The supernatural

For the article Supernatural

  • thank you

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I hope my article is reviewed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am waiting for your opinion, dear ones

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Hoping for your success and health

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
heydarian saeed said:
Hello dear friend and tactfully. Glad to talk to you. I quoted Mr. Stephen Hawking as an example: The universe works according to the laws of physics. What is your argument for this? This is how I understand that the universe has a precise constructor. It does not matter what the name of this manufacturer is. Only the universe has a creator. I have read many examples of scientists talking and I have left some examples for you in my posts.
Scientists who, even as you say or claim to be atheists and infidels, when we read their speeches and books, we see that they have said from evidence that the world did not come into being by chance and is constructive. The important thing is that we all certainly agree on having a constructive universe. In my previous post, I said that anyone who does not have this opinion is not logical and has no intellect. This is the truth. Anyone who claims that the universe is not constructive and that it is a coincidence, let me tell you the answer.
In your opinion, you gave the best answer to this question: no one knows how the universe came into being. In fact, the "no one knows" position is the best answer to this important question. The same answer in deductive and inductive reasoning means "it has a maker but no one knows what or who?"
Please let; Let's logically examine and answer this extremely important question.
Thank you very much
Click to expand...

I see we've come to the inane "if there are laws, there must be a law giver!" argument. I doubt this will get through the translation (much less the conceptual) filter, but maybe it's worth a try.

Heydarian Saeed, do you understand that the word "laws" (as in "laws of physics") in the context of science does not refer to laws that are prescriptions given by fiat for the way the universe must work, but only descriptions of the way it observably does generally work?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You've completely ignored the argument and gone right into preaching again. In fact not only have you ignored the argument you've simply refused to accept that it is true and carried on regardless.

Stephen Hawking stated that the universe runs according to physical laws, yes. He also said that there was no design, there was no god, and there was no direction to the universe outside of those physical laws. He thought it was effectively chance.
Click to expand...

No, my dear friend, I am not an advertiser. Be reasonable. We talk together. Isn't that so?
But; Yes, the universe has no plan. This is absolutely true, and this is the view of Islam. And it came into being instantly and without any plan. So far we agree. It is true?
 
heydarian saeed said:
In your opinion, you gave the best answer to this question: no one knows how the universe came into being. In fact, the "no one knows" position is the best answer to this important question. The same answer in deductive and inductive reasoning means "it has a maker but no one knows what or who?"
Click to expand...

There is no form of "reasoning" involved in the above: it is a claim on religious grounds alone. Both typify pretty much everything you have posted thus far.
 
heydarian saeed said:
No, my dear friend, I am not an advertiser. Be reasonable. We talk together. Isn't that so?
But; Yes, the universe has no plan. This is absolutely true, and this is the view of Islam. And it came into being instantly and without any plan. So far we agree. It is true?
Click to expand...

No. The universe in it's present form came into being all but instantly when the singularity expanded. Since space-time only started with the Big Bang event there was no way of measuring the existence of the singularity, but in laymans terms it always existed.
 
heydarian saeed said:
Hello dear friend and tactfully. Glad to talk to you. I quoted Mr. Stephen Hawking as an example: The universe works according to the laws of physics. What is your argument for this? This is how I understand that the universe has a precise constructor. It does not matter what the name of this manufacturer is. Only the universe has a creator. I have read many examples of scientists talking and I have left some examples for you in my posts.
Scientists who, even as you say or claim to be atheists and infidels, when we read their speeches and books, we see that they have said from evidence that the world did not come into being by chance and is constructive. The important thing is that we all certainly agree on having a constructive universe. In my previous post, I said that anyone who does not have this opinion is not logical and has no intellect. This is the truth. Anyone who claims that the universe is not constructive and that it is a coincidence, let me tell you the answer.
In your opinion, you gave the best answer to this question: no one knows how the universe came into being. In fact, the "no one knows" position is the best answer to this important question. The same answer in deductive and inductive reasoning means "it has a maker but no one knows what or who?"
Please let; Let's logically examine and answer this extremely important question.
Thank you very much
Click to expand...

You're still pretending that 'God did it' is an adequate answer to the fundamental questions we are discussing, but it manifestly isn't. As has already been pointed out to you, postulating a God to explain the existence of the universe simply replaces the question "why does the universe exist?" with the question "why does God exist?". Not only are you no further forward you've actually made things worse by making up another entity which, unlike the universe, cannot even be observed and studied.

This is why trying to understand and explain the universe without resorting to the supernatural is a better approach to these questions, and the one chosen by most philosophers and scientists. It may be that many people simply do not have the intellectual capacity to grasp some of the concepts that emerge from this approach, and you may well be one of them. But that does not mean you can dismiss them out of hand, and insist that your simplistic and inadequate 'God did it' explanation for everything is the superior one, let alone the right one.
 
turingtest said:
I see we've come to the inane "if there are laws, there must be a law giver!" argument. I doubt this will get through the translation (much less the conceptual) filter, but maybe it's worth a try.

Heydarian Saeed, do you understand that the word "laws" (as in "laws of physics") in the context of science does not refer to laws that are prescriptions given by fiat for the way the universe must work, but only descriptions of the way it observably does generally work?
Click to expand...

Hello dear friend and tactfully. The whole universe works with scientific law in every field. And there are no exceptions in the material world and nature. But parallel worlds with this universe have different rules. We do not know what it looks like. And by the laws of the material world, it can not be understood at all. The answer to this ambiguity is: we do not know. Or we have to search in a way other than the material world.
sincerely
 
Nonsense. Why on earth would we have to search using methods that don't work?
 
heydarian saeed said:
No, my dear friend, I am not an advertiser. Be reasonable. We talk together. Isn't that so?
But; Yes, the universe has no plan. This is absolutely true, and this is the view of Islam. And it came into being instantly and without any plan. So far we agree. It is true?
Click to expand...

No. Also the Quran's approach to science and scientific enquiry is just as (in)valid as the approach of any other sacred text to science --- the Vedas and Puranas among the Hindus, the Torah and Tobit of the Jews, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Zend Avesta of the Zoroastrians, The Bible of the Christians...I could go on.

Fundamentalist adherents to these respective religions will shoe-horn modern scientific discoveries as already having been mentioned in their respective texts. Currently in India, there is a whole group of people claiming that the Vedas contain the secrets of everything: Quantum mechanics, aviation, space flight, evolution, organ transplant, genetic manipulation, in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, modern cosmology, nuclear energy, atomic weapons...everything...even modern literary theories like post modernism and post structuralism

As texts go, the Quran and the Bible, falls far short in this when compared to Hinduism, Judaism and Zoroastrianism.
 
Last edited:
heydarian saeed said:
...We live in the universe in the world of nature and matter. And everything is in matter and nature. But there are other worlds in parallel with this world. The supernatural world is one of them.
Click to expand...
We cannot assume that. Even if we postulate that every possible parallel world might exist, we cannot assume that any supernatural world is possible.

... I have a question for you dear friend; Can other worlds that are not of matter and nature be proved by material evidence? How can we prove immaterial things by matter? I do not know the answer to this question. And I think that question is irrational. Because immaterial things cannot be proved by matter.

Immaterial things can be proved by the logical methods of logic and philosophy. I think this answer seems more logical. Isn't that so dear friend?
Click to expand...

Anything which can have an effect on the material world can potentially be detected by measuring its effect on material things. Anything which cannot interact with the material world will never have any influence on our universe and may as well not exist.

But you began by saying you could prove the existence of the supernatural. I don't mind how you construct your proof but it will need to be logical to be persuasive.
 
Pixel42 said:
You're still pretending that 'God did it' is an adequate answer to the fundamental questions we are discussing, but it manifestly isn't. As has already been pointed out to you, postulating a God to explain the existence of the universe simply replaces the question "why does the universe exist?" with the question "why does God exist?". Not only are you no further forward you've actually made things worse by making up another entity which, unlike the universe, cannot even be observed and studied.

This is why trying to understand and explain the universe without resorting to the supernatural is a better approach to these questions, and the one chosen by most philosophers and scientists. It may be that many people simply do not have the intellectual capacity to grasp some of the concepts that emerge from this approach, and you may well be one of them. But that does not mean you can dismiss them out of hand, and insist that your simplistic and inadequate 'God did it' explanation for everything is the superior one, let alone the right one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your feedback. No, it is not. I did not turn to the supernatural to prove the constructive existence of the universe. And the way to prove the constructive existence of the universe through the supernatural and to believe in it is not recommended at all to answer these important questions. And it does not make sense. This is the way for masters and professionals who can reach God from the supernatural. And not everyone's job. And it is not recommended. I did not choose this way either.
I just submitted an article to prove the supernatural that your institution's challenge has been friends, and I will end with a few more short posts. My way to prove the existence of the universe constructively is through these experimental sciences and the laws of matter. And I accept all the rules of the article. My recommendation to all my friends is that the best way to prove that the universe is constructive is the way of experimental science and matter. And the answer is easy.
Look at nature, how beautiful and perfect it is. Look at the heavens, how majestic, precise and beautiful. Look at the motion of all objects in the universe, how it moves in a specific direction and in a special orbit. Look at the trees - at the animals - at the earth - at the stars - at the sun and the moon and .... Did these come into being on their own? Or has a maker made these with strict scientific rules?
Does anyone know the answer to these questions? ... !!
 
heydarian saeed said:
Thanks for your feedback. No, it is not. I did not turn to the supernatural to prove the constructive existence of the universe. And the way to prove the constructive existence of the universe through the supernatural and to believe in it is not recommended at all to answer these important questions. And it does not make sense. This is the way for masters and professionals who can reach God from the supernatural. And not everyone's job. And it is not recommended. I did not choose this way either.
I just submitted an article to prove the supernatural that your institution's challenge has been friends, and I will end with a few more short posts. My way to prove the existence of the universe constructively is through these experimental sciences and the laws of matter. And I accept all the rules of the article. My recommendation to all my friends is that the best way to prove that the universe is constructive is the way of experimental science and matter. And the answer is easy.
Look at nature, how beautiful and perfect it is. Look at the heavens, how majestic, precise and beautiful. Look at the motion of all objects in the universe, how it moves in a specific direction and in a special orbit. Look at the trees - at the animals - at the earth - at the stars - at the sun and the moon and .... Did these come into being on their own? Or has a maker made these with strict scientific rules?
Does anyone know the answer to these questions? ... !!
Click to expand...

They came into being on their own. No maker required.
 
heydarian saeed said:
Hi. What do you mean I do not know? Tell me what I know. Thanks
Click to expand...

What? Are you even asking queries relating to the posts you quote or just throwing out whatever challenge comes to your mind first? Or are you using an English to Arabic translator and then interpreting the flawed mish-mash that is generated?

As to your totally unrelated question, I don't know what you don't know...do you?
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Nonsense. Why on earth would we have to search using methods that don't work?
Click to expand...
It works but it is not recommended. There is no way to prove the supernatural of matter. The way is logic, philosophy and mysticism. I myself do not want to examine these. And to prove the constructive existence of the universe, I choose the path of the experimental sciences and nature and matter and the laws of the material world. You have the right to choose for yourself. I wrote an article at your institute to prove the supernatural. But I myself do not want to discuss this. Because it has been proven to me through logic, philosophy and mysticism, and I believe in it.
 
Susheel said:
What? Are you even asking queries relating to the posts you quote or just throwing out whatever challenge comes to your mind first? Or are you using an English to Arabic translator and then interpreting the flawed mish-mash that is generated?

As to your totally unrelated question, I don't know what you don't know...do you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Don't worry dear friend.
 
Mysticism does not work. It is utterly worthless.

Logic and scientific examination are not only the best but realistically the only way to produce verifiable evidence for things. Philosophy is great when discussing the subjective but it doesn't work for objective questions.

Everything objective we as a species have ever discovered was through science, mathematics and logic. None of those offer any credence to the idea of the supernatural.

God isn't real. Souls aren't real. Spirits aren't real. The Quran is a book of fiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom