Skeptic General
Student
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2022
- Messages
- 44
But he won't care because Quran does the same thing. So"Allah can't be rude or wrong".
The Supernatural Part II
- Thread starter heydarian saeed
- Start date
But he won't care because Quran does the same thing. So"Allah can't be rude or wrong".
First of all it is YOU who has tried to "prove" God by coming here and spending over 1000 posts insisting that you have found hundreds of descriptions of science in the Quran! You are the person here who has been claiming a proof by science!!
Secondly, philosophy and what is called "logic in philosophy" are no longer the way that educated societies decide what is likely to be true vs what's most likely untrue about anything in this world (on Earth or anywhere throughout the entire universe) ... the way we do that now is through science ...
... for example, the law courts no longer call philosophers, or indeed any priests or Imam's or any other religious preachers as Expert Witnesses to guide them ... they did once call such people hundreds of years ago in an age of ignorance and superstition, but not any more ...
... against that, they do call scientists wherever they possibly can to provide expert explanation and guidance to the court ... and they do rely on scientific testing of all claimed evidence wherever possible ... the courts use that constantly now in every possible case, e.g. DNA evidence, blood typing, ballistic evidence, evidence from film and recordings ... the entire crime scene is usually tested for hundreds of different types scientific evidence ... that's essential because without that the lawyers can't make a properly convincing case and the jury can't reach the correct decision ... philosophy and so-called "philosophical logic" have no role in any of that any more, because those methods are very VERY unreliable and they cannot sustain genuine logical evidence-based testing in the face of science.
You may wish to claim that you have some sort of philosophical argument for why you should believe that your invisible miraculous God exists, but that is completely useless if it disagrees with what we have truly discovered, tested and confirmed by science … and that is certainly the case here where science completely rules out the existence of any such God (see footnote on that issue)
Footnote – when modern science first began it's slow initial steps from the early 1600's through Galileo & then Newton and then many others up to and past Darwin in the 1850's, no scientists (or “natural philosophers” as many early scientists were first called), were trying to disprove the existence of God/Allah nor trying to prove that the holy books such as the bible and the quran were seriously wrong. But what has happened is that the more that science has discovered, and the more that we can now accurately explain, the more it has become clear that there is zero evidence for God or any truth in the holy books for anything at all. In fact the more it's become blindingly obvious that all such religious beliefs and all such holy miracle claims are nothing more than ignorant fiction from a far distant past of biblical times when everyone was drowning in a sea of superstitious ignorance (where they also had all sorts of other nutty crazy beliefs as well as the crazy religious stuff).
This works just as well:
The origin of existence is the universe, the essence of existence is the universe. No god needed.
Please also note that it is not based on science, but on logic and philosophy.
You do not have any proof of God's existence. You do not even have any evidence of Gods existence ... you do not even have the weakest most minute tiny bit of anything that even might be a sort-of "evidence"!
I've told you this a hundred times already, and it's undeniable - if there really was any genuine evidence of God, then scientists all over the world would be concentrating on that and publishing literally hundreds of thousands of papers every year describing, investigating and testing that evidence ... it would be so important that it would occupy all of science research, it would be virtually the only thing that scientists studied and published ...
... but as you very well know, the truth is that there are NO such papers with any real scientists publishing any "proof" of God or any "evidence" of God anywhere at all ... NONE!
So, far from claiming there is proof for God ... there is most definitely zero evidence of any kind. And over the last 150 years or so, science has studied in vast depth with astonishing accuracy almost everything that anyone could even imagine about everything on Earth and everything in the entire Universe, and still not even the most microscopically small hint of any evidence for any God. That is an undeniable fact, and you actually know that, because I have asked you over 100 times now and you been completely unable to produce even one genuine research appear claiming to show proof that God spoke to Mohamed in the 7th century.
Science has studied more things about this universe than you can even imagine ... you only know about less than 0.000001% of what science has studied in the most astounding depth ... and still there is zero sign of any God. Every single study and every single discovery, has shown that God is not the answer, that God is not there, and that the answer is "proved" to be simply a natural process in chemistry, physics &/or biology ... every one of the the many millions of things that science has studied has always turned out to be explained by those natural processes, with no God in any part of it.
That's what we have discovered through modern science. We did not always know that. In the days of Mohamed, nobody knew any of that science. Everyone believed as you do that a God must have been the answer to all those things. But now science has investigated all those things, and none of them have any God anywhere as any part of them! None! No God in any of what people like you used to believe thousands of years ago.
Last edited:
Heydarian, here is something else ... this is something that atheists very often point out to theists, but I don't know if anyone here has actually mentioned this to you before/here, and it's really obvious - you are living in a Muslim country where control of everything is actually exercised by a religious government according to their beliefs in the Quran ...
... I don't know if you were born there (in Iran) but if you had been born in a different country, such as England, or America or Japan or anywhere, then you almost certainly would not believe in the God of Islam or believe that the stories in the Quran were true ... your beliefs about religion and God are very strongly determined by the prevailing beliefs of the nation in which you were raised and where your family have also been raised and indoctrinated with those same beliefs ...
... the other factor which influences peoples beliefs is of course education, and that is the factor that I have always tried to present to you and make you aware of ... but it's a fact that people who believe in any of the major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc., almost always have those beliefs because the beliefs are the main religion believed in the country where they live ... people simply adopt the beliefs that are being so strongly insisted upon in their particular country/region/part-of-the-world.
You are almost certainly doing exactly that. That is - the only reason why you believe in Islam and the Quran, is because you have been raised in a country amongst people who have always insisted that children must be told that Islam and the Quran have to be obeyed and believed ... if you had been born in Italy than you would probably have become a Catholic Christian ... if you had been born in England then you would have been a Christian or else as we find with todays BBC news that less than half of the people in England now describe themselves as Christian (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408), then you would probably regard yourself as an agnostic or an atheist (and not Islamic or religious at all!).
heydarian saeed
Graduate Poster
Hello, dear philosopher
Your conclusion needs to be completed. The attitude of existential philosophy is that; Existence itself is not dependent on essence. That is, it cannot be independent. The creator wants. The same question is repeated from Hawking: Who created the single because every existence in the universe needs a creator. There is only one existence, which is the origin of existence and its creator, which protects its own essence.
He is the only God. In the one and only God, the sequence or circumvention ends. There is no question here.
I need to say one more thing; Do not be too sensitive for the name of God. Whatever name you want for the origin and creator of the universe. In Islam, it is "God".Hoping to meet the dear philosopher
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. That is absolutely not what Hawking meant. He asked the question rhetorically in order to demonstrate various esoteric problems with the Big Bang theory as then formulated. His solution was not to propose a creator god, but to reformulate the theory so that expansion made more sense.
You really don't understand science.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
This is just the First Cause argument again, the problems with which have been explained to you more than once. Simply restating it as fact, as if those problems and counterarguments did not exist, will get you nowhere.
Once again: there is no point in returning to this thread if all you are going to do is repeat the same worthless arguments which have been rejected - for good reasons, which have been explained to you at length - every previous time you made them.
Skeptic General
Student
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2022
- Messages
- 44
You're going through faith crisis.
No strong muslim would reduce/limit Islam's god Allah to the office of a creator, even for a moment. It's very easy to argue against Allah's descriptions, attributes, attitudes; show contradictions via Quran and it's first and foremost interpreter Hadith.
You're closing that door and telling others to ignore it.
You're here only to convince yourself to stay in faith. And you think the only stronghold left to defend is the office of a creator.
Last edited:
What is essence? Can you prove that it exists?
God in your view does not seem to need a creator. Why should the universe need one?
DetectedMotion
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 199
Who is the narrator in the Quran? And why do you Worship the "Moon God" Lah? Doesn't AL mean God in Arabic? So Who is Lah?
heydarian saeed
Graduate Poster
Hello, dear philosopher steenkh
I am very pleased to have interacted with you at a turning point. "Existence" flows throughout the world. and includes all objects. In fact, we have reached the "single" point in science in philosophy. The universe started from this point. A point that is "nothing"! We are with you so far. And we completely agree. But my discussion in this topic is "Beyond the Universe". Now I have no argument to prove God with you. Just listen to me. Thank you
Science has reached "single"
He does not know beyond that and in fact he has no duty to know. It is enough for science to reach this point. But philosophy also examines the universe. Science has no say here. And if he protests, it is inappropriate. Because it is the scope of philosophy. Philosophy looks at the universe from a general perspective.
And it proves with logic that the universe is not self-contained. That is, it cannot sustain itself independently. This is the attitude of philosophy. Therefore, an independent existence must keep the universe stable. This logical and simple attitude is the proof of "One God" by philosophy. Of course, "Philosophy of And it proves with logic that the universe is not self-contained. That is, it cannot sustain itself independently. This is the attitude of philosophy. Therefore, an independent existence must keep the universe stable. This logical and simple attitude is the proof of "One God" by philosophy. Of course, "Philosophy of Existence originality" and we follow this attitude.
I hope that the answer to many doubts and doubts between "scientists of science" and "unoriginal philosophers of existence" and "Philosophy of Existence originality" has been given in this message.
thank you
I am very pleased to have interacted with you at a turning point. "Existence" flows throughout the world. and includes all objects. In fact, we have reached the "single" point in science in philosophy. The universe started from this point. A point that is "nothing"! We are with you so far. And we completely agree. But my discussion in this topic is "Beyond the Universe". Now I have no argument to prove God with you. Just listen to me. Thank you
Science has reached "single"
He does not know beyond that and in fact he has no duty to know. It is enough for science to reach this point. But philosophy also examines the universe. Science has no say here. And if he protests, it is inappropriate. Because it is the scope of philosophy. Philosophy looks at the universe from a general perspective.
And it proves with logic that the universe is not self-contained. That is, it cannot sustain itself independently. This is the attitude of philosophy. Therefore, an independent existence must keep the universe stable. This logical and simple attitude is the proof of "One God" by philosophy. Of course, "Philosophy of And it proves with logic that the universe is not self-contained. That is, it cannot sustain itself independently. This is the attitude of philosophy. Therefore, an independent existence must keep the universe stable. This logical and simple attitude is the proof of "One God" by philosophy. Of course, "Philosophy of Existence originality" and we follow this attitude.
I hope that the answer to many doubts and doubts between "scientists of science" and "unoriginal philosophers of existence" and "Philosophy of Existence originality" has been given in this message.
thank you
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, it doesn't. It's meaningless garbage filled with profound-seeming statements that convey no actual knowledge or understanding, provide no evidence, or clarify any of the questions you've been asked. I find it terribly insulting that you, a non-scientist, take it upon yourself to pontificate about what science can or cannot study.
heydarian saeed
Graduate Poster
"Ilah" means God. In Arabic, they add a prefix "al" for proper nouns. This is an Arabic grammar. The original name of God is "Elah". Do not object to these things that are Arabic grammar. Every language has its own rules. The original "Ilah" means God.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Please show us this proof.
Either before or after you show us a testable prediction about as-yet undiscovered science, I don’t mind which.
But please do both.
Thanks.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's such an elegant argument, isn't it?
"This thing I call 'philosophy' incontestably says that the universe requires a sustaining influence. I declare that science can have nothing to say about this. Also, I arbitrarily declare that the sustaining influence has to be God."
Amazing how someone can just string together a bunch of bare assertions and think that this is "strong and definite proof" of anything.
You are repeatedly claiming something called a "single"; what on earth do you think that is?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!
If you are claiming that science claims that the universe began from a so-called Big Bang "Singularity", then that is NOT what most Big Bang models now propose.
Do you know why the earliest Big Bang models proposed a singularity? What is your answer, why did cosmologists in the early 1900's originally think there was any singularity?
Over the last 50 years or so most models of the Big Bang have realised that we have to take quantum effects into account, and those effects are likely to become huge and to dominate near the stage of the Big Bang ... those quantum interactions stop any point of singularity ever being reached ... you never get to any singularity in a Big Bang universe.
If you want to claim that the universe began from literally "Nothing" i.e. which means "No Thing at All", that is a different question and a different claim ... and for that claim (which I am not rejecting), you must explain what you mean by "nothing" ... what do you think "nothing" actually is?
And just to be clear – when I ask you those questions and when I tell you any of the above, I am not telling you what I think about any of that, I am not merely telling you ideas that I have produced … I am telling you what current published science says (in fact what most of the published papers and models have been moving towards over the last 50 years or more … ever since we started to develop big bang models following quantum field theory) ...
... and by the way, I already explaind to you all of the above re the Big Bang, and explained much more about that in some detail for you far back in this thread probably 6 months ago or more! ...
... and also - what you are talking about here with your "single" is NOT any mere thoughts from the outdated obsolete subject of mental "philosophy" ... this is most deffinitely science (an area of science where hundreds of thousands of research papers have been published).
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I imagine it's how his translation tool is trying to render "singularity." Honestly this is not the kind of discussion one should be trying to have through a poor machine interpretation.
Which is why it's so painfully funny that he botched his reference to Prof. Hawking, since the quote he maligned is the introduction to one of Hawking's most noteworthy proposals that clearly undermines how Heydarian wants to use it. But it's also a good example of how science progresses and leaves the Qur'an behind, as you note in the portion of your post I omitted. Muslims got all excited when it seemed like their holy book predicted a singularity. But now that our cosmology has evolved, they either have to keep living in the past or admit that they're just tracking modern science with post hoc handwaving. "Philosophy..."
