this guy says it's all about physics like he's some professor then goes on to posit arguments in organic chemistry. He obviously just read some speculative, misinformed garbage on conservapedia and jumped on the phone to TAA to regurgitate what he read before he could forget it and very quickly demonstrates he barely has a grasp on what he's talking about. He confuses physics with chemistry, molecules with atoms, and a high school equivalency certificate with a masters or doctorate from a uni.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
Every single amino acid by definition must contain at least 1 carboxylic acid functional group which itself contains two oxygen atoms. Amino acids could not exist without oxygen just as water could not exist without oxygen. This guy has zero understanding of the basic chemical concepts which have been established for centuries.
ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts. But the last thing I would want in this situation is to accept the narrow dogma and doctrines of an all-knowing materials such as yourself . What confidence shd any reasoning person ever have that metphysics has any objective reality outside of UR own brain chemistry. I don't believe [in] U
How do you know that he is wrong. If you don't know then how can you say he is wrong. The biggest fallacy in this world is bias. You, my friend is Bias.
Few things are more annoying than condescending morons, such as this callers. I cannot stand listening to idiots using that condescending tone--almost singsong in tone--that they've learned from pastors and other idiots.
Matt should learn something about the Miller-Urey experiment before talking about it. Synthesizing amino acids is completely different from synthesizing life.
@EmbraceDorkhood ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter/energy, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
@1tabligh Heh it's funny. I debated with you more than a year ago and you are still using horrible logic. I thought you would've learned by now. I'm not even talking about your beliefs. I'm talking about your horrible logic. It sucks.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
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 Phft. Science concerns itself with the physically observable, not with philosophical, unsubstantiated beliefs about a dark age 'believe or I'll thump you' deity.
Most theists would claim science is anti religion and evil because scientific observation proves such philosphical claims are wrong.
All people have to be brainwashed from birth into believing illogical contradictory philosophies, they are not natural. Once ingrained in your psyke they are nearly impossible to irradicate.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@firevortex500 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh "the first source of existence matter itself ". Presumably you are refering to the assumtion that matter had to come from somewhere and therefore had to have a creator. In fact it has been proven that a pair of subatomic particles, positive and negative, appear out of nowhere and vanish again just as mysteriously. There are no gaps left for the 'believe or I'll thump you' deity to exist in. Energy and matter are interchangable so there are no limits.
@1tabligh Exactly right. the subatomic particles appear in great numbers popping in and out of existence. All matter is made up of atoms that are made of subatomic particles. All matter self organises out of chaos. There is a full length BBC documentary on Youtube called "the secret life of chaos'. I highly reccomend it.
Capitilizing words is the equivalent of shouting. It doesn't add anything of value to your argument, but the opposite, it's the sort thing a loud troll would do. ;)
No, I've already told you, a pair or subatomic particles come out of nothing and then vanish just as mysteriously. There are no gaps in science left for your 'believe or I'll thump you' deity. Order is matter self organising out of Chaos.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh Simply. Matter has been proven to come out of nothing in a pair of subatomic particles. The pairs of particles pop in and out of existence randomly, but because they are in such huge numbers, they are more there than not. Subatomic particles are the components of atoms, which make up the components of all matter. The matter self organizes itself, in a feed back loop called chaos.
I highly reccomend the full length BBC science documentary, 'the secret life of chaos'. It's on Youtube :)
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@1tabligh There is no infinity involved at all. Nothing is infinite, everything has a begining and an ending. Only the space that matter inhabits is always there. Infinite and eternal mean the same thing, you have contradicted yourself. Matter spontaneously appears out of nowhere as a pair of subatomic paticles.
Materialists do not accept the priciple of eternity because there is no such thing. The same as there is no such thing as an inteligent 'creator'.
@Valthepixie cont. Eternal and infinite are references to Time and space. Time is relative to the speed you are traveling through space, and the gravity you are subject to. It is not consistent even on Earth.
Matter is not a timeless entity and it definately has a begining and ending. However, matter and energy are interchangable, in that matter can transform into other matter and into energy, and vis versa. It is constantly being recycled.
In just the same way that atheist regards matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
@1tabligh Having read what you've just said, I've got to ask, wff have you been smoking. Neither matter nor energy are eternal. They change or decay, thus turning into something else. Everything in the Universe is in a constant state of change. There is no "stable and immutable" anything.
It's not the removal of your 'beleive or I'll thump you' deity, it simply nonexistent. Only a theist would assume IT is real in the 1st place, regardless of a total lack of any substantiation.
@1tabligh You exhibit every symptom of a deluded mind. You assume truth to the dark ages fairy story you were brainwashed from birth with, ie there is a giant invisible sky fairy yanking our chains. Insisting science prove you wrong. When in reality science is not interested in trying to prove the nonexistence of the nonexistent. What a colossal waste of everyones time and resourses. It's the purile arrogance of the mindset of theists. Science has far better things to do with its time.
@Valthepixie 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.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
@Valthepixie Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
@1tabligh You said "Eternity means stability and immutability of essence,". In order to answer your question, give me an example of something that fits that description.
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. "..... such as, example of. ???????
The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
@1tabligh "How do...atheists justify the eternity of matter/energy? "
They don't neet to justify eternity because that is not what is being claimed. It is sufficent that it is observably self evident, that matter and enery are not eternal, but are in a constant state of change.
@1tabligh Matter can transform into energy, ie combustion. The combustion produces heat which is an energy that consumes more matter. Matter doens't suddenly end with out its subsequent equal and opposite reaction. But if you give it a 50% half life every time it changes, you can get the idea of infinity. Dividing something in half, you can never get all of it. You will keep dividing it in half indefinately. But, In reality the energy gets recyled into something else.
@1tabligh "the mode of being possessed by matter". What you mean like being run over by a steam roller. What do you mean by being possesed by matter. ??
@Valthepixie All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
@1tabligh You are insulting atheists over claiming something they are not claiming. They are claiming that all matter is in a constant/eternal state of change. You still haven't explained wtf you mean by "the mode of being possessed by matter". Lets clear that up first before you go off on anther space expedition.
@1tabligh Basically you believe in a totally unsubstantiated fairy story character and so any evidence to the contrary is a lie. Sorry to burst your bubble, but empirical evidence is not a lie. ie If you jump off a cliff you will fall to your death. The evidence is not in question at all. The fact the evidence disproves the existence of your fairy story character is your problem, not realities. And it certainly isn't the fault of atheists. The facts speak for themselves.
@Valthepixie 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 There is no such thing as permanence, full stop. Something does'nt have to be deficent to cause something else. It applies to us as well. It applies to everything in the Universe. Nothing is permanent, everything is in a constant state of change.
@1tabligh "This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.". There are no examples of something without defect and limitation.
@1tabligh I think you are talking about cause and effect... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I highly recommend the BBC science documentary 'The secret life of Chaos' It is on Youtube. ;)
@Valthepixie 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 No such thing as a single cause for anything. No such thing as a perfect and unlimited being. Nothing is free of being subject to external infuence. If there is please submit your physical evidence.
@Valthepixie When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
@1tabligh I have no idea what you are talking about. None of what you have said exists in reality. You cannot apply fairy stories to reality, otherwise there would be evidence of it with flying dragons and fairies at the bottom of gardens.
@Valthepixie The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. ....
But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in which the law of causality operates.
If a being, by virtue of the perfection and freedom from need of its essence, stands in no need of a cause, it follows that no cause has fixed it at a given degree of being and that no cause can intervene in it.
@1tabligh All you are doing is claiming things are real that are not. There is no evidence of any magical fairy story characters in reality. In fact it is easy to disprove there is such a thing as 'omniscience'... If the future is known we would have no freewill, only predestinatation. You would then seriously have to question such an entities motives in deliberately creating evil with foreknowledge.
He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
@1tabligh "all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him,". Please quote the scientific paper on this, as yet, totally unsubstantiated hypothesis. Because all empirical evidence proves that hypothesis as false. It does not matter how many times it is put forward, the evidence will continue to show it up for what it is, false. Reality is what it is, not what we want it to be. You either accept reality as it is, or admit you are barking mad.
@Valthepixie ...accept reality ...you are barking mad.
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?
So much "barking" science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
@1tabligh Science does not make claims. They prove or disprove the theory of something real. Like gravity for example. Science is not interested in giant invisible fairy story characters. Science deals with the observable. There is not a single scrap of evidence to suport your belief.
@1tabligh "accept reality ... you are barking mad". I do accept reality thank you very much, I'm an atheist. If it can be detected, observed, it is real. How about you ???
@Valthepixie something real. Like gravity for example.
_______
Concerning Experimentalists
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation,
@1tabligh The irony is, you are doing a character assasination of the very people, atheists, who have given us the means to talk to each other any where in the world. That have solved many of our problems. Granted there is a huge differenece between genuine science and commercial science, but on the whole science has had a far better effect of societies in general, than a belief in an unsubstantiated giant invisible fairy story characters.
we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea except if they grasp its objective reality by one of their
@1tabligh "and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'" LOL. what planet do you come from. We have very sophisticated laboratory equipment that can detect subatomic particles. Light photons, waves, sound frequencis, etc. If it's out there, then it's detectable, it's just of question of with what.
senses, then this will be a *blow* to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify.
A demonstration of a scientific truth by experimentation does not mean a direct sense perception of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
@1tabligh Newton labled an actual phenomena gravity. He did not invent it. The theory of 'something', is NOT it's existence, but what makes it so. Ie, what is the cause of it. The phenomena is not in question.
What do you mean by "those who glorify experimentation and scientific experimentation", science is not a religion where anything needs 'glorifying'. I don't see being proud about our meager achievements in understanding the nature of reality, as a problem. What's your point. ?
@Valthepixie Do you really believe that a gas leak is deteteced by some twat sniffing the air. I think you must have been living in an illiterate cave off planet somewhere, to be that unaware of our abilities and how much we actually do know.
@Valthepixie When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon ...
@1tabligh "When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses "
Sorry but you are talking out of your arse. He was sitting under an apple tree and saw an apple fall. He labled the phenomena gravity. Subsequent science has experimented to find its cause.
could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method ...
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is exactly the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
@1tabligh Science is based on observable phenomena, it is not interested in theological codswallop, especially totally unsubstantiated, fallible, dark age fairy story characters. Why do you assume people should waste their time on nonsense.
It is your hypothesis, if you are that interested in it, why don't you get funding yourself to discover substance to it. As it stands your hypothesis does not qualify as a theory, it has less than zero substantiation, no serious scientist will touch it.
@Valthepixie We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@1tabligh Again you are making presumptous claims because you disagree with the findings. Which in my opinion is totally purile. If you are so childish you can't be objective, it is your own fault, not the fault of science.
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific
principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh You are typically comming from the point of view of a beliver. Why do you expect people to believe something there is no evidence for. It is not a denial of IT's existence. It simply is not. By implication, your statement is offensive in suggesting atheists are being willfuly disobedient in denying your unsubstantiated belief. From my point of view, you are delusional and in need of medical help. There is no logic involved in delusions. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
@1tabligh Religious people do not get jobs in research science. For scientific intent and purposes, theists lack the ability to be objective. You are now lying to give yourself some credibilty. I know this for a fact because you refuse to substantiate any of your claims. It will not work with me, be honest or fuck off. ;)
@1tabligh One has to doubt the sanity of theists when they claim moral superiority and then resort to blantent lies in a piss poor attempt to justify their delusion. Submit your substantiation, put it up for peer review, let other people repeat your experimentational evidence. Then you will at least be part way towards being believable. But you don't, all you do is make outragous claims, and then vilify anyone who disagrees. It is purile fanstasy without evidence.
@Valthepixie The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause.
The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
@1tabligh Are you ever going to make a valid point. Or just carry on reciting codswallop out of some archaic theology book that uses words like "whence". ???
Going by the fallacies and lies you've claimed so far, I doubt you understand anything you have quoted from it. We know the origins of matter and energy, we have even created life from nothing but chemicals. There are no more gaps for the fairy story character to exist in.
@Valthepixie The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence. ...
@Valthepixie We live in a world where all things are exposed to change and destruction; there is the mark of impermanence, subjection and indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven.
Our existence is not eternal and has not emerged from within our own essence; we were not, and then we were clothed in the garb of existence and came into being. ...
@1tabligh "indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven. = Waffle bolox.
@1tabligh Do you actually believe this rubbish you are posting. If so you truely are off the radar. You must be a cast member of 'One flew over the cukoos nest'
How can we beg to be born to something that doesn't exist, before we exist. I've never heard such nonsense.
@1tabligh I'm beginning to thank my luck stars I was born to atheist parents, and live in a predominantly atheist area. I feel so sorry for people brainwashed into believing such utter theo-unlogical codswallop. No wonder the world is so screwed up if this is the level of education they are getting. As a species we are completly fucked if this insult to inteligence is allowed to continue for much longer.
@Valthepixie It is true that every material being acquires each instant a new and different character as a result of internal development. However, the innate motion of the world and the processes of generation and corruption proclaim a lasting need for a hand to that Who creates the motion, a hand that both nurtures the swift caravan of being and impels it forward.
@1tabligh Are you talking about cause and effect of matter/energy on matter/energy. There is no evidence of it being the result of your fairy story character, but the result of natural causes commonly observed throughout the universe. There are no "hands" involved in any of it.
@Valthepixie The meaning of a cause in philosophy is that which brings forth an effect from non-existence into existence and cloths it in the garb of existence. This creativity cannot be posited for material causes, and the only role of matter is to abandon one form in order to become receptive to another.
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 or "self forming" without the intervention of causes and agents.
@1tabligh "the belief that ***no*** phenomenon originates in and of itself or "self forming" without the intervention of causes and agents. " That would have been right a decade ago. But since then quantum mechanics has come of age and has obseverd a pair of subatomic particles spontaneously arising out of nothing.
@Valthepixie The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. The link between cause and effect and the principle that no phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being without a cause,
are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
@Valthepixie Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical mould.
*Imprisoned* as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one *ever* encountered, in the history of the world, an accident not arising from a cause.
@1tabligh If you watch the documentary it explains the whole history of it, including philosophical thinking from the 1700's onwards. That is part one of a 2 hour documentary. You wont have to keep repeating the same thing like a broken record then.
@1tabligh "Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena," We are not arguing the gross obviously obserable with our own eyes, level of matter. We are talking about the cause of matter. To discover the cause of matter we go into the field of physics and quantum physics.
@Valthepixie Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
@1tabligh "What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things,..?"
Nothing has "guided" anything. Infinite is a feeble expression that shows our lack of understaning of the bigger picture. Infinte used to mean off the edge of a flat planet, which was just over the horizon.
I have no idea what sort of "accident". But that does not mean I have to resort to fairy story characters as an answer.
@Valthepixie Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It cannot pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing until the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@1tabligh "submerged in the darkness of non-being" etc = waffle bolox. Matter is not a "being" that can be described as "non-being". There is no "hand" involved what so ever.
Do you talk like that all the time, do you have some sort of aversion to plain speak. ????
@Valthepixie The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship cannot be destroyed or replaced by another.
@1tabligh Nobody is arguing the gross level of matter and the laws of cause and effect. But matter does not act that way on the subatomic level. I have posted an excellent documentary about that subject. Why not take 2 hours out of your life to watch both. After all you've spent days now reciting from your religious book and arguing the same point.
@Valthepixie Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is nothing within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is impossible.
@1tabligh "Finally, if being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary."
"Designated as necessary", does not make any sense. Nothing has designated anything, there is only the natural laws of physics. Necessary for what.????
Nothing has been "technically designed". There is no design. only order from chaos.
@1tabligh "Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being". There are no examples of something existing and not existing at the same time. What sort of lunacy is that. How can something exist and not exist, even theorectically. ?????
@Valthepixie Material existence cannot in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
@1tabligh NOT in the case of subatomic particles. What is it you don't understand about the gross level of matter and the subatomic level of matter behaving differently.
@Valthepixie Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
@Valthepixie All the phenomena that once did not exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a cause that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an external factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
@1tabligh Matter or energy has no properties before it exists. Full stop. Not only are there no examples of any of that in reality, but it's completely crazy.
@1tabligh "According to theologians the husband has the right to administer corporal punishment to his wife if she - refuses to make herself beautiful for him, refuses to meet his sexual demands, leaves the house without permission or legitimate reason recognised by law, neglects her religious duties (Ibn Warraq 'Why I am not a Muslim' Warraq P 314, )"
@1tablighh The Koran (4.34), hadith and laws give men the right to scourge (whip/lash/beat) women. Allah told Job to beat his wife with a green stick (Koran 38.44). Mohammad himself punched Aisha hard in the chest hurting her for the crime of following him briefly one night: Muslim Book 4, Number 2127... He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,’.) Mohammad sat and watched others slap several of his wives (*Muslim book 9, No 3506
@Valthepixie Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause never loses its essential neediness; it will always remain a being characterized by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will never be severed for an instant.
@Valthepixie Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to non-existence, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator stops working, all the bright lamps connected to it fall dark. It is for this reason that cause and effect, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed nothing would remain but darkness and non-being.
@Valthepixie No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world until a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is free from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being. But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of neediness continues under all circumstances.
They are never free of need for a cause; it is impossible that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant without relying on a cause.
It thus becomes apparent to us that all phenomena—all contingent beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e., the Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being.
@Valthepixie The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ...
@1tabligh "The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument". By "materialists" I assume you mean the strictly objective methods applied by highly qualified scientists. Sorry to burst your ignornace bubble, but as usual you are talking out of your arse. A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence, while all you have is a dark ages unsubstantiated hypothesis about a giant invisible fairy story character. BIG DIFFERENCE.
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
@1tabligh "So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?" I've already told multiple times already, I've even supplied and posted proffesional documentaries that will explain in great detail, including the history of the theory. All you are doing is ingoring every bit of substantiation in favor of your unsubstantiated codswallop.
@Valthepixie However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect. ...
@1tabligh " Bukhari V 7, Book 62, No. 132, The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."
How thoughtful! Perhaps have sex in the morning then flog her! Given the text in the Koran, other hadith this ambiguous statement doesn’t say don’t flog, it just says don’t do it as you do with slaves (very vicious?) and then expect sex (as you can with slaves!!)"
Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot EXIST.
@Valthepixie What's the going rate these days, to buy/give a dowry to marry a suckling baby. ???
I bet it's a lot more today than it was when pedophile Muhammed bought his 8 year old wife. I'm sure she really appreacted being raped by a middle age man, and used as a punch bag by him. Letting other men slap her about instead of protecting her.
this guy says it's all about physics like he's some professor then goes on to posit arguments in organic chemistry. He obviously just read some speculative, misinformed garbage on conservapedia and jumped on the phone to TAA to regurgitate what he read before he could forget it and very quickly demonstrates he barely has a grasp on what he's talking about. He confuses physics with chemistry, molecules with atoms, and a high school equivalency certificate with a masters or doctorate from a uni.
Jrezky 3 months ago
Religion is far worse than aids, cancer, hemorrhoids and everything else we fear combined...
Hornadayfan 3 months ago
LMAO! The LOOK on Matt's face IS PRICELESS! lol
At 3:31!
honeyblossom17 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
He sounds like Cheech Marin.
IFUCKINGLOVEYOUTOO 4 months ago
Comment removed
HentaiFundamentalist 4 months ago
What Matt Dillahunty doesn't understand is that money is a tool.
aavallone 4 months ago
Nucleotides? Are the talking about amino acids and peptides?
salamut2202 4 months ago
There's only one protector, and that's Robert Lane, and BTW Robert Lane is directing this whole scenario against you!
thebladezmanII 4 months ago
LMFAO!!!
Every single amino acid by definition must contain at least 1 carboxylic acid functional group which itself contains two oxygen atoms. Amino acids could not exist without oxygen just as water could not exist without oxygen. This guy has zero understanding of the basic chemical concepts which have been established for centuries.
RicenCoal 5 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
ok, so that solves that. guess we're done, if you are so certain of your 'beliefs about everything already, I assume there can't be much room left in there to fit the possibility of any other concepts. But the last thing I would want in this situation is to accept the narrow dogma and doctrines of an all-knowing materials such as yourself . What confidence shd any reasoning person ever have that metphysics has any objective reality outside of UR own brain chemistry. I don't believe [in] U
shieldsff 5 months ago
Every call, and including this Chris, thinks he is a fucking genius and knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING.
LivinWorstNightmare 5 months ago 11
I cannot believe Chris "form Boston" calls an Austin Texas Athiest community. He's 52 years old and has nothing better to do.
LivinWorstNightmare 5 months ago 3
Simpson did it!
TADahar 5 months ago
It sounds like the caller is spamming or spoofing through a server!
bpotts0401 5 months ago
Oh my, it's Chris the hacker!
zammeee 5 months ago
this caller sounds like hes using some kinda kent hovind or shockofgod arguement....
itsuyo211 5 months ago
He uses the word "conclusively" as though it saves him having to bother with the rigmarole of using logic.
JMUDoc 5 months ago
There is no HONOR amongst THEIVES!
calltipv2 5 months ago
How do you know that he is wrong. If you don't know then how can you say he is wrong. The biggest fallacy in this world is bias. You, my friend is Bias.
gamerz000 6 months ago
The way this guy argues about molecules, you'd think that water would be incredibly flammable.
HereticSeraphim 6 months ago
Of course, all amino acids contain oxygen...
donfishmaster 6 months ago 9
@donfishmaster no
OldaurGold 2 months ago
There is no such thing as outside of time and space. To say something is outside of time and space is to talk nonsense.
jeremythehuman 6 months ago
@jeremythehuman You dare insult Yog-Sothoth?
htomsirveaux42 5 months ago
@jeremythehuman depends on what you define to be time and space... as long as it's all contained within a universe.
ColourfulBandai 5 months ago
"Physics proves the God of the Bible!"
Now, that's a headline I don't think I'll ever see.
aboyborninjune 6 months ago
Don't eat the brown amino acid.
scotchlouis 6 months ago
Few things are more annoying than condescending morons, such as this callers. I cannot stand listening to idiots using that condescending tone--almost singsong in tone--that they've learned from pastors and other idiots.
paxpaul 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Another moron caller getting pwnd. :D
evergreen9375 6 months ago
lol is that crhis the hacker calling in
Sabocalypse 6 months ago
Big bang did it?
PrinceFelipe 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch this You Tube Clip: The Top 10 Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive
MagicTellaVision 7 months ago
I wish matt would stop cutting people off.
TacticalHub 8 months ago
Matt should learn something about the Miller-Urey experiment before talking about it. Synthesizing amino acids is completely different from synthesizing life.
2damico2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmbraceDorkhood 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 8 months ago
@EmbraceDorkhood ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF QUIBBLING IN VAIN!
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter/energy, *** unknowing and unperceiving ***, is his creator and that of all beings?
1tabligh 8 months ago
@1tabligh Heh it's funny. I debated with you more than a year ago and you are still using horrible logic. I thought you would've learned by now. I'm not even talking about your beliefs. I'm talking about your horrible logic. It sucks.
firevortex500 8 months ago
@firevortex500 The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 8 months ago
to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 8 months ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, ...
1tabligh 8 months ago
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 8 months ago
@1tabligh Phft. Science concerns itself with the physically observable, not with philosophical, unsubstantiated beliefs about a dark age 'believe or I'll thump you' deity.
Most theists would claim science is anti religion and evil because scientific observation proves such philosphical claims are wrong.
All people have to be brainwashed from birth into believing illogical contradictory philosophies, they are not natural. Once ingrained in your psyke they are nearly impossible to irradicate.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 8 months ago
@1tabligh Yep and where logic and empirical evidence fails, imagination takes over.
firevortex500 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@firevortex500 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 8 months ago
@1tabligh "the first source of existence matter itself ". Presumably you are refering to the assumtion that matter had to come from somewhere and therefore had to have a creator. In fact it has been proven that a pair of subatomic particles, positive and negative, appear out of nowhere and vanish again just as mysteriously. There are no gaps left for the 'believe or I'll thump you' deity to exist in. Energy and matter are interchangable so there are no limits.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie a pair of subatomic particles, positive and negative, appear out of nowhere and vanish again
_____
Let us see YOUR scientific understanding.
Go to the laboratory, and do an experiment with little of NOTHING, and then mix it with a LOT of NOTHING, and GUESS WHAT!
YOU WILL GET THIS SPECTACULAR UNIVERSE including YOUR "pair of subatomic particles, positive and negative, appear out of nowhere and vanish again !
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Exactly right. the subatomic particles appear in great numbers popping in and out of existence. All matter is made up of atoms that are made of subatomic particles. All matter self organises out of chaos. There is a full length BBC documentary on Youtube called "the secret life of chaos'. I highly reccomend it.
Capitilizing words is the equivalent of shouting. It doesn't add anything of value to your argument, but the opposite, it's the sort thing a loud troll would do. ;)
Valthepixie 7 months ago
From NOTHING comes NOTHING!
What science is this?
What man of science are you?
Come back when you get something out of nothing!
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "NOTHING comes NOTHING!"
No, I've already told you, a pair or subatomic particles come out of nothing and then vanish just as mysteriously. There are no gaps in science left for your 'believe or I'll thump you' deity. Order is matter self organising out of Chaos.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Simply. Matter has been proven to come out of nothing in a pair of subatomic particles. The pairs of particles pop in and out of existence randomly, but because they are in such huge numbers, they are more there than not. Subatomic particles are the components of atoms, which make up the components of all matter. The matter self organizes itself, in a feed back loop called chaos.
I highly reccomend the full length BBC science documentary, 'the secret life of chaos'. It's on Youtube :)
Valthepixie 7 months ago
Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, they can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh There is no infinity involved at all. Nothing is infinite, everything has a begining and an ending. Only the space that matter inhabits is always there. Infinite and eternal mean the same thing, you have contradicted yourself. Matter spontaneously appears out of nowhere as a pair of subatomic paticles.
Materialists do not accept the priciple of eternity because there is no such thing. The same as there is no such thing as an inteligent 'creator'.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie cont. Eternal and infinite are references to Time and space. Time is relative to the speed you are traveling through space, and the gravity you are subject to. It is not consistent even on Earth.
Matter is not a timeless entity and it definately has a begining and ending. However, matter and energy are interchangable, in that matter can transform into other matter and into energy, and vis versa. It is constantly being recycled.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
In just the same way that atheist regards matter/energy as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.
1tabligh 7 months ago
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 7 months ago
Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter/energy is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Having read what you've just said, I've got to ask, wff have you been smoking. Neither matter nor energy are eternal. They change or decay, thus turning into something else. Everything in the Universe is in a constant state of change. There is no "stable and immutable" anything.
It's not the removal of your 'beleive or I'll thump you' deity, it simply nonexistent. Only a theist would assume IT is real in the 1st place, regardless of a total lack of any substantiation.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh You exhibit every symptom of a deluded mind. You assume truth to the dark ages fairy story you were brainwashed from birth with, ie there is a giant invisible sky fairy yanking our chains. Insisting science prove you wrong. When in reality science is not interested in trying to prove the nonexistence of the nonexistent. What a colossal waste of everyones time and resourses. It's the purile arrogance of the mindset of theists. Science has far better things to do with its time.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie 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.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Give me an example of something that is immutable of essence.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. The belief of those who have faith in God concerning a fixed and absolute principle relates to a being who in and of his nature can accept stability and absoluteness; his nature is completely devoid of and remote from the properties of matter.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh You said "Eternity means stability and immutability of essence,". In order to answer your question, give me an example of something that fits that description.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature. "..... such as, example of. ???????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
The very nature of matter refuses permanence, eternity and continuity, for it can never separate itself from movement, relativity, and it stands in opposition to being a prime or absolute agent.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "How do...atheists justify the eternity of matter/energy? "
They don't neet to justify eternity because that is not what is being claimed. It is sufficent that it is observably self evident, that matter and enery are not eternal, but are in a constant state of change.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Matter can transform into energy, ie combustion. The combustion produces heat which is an energy that consumes more matter. Matter doens't suddenly end with out its subsequent equal and opposite reaction. But if you give it a 50% half life every time it changes, you can get the idea of infinity. Dividing something in half, you can never get all of it. You will keep dividing it in half indefinately. But, In reality the energy gets recyled into something else.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "the mode of being possessed by matter". What you mean like being run over by a steam roller. What do you mean by being possesed by matter. ??
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie All beings were originally non-beings; they were non-existent, and then they became existent. Deluded atheists wish to say that the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, but this notion is incorrect for the following reasons:
First, if the material energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal, it follows that an eternal being should be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh You are insulting atheists over claiming something they are not claiming. They are claiming that all matter is in a constant/eternal state of change. You still haven't explained wtf you mean by "the mode of being possessed by matter". Lets clear that up first before you go off on anther space expedition.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Basically you believe in a totally unsubstantiated fairy story character and so any evidence to the contrary is a lie. Sorry to burst your bubble, but empirical evidence is not a lie. ie If you jump off a cliff you will fall to your death. The evidence is not in question at all. The fact the evidence disproves the existence of your fairy story character is your problem, not realities. And it certainly isn't the fault of atheists. The facts speak for themselves.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie 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 7 months ago
@1tabligh There is no such thing as permanence, full stop. Something does'nt have to be deficent to cause something else. It applies to us as well. It applies to everything in the Universe. Nothing is permanent, everything is in a constant state of change.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.". There are no examples of something without defect and limitation.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh I think you are talking about cause and effect... For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I highly recommend the BBC science documentary 'The secret life of Chaos' It is on Youtube. ;)
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie 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 7 months ago
@1tabligh No such thing as a single cause for anything. No such thing as a perfect and unlimited being. Nothing is free of being subject to external infuence. If there is please submit your physical evidence.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause;
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh I have no idea what you are talking about. None of what you have said exists in reality. You cannot apply fairy stories to reality, otherwise there would be evidence of it with flying dragons and fairies at the bottom of gardens.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The meaning of the first cause is not that God originated Himself, that He was His own cause. The need of the effect for the cause lies in the type of existence that the former possesses; it exists not because it is essentially existent but as a result of the derivative and dependent existence it acquires from the cause. ....
1tabligh 7 months ago
But a being whose nature is subject to no condition and exhibits a complete absence of dependence and connection is totally removed from the sphere in which the law of causality operates.
If a being, by virtue of the perfection and freedom from need of its essence, stands in no need of a cause, it follows that no cause has fixed it at a given degree of being and that no cause can intervene in it.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh All you are doing is claiming things are real that are not. There is no evidence of any magical fairy story characters in reality. In fact it is easy to disprove there is such a thing as 'omniscience'... If the future is known we would have no freewill, only predestinatation. You would then seriously have to question such an entities motives in deliberately creating evil with foreknowledge.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator. On the contrary, all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him, the eternal source of being. The law of causality applies uniquely to the sphere of those things whose non-existence preceded their existence.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "all manifestations and phenomena of being derive from Him,". Please quote the scientific paper on this, as yet, totally unsubstantiated hypothesis. Because all empirical evidence proves that hypothesis as false. It does not matter how many times it is put forward, the evidence will continue to show it up for what it is, false. Reality is what it is, not what we want it to be. You either accept reality as it is, or admit you are barking mad.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie ...accept reality ...you are barking mad.
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?
So much "barking" science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Science does not make claims. They prove or disprove the theory of something real. Like gravity for example. Science is not interested in giant invisible fairy story characters. Science deals with the observable. There is not a single scrap of evidence to suport your belief.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "accept reality ... you are barking mad". I do accept reality thank you very much, I'm an atheist. If it can be detected, observed, it is real. How about you ???
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh The real questions should be:
1. What motive would people have to make up a fairy story about a magical giant invisible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being. ???
2: Who origninated the story in the first place ???
3: Who originated the version of the story you believe in.
4: What status did the person who originated the version have in their particular culture.
5: What has the subsequent adhered to dogma, actually acheived.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie something real. Like gravity for example.
_______
Concerning Experimentalists
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation,
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh The irony is, you are doing a character assasination of the very people, atheists, who have given us the means to talk to each other any where in the world. That have solved many of our problems. Granted there is a huge differenece between genuine science and commercial science, but on the whole science has had a far better effect of societies in general, than a belief in an unsubstantiated giant invisible fairy story characters.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea except if they grasp its objective reality by one of their
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'" LOL. what planet do you come from. We have very sophisticated laboratory equipment that can detect subatomic particles. Light photons, waves, sound frequencis, etc. If it's out there, then it's detectable, it's just of question of with what.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
senses, then this will be a *blow* to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify.
A demonstration of a scientific truth by experimentation does not mean a direct sense perception of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Newton labled an actual phenomena gravity. He did not invent it. The theory of 'something', is NOT it's existence, but what makes it so. Ie, what is the cause of it. The phenomena is not in question.
What do you mean by "those who glorify experimentation and scientific experimentation", science is not a religion where anything needs 'glorifying'. I don't see being proud about our meager achievements in understanding the nature of reality, as a problem. What's your point. ?
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Do you really believe that a gas leak is deteteced by some twat sniffing the air. I think you must have been living in an illiterate cave off planet somewhere, to be that unaware of our abilities and how much we actually do know.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh 5: What has the subsequent adhered to dogma, actually acheived. ???????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses "
Sorry but you are talking out of your arse. He was sitting under an apple tree and saw an apple fall. He labled the phenomena gravity. Subsequent science has experimented to find its cause.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is exactly the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Science is based on observable phenomena, it is not interested in theological codswallop, especially totally unsubstantiated, fallible, dark age fairy story characters. Why do you assume people should waste their time on nonsense.
It is your hypothesis, if you are that interested in it, why don't you get funding yourself to discover substance to it. As it stands your hypothesis does not qualify as a theory, it has less than zero substantiation, no serious scientist will touch it.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Such as. Give an example of something unpercieved that science is experimenting with.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Again you are making presumptous claims because you disagree with the findings. Which in my opinion is totally purile. If you are so childish you can't be objective, it is your own fault, not the fault of science.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific
1tabligh 7 months ago
principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh You are typically comming from the point of view of a beliver. Why do you expect people to believe something there is no evidence for. It is not a denial of IT's existence. It simply is not. By implication, your statement is offensive in suggesting atheists are being willfuly disobedient in denying your unsubstantiated belief. From my point of view, you are delusional and in need of medical help. There is no logic involved in delusions. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Religious people do not get jobs in research science. For scientific intent and purposes, theists lack the ability to be objective. You are now lying to give yourself some credibilty. I know this for a fact because you refuse to substantiate any of your claims. It will not work with me, be honest or fuck off. ;)
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh One has to doubt the sanity of theists when they claim moral superiority and then resort to blantent lies in a piss poor attempt to justify their delusion. Submit your substantiation, put it up for peer review, let other people repeat your experimentational evidence. Then you will at least be part way towards being believable. But you don't, all you do is make outragous claims, and then vilify anyone who disagrees. It is purile fanstasy without evidence.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The chain of causality cannot be extended indefinitely backwards, and an absence of connection is inherent in the very concept of the first cause.
The question, "Whence did the first cause arise?" does not, therefore, arise; questions such as this apply only to the origins of phenomena and their dependency.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Are you ever going to make a valid point. Or just carry on reciting codswallop out of some archaic theology book that uses words like "whence". ???
Going by the fallacies and lies you've claimed so far, I doubt you understand anything you have quoted from it. We know the origins of matter and energy, we have even created life from nothing but chemicals. There are no more gaps for the fairy story character to exist in.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The existence of the first cause is identical with its essence; its being the first cause is, indeed, also identical with its essence. Both these properties imply freedom from need, whereas things whose existence is borrowed stand in need of a cause, because they are characterized by transformation and change, by emergence from non-existence and entry into existence. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain that in english please instead of pseudo science twaddle speak.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie We live in a world where all things are exposed to change and destruction; there is the mark of impermanence, subjection and indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven.
Our existence is not eternal and has not emerged from within our own essence; we were not, and then we were clothed in the garb of existence and came into being. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "indebtedness imprinted on each one of its particles. Need and dependence are firmly rooted in the depths of our being and that of everything on earth and in heaven. = Waffle bolox.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Do you actually believe this rubbish you are posting. If so you truely are off the radar. You must be a cast member of 'One flew over the cukoos nest'
How can we beg to be born to something that doesn't exist, before we exist. I've never heard such nonsense.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh I'm beginning to thank my luck stars I was born to atheist parents, and live in a predominantly atheist area. I feel so sorry for people brainwashed into believing such utter theo-unlogical codswallop. No wonder the world is so screwed up if this is the level of education they are getting. As a species we are completly fucked if this insult to inteligence is allowed to continue for much longer.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie It is true that every material being acquires each instant a new and different character as a result of internal development. However, the innate motion of the world and the processes of generation and corruption proclaim a lasting need for a hand to that Who creates the motion, a hand that both nurtures the swift caravan of being and impels it forward.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Are you talking about cause and effect of matter/energy on matter/energy. There is no evidence of it being the result of your fairy story character, but the result of natural causes commonly observed throughout the universe. There are no "hands" involved in any of it.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The meaning of a cause in philosophy is that which brings forth an effect from non-existence into existence and cloths it in the garb of existence. This creativity cannot be posited for material causes, and the only role of matter is to abandon one form in order to become receptive to another.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Creativity cannot be argued for material causes" Matter is not "created". It is self forming.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie self forming.
____
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 or "self forming" without the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh One without need, would neither want or need the world. If inteligence 'created' the universe, it would be inherently narcissistic, needy.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "the belief that ***no*** phenomenon originates in and of itself or "self forming" without the intervention of causes and agents. " That would have been right a decade ago. But since then quantum mechanics has come of age and has obseverd a pair of subatomic particles spontaneously arising out of nothing.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The researches of thinkers throughout the world have given them the ability to know better the powerful order of nature; the farther they advance on the path of knowledge, the more devoted they are to the principle of causality. The link between cause and effect and the principle that no phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being without a cause,
1tabligh 7 months ago
are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Full length Youtube BBC documentary, Everything and Nothing
watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg
Knock yourself out. lol
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena, and, in fact, philosophers derived the living concept of causality from the very nature and disposition of man before they placed it in a philosophical mould.
*Imprisoned* as we are within the four walls of matter, we never encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one *ever* encountered, in the history of the world, an accident not arising from a cause.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh If you watch the documentary it explains the whole history of it, including philosophical thinking from the 1700's onwards. That is part one of a 2 hour documentary. You wont have to keep repeating the same thing like a broken record then.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "Even prehistoric man was inclined to discover the causes of phenomena," We are not arguing the gross obviously obserable with our own eyes, level of matter. We are talking about the cause of matter. To discover the cause of matter we go into the field of physics and quantum physics.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
So much for YOUR "Knock yourself out. lol"!
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things,..?"
Nothing has "guided" anything. Infinite is a feeble expression that shows our lack of understaning of the bigger picture. Infinte used to mean off the edge of a flat planet, which was just over the horizon.
I have no idea what sort of "accident". But that does not mean I have to resort to fairy story characters as an answer.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It cannot pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing until the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "submerged in the darkness of non-being" etc = waffle bolox. Matter is not a "being" that can be described as "non-being". There is no "hand" involved what so ever.
Do you talk like that all the time, do you have some sort of aversion to plain speak. ????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is dependent on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship cannot be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Nobody is arguing the gross level of matter and the laws of cause and effect. But matter does not act that way on the subatomic level. I have posted an excellent documentary about that subject. Why not take 2 hours out of your life to watch both. After all you've spent days now reciting from your religious book and arguing the same point.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is nothing within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is impossible.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "Finally, if being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary."
"Designated as necessary", does not make any sense. Nothing has designated anything, there is only the natural laws of physics. Necessary for what.????
Nothing has been "technically designed". There is no design. only order from chaos.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being". There are no examples of something existing and not existing at the same time. What sort of lunacy is that. How can something exist and not exist, even theorectically. ?????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Material existence cannot in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh NOT in the case of subatomic particles. What is it you don't understand about the gross level of matter and the subatomic level of matter behaving differently.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Matter has different aspects and dimensions; it is immersed in quantity and multiplicity; and it acquires its various dimensions by means of attributes and properties. The necessary being, by contrast, is free of all such properties.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh What necessary being are you talking about ????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh It's a bit self defeating trying to prove the existence of a dark ages fairy story character, using science that debunks it.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie All the phenomena that once did not exist and then came into being once possessed abstract notions of being and non-being. When they hastened toward the point of being, this was as a result of a cause that impelled them in that direction. It was an impulsion, an external factor, that drove them in one direction instead of the other. In other words, the existence of a cause was the agent of being, just as the non-existence or absence of a cause is the agent of non-being.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Matter or energy has no properties before it exists. Full stop. Not only are there no examples of any of that in reality, but it's completely crazy.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh "According to theologians the husband has the right to administer corporal punishment to his wife if she - refuses to make herself beautiful for him, refuses to meet his sexual demands, leaves the house without permission or legitimate reason recognised by law, neglects her religious duties (Ibn Warraq 'Why I am not a Muslim' Warraq P 314, )"
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tablighh The Koran (4.34), hadith and laws give men the right to scourge (whip/lash/beat) women. Allah told Job to beat his wife with a green stick (Koran 38.44). Mohammad himself punched Aisha hard in the chest hurting her for the crime of following him briefly one night: Muslim Book 4, Number 2127... He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,’.) Mohammad sat and watched others slap several of his wives (*Muslim book 9, No 3506
What a hoot and there’s heaps more!!
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Of course, a phenomenon that comes into being as the result of the existence of a cause never loses its essential neediness; it will always remain a being characterized by need. For this reason, the need of a phenomenon for a cause is permanent and indissoluble; its relationship with the cause will never be severed for an instant.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Why do you refer to inanimate matter as a "being" that is needy. ??????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie Were the relationship to be severed, the existence of the phenomenon would immediately yield to non-existence, in just the same way that the very instant an electricity generator stops working, all the bright lamps connected to it fall dark. It is for this reason that cause and effect, freedom from need and subjection to need, are in constant relationship with each other; were the relationship to be severed nothing would remain but darkness and non-being.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh Such as. Examples in reality ??????
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@1tabligh Matter does not "immediatly" switch off. The analogy is ridiculous.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie No phenomenon becomes manifest in the world until a certain power is bestowed on it by one whose essence is free from need and is itself the very source from which being gushes forth. Were being inherent in the essences of phenomena, they would never follow the path of cessation and non-being. But it is neediness that is inherent in their essences, so that even after their being is established in the order of creation, their attribute of neediness continues under all circumstances.
1tabligh 7 months ago
They are never free of need for a cause; it is impossible that an effect should enjoy existence independently or continue to exist for a single instant without relying on a cause.
It thus becomes apparent to us that all phenomena—all contingent beings—derive at all times and in every instant from an infinite essence that bestows being—i.e., the Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator—the power and sustenance that permit them to come into being and remain in being.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "Necessary Being, the Unique and Almighty Creator" At last we get to your point. Provide your evidence.
Chaos is the only detectable phenomena that causes change without cause.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie The Finiteness of the Chain of Causality!
The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument. They may say, "We do not cut off the chain of causality but, on the contrary, perpetuate it indefinitely; we defend the principle of the infinite nature of the causative link." ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "The materialists may insist obstinately on denying the truth and put forward another specious argument". By "materialists" I assume you mean the strictly objective methods applied by highly qualified scientists. Sorry to burst your ignornace bubble, but as usual you are talking out of your arse. A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence, while all you have is a dark ages unsubstantiated hypothesis about a giant invisible fairy story character. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
To analyze the world of creation in this manner rests on the supposition of a chain of causes and effects and the infinite unfolding of a succession of causes.
However, since each cause is also an effect, it lacks being in its own essence; it is unable to partake of existence apart from the cause superior and precedent to it. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?
The existence of each part of the chain manifests inadequacy, impotence, and origination in time; whence did its existence arise?
How can great and complex beings emerge from infinite joinings of nonbeing?
Does life gush forth from the union of the numerous factors that bring about death?
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh "So how did each part of the chain, which is dominated by neediness from one end to another, emerge from non-being?" I've already told multiple times already, I've even supplied and posted proffesional documentaries that will explain in great detail, including the history of the theory. All you are doing is ingoring every bit of substantiation in favor of your unsubstantiated codswallop.
Valthepixie 7 months ago
@Valthepixie However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of divinity and who is only a cause and not an effect. ...
1tabligh 7 months ago
@1tabligh " Bukhari V 7, Book 62, No. 132, The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."
How thoughtful! Perhaps have sex in the morning then flog her! Given the text in the Koran, other hadith this ambiguous statement doesn’t say don’t flog, it just says don’t do it as you do with slaves (very vicious?) and then expect sex (as you can with slaves!!)"
Valthepixie 7 months ago
Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot EXIST.
1tabligh 7 months ago
@Valthepixie What's the going rate these days, to buy/give a dowry to marry a suckling baby. ???
I bet it's a lot more today than it was when pedophile Muhammed bought his 8 year old wife. I'm sure she really appreacted being raped by a middle age man, and used as a punch bag by him. Letting other men slap her about instead of protecting her.
Valthepixie 7 months ago