Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 01:32 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 09:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:53 AM

New Britain
November 29, 2024, 08:17 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 191284 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 19 20 2122 23 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #600 - August 20, 2015, 01:14 AM

    This topic is about whether there is scientific evidence for God - "Is there scientific evidence that proves the existence of God". I'm trying to keep it on that subject. My approach is that you first need to establish whether there is a God or not and try to get an idea about his power. It can then be used to base many other discussions. For example someone may say that it's simply not possible to bring the dead back to life - maybe they're missing a loved one or just can't get their head around it. When you look at the science living beings are nothing but animated atoms and molecules. Living beings are simply dead matter in animation. We can study them all day long and touch it and understand it. It's not something magical, it's real. Hopefully the person who can't accept dead beings brought to life may become more hopeful as they have something real to refer to. We will all be brought back to life. It's nothing difficult for God and if God can bring the dead back to life then just imagine what else he could do. Hopefully you will see what I'm trying to say.

    Djinn, angels, magic, talking animals, etc. They only seem bizarre to you because you don't know anything about them. They are mysteries. Once you have better knowledge about them then it's no big deal. You're used to a reality where all living beings are made from the earth. Angels are simply beings that are made from light. You've never seen a being made from light and from your understanding of physics it's simply not possible. But who knows, maybe scientist will one day be able to make light hard and shape it. Then you'll be more comfortable with believing in angels.

    Most ulema only know what he has been taught through hadiths and the Quran and the study of the arabic language. That in no way makes him knowledgeable about the world. He is an expert on the words unless he himself has gone out in the world and comprehended some of the things mentioned in the Quran and Bible. At the end of the day if the holy books are purely spiritual and are nothing to do with the real world then can we be blamed for not believing in them? My view is that it would be unfair.

    If there really was someone educated properly regarding the Quran on this forum they would have cleared up "apostasy" as being something grossly misunderstood. Maybe they already have and I just haven't come across that post. Most of the people on this forum simply don't understand the Quran, Bible or God and have other personal issues.

    If you want to me to answer issues with the Quran then feel free to open up a specific topic and I'll do my best to explain. However most things are going to back to understanding the concept of God. If you don't truly realise that God is All Powerful, All Knowing, the only reality then you're going to struggle with accepting the answers.



    Okay, issues with Quran.
    How do you get context for Quran while in denial of hadith?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #601 - August 20, 2015, 08:42 AM

    Allow me to correct this sentence for you:

    Planets only form around stars (which is something a stone age geocentrist like yourself probably doesn't understand). Stars collect rocks and shit as they hurtle through space. Over the course of millions or billions of years, shit happens. They collect rocks and dust that was flying around in weaker gravitational orbits into their galaxies. Those rocks and dust can collide with each other as they are torn by gravitational forces that are stronger than the orbits they were in. Other forces like magnetism or static electricity which have been mentioned already can act on them. If other planets or big rocks have formed, then depending on the trajectory of the little thing, the planet or big rock's gravity can also act on the dust and rocks, and can force the dust/rocks to become satellites, moons, or rings, or they can crash into the planet or big rock, making it ever so slightly bigger and increasing the big thing's gravity by that little bit. The universe has been around for a length of time it's difficult to wrap our heads around, and so a process that takes eons has had more than enough time to do its thing.


    Maybe one day when you reach adulthood you'll understand the rubbish you have written.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #602 - August 20, 2015, 09:01 AM

    Maybe one day when you reach adulthood you'll understand the rubbish you have written.

    and dear Ted,   "some adults  with faith inside their head never understand  the rubbish that they have in their heads "

    it is life .. take it or leave it..

    well let me watch this a bit  Quod put these tubes somewhere else..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTXN5nOstRs#t=96

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCSIjPE2X3Q

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #603 - August 20, 2015, 10:07 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbx-MYjy6PI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLXGV4sz44

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwofxdWvlXQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq96dYA6z5w

    huh!!    constant struggle  with fools., 

    .. fools in  religions   and FOOLS WITH  RELIGIONS BRAINS don't watch.. don't   read.,  don't hear   and don't want to know anything except that their religion is great

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #604 - August 20, 2015, 12:55 PM

    Must have been from some hadith or other website.

    What hadith?  grin12
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #605 - August 20, 2015, 02:18 PM

    Maybe one day when you reach adulthood you'll understand the rubbish you have written.


    If you remove certain parts that you take offense to she is correct based on what we know. Planets are a classification of a certain size of object. We have only found these around stars. We lack the technology to detect bodies without certain influences. For example when a planet passes between our tool of observation's position and it's parent star. More here if you are interested, it only covers the major methods in simplified language: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/page/methods

    You have not proposed any alternative to the methods we use now. The ideas we inference and test using computer simulation. These methods work depending on the subject. For example exp-planet detection methods have been refine in the last decade. We have discovered hundreds of new planets. Here is a link to one that meets the positional requires Earth has with a similar star as our own.

    https://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #606 - August 20, 2015, 02:28 PM

    ................ We lack the technology to detect bodies without certain influences. For example when a planet passes between our tool of observation's position and it's parent star. .....................

    Well Ted is riot,    bogart there is something seriously wrong with you all people.. finmad


    The fact you guys lack technology  "means there is god" ..

    The fact you can not make sitting dust particle  in a corner of a laboratory  in to a sold rock "means there is god"

    The fact you can not even make a dust particle out of trillion watts of energy "means there is god"

    what don't you guys understand?    ha!.. you guys lack common sense and simple logic .. irrational people....

    Ted.. Ted don't worry I am here for you.........

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #607 - August 20, 2015, 02:30 PM

    Hey now! I do need glasses so it is true.

    Still arguments from ignorance Yeez.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #608 - August 20, 2015, 02:35 PM

    .Still arguments from ignorance Yeez.

    huh! what?  you guys LACK TECHNOLOGY and you call  my arguments and Ted's   arguments  Ignorant?

    Again who is lacking technology?? didn't you say you lack technology?

    Ted.. Ted  where are you??  I saw you.. you are reading......  help me out here...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #609 - August 20, 2015, 02:40 PM

    The lack of support for one view point does not make a competing one right. Each idea must be supported by it's own evidence, arguments and merit.


  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #610 - August 20, 2015, 03:03 PM

    I think I'll go to the physics forum.  I need to engage with people who understand the basics of science.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #611 - August 20, 2015, 03:15 PM

    I think I'll go to the physics forum.  I need to engage with people who understand the basics of science.

    Ted don't forget to teach Physics and teach Islam/religions to those rascals

    http://www.thephysicsforum.com/
    http://physicshelpforum.com/
    http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/
    https://www.physforum.com/
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/physics

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #612 - August 20, 2015, 03:19 PM

    ^

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #613 - August 20, 2015, 03:29 PM

    I think I'll go to the physics forum.  I need to engage with people who understand the basics of science.


    They won't understand how the sun orbits the earth. You'll have to bring them up to speed. I'm sure they will be very grateful.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #614 - August 20, 2015, 03:56 PM

    I think yeezevee is the only one who made any meaningful interesting comments. Thanks yeezevee,  the world needs more people like you.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #615 - August 20, 2015, 04:09 PM

    ............ Thanks yeezevee, ................

      Ted   ..ted........ lol.... Cheesy

    Ted  actually thank you., people like you are the reason readers and writers of forum like this get educated with vastly different/unrelated  subjects

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #616 - August 20, 2015, 06:37 PM


    We have been designed to hate killing, misery and bad things. So we should feel those emotions. We have also been designed to love, to help, to care. We should feel those things and try to spread it around even others may not like it.





    The thing is those statements exclude all psychopaths (estimated to be 1 in 100 people but I think the number is much higher because of the under-diagnosis of female psychopathy) and possibly some people with severe autism (although it's hard to tell because they have trouble vocalizing how they feel; but they seem to not experience some emotions related to interacting with others, or at least, don't express them in the same way others do) from the human or God-created population. There are people literally incapable of feeling some of the emotions you listed. It's not that they intentionally turned off their emotions, or that they just don't act on their emotions. The parts of their brains that handle those emotions are formed wrong, and were formed wrong before they were born. What's more, correcting these problems is legitimately something science can never do, depending on your definition of personal identity. If your definition of a person's identity is not their physical body, but their emotions, thoughts, ideas, and memories, then it is impossible to correct these issues because it requires rewriting the brain in such a way that their emotions and thoughts are changed irreparably--making them no longer the same person. The person you wanted to help will have, at least in theory or philosophically, died, to let the new person live. The new person with emotions and thoughts of their own may or may not share memories with the dead person, but either way, their personality is so dramatically different that they cannot be said to be philosophically the same person.

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #617 - August 20, 2015, 06:55 PM

    They won't understand how the sun orbits the earth. You'll have to bring them up to speed. I'm sure they will be very grateful.


    At least they will understand the science and be able to discuss rather than make silly worthless comments.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #618 - August 20, 2015, 06:57 PM

    fine, but from my point of view, you don't understand the science, and yours was an example of a silly worthless comment.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #619 - August 20, 2015, 06:59 PM

    Scientists know very well how Qtian's beard was formed, but show me ONE TIME when they were able to make a beard like his in a lab!


    Don't be silly. It's impossible for scientists to give people any more hair they have on their heads never mind give them a new beard. But I'm sure they will figure it in the future.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #620 - August 20, 2015, 07:00 PM

    which is why I consider Wayne Rooney a miracle.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #621 - August 20, 2015, 07:08 PM

    So far what I have gathered is that the atheists think like this:

    Can scientists explain something?
      Yes - that means God didn't do it.
      No - Scientists will figure it out later and if they don't who cares if God did it or not?

    So, like I said before, is there any point in you guys trying to explain why you are atheists or ex-muslims? I personally always wanted for there to be a God so maybe I'm just biased when I see the scientific evidence. If someone doesn't care about there being God then that's their choice. What get's to me is the lies about the science. I think it would be tiring to remind them how science was done at school.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #622 - August 20, 2015, 07:09 PM

    Quote
    I personally always wanted for there to be a God so maybe I'm just biased when I see the scientific evidence.


    21 pages summed up in a single sentence.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #623 - August 20, 2015, 07:11 PM

    which is why I consider Wayne Rooney a miracle.


    I knew you wouldn't understand. Read what I said carefully and then do a google to find out why intercytex went bust.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #624 - August 20, 2015, 07:13 PM

    21 pages summed up in a single sentence.


    Which is why I always challenge my understanding of the science rather than accept it blindly.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #625 - August 20, 2015, 07:22 PM

    So far what I have gathered is that the atheists think like this:

    Can scientists explain something?
      Yes - that means God didn't do it.
      No - Scientists will figure it out later and if they don't who cares if God did it or not?


    If you are claiming scientific evidence of god, then you need to present positive evidence. Pointing to a gap in scientific knowledge (even if you had been succesful in doing so) is not evidence for anything, other than that gap. Whether or not something can be explained by science doesn't even weigh in on the god question.  If we can explain something using science, it doesn't mean god didn't cause it. Why can't god have used processes that can be understood? If we can't explain something using science, it also adds precisely nothing to our understanding of a god.

    It only matters to people arguing god of the gaps. It only matters for people literally arguing from ignorance. This point has been made a few times and you just don't get it. That is why it is quite laughable when you act as if you have so much to teach us. We get your argument. It is god of the gaps, and it sucks - in its entirety.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #626 - August 20, 2015, 07:39 PM

    So what then becomes the purpose of God if not to explain things in a physical sense? What would be the proof of his existence if he does not exist in the gaps of our knowledge?


    The physical world is not that important. It's easy for God to create, destroy, recreate and do other things. By being able to interact with the physical world we can learn about God, about others and about ourself. The things that matter most to humans are life. It's not the gold, the money, the beauty, the mansions, etc. It's life, especially human life. The soul of a person is what we value the most. You can have all the wealth in the world but if you have no one to share it with then it's worthless. What's the point in having a desert full of gold sand when you are the only person alive on the earth?

    When someone saves our life from certain death and does it risking their own life do we not be so thankful to that person? Do we not regard him as a much better person than one who is rich and would not risk his life to save another? Our biggest struggles are with our feelings rather than the physical world. The Quran makes it clear that it's about our souls and not the glitter of the world.

    I read your post on the front page of CEMB and to me it seems that you'd be OK with the concept of God but not the one in the Quran. You're looking for a God which makes absolute sense. Where you see justice carried out on the earth and it's obvious that God is doing it. Where the sick are healed and the poor are looked after and you can see it happen. You can't get your head around the misunderstanding that God only revealed his miracles to supposedly backwards people. I personally think you're on the right lines but just need to take it a step further. I've been there myself and had exactly the same questions. Why did God show miracles to simpletons, why aren't the miracles shown to me personally, why should I trust people who can lie?

     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #627 - August 20, 2015, 08:09 PM

    I think I'll go to the physics forum.  I need to engage with people who understand the basics of science.


    You will find the same answers as people are providing here. Also people will tell you that you still do not know what you are talking about. Go ahead and do so. It will not make your lack of arguments any better. Go ahead and tell them about your geocentric idea. I am sure you will be a riot. Although probably not in the way you think.

    Just to call your bluff link your new thread in whatever physics forum you post.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #628 - August 20, 2015, 08:13 PM

    Still god of the gaps and arguments from ignorance Ted.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #629 - August 20, 2015, 08:26 PM

    Quote
    I read your post on the front page of CEMB and to me it seems that you'd be OK with the concept of God but not the one in the Quran.


    I’d say that’s actually a pretty fair statement.

    Quote
    You're looking for a God which makes absolute sense.


    Not necessarily. I realize that I’m an ignorant, limited, flawed, silly ol’ human being. I’m pretty good at understanding basic concepts, though. So things don’t have to make absolute sense to me for me to believe them. I just have to find them believable.

    Quote
    Where you see justice carried out on the earth and it's obvious that God is doing it. Where the sick are healed and the poor are looked after and you can see it happen.


    So this part is actually completely untrue. You’ve actually got it all wrong here. I don’t expect to see god sticking his nose into everyday human life. I don’t expect him to cure AIDS for African babies or to stop high school girls from getting assaulted in dark alley ways or to defuse bombs left in open air Friday markets.

    Because if God did those things some of the time but not others, I’d have to question his integrity even further. If a doctor only treated people who praised him, or if a fireman only extinguished the fires of the homes of people who loved him, while they watched other people die because they did not grovel and beg enough, then I would have no respect for that doctor or that fireman. A God who sees evil but only intervenes when he has his ego stroked is not a god I would worship or love, even if it were real.

    But the problem is that this is what the Qur’an actually claims. The Qur’an claims that its God answers the call of those who beg him, while it also says that he does not care about the people who don’t. “Say, my lord does not care about you, save for your calling of him.”

    The Qur’an says that God heals the sick when he feels like it. It says that he strikes whomsoever he wills with lightning. It says that he gives some couples boys and other couples girls and makes some couples barren when he feels like it. It says that he guides whom he wills and leaves astray whom he wills. He holds birds in the sky. He sends the winds and the rains. He “sent down eight pairs of cattle.” He makes the ships sail in the sea. He raises the sun from the east and makes it set in the west. He turns night into day and day into night.

    So, we can look at these things two ways. Either, one, we can imagine an anthropomorphic God sitting up on high directing the wind with his hands and farting out lightning bolts from his arse. And every time the natural evidence shows us that this is not the case, we can make our god smaller and smaller until we are back 4 billion years ago talking about how dust particles could have come together without our god.

    Or, two, we can look at the world as it is: people get sick for natural reasons through genetic disorders, germs, and diseases. Lightning strikes at random through natural causes. Ships sail through the sea following natural laws. Birds fly according to natural, physical laws. Humans evolve through natural means. Stars ignite and planets form through natural means. God does not intervene. For now, at least, we’re on our own to figure things out.

    And given that we are indeed limited, flawed, silly ol’ human beings, then the last mystery we should ever claim to have fully comprehended would be the one that lies well beyond our means of observation. The most we could ever say is “I don’t know.” It’s the only honest answer. The moment anyone comes to us claiming to have all the answers and asking us to be gullible, asking us to have faith because they said so, asking us to believe because if we don’t they’ll torture us, asking us to do what they say while we are alive because if we do they will reward us – but only after our lives have ended, then our spidey senses should go off and we should run the other way.

  • Previous page 1 ... 19 20 2122 23 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »