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.
So, now several of us have linked to those supposed "logical" proofs of god's existence, showing how they fail at even the first hurdle of being logic, let alone all the other glaring failures and the history of many philosophers taking them apart and repeatedly highlighted the lack of actual evidence to support them, does our OP have anything to add? Or are we going to skip off to another complete misunderstanding of some science, e.g. the bit about genetics and Darwin?

Or will we be threatened with some god or other again?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I love people who act like the body guard for an all powerful being.

If we aren't scared of your God, we aren't scared of you.
Click to expand...

In this particular example, I would agree. Gods are not real and can do nothing1. Their cheerleaders, however, are very real, and can do (and have repeatedly done) very real harm to apostates/unbelievers/blasphemers/heretics... however they choose to label those who don't share their beliefs.

These extremists are very capable of terrifying me.




1 in my opinion, obviously. Oh, and reality :).
 
junkshop said:
In this particular example, I would agree. Gods are not real and can do nothing1. Their cheerleaders, however, are very real, and can do (and have repeatedly done) very real harm to apostates/unbelievers/blasphemers/heretics... however they choose to label those who don't share their beliefs.

These extremists are very capable of terrifying me.




1 in my opinion, obviously. Oh, and reality :).
Click to expand...



I agree. And I think it's obvious (unarguable) that religious belief is dangerous. What we have seen from Islamic fundamentalism with groups like IS and Al-Q (and now scores of other such jihadist groups), it's actually lethally dangerous on a worldwide scale with literality hundreds of thousands of deaths/murders now.

I think heydarian told us earlier that he is an older family man with children. I don't have any particular reason to think that heyadrian himself is likely to become a lethal jihadist, but if he is teaching these beliefs to his children (as he surely is), then when they reach teenage years they are quite likely to be influenced towards a jihadist view by all sorts of internet & other propaganda ...

... they may, or may not, actually get involved in jihadist plots etc., but in case people in the US or other places do not realise it, living in the UK as I do (in London), I can tell you/anyone that there have been thousands of cases here where young UK Muslims have got themselves involved with things like actually travelling to Syria to join IS, where they have of course been killing as many opponents as possible ... and with the UK being only a short distance from France (it's only a 30 min crossing by car via the Channel Tunnel), we are also close to the news in France where they have had the same situation of thousands Muslims either leaving to join IS or, as again in the UK, carying out all sorts of appalling bomb attacks; eg the Charlie Hebdo murders, the mass murder at the Bataclan centre, and many other such jihadist attacks ... and similarly in the UK where we had the appalling London Tube bombing, the bombing at the Manchester pop concert, and literally dozens of other lethal attacks ...

... so I'm just saying that here in the UK, and in France, many people are only too well aware of how appalling the results of religious fanaticism actually are (it's not just theoretical ... it's actual real life; and unfortunately it's also actual real & appalling callous indiscriminate death being dished out on a huge scale).

Heydarian may not be an actual danger to others. But the more that people with his beliefs indoctrinate their children, the more we will see naive impressionable young Muslims getting drawn into supporting groups like IS, with the inevitable lethal results.

Personally I would not mind what people like heydarian believe or say and I would not bother arguing about it with him/anyone, providing it was not a danger to other people. But unfortunately it is a danger. A verry VERY serious danger indeed.
 
Last edited:
"When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave".

Jacob Bronowski, standing beside the pool at Auschwitz.
 
Chanakya said:
I'd suggest this link for a thorough discussion, in terms clear enough that a translation software wouldn't garble it beyond comprehension.


-------



heydarian, if you'd be willing to leave aside what you've started focusing on here of late, which would be telling us we'll be destroyed unless we believe in and genuflect to your God, as well as making outlandish claims about 6000 year old men and the impending destruction of large parts of the world and your own privileged knowledge about such; and instead focus on those four "reasons" that you keep talking about (and that people here keep telling you --- quite rightly --- that they've already refuted by pointing out that they're simply special pleading): perhaps you could check out this link: https://homeweb.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html


Those "reasons" of yours, which no doubt you've read somewhere, aren't some new revelation. They had been famously articulated by Thomas Aquinas something like a thousand years ago. And they've already been debunked many years before any of us were born, and debunked very thoroughly and beyond the slightest possibility of lingering doubt about their validity.

I understand your difficulty with the translation software. I've personally checked out the term "special pleading" by having it translated into Persian, and then back into English, and I can see how you might be confused by people apparently telling you that it is a "special request". (If you're interested, then here's the link to the Wiki on the logical fallacy that is being referred to by the term "special pleading": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading.)

Anyway, you can check out that link I supplied here (here it is one more time, just to make sure there's no confusion about what I'm referring to here: https://homeweb.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html). The discussion linked to is thorough enough and made in clear enough terms that I think you'll realize how those "reasons" of yours are fallacious, wrong.
Click to expand...

Hello.
First I need to give a reminder. God is not just my God. Rather, he is the God of all. God of everything that exists.
I have already read what you have introduced. Thanking you. I did not know that you want to know my review about it. Well, please read the text below.
I have read 5 ways of proving God by Aquinas. All 5 of his ways are based on Aristotelian reasoning. In this regard, I will tell you the following points:...
 
... Argument has its roots in Aristotle. And with the interruption of several centuries, it has been transferred to the Western world through Islamic scholars, especially Ibn Sina. And Aquinas has adapted from Islamic scholars, especially Ibn Sina. The argument of the truthful has been invented by Ibn Sina in order to achieve the result in the shortest time and with less intermediaries.
Although there are common points between these two arguments, the argument of the truthful is simpler and more complete. The shortest and most accurate definition of this argument is that; There is no doubt that there is a creature. And every being is either obligatory or possible. If it is necessary, it is Obligatory and the result is achieved. If possible, the series of possibilities ends with the necessity of existence. pay attention; The cause of the chain of possibilities cannot be itself because it is possible.
And it must have an obligatory cause. Nothing can be the cause itself. None of the possibilities can be the cause of existence or the set of possibilities. Because it is possible. Any cause that is outside the range of possibilities of the world is in itself obligatory. In the argument of the truthful, there is a possible existence from the obligatory. That is, the obligatory self shows the possible....
 
... A verse from the Qur'an by God shows the argument of the righteous. Verse 53 of Sura 41 which shows the best meaning. Translation:
FoOladvand:
"We will soon show them Our signs in the horizons and in their hearts. To make it clear to them that he is right. Is it not enough that your Lord is Witness over all things?"
Pickthall" :We shall show them Our portents on the horizons and within themselves until it will be manifest unto them that it is the Truth. Doth not thy Lord suffice, since He is Witness over all things?"
The difference between the truthful argument and Aquinas is that he tried to prove God on the basis of sensory and empirical observation. While the argument of the truthful is based on pure rational principles and logic. Therefore, it has minor and much less problems. For us, time is not something independent of body and matter. It is the amount of motion of objects. Aquinas, on the other hand, is an independent container for time, and objects are created in the text of time.
Aquinas theory because it is a moderation. And it is based on social reality and it is theological. Therefore, it is less exposed to destruction and protest. And eventually led to modernity. John Locke has followed him and progressed astonishingly in the Western world. Because Aquinas' theory is based on theological principles, it is controversial to rational philosophers. ...
 
... Thinkers like Hume, Kant, Russell, Stuart Mill, and Plantinga also see it as flawed. And object to it. But it works theologically and Christianly. And it convinces the public. And they attack it less. Aquinas and his opponents of the philosophy pay less attention to rational principles. And they consider the nature and form of beings as the principle.
While the nature of objects can not be without its existence. That is, the existence of the body is the principle. And then the nature of the body comes into play.
Therefore, we object to the theory of Aquinas and his opponents, such as Hume, Kant, and so on. And both classes have problems.
We see the principle in the existence of objects. And we consider God the Creator of the world. And we consider God to be the agent of the perfect world. Not in detail. Therefore, we also see the causality and creation of things too other than God. But the perfect cause and the perfect creator is only God.
This was a summary of my review and critique of the theory and philosophy of Aquinas and her opponents.
Thank you all, dear associations.
 
I’m really struggling with this. Does this truthful argument boil down to “we exist therefore god has to exist”?
 
malbui said:
I’m really struggling with this. Does this truthful argument boil down to “we exist therefore god has to exist”?
Click to expand...

Hi. Yes, dear friend. God really exists. And witnesses all things in the universe. Read the above posts carefully. Thank you very much for your kindness.
 
heydarian saeed said:
You have left a beautiful post. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
You realise that he was talking about people who claim to know things that cannot be known, because they cannot be tested? People like you?

Virtually all the things you insist you know to be true fall into that category and many terrible things have been done by people who arrogantly believed the same, and felt justified in acting on those beliefs.
 
heydarian saeed said:
Hi. Yes, dear friend. God really exists. And witnesses all things in the universe. Read the above posts carefully. Thank you very much for your kindness.
Click to expand...


It's completely worthless for you to just keep claiming that God exists because your holy books claim that he exists. Anyone else can just as easily say that he does not exist. That is a totally worthless discussion or claim ... which is only made credible and "worth" anything when you provide real testable measurable evidence ... and so far you have been unable to produce any evidence at all!

It's not evidence at all for you to keep telling us that verses in your holly book say things like 'the mountains reach the sky and God makes it so", and then tell us that a silly sentence like that actually describes quantum theory and evolution. Really, that is simply outright dishonest of you - none of your Koranic sentences say a single word about any modern science.

You need to provide actual evidence. Such as a passage of the koran which clearly says something like "in the future year of 1920 men named Heisenberg and Bohr will explain something they will call "Quantum Theory", and that will explain how all matter is composed of invisibly small "particles" that give us the precise properties of all materials" ... you need to produce at least one sentence like that from the koran .... but of course you have failed to do that - you cannot find even one genuine sentence like that explaining anything at all about modern science.

But in complete contrast to that, if any of us here (or any educated, rational & honest people) tell you that your God does not exist, then we can provide absolutely mountains of evidence to support that conclusion ... IOW, you have absolutely no evidence at all for your belief, not even the most microscopically small spec., whereas those who say you are wrong, have absolutely mountains of evidence ... in fact, all of science, everything ever discovered and properly explained by modern science, is completely incompatible with the existence any such supernatural miracle-working God …. and frankly it is just outright dishonest of you and other religious believers (assuming they are literate & educated at all) to deny that when you are faced with that mountain of unarguable evidence against you.
 
malbui said:
I’m really struggling with this. Does this truthful argument boil down to “we exist therefore god has to exist”?
Click to expand...

Yup, that's pretty much what Aquinas said and what Heydarian has just repeated.

We're still at repetitions of "goddidit because goddidit because goddidit and I say that is absolutely logical!"
 
heydarian saeed said:
... A verse from the Qur'an by God
..
Click to expand...

You claim the Quran is from God. I stake the fate of my immortal soul on it that you are entirely and utterly wrong. If I am wrong I will burn in eternal hellfire.

So lets make it a certainty that I will be damned by your horrible God.

I curse Muhammad and spit on the Quran.

I have told you the true meaning of the Quran, and it is summarized by the much repeated verses that say, obey Allah and the messenger (Muhammad)
In other words obey Muhammad.

The whole rotten evil Quran was made up by Muhammad and the horrible verses about tortures in hell were designed to scare dumb Arabs into fighting his battles for him. He says fighting is prescribed for Muslims whether they like it or not. He even promises them a rich reward in heaven if they die in battle fighting for him. Then he demands one fifth of the spoils of war, and you don't smell a rat.
 
Heydarian stop being rude and simply repeating yourself. People have explained to you why your reasoning is faulty. Deal with the criticisms and stop preaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom