Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:13am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

King Rameses II's body saved

âBut this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayest be aportent for those after thee. Lo! most of mankind are heedless of Our portents.â [QS 10:92]

Dr. Maurice Bucaille used to be a researcher on Pharaohâs mummy in Egypt. On Ramses II mummy he found something funny. The salt concentration in mummyâs body is very high. He found out the answer later in Al Qurâan. Ramses II is the Pharaoh that drowned by God when he chased Moses into Red Sea!

The Bible only mentioned that Ramses II was drowned. Only Al Qurâan that said the Pharaohâs body was saved by God so it could become the lesson for all of us now!

Remember this, Muhammad lived 3,000 years after the event and there is no information that the Ramses IIâs body was saved since in the Bible there is no such information. The Pharaohâs tomb, Pyramid, for thousands of years buried deep underground and sand. Just at 1817 AD, archeologist Giovanni Battista Belzoni found the pyramid. But Al Qurâan could mention it because it is the words of God. Not human made.

In Verses 68-69, we are told that it is the female bee that makes honey, a very recent bit of knowledge for humans. We know now that male bees die after mating with the queen and live only for about 90 days. Only female bees survive to be the workers, which gather nectar and make honey. This bit of knowledge could never be known to humans before the invention and use of microscopes. It is another piece of evidence that the author of the Holy Quran could never be a human being about 1428 years ago. Rather, He is the All Knowledgeable One.

[quote]And your Lord inspired the female bees to take (build) its houses (hives) on mountains, trees, and in (people's) gardens

Then (you female bee) eat from all the fruits and (you female bee) follow the ways of your Lord laid down (for you). There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing (cure) for people. In that, (there) is a sign for a people who give thought (Al-Na'hl, 16: 68-69).

 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:20am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

And i even said that Isaac newton and Albert Einstein even believed that it was impossible for the universe to be created on its own but by a All powerful being

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."[Isaac Newton]

Although Albert Einstein never came to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
And his saying:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:30am

hojoko

hojoko

562 posts

âSo, though we cannot see the pain does not mean that the pain does not exist. So is the [Flying Spaghetti Monster]. Just because we cannot see the [Flying Spaghetti Monster] does not mean that [the Flying Spaghetti Monster] does not exist. Though we cannot see [it], but we can see [its] creations.â Said the scholar.


Snarkiness aside, this in no way proves the existence of God or Allah--or really any divine creator--in any way. We can see pain, love, anger and pleasure. They're all an expression of specific, observable physiological reactions.

Anywho, I assume everything else you're saying has already been addressed and subsequently ignored, so I'll not waste my time.
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:34am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,646 posts

Knight

I will make a case against any of the Gods in monotheistic religions today, more from a philosophical point of view, since other users have pitched in arguments that lean more heavily towards the scientific method.

The above post is extremely counter-productive, and fallacious on multiple levels. Firstly, it takes random examples to feed into a various analogies, to prove that something wholly unrelated exists. It uses the example that we cannot see pain, yet we know pain exists, similarly, we cannot see God, hence God exists. Yet, I can feel pain through the nerves in my skin, and the bio-chemical reactions that stimulate those nerves. Hence I know pain exists. Yet, none of my five senses, touch, taste, sight, hearing, can detect God. The lack of any detection is certainly not axiomatic and a total confirmation of an object's non-existence, but there is nothing to prove that God exists in that story, hence the flaw in the argument.

Secondly, the story is just as it is, a story, and a very teleological and flimsy one at that. We can criticize substantially the many flaws of the argument being proposed, the argument that the ''unique'' design of our world, for example, the ''earth, sky, and its contents'' as mentioned in the above post points towards the existence of a unique designer. One, we have but glimpsed a small part of our universe, yet we naively, decisively and rather egotistically claim that the whole is flawless, hence a unique designer must surely exist? Such presumption is rather astounding on the part of believers.
Another attack on this teleological argument is that, complexity does not mean there has to be a creator.

A third, very obvious failing in the post, is the liberal and weak usage of analogies (Pain's existence, and God's existence, or the fact that destruction, such as a tornado, does not bring about creation, implies that the Big Bang is false), as an argument that God exists. An analogy at its base level is merely a linguistic tool to more purposely convey and divest meaning. It does absolutely nothing in proving the existence of an object, but to confuse and mislead people. Simply put, it attempts to masquerade and substitute for actual proof, yet falls short. The presenter of an analogy tries his uttermost to demonstrate how two things are alike by pointing out shared characteristics, with the goal of showing that if two things are similar in some ways, they are congruent in all other ways as well. I am loathed to use an analogy as a counterexample, but here goes.

An apple is red. It is delicious. Similarly, a puddle of blood is red. Therefore, blood is delicious. Using this rather ludicrous example, we can show rather effectively, how shallow the poster's comments are.

 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:40am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,724 posts

Knight

i searched on a few websites and lots of people agree that there is a god even famous people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed that there has to be a god and ill past a couple of articles which you should read and see for yourself that God exists..

Appeal to majority fallacy. Many important people, nay almost everyone, used to believe at some time that the earth is flat. But it has never been.

On the contrary, the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, and others always revolve for billions of years without single crash.

The moon probably resulted form a huge crash between pre-Earth and a Mars-sized object (Giant Impact Hypothesis). And it is only one among many examples.

For billions of years until now the Earth never bump into the Sun, and the Sun never collides with the Moon. There is no mark, police, nor pilots to drive them.

There is. Physics, like orbits. No conscious force is needed.

Without God, the Controller of the Universe, none of these would happen. Everything is in order because there is God who controls everything. Allah has put orbit for each of those things. If we really think about it then we will know that God exist.

That is not a logical conclusion. That is just your belief. But in fact there is no need of a god; our universe function quite ok because it evolved so (and even, I don't say it works perfectly, because as we've seen cosmical accidents happen).

To those arrogant people who deny the existence of God, Allah questions them about His creatures. Who is the creator of sperm and plant? People or God the All Wise Creator?

No creator (as in conscious entity) at all. Plesae consider the theory of abiogenesis.

In another verse, Allah challenges others to create a fly if they could do it. Men may be could make robots from things that created by Allah. Yet, none could make a fly from nothing nor thing that could reproduce except Allah:

That is just a nice story, but it proves nothing. Also, engineered artificial cells may well reproduce.

This is a story proving Allah's existence
This is a story
story

'nuff said.

The argument of the scholar is very simple. Yet, the argument that God does not exist just because humanâs sense could not sense the existence of God is very wrong.

But why do so many religious people insist on feeling gods presence, or communicating through prayer? Therefore it should be possible to feel his presence, after all he's all-present. If we don't, are we to blame for that? I think not.

And i even said that Isaac newton and Albert Einstein even believed that it was impossible for the universe to be created on its own but by a All powerful being

Even if so, they're just two people among so many. Just because they were famous scientists doesn't mean their opinions are truth.
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 11:42am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,385 posts

Moderator

Thanks mbbs112 for all of that work - it must have taken quite a bit of time to put together. Not to stomp too hard on your project here, but this is what we in the philosophical community would call 'hand waving'. In short, there are no actual arguments here. To be sure, there are some things which purport to be arguments, but which lack the proper structure.
We can, of course, read some of your comments charitably and try to piece together some arguments. Perhaps the most compelling deals with some of the most important features of our galaxy and of the universe as a whole. How could it be - the argument goes - that such-and-such features could be in just the right arrangement. If things had just been slightly different, then Earth wouldn't be here and matter may not have even been able to form.
This is a fundamental and very interesting question, but not one that we need a god in order to have an answer. The complexity of the universe (as in the scholar/atheist story) and its apparent order (as suggested by some of your earlier posts) might seem to have an answer rooted in some sort of intelligent designer.
But this kind of thinking is incredibly fallacious.
To see this, think about what these kinds of arguments are meant to suggest. I see two possibilities. Either (a) you're just saying something about the surprise and beauty you find in the universe, or (b) you're suggesting that a god is needed in order to explain these features. If it's (a) then what you're saying - while very nice - isn't all that compelling. Yes, the universe is magnificent and wondrous, but this kind of amazement is often held by theists and atheists alike. A god isn't needed in order to appreciate these things, although it's fine if you believe in one.
That leaves us with (b) which is usually the line these kinds of arguments take. But this thinking becomes so problematic that it has its own name - it's called God of the gaps thinking.
The problem is twofold. First, in offering up god as an explanation, we miss out on some important and enlightening features about the universe that lead us to a much deeper understanding. Second, as science offers more and more information on these areas, god becomes relegated. So you suggest that god is needed to explain x. Physicists then offer an explanation for x that doesn't involve god. The upshot is that you - by requiring god for this explanation - have presented a line of argument to disprove the necessity of god.

The lesson here is simple. Let science do its own thing and let religion stay in its realm. If you don't allow religion to say anything about science, then you don't risk science threatening your religious beliefs. This is one of the reasons why we still have theistic scientists, because they recognise the separateness of the two worlds.

 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 12:01pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

10,090 posts

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


I don't think that saying means what you think it means

It's a jab at religion.
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 1:10pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,813 posts

Knight

i searched on a few websites and lots of people agree that there is a god even famous people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed that there has to be a god and ill past a couple of articles which you should read and see for yourself that God exists..


Appeal to majority and an appeal to authority and in Einstein case a straw man all in one shot. At best Einstein was a pantheist.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -Albert Einstein

On the contrary, the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, and others always revolve for billions of years without single crash.


Except for that one that formed our moon, and all those asteroid impacts that we can see evidence for all over the place, or how Phobos, one of the moons of Mars will likely eventually crash into the planet as it's orbit decays in the next 50 million years, or how the early solar system was likely that of a shooting gallery leave just a few stable lucky ones. Yep other than that not a single crash.

For billions of years until now the Earth never bump into the Sun, and the Sun never collides with the Moon.


Perhaps you should take the time to learn about the physics of what's going on before declaring divine intervention.

Here is a little something to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

To those arrogant people who deny the existence of God,


That arrogant belief that the universe and everything in it wasn't created just for us.

Allah questions them about His creatures. Who is the creator of sperm and plant? People or God the All Wise Creator?


The production of sperm is a biological process. If speaking of human sperm than in a sense people do "create" it. As for plants, nobody. They evolved over time just as animals did. This insistence that if it exists it had to be created by someone is completely false. We can observe many things that form with great varying complexity that had no conscious influence involved.

In another verse, Allah challenges others to create a fly if they could do it. Men may be could make robots from things that created by Allah. Yet, none could make a fly from nothing nor thing that could reproduce except Allah:


Yeah because people with a sever lack of knowledge in biology and chemistry is the bench mark of our limits. Also while it may not be a fly.
'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

This is a story proving Allah's existence


Actually that's just fallacious arguing set to a narrative. The boat from a tree would be an extraordinary claim as it's something we don't observe happening in nature. We normally see such a process occurring on it's own, We do see this however in the comparisons the scholar tried to use.

As for the not being able to see God part comparing it to pain. We are observing pain in a sensory way. We can detect it and if this story was set in a more modern time we could hook the person up to a machine observe their brain and chemical reactions and determine visually if they are indeed in pain. We don't have any such observable evidence for God as we do for pain.

Allah tells us that He is Pure, Loving, and absolutely Just in every respect. He says that He is the Best of Judges.


If that holy book of yours is any indication he sure doesn't demonstrate it very well.

He also tells us that the life that we are in is a test. He has created all the things that exist and He has created all that happens as well.


That makes no sense what so ever. A test is preformed by the tester to determine something they don't known, as a means of evaluations. Since this God creating everything that will happen, he would already know the outcome of the test and thus render the process of giving one moot. Further more if life was a test it's a completely unfair one given unequal treatment from person to person, not providing everyone with the right material to study and not letting anyone know for sure if the material they are studying is even the the right material or not.

Oppression is something that Allah forbids for Himself to do to anyone and He hates it when anyone oppresses someone else.


Doesn't oppress anyone, send people to Hell.

He does have absolute power over everything. He allows sickness, disease, death and even oppression so that we can all be tested in what we do.


Little 8 year old Suzy you have terminal cancer and are going to die in horrible pain so God can find out what he already knows about how everyone around you will react. And since you're not (insert religion here) you get to spend eternity being tortured.

But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.


In other words you use confirmation bias.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.


Not done with these fallacy arguments yet? If a drinking glass formed in the same way planetary bodies do, and it was under the same environmental conditions (which it lacks both) then yes we could expect that. You're trying to compare two things with two completely different properties. It's like saying we don't expect rocks to come from orange trees so we shouldn't expect oranges to come from orange trees.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.


Blind watchmaker argument. Same deal as above, give it the same properties.
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.


Well with sufficient computers and mechanization...

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?"


Because that's what all the observable objectively verifiable evidence suggests.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille used to be a researcher on Pharaohâs mummy in Egypt. On Ramses II mummy he found something funny. The salt concentration in mummyâs body is very high. He found out the answer later in Al Qurâan. Ramses II is the Pharaoh that drowned by God when he chased Moses into Red Sea!


I call bull**** here. There is no reason for us to suspect anything more than the salt being from the mummification process.
Quran Miracle Debunked 3 of 50 : The Pharaoh Miracle / Ramses 2
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 1:17pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,646 posts

Knight

Allah questions them about His creatures. Who is the creator of sperm and plant? People or God the All Wise Creator?


Libido, my potential offspring, and my offspring, are created by me. Anyone or any God who claims to have created them, is asking for a violent response. Lay your dirty hands off them, such a God reeks sinisterly of a kidnapper.
 

Posted Jun 7, '13 at 2:03pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

i searched on a few websites and lots of people agree that there is a god even famous people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed that there has to be a god and ill past a couple of articles which you should read and see for yourself that God exists..


1) This is an appeal to authority.
2) Albert Einstein did not, though Newton did.

On the contrary, the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, and others always revolve for billions of years without single crash.


Planetary bodies collide all the time.

For billions of years until now the Earth never bump into the Sun, and the Sun never collides with the Moon.


This is a tautology. Yes, the earth has never crashed into the sun and the moon has never crashed into the earth. If they had, we wouldn't be here to say they had.

Without God, the Controller of the Universe, none of these would happen.


Last time I checked, physics was responsible for that. Gravity and all.

Everything is in order because there is God who controls everything. Allah has put orbit for each of those things. If we really think about it then we will know that God exist.


This is a non sequitur. You are making a random leap in saying a god is responsible for this phenomenon, much less your particular god.

If we really think about it, then we have no evidence of any god's existence, especially yours, where specific claims can be disproved.

ââ¦Lo! Those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from him. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought!â [Quran 22:73]


*Facepalm* There's actually a VERSE of this ridiculous argument? Sigh.

Hearing that, they realized that they trapped with their own statement.


Uh, no. A tree randomly falling, then randomly losing its branches, then randomly carving itself out into a boat, is VASTLY different than the universe following natural laws.

âSo, though we cannot see the pain does not mean that the pain does not exist.


We can see pain. Under an fMRI, we can see where the brain's neurons fire from stimulus. Same for everything else, because our brain is responsible for how we interpret everything.

So yes, we can see pain, and we can prove pain exists. This has nothing to do with a god.

Allah tells us that He is Pure, Loving, and absolutely Just in every respect. He says that He is the Best of Judges. He also tells us that the life that we are in is a test. He has created all the things that exist and He has created all that happens as well. There is nothing in this existence except what He has created. He also says in the Quran that He created evil (although He is not evil). He is using this as one of the many tests for us.


He tells us he's 'pure.'
He tells us he's 'loving.'
He tells us he's 'just.'

Then he goes on to set up all of his creations for failure and sends a good majority of them to eternal torture for being imperfect. Sorry, I'm not seeing the love or justness.

Why do we even need to be tested?

We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.


You can look at anything, and say something made it without evidence. Literally, this is a baseless claim. Anyone can look at the same thing and say whatever they want. A ghost did it. Aliens. God. Allah. Yaweh, Shiva, Zeus, or any other supernatural force.

Except we have no evidence for any of that, and you're just saying whatever you want. You don't 'know.' You're just ascribing your preference.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.


This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and is ridiculous.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.


Just keep throwing those watchmakers fallacies out ad nauseum. We'll eventually stop responding to them and you can make-believe you've won a point, because we're tired of repeating ourselves.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?"


Argument from incredulity.

This bit of knowledge could never be known to humans before the invention and use of microscopes.


Yes it could have. Bees aren't microscopic. We can see them with our own eyes.
 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!