What do you expect from a creationist anyway? EVERY SINGLE FORM OF INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN "THEORIZED" FOR STUDENTS ALIKE AND PEOPLE WITH SUCH A SPECIAL INTEREST PERTAINING TO PSEUDO-SCIENCE ARE OBVIOUSLY TOO BLIND BY THE FACTS ON THE SOLAR CORE FROM ANY PLANET AS WITH A PLASMATIC MAGNETIC SPHERE KNOWN AS THE SUN CONTINOUSLY FORM AND CIRCULATE BECAUSE RADICAL CHANGES OF STARS INCREASES IN IN MOLECULAR PATTERNS. It goes to show why even the very disciplined of people are ignorant as well.
All you really have to do is look at the moons of the outer planets. They receive very little sunlight and are heated almost enitrely by geothermal vents.
Lots of good points made in this video. Spike Psarris exemplifies the bankruptcy of the god-of-the-gaps position--he claims, for example, that we don't know why Mercury is so dense, and this gets twisted into "therefore God made it and the solar system didn't evolve". Not, "Let's research Mercury's density, and expand our knowledge of this fantastic universe."
The research will be done. The high density will be explained. And the gap will close tighter still on Spike Psarris's meagre soul.
Or... we can explain it via the theory of natural and artificial selection, thank you very much. But hey. You're right... we're the haters because we laugh. Meanwhile religious people feel the resentment and satisfaction of contemplating the suffering and agony of unbelievers in hell: that's perfectly okay because it's unspoken. Oh but laughing at silly beliefs, that's totally just us being haters, sorry 'bout that.
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun 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. In order to come into being, creatures such as us must beseechingly reach out to the bestower of existence.
But He Who is eternal and everlasting, Whose existence emerges from within His own essence, and Whose appearance is outside of time, manifestly has no need of a cause.
@ExcaliburClan Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
@1tabligh who do you know that the primordial state of matter is energy? did you ever think that matter and energy are made up of the same basic building blocks? and that all that is happening when you convert matter to energy all that is happening is you are rearranging those basic building blocks? speaking of modern theories and analysis, try looking up string theory.
@Fireflygamer Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@shanedk Then how could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh you did not read my comment or it went competently over your head because this was not was I was talking about. and yes if all evidence points towards a self correcting system of natural selection why is it so out of the question that it is mindless, just becuase you or this fictional scientist can't think of any other way, this is an augment form ignorance, "I can't think of a anything else so it must have been a mind" come on give me a break.
@1tabligh I pointed out that it was an assumption to say that energy is the basic building blocks of everything, when there very well could be basic building block that makes up both energy and matter and that is why one can be converted into another. Materialism has both eyes open and because its honest your right we cant answer some questions, not yet, but to make assumptions and claim them as truth dose not answer them ether. saying god did it is not an answer to anything.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh first who ever said that the cause had anything to do with matter? second of all who said it had to be a who and and not a what caused the universe to begin, by saying who, you are showing your preconceptions, It might have been a who, but by saying what it includes whos and everything else as well. I never said that the source of all phenomena was matter or energy as well, why is it so hard to say "we don't know yet", because in honesty we don't so stop guessing wildly.
@Fireflygamer 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.
@1tabligh your right about infinite regress, if you assume time has always existed and works as we know it today. What if all matter and energy existed in a place were time dose not follow like we know it, maybe in this place all possible events happen in the same moment. It would never have a beginning or an end and causality would be meaningless. My point is we have no idea how time worked before the beginning of the universe and the idea of causality may not even apply.
@Fireflygamer 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 Like I described we have no idea what time was like before the big bang, the idea of eternal might not even apply to such a "place", Space itself did not even yet exist as we know it. Everything we know about the universe might not even apply, so for you to use causality when time as we understand it did not exist just shows simplistic your arguments are. you lack the understanding of what we are really talking about and are making all sorts of assumptions.
@Fireflygamer In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
@1tabligh "but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will" these are very specific claims about something we have no idea about. Are you even reading what I am saying ??? because I have been telling you that the laws of physics as well as time and space could have been very different and for you to assume causality exited at all let alone this cause was god is a huge assumption. you keep talking like time and causal...
... events happened just like now, you can't seem to think outside this tiny little box the bible has put your brain into. Believe in god if you want, believe he created the universe if you want, but don't portend you have good reason to believe any of this when you can not even grasp the basic fact that we don't know how anything worked before the big bang let alone causality and time.
@1tabli FOR THE LAST TIME, BEFORE THE BIG BANG, TIME AND SPACE DID NOT EXIST AS WE KNOW THEM, THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED IN A CAUSAL WAY BEFORE TIME EXISTED IS STUPIDITY. YOU ARE ASSUMING CAUSALITY WOULD EVEN APPLY. just admit that just like the rest of us you have no idea how the universe was created and you just choose to believe that a god did it because it makes you feel more comfortable and that you have an answer even though you have no way knowing if its true or not.
@Fireflygamer Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
@1tabligh your right, the problem is that again you are not listening to me. you are right in this universe with these sets of laws of physics were time and space exist. What if all this stuff that matter and energy exists in a place before the big bang that had no space and time. Can you open your mind for a second and imagine what a place like that would be like, if you can you will realize how stupid your assumptions about causality are. I'm tired, your not listening, good night.
@Fireflygamer 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.
@1tab your ether an idiot or a troll. you keep talking about matter and I keep asking you how matter could exist before the big bang with out space and time, you keep assuming that the laws of physics as well as time and space itself could have worked very differently, to the point that nothing we know would apply anymore. faced with that I say IDK, but you say you are sure, with no evidence to back it up what so ever. believe in god if you want, don't pretend you have evidence for him
@Fireflygamer 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.
@1tab "The very nature of matter refuses permanence" yes your right, now please explain how matter existed when there was no time and space for it to exist in? we are talking about to different things, I am taking about what existed before the big bang, you are talking about what the universe is like after the big bang. can you not understand that everything we know now would not apply to an existence with out space or time? are you really that stupid or brainwashed or are you a troll
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 "Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being." I will assume you meant universe not being, because otherwise your making no sense, just like the addition of a god dose not solve the problem of infinite regeneration. So if we say god is eternal why not skip a step and just say the universe is eternal. again your not reading my comments, the laws of physics and even time/space itself was not how we understand it now, you are assuming it was.
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
@rkyeun 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.
Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.
Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.
@rkyeun If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being."
Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will *not* take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
@rkyeun Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack.
Under such conditions will the attack ever take place? ....
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.
@rkyeun 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. ...
By making the world non-created and eternal, the brainwashed wannabe duped darwinian monkeys try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow independent existence on the world. Their method, however, does not yield satisfactory results.
@rkyeun That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is free of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world,
It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination. ...
@rkyeun The duped atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator. ...
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
@rkyeun In just the same way that the brainwashed atheists regard energy/matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the DELUDED ATHEISTS,
@rkyeun This means that the duped and daluded atheists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal energy/matter OR YOUR BB and that being arises from within the very nature of energy/matter, without any need for a creator.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
@rkyeun If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by "science."
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
@rkyeun Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
"And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
@rkyeun There might not even be one. Your question is premature. ....The prime cause of existence is the Flying Spaghetti Monster
____
First you say "There might not even be one. Your question is premature" and then you answer YOUR own "premature" question by saying "The prime cause of existence is the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
@rkyeun 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?
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?
@rkyeun There might not even be one. Your question is premature. ____ You don't know? Then why the hell are you quibbling in vain for? What you think, you got the brain for? Eating bananas and thinking about your so called monkey ancestors? Oh, grow up! Use you brain O' brainless duped wannabe monkey with asinine mind! Give answer otherwise CLOCK OFF! NO WASTING TIME! The chain of causality cannot recede into infinity!!!!!
YOUR vain bragging does NOT help cure your delusions!
YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator God - a purposeless non-entity without*balance or poise.
@rkyeun Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun 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.
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.
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.
Similarly, 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;
@rkyeun When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator.
"He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise." Quran (35:15)
@rkyeun 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. ....
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.
@rkyeun 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. ...
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.
@rkyeun 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. ...
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun 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.
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. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
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*. ...
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.
@shanedk Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@shanedk What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@shanedk The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
How is that for YOUR "Go learn some developmental biology;" and answer the questions instead?!
@rkyeun 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. ....
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?
@shanedk Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
@1tabligh We see spontaneous order all the time. We NEVER EVER see consciousness without matter, or an act of intelligent, planned creation that is anything other than a reconfiguration of previously-existing matter and energy. EVER.
@shanedk Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@rkyeun 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***. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. ....
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@shanedk Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy
Man has unsealed many secrets in the universe, advanced in his scientific and technical knowledge, and even landed on the moon; but in spite of all this, he is still unable to produce a leaf of a plant or a seed of an apple.
As a matter of fact, the scientists for several decades have tried ceaselessly to unseal the secret of life and to explain its commencement on this planet. But their intensified efforts so far did not produce any substantial knowledge in this field. The presence of life on this planet is, no doubt, a great wonder that could not happen without a supernatural cause.
The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.
Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.
Our answer to that would be yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator.
But you may agree with muslims that matter and energy must have been preceded by non-existence.
But raise an objection that this is not very obvious to every human being. Does the teaching of Islam suggest the consideration of anything in the nature that was undoubtedly preceded by non-existence?
We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.
To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction.
It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old. When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea.
@rkyeun Prove any of those assertions with evidence.
___
You may as well ask: "But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter?
Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator?
Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views?
God made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the *general relativity.*
God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors - matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced....., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
@rkyeun 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.
@rkyeun The Need of the World for One Without Need
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
@rkyeun 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.
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?
@rkyeun Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
@rkyeun What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
@shanedk How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh "How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves"
Because WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN! We also KNOW that hydrogen is made into heaver elements in the heart of stars, and even HEAVIER elements when those stars explode! And those exploding stars seeded all the matter that gets made into planets and moons and you and me.
@shanedk How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
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?
What do you expect from a creationist anyway? EVERY SINGLE FORM OF INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN "THEORIZED" FOR STUDENTS ALIKE AND PEOPLE WITH SUCH A SPECIAL INTEREST PERTAINING TO PSEUDO-SCIENCE ARE OBVIOUSLY TOO BLIND BY THE FACTS ON THE SOLAR CORE FROM ANY PLANET AS WITH A PLASMATIC MAGNETIC SPHERE KNOWN AS THE SUN CONTINOUSLY FORM AND CIRCULATE BECAUSE RADICAL CHANGES OF STARS INCREASES IN IN MOLECULAR PATTERNS. It goes to show why even the very disciplined of people are ignorant as well.
Ringvireot 22 hours ago
All you really have to do is look at the moons of the outer planets. They receive very little sunlight and are heated almost enitrely by geothermal vents.
ShawnRavenfire 2 months ago
Lots of good points made in this video. Spike Psarris exemplifies the bankruptcy of the god-of-the-gaps position--he claims, for example, that we don't know why Mercury is so dense, and this gets twisted into "therefore God made it and the solar system didn't evolve". Not, "Let's research Mercury's density, and expand our knowledge of this fantastic universe."
The research will be done. The high density will be explained. And the gap will close tighter still on Spike Psarris's meagre soul.
NevilleRhysBarnes 5 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(Some) people laugh at creacionists, cause they are dumb and haters (the ones who laugh, of course)
Not one of them, could explain the evolution theory, for sure.
SuperPais 6 months ago
@SuperPais I got a whole book and TONS of videos explaining it. Deal with it.
shanedk 6 months ago 8
@shanedk Why you try to be a smart ass? Of course you have some knowldge, cause you made the video.
You even got A book (lol)
SuperPais 6 months ago
@SuperPais
Or... we can explain it via the theory of natural and artificial selection, thank you very much. But hey. You're right... we're the haters because we laugh. Meanwhile religious people feel the resentment and satisfaction of contemplating the suffering and agony of unbelievers in hell: that's perfectly okay because it's unspoken. Oh but laughing at silly beliefs, that's totally just us being haters, sorry 'bout that.
GuitarMannnnnn 2 months ago
@rkyeun False?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun "False".
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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. In order to come into being, creatures such as us must beseechingly reach out to the bestower of existence.
But He Who is eternal and everlasting, Whose existence emerges from within His own essence, and Whose appearance is outside of time, manifestly has no need of a cause.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh ...or, poethic babble aside, humans are likely to make up stories out of fear for the unknown. Why are you so afraid of reality ?
ExcaliburClan 5 months ago
@ExcaliburClan Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 5 months ago
The atheist Delusion!
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
1tabligh 5 months ago
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh who do you know that the primordial state of matter is energy? did you ever think that matter and energy are made up of the same basic building blocks? and that all that is happening when you convert matter to energy all that is happening is you are rearranging those basic building blocks? speaking of modern theories and analysis, try looking up string theory.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh No, because REAL scientists know that's not how it happens.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Then how could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh you did not read my comment or it went competently over your head because this was not was I was talking about. and yes if all evidence points towards a self correcting system of natural selection why is it so out of the question that it is mindless, just becuase you or this fictional scientist can't think of any other way, this is an augment form ignorance, "I can't think of a anything else so it must have been a mind" come on give me a break.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I pointed out that it was an assumption to say that energy is the basic building blocks of everything, when there very well could be basic building block that makes up both energy and matter and that is why one can be converted into another. Materialism has both eyes open and because its honest your right we cant answer some questions, not yet, but to make assumptions and claim them as truth dose not answer them ether. saying god did it is not an answer to anything.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh first who ever said that the cause had anything to do with matter? second of all who said it had to be a who and and not a what caused the universe to begin, by saying who, you are showing your preconceptions, It might have been a who, but by saying what it includes whos and everything else as well. I never said that the source of all phenomena was matter or energy as well, why is it so hard to say "we don't know yet", because in honesty we don't so stop guessing wildly.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer 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.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh your right about infinite regress, if you assume time has always existed and works as we know it today. What if all matter and energy existed in a place were time dose not follow like we know it, maybe in this place all possible events happen in the same moment. It would never have a beginning or an end and causality would be meaningless. My point is we have no idea how time worked before the beginning of the universe and the idea of causality may not even apply.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh Like I described we have no idea what time was like before the big bang, the idea of eternal might not even apply to such a "place", Space itself did not even yet exist as we know it. Everything we know about the universe might not even apply, so for you to use causality when time as we understand it did not exist just shows simplistic your arguments are. you lack the understanding of what we are really talking about and are making all sorts of assumptions.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will" these are very specific claims about something we have no idea about. Are you even reading what I am saying ??? because I have been telling you that the laws of physics as well as time and space could have been very different and for you to assume causality exited at all let alone this cause was god is a huge assumption. you keep talking like time and causal...
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
... events happened just like now, you can't seem to think outside this tiny little box the bible has put your brain into. Believe in god if you want, believe he created the universe if you want, but don't portend you have good reason to believe any of this when you can not even grasp the basic fact that we don't know how anything worked before the big bang let alone causality and time.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabli FOR THE LAST TIME, BEFORE THE BIG BANG, TIME AND SPACE DID NOT EXIST AS WE KNOW THEM, THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED IN A CAUSAL WAY BEFORE TIME EXISTED IS STUPIDITY. YOU ARE ASSUMING CAUSALITY WOULD EVEN APPLY. just admit that just like the rest of us you have no idea how the universe was created and you just choose to believe that a god did it because it makes you feel more comfortable and that you have an answer even though you have no way knowing if its true or not.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of cessation, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in living and dying.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh your right, the problem is that again you are not listening to me. you are right in this universe with these sets of laws of physics were time and space exist. What if all this stuff that matter and energy exists in a place before the big bang that had no space and time. Can you open your mind for a second and imagine what a place like that would be like, if you can you will realize how stupid your assumptions about causality are. I'm tired, your not listening, good night.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer 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 2 months ago
@1tab your ether an idiot or a troll. you keep talking about matter and I keep asking you how matter could exist before the big bang with out space and time, you keep assuming that the laws of physics as well as time and space itself could have worked very differently, to the point that nothing we know would apply anymore. faced with that I say IDK, but you say you are sure, with no evidence to back it up what so ever. believe in god if you want, don't pretend you have evidence for him
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer 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 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tab "The very nature of matter refuses permanence" yes your right, now please explain how matter existed when there was no time and space for it to exist in? we are talking about to different things, I am taking about what existed before the big bang, you are talking about what the universe is like after the big bang. can you not understand that everything we know now would not apply to an existence with out space or time? are you really that stupid or brainwashed or are you a troll
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
@Fireflygamer 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 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being." I will assume you meant universe not being, because otherwise your making no sense, just like the addition of a god dose not solve the problem of infinite regeneration. So if we say god is eternal why not skip a step and just say the universe is eternal. again your not reading my comments, the laws of physics and even time/space itself was not how we understand it now, you are assuming it was.
Fireflygamer 2 months ago
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
1tabligh 5 months ago
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@rkyeun 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.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
Each link depends on a condition that has not been fulfilled, and each one is, therefore, *barred* from enjoying the blessing of existence.
Since we see the whole of the universe to be surging with different forms of being, there *must* exist in the world a cause that is *not* an effect, a condition that is not subject to a condition; *otherwise* the surface of the world would *not* be this thickly covered with phenomena.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun If we continue the chain of cause and effect indefinitely, the existence of each link in the chain will be conditional on that of the preceding link, which, in turn, will be conditional on the existence of the link preceding it. It is as if each link in the chain of causality were to proclaim loudly from the depths of its being: "I shall not don the garment of existence until that other one has set foot on the plain of being."
1tabligh 6 months ago
Of course not, because everyone's fighting is conditional on that of someone else. It is obvious that a whole series of conditional attacks will *not* take place without the fulfillment of the condition, something impossible under the circumstances, and, as a result, the attack will not take place.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun Suppose that at the war front, a column of soldiers intends to attack the enemy but none of them is ready to begin the battle by lunging into the heart of the enemy army. Whoever is given the order to do so replies: "I will not attack until so-and-so beings to fight." Every single soldier repeats the same thing; there is no one unconditionally ready to begin the attack.
Under such conditions will the attack ever take place? ....
1tabligh 6 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
By making the world non-created and eternal, the brainwashed wannabe duped darwinian monkeys try to disprove the world's lasting need for a creator and thereby to bestow independent existence on the world. Their method, however, does not yield satisfactory results.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun That primary cause is one who, in his essence, is free of all need, who can dispense with all the different aspects of existence, and who is able to bring forth the most wondrous phenomena and the most original manifestations. He is a creator who plans all of this and then puts it into effect, who joins all of creation to a temporal mechanism, who constantly scatters the jewel of existence over the world,
1tabligh 6 months ago
It follows that the whole of which the atoms area part has similarly originated in time; it does *not* have an ipseity independent of that of the atoms composing it.
So the world *still* has the same need for a creator that it had at the moment when creation began. Even supposing the world to be eternal, it would still *not* enjoy autonomy of existence.
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
1tabligh 6 months ago
This is because they imagine the need of the world to be temporary and passing, whereas the need is inherent in the essence of the world—the world is *nothing* but motion, a limited and dependent form of motion.
Each moment is, in fact, a beginning of creation; every instant, each atom in the world is engaged in origination. ...
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun The duped atheists *imagine* that the world needs a creator only at the initial moment of creation; once the need is met, God and the world are independent of each other and have no links with each other. As a consequence of this belief, the materialist proceed to deny even that initial moment of need, and by rejecting the idea of a beginning for creation, they imagine they have solved the problem of God and creation and liberated the world of need for a creator. ...
1tabligh 6 months ago
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
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun In just the same way that the brainwashed atheists regard energy/matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the DELUDED ATHEISTS,
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun This means that the duped and daluded atheists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal energy/matter OR YOUR BB and that being arises from within the very nature of energy/matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 6 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 6 months ago
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 6 months ago
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun ends at the big bang.
____
Where did it come from?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun Science. It works, bitch.
____
It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by "science."
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun I'm mocking you
____
Allah shall pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
The Quran 2:15
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 6 months ago
"And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun There might not even be one. Your question is premature. ....The prime cause of existence is the Flying Spaghetti Monster
____
First you say "There might not even be one. Your question is premature" and then you answer YOUR own "premature" question by saying "The prime cause of existence is the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
You are contradicting your own self!
Poor fella!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun
I will make it easy for you to answer!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun your questions HAVE been answered,...There might not even be one. Your question is premature.
____
?????
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh The Big Bang, which, since it consists of the formation of time itself, had no cause.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Help your wannabe monkey below!
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE? What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE? What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?...........
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun You don't the answers?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun O' vain braggart!
YOUR vain bragging does NOT help cure your delusions!
YOU became disbeliever, and because of a deficiency of your knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that you *denied* creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator God - a purposeless non-entity without*balance or poise.
What is the PRIME CAUSE of ALL EXISTENCE?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun Are you descending from a human ancestor or a wannabe monkey ancestor?
Do you understand english distinctly?
No dodging the questions and quibbling in vain!
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Stupid wannabe a brainwashed chimp!
1tabligh 6 months ago
Science is too heavy for you to comprehend, now go to mamma and drink some milk instead!
Stupid wannabe a duped monkey!
1tabligh 6 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 6 months ago
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
You still don't get it, do you?
I have already in my inbox more then 11464 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special duped wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science and answer the questions otherwise clock off!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun The argument of an IGNORANT!
Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
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.
1tabligh 6 months ago
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.
Similarly, 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;
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun When we speak of the first cause and simultaneously assert that God is free of all need for a cause, we do not mean that He generally shares with created beings the need for a cause but was once, as it were, granted an exemption from the law of causality. God is not an effect in order that He might need a cause; He is not a phenomenon in order that He might need a creator.
1tabligh 6 months ago
"He it is Who from the plenitude of His essence has bestowed on us the capital of being." Quran (53:48) "O mankind, you are in need of your Lord; it is only His unique essence that is free of need and worthy of praise." Quran (35:15)
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
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.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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. ...
1tabligh 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
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. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
@1tabligh "This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another." Why? Because you say so?
What causes virtual particles? What causes a radioactive atom to decay?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Go learn some developmental biology; cells do NOT work in the manner you've just described.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@shanedk The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits. Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
How is that for YOUR "Go learn some developmental biology;" and answer the questions instead?!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
@1tabligh Except that it's NOT precise and orderly; it's incredibly chaotic, probabilistic at best.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh We see spontaneous order all the time. We NEVER EVER see consciousness without matter, or an act of intelligent, planned creation that is anything other than a reconfiguration of previously-existing matter and energy. EVER.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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***. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin. ....
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh "no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a ***cause***."
Well, except for radioactive decay, virtual particles, the Casimir Effect...
shanedk 6 months ago
it became somewhat understood; since all these phenomena are [but] forms of one reality, namely, energy.
Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh "Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves"
Because WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN!!!
And why are you so obsessed with hydrogen and oxygen specifically, as opposed to the dozens of other chemical elements?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh I'm going to have to ask you once again to post parseable sentences.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk parseable
___
Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
Was this "parseable" for you to comprehend?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Once again: IT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS! Belief does NOT enter into it!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh No, it isn't, because such a thing has never been observed, EVER.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk *****parsable*****
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Both spellings are correct.
shanedk 6 months ago
that can be analyzed and reduced to its primordial state. Thus, according to the modern analysis, energy is the substratum of the world. It is manifested in various shapes and in numerous forms, whether sonic, magnetic, electrical, chemical or mechanical.
In light of this, the duality between matter and radiation, between particles and waves, and between the appearance of electrons sometimes as matter and some other times as light was no longer strange. Rather, ...
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun No. E=MC^2 Matter can be ....
____
In his equation, Einstein says that energy is equal to the mass of muter times the velocity of light squared (E = mc2 where E is energy, m mass, and c velocity of light). The velocity of light is equal to 186,282 miles per second. Also, the mass is equal to the energy divided by the velocity of light squared (m= E/c2).
With this, it became established that the atom with its protons and electrons is nothing in reality but concentrated energy
1tabligh 6 months ago
Man has unsealed many secrets in the universe, advanced in his scientific and technical knowledge, and even landed on the moon; but in spite of all this, he is still unable to produce a leaf of a plant or a seed of an apple.
1tabligh 6 months ago
Did I made it very clear for you or not?.
As a matter of fact, the scientists for several decades have tried ceaselessly to unseal the secret of life and to explain its commencement on this planet. But their intensified efforts so far did not produce any substantial knowledge in this field. The presence of life on this planet is, no doubt, a great wonder that could not happen without a supernatural cause.
1tabligh 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkyeun ...is not a meaningful English sentence....
____
I do not know, how to put it better then this, but I will try.
1tabligh 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you agree?
1tabligh 6 months ago
The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.
1tabligh 6 months ago
Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion.
1tabligh 6 months ago
Our answer to that would be yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn.
1tabligh 6 months ago
To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator.
But you may agree with muslims that matter and energy must have been preceded by non-existence.
But raise an objection that this is not very obvious to every human being. Does the teaching of Islam suggest the consideration of anything in the nature that was undoubtedly preceded by non-existence?
1tabligh 6 months ago
We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence.
To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction.
1tabligh 6 months ago
It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old. When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun Prove any of those assertions with evidence.
___
You may as well ask: "But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter?
Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator?
Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views?
1tabligh 6 months ago
God made every part of universe and everything in it dependent upon others, so that none could exist without the other ; time cannot exist without space or matter, similarly space cannot exist without time and matter and matter cannot exist without space and time and this triple alliance or triangle or interdependence is the *general relativity.*
Get YOUR onions right!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun special relativity.
___
Wow!
*general relativity.*!
Exactly!
God destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors - matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced....., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun The Need of the World for One Without Need
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that no phenomenon originates in and of itself without the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun Read below!
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun
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 6 months ago
@1tabligh Your questions are nonsensical and unparseable. Rkyeun has asked you several times to speak plain English.
shanedk 6 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 6 months ago
@rkyeun Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?
Can this colossal planning, which ensures that the act of vision falls among the best acts of matter, be without guidance and purpose, even though the mere discovery of it requires strong intellectual efforts?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@rkyeun What then is the cause that makes the development of hydrogen to helium limited to a specific quantity [of hydrogen atoms], while setting the rest free from the fetters of this inevitable development?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh What do you mean about "setting the rest free"?
Hydrogen atoms that coalesce to the center of stars get fused into helium by a well-understood process.
shanedk 6 months ago
@rkyeun [In other words], why did the essential completion pertain to some atoms and not to others?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh What are you talking about?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh "How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves"
Because WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN! We also KNOW that hydrogen is made into heaver elements in the heart of stars, and even HEAVIER elements when those stars explode! And those exploding stars seeded all the matter that gets made into planets and moons and you and me.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Because we have EVIDENCE for that natural effect.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 6 months ago