Ayman4u - religious discussion

[Futile Rhetoric]

Read the other thread and was tickled by your comments. PADDY -- I appreciate the thought behind locking off-topic threads, but you know you can also move them, right?

Originally posted by Ayman4u
but science have already proved many miracles and *proved that the Quran came from god and no 1 else cus it cant be some *one from 1400+ years ago know about what science just discovered recently like *Human Embryonic Development or the Origin of the Universe or the *Deeps Seas and Internal Waves and more.

Care to back any of these up? Verse numbers would suffice of course, but perhaps full quotations are in order for everyone else who might read this thread. I call shenanigans.

to let u know about that question, Both the Bible and the Quran tell us that *God has always existed and there never was a time He did not exit. As such, He is the Eternal, without beginning and without end. *
He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us, He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway.
He calls Himself by a number of names and some of them are The First,The Last and The Eternal and the One who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all , *
He is not a man and He has no progeny or offspring *also He is not what He creates nor is He compared to it .
He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way
so obviously the real god must be eternal and not have to be created.

I hear this argument a lot. It certainly deals away with the whole anthropomorphic problem (i.e. God did not create humanity "in his image", etc.) Solves a lot of problems concerning morality, evil, etc. Of course, it also makes the idea of a God completely unnecessary and illogical. There's no need to go into metaphysics to find the entity which needs no creation; stopping at the material reality suffices.

[BBsHere]

This is not meant to come off harshly, but some might take it that way. About you quoting that both the Quran and the Bible say this and that. .. Well, ive read my share of books in my years, and well, just because its in a book ,doesnt mean its true. If this was true, then im guessing every comic book or fantasy novel is true then.

[the_man_slayer]

Originally posted by Ayman4u
*
to let u know about that question, Both the Bible and the Quran tell us that God has always existed and there never was a time He did not exit. As such, He is the Eternal, without beginning and without end. *
He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us, He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. *
He calls Himself by a number of names and some of them are The First,The Last and The Eternal and the One who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all , *
He is not a man and He has no progeny or offspring also He is not what He creates nor is He compared to it . *
He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way *
so obviously the real god must be eternal and not have to be created.

Yea coz that makes sence. Everything exists for a reason. Just because science can't prove how something was created at this present day and age, doesnt mean that we wont prove it later so we should assume it must have been something supernatural. Science doesnt prove miracles, it proves theories and facts.

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by the_man_slayer
Yea coz that makes sence. Everything exists for a reason. Just because science can't prove how something was created at this present day and age, doesnt mean that we wont prove it later so we should assume it must have been something supernatural. Science doesnt prove miracles, it proves theories and facts.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), science will never look at existence from outside. This is just physically and logically impossible due to the definition of existence. Science may at some point give us a coherent theory of why existence is the way it is; however, it'll never gives us an answer to why it is. You can of course assume that no such reason is required, and many do. This isn't the result of logical deliberation though, it's a premise. It's a starting point. It isn't the only possible starting point, and it's neither superior nor inferior to the alternative.

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by BBsHere
This is not meant to come off harshly, but some might take it that way. *About you quoting that both the Quran and the Bible say this and that. .. * Well, ive read my share of books in my years, and well, just because its in a book ,doesnt mean its true. *If this was true, then im guessing every comic book or fantasy novel is true then.

This is an important question; what gives any of these so-called sacred texts actual authority? Ayman tried to cover this with the first passage, but I very much doubt its factual correctness.

[the_man_slayer]

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Futile Rhetoric)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-the_man_slayer

Yea coz that makes sence. Everything exists for a reason. Just because science can't prove how something was created at this present day and age, doesnt mean that we wont prove it later so we should assume it must have been something supernatural. Science doesnt prove miracles, it proves theories and facts.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), science will never look at existence from outside. This is just physically and logically impossible due to the definition of existence. Science may at some point give us a coherent theory of why existence is the way it is; however, it'll never gives us an answer to why it is. You can of course assume that no such reason is required, and many do. This isn't the result of logical deliberation though, it's a premise. It's a starting point. It isn't the only possible starting point, and it's neither superior nor inferior to the alternative.[/b]

It's not impossible depending on your definition of existence, in religious cases, anything is possible when God is involved lol. Scientist's can give many different theories. Even if it's coherent enough to some, it may not be to others, and therefore as u said, we wont get an anwser. But what if it is the answer and people are just complaining? For example some people believe some of the rules in maths are logically wrong. As I said, I think that everything has a reason. Just because we can't prove it yet doesn't rule out the fact that it may be solved later on. That is if you want to believe in the theories. The universe is the universe. It is what it is, the things that need to be proved are that inside of it. Why assume? Make a theory with evidence, it's the only logical way to at least attempt proving the reason for something.

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by the_man_slayer
It's not impossible depending on your definition of existence, in religious cases, anything is possible when God is involved lol.

Actually, it doesn't matter which framework you're in; anything is possible. Science deals with the past (and to some limited extent, with the present). You assume certain things, like the principle of causality. You assume that observations made in the past will be representative of the future, and it need not be. This is all based on assumptions you choose to believe in, which convenient though they might be, cannot be proven. As any logical positivist worth anything will tell you -- just because the sun has come up every morning for as long as our species has existed, doesn't mean it'll do so tomorrow.

Scientist's can give many different theories. Even if it's coherent enough to some, it may not be to others, and therefore as u said, we wont get an anwser. But what if it is the answer and people are just complaining?

There is currently no theory which would explain why there is something instead of nothing. Such a theory cannot be based on science, because it would not be based on observable reality. You cannot see which colour a balloon has on the outside, while being inside said balloon. Reality is the balloon; its outer colour is its meaning. You can explore every single part of that balloon, but you won't find its colour. You can of course stipulate that the balloon has no outer colour, or that the balloon's inner colour is the same as its outer colour, and that there is nothing outside of the balloon -- these are certainly valid points of view. But this view cannot be proven while you're inside the balloon, just like the actual colour it has on the outside.

For example some people believe some of the rules in maths are logically wrong.

What?

As I said, I think that everything has a reason.

How very religious of you.

Just because we can't prove it yet doesn't rule out the fact that it may be solved later on.

How very unscientific. You cannot base your views on something which may be "solved later on", because such views are not built on the empirical reality.

That is if you want to believe in the theories. The universe is the universe. It is what it is, the things that need to be proved are that inside of it. Why assume? Make a theory with evidence, it's the only logical way to at least attempt proving the reason for something.

This contains several assumptions, all pertaining to the idea that the universe is all there is, and any meaning (if such meaning even needs to exist) will be intrinsic to it. Valid points of view, but only drops in the vast oil fields of thought.

[Babek]

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof" - Ashley Montague

"If God was a woman she would have made sperm taste like chocolate." - Carrie P. Snow

[Psy]

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Futile Rhetoric)</div>

Read the other thread and was tickled by your comments. PADDY -- I appreciate the thought behind locking off-topic threads, but you know you can also move them, right? ;)[/b]

I believe he locked it because of rule 1a. <!--QuoteBegin-Devile
All post should be related to Knight-Online. Unrelated posts should go to offtopic section. Political and religious topics are not allowed on any section of this forum.

[the_man_slayer]

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Futile Rhetoric)</div>

Actually, it doesn't matter which framework you're in; anything is possible. Science deals with the past (and to some limited extent, with the present). You assume certain things, like the principle of causality. You assume that observations made in the past will be representative of the future, and it need not be. This is all based on assumptions you choose to believe in, which convenient though they might be, cannot be proven. As any logical positivist worth anything will tell you -- just because the sun has come up every morning for as long as our species has existed, doesn't mean it'll do so tomorrow. [/b]

It was a joke...

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Futile Rhetoric)</div>

There is currently no theory which would explain why there is something instead of nothing. Such a theory cannot be based on science, because it would not be based on observable reality. You cannot see which colour a balloon has on the outside, while being inside said balloon. Reality is the balloon; its outer colour is its meaning. You can explore every single part of that balloon, but you won't find its colour. You can of course stipulate that the balloon has no outer colour, or that the balloon's inner colour is the same as its outer colour, and that there is nothing outside of the balloon -- these are certainly valid points of view. But this view cannot be proven while you're inside the balloon, just like the actual colour it has on the outside. [/b]

That's quite a poor example.. But I never insinuated that there is a theory to explain 'something instead of nothing'. Dno where the hell u got that from.

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric
What?

You may not know, but there are some theories that certain rules in maths are wrong. For example 1 x 1= 1, but -1 x -1= -2.. but logically it should be 1.



<!--QuoteBegin-Futile Rhetoric@
How very religious of you.

It may/ may not be religious, but it's just my logic. Everything has a reason, and can be explained through science and logic.



<!--QuoteBegin-Futile Rhetoric
How very unscientific. You cannot base your views on something which may be "solved later on", because such views are not built on the empirical reality.

I wasnt trying to be scientific, I was being idologic. I'm talking in general on this part (as u didnt notice looking at your grammer). Those sort of views are built on reality because it's been done before. It obviously just goes against your logic, which I'd say isnt very scientific.

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric
This contains several assumptions, all pertaining to the idea that the universe is all there is, and any meaning (if such meaning even needs to exist) will be intrinsic to it. Valid points of view, but only drops in the vast oil fields of thought.

It contains assumptions because it is my belief. Just because it isnt provable yet (yes this is idologic and realitive) doesn't mean it can't be true. All theories are based on assumptions. If your going to discriminate my theory for what it is, you might aswell do it to every theory ever made.

[Psy]

Originally posted by the_man_slayer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_man_slayer)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Futile Rhetoric

What?

You may not know, but there are some theories that certain rules in maths are wrong. For example 1 x 1= 1, but -1 x -1= -2.. but logically it should be -1. [/b]

Before any asians post (namely lutz), I want to correct your answer to that math problem. -1x-1 = 1 :lol:

[the_man_slayer]

rofl haha thanks, was abit rushed writing it all out ^_^

[TunaFishyMe]

i dont think you people understand religion. You guys go on quoting different people thinking their words hold value. Do i really care what Mark Twain says or that woman who likes to eat sperm? No. I could just as likely quote the bible and it would be as meaningless to you as you quoting sperm hungry women to me.

Religion doesnt have to be proven. It is a faith. We believe in it. We do not need numbers or so called "evidence" to believe in something. You claim that people who are religious are stubborn compared to people who dont. But who are you to say who is stubborn and who isnt.

The reason why you dont believe in religion is because you cant see it. The reason why you dont believe in religion is because you think it cant be proven. God cant exist because I dont see him. God cant exist because I cant string a bunch of mathematical equations together and call it proof? How many of you have actually seen an atom? You read it in books and everything, but have you actually seen one? As a second-year Electrical Engineering student, I havent. Yet, you kids who are still struggling in highschool are telling me it has to be? Have you seen 2 atoms bond? have you seen with your own eyes intermolecular forces? Why is it that you can take something so complicated and hold it as true but can't take something so simple like the belief in a god?

I am not doubting science, but if you insist that religious people are stubborn, you are the one with a serious problem.

"A man who claims he knows everything, knows nothing" - Me.

[Shurt]

Originally posted by TunaFishyMe
i dont think you people understand religion. *You guys go on quoting different people thinking their words hold value. *Do i really care what Mark Twain says or that woman who likes to eat sperm? *No. *I could just as likely quote the bible *and it would be as meaningless to you as you quoting sperm hungry women to me. *

Religion doesnt have to be proven. *It is a faith. *We believe in it. *We do not need numbers or so called "evidence" to believe in something. *You claim that people who are religious are stubborn compared to people who dont. *But who are you to say who is stubborn and who isnt. *

The reason why you dont believe in religion is because you cant see it. *The reason why you dont believe in religion is because you think it cant be proven. *God cant exist because I dont see him. *God cant exist because I cant string a bunch of mathematical equations together and call it proof? *How many of you have actually seen an atom? *You read it in books and everything, but have you actually seen one? *As a second-year Electrical Engineering student, I havent. *Yet, you kids who are still struggling in highschool are telling me it has to be? *Have you seen 2 atoms bond? *have you seen with your own eyes intermolecular forces? *Why is it that you can take something so complicated and hold it as true but can't take something so simple like the belief in a god? *

I am not doubting science, but if you insist that religious people are stubborn, you are the one with a serious problem.

"A man who claims he knows everything, knows nothing" - Me.

Bullshit you made that quote, i've heard it before h43r:

[the_man_slayer]

When did anyone suggest they were stubborn? Just because you can't see them obviously doesnt mean they dont exist. But atoms are proven to exist, we know they do. A bit hard to say we have proof God exists. 'A miracle happened, it must be God oooo'. It's just not logical. But live and let live. People have every right to believe what they wont, doesnt bother me what they decide to believe.