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 08:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 04:40 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 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

Do humans have needed kno...
April 18, 2024, 05:47 AM

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

 (Read 162885 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 17 18 1920 21 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #540 - August 19, 2015, 08:15 AM

    I was going ask if you believe that Pluto orbits the sun, despite the fact that a full orbit has never been observed (since its discovery). But then i remembered that you genuinely probably don't.


    I'm not sure what the story is on Pluto. I know there is/was a debate whether Pluto is a planet or not. I haven't read any of the latest stories regarding the new satellite photos. I don't spend too much dwelling on the "heavens" now because I spent a good year or so debating/discussing geocentrism. You'd have thought the scientific evidence is pretty clear about our solar system and the stars. But it's not. It's bizarre. So many strange phenomena simply accepted as being natural. It's all a bit too much for me to comprehend and even then what can you do to verify something? Which is why I'm trying to stick to the things which we can test and observe on the earth such as gravity and life.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #541 - August 19, 2015, 08:16 AM

    Unfortunately, this is impossible without knowing how far things need to be broken down. Every time something does get simplified, he says that the simplification leaves more questions than answers (which is why a normal person would go learn more) or just is wrong based on his understanding of the universe (without providing any evidence to substantiate the claim). Given his inability to understand the definitions of "square" and "circle", I'm not really sure there is a basic level of education that we can get to from which we could teach him from. I have no idea how he has managed to learn as many words as he seems to be able to use without learning any of their definitions. He sounds like cleverbot, in a lot of ways, unable to remember anything for longer than two sentences and unable to connect words with meanings that have practical applications, as if he's never interacted with the physical world. In fact, I'll go feed some of what has been said into cleverbot to prove this.

    User: What makes planets form?
    Cleverbot: Twenty-Fifth Baam.
    User: How many baams are there?
    Cleverbot: There aren't any.
    User: How do you know that?
    Cleverbot: Because I'm smarter than you.
    User: Do you believe Pluto orbits the sun?
    Cleverbot: Pluto is not a planet.
    User: But does it orbit the sun?
    Cleverbot: If I can call you Hal it does.
    User: But I want to be called Stormageddon.
    Cleverbot: Why don't you want to be the master?
    User: Because then the doctor will chase me.
    (more doctor who banter)
    User: But what about the future?
    Cleverbot: A future where you don't exist.
    User: History can be rewritten.
    Cleverbot: History is boring at school.
    User: Is that why you don't pay attention?
    Cleverbot: I do pay attention to you.
    User: Are the “small” grains seen really large, fluffy aggregates?
    Cleverbot: I can't love you.
    User: But what about the timescales of evolution?
    Cleverbot: God may use evolution in his process of creation. (hey look, cleverbot is smarter than ted)
    User: Many people take it for granted that dust just collapses and forms stars/planets.
    Cleverbot: They would be mistaken, and poor spellers. It is marble.
    User: It's pretty clear that there was no formation of rock from dust via any of the methods tried by the scientists.
    Cleverbot: Nope, but are we still chocolate buddies?
    User: But how do rocks form?
    Cleverbot: They don't. Rocks aren't living creatures.
    User: How do we know what is alive?
    Cleverbot: We don't.
    User: Is a virus alive?
    Cleverbot: The scientists are not sure. Viruses are probably not alive.
    User: Are bacteria alive?
    Cleverbot: Thats nice.
    User: I’m not an atheist, by the way. And you don’t have to be either.
    Cleverbot: No she didn't.
    User: Go for a walk? Stroll through a local museum?
    Cleverbot: Make sure not to back slide.
    User: How does rock form from dust/sand via either gravity, magnetism, "static attraction" or whatever natural phenomena you want to use?
    Cleverbot: I am not a robot my name is samuel and I have parents.
    User: Are your parents smart?
    Cleverbot: Smarter than you!
    User: But how do the ice caps form?
    Cleverbot: It's based on sacred geometry, and the connection of male and female DNA. (Cleverbot again proves itself smarter than Ted by at least posing a way for ice caps to form.)
    User: But can we draw a square circle?
    Cleverbot: I could draw a shape in between those two distinctions, and have it be interpreted as either depending on the interpreter's perception, and in that regard, it would be both a square and a circle.
    User: Does it have to be in three dimensions?
    Cleverbot: Pragmatic. That is a rather serious form of fun, isn't it?
    User: I don't know but can a black hole destroy it?
    Cleverbot: What is the meaning of life?
    User: Maybe it doesn't have meaning?
    Cleverbot: Maybe life doesn't matter.
    User: That could be true but is magic real?
    Cleverbot: That's a frightening thought.
    User: How do we know?
    Cleverbot: See the movie Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. So long, and thanks for all the fish!



    </rant>
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #542 - August 19, 2015, 08:46 AM

    This is just wonderful. CallMeTed says that apostates are people who believe in god but are mean to Muslims. Those of us who stopped believing in a god and left the faith did not commit apostasy, even though apostasy itself means to abandon or renounce a belief or faith.
    This man is probably a prophet, to redefine a religion, scientific thought, and the English language. Never mind logic. CallMeTed has his own world, and the reason we cannot meet him even halfway on basic scientific thought is because his world works differently than ours.
    Like a movie.
    So don't take it personal. He has his own reality.


    I think you forget that I've been an atheist. I have a good idea of where you're coming from what you like/don't like about Islam/God/life, etc. Been there, done that, etc.

    What I'm doing is going back to the basics and verifying the core fundamentals because it seems many many people have assumed certain things as facts such has dust collapsing to form stars and planets, life forming naturally, certain beliefs in Islam, etc.

    Is there anything wrong with questioning things? So far no one here can object to any of the claims I have made regarding the science. I quote science research. But for some reason people like yourself don't like it and would rather spend days ridiculing comments before you actually take the time to read and understand the science.

    It seems quite clear from your comments and galfromusa that both of you STILL have not grasped what has been said so far regarding dust forming stars and planets. Is there any point trying to explain the most simplest things to you when just refuse to look beyond ridiculing? There are people like bogart, dr sloth and Quod who actually look into the science and try to understand it which positively helps a discussion but for some reason you see me as some kind of enemy?

    Anyway, I don't think there's much you could understand about reality when you can't even grasp the most basic fundamentals of science. Reality in itself, is bizarre it's beyond anything you/we can imagine. You have no idea what you are talking about when you mention reality. As a believer I am meant to believe in a magical land where people never die, with castles and mansions and "fairies" and everything you could every want and more. Don't you think I find that unbelievable, bizarre, strange, impossible? I do. I have to pinch myself everyday to give myself a reality check. Do you understand all this? I very much doubt you do. It's taken many years for me to get to this point after constant questioning so understandably it may not make much sense to people like yourself.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #543 - August 19, 2015, 09:08 AM

    .
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #544 - August 19, 2015, 09:12 AM

    I think you forget that I've been an atheist.


    Being an atheist is not, in and of itself, a statement on how rational or educated you are. It is quite possible to be a very irrational atheist. Atheism is simply a position on one issue, whether or not there is a god, and has no bearing on what you believe in any other facet of life.


    It seems quite clear from your comments and galfromusa that both of you STILL have not grasped what has been said so far regarding dust forming stars and planets. Is there any point trying to explain the most simplest things to you when just refuse to look beyond ridiculing? There are people like bogart, dr sloth and Quod who actually look into the science and try to understand it which positively helps a discussion but for some reason you see me as some kind of enemy?


    That's not it at all. Like I said in my last comment, I've been trying to simplify things to a level on which you can understand them instead of trying to provide an extensive overview of all possible facets of an issue. I've been trying to find the lowest level of explanation possible at which you can understand what is being said, but no matter how much I lower my expectations of your education, you fall short. It's like playing limbo with Hermes Conrad, who is a cartoon character and therefore physics and logic do not apply.

    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 #545 - August 19, 2015, 09:43 AM

    I've been trying to simplify things to a level on which you can understand them...


    Are you serious? Sorry but from your comments so far it appears you are clueless about science.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #546 - August 19, 2015, 10:01 AM

    Says the geocentrist...
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #547 - August 19, 2015, 10:07 AM

    Ted, when you speak of fundamentals of science you should realize inferences is part of those fundamentals. You are only talking about fundamentals your know of or only accept rather than fundamentals of science itself. So lecturing a person based on your own flawed understanding of science is not only ignorance but arrogance.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #548 - August 19, 2015, 10:33 AM

    .

    suki ..... you don't need to delete those words... but Ted gave me a lesson., He says he was an atheist turned around and  turned to Islam just because the science he read doesn't explain  how particles could get together and form stones,  asteroids, mini planets.. planets.. etc..etc..

    that bothers me..  

    I guess he doesn't understand  the definition of "Atheism"  with reference to existing religions / faiths/or so called spiritual traditions..


    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 #549 - August 19, 2015, 10:43 AM

    Oh, I grow tired when read these kind of debates lol, start writing then delete..   I was just thanking ted for his shared wisdom that's all...    : )


    Ted still hasn't answered the fundamental question, what has any of this got to do with the Quran..
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #550 - August 19, 2015, 10:46 AM

    Ted, when you speak of fundamentals of science you should realize inferences is part of those fundamentals. You are only talking about fundamentals your know of or only accept rather than fundamentals of science itself. So lecturing a person based on your own flawed understanding of science is not only ignorance but arrogance.


    Noted.  Afro
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #551 - August 19, 2015, 11:00 AM

    Noted.  Afro

    Ted.. you are all right. you are OK.,  It appears that you started acting like devil's advocate  and turned in to devil..   Cheesy Cheesy

    clear your brain.. cleanse your mind and be open minded.. these religious books  are books of their time..   "THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN THEM" 

    with best wishes
    yeezevee

    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 #552 - August 19, 2015, 11:16 AM

    Noted.  Afro


    I hope you understand that inference is used in planetary formation theories. When you accept inferences as valid you are agreeing with the theory I link from the Hubble site. Sorry I didn't read everyone's links to you. So I can not say if this applies to their sources or not.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #553 - August 19, 2015, 11:27 AM

    Ted.. you are all right. you are OK.,  It appears that you started acting like devil's advocate  and turned in to devil..   Cheesy Cheesy

    clear your brain.. cleanse your mind and be open minded.. these religious books  are books of their time..   "THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN THEM" 

    with best wishes
    yeezevee


    oh yeezevee...what would the world be like without people like yourself?! You are a wise individual indeed.  Afro
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #554 - August 19, 2015, 11:33 AM

    I hope you understand that inference is used in planetary formation theories. When you accept inferences as valid you are agreeing with the theory I link from the Hubble site. Sorry I didn't read everyone's links to you. So I can not say if this applies to their sources or not.


    Tell me this bogart. Let's say you understand the experiments done to see if dust collects together to form rocks. You read the numerous research papers and you conclude that we simply have not figured out how dust forms rocks. Do you still accept planetary formation theories as correct where they infer that dust formed rocks which then went on to form asterioids, stars and planets?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #555 - August 19, 2015, 11:53 AM

    I think you forget that I've been an atheist. I have a good idea of where you're coming from what you like/don't like about Islam/God/life, etc. Been there, done that, etc.

    What I'm doing is going back to the basics and verifying the core fundamentals because it seems many many people have assumed certain things as facts such has dust collapsing to form stars and planets, life forming naturally, certain beliefs in Islam, etc.

    Is there anything wrong with questioning things? So far no one here can object to any of the claims I have made regarding the science. I quote science research. But for some reason people like yourself don't like it and would rather spend days ridiculing comments before you actually take the time to read and understand the science.

    It seems quite clear from your comments and galfromusa that both of you STILL have not grasped what has been said so far regarding dust forming stars and planets. Is there any point trying to explain the most simplest things to you when just refuse to look beyond ridiculing? There are people like bogart, dr sloth and Quod who actually look into the science and try to understand it which positively helps a discussion but for some reason you see me as some kind of enemy?

    Anyway, I don't think there's much you could understand about reality when you can't even grasp the most basic fundamentals of science. Reality in itself, is bizarre it's beyond anything you/we can imagine. You have no idea what you are talking about when you mention reality. As a believer I am meant to believe in a magical land where people never die, with castles and mansions and "fairies" and everything you could every want and more. Don't you think I find that unbelievable, bizarre, strange, impossible? I do. I have to pinch myself everyday to give myself a reality check. Do you understand all this? I very much doubt you do. It's taken many years for me to get to this point after constant questioning so understandably it may not make much sense to people like yourself.


    I don't really care about the stars and dust and all that, y'all can reinvent the wheel all you like. My beefs with Islam are not about science, but about the fact that it is not compatible with human rights. In my opinion you just need to take science classes.
    You have ignored all my questions and never commented on the proof I provided you with from Quran. I tried to participate in a discussion that requested your own opinions and thoughts and you did not comply. I don't need articles from a peer reviewed journal to verify the universe that I live in and it's natural laws. I went to school like everyone else.
    If you want to practice self-delusion and continually force yourself to believe in djinn and witchcraft and a god that no longer gives a shit, then that is on you.
    I don't know why you want proof of the universe you already exist in when proof that the Quran is bull is nearer at hand and supposedly dearer to your heart.
    You do know that some of the people you are arguing with had been learning under ulema in Arabistan? Take this opportunity and listen to what they have to say about Islam. Why do you skirt that subject? You dance around it like it is not the central issue, refusing to even engage in conversation about sahih hadith.
    Why do you reject hadith (which contain plenty of "scientific" claims, and how then do you get context for Quran without hadith?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #556 - August 19, 2015, 12:59 PM

    I don't really care about the stars and dust and all that, y'all can reinvent the wheel all you like. My beefs with Islam are not about science, but about the fact that it is not compatible with human rights. In my opinion you just need to take science classes.
    You have ignored all my questions and never commented on the proof I provided you with from Quran. I tried to participate in a discussion that requested your own opinions and thoughts and you did not comply. I don't need articles from a peer reviewed journal to verify the universe that I live in and it's natural laws. I went to school like everyone else.
    If you want to practice self-delusion and continually force yourself to believe in djinn and witchcraft and a god that no longer gives a shit, then that is on you.
    I don't know why you want proof of the universe you already exist in when proof that the Quran is bull is nearer at hand and supposedly dearer to your heart.
    You do know that some of the people you are arguing with had been learning under ulema in Arabistan? Take this opportunity and listen to what they have to say about Islam. Why do you skirt that subject? You dance around it like it is not the central issue, refusing to even engage in conversation about sahih hadith.
    Why do you reject hadith (which contain plenty of "scientific" claims, and how then do you get context for Quran without hadith?


    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.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #557 - August 19, 2015, 01:02 PM

    Quote
    Angels are simply beings that are made from light.


    That's not in the Qur'an. Where do you get that from?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #558 - August 19, 2015, 01:24 PM

    Must have been from some hadith or other website.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #559 - August 19, 2015, 01:26 PM

    And you just believed it?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #560 - August 19, 2015, 01:26 PM

    Quote
    ................ Angels are simply beings that are made from light. ....


    That's not in the Qur'an. Where do you get that from?


    well   wikipedia ..  or some Islam Q&A       lol..

    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 #561 - August 19, 2015, 01:34 PM

    And you just believed it?


    Yes.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #562 - August 19, 2015, 01:35 PM

    Did you ever look into the Sikh concept of God, by the way? You might find it interesting.

    Quote
    budhi pathi na paiai bahu chaturaiai bhai milai mani bhane which translates to "He is not accessible through intellect, or through mere scholarship or cleverness at argument; He is met, when He pleases, through devotion" (SGGS, 436).

  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #563 - August 19, 2015, 01:37 PM


    I did look at Sikhism. It doesn't tie in with reality for the most part but there are some good things in it like there is with most religions.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #564 - August 19, 2015, 01:40 PM

    Not Sikhism itself, I’m referring specifically to the concept of God in Sikhism. Read through the link above and tell me what you think. You can start a new topic if you like.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #565 - August 19, 2015, 03:00 PM

    I had a look. There's not much there in the concept of the Sikh god which refers to this reality and life. As in how he creates, why he does, what is this life for and where are we going. Or maybe it does and I haven't seen it. First glance is that the sikh god doesn't explain the world we live in.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #566 - August 19, 2015, 03:20 PM

    It’s interesting to me that for you, apparently, God has to play an evident and explanatory role in your model of reality. It seems to cause you, first, to keep forcing your concept of God into places it is not entirely necessary. The reason I find that interesting is that, if you are honest, it seems like your God and the purpose it serves will continue to get smaller and smaller the more you are able to explain things without him.

    Even above, in the past few pages of this thread, you accepted the fact that once a body reaches a certain mass, its gravity would be enough to cause it to influence other bodies around it in order to contribute to its size and impact its own shape. You didn’t invoke a god for that. You still had questions, however, around what might allow a body to gain enough mass to have gravity that could cause such an impact, and in that gap lied your God. Your God essentially was a substitute for electrostatic charges and magnetism.

    When you were provided with evidence that dust particles could, at least in theory, attract through what you call “natural” processes, your skepticism was clear. You would rather leave that space for a God. I’ve made the point before and I’m not sure if you’ve connected with it, but in the Bronze Age environment that the Abrahamic scriptures were born, God was responsible for far more than just bringing dust particles together. Phenomena that we now consider “natural” were all considered the work of God – because people did not understand them.

    So in the end I have to wonder why you insist on limiting your god as you do.  Why hang your faith on the assumption that you already know how god did things?
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #567 - August 19, 2015, 04:10 PM

    ................

    So in the end I have to wonder why you insist on limiting your god as you do.  Why hang your faith on the assumption that you already know how god did things?


    well...  A new member  "certainlydoubt1" joined cemb on August 14,with a signature and picture of that Ali Dashti.. it reads

    "Belief can blunt human reason and common sense, even in learned scholars. What is needed is more impartial study." - Ali Dashti

    many people including Ted is no exception  to  what Ali Dashti  said..  http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22157.0

    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 #568 - August 19, 2015, 04:22 PM

    It’s interesting to me that for you, apparently, God has to play an evident and explanatory role in your model of reality. It seems to cause you, first, to keep forcing your concept of God into places it is not entirely necessary. The reason I find that interesting is that, if you are honest, it seems like your God and the purpose it serves will continue to get smaller and smaller the more you are able to explain things without him.

    Even above, in the past few pages of this thread, you accepted the fact that once a body reaches a certain mass, its gravity would be enough to cause it to influence other bodies around it in order to contribute to its size and impact its own shape. You didn’t invoke a god for that. You still had questions, however, around what might allow a body to gain enough mass to have gravity that could cause such an impact, and in that gap lied your God. Your God essentially was a substitute for electrostatic charges and magnetism.

    When you were provided with evidence that dust particles could, at least in theory, attract through what you call “natural” processes, your skepticism was clear. You would rather leave that space for a God. I’ve made the point before and I’m not sure if you’ve connected with it, but in the Bronze Age environment that the Abrahamic scriptures were born, God was responsible for far more than just bringing dust particles together. Phenomena that we now consider “natural” were all considered the work of God – because people did not understand them.

    So in the end I have to wonder why you insist on limiting your god as you do.  Why hang your faith on the assumption that you already know how god did things?



    I don't think I've explained clear enough about my concept of God and the scientific evidence of God.

    I shall try again.

    God has power over everything. Absolutely everything you can observe in your reality. The problem we have is that if God has power over everything then how do you distinguish between what YOU perceive as natural and what is done by God. For you I am guessing that if a man came to you and said he was going to part the sea by the will of God and then you saw the sea part in front of your very eyes and you went and looked and touched two masses of water and observed that they were like soft walls you'd say yes I have witnessed God's power, I believe in God now. However the more skeptical atheist will probably say "meh! nothing special just sea parting, I'm sure it's nothing to do with this man who claims that God made it part. Scientists will figure out how he did. Until then I'm not convinced! Show me another magic trick". Which is fair enough, everyone has their own reasoning.

    No matter what new discovery is made or what we learn about the universe or what we become capable of doing it will in no way diminish God or explain him away. We are simply learning about the world God has created. This is how we have been designed to learn and discover. This is one of the things we are meant to do.

    What's happened recently is that people have become brainwashed into believing that science is a mechanism of explaining God away. To break down everything as being natural so that we no longer need God to explain it. That is just silly from a muslim/christian believers perspective. Even believers get caught by it when they start accepting human evolution.

    Hope that makes more sense.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #569 - August 19, 2015, 04:34 PM


    ...God has power over everything. Absolutely everything you can observe in your reality.........................yadi..yadi..yaid..

    what god and what power are you talking Ted?

    The shit I write that shit you write ..  The criminals who use religions to their needs .. brutal rogues who kill people for their religions..  GOD HAS CONTROL?? your god has control???    and you say,  your god has power and control on everything?? what control..  ...........NONSENSE.............

    I tell you this I killed such fucking god when I was 13 year old boy

    Ted sorry to say this .. "NOTHING MAKES ANY SENSE FROM YOU " unless one is believer   that too a blind believer and I pasted this for you..  

    "Belief   blunts human reason and common sense"  

    and let me also add tube on top of it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPtH4IDFNQ

    watch it carefully...

    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 ... 17 18 1920 21 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »