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


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 06:50 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 12:02 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 19, 2024, 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 19, 2024, 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM

New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Challenge

 (Read 27702 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Challenge
     Reply #120 - June 27, 2016, 04:50 PM

    This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.''

    The Holy Qur'an, 3:85 - ''And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.''


    That verse applies to you and all Muslims.. You will be the losers.

    Quote
    It has been said that the word Dīn appears in as many as 79 verses in the Qur'an,[4] but because there is no exact English translation of the term, its precise definition has been the subject of some misunderstanding and disagreement. For instance, the term is often translated in parts of the Qur'an as "religion".[5] However, in the Qur'an itself, the act of submission to God is always referred to as Dīn rather than as Madhhab (مذهب), which is the Arabic word for "religion" : Din as used in Islam

    DIN—this word has been used in various contexts, among them being ascendancy, sovereignty, management, conduct of affairs, ruling power, mastership, ownership, exercise of power, code of law, constitution, law of requital, an order.  The Quran has described Islam as Ad-Din, which is generally translated as religion.   However, in the light of the above meanings, it should be clear that this is not only incorrect, but distorts and negates the very meaning of din.  Islam is not a religion (madhab), and it has never been described as one in the Quran.  Islam is a way of life, a system, a code of law.  In the external universe Islam signifies the Divine Order that governs life and the movement of the entire universe.  The whole purpose of the Quran is to establish a universal order based on the Divinely ordained values of life.  This is ad-din; Islam: A Challenge to Religion


    and read the context from verse 3.83, understand who is the "Messengers" of Allah, ie. people from all nations.

    Quote
    We have not sent any Messenger except in the language of his people [of all nation]. [14:4]

    Messengers of whom We have told to you from before, and Messengers We have not told to you (in this Quran).[4:164]

    For every nation is a Messenger.[10:47]

    There was not a nation that a warner did not come to it.[35:24]


    therefore ..

    Quote
    Those who rejected God and His Messengers (truth), and they want to make a distinction between God and His messengers (truth), and they say: "We believe in some (truth) and reject some (other truth from other religions)!" And they desire to take a path in-between (schism, religions and denominations). These are the true disbelievers. [4:150-151]


    God has no religion, and truth has no religion. Mankind is one ummah.

  • Challenge
     Reply #121 - June 27, 2016, 05:09 PM

    Gods and religions are human inventions. Like harnesses for horses, I don't actually need them or use them, and they are becoming rarer and rarer.

    Maybe there should be an Olympic sport - religion dressage - who has the most impressive rituals, buildings etc :-)

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Challenge
     Reply #122 - June 27, 2016, 05:17 PM

    God definitely does exist. If not, give me your alternatives. If you take a creator out of the picture, explain the origins of the Universe - from the beginning.


    Who made God?

    If God can be eternal, why can't the universe?

    But your God has actually got a date stamp on it! About 600, probably Made in Arabia (or Damascus!)

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Challenge
     Reply #123 - June 27, 2016, 05:17 PM



    Conclusion

    ​​Comparison: Religion vs. Deen

    A comparative study of religion or madhhab, and deen should help us understand the vital and fundamental characteristics of each and the differences between the two:

    1. Madhhab is merely some sort of subjective experience and is concerned only with the so-called private relationship between God and man.

    Deen is an objective reality and a system of collective life.

    2. Every follower of a Madhhab is satisfied that he has established a communion with the Almighty, and the objective of each individual is his own salvation.

    The aim of deen, on the other hand, is the welfare and progress of all mankind, and the character and constitution of a society indicates whether or not it is founded upon the Divine Law.

    3. Madhhab does not afford us any objective criterion by which we could determine whether or not our actions producing the desired results.

    In a social order governed by deen, the development of a collective and harmonious life correctly indicates whether or not the people are pursuing the right course.

    4. Madhhab is hostile to scientific investigation and is an adversary of reason, so that it could flourish unhampered with the aid of a blind faith.

    Deen helps in the development of human reason and knowledge, allows full freedom to accept or reject on the basis of reason and arguments, and encourages investigation and discovery of all the natural phenomena to illumine the path of human life and its advancement in the light of the Permanent Values.

    5. Madhhab follows the susceptibilities and prejudices of men and pampers them.

    Deen seeks to lead men to a path of life that is in harmony with the realities of life.

    6. In every age, therefore, madhhab sets up new idols and mumbo-jumbos in order to keep the people’s attention away from the real problems of life.

    But deen is rational and radical: it breaks all idols, old and new, and is never variable in its principles.

    7. Madhhab induces a perpetual sense of fear in the minds of men and seeks to frighten them into conformity; while deen treats fear as a form of polytheism and seeks to make men courageous, daring and self-reliant.

    8. Madhhab prompts men to bow before every seat of authority and prestige, religious as well as temporal.

    Deen encourages man to walk about with his head erect, and attain self-confidence.

    9. Madhhab induces man to flee from the struggle of life.

    But deen calls upon him to face the realities of life squarely, whatever the hazards.

    10. Madhhdb   treats   the   world   of   matter   with contempt and calls upon man to renounce it. It promises paradise only in the Hereafter as a reward for the renunciation of the material world.

    Deen, on the other hand, enjoins the conquest of matter and leads man to immeasurable heights of attainment. It exhorts him to seek wellbeing and happiness in this world as well as felicity in the life Hereafter.

    11. Madhhab encourages belief in fatalism, and this tends to dissuade man from active life and self-development.

    Deen gives man power to challenge fate, and provides energy for a life of activity and self-development.

    12. Madhhab seeks to comfort the weak, the helpless and the oppressed with the belief that the affairs of this world are governed by the Will of God and that its acceptance and resignation helps to endear them to God. This  sort of teaching naturally tends to morbidity, and emboldens their religious leaders who profess to interpret the Will of God, so that they indulge in their misdeeds with perfect impunity and persuade the adherents to a complete and quiet submission.

    Deen, on the other hand, raises the banner of revolt against all forms of tyranny and exploitation. It calls upon the weak and the oppressed to follow the Divine Laws and thereby seek to establish a social order in which all tyrants and oppressors will be forced to accept the dictates of right and justice. In this social order, there is no place for dictators, capitalists or priests. They are all enemies of deen.

    13. Madhhab enjoins religious meditation in the name of worship and thus induces self-deception.

    Deen exhorts men to assert themselves and struggle perpetually for the establishment of the Divine Social Order, and its betterment when attained. Worship in deen really means obedience to the Laws of God.

    14. Madhhab frowns and sneers at all things of art and beauty.

    Deen defies those who forbid the enjoyment of the good and beautiful things of life which God has created for the enjoyment of man.

    15. Madhhab denounces everything new and declares all innovation as sin.

    Deen holds that the needs and demands of human life keep changing with the change in the conditions of life; change and innovation are, therefore, demanded by life itself. Only the Divine Laws are immutable.

    It should now be easy for us to see the fundamental difference between deen and madhhab.

    Islam means saying “Yes” to life;

    while the response of religion is “No”!

    Thus Islam is an open challenge to religion as such.
  • Re: Challenge
     Reply #124 - June 27, 2016, 05:30 PM

    Interesting comment. Thanks for that. However, you are discussing how things happen in nature. For e.g. "we understand evolution", - we know it happens because this happens, etc, but where did the first particle come from? Creation couldn't have came from ex nihilo.

    How did everything that you have mentioned acquire these specific properties for them to work?

    I disagree. Whether we're discussing evolution or the fabric of space-time, these are all just scientific and natural phenomena. The scope of questions that researchers tackle today may be different from that which scientists/philosophers of previous generations wrestled with, but the idea is the same: unknown scientific phenomenon. Jumping to "God" as the only conceivable answer is a cop-out. It's the easy answer because it doesn't require any further research or investigation, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer. Just because we don't know the answer yet, doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.

    Quote
    Creation couldn't have came from ex nihilo.

    How do you know? Do you have perfect and complete knowledge of space-time and the fabric of the universe?
  • Re: Challenge
     Reply #125 - June 27, 2016, 05:31 PM

    The Universe was most definitely created. The Universe and its complexity could not have come out of nothing. Speaking of complexity, let's have a look with at a few constants which determine the structure of our Universe:

    ...

    These are the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe. Scientists understand that each of these numbers have been carefully dialed to an astonishingly precise value - a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow, life-permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by even a hair's breadth, no physical, interactive life of any kind could exist anywhere. There'd be no stars, no life, no planets, no chemistry.

    ...

    Or, another example of fine-tuning: If the mass and energy of the early Universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 1010123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.

    ...

    Conclusion: We can rationally deduce that the Universe was created. Thus, God could not have been created. Besides, we cannot rationally deduce that God was created, (check my example above, which shows that our Universe existing today is in itself proof of an independent and absolute creator).

    Oh, I've heard this. This is a copy-paste of a fine-tuning argument that I've seen passed around for years. It's also completely fallacious and leads me to believe that neither you nor the original author is a scientist or mathematician (I don't mean this as an insult--I just mean that you're using an argument without understanding the material which the argument references).

    While there are a number of faults in the fine-tuning argument, I'm only going to focus on one major aspect of it:

    The fine-tuning argument assumes that life as we know it on Earth is the only possible type of life. The fine-tuning argument claims that if any one universal constant were changed, life couldn't exist. Maybe. Maybe not. It fails to consider that if any one universal constant were changed, maybe a different type of life would exist.

    I like to use an analogy of a puddle for this. Imagine there's a road that hasn't been maintained in a while--it is full of divots and potholes. A thunderstorm passes through and it rains heavily for a while. Afterward, the divots and potholes are full of water, forming puddles. One of the puddles looks at itself and thinks, "Wow! How miraculous that this pothole is exactly my shape and size! It must have been designed by a creator--if even one edge of it were slightly smaller, I wouldn't fit." Meanwhile, all the other puddles are thinking the same thing. The point being, how do you know that if the constants of the universe were a little different, some other type of life couldn't possibly form based on those constraints?

    A natural extension of this, and what I'm getting at, is the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The only reason we're able to observe the universe is because our universe allows life like ours to exist. If our universe couldn't support life, we wouldn't exist. In other words, it's a major selection bias; of course the constants of the universe allow life to exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here to think about those constants and their relation to the universe. That's not miraculous or amazing. It's coincidence.

    Think of it this way: how do you know there aren't 1,000,000,000,000,000 other universes, each with a slightly different set of universal constants? What if ours is the only universe in which the universal constants allow life to exist, and that in the other 999,999,999,999,999 universes the universal constants don't allow life to exist? What if there is an infinite number of other universes? This would make our existence coincidental, at worst, and a statistical certainty, at best--either way, not the work of a creator.

    The fact that we exist proves nothing other than that we exist and our universe happens to allow for our existence. If our universe didn't allow for our existence, we wouldn't know it, because we wouldn't exist. A creator never enters the equation.
  • Challenge
     Reply #126 - June 27, 2016, 05:59 PM

    Please tell us where these "created" fundamental constants are mentioned in the holey books?


    And no, that proof for creationism is beyond stupid.
    We happen to be able to exist, because we are bloody lucky that is the way physics and chemistry made biology possible.

    (Look up the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy", because that is exactly what that worn out creationist pseudo argument is)

    Please re-read what I posted. I didn't say that these fundamental constants are mentioned in the Qur'an. That was not my argument. However, you seriously believe that you are existing right now because we are, ''lucky''? Do you realize how, ''lucky'' we are if that was true? That in itself would be quite miraculous, thus, proof for the existence of a, 'God'  Cheesy.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #127 - June 27, 2016, 06:00 PM

    ^Yes, you took all the words right out of my mouth

    To extend this, 99% of life on earth is now extinct, 2/3 of the universe will kill you INSTANTLY, that is not the product of design, instead it is the result of the survival of life from probability and natural laws. Life did not spontaneously arise, it was a slow and gradual process, the same way planets didn't poof out of the big bang, everything began as a plasma like state and cools to particles, and these clump into dust, and then dust clumps into large boulders (the clumping is from gravity and took A LONG TIME) and clumped into planets.
    That is why there are meteorites that crash into earth, the reason we are still here talking about this is because it has not pushed us to extinction, we have nearly gone to extinction multiple times in history but survived.

    The puddle analogy is the best way to understand how this universe is not special, it is the only one we know so you assume it is special.

    Finally you look at all the decimal places for the constants of the universe. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN. IN PHYSICS A CONSTANT IS RARELY A WHOLE NUMBER. Had the constants been a whole number you may say it is design, neither are evidence for design

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • Challenge
     Reply #128 - June 27, 2016, 06:11 PM

    ^Good lord, look bro this is all probability, as long as it is possible, instead of saying something that happened is unlikely, you would rather invoke an entity for which we have no evidence of and say that thing just decided to swoop in and magically twittled the knobs of the universe.

    Ask yourself this: is it more likely that God designed 99% of species ever evolved to go Extinct, OR were they not designed and just were not able to adapt fast enough which lead to their extinction. In the second option, any organism not fit to survive would go extinct (that is probability and not a tiny probability either) . And the only reason we are still here is because we were able to evolve. And by the way we have not existed for a long time, Humans are still fairly new, so our existence isn't mirraculous either.

    You don't seem to understand Evolution: If you are fit to pass on your genes your species continues one more generation, the instant your habitat changes too quickly you go extinct, our ability to out perform other organisms is our brain being larger (Oh and god decides to make our brain identical to primates just larger, guess that was design too to look identical to nearest relatives in evolution).

    Not to mention what we are saying is when humans nearly went extinct, the gene pool dropped significantly but after escaping the pressure and having lots of sex the species continued, that is what we are saying, there is nothing miraculous there, if you are saying God came in and helped us, helped us how? (did he give all the guys permanent erections so they could fertilize as many eggs as possible? Do you hear what you are saying.

    Look it is not like a roll of the dice and if you hit a 3 your species continues, no! If you can survive through the external pressure, your species continues, Look up Bottleneck Effect, it will show that as long as a few survive, the species moves on, you only need to be good enough to survive, Don't need to be perfect

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • Challenge
     Reply #129 - June 27, 2016, 06:20 PM

    The only difference between you and me is that you believe God wasn't created. I stop a step before you and say the universe wasn't created. There's literally no difference.
    And God is so complex that he can't even be comprehended by the human mind. Yet you believe in him, and that he was not created. But somehow you think a much simpler thing than God, something that can be understood by the human mind, needs to have been created.

    It would be quite ridiculous to believe that the Universe came out of nothing, wouldn't it? We do know that the Universe did come out of nothing, (absence of space-time and matter). Even though, there are hypotheses on how unstable fluctuations in a quantum state, (quantum information) could produce space-time and matter - these have not been proven yet. These hypotheses are based on phenomena that occurs in physics where fluctuations of energy contained in a vacuum produce virtual particles. However, prior to the creation of space-time, no space existed which would be needed to contain such a vacuum so the same natural processes could not be responsible for creating our physical Universe, (space-time). One would have to infer a timeless quantum flux of information, without energy or a vacuum would need to occur to begin space-time.

    What is the cause of this flux of information processing? If there are NO computer-like substances, due to a lack of matter, then it cannot be: physical and if there is no space, then there would be no vacuums containing quantum fluctuations from which an unstable pseudo-nothing could produce matter. Now, if there is no time, there are no naturalistic processes which could play out. Thus, we are left with an immaterial, space-less, timeless cause of the Universe. An immaterial cause that can also process information and cause other things to come out of that information on its own. Given these conditions, the only clear option we are left with is none other than a immaterial mind which spoke/thought the Universe into creation. Essentially, 'information creation'. No other logical option can account for these conditions.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #130 - June 27, 2016, 06:21 PM

    That verse applies to you and all Muslims.. You will be the losers.

    and read the context from verse 3.83, understand who is the "Messengers" of Allah, ie. people from all nations.

    therefore ..

    God has no religion, and truth has no religion. Mankind is one ummah.



    I can observe that you have a literacy problem. I don't know if you are trolling or if you are literally mentally dyslexic, but please, get out of here with your nonsense. I'm asking you sincerely.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #131 - June 27, 2016, 06:24 PM

    I disagree. Whether we're discussing evolution or the fabric of space-time, these are all just scientific and natural phenomena. The scope of questions that researchers tackle today may be different from that which scientists/philosophers of previous generations wrestled with, but the idea is the same: unknown scientific phenomenon. Jumping to "God" as the only conceivable answer is a cop-out. It's the easy answer because it doesn't require any further research or investigation, but that doesn't mean it's the right answer. Just because we don't know the answer yet, doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.
    How do you know? Do you have perfect and complete knowledge of space-time and the fabric of the universe?

    Science will never be able to explain these things. They can explain how things work, but NEVER why. If you want to remain in a position where you believe that Science will one day answer these questions, enjoy your time  Afro.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #132 - June 27, 2016, 06:24 PM

    @A Muslim

    Keep fooling yourself, you cannot monopolize the truth. good luck.
  • Challenge
     Reply #133 - June 27, 2016, 06:28 PM

    ^Yes, you took all the words right out of my mouth

    The puddle analogy is the best way to understand how this universe is not special, it is the only one we know so you assume it is special.

    Yes... How lucky we are! Wait, we're also on Earth too? We must also be lucky how we randomly started existing on this specific planet which has the factors of baring and allowing for life to exist. Just luck  Cheesy.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #134 - June 27, 2016, 06:51 PM

    there is no challenge in leading a horse to water. the challenge is in making him drink.

    the following is very good advice

    Quote
    (Look up the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy",


    If i shuffle a pack of cards, the probability of them ending up in whatever specific order they end up in is: one chance in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000

    Should we conclude from this that every time somebody shuffles cards, Allah is involved carefully arranging them?

    Would it be reasonable to laugh off any suggestion of random luck because of the astronomical size of this number?

    Or should we conclude that you really should look up the texas sharpshooter fallacy?
  • Challenge
     Reply #135 - June 27, 2016, 06:54 PM

    Please re-read what I posted. I didn't say that these fundamental constants are mentioned in the Qur'an. That was not my argument. However, you seriously believe that you are existing right now because we are, ''lucky''? Do you realize how, ''lucky'' we are if that was true? That in itself would be quite miraculous, thus, proof for the existence of a, 'God'  Cheesy.


    Except that this would not be “proof” for the existence of God. A god would, under the most generous of considerations, be a single and far less likely hypothesis put forward as an explanation. The god of the Quran would be even less likely than that.

    Although, it is understandable why human beings might initially point to the god hypothesis. It does make sense for us to do so, given the way that we have evolved to navigate the world.

    Dr Daniel Dennett discusses this quite beautifully in his talks on his book Breaking the Spell. To illustrate his point, he uses the analogy of a dog. I’ll run with that analogy for now to help you understand what we mean.

    Envision a dog chained outside a house on a winter’s morning. This dog has evolved to assign agency to sound. That is to say that whenever the dog hears a sound, it immediately associates that sound with a living thing. The dog immediately goes into “who’s there!?” mode. This triggers a response from the dog including barking, howling, and running towards the direction from which he heard the sound.

    This is a good thing for the dog. More often than not, the sound would indicate an intruder that might be out to harm the dog or its owners. The dog is essentially trying to answer the question “who’s there!?” whenever a sound is made. Again, a “who” is a natural assumption for the dog and one that is often correct whenever a sound is heard.

    Now, one morning, the huge icicles from the house the dog is guarding begin to melt, sending them crashing to the ground with a loud shatter. This, of course, triggers the dog’s “who’s there!?” response and the dog begins barking and howling away.  The dog immediately assumes agency as it is not capable of discerning between the sound made by a passing wild animal, a human intruder, or a crashing icicle. They are all the same to him. “Who’s there!?” The dog can't even begin to entertain the idea of water melting because the temperature outside is higher than its freezing point. For the dog, there simply must be a "who!?"

    After a few moments of silence, however, the dog forgets about the sound and goes back to relaxing and just being a regular, good dog.

    This is where the difference between dogs and modern human beings comes into play. While the dog is not capable of continuing to entertain the question of “who’s there!?” for long, modern humans were. The dog forgets about the question once the immediate trigger is gone. The human does not.

    The instinct is then to figure out if there really is a being with agency acting or not. The “who” hypothesis is always the first and the most important. “Who’s” can kill you (or torture you by burning you alive for eternity). An icicle melting because it has reached a temperature above 0 degrees and is then acted upon by gravity is not quite as dangerous, as long as you are not directly under it.

    The problem is that we human beings are not comfortable simply “not knowing.” We regularly fill in details in order to give ourselves the semblance of having a complete picture. Ancient humans might have believed in icicle gods and created entire mythologies around them. Medieval humans created gods the filled in the blanks regarding the flat earth, geocentric world in which they perceived themselves.

    Unfortunately, some modern humans are also sticking to this “who” model and creating gods that “fine-tuned” the universe and banged the Big Bang. There is, however, no real evidence to support this.  

    The “who” hypothesis might be a valid one, and it might be based on some sound reasoning on the surface of it. But it is not the only possibility. As we begin to understand more about our world, the “who” hypothesis often finds itself becoming less and less likely.
  • Challenge
     Reply #136 - June 27, 2016, 07:01 PM

    ^Good lord, look bro this is all probability, as long as it is possible, instead of saying something that happened is unlikely, you would rather invoke an entity for which we have no evidence of and say that thing just decided to swoop in and magically twittled the knobs of the universe.

    And the only reason we are still here is because we were able to evolve. And by the way we have not existed for a long time, Humans are still fairly new, so our existence isn't mirraculous either.

    The decimal places of a fundamental constant do not prove the existence of God. How finely accurate they are, is what proves the existence of a fine-tuner or designer. If they were changed just by a little, the Universe would have collapsed on itself and thus, wouldn't have been created. Probability? Right... Very unlikely probability more like it. Towards your claim of our existence not being, ''mirraculous'' (it's actually miraculous), is quite ridiculous to me personally. Why do I say so? The probabilities of the the evolution of the human genome occurring, is so improbable that before it would occur, the sun would would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth. It's also calculated that the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be somewhere between 4^-180 to the 110,000'th power and 4^-360 to the 110,000'th power. As I said before, this is as miraculous as can get. This in itself, proves the existence of a, 'God'.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #137 - June 27, 2016, 07:12 PM

    A natural extension of this, and what I'm getting at, is the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The only reason we're able to observe the universe is because our universe allows life like ours to exist. If our universe couldn't support life, we wouldn't exist. In other words, it's a major selection bias; of course the constants of the universe allow life to exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here to think about those constants and their relation to the universe. That's not miraculous or amazing. It's coincidence.

    Think of it this way: how do you know there aren't 1,000,000,000,000,000 other universes, each with a slightly different set of universal constants? What if ours is the only universe in which the universal constants allow life to exist, and that in the other 999,999,999,999,999 universes the universal constants don't allow life to exist? What if there is an infinite number of other universes? This would make our existence coincidental, at worst, and a statistical certainty, at best--either way, not the work of a creator.

    I begin by saying that the Multiverse theory is speculation. We don't have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. Now, we exist in this observable Universe, so I would agree that there could be another. I have an issue though. Do you know how many Universes we would need to postulate in this, 'Multiverse' would be very large. How large? 10^120.

    Pick one:
    (a) God - which you all refuse to accept.
    (b) At least 10^120 Universes.

    Wait! Before you pick, I want to make sure you understand how large this number is, (if you pathetically choose to pick option b): 10^120 is more then all atoms of our Universe, multiplied by a trillion, trillion and another trillion times. In other words, all atoms of the observable Universe, with another 40 zeros to it. Still thinking its quite plausible of a theory? Don't be ridiculous.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #138 - June 27, 2016, 07:46 PM

    Quote
    Pick one:
    (a) God - which you all refuse to accept.
    (b) At least 10^120 Universes.

    Wait! Before you pick, I want to make sure you understand how large this number is, (if you pathetically choose to pick option b): 10^120 is more then all atoms of our Universe, multiplied by a trillion, trillion and another trillion times. In other words, all atoms of the observable Universe, with another 40 zeros to it. Still thinking its quite plausible of a theory? Don't be ridiculous.


    Starting with the assumption that the numbers in option (b) are not simply rectumly derived, wouldn’t it be more plausible that a chance that can be proven to exist, regardless of the amount of zeroes entailed, is more likely than a chance that has absolutely no evidence to support its existence?

    Let’s also raise the stakes a bit and assign rewards or punishments to believing in option (b): Everyone who selects (b) will have an infinite supply of Ferraris and pizza, while those who do not will be repeatedly thrown into a woodchip machine.

    Does that strengthen or weaken the argument?
  • Challenge
     Reply #139 - June 27, 2016, 07:53 PM

    If i shuffle a pack of cards, the probability of them ending up in whatever specific order they end up in is: one chance in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000

    Should we conclude from this that every time somebody shuffles cards, Allah is involved carefully arranging them?

    No. We would conclude that if you keep on getting the same, 'card' out of random orders with that probability, then it is Allah that is involved. I say this, why? Think about it in this way: Take the pack of cards to be a metaphor for our Universe, (as it holds the same principle). We exist in an existent Universe. I went over the impossibility of us coming from ex-nihilo. Suggesting otherwise is completely delusional. I also showed the improbability of the human genome evolving. Which in itself, proves the existence of a, 'God' if it did occur because of the improbability of it when it is calculated. In science, anything with a probability below 1 in 10^70 is operationally impossible.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #140 - June 27, 2016, 07:58 PM

    You haven't rationally deduced the existence of a God, or force, that created the entire Universe?


    I don't quite understand what you mean here^ Could you explain? (Bearing in mind I believe in God.)
  • Challenge
     Reply #141 - June 27, 2016, 07:59 PM

    Starting with the assumption that the numbers in option (b) are not simply rectumly derived, wouldn’t it be more plausible that a chance that can be proven to exist, regardless of the amount of zeroes entailed, is more likely than a chance that has absolutely no evidence to support its existence?

    Let’s also raise the stakes a bit and assign rewards or punishments to believing in option (b): Everyone who selects (b) will have an infinite supply of Ferraris and pizza, while those who do not will be repeatedly thrown into a woodchip machine.

    Does that strengthen or weaken the argument?


    I can't believe how you are supporting it. How embarrassing. By the way, that's irrelevant to what I had asked. Besides, anyone would pick an alternative to being thrown into a woodchip machine, so it's a ridiculous argument.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #142 - June 27, 2016, 08:01 PM

    I don't quite understand what you mean here^ Could you explain? (Bearing in mind I believe in God.)

    I meant by arguing from rationale, (whether it would be from philosophical arguments, or whatever else). However, great Smiley.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #143 - June 27, 2016, 08:46 PM

    Quote from: Ursus
    But you can try with this one:
    "Islam is a totalitarian religion* and the basic rext has remained unaltered since the iron age"


    *it tells you how to sleep, how to wash, what to eat, how to dress, how to have sex (and with whom). It is permeated by a fixation on sex, reducing women to livestock that must be covered up and not be left on their own, lest they stray or get stolen, and it reduces men to mindless horny animals, that must rape anything female not covered up in three black cloth sacks.
    (Black thick clothing under tropical temperatures.... How is that for "stupid"?)


    Fantastic, isn't it? Islam is a Dīn/Deen, or, 'Complete way of life'.


    Are you really endorsing the entire paragraph you quote above? Please consider your answer carefully.
  • Challenge
     Reply #144 - June 27, 2016, 10:52 PM

    I can't believe how you are supporting it. How embarrassing. By the way, that's irrelevant to what I had asked.


    I actually think you missed the point. In your ultimatum, only one option has a demonstrable probability, no matter how intimidating you make the numbers sound.

    The other option has 0 proof for it.

    So which is the more embarrassing choice?

    I'm agnostic,  btw. I don't discount the possibility of the God hypothesis. I am just comfortable it is not the God described in the Quran.
  • Challenge
     Reply #145 - June 27, 2016, 11:19 PM

    I meant by arguing from rationale, (whether it would be from philosophical arguments, or whatever else). However, great Smiley.


    Still not sure I follow you.

    The reason I don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God is I see no evidence to convince me it is.
  • Challenge
     Reply #146 - June 27, 2016, 11:46 PM

    Are you really endorsing the entire paragraph you quote above? Please consider your answer carefully.

    I was being serious of Islam being a Dīn/Deen, or, 'Complete way of life'. However, don't think that I didn't pick up on his nonsense. No, I don't believe in half of the things that he stated.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #147 - June 27, 2016, 11:51 PM

    Still not sure I follow you.

    The reason I don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God is I see no evidence to convince me it is.

    Can you name this God? Is it a specific one, or a general one - do you call it: 'The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth'? If so, wouldn't you think that this, 'God' would want to guide his creation, to whatever it may be, through revelation? Why would God have created us without a purpose?

    The Holy Qur'an, 51:56 - ''And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.''

    The Holy Qur'an, 23:115 - ''Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?".

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • Challenge
     Reply #148 - June 28, 2016, 12:01 AM

    How are they, ''myths''? I must add, the Biblical account of the Exodus is NOT the same as the Qur'anic account.


    Islam still claims a period of the Hebrews in Egypt which there is no evidence for, an invasion of Canaanite which there is no evidence for. A figure which there is no evidence for. Events which there is no evidence for. Islam has far less details surrounding the figures and events but the core still remains, a core that has no evidence in support.
  • Challenge
     Reply #149 - June 28, 2016, 12:17 AM

    The decimal places of a fundamental constant do not prove the existence of God. How finely accurate they are, is what proves the existence of a fine-tuner or designer. If they were changed just by a little, the Universe would have collapsed on itself and thus, wouldn't have been created. Probability? Right... Very unlikely probability more like it. Towards your claim of our existence not being, ''mirraculous'' (it's actually miraculous), is quite ridiculous to me personally. Why do I say so? The probabilities of the the evolution of the human genome occurring, is so improbable that before it would occur, the sun would would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the Earth. It's also calculated that the probability of the evolution of the human genome to be somewhere between 4^-180 to the 110,000'th power and 4^-360 to the 110,000'th power. As I said before, this is as miraculous as can get. This in itself, proves the existence of a, 'God'.


    This is the strong ACP which is rejected by far more than those in the field that accept it. It is also heavily teleological thus this bias is ever present. This make it a philosophical point as it can not be falsified, nothing more. Tautology, nothing more. I guess you never heard of competing ideas nor of the criticism of your sources. You should read your sources more especially Tipler when he writes about Christianity and goes over the deep end
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »