred being is utterly pure of all such corruption and injustice.
If there were no free choice for man, the whole concept of man's religious accountability would be unjust.
The oppressive tyrant would deserve no blame and the just would merit no praise, because responsibility has meaning only within the sphere of what is possible and attainable for man. Man deserves blame or merits praise only when he is able to decide and to act freely; otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. Quran [2.62]
"Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you." 10 : 108
"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things. The Quran [2:256]
Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing. [76.2]
Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful. The Quran [76.3]
Did I not charge you, O children of Adam! that you should not serve the Shaitan? Surely he is your open enemy, And that you should serve Me; this is the right way. (36:60-61)
"Say: O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of God; surely God forgives the faults altogether; surely He is the Forgiving the Merciful." The Quran: [39:53]
Had the Qur'an stated that the stars were originated billions of years ago, people may have rejected the whole concept of Islam. The Qur'an, therefore, wisely kept silent on this matter. To be true, you do not need to tell all of what you know of truth; you need only to refrain from misinforming the people. Thus, the door was kept open to any scientific theory, so the religious information will not clash with any scientific knowledge.
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
Today, the laws governing the celestial systems are well known. Galaxies are balanced by the position of stars and planets in well-defined orbits, as well as the interplay of gravitational forces produced by their masses and the speed of their movements. But is this not what the Qur’an describes in terms which have only become comprehensible in modern times.
@1tabligh I had Norse mythology in mind, which no one can justify. It teaches that there is a 'world tree' called Yggdrasil is at the center of the earth, called midgard. It also teaches that a serpent called Jordmund Elder is biting it's tail to prevent the sea from falling off the earth, and that the earth is just a tiny dot inside of another tree. Not to mention the four *corners* of the world, but yes, in some cases it is circular, but it's still flat I'm afraid.
“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33The Arabic word which expresses this movement is the verb yasbahoon which implies the idea of motion produced by a moving body, whether it is the movement of one’s legs running on the ground, or the action of swimming in water. In the case of a celestial body, one is forced to translate it, according to its original meaning,
The Qur’anic description of the sequence of day and night would, in itself, be rather commonplace were it not for the fact that it is expressed in terms that are today highly appropriate. The Qur’an uses the verb kawwara in chapter az-Zumar to describe the way the night ‘winds’ or ‘coils’ itself around the day and the day around the night.
“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.
we do *NOT* entirely know what the 'concept of God' ...
____
Human faculties of *conception*, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.
There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes,
and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true *"concept"* of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
@1tabligh I agree, although this mostly sounds like an ephinany you do have some strong points to make. However, if you don't know or can't define these properties then how do you know what God is and what he wants? You mentioned that 'He'(God) has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of his being ***YET*** although he hasn't prevented them from realising his pressence.
What about the prophets? What about the authors of the Qu'ran?How does one go about detecting the presence of God?
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
No man has ever left the safety of low Earth orbit; and to see this fake Feather twilled and fall from what should have been inflated fingers on the glove hand Gene Cernan, is really laughable; but like religion, the masses will believe anything the Priest Class tell them. Beam me up Scotty!
@MrSchpankme So How is it that I've SEEN the Landing sites through a telescope. Not a personal one but one at the university in my town. What about the fact that we can shoot a laser at the damn thing and it bounces back but only if we shoot it at certain places say like THE LANDING SITES!! What is your answer to that? What the moon has magic growing mirrors? Only an Idiot can look at the footage of the moon landings and say FAKE! like some d-bag youtube troll.
@Mauler85 .. Your paragraph starts with a lie; (YOU SEEN A PIC - REALLY). You could ALWAYS shoot a laser at the moon and get the bounce back. Take your head out of your ass and try educating yourself. You and so many like you are so EASY to lie to; hell you'll even fight someone to keep the lie and not destroy your illusions. NOT ONE Satellite has EVER taken a picture of the MOON LANDINGS.
@MrSchpankme Oh really? It always bounced back? PROVE IT. You are just one of these morons who wants to shit on every single human achievement. You know nothing about science or life in general. Most likely you live in your parents basement at age 40. No one who lives in the world we have today who has more than half a brain would believe the things you believe. You are worse than a Young earth creationist. BTW only an idiot would think that I meant I saw the LEM close up.
@Mauler85 .. Listen up sparky .. In 1962 Project Luna, headed by Professor Louis D. Smullin, successfully demonstrated high-power optical maser technology by being the first to bounce a laser beam off the moon's surface. High-intensity red light flashes were created by an optical maser (laser), sent through a transmitting telescope to the moon's surface and detected with an optical receiver. Now get off your ass and look the information up, before you hump my leg again.
@Mauler85 .. So YES .. they have been since the early 1962 bouncing lasers off the MOON, completely destroying your wild ass theory, that the only way to establish laser range readings from the Moon, was to use the Mirrors NAZA claims to have placed there! Based on your ability to respond I've established your IQ at something just below 100; congratulations your the typical American, I bet your parents are so proud.
@atheistram .. Your lied to daily by your government and business and you think we went to the MOON. Tell me, who else, except the Apollo Missions, have been outside of the safety of Low Earth Orbit in the last 40 years?
@atheistram .. NO , none of them left the safety of low Earth orbit. It's OK, you can admit that you've been duped. You'll find this isn't the only subject.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
if water made craters on the moon, the moon would be full of water on the surface and in craters. so we did find water, but VERY little. being only 6000 years old means it probably didn't had time to decomposes through photodissociation. also, the nozzel had to be a fucking snipe pointing DIRECTLY at the moon. creationist need to grasp just how mind-raping huge the solar system is.
I'm a scrub as far as physics so I'm asking this out of considerable ignorance, but would the shape of the nozzle affect the parabola? Say the opening was cone shaped. There'd be more pressure pushing on a smaller opening. I'm well aware that the change won't make craters on the moon, I'm just curious.
I can not say why, but that last clip from the moon was just so Awesome in every sense of the word. To see it happen like that. To just confirm everything in that one moment. I wish I had seen this ages ago.
Also what if the opening wasn't perpendicular to the source, but was instead angled like "/ \", wouldn't that have the increase in pressure without increasing the size of the opening. That would increase the height at which the water would spew.
Chrisssss158 1 week ago
Thats not a widely held belief at all....
Chrisssss158 1 week ago
Every creationist/ theist is an expert in physics, math, chemistry, biology, philosophy, theology and world history. Their view will not change the world so I truly don't care what they have to say. I don't listen to doomsdayers, people who think they are vampires, flat earth society, etc. I love these videos because they make so much sense and I get a good laugh at creationists expense.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago 2
I've stopped debating creationists for the same reason I won't debate someone who thinks the Moon is made of cheese. It doesn't matter how much evidence is piled all around them, "show me the evidence" is the very next statement. They think physicists say that the universe was created from nothing over and over again. They think Atheism means to hate God or is a religion over and over again. They are trying to have a pissing contest into the wind.
paramattic70 2 weeks ago
Science, no longer science, but the new religion.
Hooray. Clearly, none of you understand what it truly means to escape religion. You just went to the other side of the coin instead of getting off the coin entirely. God..
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron Science has proof. You see that last clip where the hammer and feather fell at the same rate? That's more proof that science works than there's proof of any sort of god existing.
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
@DMZ6KG
Science has proof? Of what? Of natural laws? Show me where science has proof that there is NO God, rather than mentioning it has no proof of a God. It has none. You can't prove a negative. Nor does ANY of science's claims have any spiritual or moral worth. It CANNOT replace religion. Ever.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron Actually, that's completely correct. It is not the purpose of science to find out whether or not there is a god or gods, but to expand our knowledge of the natural world. Also, you are correct in that science does not dictate our spirituality nor our morals, because that's not it's job. Science can't replace religion, because science is not based on superstition. Also, the burden of proof on the existence of god is on the one making the claims.
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
@DMZ6KG
Both hard atheism and theism have burdens of proof, sir. The hard atheist MUST provide proof for his assertion "there is no God." How could he possibly know? But you are correct that the theists also must provide proof that there IS a God, and God cannot be proven with material means, the only means the secular world will accept. So really it's personal choice.
You said earlier "science has proof."
Science has no proof regarding ANYTHING I care about in a spiritual degree.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron Stop trying to impose the idea that science and spiritualism are somehow entangled. They're not.
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
@DMZ6KG
Science heats my home. Great. Science gets me to work on time. Yep. Science entertains me with the internet. Ok. But I am a deep person, and my needs run deep. I need communion with God, and science can never offer me that, or even a substitute.
Since that is my #1 need, I'll stick with God, and be glad science is taking care of the base things in life. Things that, by the way, you no longer even need when you're dead.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron Ok, I don't really see a problem there. Just don't bash science, and I think things will work out fine. Just one question, why won't God take care of those things? Why even give us physical bodies if we should focus on the spiritual?
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
@DMZ6KG
Science and spiritualism are not ACTUALLY intertangled at all, except in the minds of "science worshipper" atheists, who don't understand what science even is. They turn it into a religion and go batshit insane.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron Could you give me an example? I've never seen anyone treating science like that.
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
@DMZ6KG
"Fuck GOD. SCIENCE is the answer!"
I've seen that phrase re-worded, re-made, re-applied thousands of times, as if the two are intertangled in some kind of duality, when they are not.
I'm a little bit surprised you even asked for an example, as if you don't see this going on around you. The transformation of science from a noble pursuit for material truths, into the "answer for all"...it is everywhere in atheism. Though, not all atheists think like that, many, many do.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
@MorpheusOmikron I can see people believing in scientific explanations for things like the origins of life as opposed to believing that it was just a godly being. But no, I don't see it going on at all. In fact, you seem to think that atheism is some sort of organized belief system when it's not.
DMZ6KG 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMZ6KG
"But no, I don't see it going on at all."
You're either deluded or a liar.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say delusional.
Have a nice life.
MorpheusOmikron 2 weeks ago
I'll take science for the win Alex
eahazell 1 month ago
The narrator of the video has obviously explained sense, but the reason he gives for disproving The creation is bull shit, "IT WORKS". Why not use science to change the minds of terrorists and make them peace loving people...you know why? Because "IT DOESN'T WORK". He has very conveniently taken the example of a very illogical gentleman to demonstrate the so called shortcomings of The creation. Now this, makes him equally irrational and could be laughed at.
chichipukaka 1 month ago
I love the end <3
mimikawaii7386 2 months ago
have to agree physics does answer the guy's question.
does his holy book do it too?
teringhufter 3 months ago 5
How come I am 27 years old, and I have never seen that hammer/feather footage!? I actually just cried a little bit because my brain just comprehended how little America cares about science...
FoxOutsideBox 3 months ago 18
@FoxOutsideBox hey hey HEY I'm an American and I live for science. I know we have idiots here, but don't lump us all in the same hole
eahazell 1 month ago
@eahazell I should have said "the general american public." I am dissapointed at how much more the average american cares about Dancing With The Stars and football, than awesome stuff like science and philosophy.
FoxOutsideBox 1 month ago
@FoxOutsideBox try living in an intellectual pit. I know that we Americans have a reputation, but there are quite a growing number who are reaching out. Keep in mind at 15% Atheists are the fastest raising group in the US. We are waking up
eahazell 1 month ago
@FoxOutsideBox yea little girls and their moms would rather scream over twilight than watch Michiu Kaku.
eahazell 1 month ago
@FoxOutsideBox i actually never cry when i think that people never think about this world, and don't care to think about it...it serves US(us all) right for letting stupid people rule us....
XTYNoLuck 1 month ago
There are no incurable diseases. It's just a temporary lack of knowledge about these diseases that is addressed by scientific research and lack of new technologies that allow the cure (also designed by using scientific knowledge). Religion is just a mental distraction and horribly idiotic illusion.
Indrius 3 months ago
88 people didn't understand any of this...
kalajel 3 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh No, Shiva, Brahman, and Vishnu are real! My amazing logic is nobody ever proved they are unreal.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh The universe is in anarchy. You will be reincarnated as a goat because you do not have faith!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh Happy Feeding Maggots in a pine crate.
InternetDarkLord 3 months 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh Let's test this bull shit. Scientists are working on the idol of earthly immortality. You die for your beliefs and see if the afterlife is real. I will try immortality, and have a drink on the beach.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh PROVE it, die!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh So you feed maggots, and I won't.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Name the number of people who will be dead someday because of your stupidity, mortal.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh How many people (not me!) will die because you spout vacuous theological bull shit when human life is at stake?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Will the number of people dead because of your stupidity be more or less than one million?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh I answered your question: You die for your bullshit, I live for my beliefs. That's my FINAL answer!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh DIE and prove it, mortal.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Prove it, DIE. My price is death, if you can't match, stop posting.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Life or Death! Take your choice, mortal! I made mine!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh How many people will die because you spout theological cliches?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh So how many people will die because you spout theological cliches?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh So, who will kill more people by the time his life is over, you or Osama bin Ladin?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
Answer the questions!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh I answer your questions loud and clear, with exactly what I think.
Will you kill more people than Osama bin Ladin?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh A. Read quantum mechanics.
B, Will you kill more human beings than Osama bin Ladin?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord
Answer the question!
Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh PHYSICS does answer the question, READ the Anthropic Principle!
Will you kill more people than Osama bin Ladin?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh OK, if you think I am quibbling, then kill every single human being you love with your hate-soaked garbage, your spouse, your children, your aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, every single one of them, you genocidal moron! Kill everybody, but don't ever change your mind, or you will be standing next to your loved ones graves, century after century, knowing you killed them all, and no matter how hard you want them back, you can never see them alive ever again! You make me sick!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 3 months ago
@1tabligh 1. Abiogenesis explain s this.
2. You quibble when billions of human beings face certain death. You make me sick!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh How many MILLIONS of people are about to die because of your stupidity? Just fly an airplane into some building and be done with it!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 duped, deluded and brainwashed atheists and the materialists.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh So kill yourself for your stupidity, and I will stay ALIVE mortal. Good riddance!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Further, 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,
1tabligh 3 months ago
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. What then made those laws and decrees different?
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh BULL SHIT, the Anthropic Principle answers that question. NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION!!! HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM YOUR HATE SOAKED DOG SHIT?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord SOAKED DOG SHIT?
___
Poor fella!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
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 3 months ago
@1tabligh A. Evolution is not by chance.
B. When somebody refuses to stop killing millions of people because they answer your question with hare-brained banal lies over and over, I call them as I see them. Tell me your an unfeeling, emotionless computer spitting out canned answers. I am sickened by being the same species with emotionally crippled garbage like you.
Now kill you mother with emotionless trash, and prove I am right.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
How do the deluded atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh You won't answer the first question I asked, so why should I answer yours? Any sane human being can answer the question "Are you going to kill more people than Osama bin ladin", with a simple and straightforward answer. So call a doctor: 800-969-6642
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord An essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
If the material world is eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh After the 1,000,00th time you ducked the question of how many people you are going to kill, something occurred to me: All the people you will kill are Muslims. That is OK. Only Islamic fanatics will die from your stupidity, and its legal, considering killing them with cyanide, hanging, or guns is illegal. So you go ahead, ducking the issue, and asking very dumb rhetorical questions, and see how many Muslims you can kill before dying. Try to kill every Muslim on earth. Have fun.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Second, if the elements comprising the world are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the embrace of death and disappearance?
And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life surge forth from them?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Good. Try to kill every single Muslim alive.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord "If you say that living beings emerge from living elements and inanimate beings from inanimate elements, we reply that an essence that lacks life in and of itself cannot be eternal and cannot be the source for life.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@InternetDarkLord The world at the time of its birth stood in need of a preternatural force, for at the beginning, all things were formless and undifferentiated. It was necessary for some primordial spark of motion and life to alight on the world of nature. How could an environment devoid of all active energy, characterized by absolute silence and formlessness, serve as the origin of motion and life?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/Jesus /and other man made gods are in its/theirs essence compendium of forces and potentialities; they are relativity themselves, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe that, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe I'm quibbling, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord Belief in the eternity of the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc is held by those who deny the existence of a ruler and planner of creation, reject the messengers of God, regard the books they bring as the fables of the ancients, and **** concoct **** beliefs pleasing to themselves..
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh If you believe it, kill every Muslim on earth.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@1tabligh Atheists, presumably, just believe in one less God than you do. Do well to remember that.
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh I.e. God is incredibly inept in the act of sharing the true word of himself. What you are proposing is an impossible game, there are multiple religions and you know they can't all be right. They all claim to know the truth, but they cannot provide real evidence for their claims. Keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, because without evidence there is no way to distinguish between them. E.g choosing your religion becomes like picking a lottery ticket.
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93 Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh True, but it is justified. Without evidence there is no reason to conclude that there is a God, however, to the contrary we cannot conclude that there is no God either. What you get then is agnosticism, and since we do entirely know what the 'concept of God' wants then there is no way to tell what this entity (if it exists) wants. E.g agnosticism turns into apatheism, which means that we simply don't care whether God exists or not because it doesn't matter. We don't know what he wants!
vatiz93 3 months ago
@1tabligh I'm sorry, made a typo: meant to say "-what you get then is agnosticism, and since we do *NOT* entirely know what the 'concept of God' wants". I'm dangerously close to circular reasoning, but hopefully you get the point. As for your next reply, we have the internets, if people have proof that their religion is the one true path to God and that he does indeed exists, it would be all over the place. But atheists have refuted it, time and time again.
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93 It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Question is; how do you tell false religions from the ones that might be true? Basics would be ruling out mythology that teaches the world is flat, next we have the age of the earth which rules out all of the abrahamic religions. Problem is; they either distort science and the age of the earth, or deny/reject this notion of there Bible teaching that the earth is 6000-10k years old.
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93 Bible teaching that the earth is 6000-10k years old.
___
I am not a Christian!
I am a Shiite Muslim!
The Holy Qur'an does not define the age of the universe in any way. Science so far is not able to tell exactly when the universe began. The Holy Qur'an had been introduced in a non-scientific age when people were not able to conceive the stretch of time into billions or millions of years.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh Only if it is taken literally, which in most cases it isn't. But some people insist that it is indeed 6k-10k years old, but that was just an example. I had no idea what your position was, but I'm glad you told me. I myself is a secular freethinker, who was raised in a protostant/liberal Christian home. I'll get back to you on the Qu'ran. I don't know much about it, but I am currently studying Islam in my religion, worldview and ethics class.
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93 Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh You forget yourself, Islam is an Abrahamic religion. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt related to Christianity, however, the Qu'ran does refute the Bible. But it has one problem, how can we have freewill (it says we have freewill) and yet have everything that is going to happen being written with more ink than of all the sea? It says Allah chooses who is going to be saved, and some people are not going to make it. I.e only a fraction of all humanity is going to enter heaven, rest burns.
vatiz93 3 months ago
To exclude Islam from all the worlds major religion, and call the rest of the bounch superstitious is simply arrogant and hypocritical. You are being biased towards your own religion. You, like many apologetics before you, as you cannot justify how 'God' favors your religion. How is that defective and illogical when you do need meet the sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim?
vatiz93 3 months ago
@vatiz93
NOPE!
The question of man's religious accountability, the sending of the Prophets, the proclamation of divine messages, and the principle of resurrection and judgment—all these rest on man's free will and choice in the acts he performs.
It would be completely meaningless were God, on the one hand, to compel men to do certain things and, on the other, to reward or punish them.
It would surely be unjust were the Creator of the world to set us on whatever path He chose,
1tabligh 3 months ago
by means of His power and His will, and then to punish us for actions we have committed without any choice on our part.
If the deeds of men are, in reality, the acts of God, all corruption, evil and cruelty must be regarded as His work, whereas His most sacred being is utterly pure of all such corruption and injustice.
If there were no free choice for man, the whole concept of man's religious accountability would be unjust.
1tabligh 3 months ago
The oppressive tyrant would deserve no blame and the just would merit no praise, because responsibility has meaning only within the sphere of what is possible and attainable for man. Man deserves blame or merits praise only when he is able to decide and to act freely; otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Surely those who believe,
1tabligh 3 months ago
and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. Quran [2.62]
"Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you." 10 : 108
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things. The Quran [2:256]
Surely We have created man from a small life-germ uniting (itself): We mean to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing. [76.2]
Surely We have shown him the way: he may be thankful or unthankful. The Quran [76.3]
1tabligh 3 months ago
Did I not charge you, O children of Adam! that you should not serve the Shaitan? Surely he is your open enemy, And that you should serve Me; this is the right way. (36:60-61)
"Say: O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of God; surely God forgives the faults altogether; surely He is the Forgiving the Merciful." The Quran: [39:53]
1tabligh 3 months ago
Had the Qur'an stated that the stars were originated billions of years ago, people may have rejected the whole concept of Islam. The Qur'an, therefore, wisely kept silent on this matter. To be true, you do not need to tell all of what you know of truth; you need only to refrain from misinforming the people. Thus, the door was kept open to any scientific theory, so the religious information will not clash with any scientific knowledge.
1tabligh 3 months ago
...false religions from ...true?
---
Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 3 months ago
mythology that teaches the world is flat, next
---
Orbits
Today, the laws governing the celestial systems are well known. Galaxies are balanced by the position of stars and planets in well-defined orbits, as well as the interplay of gravitational forces produced by their masses and the speed of their movements. But is this not what the Qur’an describes in terms which have only become comprehensible in modern times.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh I had Norse mythology in mind, which no one can justify. It teaches that there is a 'world tree' called Yggdrasil is at the center of the earth, called midgard. It also teaches that a serpent called Jordmund Elder is biting it's tail to prevent the sea from falling off the earth, and that the earth is just a tiny dot inside of another tree. Not to mention the four *corners* of the world, but yes, in some cases it is circular, but it's still flat I'm afraid.
vatiz93 3 months ago
In chapter al-Ambiyaa we find:
“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33The Arabic word which expresses this movement is the verb yasbahoon which implies the idea of motion produced by a moving body, whether it is the movement of one’s legs running on the ground, or the action of swimming in water. In the case of a celestial body, one is forced to translate it, according to its original meaning,
1tabligh 3 months ago
as ‘to travel with its own motion.’
The Day and Night
The Qur’anic description of the sequence of day and night would, in itself, be rather commonplace were it not for the fact that it is expressed in terms that are today highly appropriate. The Qur’an uses the verb kawwara in chapter az-Zumar to describe the way the night ‘winds’ or ‘coils’ itself around the day and the day around the night.
“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
1tabligh 3 months ago
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.
1tabligh 3 months ago
we do *NOT* entirely know what the 'concept of God' ...
____
Human faculties of *conception*, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined.
There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes,
1tabligh 3 months ago
and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from His Person. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true *"concept"* of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh I agree, although this mostly sounds like an ephinany you do have some strong points to make. However, if you don't know or can't define these properties then how do you know what God is and what he wants? You mentioned that 'He'(God) has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of his being ***YET*** although he hasn't prevented them from realising his pressence.
What about the prophets? What about the authors of the Qu'ran?How does one go about detecting the presence of God?
vatiz93 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he my try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
1tabligh 3 months ago
I like that god is all up on new technology, telling a guy who looks like a rapist to spread the word to 'prove' his existence. Hilarious.
ciaobellakate 4 months ago
I believe Galileo also discovered many lunar features like craters.
InternetDarkLord 4 months ago
ICICLES OUT OF HER TOES!!!! DAMN!!! I Wanna see that its like a real life Anime scene!!!!
Mauler85 4 months ago
No man has ever left the safety of low Earth orbit; and to see this fake Feather twilled and fall from what should have been inflated fingers on the glove hand Gene Cernan, is really laughable; but like religion, the masses will believe anything the Priest Class tell them. Beam me up Scotty!
MrSchpankme 5 months ago
@MrSchpankme So How is it that I've SEEN the Landing sites through a telescope. Not a personal one but one at the university in my town. What about the fact that we can shoot a laser at the damn thing and it bounces back but only if we shoot it at certain places say like THE LANDING SITES!! What is your answer to that? What the moon has magic growing mirrors? Only an Idiot can look at the footage of the moon landings and say FAKE! like some d-bag youtube troll.
Mauler85 4 months ago
@Mauler85 .. Your paragraph starts with a lie; (YOU SEEN A PIC - REALLY). You could ALWAYS shoot a laser at the moon and get the bounce back. Take your head out of your ass and try educating yourself. You and so many like you are so EASY to lie to; hell you'll even fight someone to keep the lie and not destroy your illusions. NOT ONE Satellite has EVER taken a picture of the MOON LANDINGS.
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme Oh really? It always bounced back? PROVE IT. You are just one of these morons who wants to shit on every single human achievement. You know nothing about science or life in general. Most likely you live in your parents basement at age 40. No one who lives in the world we have today who has more than half a brain would believe the things you believe. You are worse than a Young earth creationist. BTW only an idiot would think that I meant I saw the LEM close up.
Mauler85 4 months ago
@Mauler85 .. Listen up sparky .. In 1962 Project Luna, headed by Professor Louis D. Smullin, successfully demonstrated high-power optical maser technology by being the first to bounce a laser beam off the moon's surface. High-intensity red light flashes were created by an optical maser (laser), sent through a transmitting telescope to the moon's surface and detected with an optical receiver. Now get off your ass and look the information up, before you hump my leg again.
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme You....are a moron. I understand now. You are too stupid to understand science.
Mauler85 4 months ago
@Mauler85 .. So YES .. they have been since the early 1962 bouncing lasers off the MOON, completely destroying your wild ass theory, that the only way to establish laser range readings from the Moon, was to use the Mirrors NAZA claims to have placed there! Based on your ability to respond I've established your IQ at something just below 100; congratulations your the typical American, I bet your parents are so proud.
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme Lol You know nothing about me troll. You are a moron who knows nothing have fun failing at life, the universe, and everything.
Mauler85 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme You really believe that the moon landings were faked?? Jeez... I shudder at the stupidity.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram .. Your lied to daily by your government and business and you think we went to the MOON. Tell me, who else, except the Apollo Missions, have been outside of the safety of Low Earth Orbit in the last 40 years?
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme lol
shagoosty 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme Let's see the Russians, the Chinese, etc.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram .. NO , none of them left the safety of low Earth orbit. It's OK, you can admit that you've been duped. You'll find this isn't the only subject.
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme The Russians did... do a bit of research on the topic before you spout your nonsense.
atheistram 4 months ago
@atheistram .. provide your link showing proof, or stop your mindless one liners.
MrSchpankme 4 months ago
@MrSchpankme Provide your links showing lack of proof first. You made the claim, therefore the onus is on you.
atheistram 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS FOR CREATIONISM-EVOLUTIONISM DEBATE (See Subchapter 10.2.2, Chapter 10, of Part Two.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Clearly, Galileo knew what he was talking about.
ThePsychoReturns 5 months ago
@Cacterpus Is that true? That'd be funny if it weren't so sad they're so deluded. I'm gonna have to look this up.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 5 months ago
I can't beleive these kinds of people still exists in the 21st century!.
NANOFORGE 5 months ago
At the distance the moon is from the earth, it would have needed to be one hell of a money shot to hit the moon with a jet of water.
TechnicallyTechnical 5 months ago
if water made craters on the moon, the moon would be full of water on the surface and in craters. so we did find water, but VERY little. being only 6000 years old means it probably didn't had time to decomposes through photodissociation. also, the nozzel had to be a fucking snipe pointing DIRECTLY at the moon. creationist need to grasp just how mind-raping huge the solar system is.
Ryagful 5 months ago
SCIENCE WINS FLAWLESS VICTORY!
ZeroDarkOmega 6 months ago
I'm a scrub as far as physics so I'm asking this out of considerable ignorance, but would the shape of the nozzle affect the parabola? Say the opening was cone shaped. There'd be more pressure pushing on a smaller opening. I'm well aware that the change won't make craters on the moon, I'm just curious.
Dqowreorn 6 months ago
i think nephilim just put his finger on the garden hose nozzle and then applied what he saw to god and the moon.
eddiminus 7 months ago
i took an asprin, prayed and my headache went!
scientists say it was the asprin that healed me, but i know it was prayer!
that is the logic of a creationist... fucking morons.
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
Why was there water in there to start with, then a mysterious brown liquid?
ShavedKnuckle 7 months ago
er OK so... god TOLD him to create this video... that plus his look makes me think two things; he's either a pre-serial killer or a pre-rapist.
WolfGuard20 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WolfGuard20
"god TOLD him to create this video"
God also told him to be dumb, unemployed, poor and live in hovel apparently.
gorilla199uncensored 7 months ago
I can not say why, but that last clip from the moon was just so Awesome in every sense of the word. To see it happen like that. To just confirm everything in that one moment. I wish I had seen this ages ago.
ZoidzillaSam 7 months ago 10
wow, loved the ending! badass, dude!
men are simply way more impressive than the christian god.
taffysaur 7 months ago 16
The intro was brilliant, "So there's this bat-shit crazy guy..."
gunnythebunny55 8 months ago 2