The Supernatural Part II

[JayUtah]

I think I addressed the only bit that wasn’t word salad.

Even when you take pains to unwind the egregious errors committed by whatever translation tool he's using, it's still just a lot of pseudo-intellectual handwaving. My guess is that everything he's been taught about science and philosophy comes from the same people who are feeding him a load of malarkey about the Qur'an.

 

[DetectedMotion]

Every language has its own rules. The original "Ilah" means God.

Is it true that if you decided the Quran is a stupid religion by the time of your death, then you will be made blind after your death?

In the Quran chapter 20, verse 124 it says(as translated by Yusif Ali):

124; "But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."

125:He will say: "O my Lord! why hast Thou raised me up blind, while I had sight (before)?"
126: (Allah) will say: "Thus didst Thou, when Our Signs came unto thee, disregard them: so wilt thou, this day, be disregarded."

Is it true that when you go into the grave, two Angels will appear in the grave and ask you 3 questions and if you don't answer these questions correctly, they will hit you with steel hammers?

 

[Mashuna]

Is it true that when you go into the grave, two Angels will appear in the grave and ask you 3 questions and if you don't answer these questions correctly, they will hit you with steel hammers?

And is it true that these angels must take the first answers you give, and if you try to continue they will command you to desist, and inform you that the smiting will commence immediately?

Or am I confusing this with something else?

 

[Skeptic General]

Here's the deal with the muslims of this sort.

It just bothers them that in the universe there are others that don't believe "the only and ultimate reality of Allah". Since they can't remove these infidels from existence (or subjugate them) they take upon themselves to "destroy" infidels by way of argument. In that they choose the field that they feel the safest. That is the existence of a creator who himself by "necessity" was not created. They refrain from using the brand name Allah. (They claim that this is for the sake of argument). They know that using the name Allah will get them out of their safest field.

Allah is strictly "known" by his attributes. Every page of Quran is filled with these "human" attributes. (Just, knowing, wise, punisher, rewarder, lover, hater, merciful, revengeful etc).

I feel that the most effective way to dispel these dishonest preachers is to show the inconstancies in Allah's attributes. There are many verses in the Quran that don't agree with a just god description, and more so in the hadith, (Mohammad's contribution) which is the main and essential interpreter of Quran. People like the OP will completely deny the validity of hadith and all classical interpretations of Quran (since they also depend on Hadith). So they can interpret the Quran anyway they want. (This way they're "undefeatable"). Their claim includes and implies all the muslims through the history went wrong about their Canon. (This situation also nulls many of Allah's so-called attributes, such as "communicator").

The biggest problem in their approach is this. Whenever they talk about Mohammad's life or anything about Islam that there's no information about in the Quran, they're drawing from the same sources that they reject in understanding Islam.

These people are utterly dishonest. They'll not let anyone express this flaw in the platforms they lie to their followers. You'll immediately get blocked and your comments will be deleted.

Yet they come here and try their claims freely.

 

[steenkh]

"Existence" flows throughout the world. and includes all objects.

That is no definition, it is merely a claim.

In fact, we have reached the "single" point in science in philosophy. The universe started from this point. A point that is "nothing"!

I don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t shown how you arrive at this in philosophy. And science is not claiming that everything comes from nothing. Currently the best guess is that everything has started with a singularity, and as others have pointed out, a singularity does not mean “single”, and it certainly isn’t “nothing”.

We are with you so far. And we completely agree.

No we don’t.

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

No.

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.

Hardly. Philosophy may come up with ideas about the universe, but science is concerned with what really is. Are you aware of how many concepts of the universe that philosophers have come up with in recorded history? Science has shown most of them to be wrong, and I dare say that not a single one was entirely correct.

What makes you think that your philosophy is doing any better?

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.

Such nonsense.

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.

You claim so, but you have not shown us the logic. You also think that your god is self-contained and can sustain himself independently. Where is the logic in that?

Therefore, an independent existence must keep the universe stable. This logical and simple attitude is the proof of "One God" by philosophy.

So that philosophy has failed, because it is not logical, and there is no proof. Try again.

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.

Nope, you failed.

You failed because you completely ignore everything that we write. This is possibly because your English is not good enough, but I think that it is because you are only interested in preaching, not in learning.

If you want to make better arguments, you will need to understand the difference between claiming something, and proving something. You make lots of claims, but you never prove anything.

Thank you.

 

[steenkh]

Doesn't AL mean God in Arabic?

“Al” means “the” in English. “lah” means “god”. “Allah” is exactly the same as when Christians talk of “God” rather than “god”.

I find it curious that two of the Abrahamic religions refuse to give their god a proper name.

 

[welshdean]

Has Doc changed his religion? Same unsupported assertions, followed by ignoring any and all questions and/or requests for clarification. All topped off with a rabid desire to proselytise.

Rinse and repeat.

Does this forum really need another TTWND.

 

[IanS]

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.

Philosophy cannot "examine" the universe. All that philosophers have ever done, and all that they can do, is to talk about what seems to them in their thoughts to be possible explanations for things in this world/universe. They cannot actually "examine" anything! Philosophy has never actually discovered or explained anything about the Earth, about people and evolution, or anything about space, the stars, galaxies, or the Big Bang ... all of that has come purely and entirely from modern-day science ...

... almost all of our real knowledge has come from scientific study, calculation, observations, experiments and thoughtful analysis ... followed by testing in every way possible to check our conclusions. That's all science. Philosophy has added not a single thing to any of that.

Philosophy cannot "prove" anything about the universe. And it never has proved anything about it. Everything we know about the entirety of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, all of space , the Big Bang, the structure of energy & matter with particle-fields, all of living evolution on earth ... almost everything imaginable, literally billions of explanations, that has all come through science, and none of it through mere "philosophy" (and not of course through any mere religious faith either).

The only reason that any philosophers or any Islamic theists know anything about a Big Bang, or about anything in the universe, is because science has explained all of that ... otherwise you would be entirely ignorant of all of it, just as Mohamed was when the Quran was written.

Philosophy has long ago been supeseded by science. Philosophy has no role any more in determining, discovering or explaining the actual world of reality around us.

 

[IanS]

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.

Where did you get a complete nonsense idea like the above from? It's something you have believed from and copied & pasted from your I'jaz literature isn't it! Well it's ignorant uneducated nonsense ...

... you said that "this universe cannot sustain itself", but what happened in the Big Bang was that the energy released from that process has been doing exactly that ie sustaining the universe for 13.8 billion years now!

If you then ask what caused the Big Bang, then you are simply again repeating the ignorant religious claim of God-in-the-Gaps ... ie just taking any gap in our current scientific knowledge, however tiny that gap, and claiming that must be where God is hiding!

Theists like you have been doing that for centuries now, where science has now filled every single gap that anyone in the past could have possibly imagined, except perhaps for what exactly happened in the first 100th of a second at the Big Bang, and you are now left trying to claim that God must be somewhere in that last vanishingly small 100th of a second!

... you are trying to claim a Miracle in that last 100th of a second! But when science closes that gap to 1000th of a second, you will then be left chaning tour claim and saying that God must therefore be making a miracle in that last 1000th of a second!

 

[Skeptic General]

Philosophy cannot "examine" the universe. All that philosophers have ever done, and all that they can do, is to talk about what seems to them in their thoughts to be possible explanations for things in this world/universe. They cannot actually "examine" anything! Philosophy has never actually discovered or explained anything about the Earth, about people and evolution, or anything about space, the stars, galaxies, or the Big Bang ... all of that has come purely and entirely from modern-day science ...

... almost all of our real knowledge has come from scientific study, calculation, observations, experiments and thoughtful analysis ... followed by testing in every way possible to check our conclusions. That's all science. Philosophy has added not a single thing to any of that.

Philosophy cannot "prove" anything about the universe. And it never has proved anything about it. Everything we know about the entirety of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, all of space , the Big Bang, the structure of energy & matter with particle-fields, all of living evolution on earth ... almost everything imaginable, literally billions of explanations, that has all come through science, and none of it through mere "philosophy" (and not of course through any mere religious faith either).

The only reason that any philosophers or any Islamic theists know anything about a Big Bang, or about anything in the universe, is because science has explained all of that ... otherwise you would be entirely ignorant of all of it, just as Mohamed was when the Quran was written.

Philosophy has long ago been supeseded by science. Philosophy has no role any more in determining, discovering or explaining the actual world of reality around us.

Not to disagree with you, just curious. Have you read Experience and Nature (John Dewey).

 

[heydarian saeed]

Is it true that if you decided the Quran is a stupid religion by the time of your death, then you will be made blind after your death?

In the Quran chapter 20, verse 124 it says(as translated by Yusif Ali):

124; "But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."

125:He will say: "O my Lord! why hast Thou raised me up blind, while I had sight (before)?"
126: (Allah) will say: "Thus didst Thou, when Our Signs came unto thee, disregard them: so wilt thou, this day, be disregarded."

Is it true that when you go into the grave, two Angels will appear in the grave and ask you 3 questions and if you don't answer these questions correctly, they will hit you with steel hammers?

Hello
God sent prophets from among themselves for the happiness of people. People who did not pay attention to the guidance of the prophets. They are not taken care of in the parallel world of the hereafter. God has used parables. And he said that they will be blind.
This is the true meaning of the verses.
But where in the Quran have you read that two angels ask questions and if you answer wrongly they will hit you with a steel hammer?!!! Please say the verse and chapter so that we can check.
we are waiting

 

[Skeptic General]

Hello
God sent prophets from among themselves for the happiness of people. People who did not pay attention to the guidance of the prophets. They are not taken care of in the parallel world of the hereafter. God has used parables. And he said that they will be blind.
This is the true meaning of the verses.
But where in the Quran have you read that two angels ask questions and if you answer wrongly they will hit you with a steel hammer?!!! Please say the verse and chapter so that we can check.
we are waiting

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.

Can't you read what I told you ? Are you afraid of your reality ?

And also,
We can add many messages of islam to our discussion whether they're in the Quran or not. No Quranist won a debate against muslims who accept the hadith as the main interpreter of Quran. Go win that debate first before you spew your lies to us.

 

[heydarian saeed]

That is no definition, it is merely a claim.


I don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t shown how you arrive at this in philosophy. And science is not claiming that everything comes from nothing. Currently the best guess is that everything has started with a singularity, and as others have pointed out, a singularity does not mean “single”, and it certainly isn’t “nothing”.


No we don’t.


No.


Hardly. Philosophy may come up with ideas about the universe, but science is concerned with what really is. Are you aware of how many concepts of the universe that philosophers have come up with in recorded history? Science has shown most of them to be wrong, and I dare say that not a single one was entirely correct.

What makes you think that your philosophy is doing any better?


Such nonsense.


You claim so, but you have not shown us the logic. You also think that your god is self-contained and can sustain himself independently. Where is the logic in that?


So that philosophy has failed, because it is not logical, and there is no proof. Try again.


Nope, you failed.

You failed because you completely ignore everything that we write. This is possibly because your English is not good enough, but I think that it is because you are only interested in preaching, not in learning.

If you want to make better arguments, you will need to understand the difference between claiming something, and proving something. You make lots of claims, but you never prove anything.

Thank you.

Hello
First ; You say your philosophical school so that we can discuss according to your philosophical school.
Second; Philosophical terms and inferences are often abstract. This is the procedure and attitude of philosophy. And it makes sense. Like in science, inferences are based on objective observation and experiments.
Third ; Please define "singularity" for me. to reach an understanding.
Fourth; Our existential philosophy is associated with modern science. I have told many examples of modern science in this thread. Have you not read?!
fifth; "Existence" is nothing if it is not. The universe is made of matter and energy. These are not independent. must have arisen The creator of these is independent and self-sufficient. We call it "God". You name it whatever you want.
This is the simplest definition and philosophy of God. I hope you understand.
Thank you

 

[Chanakya]

The complete lack of intellectual integrity on display here simply boggles the mind. As does the lack of basic education, the lack of any understanding of right and wrong, logic and illogic, knowledge and ignorance --- and, what is so much worse, the complete absence of the slightest desire to arrive at greater clarity and understanding.

If this is the norm, then I wouldn't be surprised if evolution changes direction, and if fashion designers started designing pants with subtle compartments to fit tails in.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Can't you read what I told you ? Are you afraid of your reality ?

And also,
We can add many messages of islam to our discussion whether they're in the Quran or not. No Quranist won a debate against muslims who accept the hadith as the main interpreter of Quran. Go win that debate first before you spew your lies to us.

Hello
Please, the verse and surah that you said, two angels will enter your grave with a steel hammer!!! Tell us to check.
Also, your ugly logic shows that you need a lot of rest.
don't go fast go slow We are in no rush. We are ready to give you a logical answer. If you have logic!!!

 

[heydarian saeed]

The complete lack of intellectual integrity on display here simply boggles the mind. As does the lack of basic education, the lack of any understanding of right and wrong, logic and illogic, knowledge and ignorance --- and, what is so much worse, the complete absence of the slightest desire to arrive at greater clarity and understanding.

If this is the norm, then I wouldn't be surprised if evolution changes direction, and if fashion designers started designing pants with subtle compartments to fit tails in.

Hello dear professor
I am very pleased to meet you in this thread sometimes.
The main problem of the members in this thread is that; They do not declare their attitude of thinking, philosophical school and logic. And because of these abnormalities occur.
I announced from the beginning; I am a Muslim and my school of philosophy is the authenticity of existence. And I am completely free and independent in declaring my opinions. I am not affiliated with any organization or group or person. completely free But unfortunately, the respected associations do not announce it. What are they afraid of??!!

 

[Skeptic General]

Hello
Please, the verse and surah that you said, two angels will enter your grave with a steel hammer!!! Tell us to check.
Also, your ugly logic shows that you need a lot of rest.
don't go fast go slow We are in no rush. We are ready to give you a logical answer. If you have logic!!!

If you go to the hadith sources you'll find many such stupid things. In fact Quran itself talks about molten lead drinks and other material tortures in "afterlife". Majority of Muslim scholars agree on torture in the grave too. But I don't care about your stupid religion's internal disagreements. I'm not gonna go on a pissing contest about what your so-called god said or didn't say. That's your problem. A have a ton of stupid verses and hadith that I can throw at your lap. But I don't need to. All I ask you is why have you been trying to keep Allah and Islam out of this debate you started ? Why do you limit your argument to a "creator" ? And I told others why you do that. Allah doesn't talk about himself only as a creator, he always follows his announcements with his attributes, something you're afraid of doing. I know you also have this other can of worms that you don't wanna open here. You're a Shia muslim. You don't wanna explain to people here how large populations of muslims can believe the same book so differently. I'll tell them why, because Allah was a bad communicator. (People in the early history of islam killed each other in large numbers over "Allah's hand and face").
Everybody here only see one "ugly" logic, and that is yours (if it can even be called logic).

 

[Skeptic General]

Quran talks about many events in Mohammad's personal life. But only bits and pieces of them. None of these events could be understood without another historical source outside of Quran. And these sources are called Hadith. They're many volumes of collections that supposedly trace back to his immediate followers. Whether this guy likes them or not he's forced to draw infirmation from them. If he says that Mohammad's mother's name is Amina he's accepting Hadith. Because Quran doesn't mention that. So here's his biggest hipocracy, he'll reject Hadith as Quran's best interpreter but then whatever he knows about Mohammad or Ali is related to him through the same people that collected the hadith. Talk about "ugly logic".

 

[IanS]

Hello dear professor
I am very pleased to meet you in this thread sometimes.
The main problem of the members in this thread is that; They do not declare their attitude of thinking, philosophical school and logic. And because of these abnormalities occur.
I announced from the beginning; I am a Muslim and my school of philosophy is the authenticity of existence. And I am completely free and independent in declaring my opinions. I am not affiliated with any organization or group or person. completely free But unfortunately, the respected associations do not announce it. What are they afraid of??!!

The above is complete nonsensical gibberish! Your philosophy is "authenticity of existence"?? That's meaningless waffle. Why cant you ever tell the truth about anything!

Nobody here needs any particular branch of philosophy as if that were some sort of essential guide for them in life. Philosophy is an ancient and now thoroughly obsolete university subject ...

... academic philosophy, of the sort associated with all the names of famous past philosophers and as taught in universities, is a dead obsolete subject when it comes to actually understanding what we experience as a world/universe of reality all around us - philosophy has never actually discovered or explained anything about this universe ...

... what do you think philosophy has ever investigated and correctly explained?

You are claiming science in the Quran. You need science to say whether you are right or wrong. And science most emphatically says your are wrong.

You have written over 1000 posts here all making claims about science. And now that you have been cornered on your science claims, where you cannot produce even one real science paper supporting your claim of God in the Quran, you now want to rule out science from the thread and you want to claim instead that your own mere uneducated thoughts & unscientific beliefs which you are calling “philosophy” counts as a proof of God in the Quran.

This is the 21st century, we are no longer living in 600AD !! - If your claims do not stand up to scientific testing, if the discoveries of science show no evidence of any God, then that is a complete defeat for your claims of God in the Quran.

 

[steenkh]

First ; You say your philosophical school so that we can discuss according to your philosophical school.

I don’t have a philosophical school, and I don’t care what your school is called: it needs to be based on facts, and logic. Your logical flaws have been pointed out many times. Read through the thread. They do not disappear just because you ignore them.

Second; Philosophical terms and inferences are often abstract. This is the procedure and attitude of philosophy. And it makes sense. Like in science, inferences are based on objective observation and experiments.

You pick the objective facts that suits you, because if you didn’t, your position would crumble, and you do not do experiments. I do not blame you, because you can’t experiment with gods and existence, but you should not boast of something you can’t.

Third ; Please define "singularity" for me. to reach an understanding.

OK, I’ll go with Wikipedia’s definition: “Mathematical singularity, a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable.” Please note that it is not “nothing”. In fact, in many cases it is undefined.

Fourth; Our existential philosophy is associated with modern science. I have told many examples of modern science in this thread. Have you not read?!

So far, your philosophical musings have had everything to do with religion, and nothing with modern science.

fifth; "Existence" is nothing if it is not. The universe is made of matter and energy. These are not independent. must have arisen The creator of these is independent and self-sufficient.

You fail here, because you cannot prove that a creator is needed.

We call it "God". You name it whatever you want.
This is the simplest definition and philosophy of God. I hope you understand.

You still haven’t told us who is the creator of this god if yours.

If you think that your god does not need a creator, then you have admitted that not everything needs a creator, and we conclude that the universe also does not need a creator.