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
April 28, 2024, 06:41 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
April 27, 2024, 01:26 PM

New Britain
April 27, 2024, 08:42 AM

What's happened to the fo...
April 27, 2024, 08:30 AM

Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 02:50 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 08:02 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 12:17 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 05:56 PM

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

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 08:06 AM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 05:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 08:53 AM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 172021 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #240 - August 11, 2015, 11:43 AM

    hi Ted.,  I am not sure "Quran says so hence I believe" is   a right attitude , right path way to search the truth,

    I am sure Quran says  and also many other religious scriptures say  same thing  .. same nonsense ., you know such as

    ........ ...god can create life. god created the stars, planets and earth... god creates people ... god creates every thing ...  god create  shit, god creates shit in the heads of people,  god creates criminals .......  etc..etc..

    all that nonsense  is same to every faith head but I was under the impression that YOU ARE NOT A FAITH HEAD., and moreover you are  searching for truth., So don't you want search the truth? or you just want to believe in what some book says??    Anyways how does your god create  things?  what are the processes,mechanisms  behind this god and its creation?  don't you want to enquire about it??



    You need to give this more thought.

    We need to confirm the claims in the Quran. Many people wrongly assume that planets and stars form via the force of gravity. Given what we know about gravity that should be the natural explanation. It's not.

    We know a great deal about current life forms. We can study it in-depth. We should be able to create life easily since it occurs in abundance naturally. We have found it's not possible to create life. On top of that the challenge is to create any kind of life form. It does not have to something like the life we know of. For example give a robot life.

    At the end of the day you need to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you will never be able to convince yourself there is God, If a person is in hell and someone says it's God who put him there his response may be that where is the evidence? How do I know it's God who put me here, I never saw him. Maybe it's all an illusion/hallucination?

    So the question is where do you draw the line. What evidence do you need? Do you need to see ghosts, angels, the dead being brought to life, etc. What is it. And when you see all these how do you verify them. Would not the atheists want to do experiments?

    Someone dead is brought back to life. Believer says God did it. Atheist says there is no evidence of this, it's a God of the gaps argument because we simply don't know the science of how this person was brought to life after being dead,

    An angel descends to earth. Believer says God sent him. Atheist says this a life form from another planet, an alien. Atheist says nothing special, just another life form. Angel says he can give life to the dead through the power of God. Atheist says angel and his God is simply more technologically advanced life form as they have existed for millions of years.

    So where do you draw the line?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #241 - August 11, 2015, 11:46 AM

    I can't believe that this guy has kids.
    heck I can't even believe that he's older than 14

    "we stand firm calling to allah all the time,
    we let them know - bang! bang! - coz it's dawah time!"
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #242 - August 11, 2015, 11:59 AM

    Quote
    .

    I can't believe that this guy has kids.
    heck I can't even believe that he's older than 14


    errrrrrrrr.. Ted is posting empty posts and  kephas is asking,  where were the condoms.....

    And I am not sure what to do., Hi Ted . take it easy and please continue to read/write and search for truth...

    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 #243 - August 11, 2015, 12:42 PM

    You need to give this more thought.

    We need to confirm the claims in the Quran. Many people wrongly assume that planets and stars form via the force of gravity. Given what we know about gravity that should be the natural explanation. It's not.

    We know a great deal about current life forms. We can study it in-depth. We should be able to create life easily since it occurs in abundance naturally. We have found it's not possible to create life. On top of that the challenge is to create any kind of life form. It does not have to something like the life we know of. For example give a robot life.

    At the end of the day you need to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you will never be able to convince yourself there is God, If a person is in hell and someone says it's God who put him there his response may be that where is the evidence? How do I know it's God who put me here, I never saw him. Maybe it's all an illusion/hallucination?

    So the question is where do you draw the line. What evidence do you need? Do you need to see ghosts, angels, the dead being brought to life, etc. What is it. And when you see all these how do you verify them. Would not the atheists want to do experiments?

    Someone dead is brought back to life. Believer says God did it. Atheist says there is no evidence of this, it's a God of the gaps argument because we simply don't know the science of how this person was brought to life after being dead,

    An angel descends to earth. Believer says God sent him. Atheist says this a life form from another planet, an alien. Atheist says nothing special, just another life form. Angel says he can give life to the dead through the power of God. Atheist says angel and his God is simply more technologically advanced life form as they have existed for millions of years.

    So where do you draw the line?


    Following your logic, Ted, at what point should we give up and attribute things we don’t understand to “God did it?”
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #244 - August 11, 2015, 12:50 PM

    when the quran says god did it.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #245 - August 11, 2015, 01:02 PM

    "Do they not see the birds suspended in mid-air up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except Allah."

    Is flight another example of something unnatural that we have no control over? Was 'the sound barrier' reasonable evidence of god before it was overcome?

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #246 - August 11, 2015, 01:03 PM

    when the quran says god did it.


    Well, that doesn’t exactly work. The Qur’an says that god does all sorts of things that we now understand perfectly well. The Qur’an says that God spreads the winds, causes the rains, brings forth crops, creates valleys, makes mountains, holds birds in the sky and keeps ships afloat in the sea. We know how all of that happens now. If we stopped where the Qur’an told us that God did things, we wouldn’t have much knowledge at all of the natural world.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #247 - August 11, 2015, 01:03 PM

    Edit...didn't see your last reply. EXACTLY.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #248 - August 11, 2015, 01:04 PM

    when the quran says god did it.


    well .. Ted's logic is  ..    "whatever Quran says DO NOT QUESTION IT" as far as HM's question is concerned
    Following your logic, Ted, at what point should we give up and attribute things we don’t understand to “God did it?”

    that question is irrelevant., what is relevant is  

    1st you have become believer.,
    2nd you have to become faith head
    3rd follow the sharia laws
    4th make every one to become Muslims

    after that it doesn't matter what you do........  

    any way Ted we will discuss your post...    but please learn about the process of formation rain clouds from evaporated water from oceans  and the forces behind that process of cloud  formation..

    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 #249 - August 11, 2015, 01:05 PM

    Jesus Christ man.

    Ted, you are using imaginary examples to prove your points and you accuse other people of living in lala land?

    Yes, to believe in anything you need proof. Hinduism and their caste system explains that poor and unfortunate people are actually experiencing karma from their past lives - its the punishment for their sins. Therefore, some people religiously believed that they didn't need to help the poor and sick because they brought it upon themselves.

    Sounds familiar with your examples?

    Angel this and God that. Must be fun living with your imaginary friends eh?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #250 - August 11, 2015, 01:14 PM

    Well, that doesn’t exactly work. The Qur’an says that god does all sorts of things that we now understand perfectly well. The Qur’an says that God spreads the winds, causes the rains, brings forth crops, creates valleys, makes mountains, holds birds in the sky and keeps ships afloat in the sea. We know how all of that happens now. If we stopped where the Qur’an told us that God did things, we wouldn’t have much knowledge at all of the natural world.


    Who says that you believe in God you simply stop trying to learn about the world. We have been designed to learn and gather knowledge. We've been given a brain which has an amazing ability to do this. We're meant to use it for that purpose. There were many religious civilisations which excelled in knowledge regardless of the gods the believed in. The early Islamic/Christian nations excelled in science and mathematics.

    The things we understand perfectly well is great. It was meant to be that way. There are things which are beyond our understanding and always will be. There are things which we don't understand now but will understand later on.

    The problem for atheists is at what point do you stop and say that this thing is strong evidence of God.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #251 - August 11, 2015, 01:16 PM

    Yes, to believe in anything you need proof. Hinduism and their caste system explains that poor and unfortunate people are actually experiencing karma from their past lives - its the punishment for their sins. Therefore, some people religiously believed that they didn't need to help the poor and sick because they brought it upon themselves.


    Which book is this in?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #252 - August 11, 2015, 01:21 PM

    There are things which are beyond our understanding and always will be. There are things which we don't understand now but will understand later on.

    The problem for atheists is at what point do you stop and say that this thing is strong evidence of God.


    Not a problem for atheists at all. At no point does ignorance become any kind of evidence for god. The line between not knowing x, and knowing y, is drawn absolutely never.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #253 - August 11, 2015, 01:21 PM

    "Do they not see the birds suspended in mid-air up in the sky? Nothing holds them there except Allah."

    Is flight another example of something unnatural that we have no control over? Was 'the sound barrier' reasonable evidence of god before it was overcome?



    If the sound barrier was mentioned in the Quran then yes it would have been evidence of God. So if the sound barrier was broken then that claim has been proven to false. Therefore you good grounds to reject the Quran as a revelation from God.

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #254 - August 11, 2015, 01:24 PM

    Who says that you believe in God you simply stop trying to learn about the world. We have been designed to learn and gather knowledge. We've been given a brain which has an amazing ability to do this. We're meant to use it for that purpose. There were many religious civilisations which excelled in knowledge regardless of the gods the believed in. The early Islamic/Christian nations excelled in science and mathematics.

    The things we understand perfectly well is great. It was meant to be that way. There are things which are beyond our understanding and always will be. There are things which we don't understand now but will understand later on.

    The problem for atheists is at what point do you stop and say that this thing is strong evidence of God.


    That's all fine and dandy, except for one small little hiccup: invariably, whenever the Qur'an describes a process that the author could not observe first hand, the Qur'an is wrong. (Or, at the very least and to put it less harshly, we can say the Qur'an always contradicts what appears to be true based on our own scientific observations when its authors are describing things they could not see.) I challenge you to bring an exception to this.

    On the origin of Homo sapiens, the Qur'an contradicts all evidence that we have now available as to how our species arose.

    On the formation of the Earth, the Qur’an tells us that it came before and took longer than the formation of the heavens.

    On the creation of man, the Qur’an is wrong. On where the sun “sets,” the Qur’an is wrong. On the formation of the human embryo, the Qur’an is wrong. On the origin of semen, the Qur’an is wrong.

    So now, we are left with not only a better understanding than “God did it,” we also know that the way the Qur’an’s authors claimed that “God did it” is not correct.

    So, even if there ultimately is a God, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Qur'an has nothing to do with her.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #255 - August 11, 2015, 01:26 PM

    Not a problem for atheists at all. At no point does ignorance become any kind of evidence for god. The line is drawn absolutely never.


    In that case there is nothing that will make you believe in God except for being brought back to life on Judgement Day and seeing the events being played out just as described in the Quran. So then there is no need to discuss with you whether there is any scientific evidence of God. Which is fair enough, it's your choice.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #256 - August 11, 2015, 01:33 PM

    Quote
    n that case there is nothing that will make you believe in God


    incorrect. You just need to present positive evidence for a god. Pointing out a gap in knowledge, is only evidence for a gap in knowledge. Any god of the gaps argument fails from the outset. Even the ones that point to a serious gap that we have no idea how to fill (which is not the case here). Even if there are questions that science genuinely cannot answer, rather than just hasn't yet answered. Even that wouldn't be an iota of evidence for god.


    Quote
    So then there is no need to discuss with you whether there is any scientific evidence of God.


    We can find out whether it is worthwhile to discuss, once you have presented some. I will reserve judgement until then.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #257 - August 11, 2015, 01:43 PM

    How about this.

    What if it was discovered that all the land we see on earth and the sea/ocean beds are actually all floating on water and that the only structures that were fixed were mountains? The mountains prevented the continents from moving.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #258 - August 11, 2015, 01:44 PM

    Or how about if in fact the geocentric model is true?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #259 - August 11, 2015, 01:44 PM

    Huh?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #260 - August 11, 2015, 01:52 PM

    Or how about if in fact the geocentric model is true?


    Firstly, I would only conclude that geocentrism is true once positive evidence had been presented. No amount of unanswered questions about heliocentrism would suffice. Every discovery in science presents new questions. Gaps in knowledge are easy to find, and is the reason scientists have a job.

    If it turned out that the earth is the center of the solar system/universe, I would remove 'geocentrism' from my long list of errors in the quran. I wouldn't count it as evidence in favour of the quran, since plenty of people, for plenty of poor reasons, concluded geocentrism before Muhammed did.

    Maybe the mountain thing would be more interesting. Maybe I would count it as an example of scientific foreknowledge in the quran. But is that what you are asking?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #261 - August 11, 2015, 01:56 PM

    Quote
    concluded geocentrism before Muhammed did.


    https://www.academia.edu/12761000/_Some_Cosmological_Notions_from_Late_Antiquity_in_Q_18_60_65_The_Quran_in_Light_of_Its_Cultural_Context_._Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society_135.1_2015_19-32


    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 #262 - August 11, 2015, 02:00 PM

    If it turned out that the earth is the center of the solar system/universe, I would remove 'geocentrism' from my long list of errors in the quran. I wouldn't count it as evidence in favour of the quran, since plenty of people, for plenty of poor reasons, concluded geocentrism before Muhammed did.


    Would you accept that geocentrism is evidence of God? Forget about the Quran being true in this case.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #263 - August 11, 2015, 02:04 PM



    The Quran is a confirmation of previous revelation and contains corrections of lies which were spread -  so that's all fine.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #264 - August 11, 2015, 02:06 PM

    Maybe the mountain thing would be more interesting. Maybe I would count it as an example of scientific foreknowledge in the quran. But is that what you are asking?


    Interesting. But what if you came across an old myth where it alluded that the earth was in fact floating on water. Would you not then say this was already known about?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #265 - August 11, 2015, 02:08 PM

    Would you accept that geocentrism is evidence of God? Forget about the Quran being true in this case.


    I can't see why I would. Do you think I should?
    It might make our place in the universe seem less insignificant. Would it tell us anything else?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #266 - August 11, 2015, 02:14 PM

    The Quran is a confirmation of previous revelation and contains corrections of lies which were spread -  so that's all fine.



    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 #267 - August 11, 2015, 02:17 PM

    You make some valid points. No one should be persecuted or ridiculed or made to feel inferior or less worthy whether they decide to leave religion or join one. We all do things for different reasons. Some are mentally not well, some have psychological issues, some maybe simply bored. I don't know why some people do what they do. At the end of the day God is our judge. We are only accountable for our own actions. We all belong to God, we will all see him. What we should be is understanding and humble and patient. When people don't behave the right way they are showing what their soul is like. For believers it's something they should use to make themselves better people. Unfortunately the religion wrongly gets a bad name because of the ignorant actions of the followers. Me included. I have mocked and made sarcastic comments and I shouldn't and I am sorry to those who were offended. I can't say it won' happen again given the forum I am in but I will keep trying.


    You completely missed my point. My point was not the examples of apostasy or another like that. My point was as follows.

    1. Person X sees something. What you called God and angels aka God hypothesis
    2a. Person X goes for confirmation bias by immediately assuming what they are seeing is what their religion tells them.

    or

    2b. Person X is skeptical and test God hypothesis, as per the Aztec example
    3a (C)onclusion. What they see is in fact God.
    3b. Hypothesis either passes or fails. The Spanish failed the Aztec test since they had human reactions. Parallel: The Quran contains acts which are those of a human.
    4b (C)onclusion: Claim of God are false.

    Hence why God = Impressive display but not verified. You never tested your assumption against anything that would prove your confirmation bias wrong. Also the Aztecs were smarter than you since the Spanish were assumed to be Aztec Gods.



    Yes, it's evidence of God. That doesn't mean it couldn't be proved to be wrong later. Are you familiar with scientific theories being revised based on new evidence?


    Argument from ignorance based on a unproven priori. I guess you are not familiar with the fallacy you just used. Also God is not a scientific theory thus a fallacy of equivocation.  
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #268 - August 11, 2015, 02:20 PM

    The Quran is a confirmation of previous revelation and contains corrections of lies which were spread -  so that's all fine.


    You didn't read the full piece. Clearly.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #269 - August 11, 2015, 02:20 PM

    The Quran is a confirmation of previous revelation and contains corrections of lies which were spread -  so that's all fine.

    Ted when you say something like that you should show some proof.. such as

    "the following lies from earlier religious mumbo-jumbo is corrected in Quran "

    and then throw the verses from other scriptures along with corrected Quran verses to compare them.

    That is how a rational logical  person like you should do ..

    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
     
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »