Who created Allah ??!

[Jamalito22]

Yusuf, you are doing such a great Job, you have soo much knowledge, i am really surprised why people are not listening to you and learning from You thats for beleivers and Nonbeleivers who are keen to grasp on to what you say. I am a big fan of the Deenshow and wish you can come to the UK, one day. Peace on to you sir.

[dbes02]

It's fascinating to see how threatening evolution is.

[rozarlive]

transition from water to land is no more than a dream, because the physiological gulfs between terrestrial animals and fish cannot be overcome by any of the fictitious mechanisms of the theory of evolution. The latest attempt to make Tiktaalik roseae fit this scenario, which is supported out of blind devotion to the theory of evolution and rests on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is based on preconceptions and intentional misinterpretation.

[dbes02]

All your carryings on about hoaxes and evidence is meaningless according to your own admission - it's only your opinion.

Piltdown was a hoax. So?

Fictitious mechanisms of the theory of evolution? That's just your opinion.

[rozarlive]

a third example is the famous one from the past " the Piltdown man discovered from 1912 to 1915 represented as a huge break through in the human evolution, four decades later, in 1953 it was found as forgery and the fraud was uncovered of the fake fossil that was artificially abraded with artificial stain to make the modern fossil look old

[rozarlive]

second hoax or fraud is the missing link, how many missing link found hoaxes has there been so far including the latest Ida hoax discovery. the huge propaganda about the missing link all over tv and news representing the missing link found then months to years later the findings of all these missing link fossils are nothing but normal some what preserved fossils that can only teach us more about biology.

[rozarlive]

under the atheist debater the def of an atheist is and quoting, " an athiest is a person who demands good reasons for all believes and doesnt find the reasons giving for any religion to be convincing; therefore he is someone who lives without believe in a god. atheists are happy to take responsibility for their lives, they wish they lived in a world where more people took this responsibility"

[dbes02]

I'm not sure what video you are referring to, nor what you are quoting. Nor the specific comments you claim I copied. Keep talking in riddles - it suits the incoherence of your position.

[rozarlive]

k.. sorry about that.

[throbule]

Since Islam arrived, murder, mayhem, war, brutality, brainwashing and stupidity have flourished amongst its followers. Almost ALL the wisdom of Islam has been copied from books of Hinduism and Buddhism and it does not matter whether they are religions or not. Human beings have existed for hundreds of thousands of years so yes, your so called prophets are modern men, but you people have reverted to the stone age in your thinking. Go read something other than your precious koran lame brain....

[tehachapiusa]

fuck off?????

[JosherForder]

Bible, is the true inspired word of God.

[dbes02]

So if there is a creation there is a creator. But you assume there is a creation. Hence you beg the question.

If nothing can come from nothing, then how did Allah come from nothing? Always there? Special pleading fallacy - until you show evidence. But your evidence is circular - because you assume the universe was CREATED. Not that the physical universe came about through natural processes, but that it was CREATED.

[BloatedSensations]

He doesn't "assume" anything regarding a creation. We KNOW - as well as we know anything - that there indeed WAS a creation. Science tells us there was. And, logic dictates that if there was a creation, then there was a creator. The argument between Theists and Atheists isn't whether or not there was a God/god, in the sense of a catalyst for the beginning of the universe - rational members from both camps agree that there at least was.

[BloatedSensations]

The argument is merely: What was its nature? Was it sentient, or not.

[Thymonico]

Why is Allah without beginning, and how do you know this?

Wouldn't it be easier to say that the world is without a beginning, thus not requiring a even more complex creator?

[Living4aReason]

Interesting Questions! I appreciate your comment :)

The following links wud b of interest to you:

w w w (dot) godallah (dot) com

w w w (dot) scienceislam (dot) com

-Do see the videos of comments by the scientists abt the Quran (v. interesting)

.: Peace :.

[Love4Islaam]

there is a good answer to this question, but in Arabic, if anyone translated to English would be a noble work

الشيخ محمد العوضي يجيب على سؤال : من خلق الله

[Thymonico]

I want those letters! :O

They are awesome!

ا ل ش ي خ م ح م د ا ل ع و ض ي ي ج ي ب ع ل ى س ؤ ا ل : من خلق الله

[dbes02]

Without beginning?

All you've presented is a circular argument.

[Living4aReason]

Thnx for taking time to comment, :)

The following links mite interest you:

w w w (dot) godallah (dot) com

w w w (dot) scienceislam (dot) com

-Do see the videos of comments by the scientists abt the Quran (v. interesting)

.: Peace :.

[dbes02]

Yes I've seen a lot about the Quran and 'science' - I wouldn't say 'very interesting'. I'd say 'special pleading', and 'irrelevant' to my point.

Surely the Bible is the real science book.

But regardless, how does that bear on a supernatural entity with no beginning?

[Living4aReason]

r u an atheist? or a semi-God-believing person? It seems to me that u do believe in Bible being true? "the real science book" as u put it ..

w w w (dot) bibleislam (dot) com / bible _ contradictions (dot) php

Do c the No Brainer -Yusuf estes video, that i attached in my message to u

.: Peace :.

[dbes02]

I'm just raising an interesting point. Other people tell me that the Quran is wrong and the Bible is correct. That the science of the Quran is wrong and the science of the Bible is correct.

A rational interpretation is that anyone taking either the Bible or the Quran into a science exam would not score very much at all.

But in any case, what has the 'science' of the Quran have to do with the question I asked about this proposed Allah and its beginningness?

[Living4aReason]

"A rational interpretation ........ Quran into a science exam would not score very much at all"

Well thats where I dont agree with you, coz Quran is proved to be a book of science, and u can go to the link in the previous post... scienceislam

What does it hav to do with Allah and its beginningness ? For u, Everything i gues, coz science is all u believe in ..

search " No Brainer + Yusuf Estes + 1 " on YT, I'd be surprised if u still asked wt i thot abt ur same point :)

.:Peace:.

[dbes02]

You want me to watch your videos that say:

'I don't know where things came from therefore God exists?" (argument from ignorance)

"It's all pretty therefore God exists?" (appeal to emotion)

You can't explain order therefore you need an intelligent being to create it? Well this intelligent being can't be chaos, it must be ordered, so this intelligent being must have been created by an even more intelligent being.

Good argument.

[dbes02]

What does w w w (dot) godallah (dot) com tell me?:

"The Bible and the Quran tell us God has always existed."

We haven't got very far. Still at square one waiting for something beyond a circular/begs the question fallacy.

But as the Bible is contradictory, I'm not sure whether it helps.

[Living4aReason]

w w w (dot) godallah (dot) com / proof \ (dot) php tells u:

Begin by asking the question; "Can you prove you exist?" Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam.

We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence .....

.:Peace:.

[dbes02]

"We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us"

Back to your circular argument.

If someone CREATED a world with childhood cancer and mass deaths in tsunamis, that CREATOR would not be caring, or be a blunderer, or both.

[Living4aReason]

u didn't watch all the parts did u ? anyway ,i'll relate an incident:

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.

They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God,

Barber: "I don't believe that God exists."

Customer: "Why do you say that?"

[Living4aReason]

Barber: "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.

Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be

abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor

pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't

want to start an argument.

The barber finished his job and the customer

left the shop.

[Living4aReason]

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked

dirty and unkempt.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a

barber. And I just worked on you!"

"No!" the customer exclaimed.

[Living4aReason]

"Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long

hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."

"Exactly!"

affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what

happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's

why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.

[dbes02]

There were three high school students doing a physics exam. One only studied the Bible, one only studied the Quran, one only studied a physics text book.

The parents of first two students complained to the headmistress when they failed the test miserably, because they had studied the "Truth". The headmistress felt very sorry that the students were stuck with such ignorant parents.

[dbes02]

So don't have a debate. Stick to your irrational position - you said religion was all about faith, so why would you need a rational basis? Don't worry about the problem of evil, the single most powerful argument against the existence of an all powerful loving god.

It's not about 'I can't imagine' such a god (that's your strawman), it's about rationality - a logical position has been put forward by the barber, with the premises supported by evidence.

[BloatedSensations]

If it were truly about rationality for you, you'd be a Deist.

[dbes02]

Why should I be a Deist? Where is the evidence for Deism?

[BloatedSensations]

Read Thomas Paine, for starters.

[dbes02]

You mean I go back 250 years and ignore he enormous advances in science?

I may as well read Hume's arguments against design. More convincing than Paine.

[BloatedSensations]

And, exactly which "enormous advances in science" have occurred in the past 250 years that refute Paine's arguments of reason? I'd like to hear you name one.

[dbes02]

Paine's is an argument from ignorance.

Use of the terms creation/creator imply some sort of being intentionally creating. This is the very thing you're supposed to be supporting.

There are no rational members in the theist camp - as there is no positive evidence for their claims (or for the deist claims).

In contrast, all the evidence shows naturalistic processes. So please provide positive evidence for your version of creation, not an argument from ignorance.

[BloatedSensations]

First thing's first... you've evaded my question. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single advance of science which argues against Paine's argument of reason. You're the one that brought it up - it was your claim. So, give me anything - any single scientific discovery that precludes, or even just significantly argues against, the creation event being directed by some form of conscious will.

[BloatedSensations]

If you want an honest discussion on this, then I'm going to expect a certain amount of intellectual honesty on your part. Claiming a wealth of specific scientific findings that refute my position, then, when asked to provide one, responding with what amounts to "Well, there are a whole lot!" is not intellectually honest.

[dbes02]

Please show how this 'will' caused the universe. The burden of proof is on you. From the naturalist side, all the evidence we have supports that minds and intelligent design are based on complex, material brains that have evolved over huge amounts of time, that have developed late in the history of the universe.

You carry on about intellectual honesty - it would be nice to see something other than a deist argument from ignorance.

[dbes02]

We owe much to the freethinkers of the 17/18th century. They saw the nonsense of Christianity for what it was, but the God hypothesis has always been an argument from ignorance, whether theistic or deistic.

The boundaries of knowledge have moved on since then (remember, God is the name of our ignorance).

Of course you are big on intellectual honesty. I'd like to think that someone like Paine would be happy to see the advances in science, to see that humans are in charge of their own destiny.

[BloatedSensations]

I began an attempt to answer your comments here on Youtube. I quickly came to realize that to provide sufficient answers within the confines of Youtube's commenting system would be an impossible feat. So, I've responded in full on a public message forum. Take a look if you wish. It's located here: tinyurlDOTcomSLASHcapxh5

[rozarlive]

"to see that humans are in charge of their own destiny. "

Micheal jackson just proved you wrong. He had specific doctors to design pills and help him live long, the poor man died at age of 50, so did he control his own destiny?

you fail!!! "

[dbes02]

Exactly, it's humans doing it. The original context was opposing the nonsense of gods and the supernatural. If you want to change the context to the INDIVIDUAL, you hardly had to wait for Michael Jackson to die as an example. Anyone dyring from starvation or in an earthquake will do.

The broader context is nature vs nonsense.

[rozarlive]

i think you lack profound information regarding the word destiny

an example of that is your following statement "see the advances in science, to see that humans are in charge of their own destiny. "

destiny in different beliefs is defined differently.

some believe that death is a destiny, you are destined to die at a certain time, no matter what precautions you may take, you will still die at that time

[dbes02]

Exactly, the universe operates under natural laws, and if we can control the processes we can control the world - literally. And science has shown how this can, bit by bit, be done. There is not a shred of evidence to believe that we are destined to die at a certain time. Religious beliefs like this have the intellectual credibility as belief in fairies.

[rozarlive]

"science has shown how this can, bit by bit, be done."

i dont know which world you live in, but science can not prevent natural disasters from happening.

[dbes02]

Science has led to eradication of some natural diseases. As I said, bit by bit. The key point is that science is the only way to understand and influence nature. Religious belief leads to nonsense, profoundly false ideas about the world.

[rozarlive]

an example of that is michael jackson, he took the precautions and used science to live longer and to prevent an early death. if we were to side with a religion that believes that death is certain at a time no matter what, we can conclude that michael jackson died at the end of the time he was destined to live.

in that case it would go against your statement "t's humans doing it." michael jackson did not murder himself, thus he did not choose to die at the age of 50. He had no control over it

[dbes02]

You yourself said that human doctors influenced MJ's death. So what's the problem?

There are plenty of religious beliefs to choose from, all as irrational as the other.

[rozarlive]

so a profound definition of destiny is something that will happen , that you do not and can not have control over

science can never give people full control of what is going to happen to them.

an example of that are the energy sources. an example of that is " if the sun was to run out, how can you science prevent man kind from dying" That is unless another star was reachable with a planet like earth that is inhabitable.

other example are natural disasters that

[dbes02]

Yes, once the solar systems is destroyed it will be no more. There is not a shred of evidence that is was planned that way. if the universe runs on natural processes, it is feasible that science can give us the ability to build new universes. Like you say, we could go to another inhabitable planet.

The genius of science does indeed support a natural world. That is the rational conclusion. In a natural world, it would be possible for people to have full control.

[rozarlive]

so a simple question is how can science help you live longer if you were to get hit by a car and die at your 30s. So , science can help you live healthier but not longer because you don't know what time of the day and what day at what year you will die.

[dbes02]

Science has increased average life expectancy, reduced the risk of crashes occurring, increased the chance of survival after a crash. Just because you dont know the day you will die doesnt mean that it is pre-determined. False dilemma fallacy.

[dbes02]

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound saying that someone can be healthier but not live longer? Do you worry at all about grossly contradicting yourself? Have you wondered how life expectancy has increased so much? Do you realize what the infant mortality rates used to be in western societies? They continue to be at much worse rates in less developed societies. You might then realize how irrational your claims are.

[rozarlive]

"Do you realize how ridiculous you sound saying that someone can be healthier but not live longer?"

actually you can be healthier and live shorter because you didn't take into account the other causes of death.

that is exactly my point, ur mind is too wrapped one box, you don't look at anything else but the box

yes you can be 1000 times healthier than a person and die earlier to due other factors like accidents

XD

[kingsoliman85]

for both dbes02, and rozarlive please have respect to other people muslims and non muslim,

all you are doing is arguing about nonsense that will do good or no good to anyone

you are just wasting your time on a pointless argument. What you are doing is straight ignorance.

The comments section is for people who want to comment about video

After reading some of your arguments i take it that both of you are non muslims

so please have respect for others and stop the spamming

Thanks

[rozarlive]

so from examining the evidence, some science is a form of believe. so if you wanted to follow scientists and theories. Looking at how the universe came to be at our state of science and our theories is as similar as the state when people thought the earth was flat.

[dbes02]

Epistemology teaches that the key is rationality - what the evidence supports. Yes, scientific theories are provisional. We can only base theories on what we know. But there has never been a time when there was actually POSITIVE evidence for the supernatural. It's always been an argument from ignorance. Whether it's fairies, ghosts, gods or goblins. They all belong in the same bin. The genius of science is the success that has been achieved.

[rozarlive]

ya. the positive evidence for supernatural is one simple thing. Expansion rate and forces holding the universe together from collapsing into itself. If we were to follow any of the theories from the string theory to the big bang , we will realize that it can not be explained of how such a thing could occur. You will simply respond, explaining doesn't mean that god exists. At the same time, you can say he may exist and possibly it can not be explained in the future.

[dbes02]

"Expansion rate and forces." How arent these natural? Just because we cant explain something in detail doesnt mean it isnt natural. According to you, before lightning was understood to be an atmospheric discharge of electricity it was bolts thrown by gods. It only became atmospheric discharge AFTER the discovery. What an absurd way of thinking.

[dbes02]

A major problem for you is that you have to ignore not only has the god hypothesis has failed to explain anything, but that it has been constantly contradicted. Science shows cumulative progress over time. Religious beliefs and supernatural concepts have gone nowhere. A lack of cumulative results over time is a criterion applicable to pseudoscience - i.e., nonsense.

Yes a God could exist. Fairies could exist. But you need evidence.

[rozarlive]

'But there has never been a time when there was actually POSITIVE evidence for the supernatural."

That is a weak statement. If you look into string theory you will learn that when you come to the exact point in time when the big bang happened all the laws of physics fall down. Everything you know about physics fails

the natural explanation for the origin of energy contradicts a natural law. if they contradict law of science, they are unscientific

[dbes02]

The laws of nature are human inventions to describe observations about the world. Again, all you do is commit a fallacy of a false dilemma. Quantum physics has been developed to account for how the world works on the subatomic level. You give is an argument from ignorance. You have still not given POSITIVE evidence.

[dbes02]

And physicists have developed models of how the origin of the physical universe can have occurred without violating the known laws of physics. You sink into the god of the gaps fallacy. Essentially an argument from ignorance.

The 1st law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the TOTAL for a closed system remains FIXED. Mean energy density of the universe is what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of ZERO energy. Net energy is zero.

[rozarlive]

so yes newly discoveries brings people out of the dark a step at a time, but until today it does not exclude and can not exclude a creator. you will not live to see if scientific advancement to show that there is a god or to prove the current theories.

so if you choose to believe in theories , it is another form of faith.

[dbes02]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and an even worse type is belief AGAINST the evidence. No one can prove there isn't a god in the same that we can't prove there aren't fairies, or ghosts, or the flying spaghetti monster. But please show how the prior probability of such things existing is anything greater than 0%, then please provide evidence.

No, science is not faith. It is based on evidence. It is the intellectually responsible path to take.

[dbes02]

Just because we can't disprove fairies, doesn't mean they exist. That is a false dilemma fallacy. You need positive evidence to support a claim. otherwise you make nonsense of any attempt at rational thought. I can't exclude fairies, nor unicorns - so what? I can't exclude Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. But my disbelief in fairies or 10-headed monsters is not a faith. It's the sensible position. And I can most certainly exclude a creator - there's no evidence for one.

[rozarlive]

there are many things that are no explainable by natural laws

one of them: Energy was not created by natural physical means.

if you were to look into the big bang theory & string theory, all the natural laws fail at the exact point of the explosion

[dbes02]

Worse, you ignore the constant failure of religious beliefs, not only to explain anything, but to be contradicted time and time again. This obscurantism is nothing but intellectual fraud. Religious belief is nothing but intellectual fraud. All you do is hide behind ignorance - we don't know something. GOD DID IT. No explanation, just a childish argument from ignorance. Intellectual rubbish. Fraud.

[rozarlive]

"we don't know something. GOD DID IT" funny how u fail to get any close to explain why everything is the way it is, why are the laws that exist the way they are

a causal answer argues to the laws from something physically more fundamental. string theory for example is pursuing that kind of argument. but string theory is another fairy tale that can not be proven

that is your science

XD

[dbes02]

Science is about peeling back layers of ignorance. It's cumulative. I don't say that we know exactly why universe is the way it is. But that doesn't change that all we have found are natural processes at work. And that religious claims about the world have been turned to nonsense.

I haven't talked about string theory. But there's nothing wrong with developing theories and seeing how they hold up to new evidence. Light years away from the deceit of religious belief - contradicted by evidence.

[kingsoliman85]

for both dbes02, and rozarlive please have respect to other people muslims and non muslim,

all you are doing is arguing about nonsense that will do good or no good to anyone

you are just wasting your time on a pointless argument. What you are doing is straight ignorance.

The comments section is for people who want to comment about video

After reading some of your arguments i take it that both of you are non muslims

so please have respect for others and stop the spamming

Thanks

[dbes02]

kingsoliman85, by your definition, you're making a comment that is not about the video. So don't be a hypocrite.

If you are going to claim that this argument is pointless, then please support your claim.

Why should a profoundly false belief be 'respected'? I don't respect intellectual rubbish whether it be from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

The discussion here is very relevant to the video. Any claim about gods and the universe must encompass these broader issues.

[kingsoliman85]

you just proved my point, you are a person who likes to argue about anything. you can't disprove that god exists, and we don't have to prove to you that he exists because no one is forcing you to follow anything

end of story

this is my last message, leave whatever comments, then ur simply just talking to ur self

[dbes02]

It's not about proving/disproving. I can't disprove fairies or unicorns. But someone making a claim needs to show evidence for the claim for it to be considered rational. The prior probability of them existing based on evidence is 0%. Claims that are contradicted by evidence, or self-contradictory, are nonsense.

You can choose not to read messages. You could have chosen not to read my earlier messages - but you did read them. Your whole position is inconsistent and contradictory.

[rozarlive]

lol , it is funny how you contradict yourself.

you can't prove that above the natural world is another natural world, you can not disprove that above the natural world is super natural world, thus you have a choice to believe that above the natural world is another natural world or a super natural world. It is a choice like the dude said, since no one is forcing you or asking you to believe in any of it, you don't have to

End of argument.

[dbes02]

There COULD be all sorts of things. You can believe anything. No ones forcing you. But its intellectually honest to go with evidence, and certainly to throw out what is contradicted by evidence. No contraction on my part.

But what exactly are you arguing for? Its not just about any old supernatural world. And its not about a supernatural world that doesnt affect our world. The only approach that has answered any question about how the world works is science. Dumping religion in the bin.

[rozarlive]

it is funny how you type the words of the athiest debater from the following video UQ Does God Exist? UBC . ur just another sound educated wanabe atheist copy/paste what others say from videos lol. and no one has to prove any claims, like we do in the states about laws and what we want to follow. ya , done arguing too, you have proved/disproved nothing really, just copy/paste text from other videos lol.

[dbes02]

How do you know Im not quoting something I said from one of my other youtube accounts? Theists quote things all the time from religious text such as the Bible or the Quran - so I could say "theyre just quoting what someone else wrote".

It's a red herring fallacy, of no relevance.

[rozarlive]

according to u , if u cant disprove existence of jesus , it doesnt mean he exists. it also doesnt mean he doesnt exist.

if i choose to believe that jesus is my lord and savior then it is a choice. you dont have to

this was my last comment, sorry about the spam guys, this guy is a fruad, he types out words from debate videos to try to sound educated lol

Busted

[dbes02]

Jesus might have existed. It needs to be based on evidence of course. Then if you want to claim virgin births and resurrections, you're going to need even stronger evidence. And if you base it all on the Gospels then by your own logic you'd just be copying what someone else has written - busted.

[dbes02]

But just think about all the true religions out there. All the different gods that people choose to believe in. And all the true Christian sects, even though their gods command different things. All true by faith - who cares about the evidence. The non rational mindset of religious belief - an infantile attachment to fairy tales.

[dbes02]

And you are a follower of Islam then by your own logic you can't quote anything from the Quran. You might want to rethink your arguments here.

[rozarlive]

lol i watched one of your videos and you guys are hiliarious

ur athiest debater said, " this god must have exited in a timeless, eternal, unchanging state before creating the universe, no time, therefore no change; therefore dr craig's god could not make any plans, think threw ideas or do anything while in this state"

lollll see how pathetic it is , and you tell me you go by evidence

RED FALLACY, how can he apply these rules if he doesn't know the nature of god. care to explain ?

[dbes02]

You claim its my video, but it isnt.

The line you quote appears to be a response to the claims of William Lane Craig in the Kalaam Cosmological argument. The debater is simply pointing to the logical interpretation of Craig's claims. He is pointing out that Craig's concept of god contradicts Craig's own claims about the universe. Its an incoherent concept. As always, proposing that something exists requires evidence. This applies equally to the video here.

[rozarlive]

in other words how can you apply laws one something that is unknown to you, how is that evidence based on what you know?

doesn't make sense

[dbes02]

Your question "how can he apply these rules if he doesn't know the nature of god" exceeds the level of nonsense that even you have previously achieved. 1. Craig is making claims about the nature of god - so you contradict him (and a host of other theologians). 2. If we don't know anything about this god then what's the point? If you want to establish it exists you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot.

Not sure what a "red fallacy" is. Maybe it means you should stop spewing nonsense.

[rozarlive]

you see that is my point, based on the claims of doctor craig, your atheist debater said this god had no time to plan or do anything. so how can your atheist debater claim such a statement if the laws of the nature world can not be applied on him

[dbes02]

It's up to Craig to show evidence for this supernatural world. Not just claim there are fairies. Just claiming something doesn't make it so. Get the point?

You may like to show the link to the video you are talking about.

[rozarlive]

you dont get the point, he doesnt have to prove it because it is his belief and he has the right to believe in what he wants

he is not inviting you to believe in his belief, thus he doesnt have to prove it to you

[dbes02]

But he is trying to prove it - that's the point. He is not only inviting people to believe it., he's an evangelical Christian. You know, the ones that carry on that you will go to hell if you don't believe in their fairy tale.

[rozarlive]

so let them believe in that. They have the right to believe in what they want. No one is forcing you to follow their believes. so what is the problem. People have a choice, they can believe it or they can deny it. you have your reasons to deny it, therefore forget it. Simple as that. they can't prove to you it is real; however it doesnt mean they are not right, they could be right , they could be wrong. You just dont find it convincing.

[dbes02]

You can claim Dr Craig is "not inviting you to believe in his belief". You can believe that if you want. But where is your evidence? In fact if you read various writings of Dr Craig the evidence very strongly supports that he most certainly is trying to prove his claims.

You really can't see the incoherence of your position. You say anyone can believe anything but you challenge what someone is claiming - you contradict yourself over and over again.

[rozarlive]

i gave you the name of the video before, it is clear that athiesism is another form of religion without god

you want to go around like missionaries showing people that your believes are true. you want more people to follow your ideas.

that is under the def of what an atheist is. i already gave you the name of the video. it is not my fault you don't read the whole comment.

[dbes02]

Atheism is not a religion, as it does not involve belief in the supernatural. Just another of your absurd claims.

It would be wonderful if more people followed my ideas - they would be very sensible.

But thats not part of a definition of an atheist. Just because someone puts it in the definition of his/herself.

You gave the name "UQ Does God Exist? UBC". There are dozens with this as part of the title. If you did a bit of research this would become obvious.

[rozarlive]

personally i gave up on the science community after doing a lot of research,there is too much pressure on scientists that some commit fraud. I looked into evolution for a few years and it was very disappointing that some scientists r still going through with it. Even the latest Hoax about Ida was an embarrassment to the science community. some evolutionists disapproved it, someone is trying to get famous so they go on with the research while that time and money could be spent on cancer research

[dbes02]

Who uncovers the fraud? Scientists. It's all part of the self-correction inherent in the scientific method.

So you gave up on the science community but you think money should be spent on cancer research - conducted by scientists. You really can't see all the contradictions in your position.

[rozarlive]

i guess i didn't make it clear, i gave up on the part of the science community that peruses subjects that are irrelevant to helping mankind. Evolution for example has been going on for what ? over 150 years. yet many hoaxes have been discovered about it. So many scientists that studied it based on their studies on hoaxes. because some scientists in the past were under pressure , so they went to the extend of committing fraud.

[dbes02]

Where are the "many hoaxes", and how many scientists have been influenced, and to what extent? And how have the hoaxes affected the current theory of evolution?

[rozarlive]

honestly if you want me to answer this quesiton it would take over 40 comments spaces and that wouldn't complete a quarter of allthe hoaxes that were discovered years later. simple example, in the mid 1800s embroyologist emest haeckle published pictures he calimed were the embroys of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. he showed that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. this was suppoesd to show they

[rozarlive]

all had a common ancestor. these pictures were not accurate, later found to be a fake, this fraud was known and published as early as 1894. professor adam sedgwick of cambridge university, who wrote that the similarities reported by haeckle are " not in accordance with the facts of development"

[rozarlive]

the problem that i see with evolutionists is that you can take any fossil and you spin it to make it what you want

after all the organs , the flesh, everything about about the fossil is An educated GUESS work

so since the educated people doing the research believe in their theory so much, they will spin any fossil to fit what they want it to be.

like Ida, she has a thumb, OMG she is a human ancestor. our grand grand grand grand Aunt.

[dbes02]

And is Haeckle's work of any merit now?

Plenty of transitional fossils.

Missing link for what? Plenty of fossils showing the progression to humans.

Ida has been placed as a species of adapiform primate.

Evolution is not just about vertebrate fossils.

How is everything about fossils guesswork?

What exactly have you shown? There are some hoaxes which are uncovered?

This is all progress over time, not the profoundly false beliefs of religions that have gone nowhere - trodden into the dirt.

[rozarlive]

"Plenty of transitional fossils. "

name some please and years they were discovered

[rozarlive]

let me help you out, here is an example:Tiktaalik roseae

a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million years old.

candidate for a tale from water to land missing link fossil

[rozarlive]

it is really simple, dr craig believes in a god that is beyond the natural world and that the laws of the natural world do not apply to him.

so ur atheist debater said this god can not exist due to the following

since he exited in a timeless, eternal state , therefore he had no time to do anything or plan anything"

ur athiest debater failed miserably by applying the laws of the natural world to the god of dr craig whom he said the natural laws dont apply to him

you sitll failed miserably

:D

[kingsoliman85]

"by your definition,you're making a comment that is not about the video. So don't be a hypocrite."

and ofcourse as expected from a spammer like u, ofcourse i had to make a statement and asked you nicely to stop the spam, if you like debating things, go to a chat room or have debates with a scholar because most likely you know as much about science as the people who debate with you know about religion

debates get people no where, at the end your stuck with ur thoughts , they are stuck with theirs

[dbes02]

Your comment wasn't about the video - therefore you contradicted yourself. Your'e a hypocrite. My comments aren't spam. Spam is around sending unsolicited bulk messages, which I haven't done. So your whole argument is a straw man.

So what if debates don't get people anywhere?

You claim that I don't know much about science - where is your evidence for your claim?

[dbes02]

I never said anything about refutation that's your straw man. Epistemology teaches that rationality is the key proportioning a hypothesis to the grounds for holding it what the evidence supports. The discoveries of science support a natural world. Every discovery pushes back the darkness of human ignorance and explains something more about the world. If you want to show positive evidence for this "conscious will" then please show it. Otherwise your claims are an argument from ignorance.

[rozarlive]

"If you want to show positive evidence for this "conscious will" then please show it."

such a statement is a weak statement toward any religious community. a simple general response is " if god wanted to show himself to us he would have"

for example: "in many christian sects " you are created to be saved, to show how god loves you" in islam life is a test, quran urges you look at your surrounding and observe if such surrounding could come out on its own"

[dbes02]

"if god wanted to show himself to us he would have" is a useless response. It's a special pleading fallacy. Lots of things COULD be. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves COULD be true.

[dbes02]

"Quran urges you look at your surrounding and observe if such surrounding could come out on its own." So what? I can ask how does a god come out of its own? If you want to show evidence for whatever of the 1000s of concepts of god you have then show it.

[dbes02]

From the naturalist side quantum physics shows spontaneous and uncaused appearance of matter. Quantum fluctuations and inflationary cosmsology provide a plausible model that doesn't violate laws of physics. The origin of the physical universe need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. No need for the supernatural.

[dbes02]

The issue is about rationality - proportioning a hypothesis to the grounds for holding it - what does the evidence support.

Paine was reacting strongly to the hold of Christianity, based on its nonsense claims. political as much as philosophical motivation.

All the advances in biology, physics, cosmology support naturalism, and cut down arguments from design.