The supernatural

[Cosmic Yak]

Thank you for your kindness for the educational advice. I do not want to specialize in these areas that you mentioned. My specialty is occupational health and industrial safety. And because of my interest in the Qur'an, I read the Qur'an from the age of 5 until I am 50 years old. But do you follow Darwin's theory? Theory theory has many drawbacks. And this is out of the question. And Einstein just made a mistake about quantum and accepted it. At the end of his life
And that you said you heard pregnant women talk. And they do not move in any particular motion. Well it's normal. This movement is completely normal and no one is supposed to see the soul or realize its existence with this fetal movement.
Of course, the movement of the fetus is felt by the mother at the age of 4 to 6 months. And there is no doubt about that. And medical science confirms this in embryology. My talk was to prove the movement of the fetus and the beginning of perception at this age after the arrival of the soul, which I gave you two recommendations. And using the relevant equipment to scan and monitor this issue. I'm on my word. Of course, the movement of the fetus is felt by the mother at the age of 4 to 6 months. And there is no doubt about that. And medical science confirms this in embryology. My talk was to prove the movement of the fetus and the beginning of perception at this age after the arrival of the soul, which I gave you two recommendations. Using the relevant equipment to scan and monitor this issue. To prove to you that there is no difference and that the stage of the soul must enter in order for the fetus to find life and perceptions. I'm on my word.I mean to find out the cause of movement - life and perception of the fetus. There is a difference between the developmental stage of the fetus and the final cause in the life of the fetus. It is better to think more about the difference that clarifies the cause. Natural selection that overcomes luck because it is stronger never states the cause. This is a delicate and sensitive point. Do not simply ignore it.
What is the cause of movement and life and perception of the fetus? And at what stage does it happen? The answer to this question is the entry of the soul.

I tried to compile his myriad posts into a word document, but gave up after a while. It's just a rambling series of contradictory assumptions and assertions....much like his primary reference text.

This 'article' of his is quite clearly copied and pasted from elsewhere.
As the highlighted shows, he's not even very good at copy-and-pasting.
I am wondering at what point this constitutes spam, given the great walls of text, and the lack of response to most of the feedback.

 

[turingtest]

There seems to be a lot of "I have proved" and similar expressions in heydarian's screeds. I guess it's possible that whatever word in his original language has translated to "prove" here means something less dogmatic, but it does seem to point to a characteristic of woo-slingers of many stripes, when they then further admit that their proof is necessarily through subjective disciplines like philosophy rather than experimental, objective science- where science requires that whatever tests/experiments you've conducted to support your ideas be repeatable by other folks, philosophy requires only that your proof of your idea be your own repeated insistence that you have proved it. Which is handy, if not particularly convincing...

 

[Chanakya]

There seems to be a lot of "I have proved" and similar expressions in heydarian's screeds. I guess it's possible that whatever word in his original language has translated to "prove" here means something less dogmatic, but it does seem to point to a characteristic of woo-slingers of many stripes, when they then further admit that their proof is necessarily through subjective disciplines like philosophy rather than experimental, objective science- where science requires that whatever tests/experiments you've conducted to support your ideas be repeatable by other folks, philosophy requires only that your proof of your idea be your own repeated insistence that you have proved it. Which is handy, if not particularly convincing...

Quite apart from the woo-ridden thinking, there's clearly the translation software thing going here, which makes even more confusing an already confused and rambling series of posts.

Which is why I'd tried asking our "dear friend" to explain how he defines, or at least uses in this thread, words like 'laboratory', and 'scientific', and 'proof'. Whatever else he is, clearly he is sincere in his belief in the gobbledygook he's spouting here, so I thought it might be ...instructive? or at least, interesting... to understand where he's coming from.

As with his other responses, though, his response was a politely worded non-response.

I wonder what it might take to get him to actually engage with the posts in this thread. He seems fairly intelligent, if confused --- and somehow getting him to actually engage with what people are saying here might cure him of his nonsensical beliefs. Or, of course, not.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dear friend heydarian saeed where did God come from? Who created Him?

 

[JoeMorgue]

There seems to be a lot of "I have proved" and similar expressions in heydarian's screeds.

"You can't just say something and make it true."
"I didn't say it, I declared it."

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"You can't just say something and make it true."
"I didn't say it, I declared it."

Everyone knows that to make it true you have to say "A lot of people say to me, they say 'Sir, ..'"

 

[heydarian saeed]

This 'article' of his is quite clearly copied and pasted from elsewhere.
As the highlighted shows, he's not even very good at copy-and-pasting.
I am wondering at what point this constitutes spam, given the great walls of text, and the lack of response to most of the feedback.

Hi dear friend. Do not rush, we are almost at the end of the article. Finally, you can see the date on which I wrote this article. And now I have updated and I dedicate to your institution friends. Of course, I have studied and selected scientific and Quranic materials from different sources, and I will tell you the sources at the end of the article. Good luck.

 

[heydarian saeed]

There seems to be a lot of "I have proved" and similar expressions in heydarian's screeds. I guess it's possible that whatever word in his original language has translated to "prove" here means something less dogmatic, but it does seem to point to a characteristic of woo-slingers of many stripes, when they then further admit that their proof is necessarily through subjective disciplines like philosophy rather than experimental, objective science- where science requires that whatever tests/experiments you've conducted to support your ideas be repeatable by other folks, philosophy requires only that your proof of your idea be your own repeated insistence that you have proved it. Which is handy, if not particularly convincing...

Hello dear friend and tactfully. Thank you for your comment. The use of logic and philosophy is necessary for all human beings and sciences in any field. To you and dear friends in the community, I advise you to always keep in mind philosophy and logic. Because it is useful and necessary.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Quite apart from the woo-ridden thinking, there's clearly the translation software thing going here, which makes even more confusing an already confused and rambling series of posts.

Which is why I'd tried asking our "dear friend" to explain how he defines, or at least uses in this thread, words like 'laboratory', and 'scientific', and 'proof'. Whatever else he is, clearly he is sincere in his belief in the gobbledygook he's spouting here, so I thought it might be ...instructive? or at least, interesting... to understand where he's coming from.

As with his other responses, though, his response was a politely worded non-response.

I wonder what it might take to get him to actually engage with the posts in this thread. He seems fairly intelligent, if confused --- and somehow getting him to actually engage with what people are saying here might cure him of his nonsensical beliefs. Or, of course, not.

Hello dear friend. Thank you for your kindness. I am not involved in the book of Quran with old and ancient lies. Rather, the Qur'an that I believe in is up-to-date, real, and full of new and beautiful content. It depends on what glasses you look at it yourself. My glasses are new, not ancient and superstitious. And I have to say that there is no compulsion for me and there will not be. As you do not have to accept my words and opinions. Please be completely comfortable and free. And think and speak as you wish. I'm glad to meet you.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Dear friend heydarian saeed where did God come from? Who created Him?

Hello dear friend and tactfully. You asked an important and beautiful question. It has been God. Before Creation. And it will be after the end of the universe. God is not dependent on time. It is constant and permanent. It did not come from anywhere! Because place and time are not defined for God. Place and time are for the universe and nature, not for God. I know that what I am saying is nothing more than a claim for you. And I recommend that you refer to the sources of philosophy and logic to prove this claim. Existential philosophy is my suggestion. Please refer if you wish.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Dear friend heydarian saeed where did God come from? Who created Him?

"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. DickBelief in reality is true. Belief is an inner truth, not an external one. And it is not of nature. And it is always constant. If belief in something changes, there is no change in belief, but in a person's attitude and vision. And everyone has the right to choose. Therefore, belief remains and is constant. While reality is changing and coming to an end.

 

[heydarian saeed]

"You can't just say something and make it true."
"I didn't say it, I declared it."

Hello dear friend. I did not understand you. Thanks

 

[heydarian saeed]

Everyone knows that to make it true you have to say "A lot of people say to me, they say 'Sir, ..'"

Hello dear friend. I told you with a real offer. If you want, try the lab (I mean the same laboratory where different hypotheses are tested. Nothing else. Like chemistry-physics lab, etc.) that I suggested and even introduced the necessary equipment. I'm at your service.

 

[Warp12]

Hello dear friend. I did not understand you. Thanks

It probably is not a matter of translation. I don't understand it, either.

Heydarian, can you tell me why or if you believe the Quran to be the best, most truthful work?

I am saying, is it more honest than other religions? Or, do you consider all to be equally valid?

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Continue the final part of the article:
In this part, I have to mention two important things:
- If man is able to make a living being, one should not think that man is parallel to God, the Creator and Creator of the living being. And the creation of God and man are at the crossroads of each other. No, it is not. Because we will be able to do this only by using matter found in nature. So there is matter and nature. And God is the creator. In fact, man has been able to do this by combining matter and what exists in nature. And it has reached the technology of this work. And in fact, God first created matter, nature and man.
And then man has done so using matter in nature. And these two processes are not across from each other, but the creation of God has a longitudinal relationship with the creation of man. Of course, this human action is a very big and unique work and it is admirable and praiseworthy. The creation of man has nothing to do with the creation of God. And God describes man as his supreme creation and it is strange that he describes him as "God-like".

 

[heydarian saeed]

... It is not without merit to say that; The origin of life and death and its principle is in the hands of God and by His will. But each happens in its own way and channel, using its own tools. Matter and nature are of this type. Life is absolutely a great grace and above the horizon of the material and tangible body. According to the Qur'an, creation is not an instantaneous matter. That is, a human-like being is constantly evolving in the evolutionary stages it undergoes.
Rather, the universe is always being created. Is your existence the same as your material body at the moment we are talking about, an hour before this? Has your body changed anything? Science answers that; Everything changes over time.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Those for human life only to his creation from dust! They refer, in fact, do not find a way to justify his life and say that it was created by blowing the Spirit of God. But in the Qur'an, just as he knows the life of the first man from God, he also knows the life of all human beings that takes place in the current system of creation from God. That is, you and I, who are in the 21st century, our creation for God is the same as the creation of "Adam".
Those who do not think like this actually think about God and the creation of man by His hand in a negative and unknown way, not in a positive way and with sufficient information. There is also this negative thinking in the discussion of the supernatural. A group that agrees but does not know the reason and does not do enough research is a repository for their unknowns.
And those who basically disagree think differently like the first group. While the supernatural has its own rules and regulations. And if a cause replaces a material and natural cause, it itself becomes both a shower and a degree of matter and nature. Therefore, it is difficult for them to distinguish whether it is matter or supernatural and has a horizon higher than tangible matter. Nature and matter are not across from each other, but along each other. In other words, a parallel world. The existence of the soul is the same argument.

 

[Susheel]

It probably is not a matter of translation. I don't understand it, either.

Heydarian, can you tell me why or if you believe the Quran to be the best, most truthful work?

I am saying, is it more honest than other religions? Or, do you consider all to be equally valid?

Really...you didn't? I find that hard to believe.

Joe Morgue is simply highlighting the tone of Heydarian Saeed's posts. He insists that we should accept his claims at face value, because he terms them as assertions.

 

[Pixel42]

God is not dependent on time. It is constant and permanent. It did not come from anywhere!

If that statement is acceptable to you then you have no good reason to reject the statement:

"The universe/multiverse is not dependent on time. It is constant and permanent. It did not come from anywhere!"

Either the concept of something existing without having been created is acceptable to you or it isn't. If you're going to allow one exception to your "everything must come from somewhere" assumption then "everything except the universe/multiverse came from somewhere" is preferable to "everything except God came from somewhere", as it doesn't introduce an unnecessary extra step.

 

[heydarian saeed]

It probably is not a matter of translation. I don't understand it, either.

Heydarian, can you tell me why or if you believe the Quran to be the best, most truthful work?

I am saying, is it more honest than other religions? Or, do you consider all to be equally valid?

Hello dear friend and tactfully. Thank you for your question. The Qur'an confirms all religions and holy books. Because basically the author and the sender of all religions and holy books are one. It is God. But we believe that the Qur'an is the most complete holy book of the divine religions. And God Himself has guaranteed that we are the custodians and guardians of the Qur'an. And it will last forever. And is eternal. And no force can destroy it. This is not my claim. It is a claim of God. And it has been true for 14 centuries now. The Quran is not an ancient book. Rather, it is always flowing like God's creation. And it moves with time. He said something 14 centuries ago that the people of that time would understand.
Of course, if they understand ?! He is saying the same thing now in the 21st century. But you and I understand it according to the science of the day and we understand it according to the progress of our science. You may not get a good impression if I say that; The Qur'an speaks to us like an eloquent human being at all times. And speaks according to the science of the day. I have written examples of new science in the Qur'an for you.
Thank you very much