The Supernatural Part II

[JayUtah]

We had very clear explanations in this discussion with you. We do not see the need for more than this explanation.

Your critics are showing you what is wrong with your "explanations." You are unwilling to engage their criticism. This is insulting.

If your attitude is scientific. With all due respect, I must say; The duty of science and scientists is not to prove God.

You've spent fifty pages trying to tell us you can prove your religion using science. Now that your ignorance of science has been exposed, you're trying to retreat from that.

Proving God is the task of philosophy and logic.

Your attempt at philosophy is no better informed than your attempt at science. You are ignorant of both.

I have also told the logical and philosophical ways of proving God.

You have been shown the error in your method. But you refuse to listen.

 

[Skeptic General]

Hello
I do not understand you. Please be more clear.
Thank you

The question was not to you. I don't think I can discuss anything with you when you ignored everything I put to you earlier.

 

[heydarian saeed]

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.

Hello
We have seen many opinions in the philosophical and logical discussions in this thread about God - Islam and the Qur'an. And we answered. What is clear is that irrational and unprincipled words are challenged. But logical and correct words that adhere to the principles of logic and science. They are never challenged. Please leave the judgment to those who are not biased. And they are free. Are atheists in this group? how about you?!
Our school is clear. And we discuss according to the documented principles of logic, philosophy and science. how about you?!
Good luck

 

[JayUtah]

And we answered.

No. You specifically said you weren't going to answer. You are dishonest.

What is clear is that irrational and unprincipled words are challenged. But logical and correct words that adhere to the principles of logic and science. They are never challenged. Please leave the judgment to those who are not biased.

No. The problem is not that your critics are biased. And you are most certainly not unbiased. You are an ardent Muslim preaching your beliefs. The problem is that you pretend to know about science and philosophy, and then claim that either of these disciplines can prove your religion. But those who are more informed than you about these topics are exposing your ignorance. You seem to have no response to that beyond calling your critics names.

Our school is clear. And we discuss according to the documented principles of logic, philosophy and science. how about you?!

I wrote a lengthy post on the subject, which you have ignored. Here is the link to it so that you can repent from your dereliction.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13958018#post13958018

 

[Skeptic General]

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

How arrogant of you. Who do you think you are. The forum rules hold me back from saying more. You and your brethren would kill me for the facts I state about your stupid religion in the muslim world (even outside of it) and that would be according to your religion (you would feel good about it). I know your type very well. Got many threats before, over just showing what the classic interpretations of Quran wrote about 65/4 verse. (That shows pedophilia in Allah's message).

 

[Skeptic General]

Hello
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.
Good luck

Your religion across the board -with all its creeds- orders the murder of the apostates.

 

[Skeptic General]

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

I never witnessed such low IQ in my life.

 

[Skeptic General]

Hello
We have seen many opinions in the philosophical and logical discussions in this thread about God - Islam and the Qur'an. And we answered. What is clear is that irrational and unprincipled words are challenged. But logical and correct words that adhere to the principles of logic and science. They are never challenged. Please leave the judgment to those who are not biased. And they are free. Are atheists in this group? how about you?!
Our school is clear. And we discuss according to the documented principles of logic, philosophy and science. how about you?!
Good luck

Who are "we" ?
Are you a group of mollas with a translator ?
Or are you someone pretending to be a muslim having fun here using fake arguments ?

 

[Skeptic General]

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

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



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

which is the same reference given by Alderback

I'll read it when I have better time in my hand. But so far I feel an aversion to "Experience and Nature", based on the age of the book; the date its author died; a work by the same author regarding Soviets (which I don't know what's wrong with it). I'm not saying you're not right, but these don't quite guide me.

 

[Skeptic General]

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

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



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

which is the same reference given by Alderback

I'll read it when I have better time in my hand. But so far I feel an aversion to "Experience and Nature", based on the age of the book; the date its author died; a work by the same author regarding Soviets (which I don't know what's wrong with it). I'm not saying you're not right, but these don't quite guide me.

 

[Skeptic General]

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.

I read this same info in the book. So far John Dewey would agree with you.

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.

I don't remember him saying the highlighted theme. I don't know if he gave it that much..

It depends on what you hope to acquire or achieve.

About 5 years ago I read a couple of introductory books about philosophy. After that I wanted to dive into it with a "real" book of philosophy. I started with Schopenhauer. While reading his critique about Kant I changed direction and decided that Experience and Nature would be more useful since it claimed to be in the middle of other schools/trends of philosophy (my phrasing). I thought I'd be exposed to others through Dewey and kinda get a whole schooling. (I liked to pick a center (!) point).

Midway to this book I decided to study German. With the intention (one day) to go back to Schopenhauer in German. Reading Dewey slowed down considerably. A year into the German study a friend of mine from past and overseas contacted me and let me know he's getting serious about reading philosophy. He read some books about Philosophy of science. When I told him about Dewey he asked me to verbally translate a paragraph. He was very intrigued. His English was not sufficient to enjoy it. I started translating it to Turkish (voice recording). It also helped me to get back to it. We're at page 300.

He still has some religious objectives in dealing with philosophy. He often finds material in Dewey's book that supports his faith oriented thinking. I don't see it at all. He's kinda forcing me right now to pay more attention to what I translate. I just started reading it from the beginning by myself besides our transition (whenever I have time left from reading German classics).

IanS' s comment about philosophy's office just coincided with my re-re-reading the first chapter. (And clashed with it).

 

[JayUtah]

I don't remember him saying the highlighted theme. I don't know if he gave it that much..

I mean that's what IanS said.

About 5 years ago I read a couple of introductory books about philosophy.

That's what I was getting at. If you ask, "Am I wasting my time by reading this?" the answer depends on your motive. Reading old books can be a joy in itself. The oldest book in my library was printed in 1693. As in, the actual book -- not a facsimile edition. Of course I love reading it, but it provides little helpful information for today. It's a tantalizing glimpse of the past.

So if you enjoy reading old philosophy books, I can hardly say you're wasting your time. If instead you want an understanding of how science got here, then you'll want to read something a little more up to date, e.g., Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

 

[heydarian saeed]

How arrogant of you. Who do you think you are. The forum rules hold me back from saying more. You and your brethren would kill me for the facts I state about your stupid religion in the muslim world (even outside of it) and that would be according to your religion (you would feel good about it). I know your type very well. Got many threats before, over just showing what the classic interpretations of Quran wrote about 65/4 verse. (That shows pedophilia in Allah's message).

I am alone. Do not worry. There is no compulsion to accept words for anyone. This is just an open discussion. I hope you understand this simple matter. There is no pride in our work. We talk with logic and science. Because basically God speaks logically and scientifically in the Qur'an. I am not a preacher of religion. Please understand. A free Muslim without affiliation to any organization or group. I have thoroughly researched Islam and the Quran. And I have chosen. Because Islam is the most perfect religion. And the Quran is the most complete book. Especially the contents of modern science are extremely beautiful and enjoyable. These are my picks. I will answer and explain your questions. I have nothing to do with your choice. And I respect you. But if I see an insult about my choice, I stand firm. I am not afraid of anyone. And I am proud to defend my thesis and thoughts. I am reasonable. If I see illogical, I will not be short. This is my pride. I have no advice for you.
But regarding the matter of 65/4 in the Quran, it is like the previous verses that you objected to and I gave your answer. I repeat again; God loves man. And for his happiness, he has sent the prophets. Anyone who pays attention is in his interest. And whoever does not pay attention has lost. And in the parallel world of the hereafter, he will not be taken care of. This approach is quite logical. What is your logic? We live in a human society. And our logic must be human. how about you?!

 

[heydarian saeed]

I recommend to everyone; Please do not go to the sidelines. Many of your objections are marginalizing and creating atmosphere. Please stay away from this discussion approach. Your questions should be for clearing doubts and learning. No unreasonable bugs to beat!!!

 

[Pixel42]

But if I see an insult about my choice, I stand firm.

Your arguments and "evidence" have been utterly demolished by reason, logic and actual evidence, not insults. Standing firm is only an option if you are on solid ground. Your choice was built on quicksand, which was already well over your head before you even started posting here.

 

[Skeptic General]

I am alone. Do not worry. There is no compulsion to accept words for anyone. This is just an open discussion. I hope you understand this simple matter. There is no pride in our work. We talk with logic and science. Because basically God speaks logically and scientifically in the Qur'an. I am not a preacher of religion. Please understand. A free Muslim without affiliation to any organization or group. I have thoroughly researched Islam and the Quran. And I have chosen. Because Islam is the most perfect religion. And the Quran is the most complete book. Especially the contents of modern science are extremely beautiful and enjoyable. These are my picks. I will answer and explain your questions. I have nothing to do with your choice. And I respect you. But if I see an insult about my choice, I stand firm. I am not afraid of anyone. And I am proud to defend my thesis and thoughts. I am reasonable. If I see illogical, I will not be short. This is my pride. I have no advice for you.
But regarding the matter of 65/4 in the Quran, it is like the previous verses that you objected to and I gave your answer. I repeat again; God loves man. And for his happiness, he has sent the prophets. Anyone who pays attention is in his interest. And whoever does not pay attention has lost. And in the parallel world of the hereafter, he will not be taken care of. This approach is quite logical. What is your logic? We live in a human society. And our logic must be human. how about you?!

Stop keep taking a preacher/moral higher ground position every time someone holds to you a mirror. You've been very condescending in your responses to everybody, and avoiding actual debate points is not honest and moral, if you wanna be moral address many questions posed to you. Don't pick and choose or deflect.

I don't remember discussing any verse with you previously like you say. I also don't intend to. It was an example for you of where i can direct your debate. If you read some of my early comments you'd know what I mean. I joined this thread to ask you why you try to keep Allah out of your argument and instead keep it at a-defence-of-deism level. Since you avoided my posts I answered that. You instead, still are avoiding it. You keep preaching.

Can you tell me please, before you "thoroughly researched Islam and the Quran. And ..have chosen" what religion were you raised in ?

Why do you avoid my repeated claim about "Maurice Bucaille" ? Have you not heard that all your claims about "scientific miracles" in the Quran was fabricated by him ? If you don't know it yet go search it. And if you find out according to what religion his funeral ceremony was conducted and where he was buried let me know. He's your non-muslim-paid-by-a-Saudi-king-master you may not yet know. Show me one author before him that "discovered" these "scientific verses in the Quran".

 

[Leumas]

I recommend to everyone; Please do not go to the sidelines. Many of your objections are marginalizing and creating atmosphere. Please stay away from this discussion approach. Your questions should be for clearing doubts and learning. No unreasonable bugs to beat!!!

So why is it that you never dare answer mine....

...
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

​

 

[steenkh]

Hello, dear philosopher
We had very clear explanations in this discussion with you. We do not see the need for more than this explanation.

You give up because your arguments failed to convince? Why are you writing here at all? You have failed right from the start, and you have gained nothing with your preaching.

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.

Wrong again! Science is the study of what exists, and if God exists, he is also subject to be studied. You are not even right if your god exists exclusively in the head of the believers, because in that case, god would subject to studies of psychologists and neurologists.

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.

You have given us an illogical way of proving god that has been exposed as completely ridiculous. Your philosophy seems not to be based on logic, but on religious wishes.

Religious philosophers have tried to prove the existence of their god for centuries, but have failed utterly. There is not a single argument that has not been shown to be fallacious. Your proof of god through the existence of desire is not even new, but so laughable that I didn’t think anybody would raise it and not be joking.

You can, by the way, find a list of arguments for god in many places. One of the most comprehensive is on Wikipedia: Category:Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God^WP

And they have all failed.

Your only consolation is that it is equally impossible to construct logical arguments against the existence of god - depending on the kind of god.

 

[JayUtah]

We talk with logic and science.

You have no working understanding of science. I have pointed out how your logic is circular. You have provided no answer.

I am not a preacher of religion.

You clearly are. Because you go on then to say

Because Islam is the most perfect religion. And the Quran is the most complete book.

You are literally preaching the religion of Islam. You can't manage a single paragraph without being dishonest.

Especially the contents of modern science are extremely beautiful and enjoyable.

And now you're back to preaching science, after telling us it was all about philosophy. But it doesn't really matter, because you can't demonstrate even minimal competence in either science or philosophy.

I will answer and explain your questions.

You specifically said you would not, and you have not answered a single question I've asked. I've provided a post outlining your errors in philosophy and logic, and answering your naive questions about physics. I provided a link again to the post, in case you missed it. You clearly have no intention of answering my questions, or those of most of the other posters here. Again you are dishonest.

And I am proud to defend my thesis and thoughts. I am reasonable. If I see illogical, I will not be short.

You aren't defending anything. You're just repeating your claims over and over again.

You're not reasonable; you're arrogant and rude.

I and others have pointed out your errors in logic. You don't know what a logically sound argument consists of.

What is your logic? We live in a human society. And our logic must be human. how about you?!

I've shown you my logic. You have no answer.
I've pointed out your errors in philosophy. You have no answer.
I've uncovered your ignorance of science. You have no answer.

You are not the teacher. You are not a scientist. You are not a philosopher. You're simply a religious fanatic with arrogant delusions of grandeur.

 

[IanS]

I am alone. Do not worry. There is no compulsion to accept words for anyone.
This is just an open discussion.

You have never tried to "discuss" anything here. In all your posts you are constantly making insistent claims about Islamic religious belief & the Quran. You are constantly insisting that we must believe what your say about your certainty of God. That is not a discussion. That is intolerant insistent preaching from you.

Long ago, I asked you on 3 separate occasions if you would agree to a truly objective discussion where you and I both set aside our previous beliefs ... I would set aside my doubts about the existence of God or doubts of science in the Quran, and you would do likewise and set aside your God beliefs and your beliefs about science in the Quran ... so that we could then make an honest true examination of all the actual real evidence. But you always refused to accept any such genuine discussion.

You are not here trying to discuss things or to learn anything (even though you need a proper education in real science). You are just here as an Islamic fanatical I'jaz fundamentalist trying to preach your religious beliefs.

This is just an open discussion. I hope you understand this simple matter. There is no pride in our work. We talk with logic and science. Because basically God speaks logically and scientifically in the Qur'an. I am not a preacher of religion. Please understand. A free Muslim without affiliation to any organization or group. I have thoroughly researched Islam and the Quran. And I have chosen. Because Islam is the most perfect religion. And the Quran is the most complete book.
I repeat again; God loves man. And for his happiness, he has sent the prophets. Anyone who pays attention is in his interest. And whoever does not pay attention has lost. And in the parallel world of the hereafter, he will not be taken care of. This approach is quite logical. What is your logic? We live in a human society. And our logic must be human. how about you?!

The above from you is not an "open discussion". Instead your writing is filled with claims that God is real without any discussion - you are claiming it to be an unarguable fact where you insist that Because Islam is the most perfect religion, and the Quran is the most complete book. ... you have made that same claim here at least 100 times now - you are just preaching the glory of Islam.

And you are also repeating the same religious threat which you have preached constantly here, where you have often said that an afterlife of hell will be inflicted on the non-believers.

Modern science (eg roughly from 1800 to the present day), has shown beyond all credible doubt that ancient religious beliefs about gods, miracles, holy books and prophets etc., are completely untrue and nothing more than the ancient myths of people from an uneducated age thousands of years ago.

Millions of people today still believe those ancient religious stories and their miracle claims. But science shows that they are wrong. Either the believers, such as you and millions of other Muslims, do not have a proper real scientific education, or else in some cases where Christians in particular, and often in the USA, are both religious and also working in science, they simply choose to ignore the results of science and just continue with their 2000 year-old religious beliefs despite knowing that science has really long since shown why nobody today should still believe 2000 year-old stories of the supernatural.