• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Supernatural Part II

heydarian saeed said:
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.
... remainder snipped for relevance ...
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but just to focus on the first part of your posting ...

Do you actually believe that at some point in the past that God actually sent prophets in order to interact with us humans?
 
heydarian saeed said:
The main problem of the members in this thread...
Click to expand...

No. The difficulty you're having in this thread is not this latest complaint about how the members here are deficient in some new way. You're having problems because you're religious fanatic pretending to be something he's not, and getting caught every time by people who aren't faking it as you are. Your problems are exacerbated further by your unwillingness to engage with most of the posts written in response to your claims. This is insulting to the people you've asked to comment on your findings.

They do not declare their attitude of thinking, philosophical school and logic.
Click to expand...

No. You started out this thread telling us you had proved "in the lab" that the Qu'ran was scientifically accurate. You have been trying to talk about science now for hundreds of posts. Now that you realize you're talking to actual scientists, and that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, you've suddenly decided to switch to something you're calling "philosophy," with the provision that science cannot challenge its findings.

I announced from the beginning; I am a Muslim and my school of philosophy is the authenticity of existence.
Click to expand...

No. That's not a "school of philosophy." You're just making bare assertions, trying to call it "philosophy," and declaring that your inability to convince anyone by this obvious charade is the ongoing deficiency of your critics.

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??!!
Click to expand...

You're quite obviously speaking from the position of a certain faction of radical Islam and trying to pretend secular modes of thinking confirm your religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
heydarian saeed said:
First ; You say your philosophical school so that we can discuss according to your philosophical school.
Click to expand...

I've studied the philosophy and epistemology of science extensively, and even taught a little bit of it at the college level. But none of that matters, because you're no more a philosopher than you are a scientist. Your "authenticity of existence" rhetoric is pure navel-gazing nonsense. You are not the teacher here.

Second; Philosophical terms and inferences are often abstract. This is the procedure and attitude of philosophy.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Philosophical lines of reasoning proceed from clearly-defined and clearly-understood axioms. Schools of philosophical thought differ first in the questions they're trying to answer, and then in what axioms they proceed from. The philosophy of science, for example, centers around answering questions about the nature of knowledge and the means of acquiring and testing it. The philosophy rests on axioms that assume various properties of observation and perception.

You just state your desired conclusions as axioms and then declare the obviously-circular results beyond anyone else's comprehension and beyond the reach of science to test or refute. Telling us that you can escape refutation because philosophical language and reasoning are vague just tries to handwave your way through philosophy the way you handwave your way through science. You're not fooling anyone.

Look around at some other threads in this subforum. You'll find that many of the members are just as well versed in real philosophy as your critics here are in real science. You tried to foist your version of pseudo-science onto the forum and have discovered that it won't work. So now you're trying to change horses. You're foisting your pseudo-philosophy as a irrefutable equivalent to science. That work work either.

You're not a scientist. You're not a philosopher. You fancy yourself as some sort of "Kuranic scholar," but we haven't see much along those lines either. Yes, you've refuted some of the easier, misconceived questions regarding the language in the Qur'an, but you've carefully avoided any of them that require you to defend your interpretation where more conventional commentators squarely dispute you.

Like in science, inferences are based on objective observation and experiments.
Click to expand...

No. That isn't philosophy at all.

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

If you're just now coming to the realization that you don't know what a singularity is, then you're not competent to have this discussion in English, and we can safely discard everything you've said so far as regards cosmology. You're clueless.

Cosmological models are ruthlessly mathematical, as are most models and theories in theoretical physics. The theories exist only as mathematical entities, and we don't expect to be able to support them completely via empirical techniques. But we can model what's happening here and now in the bits of space-time we can observe. There's no unified model yet. But we have cosmological models and we have quantum models and we continue to make progress revising the models as we go. Your concept of the Big Bang, for example, is comically out of date.

These models are comprised of many equations, often dealing with very esoteric concepts both in mathematics and in the physical world. These models quantify interrelated things like gravity, the behavior of light, velocity, mass, and so forth. Some of these we can measure directly. The models describe how our measurements would be expected to change as different interrelated physical properties such as positions in space and movement through time change, and how curious phenomena like general relativity affect the ways in which those changes can be described mathematically.

What we find is that the models describe mathematical behavior that becomes asymptotic or otherwise arithmetically problematic under certain conditions we can observe or generalize toward. This is what the various discussion mean when they talk about the models "breaking down." That is, we can talk about things like density approaching infinity, or gravity approaching infinity, or velocity approaching the speed of light as properties change over observational domains. As these quantities approach these limits, the mathematical relationships between quantities in the model become undefined because of mathematical rules. Therefore the models can't predict what we would otherwise measure under these conditions. Other models we haven't yet formulated would have to do that.

Anytime we run across a set of those conditions -- either because we observe the boundary conditions that tell us we're approaching those limits, such as at the center of a black hole, or because we theorize that they would arise, such as at the beginning of time -- we just use the word "singularity" to describe it. A singularity is any set of conditions covered by physics models that makes the model unresolvable because of how its variables are behaving.

I don't care whether you understand or accept a single word of the foregoing. I don't think you have any interest in actually understanding real science because real science simply doesn't support your beliefs no matter how much you propose to abuse it.

So I'll boil it down for you. A singularity is not a thing. So when you tell us that it's something that a god had to create, and that this is what Prof. Hawking was trying to say, we're just really going to laugh at you because this belies a level of ignorance so profound that mockery really is the only proper response. What Hawking and his colleagues did was reformulate some of the cosmological models to eliminate a key problem that made the model unwieldy in a particular way, and created one of those pesky singularities that halted further progress. Thanks to his work, the behavior in the limit became more reasonable.

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

Yes, we've all read your attempts in this thread to pretend to teach others about "moden science." You're scientifically illiterate, and I don't think you fully grasp how capable we are of determining that. You allude to problems in theoretical physics, and you mention the names of prominent physicists, but you're unable to actually discuss what they studied. You're quite obviously getting your science from religious sites who are teaching you just enough about their version of it to convince you that your beliefs have a legitimate scientific basis. But you are unable to fool real scientists, so you just resort to vaguely calling them ignorant because you think the solution to your scientific illiteracy is pretending you also know more about the Qur'an than they do.

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.
Click to expand...

No. The persistence of matter and its equivalence to energy do not demand a creator agent, either in philosophy or in science. Simply declaring matter to be dependent doesn't make it so. That's just begging the First Cause question, which isn't even an exciting topic anymore in philosophy. It's great for coffeehouse chit-chat, but it has failed for thousands of years to actually prove the existence of any of the deities to which it has been applied.

This is the simplest definition and philosophy of God. I hope you understand.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to understand. You haven't done anything profound. You've just assumed your desired conclusions as axioms, declared this circular logic impervious to scrutiny, switched to a pretext of philosophy instead of a pretext of science, insinuated (again) that your critics are ignorant, declared yourself (again) to be intellectually superior, and departed the field.

There's nothing in your rhetoric over the past fifty or so pages that appeals to people who don't already believe your religion. You've been fed a line of nonsense by religious teachers who think there is some value in convincing you that your beliefs have secular support. Then, clad in paper armor and wielding a wet noodle for a sword, you've gone to battle with people who in many cases have practiced these disciplines professionally for decades and know far more than you about it -- including knowing how the Arabic language works, what's in the Qur'an, and where it came from.

Most people would figure out after 50 pages that bluster isn't working. Get a clue.
 
heydarian saeed said:
...
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.
Click to expand...


I am an atheist... an anti-theist... I believe your god ... the buddy-buddy of the mythical desert Sumerian PIMP of purportedly 4200 years ago... is a mephitic pile of claptrap... and your desert brigand of 1400 years ago was a flimflammer and charlatan of the most sordid kind.

How is that... did I declare my philosophy enough to avoid "abnormalities"???


heydarian saeed said:
I announced from the beginning; I am a Muslim and my school of philosophy is the authenticity of existence.
Click to expand...


Wow... what an oxymoron if I have ever seen one... your philosophy is the "authenticity of existence" but yet you are a Muslim... the antithesis of the authenticity of any reality whatsoever, let alone existence.


heydarian saeed said:
...What are they afraid of??!!
Click to expand...


You are the one afraid of answering the questions I posed to you many times over....
But above all you are afraid of answering this

Can you explain to me why Allah saw it fit or necessary to do the job of blowing into الفرج of his girlfriend Mary to make her pregnant with Jesus
  • Was it scientific that Allah had to do the job of blowing in his girlfriend Mary's فرج so that she becomes pregnant with Jesus??
Can you expound on why Allah saw it fit and proper to do this travesty.
  1. Why do the job of blowing into anything... could he not just say be and it be??
  2. Why all this to make Jesus... couldn't Jesus have had a human mother and father just like Moses or David or Elijah or any other "prophet" in the Quran... what is so special about Mary and Jesus that Allah needed to do this sordid act in order to make a run of the mill "prophet"???

If you do not know the meaning of the word then copy and paste it into google translator to see what it gives you.
فرج = Vulva
And if you do not know what Vulva means look it up in an English dictionary


And if you are not familiar with the Ayah ... then it is Q66:12... also look at ayah 5:75

thum_5128262ce2ae219c0b.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
... Cosmological models are ruthlessly mathematical, as are most models and theories in theoretical physics. The theories exist only as mathematical entities, and we don't expect to be able to support them completely via empirical techniques. But we can model what's happening here and now in the bits of space-time we can observe. There's no unified model yet. But we have cosmological models and we have quantum models and we continue to make progress revising the models as we go. Your concept of the Big Bang, for example, is comically out of date.

These models are comprised of many equations, often dealing with very esoteric concepts both in mathematics and in the physical world. These models quantify interrelated things like gravity, the behavior of light, velocity, mass, and so forth. Some of these we can measure directly. The models describe how our measurements would be expected to change as different interrelated physical properties such as positions in space and movement through time change, and how curious phenomena like general relativity affect the ways in which those changes can be described mathematically.

What we find is that the models describe mathematical behavior that becomes asymptotic or otherwise arithmetically problematic under certain conditions we can observe or generalize toward. This is what the various discussion mean when they talk about the models "breaking down." That is, we can talk about things like density approaching infinity, or gravity approaching infinity, or velocity approaching the speed of light as properties change over observational domains. As these quantities approach these limits, the mathematical relationships between quantities in the model become undefined because of mathematical rules. Therefore the models can't predict what we would otherwise measure under these conditions. Other models we haven't yet formulated would have to do that.

Anytime we run across a set of those conditions -- either because we observe the boundary conditions that tell us we're approaching those limits, such as at the center of a black hole, or because we theorize that they would arise, such as at the beginning of time -- we just use the word "singularity" to describe it. A singularity is any set of conditions covered by physics models that makes the model unresolvable because of how its variables are behaving.

I don't care whether you understand or accept a single word of the foregoing. I don't think you have any interest in actually understanding real science because real science simply doesn't support your beliefs no matter how much you propose to abuse it.

So I'll boil it down for you. A singularity is not a thing. So when you tell us that it's something that a god had to create, and that this is what Prof. Hawking was trying to say, we're just really going to laugh at you because this belies a level of ignorance so profound that mockery really is the only proper response. What Hawking and his colleagues did was reformulate some of the cosmological models to eliminate a key problem that made the model unwieldy in a particular way, and created one of those pesky singularities that halted further progress. Thanks to his work, the behavior in the limit became more reasonable ...
Click to expand...


The nature of the beast that is this singularity thingie clearly and lucidly explained for someone who clearly has no clue. To be fair, it isn't just him, lots of folks far better informed than he also don't know what a singularity amounts to. If only he'd listen, instead of gassing away endlessly. But he won't, of course he won't.
 
IanS said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been reading John Dewey's Experience and Nature.

The first chapter of the book is named "Philosophic Method". And he's talking about applying "the empirical method" to "a philosophic theory of the universe".

"To discover some of these general features of experienced things and to interpret their significance for a philosophic theory of universe in which we live is the aim of this volume". Says John Dewey.

Am I wasting my time reading it ?
 
Last edited:
A book written nearly 100 years ago by a man who died 70 years ago whose other works include "a glowing travelogue from the nascent USSR."

Hmm.

I'd say you might learn something worthwhile from it, but it would be a long way down my own list of books likely to be worth the time spent reading them. Further up it than the Qu'ran, though, which I have actually read, so ...
 
Oh, new member. Welcome to the forum, Skeptic General. You've been posting here for awhile, but your handle's very similar to another member's. I only just noticed that you're not she.

You made a valid point upthread about OP hilariously falling back on deism in trying to desperately fend off the attacks on his cross-eyed faith from reason. Because deism isn't what Islam's about, at all, obviously. So that completely nonsensical though OP's arguments in favor of deism are, but they're complete non sequiturs in any case, because they have nothing to do with his pet god and religion. Fair point, well made.
 
Pixel42 said:
A book written nearly 100 years ago by a man who died 70 years ago whose other works include "a glowing travelogue from the nascent USSR."

Hmm.

I'd say you might learn something worthwhile from it, but it would be a long way down my own list of books likely to be worth the time spent reading them. Further up it than the Qu'ran, though, which I have actually read, so ...
Click to expand...

"a glowing travelogue from the nascent USSR" Is that one of John Dewey's essays or books ? I can't find anything searching this phrase.
 
Skeptic General said:
The first chapter of the book is named "Philosophic Method". And he's talking about applying "the empirical method" to "a philosophic theory of the universe".
Click to expand...

Until surprisingly recently, many branches of modern science such as zoology, astronomy, botany, chemistry, and physics were collectively called "natural philosophy." This dates back to Aristotle. Empirical and deductive methods started to predominate in the Enlightenment. And starting in around Darwin's time, the modern scientific pursuits started to separate from the more contemplative exercises. That's the birth of modern science.

It's also the point at which IanS's division becomes operative and important. He's not wrong to say that science superseded philosophy as the primary means of acquiring reliable information about the universe. But it wasn't a sudden transition. If you're reading old books, the terminology may not yet have completed that journey.

Am I wasting my time reading it ?
Click to expand...

It depends on what you hope to acquire or achieve.
 
Skeptic General said:
"a glowing travelogue from the nascent USSR" Is that one of John Dewey's essays or books ? I can't find anything searching this phrase.
Click to expand...

It's a quote from Dewey's wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

Dewey published more than 700 articles in 140 journals, and approximately 40 books. His most significant writings were "The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology" (1896), a critique of a standard psychological concept and the basis of all his further work; Democracy and Education (1916), his celebrated work on progressive education; Human Nature and Conduct (1922), a study of the function of habit in human behavior;[23] The Public and its Problems (1927), a defense of democracy written in response to Walter Lippmann's The Phantom Public (1925); Experience and Nature (1925), Dewey's most "metaphysical" statement; Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World (1929), a glowing travelogue from the nascent USSR.[24]
Click to expand...

This is reference 24: http://ariwatch.com/VS/JD/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm

which is the same reference given by Alderback
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
Excuse me, but just to focus on the first part of your posting ...

Do you actually believe that at some point in the past that God actually sent prophets in order to interact with us humans?
Click to expand...

Hello
Yes. Please read the history of the prophets. or the history of past tribes and nations in Mesopotamia. From Turkey to Egypt. From the 30th century BC to the 7th century AD. There are many books and resources in this regard.
In this context, I recommend reading the biography of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, written by the famous researcher Mrs. Karen Armstrong from England. It became the best-selling book of the year in America.
Good luck
 
Last edited:
heydarian saeed said:
Yes. Please read the history of the prophets.
Click to expand...

The question was a simple one about your beliefs. You keep assuming that you're better informed than your critics. I have yet to see a subject in this thread for which that is an evidently true proposition.

I and others have challenged your attempts to establish the existence of God by means of what you call philosophy. Please address those challenges.
 
Skeptic General said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hello
This is your perception of Islam - Quran and Muslims. Of course I respect you. But your perception is completely wrong in this regard. We like to talk logically and scientifically. And this is our procedure. how about you? Come whenever you decide for a logical and scientific discussion. Our arms are open to you.
If you agree, I will tell you the discussion of quantum science about the truth of "death and the grave". So that you don't have to worry and be afraid of death and the grave and two angels. I have a scientific explanation ready in this regard. According to modern science!
Good luck
 
steenkh said:
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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.
Click to expand...

Hello, dear philosopher
We had very clear explanations in this discussion with you. We do not see the need for more than this explanation.
If your attitude is scientific. With all due respect, I must say; The duty of science and scientists is not to prove God. Proving God is the task of philosophy and logic. And science is not involved in this relationship. And it is better to be silent. But scientists and philosophers can work together at some points. I have given examples in this regard in this thread. I have also told the logical and philosophical ways of proving God.
good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom