Hello. Continue answering your questions and content.
- Yes, there is Noah and the story of his ark is real and it happened. Noah is a Hebrew word and is mentioned in the book of Genesis as well as in Surah Noah.
Nope, Noah's Ark s a story. It didn't happen. In fact it was almost certainly cribbed from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
You do realise we can prove that there was no global flood at any time, right?
The wreckage of Noah's ark and its landing site on Mount Judi in the Ararat
Mountains can be seen.
No, it can't. People have been looking for centuries. It would rather make the news if it was found, but it hasn't been. Please, show me any news story that shows the ark site. Or better yet since you say it can be seen still please show me the wreckage. This should be good.
It is also mentioned in the history of Noah. In versions; Hori also mentions the Agadai narration in the Gospel of Matthew - Gnosticism - Baha'ism - Hinduism and Greek mythology.
Yes, lots of mythologies have flood stories but 1. They are not all the same story because the details (including protagonists) are not the same in any of them and
2. The story in the Torah, Bible and Quran is pretty clearly stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The authors of the Abrahamic faith holy texts couldn't even make up their own story. They had to steal it from someone else.
But as has previously been mentioned, you know we KNOW there wasn't a global flood right?
For one thing various civilisations around the world including the Egyptians and Chinese continued without interruption through the point at which he flood was meant to have happened. How did they not notice they were all drowning?
Secondly if there was a large scale flood that wiped out all land based animals except those on the ark there would be a genetic bottleneck in every single species showing where the breeding numbers were cut down to 2/14 depending upon species and who you listen to. There is no such bottleneck. There is absolutely no way this event could have happened.
Thirdly, in order to keep fish alive the water needs to have either a maximum or minimum salinity dependant upon fish species. For example a fresh water fish put into salinated water (like the sea) will die, likewise a sea fish will die in fresh water. With all the world covered in water, there would be no way to keep these species separate meaning that if the flood waters were salty, all the freshwater fish would have been wiped out, and if it was fresh all the saltwater fish would have been wiped out.
Finally there is geology. The geological history of the world would show the effects of a world wide flood in the strata of the rock types that form the Earth. It doesn't. There is no period in history (and we are talking millions of years here, not just the recorded history of mankind) that shows such a violent upheaval in the Earth.
Noah's flood didn't happen. It's a fairy story.
- From what you say, it is clear that you accept that the universe is constructive and that it did not happen by chance. Well, that's enough. Now we have left the poison to God. Whatever name you give is acceptable. From here, we come to the part where we talk about the middle ground.
Again, arrant nonsense. I very much do not agree with the above. There is absolutely no evidence for a creator. None.
The universe is not "constructive" in the sense that it has a plan. There is no plan. Things happen according to the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. There is no need for a god. I do not say that god absolutely does not exist, because there are many different ideas of what god is, but I will say that Allah absolutely does not exist. He is logically impossible. He is self refuting. You've been lied to Heydarian.
- You asked me to state my argument better to prove the existence of God. The proofs of God's existence are many. In other words, anyone can prove God for himself. Because the existence of God is innate. And every human being believes in the nature of God.
Absolute nonsense yet again.
I used to be a believer because I was raised as one. If I were not raised to believe any specific book of myths I would not do so. If I had been raised to believe in Zeus, Hades and Poseidon and continually told during my formative years that they were real I would likely have believed in them.
I see no evidence for god, so I do not accept any gods. I am willing to be convinced but all you are doing is throwing up terrible boilerplate apologetics I was able to refute when I was 13. You do realise we have likely all heard these arguments before, right?
However, some people ignore it and deceive themselves.
- The path of nature says: All human beings turn to the saving force and ask for help in the most difficult situations and when they are disappointed in everything and everyone. This is the natural way of seeking God.
People turn to god when they suffer and yet for so many their lives do not improve and the suffering continues.
Oh look, we've come to the Problem of Evil portion of the apologetics.
So, resolve the problem of evil Heydarian. People have been trying for milllenia, but I'm sure you can do it.
But I have chosen a few other ways. I tell you:
1- Proof of possibility and necessity. That is, anything that changes cannot create itself. And its existence is not inherent. Therefore, he needs an existence that cannot be changed to create him. Plato - Plotinus - Thomas Aquinas believe in this way of proving God.
Aquinas et al were wrong. This is just an assumption laden mess of an argument.
Firstly you are assuming that existence is not inherent. Secondly you are assuming that there must be a creator, and then you are indulging in special pleading to assert without evidence that while the Universe cannot be eternal (why not?) god can (why? If the universe was created surely god was too?).
2- The existence of anything is contrary to its nature. The existence of everything in the universe is contrary to its nature, so it needs a reason that is not like this and gives it existence and existence.
Meaningless gibberish.
3- The body is composed of matter and shape. And the two are interdependent. Anything that depends on something else the manufacturer wants. And he cannot make himself.
More meaningless gibberish. Matter came into being after the big bang expansion event as did time and the laws of physics. Matter arranges itself according to the laws of physics and chemistry. It's not that hard Heydarian. No god involved.
4- Argument of motion: From the existence of motion in the universe, we realize the existence of the first stimulus. The first stimulus must be free of any movement.
Again, arrant nonsense that you are simply asserting is true without any justification. You can't just claim you are right therefore you are right. You have to demonstrate that you are right and why.
The motion of the universe comes from the big bang expansion event and the laws of physics. There was no space-time prior to the expansion of the singularity. The Singularity was in effect there "forever" before the big bang because time didn't exist. Talking about what happened before the big bang is meaningless.
Thomas Aquinas attaches great importance to this argument. And he says this is the best way to prove God to the universe.
Thomas Aquinas was a very intelligent man. That didn't stop his arguments from not being logical or correct.
Ask yourself why we don't accept these arguments instead of just assuming you know why Heydarian. Or better yet read our explanations and understand them. As it is you're just making up the non believer portion of the discussion in your own head and responding to what you think we are saying rather than what we are actually saying.
- Mysticism is a kind of face-to-face observation of the heart. And not everyone's job. And requires high capacity. And there is. You cannot reject this path even though you do not accept it. Strengthen your vision so that you do not disrespect the opinion of others because you do not accept it.
Mysticism is nonsense. What you are talking about is introspection. Introspection is useful for determining your own attitudes and assessing why you hold them, but it is worthless at figuring out actual reality. That's why we use science. Remember science? That thing you said you would use to prove the supernatural? You've yet to even make an attempt.
- Garbage smoke in the sky is funny. And I hear from you. But the singularity is the beginning of time and movement for our real world. Who created it? (Refer to the rational arguments I mentioned above.)
No one. The singularity wasn't created, it just was.
Please read my answers carefully. So that your relevant questions are not repeated.
I do. You're mostly engaging in special pleading and just asserting that you are correct without evidence or justification. It's a bit sad really. Please provide evidence. "I think this is true" is not evidence. That's all you've provided.
I suggest you sort out the questions and content in your mind. It is clear that you have a confused mind.
Many thanks to you and dear associations
Oh, insults now?
Why do you think I'm confused? Because I don't accept your bald assertions at face value?
Try harder Heydarian. As it stands your arguments are just terrible.
