The supernatural

[Sherman Bay]

You accept the existence of the Quran?

It's a book. It exists. So does War & Peace, Harry Potter, My Little Pony, and Bhagavad Gita.

Apart from its content. Do you just historically agree that the Qur'an is a holy book?

Claiming any book is "holy" is a supernatural claim and assumes facts not in evidence. Can you define the term and prove that any book is "holy" without using self-referential passages in the same book?

And it was in the seventh century?

What difference does the date make? If I write a book in 2022 and call it holy, would you agree with my claim? If not, why not?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dear Pixel
- We who believe in God do not attribute any cause to God in the line of material causes. God is the ultimate cause. All causes and events return to him. God's relationship is the same for all reasons. It is not the case that we relate some causes to matter. And some to God. No. All causes are related to God. We do not make an exception. Of course, as we have said, God is the supreme cause. Not parallel to material causes.
- God is not of the material world to place him in the order of matter and the hierarchy of material cause. This is the main mistake of you disbelievers and skeptics. Please think about this important issue
- We do not exclude God. God is not of the material world. And it is not in the hierarchy of material causes. These are two separate categories. But the material world is material, so it must have a cause. This hierarchy of cause extends to the material world to "single." Our final question is, what is "single cause"? Hawking said: he created himself !! What is its mechanism? Could not answer. Science has not yet been able to answer this question.
And there is no answer. Can you answer? say. If you think vacuum has the ability to create a single, you are completely wrong. What is a vacuum? How can he create a single out of nothing? If we assume and science has proven. The causal hierarchy is repeated again. And again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes. You know why this hierarchy has no end in material cause?
Because matter cannot create itself. Think of Hawking's answer to the single. Could he answer? No. Science can not answer.
- We fully accept the evolutionary chain. And it's completely scientific. And we have no doubt about that. Our question is, "By what mechanism did inanimate matter come to life?" Science has not yet given an answer. We are waiting for science to answer. Can you answer? say.
God Almighty has answered these two questions. And he said: I created the single out of nothing. I revived inanimate matter. These two words of God are not claims. Absolutely true. And it is like a bright day. No one but God can answer these two questions. Please explore scientific unknowns and unknowns. As modern science flies. And progresses.
And it makes all of us human beings proud. We have as many unknowns and unknowns that science has not yet been able to answer. As an example, I say the following. Although I have already told you in this group:
-What is dark matter? What is dark energy? What is a black hole? What happens in the black hole? What is a wormhole? What are its rules? What happens in the wormhole? How did the single come about? How did inanimate matter come to life? Where does the information recorded in DNA go? Do we have a transcendental material world? What is a parallel world? What is the secret of quantum? And infinitely more unanswered questions. Please seek answers to these questions.
Thanks

So who created God?

 

[sackett]

So who created God?

And that guy who created god, who created him?

Jeeze, turtles were.bad enough.

 

[IanS]

Dear Pixel
- We who believe in God do not attribute any cause to God in the line of material causes. God is the ultimate cause. All causes and events return to him. God's relationship is the same for all reasons. It is not the case that we relate some causes to matter. And some to God. No. All causes are related to God. We do not make an exception. Of course, as we have said, God is the supreme cause. Not parallel to material causes.
- God is not of the material world to place him in the order of matter and the hierarchy of material cause. This is the main mistake of you disbelievers and skeptics. Please think about this important issue
- We do not exclude God. God is not of the material world. And it is not in the hierarchy of material causes. These are two separate categories. But the material world is material, so it must have a cause. This hierarchy of cause extends to the material world to "single."

. 1 Our final question is, what is "single cause"? Hawking said: he created himself !! What is its mechanism? Could not answer. Science has not yet been able to answer this question. And there is no answer. Can you answer? say.

2 If you think vacuum has the ability to create a single, you are completely wrong. What is a vacuum? How can he create a single out of nothing? If we assume and science has proven.
The causal hierarchy is repeated again. And again, these would mean that you have to spend for these processes. You know why this hierarchy has no end in material cause?

3 Because matter cannot create itself. Think of Hawking's answer to the single. Could he answer? No. Science can not answer.

- 4 We fully accept the evolutionary chain. And it's completely scientific. And we have no doubt about that. Our question is, "By what mechanism did inanimate matter come to life?" Science has not yet given an answer. We are waiting for science to answer. Can you answer? say.

5 God Almighty has answered these two questions. And he said: I created the single out of nothing. I revived inanimate matter. These two words of God are not claims. Absolutely true.

And it is like a bright day. No one but God can answer these two questions. Please explore scientific unknowns and unknowns. As modern science flies. And progresses.

And it makes all of us human beings proud. We have as many unknowns and unknowns that science has not yet been able to answer. As an example, I say the following. Although I have already told you in this group:
-What is dark matter? What is dark energy? What is a black hole? What happens in the black hole? What is a wormhole? What are its rules? What happens in the wormhole? How did the single come about? How did inanimate matter come to life? Where does the information recorded in DNA go? Do we have a transcendental material world? What is a parallel world? What is the secret of quantum? And infinitely more unanswered questions. Please seek answers to these questions.
Thanks

So who created God?

At this point I think this really has to be deliberate constant lying from heydarain.

I just explained to heydarain the answers that science has published for things like 1 to 5 (above). And his response has been to ignore the explanations, and to dishonestly (and ignorantly of the published science) keep claiming that science has no answers ... as well as producing yet gain the same old religious claim from ignorance to say that a supernatural God must be the uncaused un-evidenced cause of all such things.

And by the way – it's not a “single” (as heydarian has repeatedly kept calling it) … the word is “singularity”, and no such “singularity” arises in any of the descriptions that I have already explained to heydarian – the Big Bang does not involve any “singularity”.

Also – science does not say that the universe creates itself from truly nothing, and nor does it say that it creates itself from a true vacuum where “nothing” exists. On the contrary as I just explained to heydarian, QM shows that any so-called “vacuum” always contains at the very least a set of fundamental energy fields that cannot be destroyed or removed. So a state of truly “Nothing” cannot ever exist … that fundamental set of fields is the least possible thing that can ever exist. And the Big Bang, and our universe, arises from a phase change in that set of fundamental fields (due to quantum forces ...called “vacuum fluctuations').

And … Hawking most definitely did have an answer (contrary to heydarian's claims), and his answer is very similar to the one that I just described for heydarian on the previous page.

As for heydarian's claim that science has no answer for how life first appeared on Earth … as heydarian must well know – lots of scientific papers have been published with explanations of how the first living cells may have been produced on Earth. Simply because we don't yet have a generally accepted “theory” of the exact mechanism for how non-living molecules made the chemical change to what we call “living” molecules/cells, that does not mean that science has no plausible answers.

But again, as with all heydarian's fundamentalist religious claims above, what he is doing here is simply repeating all the same idiotic Faith-claims that all theists make, to say that they believe an invisible un-evidenced supernatural God is a good/correct answer.

So current published science research definitely has produced those answers, and the fact of the matter is that Heydarian is simply ignorant of what science has been publishing (and experimentally measuring and confirming) for the last 30 years.

 

[heydarian saeed]

It's a book. It exists. So does War & Peace, Harry Potter, My Little Pony, and Bhagavad Gita. Claiming any book is "holy" is a supernatural claim and assumes facts not in evidence. Can you define the term and prove that any book is "holy" without using self-referential passages in the same book?What difference does the date make? If I write a book in 2022 and call it holy, would you agree with my claim? If not, why not?

Hello and thank you very much for your good opinion. Please read the following in response to this message and your previous message.
To introduce Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the book of the Qur'an, I would like to introduce you to the book "Muhammad - Biography of the Prophet of Islam" by Karen Armstrong from England. This book clearly shows the image of Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the Qur'an. It was the best-selling book of the year in the United States in 2004.
In a part of the book introduction, it says:
Muhammad was born in 570 C.E. Over the course of the following sixty years, he built a thriving spiritual community and laid out the foundations of a religion that has changed the course of world history. There is more historical data available about his life than that of the founder of any other major faith, and yet, particularly in the West, his is a consistently misunderstood story.
In this book, Armstrong very carefully and accurately depicts all the events of Muhammad's life. He cites important historical sources and personalities who spoke about Muhammad and wrote books. As a Muslim reader, I find this book very valuable about my Prophet Muhammad. And I personally sent a special thank you message to Armstrong.
Chapter 4 - Revelation deals with the Qur'an.
In a part of the Gospel of John it is stated: Jesus said: I proclaim that a prophet will come after me, whose name is Ahmad. (Refer to the Gospel of John and the Word Farqlit.)
Sira 150’ p104 & sira136’ p94


Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstronghttps:
https://www.goodreads.com › book › show › 27310.M...

I recommend that you read this book if you wish.
To prove the authenticity of the Quran book in terms of historical authenticity, please refer to the website of the University of Birmingham, England. Of all the historical documentary evidence for the authenticity of the Qur'an, I only referred to the following address. Under the title: "Birmingham Quran Manuscript is one of the oldest copies in the world"
This site also mentions the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad by God. Of course, apart from this authentic historical document, there are other reasons that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad only by God. And has been through divine revelation. Part of this scientific research text is as follows:
To prove the authenticity of the Quran book in terms of historical authenticity, please refer to the website of the University of Birmingham, England. Of all the historical documentary evidence for the authenticity of the Qur'an, I only referred to the following address. named :
"Birmingham Qur'an manuscript dated among the oldest in the world"
This site also mentions the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad by God. Of course, apart from this authentic historical document, there are other reasons that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad only by God. And has been through divine revelation.
An excerpt from the text of the scientific research is as follows:
A Qur’an manuscript held by the University of Birmingham has been placed among the oldest in the world thanks to modern scientific methods.
Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632.
Explaining the context and significance of the discovery, Professor David Thomas, Professor of Christianity and Islam and Nadir Dinshaw Professor of Interreligious Relations at the University of Birmingham, said: ‘The radiocarbon dating of the Birmingham Qur’an folios has yielded a startling result and reveals one of the most surprising secrets of the University’s collections. They could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam.
‘Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad.
‘The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.’
‘According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Qur’an, the scripture of Islam, between the years AD 610 and 632, the year of his death. At this time, the divine message was not compiled into the book form in which it appears today. Instead, the revelations were preserved in “the memories of men”. Parts of it had also been written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels. Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad, ordered the collection of all Qur’anic material in the form of a book. The final, authoritative written form was completed and fixed under the direction of the third leader, Caliph Uthman, in about AD 650.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-2015

 

[Cosmic Yak]

At this point I think this really has to be deliberate constant lying from heydarain.

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but I did tell you so quite a while back. Much as I admire your patience, and your optimistic view of heydarian's approach, I think it's time you admit the truth here: heydarian has no intention of having an honest conversation/debate here, and never did. It was always about the preaching, and fanatics of any stripe are sadly cut from the same cloth.

 

[Mojo]

Do you just historically agree that the Qur'an is a holy book?

Bookworms generally eat the glue rather than the paper itself, so it’s more often the binding that is holy.

 

[Mojo]

To introduce Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the book of the Qur'an, I would like to introduce you to the book "Muhammad - Biography of the Prophet of Islam" by Karen Armstrong from England. This book clearly shows the image of Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the Qur'an. It was the best-selling book of the year in the United States in 2004.

Do you have any evidence to support your argumentum ad populum? It’s currently ranked “225,023 in Books” according to Amazon.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

To introduce Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the book of the Qur'an, I would like to introduce you to the book "Muhammad - Biography of the Prophet of Islam" by Karen Armstrong from England. This book clearly shows the image of Muhammad - the religion of Islam and the Qur'an. It was the best-selling book of the year in the United States in 2004.

heydarian, please stop lying. It puts neither you nor your religion in a good light.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...of-2004/670e20c8-9b52-4a5f-91de-65a02d4a06fd/

Bestselling nonfiction paperback was the 9/11 Commission Report. Nonfiction hardback was Bill Clinton's memoirs.
The Mohammed book doesn't even get a mention.
As an aside, 2004 was a pretty good year for literature. The Kite Runner and 100 Years of Solitude, among others.

ETA: The book wasn't actually published until 2006- but that still doesn't save heydarian's reputation for serial dishonesty. It doesn't feature in the list of top sellers for that year either. Ironically, Dawkins' The God Delusion does.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/popular_by_date/2006

 

[Mojo]

This book clearly shows the image of Muhammad

I thought your religion didn’t allow that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hello
A photon is the smallest structure in the universe.

That is not a fact.

By what mechanism did Photon overcome time in Professor Suarez's experiment ?!

As photons move at the speed of light, time does essentially not exist for them.

And both photons reached the target at different speeds at the same time? !! Isn't that really amazing ?!

Photons don't move at different speeds.

By what mechanism was the photon able to stop time from reaching the end point at the same time with another photon at the same speed and starting point? What is the consciousness of a photon? Please read Suarez's test thoroughly. It is incredibly amazing.
Thanks

You make no sense.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I recommend you visit the Suarez Academy website. There are several articles that I have mentioned in this section. Among other things, Suarez stated:
"There is a strong invisible consciousness behind quantum telepathy."

There is no such thing as quantum thelepathy.

Also tested of The limits of quantum superposition: Should "Schrödinger's cat" and "Wigner's friend" be considered "miracle" narratives? Suarez says: This experiment explains that this is beyond the realm of science.
The following site contains some of Suarez's scientific articles. The content of this message and the previous message are also on the same site :

Experiments from Pm Magazin and from the WWW site. Pm magazine de has been selected.

I have chosen the topic of "How the Cosmic Force Affects Our Lives" from the perspective of Josef Scheppach, a reporter for PM Scientific Journal.

https://independent.academia.edu/AntoineSuarez1

Thank you

In view of the former, the latter is not worth contemplating.

Hans

 

[IanS]

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but I did tell you so quite a while back. Much as I admire your patience, and your optimistic view of heydarian's approach, I think it's time you admit the truth here: heydarian has no intention of having an honest conversation/debate here, and never did. It was always about the preaching, and fanatics of any stripe are sadly cut from the same cloth.

Ahh ... well, Yes. sadly in the end, when it keeps happening, I have to agree it looks like deliberate untruth.

The last round of those same claims just repeated by heydarian, are also a rather obvious example of the same old "God of the gaps" argument used so often by all sorts of theists. E.g., the claim that because science has not yet produced a universally accepted explanation of (a) how life first began on Earth, and (b) how & why the big bang happened, that must mean that God can be placed as the cause in those two gaps.

But if we are talking about honesty, then I think we have to say that theists are not even being honest with themselves when they make those sort of claims about gaps in our scientific knowledge. E.g. , from the beginnings of modern science circa 1600, thousands of such "gaps“ have been filled by science, so that now it's really just those two that are left. So in all honesty, theists should by now have long since admitted that all their earlier beliefs about how God was responsible for almost everything that ever happened on Earth (or anything that was ever seen to happen even in space), have all turned to be wrong (all those millions of things have been shown to have a perfectly natural explanation).

More specifically re the big bang; we are now at a stage of knowing pretty much exactly what happened right back to within a fraction of second of the "bang" ... so we have a very good & complete explanation for all of that process going all the way back 13.8 billion years to within say 100th of second from the bang, so that theists are now reduced to claiming that because we still cant be very sure of that last 100th second, that must be where God is!

The same applies to the question of exactly how the first living organisms arose on Earth – since discovering evolution we can trace life back in vast detail for about 3.5 billion years to the earliest most primitive forms of life ... but because we do not yet have a widely agreed explanation for how that very earliest first step arose all those billions of years ago, theists like heydarian insist that God must the undiscovered answer for just that very first step.

 

[heydarian saeed]

You are still not understanding my argument, heydarian. The exception you make is to the statement "Everything has a cause". You make a single exception for God. I'm saying it's more parsimonious to make an exception for the universe.


There is no good reason to assume the existence of a God. None. Nothing is explained that cannot be explained without that assumption. Statements like "God is not of the material world" are irrelevant. It makes no difference what form you imagine your God to take. It is simply unnecessary.

Science actually has several possible answers.


Again, science has several possible answers.


No. Postulating a God does not answer your questions, it simply replaces them with even more difficult questions about the nature and origin of God.

Hi
- Look, dear pixel, the universe is made of matter. Is not that so? Good. Everything that exists in the universe must be necessary in order to exist. Therefore, the cause of the existence of the disabled must also be necessary. If not, the process of finding the disabled is incomplete. Therefore, it does not exist. And logic and philosophy reject this approach.
The causal cause of the disability must be perfect in order to create the disability. If the cause is minor, the disability does not causal. For example, water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. If it is just oxygen, water will not be made. But only water is possible. Also, if we only have hydrogen, there is still no water. But it is possible for water to form. Therefore, it must be the cause of complete water formation. And oxygen and hydrogen are both combined to form water.
In the philosophy of the universe, a unit is considered. All beings in the universe have a hierarchy of causes. And there must be a necessity to create the necessary cause of that disability. The universe has the same hierarchy of causes. And there is no exception. The creation of the universe must be necessary for its cause to be necessary. This hierarchy is not an algebraic cause. It is a necessity.
The mistake of the disbelievers is that they only accept "algebra". If so, what is the place of "choice"? The "necessity" of the existence of the disability and also the "necessity" of the complete cause cause the disability. If this causal hierarchy is not established, no disability causal. This causal hierarchy must end at some point. Because if it continues, we will never have a complete cause. And logic rejects it. The universe has become a "necessity". The full cause has also become necessary. Therefore, the universe has been created. The essential cause of the universe must be inherent. Otherwise, the hierarchy of causes does not end. And logic and philosophy reject it. And if God is material, the hierarchy of causes will continue and will not have an end point, so it is rejected. We do not exclude God. Because basically God should not be of the material kind. And it is not made of material. Because if it is made of matter, the hierarchy of the perfect cause does not end. And there must be another reason. You said this yourself. Therefore, this absolutely necessary cause must be inherent and not dependent on another cause. We call God the essential intrinsic cause. Thus, according to the rational philosophy approach, the relationship between cause and effect is a "necessity" relationship. It is not "algebra". - Several possible answers Is our main answer in this discussion? No. It is only possible. But it is not certain. We are looking for a definitive answer. God's claim is true until we find the definitive answer. This is our best assumption. So we can not deny God. God is presented as an outstanding selection. And there. Of course, we know that science will never be able to find a definitive answer. Because God's claim is true. This is our opinion. And it is definite until proven otherwise. And no one can deny it.
So far, the opposite has not been proven. Personally, I have repeatedly asked all of you in this group to prove to me the opposite of this claim, so that I may renounce God. But so far none of you have been able to. And this is not the only group I have raised this issue. I have discussed this in many groups. But no one has proven otherwise.
- I want a definite and firm answer. No possible and unknown answers and possibilities. It is logically and philosophically rejected.
- If I have correctly understood the poll about the personal god in America, I personally do not agree. Understanding God is for everyone. Of course, everyone knows and accepts God according to his understanding. Or rejects it. And denies. We have a logical answer for all these options. And in this group I have told you.
Personal God If you mean that everyone has created a god for himself according to his understanding and logic. It is true. That is, everyone knows God only according to his understanding and keeps him inside. And accepts. We accept this. But that everyone sees God only for what he has made for himself. And God is only to be personal. Rejected. I have said many times that my God is not alone. God is all. And God is One.See God is one. But our perceptions of God are different. I have also said before that "the truth of God" is not what we are told in religious teachings. Basically, religion and the holy books of religions are according to our interpretations and only our perception. And just maybe the principles are right. But many of its contents are either wrong or superstitious and distorted. Unfortunately, we do not have a complete and accurate understanding of God - religion and the scriptures of religions.
Thanks a lot

 

[heydarian saeed]

Do you have any evidence to support your argumentum ad populum? It’s currently ranked “225,023 in Books” according to Amazon.

In 2004 ....

 

[heydarian saeed]

Ahh ... well, Yes. sadly in the end, when it keeps happening, I have to agree it looks like deliberate untruth.

The last round of those same claims just repeated by heydarian, are also a rather obvious example of the same old "God of the gaps" argument used so often by all sorts of theists. E.g., the claim that because science has not yet produced a universally accepted explanation of (a) how life first began on Earth, and (b) how & why the big bang happened, that must mean that God can be placed as the cause in those two gaps.

But if we are talking about honesty, then I think we have to say that theists are not even being honest with themselves when they make those sort of claims about gaps in our scientific knowledge. E.g. , from the beginnings of modern science circa 1600, thousands of such "gaps“ have been filled by science, so that now it's really just those two that are left. So in all honesty, theists should by now have long since admitted that all their earlier beliefs about how God was responsible for almost everything that ever happened on Earth (or anything that was ever seen to happen even in space), have all turned to be wrong (all those millions of things have been shown to have a perfectly natural explanation).

More specifically re the big bang; we are now at a stage of knowing pretty much exactly what happened right back to within a fraction of second of the "bang" ... so we have a very good & complete explanation for all of that process going all the way back 13.8 billion years to within say 100th of second from the bang, so that theists are now reduced to claiming that because we still cant be very sure of that last 100th second, that must be where God is!

The same applies to the question of exactly how the first living organisms arose on Earth – since discovering evolution we can trace life back in vast detail for about 3.5 billion years to the earliest most primitive forms of life ... but because we do not yet have a widely agreed explanation for how that very earliest first step arose all those billions of years ago, theists like heydarian insist that God must the undiscovered answer for just that very first step.

Hello dear philosopher
What is your philosophical and logical approach? the third time ....!
Please look at my approach and Pixel. Our coffee never gets bitter. It is always sweet. I love her for that honesty.
Tanks

 

[Pixel42]

Hi
- Look, dear pixel, the universe is made of matter. Is not that so? Good. Everything that exists in the universe must be necessary in order to exist. Therefore, the cause of the existence of the disabled must also be necessary. If not, the process of finding the disabled is incomplete. Therefore, it does not exist. And logic and philosophy reject this approach.
The causal cause of the disability must be perfect in order to create the disability. If the cause is minor, the disability does not causal. For example, water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. If it is just oxygen, water will not be made. But only water is possible. Also, if we only have hydrogen, there is still no water. But it is possible for water to form. Therefore, it must be the cause of complete water formation. And oxygen and hydrogen are both combined to form water.
In the philosophy of the universe, a unit is considered. All beings in the universe have a hierarchy of causes. And there must be a necessity to create the necessary cause of that disability. The universe has the same hierarchy of causes. And there is no exception. The creation of the universe must be necessary for its cause to be necessary. This hierarchy is not an algebraic cause. It is a necessity.
The mistake of the disbelievers is that they only accept "algebra". If so, what is the place of "choice"? The "necessity" of the existence of the disability and also the "necessity" of the complete cause cause the disability. If this causal hierarchy is not established, no disability causal. This causal hierarchy must end at some point. Because if it continues, we will never have a complete cause. And logic rejects it. The universe has become a "necessity". The full cause has also become necessary. Therefore, the universe has been created. The essential cause of the universe must be inherent. Otherwise, the hierarchy of causes does not end. And logic and philosophy reject it. And if God is material, the hierarchy of causes will continue and will not have an end point, so it is rejected. We do not exclude God. Because basically God should not be of the material kind. And it is not made of material. Because if it is made of matter, the hierarchy of the perfect cause does not end. And there must be another reason. You said this yourself. Therefore, this absolutely necessary cause must be inherent and not dependent on another cause. We call God the essential intrinsic cause. Thus, according to the rational philosophy approach, the relationship between cause and effect is a "necessity" relationship. It is not "algebra". - Several possible answers Is our main answer in this discussion? No. It is only possible. But it is not certain. We are looking for a definitive answer. God's claim is true until we find the definitive answer. This is our best assumption. So we can not deny God. God is presented as an outstanding selection. And there. Of course, we know that science will never be able to find a definitive answer. Because God's claim is true. This is our opinion. And it is definite until proven otherwise. And no one can deny it.
So far, the opposite has not been proven. Personally, I have repeatedly asked all of you in this group to prove to me the opposite of this claim, so that I may renounce God. But so far none of you have been able to. And this is not the only group I have raised this issue. I have discussed this in many groups. But no one has proven otherwise.
- I want a definite and firm answer. No possible and unknown answers and possibilities. It is logically and philosophically rejected.
- If I have correctly understood the poll about the personal god in America, I personally do not agree. Understanding God is for everyone. Of course, everyone knows and accepts God according to his understanding. Or rejects it. And denies. We have a logical answer for all these options. And in this group I have told you.
Personal God If you mean that everyone has created a god for himself according to his understanding and logic. It is true. That is, everyone knows God only according to his understanding and keeps him inside. And accepts. We accept this. But that everyone sees God only for what he has made for himself. And God is only to be personal. Rejected. I have said many times that my God is not alone. God is all. And God is One.See God is one. But our perceptions of God are different. I have also said before that "the truth of God" is not what we are told in religious teachings. Basically, religion and the holy books of religions are according to our interpretations and only our perception. And just maybe the principles are right. But many of its contents are either wrong or superstitious and distorted. Unfortunately, we do not have a complete and accurate understanding of God - religion and the scriptures of religions.
Thanks a lot

You are just repeating fundamental logical and factual errors which have been explained to you many times. Unless you are prepared to at least try to understand the responses you receive, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[junkshop]

...The book wasn't actually published until 2006- but that still doesn't save heydarian's reputation for serial dishonesty. It doesn't feature in the list of top sellers for that year either. Ironically, Dawkins' The God Delusion does.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/popular_by_date/2006

In fairness, I think Heydarian was probably referring to Armstrong's previous book on the subject, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (the title is closer).

That book was published in 1991 (so no time travel needed). However, it doesn't appear on either the NYT or AmazonUS bestseller lists for 2004.

This, then, is still a lie:

...It was the best-selling book of the year in the United States in 2004...

As it remains, even if repeated:

In 2004 ....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

In fairness, I think Heydarian was probably referring to Armstrong's previous book on the subject, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (the title is closer).

That book was published in 1991 (so no time travel needed). However, it doesn't appear on either the NYT or AmazonUS bestseller lists for 2004.

This, then, is still a lie:


As it remains, even if repeated:

And repeated after I had pointed out the original lie.
Not even room for an honest mistake. Just outright dishonesty.
Again.
I wonder what happens to liars in heydarian's religion?

Beware of telling lies, for lying leads to immorality and immorality leads to Hellfire. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar.

Oh dear. It's toasty time for you, heydarian!

 

[IanS]

Ahh ... well, Yes. sadly in the end, when it keeps happening, I have to agree it looks like deliberate untruth.

The last round of those same claims just repeated by heydarian, are also a rather obvious example of the same old "God of the gaps" argument used so often by all sorts of theists. E.g., the claim that because science has not yet produced a universally accepted explanation of (a) how life first began on Earth, and (b) how & why the big bang happened, that must mean that God can be placed as the cause in those two gaps.

But if we are talking about honesty, then I think we have to say that theists are not even being honest with themselves when they make those sort of claims about gaps in our scientific knowledge. E.g. , from the beginnings of modern science circa 1600, thousands of such "gaps“ have been filled by science, so that now it's really just those two that are left. So in all honesty, theists should by now have long since admitted that all their earlier beliefs about how God was responsible for almost everything that ever happened on Earth (or anything that was ever seen to happen even in space), have all turned to be wrong (all those millions of things have been shown to have a perfectly natural explanation).

More specifically re the big bang; we are now at a stage of knowing pretty much exactly what happened right back to within a fraction of second of the "bang" ... so we have a very good & complete explanation for all of that process going all the way back 13.8 billion years to within say 100th of second from the bang, so that theists are now reduced to claiming that because we still cant be very sure of that last 100th second, that must be where God is!

The same applies to the question of exactly how the first living organisms arose on Earth – since discovering evolution we can trace life back in vast detail for about 3.5 billion years to the earliest most primitive forms of life ... but because we do not yet have a widely agreed explanation for how that very earliest first step arose all those billions of years ago, theists like heydarian insist that God must the undiscovered answer for just that very first step.

Hello dear philosopher
What is your philosophical and logical approach? the third time ....!
Please look at my approach and Pixel. Our coffee never gets bitter. It is always sweet. I love her for that honesty.
Tanks

So you have no honest or credible answer to any of the above, or to my previous posts explaining why you are 100% wrong to claim "science has no answer", and instead you ask me insistently for what you call my "philosophical & logical approach", even though I told you very clearly the first time you asked, that I am not going to waste more time making helpful replies and explanations to you unless and until you have the honesty to admit that in all the millions of published papers in genuine science journals, NOT one single paper has ever found any evidence of a single thing you have claimed here about God! None ... out of all the millions papers there is zero evidence for your God.

I asked you before (not merely a "third time", but now 20 times or more) - please produce the genuine published papers that claim to have found what you claim is evidence in the Koran for science revealed by God/Allah in the 7th century ... where are the science papers that agree with you? ...

... please produce the papers.

… or else make a clear admission that all of published science disagrees with your God claims.

… you need do that before I waste any more of my time explaining to you what you apparently think is some sort of “philosophy” that I am using.