Atheists have Proven God Does Not Exist. Right?

[jsh020]

@OppressedAtheist exactly,

[ScotchMonkey08]

5:05 "it was the first religion to recognize womens rights"

^ ahahaha lmao.

you have read the quran yeah? you are aware of how women are treated in countries where sharia law is in place?

recognize womens rights, lol. that's a good one. no doubt it is also a religion of peace in your opinion? if you think it treats women fairly and is a religion of peace then your god obvio9usly never made the message clear enough, because my understanding of it is the complete opposite.

[cantaloupe42]

Bah just the usual bullshit here, waste of time. Here I'll save 10 minutes of your life for anyone about to watch this:

We can't explain this can't explain that blah blah blah can't prove god doesn't exist therefore he does blah blah blah all the other 4 religions don't make sense blah blah blah evolution is wrong blah blah blah therefore Islam is true.

[abstracht]

"god" is a schizophrenic-like delusion - a byproduct of the human mind's ability to model the minds of other human beings. you will never, ever find a religious person who can answer the most primary of questions: "what is 'god'?" this is because "god" is not a meaningful, intelligible, coherent concept. it is a mental phantom. and because "god" is not meaningfully defined, by tautology, it is 100% certain that "god" does not refer to anything that exists (or that does not).

[jpmichael1]

Okay... I'm not an over educated man, but I'm sure of my understanding in the Bible. The Trinity is talked about all throughout the Bible1, and 2 Christians do not believe that if you have never heard the word of God you 'll burn in hell. Nor will a baby. A baby is as close as we can get to seeing the beauty of Heaven, because he or she is pure. God can not cast out those that know not. This does not hold true for the ones that turned and didn't heed his message.

[kent7277]

@IslamResponses - I'm going to take a guess and say that your parents are also muslims?...... of course they are. You were indoctrinated into your particular religion as a child. If you had been born somewhere else in the world, you would believe another fairy tale. How are you not embarrassed? its an ancient book just like the bible and many many many many many many many others all over the world. Religion is the invention of mankind and acts as a comforting reassurance. That is all.

[lbnhersi]

Religion is bullshit don't waste your one life the bible is fucking retarded 100% the Torah is fucked cause to get in to heaven your mom has to be a Jew and I was a Muslim I was new the Quran in side and out and I know almost all the science In it is wrong or was already now in the area most of the quran is muhhamed justifying his actions the rest was bible stories and tohar stories .pol don't waste your one life.

[randomunavailable]

If any religion destroys life, it's an anathema to the will of god the bringer of life. This goes for all religions that destroy life. There are religions that do not destroy life such as Buddhism. Therefor I claim certain religions to be lost in meaning.  There are words of wisdom and truth in all religions and the texts of those religions should never be lost. Islam needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide that life is paramount, otherwise why have religion at all?

[thisguyheisaguy]

Okay, there is nothing that makes sense about being a Muslim and trying to tell Jews and Christians that their religions do not come from G-d. That's like a Bahai trying to tell a Muslim that their religion doesn't come from G-d. You can't base a whole religion on an older one and then say "except we got it right"!

[tantrikwizard]

There are so many errors in this rant I don't know where to begin. First of all a square ball does not exist. There's no such thing as stationary movement, no ordered randomness, no flying flightless bird, no honest politician. Contradictions do not exist. Many millions of people believe in a god which is self-contradictory and therefore does not exist. They're wrong, that's all there is to it. If you believe in a self-contradictory impossibility then your beliefs are wrong, end of discussion.

[tantrikwizard]

You're wrong about science's inability to explain emotions. There are several rational scientific theories and explanations about the physiology and evolution of emotions. The areas of the brain that correspond to various emotions have also been mapped. We have scientifically tested drugs to treat various emotional problems. Get yourself an education son.

[tantrikwizard]

You make a gigantic leap from the baseless assumption of 'god exists' to 'he wrote a book' to 'my religion is better than yours' and you call this 'logic'. You don't possess primitive logic. First provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of your particular god, then you can run about telling everyone what this fellow has to say.

[tedmyster101]

If you had been born in a Christian country, you would be a Christian. If you had been born in a Muslim country, you would be a Muslim. If you had been born in 44 BC, you would believe in Zeus and all other Roman Gods which, like many others, are not even worshipped anymore. No religion had any more solid evidence to prove the existance of that God. Statistically, God is no more likely than the tooth fairy. You provide no evidence whatsoever. You have been brainwashed.

[helasmoh]

@tedmyster101

Tens of thousands Christians and atheists are converting to Islam in the west every year, Islam is the fastest growing religion. This destroy your argument completely. If you had been born 44 BC then the Torah had the same rules in the Quran, why don't you try to read whatever remained from the Torah or the Gospel. Same teachings. God sent Mohammad because the invention of Trinity. Try another argument.Also watch my video: Does God Exist? Atheist Argument Defeated.

[tedmyster101]

@helasmoh

Just because it is a fast growing religion, it does not make the religious doctrine true.

[helasmoh]

@tedmyster101

Of course not. It doesnt prove Islam is true at all, but it still refutes your argument about if being born as a Christian then you will be a Christian. There are many who make a change and choose to follow the truth or what they consider to be the truth. I also cannot prove God, no theist can. My claim is that the Quran could not be produced by humanity 1400 years ago. My video "Does God Exist? Atheist Argument defeated" does support my claim but I can still be wrong. thanks.

[cabuc1]

@tedmyster101 Your emotinonal reaction is evidence in itself

[tedmyster101]

@cabuc1

Evidence of what?

[randomunavailable]

@tedmyster101 Statistically it's impossible to brainwash 90% of the world population into believing anything. Nice fail on your part.

[xxMCRvenomxx]

GOD ISN'T REAL - ME

[Sayimasu]

1. Emotions are from the evolution of the human brain.

2. I like 1:13 where you have the picture from District 9.

3. I like this because it gives a interesting point of view... but I must ask... why do you look for how many gods a religion has first? That doesn't seem like a rational argument for or against a religion.

3. Islams speak Islamic, right? or what language was the Koran written in? This is probably a stupid question xD But still.

[Griexxt]

Strawman, non sequitur, argumentum ad populum, argument from ignorance, the logical fallacies employed before the 2 minute mark. Then follows you randomly deciding criteria for one religion being superior to another. Why exactly is one god better than many? You give no reason.

The fundamental problem that all atheists see still remains: You claim god exists, but you have absolutely no evidence.

[drtyfknmouth]

When you say that the Trinity isn't mentioned once in the Bible, do you mean that it's never called "the Trinity", or that this means that Christianity isn't based on 1 God? What exactly do you mean there? In Matthew 28.19-20, Jesus says, 19Therefore go & make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit, 20 & teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.".

[kadene2]

What an idiot. Who is he trying to fool? Please. Who flew the planes in the buildings and who continue to blow themselves up, killing those around them. And where does it say "death to the infidel"? Is the Hadith as revered as the Quran? All religions are idiotic. I can't imagine why any being of an intelligence superior to ours would be demanding worship. It is so childish and ego-maniacal. It is all a case of man projecting his dark side on what he considers a god to be. Silly video.

[Eyseseeethewhore]

kadene2,

I have see here the only idiot is you,"Who flew the planes in the buildings"which planes you are talking about fool?! you mean 9/11, there are millions of videos on YT made by americans themselves state clearly that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

watch this one for example:

watch?v=ssuAMNas1us

No proof that muslims were responsible for that , and there is no verse in the Quran orders us to blow themselves them what a moron brain washed douchebag

We can use foul language as you,

[Eyseseeethewhore]

Only low people who have no argument use foul language ,

there is no verse in the Quran orders us to kill infidels and many muslims have already refuted this lie , what an ignorant,

like this video:

watch?v=vefNFczjR4w

God says:(or that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind)

educate yourself moron,

do not tell me that the car created itself !!

[Eyseseeethewhore]

When you are in trouble you call for God ?of course , we have to worship him and thank him for every thing he bless us with .

oh, you think that every thing in this universe exists by itself !!

what a fool manic .

I am using your dirty language , since this is the only language you know.

you need to learn some morals . but what can I say, all stupid atheists have no morals , from where will they learn good manners ?!!

[Digitalis17894]

@Eyseseeethewhore i hate it when religious people like u always claim that atheists have no morals since there is no one judging us. thats bullshit. we get our morals from today's society, not some 2,000 year old book. have u ever heard "Treat others the way u want to be treated"? well, atheists can use that

[Eyseseeethewhore]

Digitalis17894,

What a hypocrite you are , you have no problem with kadene2

calling us names but you have problem , when we respond to his false accusation .

without God's guidance , we have no morals , people would live like savage  animals .

if you think sleeping with many women , drinking alcohol, using fool languages and false accusations etc are good morals , then what can i say. Good for you.

you have your own religion and we have ours.

[snewlmd]

Well, at least he isn't bias. I mean, he only got his facts wrong on about 500 different things...all in about 10:00 minutes. xp

[phillyprodigy]

another stupid video

[pezzamange]

I'm sort of quoting you here:

"Islam was the first religion to recognise women's right and make everyone equal despite race, economic status etc."

You must be at least reasonably aware that women's rights in islamic countries are far far far inferior to that of most others, I mean they fall far short, to the point of being insulting.

If you believe in a god then that's nice and I hope you're right in some ways, but you need to look at islam from and outsider's point of view my friend.

[romney27]

@MrJsquared91 because that is what Jesus said?...lol wow!

[julivgs]

Stupid moron...Atheist doesnt have to prove that god doesnt exist, religious people HAVE to prove that god exist. Real proofs...not a stupid old book or shity comments from crazy people that saw (or believed that saw) things or gay-dressed priests saying nonsense

[romney27]

@julivgs the onus is on you as atheist. Beliefs in good exist. By what authority shouldn't. it?

[burkeyatm]

"I lack a belief in the existence of god/s" is not a positive claim to the actual existence of "god" but a distinct lack of belief. An atheist is not stating that "god does not exist". However to claim that god DOES exist is a positive claim and therefore requires proof. Do you believe in dragons? Prove to me that they don't exist......

[romney27]

@burkeyatm dragons exist as mythological creatures, I understand that. I also believe in the "content" of my dreams, but by your logic they don't exist because they lack proof? perceptions of what "god" is falls solely under ones own "subjective experience" and there also exist many other things that by that logic can't be empirically proven. I can't prove my love for my child either under that scenario, but that doesn't mean you couldn't ask me. and yes I could answer that too! it's free will.

[burkeyatm]

Um, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I stated that I can't be expected to prove that something I lack a belief in does NOT exist. If this was demanded of me for EVERYTHING I do not believe in, how long would it take? "god" is a concept. The concept certainly exists. The question is, does "god" the being/deity/whatever exist in reality. If you assert that he/she/it does, expect that people will ask for proof. If you told me that dragons REALLY exist, I'd want proof.

[romney27]

@burkeyatm god only has to exist for me, if I choose to believe that. and a god doesn't have to exist to benefit from believing in one. That can be measured and observed and there for is provable. It's all part of free will, and atheist and theist both have this inherently.

[burkeyatm]

Hey look, I agree. The only time I would honestly ask you to show me that a god exists is if your belief either effects me, the people around you, OR if your belief is somehow attempting to alter laws and regulations etc. What you do inside your head is your business. If you want "the controversy" taught, abortion outlawed, gay marriage denied on the basis of your religion, well, that's another matter. Not sure that benefits of belief can be measured though......

[romney27]

they let dogs in hospitals now, because it lowers patients blood pressure. I suspect there is a lot to be said about the domesticated dog also being part of the human condition, but that's not my point. It is measurable and observed. In fact a fake robot dog does the same thing. So the connection is purely perceptual in the experience of the individual. Beliefs in gods can have the same measured effect, and the god doesn't even have to be real.... but ultimately we probable agree in many ways.

[burkeyatm]

I couldn't agree with you more that we probably agree on a great deal of issues (does that make sense?) I can see how a perceptual change could make a difference in a persons life. I have no problem with that whatsoever. When we discuss the "measured effect" of belief in a god or gods in this instance, what we are really talking about is a placebo. I have no opinions that I wish to offer in this matter. I don't understand it and I have no experience to draw from. Cheers.

[romney27]

@burkeyatm cheers mate

[romney27]

@julivgs " religious people HAVE to prove that god exist." no they don't. that's not how subjective experience works. and you're calling people stupid?...lol in fact you are free to see the world how ever you want... or at least if you're smart enough you can.

[Redstick27]

@romney27

Yes you DO , if you want me to believe something you BETTER COME UP WITH EVIDENCE.

PERIOD.

[romney27]

@Redstick27 what kinda of proof? that religion exist?... look around it quite clearly does. Or prof that beliefs in god(s) exist? well they do. Or, my favorite, god doesn't have to exist to benefit in believing in one. I can proved evidence to any of these.... How bout the "content" of your dreams? can you show evidence of what you dream about? and if not does that mean dreams don't exist. your logic doesn't hold up there, so where else does it not hold up?

[Redstick27]

@romney27

What kind of proof?

I want IRONCLAD evidence of the miracles of this so called creator. I want him to come down from the clouds and turn water into wine just like in the bible. And I want millions to witness and I want it on camera so I know its not a mass delusion.

As for your dream analogy , it doesn't hold up since an EEG can show the brain changes activity when in REM sleep and deep sleep(not dreaming)

[romney27]

@Redstick27 I said the "content" of your dreams. What was the dream? not if we measure REM..... big difference!, and you're right your logic doesn't hold water.

and as for you wanting proof to believe what I believe, well all I can say is that the world doesn't work that way. It's not my fault that you don't understand how "free will" works. Maybe life just happens to you for no reason and you think that it's meaningless. I guess you could be right there. Is your life meaninglessly random? ok.

[NvdBeek]

Too bad the film doesn't put forward any arguments for the existence of god. I don't really care about the fairy tales, as god doesn't exist.

Note that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (Popper's white raven). So the burden is with you religious nuts, go on and prove you are right and I am wrong.

And finally: Note that, given the non-existence of god, religion is a pure waste we should get rid of. Accept uncertainty and be free.

[TheWageOfSin]

Agnostic/Atheist has never been spread by the sword, unlike Islam, where Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world BEFORE the Crusades. Agnostic/Atheist rank at 1.3 billion. The Credibility of Faith is DEAD.

/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o

[penkallli]

'Agnostic/Atheist has never been spread by the sword, unlike Islam'

-Hehe, do Stalin, Mao, Tito, Khmer rouge, Colonizing wars of 19-20 century ring a bell ? Under secular ideology all the bloodiest wars have happened, so shuuuush

[TheWageOfSin]

2009.12.24 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - A Shahid suicide bomber on a horse car murders eight innocent people.

2009.12.24 (Einav, Israel) - An Israeli father of seven is shot to death in his car by Palestinian terrorists.

2009.12.24 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - A suicide bomber detonates near a Christian school, killing four others.

[TheWageOfSin]

2009.12.24 (Paktika, Afghanistan) - Two civilians are murdered by Jihadi roadside bombers.

2009.12.23 (Hilla, Iraq) - A crowded bus station is the target of Sunni bombers, who leave fifteen Iraqis dead and nearly one hundred more in agony.

2009.12.23 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Three civilians are killed when fundamentalists detonate a bomb at a bazaar.

So shuuuuush

[TheWageOfSin]

"Under secular ideology all the bloodiest wars have happened"

You get communist confused with secular ideology. Like saying all muslims are Wahhabism/Islamism/jihadist.

But you made a fair point. :)

Salam :)

[yasser7ossam]

great video may Allah reward you

please make more videos

[thisguysajerk]

L.O.FuckingL.

those feelings are synapse in the brain.

go get an education.

[allinsman]

If god doesn't need a creator why would the universe do? Secondly, all the feelings you talk about is just as common in other animals, nothing special for humans. And saying Islam is right because it's followers are more willing to kill for their religion is redicilous. Ignorance,wich is VERY widespread in muslim countries is NOT a good thing. The koran also have LOTS of contradictions but ONE sentence saves it by rendering any rules early in the book void if it's changed later in the book.

[allinsman]

And the making early rules in the koran void if it's changed later is NOT a good thing since the early parts of the koran is from Mohammeds peaceful life while the later part is from when he was a warlord. Even if he couldn't read or write he could have dictated a writer, wich was probably what he did. Muslim advances? Do you think it was the fact that they were muslims that made them advanced? They happened to be muslims. Newton happened to be christian, so did Gallileo.

[allinsman]

Hardly think their religion had anything to do with their science. The romans could do cataract surgery a 1000 years before any muslim new what a needle was, hundred of years before Islam even existed, again religion has nothing to do with it. And yes Islam DOES contradict evolution when it claims man was CREATED from a clot of blood. The idea that life came from water was raised ATLEAST 2000 years before Islam. So NONE of your arguments for Islam holds up.

[BaileysBeads]

Actually, when we're speaking of Muslim advances we're speaking off the highly advanced Arab world which later on became Islamic, guess when all the progress halted. Yes that's right.

[MrSkyProductions]

You cant just dismiss pagan religions. 2nd is yes i agree with you that the initial discoveries by muslim nations in the areas of mathematics and science have been quite interesting, however that does not make up for the hundreds of years islamic fundamentalism that has sent the middle east backwards scientifically. If fundamentalist islamic rule were to be prevalent during the time of these so called scientific developments i dont think that those scientific discoveries would have been made.

[SFAvfx]

JazakAllakhu khayr

[ponyboy316]

Feelings are instincts. That is why they are so good at controlling what you do. There's your explanation, so deal with the fact that you are an animal. A highly intelligent animal, but an animal nonetheless.

[amjadali848]

oh atheist u born or evolve from apes.

i think u born to a human pair,ur parents isnt it?

and ur parent also not evolved they also born to a human.and ur forefather also born to the humans. it means u came from human not apes.

atheists only subject is science,if u know science it takes U turn in many theories, scientists claimed that the sun was stationary but quran say it rotates,if u were at that time u would said, u quran has error, our scientist said that sun is fixed. so who would be wrong

[amjadali848]

great work u used Screw driver without Manual.---GREAT. ha ha

who taught u to use a screw driver either ur father or someone. means u get knowledge by someone,either through by literature(manual) or by act of others.

[ismailzd]

can I reupload this :D

[VeritasLiber]

Couldn't have summed it up any better.

[Gnomefro]

"Peacefully under Islamic rule" Right... The red on your map is probably the blood of the people the muslims slaughtered during their imperialistic period.

Under stand this: Nobody invited the muslims to Europe. They came with swords, and got thrown out again later. What do you expect European history to teach about this period? "Oh the muslims came and murdered lots of people and established their way of life?"

It had nothing to do with European history. It was a temporary invasion.

[Gnomefro]

If you look at the history of the muslim Jihad in India it is of course much worse. Some historians estimate death tolls rivaling world war 2 - except the muslims did it with swords.

No wonder the muslims are hated by Hindus to the point where the British had to separate out Pakistan to prevent mass murder.

[amjadali848]

i m from india and i know the history of islam in india, muslims ruled nearly 800 year on india,and today-majority of indian are Hindus and muslim is a minority in India.

if Islam was spread by sword in india,the static would be different. Muslim would be in majority and hindus many not be existed, because 800 year is very long period to eradicate something.

but if u know the atheist or communist they really eradicate the civilization of china, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia etc.

revert to islam

[Gnomefro]

"because 800 year is very long period to eradicate something."

Not when you need slaves, and you have to slaughter people with swords. Regardless, whatever you think you know about indian history, it is a fact that the British had to separate the area and move a hell of a lot of people who were ready to murder each other due to superstitious hatred.

Most of the "Indian muslims" are of course Pakistanis today due to this process.

[Gnomefro]

Also, clown, nobody can do anything "in the name of atheism". It is not an ideology, it is not a belief.

It is just the rejection of moronic ideas like your superstition.

Whatever caused people to kill eachother in those places was not atheism. Atheism can't lead to any action, good or bad.

Oh and btw: Telling people to "revert" to islam is a fucking insult. People are born atheists, they have no relationship to your cult before someone indoctrinates them into it.

[BaileysBeads]

Indeed just like someone can't do something in the name of 'theism' either. People can however be motivated to actions be they judged as ethical or unethical in the name of certain religion or (secular) ideology.

We don't blame Muslims for the Spanish Inquisition, yet they're both theistic just like we don't say Ayn Rand was a Marxist even though they're both atheistic (or secular).

[saladinswarrior]

Gnomefro:

Atheism wont stop a person from doing bad things.

Besides what is good or bad,if u r an atheist?Ur perception of good is not the same as another persons.

Without God,good and bad becomes relative to ones own ideas.

Every person is born with a natural desposition to beleive in the Oneness of God.This is why we use the term revert.

No kid is born with a nature that makes him beleive in a spontaneous,purposeless,meanin­gless existence.

[mrbluesky323]

"Atheism wont stop a person from doing bad things."

Polls of the prison population seem to say otherwise.

[amjadali848]

ALLAH exist and u can prove its.

ALLAH created the universe and human being and told us how he created it in a manual-The Quran.

every manufacturer make manual of ones their product and u follow that manual to use the product. like wise ALLAH also made a manual 1400 year ago and u should follow it.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

well I wouldn't go as far as to say Islam is using "secular" laws, because honestly anything can be thought of as secular, it's a very vast term. What the point was that Islam is in unique position regarding it's universality in respects to other religions, which would make Islam more relevant in comparison

[MuTaziliTajdid]

We can agree that all religions had guides for governing spiritual teachings; I believe what the author is trying unsuccessfully to say is that comparatively Islam for reasons like it's not "exclusive" to a certain ethnic group as judaism , but retains a body of laws which pertain to all facets of life unlike christianity, while similarly maintaining a balance between a "spiritual" but has a balanced approach to spirituality and worldly life, unlike Hinduism.

[Boldhome]

Rant and rave? I think that's theists you're talking about... with the possible exception of the AmazingAtheist of course.

All atheists claim is that there is no evidence for any god.

"I don't know where the universe comes from therefore god did it.", is not a rational argument. It explains nothing and has no evidence.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

1st; reform Judaic came about in the last century. Under traditional Jewish law, you're jewish if your mother is Jewish, but if your father is a gentile, he remains a gentile.

2nd: Judah is one of the 12 sons of Jacob, he founded the tribe of Judah, his clan established Northern Israel, their practices became known as Judaism

3rd: Well that's what I was saying, purpose and intention are synonyms, but that purpose maybe vacuous, which is another debate really.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

I feel the videomaker didn't do a thorough presentation. However, inspite of this, it's not accurate what you claim.

the logical support for the Qur'an is not simply the Qur'an itself also it's correspondence with things which were only recently verified with sophisticated means unavailable during the time of the Qur'an. Such as determining atmospheric layering, subducted roots of mountains, cosmological expansion. and such.

[Katalyzt]

Well said CaffeinatedThinking...

Katalyzt

[MuTaziliTajdid]

Your'e also making certain fallacies here,

conversion to Judaism is a recent REFORM Judaism facet, not something intrinsic to the belief. It was named after Judah, Hinduism however is named after a river called Sind, which was mispronounced Hind by foreign chronicles.

Purpose means to "intend", if a God did create everything, that would indicate our existence was "intentional" even if the motive itself was vacuous.

Your comment about the evolutionary reasons for emotions is on point though

[BaileysBeads]

First of all, you'll find very few atheists that say god could not possibly exist. So that's a strawman.

Secondly. I DO think matter came out of nothingness, it's YOUR lack of understanding what Nothingness really encompasses that makes it seem absurd to you.

[armitage4]

there is no empirical evidence that something is created, produced or re-produced without any external factors, thus by itself. If you can find empirical evidence for that, then you have proven atheistic standpoints and its basic premises. But you will never do that but you may try but if you cannot find evidence you must admit defeat if you are truthful.

[armitage4]

Say: Praise be to God, and Peace on his servants whom He has chosen (for his Message). (Who) is better?- God or the false gods they associate (with Him)?

Or, Who has created the heavens and the earth, and Who sends you down rain from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to grow well-planted orchards full of beauty of delight: it is not in your power to cause the growth of the trees in them. (Can there be another) god besides God? Nay, they are a people who swerve from justice. (27:59-60)

[MuTaziliTajdid]

relax, don't preach :)

debate logic don't impose verses on them.

[BaileysBeads]

Not yet no, but there are definitely some very respectable theories in the field of quantum mechanics that suggest that our universe indeed collapsed out of nothingness.

And no, even if such theories are 'proven' then it still wouldn't mean god is disproven. Just like proving something did not come out of nothing doesn't prove god in it's turn.

[armitage4]

You are honoable since you are truthful by admitting that there are no empirical evidence that prove that things exist out of nothingness.

But then, our whole epistomology and science theory is based on the idea that there is no metaphysical realm. You actually admit that, modern secular science theory - at current time - has no answers to back its position.

[BaileysBeads]

Sure science has no answer -yet. There are only some (quite rigid) theories.

But saying that science doesn't have answers -yet- is by no way saying that religion has them. Religion has nothing.

[armitage4]

Religion has something to offer.

To date, science cant confirm the metaphysical bc it rejects it. It deals with the senseable world only. Religon doesnt limit itself & every religion tries to prove its correctness and legitimacy by certain means or signs. Such signs can be put to test for its trueness.

Islams sign is the Quran & a metaphysical proof of God. "This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God" (2:2). You can test if it holds what it claims

[armitage4]

btw. im impressed by your openess and correctness. I wish you all good but you have to put effort in finding what is true and not pre-judge religious claims a-priori. Quran makes a claim of being Gods word. Its up to you to verify this. I will neither benefit from your disbelief not will i gain any material benefits if you choose belief. So peace and all good to you and your loved ones.

[BaileysBeads]

Yeah I do think it's best to limit us to the sensable (or let's call it observable) world only. From there on you can still extrapolate with formulas (we can't sense more dimensions than we do know but we can derive their existence out of formulas).

Outside that, claims that cannot be observed can't also be verified indeed. So there wouldn't be any difference in discerning between someone lying and someone telling the truth. Even if it's written in a book held with great reverence.

[armitage4]

You state its "best to limit oneself". But this limitation has no empirical basis. It is something you choose to do based on your opinion.

As for a higher being. If He gives His creation a scripture that is without mistake, a guidance & depicts the worlds & heavens without any mistakes. Now in this scripture He tells you to believe in Him and wait for the time you will meet Him. You would disbelieve bc you choose to limit yourself.

Your current choice will lead you to eternal hellfire

[BaileysBeads]

It's not a matter of opinion, it's just that the unobservable is also untestable and therefore unverifiable. That's why science has nothing to say on it (and IMO nothing else should either).

Well his first mistake would be to hand me a scripture in Arabic that I simply can't read, am I to trust the translations to be without mistakes as well, as far as I know the translators haven't been divinely inspired in the way the original writers were. Provided the Arabic version is without mistakes ofc

[armitage4]

You set yourself a limit in which you accept objective knowledge but that is something unproven and thus is a choice you made. You perhaps might be wrong. Platon speaks of "anamnesis" & says we are able to sense the mp realm

You say God made a mistake by only using arabic. You assume that only in arabic you could understand the text. This assumption leads you to think God made a mistake. This argument shows me that you will only believe in God if He shows Him to you or His angels to you.

[BaileysBeads]

Yes, it's a very just limit. Something that can't be proven isn't worth spending my time on.

And yes I can try to understand the text in other language, but that would require an imperfect middle-man a translator making the text less 'perfect' then they were. So mr. god made a mistake there. A god that makes mistakes isn't perfect so can't produce perfect texts which makes the entire Quran not perfect to begin with.

And yes I prefer evidence over a book written by humans indeed.

[armitage4]

You set you limit because you think that is the limit of where you can obtain objective, truthful, information. But people like Plato said, that empirical evidence is just doxa, an opinion. But true knowledge comes from the world of ideas. Ideas can be perceived by "anamnesis" its a sense if you so will to understand the metaphyiscal realm.

Do you know what linguistic universals are?

[BaileysBeads]

Yes I do, that doesn't mean that translations are perfect.

And besides, do you have any evidence your Quran is perfect? It makes a pretty big blunder when it describes child birth for example, it says that a child starts with bone and then flesh grows over it, which is completely wrong.

My point is, the Quran doesn't say anything a person living in that time and age couldn't have known. Just like the Bible, and just like the Torah, they only represent the knowledge of that time.

[BaileysBeads]

And Plato's OPINION on this doesn't matter one single bit.

Without the scientific method, any findings are heavily subject to personal bias. That's exactly what science tries to ban out by running double-blind tests for example, or peer-reviewing each others work.

Muhammed however came out of his cave and exclaimed that his truth was the only truth and the truth alone. No way of verifying anything at all, and you expect me to trust this hermit?

[armitage4]

Lets keep Plato aside despite the fact that his theories are still influential and competitive bc of its content.

You say science bans personal bias and results in objective knowledge. You say Muhammad cant stand scientific scrutiny. Quran tells that people attack the messenger while he is just that. Its the message thats important.

Well, you arent supposed to trust the messenger by you own standards but scrutinise the message he brought. Test if it holds stand to its own premisses.

[BaileysBeads]

He tells us to attack the messenger including him? Then why all the outrage every time someone depicts him, remember the Danish cartoons? Wouldn't Muhammed have loved that? When can we expect the illustrated Quran?

Not trying to be insulting but it all seems so contradicting to me.

And yes, I still think that a system that tries to eradicate personal bias like science does is way better than one that sets personal biased notions equal to objective evidence.

[armitage4]

There is a misunderstanding. People attacked the messenger at the time of Muhammad rather than looking into the message he brought to them.

Scientific method is able to produce verifiable, objective & person-idependant knowledge based on empirical evidence, yes i agree. Then it should possible to verify the claims of a book that it makes of itself.

The quran makes claims for exampl. it states its a book of guidance & without doubt. This is a claim that can be scientifically verified.

[BaileysBeads]

So how would you go about scientifically verifying that claim?

[armitage4]

First of all, Quran is a holy book. Its supposed to be authored by God, the All-Knowing, creator of the Universe.

It must not contain any mistakes or else it simply is not Gods book, its then a book of a fallibe human being.

Take a statement that God makes in His Quran and view it in the light of modern science. Either the books premisses are verified and the Quran is a book without doubt or its a erroneous product of an human being.

[BaileysBeads]

The version we have of the Quran right now went through several edit and reformations and can therefore, by your definition, not be the word of god without doubt.

It's a human product, like any other book.

[armitage4]

this is not quite true. Unlike other holy books, the quran is secured in its version since 1400 years.

The Quran critisized former believers of not having take care of their scriptures and deliberatly changing them for their own benefit.

So, the authenticity of the Quran was always of great importance. Its also shown by the fact that in every generation, many million people learn the Quranic verses by heart and are thus called "Hafis" the preservers of scripture.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

well I can certainly appreciate the pursuit of Quantum Mechanics and it's offshoots, string theory/M-theory in attempting to describe the physical causation of the universe. but whatever we have learned seems to indicate that they won't be able to do as they say "naturalistically" i.e. determining that something arises out of "nothing" is a result of the interaction of matter and energy. This enters into the realm of metaphysics, which would indicate a 'directed" manifestation of the universe

[MuTaziliTajdid]

Firstly he's speaking of a certain subset of Atheists say that God cannot possibly exist, so your claim against him is also a strawman of sorts

Secondly, When it's asked how can matter/energy come from nothing, what it means is how can it "naturalistically" arise out of nothingness, it doesn't preclude the possibility of it arising without material causes involved. Of course some may respond that this is a "God of the Gaps" but at this level, we'd have to surmise the immaterial for the material

[BaileysBeads]

He hasn't mentioned anything about a 'subset' of atheists. And I really have yet to find an atheist who applies to his argumentation.

By far most atheists (if not all) simply say that there's no evidence for the existence of god.

And I'm glad you see it as 'God of the gaps' as well. I don't see any value in invoking the immaterial for the material, it doesn't add anything to the process of unravelling this universe.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

Well he was speaking of youtube Atheists, most of whom I guess are laymen, like we are ourselves and laymen have a tendency to overstate positions.

Well I understand the intellectual problem of the 'God of the Gaps' approach because it's so broad, it loses it's meaning. However, there's also a problem it seems to assume that what we can know about universe would have to be exclusively Naturalistic. I guess I'd call that as "Bang of the Gaps", at least until I can use a better term lol

[BaileysBeads]

We're not saying we're certain the universe can be 100% explained like that. Science will never ever be absolute, that's the greatest strength of science as well, that's what allowed us to advance so far in everything, this giant leap in science allows us to communicate like this.

Religion however, hasn't contributed one single thing. Not ever has invoking god contributed to society or answered a single question.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

I agree on everything except the last part, perhaps you can claim it's bias, but I am not biased against finding natural causes for things and I do have an appreciation for it.

However in regards to the last part I believe religions have provided some sort of model to reference to. I'm not claiming the models are all correct, some of them are downright flawed, but the concept of a "common origin" of matter and energy, shaped many of the experimental sciences

[BaileysBeads]

Really? Could you name a few of these scientific contributions? I'm not saying non-believers didn't make excellent progress, because they did, the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, Darwin, Newton, Keppler etc but these findings were all scientific, we can thank their own brilliance for that.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

Well I meant that they sometimes gave a foundational model, for what to test, a universal beginning, massive dispersions of energy, seem to have parallels with religious cosmology. Perhaps we can argue that religion was a crude attempt, but even then that model was what's being tested.

for example Dr. Abdul Salam, who won the Nobel Prize for the Standard Model of Particles, claimed that his model was from the Qur'an. is this a contribution? Maybe not explicitly, but definitely implicitly.

[BaileysBeads]

Oh I definitely agree that religion is humankind's first attempt at philosophy. Back then the validity of a claim was measured by the amount of faith one had in it. And there was real value in believing in something despite lacking evidence or being proven otherwise according to the Bible.

And no, we definitely didn't derive our standard model for particles out of the Quran.

It's not really that hard to draw links to anything written in such a ambiguous and poetic book.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

Yes in some instances it's true; but in others it implored people to take an analytical role when examining the various features of their natural surroundings. Sure we can say that some of these statements were "ambiguous" and "poetic", we forget that many of our greek/latin terms in science also originated the same way.

Abdul Salam who was one of the contributors to the Standard Model says he drew the model on the basis that Qur'an indicates that everything has it's pairs.

[BaileysBeads]

And we attach equal values to the greek/latin ambiguous counterparts.

The main point is. People are finding connections with ancient writings AFTER the scientific discoveries have been made, and not before.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

sure I get what you're saying, it does all seem to be somewhat "ad-hoc"; but just taking the basic constructs of the language and comparing it in descriptive sense, we can eliminate a great deal of ambiguities.

[BaileysBeads]

The problem with this is that you can take a huge amount of 'essences' out of ambiguous material.

If I give someone hallucinating mushrooms I can easily find some connections with quantum physics as well.

[BaileysBeads]

Oh and I've got to say, rarely do I encounter a discussion on Youtube that doesn't collapse into a name-calling contest. It's a pleasure :)

[MuTaziliTajdid]

That's because I'm here to learn as much as I am to express myself. You can't learn by thinking you're "automatically" right. I don't believe I am "automatically" right, or that even Islam is "automatically" right.

So the recourse for me is to try to have as civil a discussion as possible. See what I can learn and what I can clarify. See if my ideas can match scrutiny or if there's a way to reconcile different seemingly contrary ideas.

[BaileysBeads]

And concerning 'nothingness'. What we've found so far is that 'nothing' is a very unstable state to be in, it was bound to collapse into 'something'.

It also tells us that our universe is slowly fading into 'nothing' again. Time-space will spread out so far that there will no longer be any matter.

That's not really a creation I would be proud of as a god.

[MuTaziliTajdid]

well I guess from what I'm grasping the "nothing" you're referring to is in fact a type of "something" which has similar energy-mass balance parameters which propel the universe, but it's moving towards a type of thermodynamic equilibrium, hence the massive dispersion of matter and energy in such a relatively rapid time and then a gradual slowing down but accelerating expansion.

[BaileysBeads]

A nice definition for what I refer to as 'nothing' is:

Nothing is what stones dream off.

And yes, it's that equilibrium that is supposed to be very unstable for it to be stable it would require static instead of dynamic branes or whatever you want to call them (depends on the theory you're examinging).