Arguments for and against the existence of God

OK lets take these to argument and let us try to reach some sort of consensus of this vexing puzzle

Arguments for the existence of God

1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.

2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design

Lets us deal later with arguments against the belief in god

Alan

Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.

The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.

Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.

A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."

Therefore, God exists.

Anyway you slice it dice it..big bang or whatever

. God is always there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6bARIaMhCM)

The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.

The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.

But this does not nullify that there was a creator who put all those laws in place. We know that there are several constants in universe that allow, due to their carefully set values, life on earth. This and the above mentioned arguments in thread match what God says in the holy Quran:

a. that everything was created with carefully set values (thoughtfully).
b. that Big Bang is a fact.

Here is what God says regarding the creation of the universe in the 1430 years old text:


"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
Holy Quran - The Prophets 21:30

Due to the complexity of the universe, nature,assumption that there is a force of superior intelligence,is a plausible assumption.

1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.

The notion of cause and effect also requires some notion of time. There's nothing to say that time or cause and effect were relevant "prior" to the Big Bang. There's also nothing to say that time doesn't go infinitely far back into the past. The argument merely replaces one gap in our understanding with an even bigger gap. Belief in a divine creator offers zero predictive power for modelling real-life situations, and it replaces a difficult question with an even more difficult one -who made God?- without providing the slightest testable answer.


2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design

Order and design are subjective concepts. Mars might look like a smooth ball from a distance, but up close it's a random pile of soil and rocks. Nothing has yet been shown to exist that can't conceivably be explained by complex random processes governed by simple natural laws. Arguments based on calculations of the probability of life are bogus, because no one has the computing power or knowledge to calculate the probability that some form of life similar to our own might emerge somewhere in the universe.

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.

I guess I can say the same when it comes to my experience.

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9061/a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.

Imagine the universe is built upon a computer language. For all purposes lets assume the language is HTML.

Lets assume that the 'result' of the code has ability to 'see' (consciousness) the result of other codes.

One sees 'bolded text' and is amazed. Another sees a video running (HTML5?) and is amazed. They attribute all of it to some designer.

But there is another group- they see the bolded text, and they find out why and how it become bolded, and they find the code < b> < /b> . They attribute the bold to this tag. Then they see the a color and they find out why and they attribute it to < color> < /color> tag. This group comes to the conclusion that everything can be explained by the code.

So one group attributes something external to the code. Another attributes their existence to the code.

One tries to explain the very existence of the code through a designer. The other explains the results of the code through the code.

Does it change the fact that HTML was created? But if all elements of the code had consciousness could they tell there was a 'creator' wouldn't they also attribute everything to the code.

Then there is the question of 'information'. < b> < /b> may be the code for a bold text, but what translates < b> < /b> to actually mean something. How and why do these tags work together to form something. Why aren't they absolutely random in which case there could be no way to tell what leads to what.

If you look at the page source of a website, can you say someone created it? Can you not see what leads to 'what element' and show that what was 'created' actually came from the code having 'no evidence' for the creator. From the code the creator can not be seen. Because the creator created the code, he isn't the code itself. You can't find him in the code.

There is a code, but there is also a system that understands the code.

Why is it that if you write something in < b> < /b> that it becomes bold but not just words written otherwise? What determines this 'translation' or 'syntax'?

Sure the code works together, different tags lead to different things but why is it that they lead to what they do. Why is it that it is 'translated' this way. Who is the translator? Who is the one who set the syntax. Is it illogical to assume that someone set these parameters? Maybe, maybe not.

Peace be unto you ;)

PS- You can draw the parallels of what the tags represents, and what represents nature, and so forth I hope.

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.
God didn't even show up in my world: therefore god doesn't exist.

God didn't even show up in my world: therefore god doesn't exist.

that's how it is. that's why i think that debating his existence from an intellectual standpoint, and pointing fingers is pretty futile.

I guess I can say the same when it comes to my experience.

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9061/a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.

pretty. i wanted to cry in a butterfly atrium once. :bawl:

@786

Thanks for the analogy. I enjoyed reading the post.

What are the "arguments against the existence of God"?

jan.

The problem with PieAreSquared's argument is that most processes in nature are not random or accidental. They are governed by precise laws of nature, some of which we have managed to find out through the scientific method.

So far in the scientific enterprise, nothing has been found in nature that requires "mind" for its ultimate production.


Not really my argument .. cut from wiki

Personally I believe in God.. but not all the woo associated with it ;)

What are the "arguments against the existence of God"?

jan.

Arguments against belief in God

Cut from Wikepedia

Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them.
[edit] Empirical arguments

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

• The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an -- by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.

• The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

• The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. For example, many runners get a painful "stitch" in their side due to poor placement of the liver.

• The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

• The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[25] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

• It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the "pot of gold at the end of a rainbow's" existence, as it is impossible to actually get to the end of the rainbow and check, due to the (circular, and hence "endless") nature of a rainbow. This "inability to check" is taken by most to be proof that the "pot of gold" does not in fact exist (there is no end of the rainbow for the pot to be at.)

For God, this lack of proof, and the similar lack of ability to check it, is taken by some to be "proof of existence." A case of "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Some see this to be proof that "God must exist, as he/she/it can't be disproved." The absence of proof is taken by others to be the same as the "pot of gold". If you can't get to a place that does not exist, then it's obvious that there is nothing there

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9061/a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.All I see is the result of evolution - i.e. those butterflies that had wings that aided in their survival would pass on those traits / genes to their offspring. Over time their predators would weed out those with "unfit" wings, leaving those with the best camouflage for survival.

Simple evolution at work.
No design necessary.

that's how it is. that's why i think that debating his existence from an intellectual standpoint, and pointing fingers is pretty futile.

It's an obvious contradiction. One of you two must be wrong.

Does it change the fact that HTML was created?

"HTML was created" is not a "fact". It's just a way of seeing and perceiving HTML. But it is easy to deconstruct this perspective:

Who created HTML? Human beings. But who, which particular human being? Or even group of human beings? Nobody can pinpoint such an individual neither a group of people. The second degree limitation can only be "software engineers", but not more than this: HTML or any other software system for that matter might emerge as an idea by a single person; but the moment the software becomes an accepted working product, numerous contribution and codification efforts of various unknown people are already behind the product in many level. HTML that we globally use as a web site language is not a creation of any single individual, company or group of super clever people. It was neither created at once; in fact HTML is not a completed creation either; constant modifications due to requirements (by users, by technology, etc.) have been made through time, still being made and will be made in the future until one day HTML becomes completely useless for any application or erodes within/becomes base for a different software.

And these vast number of people doesn't appear as "creator", but they rather present an environment for the evolution of HTML. Even the generation of coders and computer specialists die, HTML will survive and change. Therefore, it is possible to say that "HTML is creator-independent software", even if the initial idea was first coined by some person (or people), the result(s) are independent from them.

Moreover, from a wider perspective, we can also question HTML as a separate, independent entity within the vast concept of "computer software language and logic". At the end of the day, HTML shares many features of other software and does not distinguish itself as a completely different system. When we eliminate all shared elements, what would left behind HTML?

We can look at the development of HTML as an evolution. That is, better code by more inputs from several people. So many people were needed to have the HTML language that we have now. But what about the owl eye butterfly?! Would you please tell me or name at least one entity that participated in its "evolution"?!

I want to know about an entity that is mindful, conscious, self-correcting & intelligent.

And we all know that the owl eyes butterfly is millions of times more complex than the HTML code.

Evolution cannot make it because any "stupid" mutation on the way would kill the butterfly and it would have extincted long time ago. I remind that the product that we have in front of our eyes is a flawless and beautiful butterfly.

You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!

Yosef:


But this does not nullify that there was a creator who put all those laws in place. We know that there are several constants in universe that allow, due to their carefully set values, life on earth.

Yes, and we don't yet have a solid scientific explanation for the values of those constants. But, we do have some scientific ideas about how they got their values, that don't require a Creator.

Don't fall for the false dichotomy that says that if we can't explain something right now then God must have done it. It may well be that we'll discover the answer tomorrow, and it won't need God.

And one further point: surely you believe your God does more in the world than to simply set the initial constants and laws of the universe, then to sit back and watch the universe run uninterrupted?


This and the above mentioned arguments in thread match what God says in the holy Quran:

a. that everything was created with carefully set values (thoughtfully).
b. that Big Bang is a fact.

The Qur'an doesn't mention the big bang or any physical constants.

Here is what God says regarding the creation of the universe in the 1430 years old text:


Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9061/a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.

What I see is a butterfly that evolved spots on its wings, possibly because there was a survival advantage conferred by having predators wondering whether, perhaps, the butterfly might actually be a larger or more powerful predator itself, rather than food.

The theory of evolution quite adequately explains butterfly wings.

Evolution cannot make it because any "stupid" mutation on the way would kill the butterfly and it would have extincted long time ago. I remind that the product that we have in front of our eyes is a flawless and beautiful butterfly.

You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!


Why do you think that only two alternatives, there your God or evolution?

There is a difference between an "argument for the existence of God" and "argument for believing in God".

Since God is per definition that being that is the primal cause, the source of everything, we are, per that definition, inferior beings and as such it is not within our capacity to prove the existence of God.

We do, however, have at our disposal a number of arguments for (or against) belief in God.
We may come up with empirical, pragmatic, moral and perhaps other arguments for belief in God.

@James R

Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Holy Quran - Prophets 21:30

Do not those who misbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were both solid, and we burst them asunder; and we made from water every living thing--will they then not believe?


Do not the infidels see that the heavens and the earth were both a solid mass, and that we clave them asunder, and that by means of water we give life to everything? Will they not then believe?

Not bad actually, if a little vague.

But not actually "the Big Bang".
Solid mass? :shrug:

Were both a solid mass? So they existed separately...
Plus, of course, the slight problem of no one being quite sure of what the original really says.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/21/30/default.htm

@Dywyddyr

We know what the verse says, that is in revealed Arabic text. I will try to find the English language article I read one time about this particular verse. It explained well the Arabic words used.

I can also draw your attention to Holy Quran - Prophets 21:104. God talks about the day when everything is going to cease to exist, just before judgment day:


"On that day we will roll up the heaven as one rolleth up written scrolls. As we made the first creation, so will we bring it forth again. This promise bindeth us; verily, we will perform it."

This is a good description of what scientists refer to as Big Crunch. In fact this verse provides further confirmation that what is talked about in verse 30 is in fact the Big Bang. I believe that the Quranic text in Arabic provides the most accurate description of what happened and what is going to happen.

* Pronoun We instead of the pronoun I - this happens often in the Quran, only when God talks about himself.

@Dywyddyr
We know what the verse says, that is in revealed Arabic text.
Except that there's some confusion over what it actually means and the English translation. In other words it appears to be somewhat undefined.


This is a good description of what scientists refer to as Big Crunch.
And your point would be?
The Big Crunch may never happen.


* Pronoun We instead of the pronoun I - this happens often in the Quran, only when God talks about himself.
Yeah, or the Queen of England (and all previous and current queens and kings), or even Maggie Thatcher (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/401700.html). :rolleyes:

Yeah, or the Queen of England (and all previous and current queens and kings), or even Maggie Thatcher (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/401700.html). :rolleyes:

Thanks for the info. I know that this is not universal for all languages, though.

The idea that the universe is static dominated science for many years and this needed to be changed as observations were made in the past century that indicated that the universe is expanding. Amazingly the Holy Quran provides a picture of a rather dynamic universe. This can be seen in the above mentioned verses and also in the following, Holy Quran - The Imminent 56:75-80:


"So I will not swear by the positions of the stars; and, verily, it is a grand oath if ye did but know - that, verily, this is the honourable Qur'an - in the laid-up Book! Let none touch it but the purified*! A revelation from the Lord of the worlds (all creation)."

Stars are moving away from each other due to universe expansion. God is not giving oath by their positions. Where we see them to be is not where they are actually at. God has revealed these verses 1430 years ago!

* Purified: Men and women who applied water to their bodies (as after engaging in intimate activity).

Thanks for the info. I know that this is not universal for all languages, though.
Really?
Please give an example of languages where the "royal we (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural)" is not used.
(And this is the second time I have pointed out to you that it is not an "Arabic language thing").
See here (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1091632), also.


The idea that the universe is static dominated science for many years and this needed to be changed as observations were made in the past century that indicated that the universe is expanding. Amazingly the Holy Quran provides a picture of a rather dynamic universe.
And you are, once more (as has been pointed out previously numerous times) putting a modern interpretation on what was written. If the Quran actually means that why have believers not previously proposed that the stars are not "fixed"?
And, FYI, it does NOT indicate that the "universe is expanding". It could mean that, for example, that it is contracting, shifting sideways, dancing all around or moving towards then away from any given point.
"So I will not swear by the positions of the stars" could simply mean that the speaker is ignorant of the actual position and declines to state categorically (swear) that their positions are such and such.
Fail. Again.

@Dywyddyr

Is it possible that there is no all-knowing God behind this verse too?!


"With power did We construct heaven. Verily, We are expanding it."
Source: Holy Quran - The Dispersing 51:47

See this article for more info: http://www.quranmiracles.com/articles.asp?id=1

Some people want to see predictions that become true. I have already provided the Big Crunch prediction. You say that it might not happen. I believe that it is going to happen, but then it's too late to start believing. You need to reconsider your arguments against the existence of God.

Is it possible that there is no all-knowing God behind this verse too?!
Yep.


See this article for more info: http://www.quranmiracles.com/articles.asp?id=1
Nope. Already done that in the relevant thread.


You need to reconsider your arguments against the existence of God.
Hardly.

Please give an example of languages where the "royal we" is not used. (And this is the second time I have pointed out to you that it is not an "Arabic language thing"). See here, also.Your cited sources identify the majestic plural as a construction in the Western Branch of the Indo-European language family (Greek, Latin, English) and the Semitic (Arabic, Hebrew) and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family. I also have not found any reference to the phenomenon elsewhere. This leaves a couple of thousand languages with no evidence presented for their use of the technique. ;)

Your cited sources identify the majestic plural as a construction in the Western Branch of the Indo-European language family (Greek, Latin, English) and the Semitic (Arabic, Hebrew) and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family. I also have not found any reference to the phenomenon elsewhere. This leaves a couple of thousand languages with no evidence presented for their use of the technique. ;)
Quite likely, but I was querying Yosef's "knowledge" of the usage (since he had, at one point) claimed it was an "Arabic Language Thing".
IOW he assumed it was purely his own language, whereas I would have (failing evidence to the contrary - which we do have) would have assumed that, by default, it was common, since I myself was familiar with it.

Yosef:


Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Holy Quran - Prophets 21:30

Is this what you're talking about?


Do not those who misbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were both solid, and we burst them asunder; and we made from water every living thing--will they then not believe?

Do not the infidels see that the heavens and the earth were both a solid mass, and that we clave them asunder, and that by means of water we give life to everything? Will they not then believe?

There's no mention of the big bang there.

Where were these "solid heavens" of yours? Also, living things are not made entirely from water, and could not be made entirely from water, either.


On that day we will roll up the heaven as one rolleth up written scrolls. As we made the first creation, so will we bring it forth again. This promise bindeth us; verily, we will perform it


This is a good description of what scientists refer to as Big Crunch.

It's a good description of the "big crunch", you think? Really?

I think it's a vague myth about the end of the world, with no connection to science at all.


I believe that the Quranic text in Arabic provides the most accurate description of what happened and what is going to happen.

The most accurate? You mean, more accurate than modern science, eh?

Really? Are you serious?

"HTML was created" is not a "fact". It's just a way of seeing and perceiving HTML. But it is easy to deconstruct this perspective:

Who created HTML? Human beings. But who, which particular human being? Or even group of human beings? Nobody can pinpoint such an individual neither a group of people. The second degree limitation can only be "software engineers", but not more than this: HTML or any other software system for that matter might emerge as an idea by a single person; but the moment the software becomes an accepted working product, numerous contribution and codification efforts of various unknown people are already behind the product in many level. HTML that we globally use as a web site language is not a creation of any single individual, company or group of super clever people. It was neither created at once; in fact HTML is not a completed creation either; constant modifications due to requirements (by users, by technology, etc.) have been made through time, still being made and will be made in the future until one day HTML becomes completely useless for any application or erodes within/becomes base for a different software.

And these vast number of people doesn't appear as "creator", but they rather present an environment for the evolution of HTML. Even the generation of coders and computer specialists die, HTML will survive and change. Therefore, it is possible to say that "HTML is creator-independent software", even if the initial idea was first coined by some person (or people), the result(s) are independent from them.

Moreover, from a wider perspective, we can also question HTML as a separate, independent entity within the vast concept of "computer software language and logic". At the end of the day, HTML shares many features of other software and does not distinguish itself as a completely different system. When we eliminate all shared elements, what would left behind HTML?

Baftan... why are you broadening the perspective. There is no reason to. Its an analogy....

HTML is an imperfect code, and it requires changes as need arises. Sure that makes 'many creators'- and there are 'shared features' with other systems...

But the point was... the system was created and it is not illogical to assume that it was. Secondly the code doesn't show the creator (it can but not required)- which was exactly my point.

What you have done is basically identify the features of HTML that wouldn't work in this case- for example multiple creators... It was an analogy, and it wasn't a 1:1 comparison.

I guess I will make the parallels for you:

Universal Laws is the code.
The forces are the tags
And we are the results with consciousness.
The group who thinks the code was created are theists
The group that explains the results with the code are the scientists (note: they don't explain the code but the result of the code)


There may be people modifying the code of HTML and adding 'new code'.... but I don't know of any example of anyone having modified universal laws. We use the laws for our benefit (i.e inventions).

And my basic point was: If the results of HTML (i.e bolded text, color, header) were given consciousness they couldn't find evidence for anything except the code from which they were derived (science?). Just as we prescribe all occurrences to 'nature'.

And I also pointed out that there is something external to the HTML code- something that 'translates it' the 'syntax'. And the final proposal was: Is it illogical to assume that there could be someone who set the translation or someone who is the translator? (translator is essentially what makes that code into 'something')

The notion of a 'translator' or something that 'understands' the code to give it the 'actual' result is interesting thought. What makes the universal laws have the characteristics that they do. Why do opposites attracts? Because they have opposite charges- but so what- why is it that opposites charges are attract- how do they know they are opposite charges. Its the question of 'information' and 'what it means'. I might not be 'clear' here... so I'll just give an example..

If you don't have javascript installed then you can't see pages that utilize javascript. If you don't have flash you can't see the content written in flash.. The code is still there but you can't see it, or at least not see it as it should be... You'll see the code, but not the 'result'. Essentially it is gibberish and absolutely worthless to have a website using a certain code, but the system not having the capability of understanding the code to 'produce' something.

This forum has the ability to understand html code. That is why when I type something in the appropriate brackets it becomes bold otherwise I wouldn't see the bolded text but the brackets themselves. Something gives 'meaning' to the code. So its a question of information.

And the point was NOT to 'pinpoint' a creator.. ie. Zeus, Allah, Yahweh.. but the 'argument for God'... Its not an argument for 'that God'.. but 'God' in general.

I know atheists like to bring which the 'which God?' question... but why don't we leave it to the 'concept of God' which is really the question. So this argument is a general one- its not for any specific God or 'gods'. As the thread is about the argument for the 'existence of God'- not 'this God'.

Peace be unto you ;)

Baftan... why are you broadening the perspective. There is no reason to. Its an analogy....

Broadening? I am trying to narrow it, or clarify the idea behind this analogy. Plus, an assumed creator of religious tradition is "one single above physics intelligent creator"; whereas so called "creator(s)" are semi-independent mortal beings and they are definitely more than one. How can this analogy possibly work?


HTML is an imperfect code, and it requires changes as need arises. Sure that makes 'many creators'- and there are 'shared features' with other systems...

What makes you think that living creatures are "perfect"?


But the point was... the system was created and it is not illogical to assume that it was. Secondly the code doesn't show the creator- which was exactly my point.

"Code doesn't show the creator" was not your point in terms of unknown identity of the creator; your point was to concentrate all humans behind HTML as if they could be represented by one identity (creator of HTML). Your attempt was to establish a logical connection between HTML and natural entities. To show that if HTML is created by unknown creator(s), therefore everything that exists must also be created by an unknown creator.


What you have done is basically identify the features of HTML that wouldn't work in this case- for example multiple creators... It was an analogy, and it wasn't a 1:1 comparison.

An analogy can be good or bad. But they should at least be relevant. If you strip off the features of HTML and make it an object for your analogy, which features would you recommend us to understand what do you mean by "HTML" so that we can compare it to the signified (creator of everything). If your analogy doesn't provide "a 1:1 comparison", how much does it work; in other way of saying this what is the representation ratio if not 1:1?


Universal Laws is the code.

Is this an entry for a new analogy? What does that exactly mean?


The forces are the tags

Trying to make parallels but creating more problem for your analogy: Which forces which tags?


And we are the results with consciousness.
The group who thinks the code was created are theists

I thought eternal creation process wouldn't need a code writing, it used to say "be it" and things used to appear out of nowhere. What happened now? How are we going to compare a software program (a result of an HTML code) with something that is "created suddenly"?



The group that explains the results with the code are the scientists (note: they don't explain the code but the result of the code)

Bullshit. You made the code itself as a creation again. Code appeared suddenly, animals and human created out of the code (of course suddenly again); and scientist can only say things about the result of the code, but they don't have a clue about how code is relevant to the rest of the natural system. Is that what you are offering?


There may be people modifying the code of HTML and adding 'new code'.... but I don't know of any example of anyone having modified universal laws. We use the laws for our benefit (i.e inventions).

Universe constantly modify itself, otherwise new phenomenons (which is practically everything in this universe) wouldn't have emerged in the first place. And this modification still continues. There is no creator or modifier behind the process.


And the point was NOT to 'pinpoint' a creator.. ie. Zeus, Allah, Yahweh.. but the 'argument for God'... Its not an argument for 'that God'.. but 'God' in general.

There is no natural and/or an independent concept of "God" that we can observe without the arguments. Since God does not exist, only descriptions of God imaginations come from religions. They define the borders or features of God(s).


I know atheists like to bring which the 'which God?' question... but why don't we leave it to the 'concept of God' which is really the question. So this argument is a general one- its not for any specific God or 'gods'.

What does that exactly mean? If I told you let's discuss about the existence of Plordum, you would rightly ask me "What is Plordum?". And if I insist upon not to answer your question, you would probably change the question and ask "which Plordum?" in order to understand the subject topic.

If you have an experience about unbelievers, you must also guess that I have my own on believers; and I know that they never answers question of "What is God?". Therefore unbelievers will rightly ask "which God?", "what does it do?", "how does it exist2?" or "what is its features?".

Broadening? I am trying to narrow it, or clarify the idea behind this analogy. Plus, an assumed creator of religious tradition is "one single above physics intelligent creator"; whereas so called "creator(s)" are semi-independent mortal beings and they are definitely more than one. How can this analogy possibly work?

Because a creator is a creator regardless of numbers.


What makes you think that living creatures are "perfect"?

When did I say they were. I was talking about 'imperfect' in the sense of needing to add further functionality into HTML.


To show that if HTML is created by unknown creator(s), therefore everything that exists must also be created by an unknown creator.

Actually this not so... You statement that 'therefore everything that exists MUST" is absolutely wrong. I said is it 'illogical to ASSUME'... My preposition was much more humble then an absolute form such as "MUST"... I'm not arguing that God "MUST" exist. But that it is NOT illogical to assume that he does.


Is this an entry for a new analogy? What does that exactly mean?
Trying to make parallels but creating more problem for your analogy: Which forces which tags?

Its a relationship between HTML and the Universe if you will... you were asking for which parts were being represented by the analogy weren't you?


I thought eternal creation process wouldn't need a code writing, it used to say "be it" and things used to appear out of nowhere. What happened now? How are we going to compare a software program (a result of an HTML code) with something that is "created suddenly"?

You think a HTML page automatically appears? You don't think a computer can be given instructions to perform an action which it performs?


Bullshit. You made the code itself as a creation again. Code appeared suddenly, animals and human created out of the code (of course suddenly again); and scientist can only say things about the result of the code, but they don't have a clue about how code is relevant to the rest of the natural system. Is that what you are offering?

Actually I did say the scientists know how the 'code is relevant' to the rest of the system... They show you how the code created the things and how it works together. But they don't show how fundamentally the code obtains its information ('meaning').

And yes I "made the code itself as a creation"- but that is what the argument was (which essentially was a question). As one can assume that HTML is created, it may and can be assumed that the universe was also.. My argument was a question. Is it illogical to 'assume' that the code was created? I say no.


Universe constantly modify itself, otherwise new phenomenons (which is practically everything in this universe) wouldn't have emerged in the first place. And this modification still continues. There is no creator or modifier behind the process.

No, so you are suggesting universal laws are always changing? I know that they are interacting always and create different things (i.e new phenomenon)... Whats the point of doing physics if everything is changing... Maybe we need to go back and check if 2 + 2 is still 4 in the real world?


There is no natural and/or an independent concept of "God" that we can observe without the arguments. Since God does not exist, only descriptions of God imaginations come from religions. They define the borders or features of God(s).

By the way it can be any of them.. so take into account all descriptions... For all I know you can take spaghetti monsters if you want. The argument was of a logical assumption and that it is not illogical to assume a creator. An argument for God does not equal proof for God. Thus there is room for allowing any of those gods to be the logical assumption. Perhaps that is where you are getting hung up.. I'm not presenting proof for God, thus its not important which God it is, but that it is not illogical (as atheists would say) to contend that a god x (you can choose x to be whichever god) exists.


What does that exactly mean? If I told you let's discuss about the existence of Plordum, you would rightly ask me "What is Plordum?". And if I insist upon not to answer your question, you would probably change the question and ask "which Plordum?" in order to understand the subject topic.

Take one of your choosing... It still wouldn't change the argument.

Peace be unto you ;)

Because a creator is a creator regardless of numbers.

Your unsubstantiated idea. According to this logic, if a picture that is created by 1000 people with different aims and various brush quality will be same as a picture which is created by a single artist. Is that so?


When did I say they were. I was talking about 'imperfect' in the sense of needing to add further functionality into HTML.

Can you or can you not claim the same is needed for natural beings?


Actually this not so... You statement that 'therefore everything that exists MUST" is absolutely wrong. I said is it 'illogical to ASSUME'... My preposition was much more humble then an absolute form such as "MUST"... I'm not arguing that God "MUST" exist. That is is NOT illogical to assume that he does.

Summary of this passage: The existence of God is illogical.



Its a relationship between HTML and the Universe if you will... you were asking for which parts were being represented by the analogy weren't you?

No, I was talking about the entire analogy, entire relevance, or "what are the pillars of your analogy representing the universe?"


You think a HTML page automatically appears? You don't think a computer can be given instructions to perform an action which it performs?

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I say: I ask the relevance of existence of God to HTML. Simple as that. I didn't question or claim anything about how software works.


Actually I did say the scientists know how the 'code is relevant' to the rest of the system... They show you how the code created the things.

No, I said it for a reason: If we stretch your analogy, only outcome would be an analogy between DNA and HTML codes. That's how it sounds.


And yes I "made the code itself as a creation"- but that is what the argument was (which essentially was a question). As one can assume that HTML is created, it may and can be assume that the universe was also.. My argument was a question. Is it illogical to 'assume' that the code was created?

I already explain why "Code is created" claim is nothing other than a way of looking things. Therefore its not a factual observation. I repeat, no one can claim that "I made the code itself", there is no such a single person to demand complete intelligence over HTML code. If this person started what we call "HTML" today, he/she also replicated the many aspects of computer programming, repeated many logic which was already used by other software, and could not control the size and/or quality of what he/she started. This can be an analogy for natural phenomenons for certain degree, but only if you drop the "creation" claim. Because neither natural or human software has not been "created", especially all of a sudden or by a single intelligence.



No, so you are suggesting universal laws are always changing? I know that they are interacting always and create different things (i.e new phenomenon)... Whats the point of doing physics if everything is changing... Maybe we need to go back and check if 2 + 2 is still 4 in the real world?

Without the existence of atoms, there wasn't any laws for atoms; without the existence of DNA, there wasn't any law for DNA, that's what I am saying. And these law once become functional, they also become reliable for other new constructions. By the way, 2+2=4 is a human thinking method.


By the way it can be any of them.. so take into account all descriptions... For all I know you can take spaghetti monsters if you want. The argument was of a logical assumption and that it is not illogical to assume a creator. An argument for God does not equal proof for God.

What is the point of an argument for God if the existence of God is out of issue? Let's call the game and say "We are discussing God as we are discussing about Superman, everything is all about imagination."


Thus there is room for allowing any of those gods to be the logical assumption.

Not if you equalize logic = imagination.


Perhaps that is where you are getting hung up.. I'm not presenting proof for God, thus its not important which God it is, but that it is not illogical (as atheists would say) to contend that a god x (you can choose x to be whichever god) exists.

So you are basically asking to accept God's existence a priori. Sorry, not possible...


Take one of your choosing... It still wouldn't change the argument.

How come? You are offering not questioning God's existence under a discussion topic titled as "Arguments for and against the existence of God". I hope I misunderstood.

The fact is that the verses of the Holy Quran talk about clear and true cosmic facts: Universe expansion, Big Bang, Big Crunch and others. Some of you have decided, based on nothing significant that I can see, that God does not exist. You are not willing to accept any proof for His existence. I know the linguistic miracle of the Quran, I know the truth that is conveyed in the text (societal, personal, scientific, mathematical) and I know that God exists. Did you know that cosmic webs are mentioned in the Holy Quran? God says:


"By the sky with its fabrics"
Holy Quran - The Dispersing 51:7

The word used in this verse is Al-Hobok which means nothing other than weaved material.

More here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520152013.htm
http://kaheel7.com/eng/index.php/astronomu-a-space/92-al-hobuk

Every book has an author. The author here is God. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone except God to:

1) write such a beautiful Arabic text
2) make it durable
3) get 9 MILLION people around the world to learn it and recite it by heart
4) make such accurate scientific claims
5) structure chapters by mathematical systems - many of which cannot even be discovered without modern technology. I am talking about 316 or 1501 digit numbers for instance!
6) much more....

Your unsubstantiated idea. According to this logic, if a picture that is created by 1000 people with different aims and various brush quality will be same as a picture which is created by a single artist. Is that so?

No. Who said that the Universe is the same thing as HTML... The comparison was only made about a 'creator'... A picture created by a 1000 people is still created, in that they are the 'same'.


Can you or can you not claim the same is needed for natural beings?

Natural beings are a result of the universal laws... The beings may be imperfect, but we can use the code to create something more 'perfect'.. Which is part of the application of science? You using the same code, you don't create a new one doing it (unlike HTML).


Summary of this passage: The existence of God is illogical.

Great argument.


No, I was talking about the entire analogy, entire relevance, or "what are the pillars of your analogy representing the universe?"

That the universal laws can be seen as a coded language.


I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I say: I ask the relevance of existence of God to HTML. Simple as that. I didn't question or claim anything about how software works.

Well quoting 'be and it is' and the natural process is really talking about the mechanism of creation, which is 'how it works'.. And the relevance is that from a perspective that the universal laws are a code, it can be assumed that a creator exists.. You may not agree with the assumption, but there is nothing illogical about the assumption.


No, I said it for a reason: If we stretch your analogy, only outcome would be an analogy between DNA and HTML codes. That's how it sounds.

The specifics and similarities of HTML and DNA are not the point of the analogy... You're trying to pinpoint differences when the main point is that HTML has been created, and that creation of HTML ie the bolded text or anything that 'results' from HTML were given conciousness that they could not identify their creator- they could only look at the code to their existence.


I already explain why "Code is created" claim is nothing other than a way of looking things. Therefore its not a factual observation. I repeat, no one can claim that "I made the code itself", there is no such a single person to demand complete intelligence over HTML code. If this person started what we call "HTML" today, he/she also replicated the many aspects of computer programming, repeated many logic which was already used by other software, and could not control the size and/or quality of what he/she started. This can be an analogy for natural phenomenons for certain degree, but only if you drop the "creation" claim. Because neither natural or human software has not been "created", especially all of a sudden or by a single intelligence.

Again you are trying to point out things that are actually irrelevant. Its true that it is a 'way to look at things'.

It doesn't matter if HTML was created by a single intelligence or it borrowed things from other intelligence or what not. Those specifics don't matter. If HTML has many creators it does not mean that therefore everything must have multiple creators or multiple intelligences contributing to the code. That is why the specifics of this are irrelevant. The point is that HTML has creator/creators. The universe can too... how many 'creators' does it have is not the point of the analogy. For I care it could be Diego and Dora the Explorer. The numbers of creator is irrelevant.


Without the existence of atoms, there wasn't any laws for atoms; without the existence of DNA, there wasn't any law for DNA, that's what I am saying. And these law once become functional, they also become reliable for other new constructions. By the way, 2+2=4 is a human thinking method.

2+2 =4 is a human thinking method- its a code to describe reality. Obviously you can create your own system to describe it. one cookie could be presented through a symbol instead of the numeral 1. But it is still describing an actual thing.

Also I'm not talking about the 'law of DNA'- but the laws of the physical world, the very fundamental things. Or you could say the 'laws that started everything else'.


What is the point of an argument for God if the existence of God is out of issue? Let's call the game and say "We are discussing God as we are discussing about Superman, everything is all about imagination."

Sure you are imagining that this 'creator' is God... but an argument for the existence of a creator is still an argument. What you take that creator to be is your own choice. Because once an argument for a creator can be made... The further 'imagination' is justified under the assumption of a creator.


So you are basically asking to accept God's existence a priori. Sorry, not possible...

Assumptions are assumptions for a reason.... The assumption that everything follows physical laws and can be described by a system- something that physics pursue is also an a priori assumption. But it is a logical assumption from their point of view.


How come? You are offering not questioning God's existence under a discussion topic titled as "Arguments for and against the existence of God". I hope I misunderstood.

Did the OP specify a god for the discussion? I am presenting an 'argument for' the existence of a creator. And that creator very may well be God.

Peace be unto you ;)

Arguments against:

* All arguments for God that reference reality can be demonstrated to be incorrect (including all the ones in this thread).
* Some arguments for God that reference personal experience can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
* The concept of God is a naturally occuring psychological phenomenon rooted in anthropomorphism and social heirarchy.

Arguments against:

* All arguments for God that reference reality can be demonstrated to be incorrect (including all the ones in this thread).
* Some arguments for God that reference personal experience can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
* The concept of God is a naturally occuring psychological phenomenon rooted in anthropomorphism and social heirarchy.

I am happy that I am not reducing my existence and wonderful human experience to nothing.

anthropomorphism... since we come from no where...

It looks like many people have simply no good arguments against the existence of God.

I am happy that I am not reducing my existence and wonderful human experience to nothing.

How is that relevant?



anthropomorphism... since we come from no where...

These are unrelated concepts, the latter of which isn't supported by any evidence.



It looks like many people have simply no good arguments against the existence of God.

Mine are solid. It basically can demonstrate all human claims of God as being false as well as providing a reason why human claims of God exist in the first place.

I am happy that I am not reducing my existence and wonderful human experience to nothing.

anthropomorphism... since we come from no where...

It looks like many people have simply no good arguments against the existence of God.

If you had enough sense or were not so indoctrinated you would realize that you had just read 3.

Arguments against:

* All arguments for God that reference reality can be demonstrated to be incorrect (including all the ones in this thread).
* Some arguments for God that reference personal experience can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
* The concept of God is a naturally occuring psychological phenomenon rooted in anthropomorphism and social heirarchy.

Perhaps you can show the demonstration of the arguments you made that can be 'demonstrated'?

Peace be unto you ;)

Yosef:


The fact is that the verses of the Holy Quran talk about clear and true cosmic facts: Universe expansion, Big Bang, Big Crunch and others.

No they don't. You're just stretching and bending the wording of your holy book in order to try to make it mean something that it doesn't say. I'd say that any imam would chastise you for twisting the words of God.


Some of you have decided, based on nothing significant that I can see, that God does not exist.

You see only what you want to see. That's a problem.


Did you know that cosmic webs are mentioned in the Holy Quran? God says:


"By the sky with its fabrics"
Holy Quran - The Dispersing 51:7

The word used in this verse is Al-Hobok which means nothing other than weaved material.

According to sources on the web, the term does not mean "weaved material" at all, but more like "pathways" or "paths" or "passages".

In other words, you're twisting the words of the Qur'an to suit yourself. Have you no respect for your holy book?

Perhaps you can show the demonstration of the arguments you made that can be 'demonstrated'?

Peace be unto you ;)

Of course. Submit any instance of this:

* An argument for God that references reality.

And a few of these:

* Some arguments for God that reference personal experience.

And I'll demonstrate.

Thanks,

-Ken

Yosef:
In other words, you're twisting the words of the Qur'an to suit yourself. Have you no respect for your holy book?

I think that we should be careful not to make any important claims or base our belief / (lack of thereof) on lack of knowledge. I am aware that some interpretations (many of which date back to 300 or 600 years after revelation) suggested "pathways" as interpretation for the key word in that verse. I think this happened due to the fact that it was highly unconceivable for those people to think as the sky was made of weaved fabric. They made an attempt to explain the verse but today we can see that the literal meaning of the word is the correct one.

Al-Hobok means nothing else but weaved material. Habaka something means weaved something. If God wanted to say pathways He would have said: torok, dorop, masarat, sobol etc...

I can assure you that I take the Book seriously and I would never say that God says something that is not there / correct. God warns people against doing such a thing. The article I referred to is written by an award winning researcher of the Holy Quran - as far as I know there have never been any accusations against that man. I have told earlier that some people made false claims in the past and they paid high price for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa

The verse I have discussed above is found at The Dispersing 51:7 where God says that the sky is made of weaved structure - what scientists refer to in recent years as Cosmic webs.

I think that we should be careful not to make any important claims or base our belief / (lack of thereof) on lack of knowledge. I am aware that some interpretations (many of which date back to 300 or 600 years after revelation) suggested "pathways" as interpretation for the key word in that verse. I think this happened due to the fact that it was highly unconceivable for those people to think as the sky was made of weaved fabric. They made an attempt to explain the verse but today we can see that the literal meaning of the word is the correct one.

Al-Hobok means nothing else but weaved material. Habaka something means weaved something. If God wanted to say pathways He would have said: torok, dorop, masarat, sobol etc...

I can assure you that I take the Book seriously and I would never say that God says something that is not there / correct. God warns people against doing such a thing. The article I referred to is written by an award winning researcher of the Holy Quran - as far as I know there have never been any accusations against that man. I have told earlier that some people made false claims in the past and they paid high price for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa

The verse I have discussed above is found at The Dispersing 51:7 where God says that the sky is made of weaved structure - what scientists refer to in recent years as Cosmic webs.

I would like to strongly bring in now the arguments against the existence of God

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_A theism.htm


1. Does God Exist?

Arguments Against God: Atheological Arguments for Atheism
What are the principle arguments in favor of atheism? Why is atheism more reasonable or rational than theism? Among the arguments raised are those from evil, from non-belief, from cosmology, from incoherence and more.
What is God? @ What is Atheism? @

Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven - indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist - just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.

Evil Conflicts with the Existence of God: God Doesn't Care or God Doesn't Exist
Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods.

Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible.

No Reason to Believe in Gods: Without Good Reasons, Belief is Impossible

Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Since the burden of support lies first and foremost with those making the positive the claim — the theistic, religious believers who say their god exists — non-believers don't need reasons not to believe. They may help, but they aren't particularly necessary. Instead, what is required are reasons to believe.

Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material.

All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.

Faith is Unreliable & Unreasonable: Faith is Not a Source of Knowledge

A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of a god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge. Faith can be used to defend anything and everything equally.

Gods & Theists Behave Immorally: How Can Moral Gods Behave Immorally?
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting an ideal model of morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.

Gods Are Too Similar to Believers: Gods Probably Created in the Image of Humans

A few cultures, like ancient Greece, have postulated gods which appear to be as natural as human beings, but in general gods are supernatural. This means that they are fundamentally different from human beings or anything on earth. Despite this, however, theists consistently describe their gods in ways that make the supernatural appear almost mundane. Gods share so many characteristics with humans that it has been argued that gods were made in the image of man.

Religion & Religious Doctrines are Self-Contradictory: How Can They All Be True?

No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions.

Gods' Contradictory Characteristics: Making God Impossible to Exist
Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't.

Too Many Gods, Too Many Religions: All Can't Be True, But All Can Be False
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other.

Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

The Universe Does Not Require Gods

The concept of 'god' can mean many different things - or perhaps it can mean anything, given the apparent limitless number of characteristics which various believers assign to their gods.

Any time someone asks you why you don't believe in any gods, make sure you ask them what they mean by 'god' in the first place. Chances are, it's simply not something which requires belief.
God & Causation: Temporal Requirements for Causes to Exist

It is common to argue that because everything we experience appears to have a cause for its existence, then the totality of everything (the universe) must also have a cause for its existence. It is assumed that the universe cannot be self-caused, so therefore the cause must be outside the universe - God, in other words. Is this a legitimate argument?

Immorality of the Biblical God: Can God be both Moral and Immoral?
An important objection against the existence of the god of the Bible focuses on this god's character.

The god of the Bible isn't simply an ideal abstraction; in Western religious traditions we find many stories about what God has done or commanded believers to do. Often such actions are contrary to basic moral principles; at the same time, God is described as the source of morality. How can this be?

Argument from Virtue: Can a Perfect God be Virtuous?
The God traditionally believed in under philosophical theism must be all-virtuous, but certain virtues (like courage) can only be developed in the context of flawed, fallible creatures. Ergo, a perfect God cannot be all-virtuous. If God is perfect, God cannot be virtuous; if God is virtuous, God cannot be perfect. One or the other attribute must give way and if theists insist on ascribing both to God, then God is logically impossible.

Omnipotence and Evil: Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?
Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god with the ability to desire to eliminate evil? That seems unlikely and many atheological arguments have been based upon just that. A solid argument makes the existence of the traditional God unlikely at best - and belief in it unreasonable.

Perfect Creator: Is It Possible for a Perfect Creator to Exist? (First Argument)
Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘creator‘ of the universe (if not more). Are these qualities compatible or incompatible?

There are two good arguments that they are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, if not impossible.

Who Made God? An Atheological Argument from Design

Who Made God? According to some, nothing so complex as the universe could exist without having been designed by a creator. But where does that leave the traditional concept of God? Isn't God more complex than the universe? Doesn't God require a creator?

Arguments for Atheism
What are the principle arguments in favor of atheism? Why is atheism more reasonable or rational than theism? Among the arguments raised are those from evil, from non-belief, from cosmology, from incoherence and more.

Is God Dead?
When Nietzsche wrote that "God is dead," he wasn't talking about the death of a literal god, but instead the death of a shared cultural belief in a god which had long dominated European culture and history. Read why...

I would like to strongly bring in now the arguments against the existence of God
Why?
The OP stated:

Arguments for and against the existence of God
OK lets take these to argument and let us try to reach some sort of consensus of this vexing puzzle
You think a consensus has been reached on any of the arguments for?

And why have you done a cut and paste of such a long document and posted it without comment?
Surely it would be more sensible to take one argument (either for or against) at a time and thrash that out before moving on to the next? Or were you actually aiming for a chaotic thread?

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.

Gee, I had no idea you were going to say that, Lori. Right out of the blue. :rolleyes:

Picking through the lies, ignorance and general insanity of the believers here, they have yet to make a case for their gods. This god exists because a butterfly has owl eyes and that god exists because he rocked my world and some other god exists because the big bang is in scriptures. So much garbage.

Just produce your god and we'll all believe in him. :D

Of course. Submit any instance of this:

* An argument for God that references reality.

And a few of these:

* Some arguments for God that reference personal experience.

And I'll demonstrate.

Thanks,

-Ken

Supposedly you said that any that were mentioned in this thread... I'm sure that means you must have read the thread and arguments in it... I was interesting in your demonstration, or did you make the claim without reading the arguments in the thread?

Read the thread if you haven't, and please 'demonstrate'. The thread is only 3 pages, so I'm sure it won't be a burden.

Peace be unto you ;)

A picture created by a 1000 people is still created, in that they are the 'same'.

Wrong. Since you insist upon this "creation" word, let me put it differently: God is nowhere within this "creation" activity. In other way of saying this, only existing things can engage with "creation" activity. Magical imaginative characters (such as God) do not fit the requirements of provable existence, they have no place in what we call Universe. They are mind constructions of human brain such as Superman. God can only exist (therefore can create) in human imagination, not in reality. In order to claim otherwise, one must come up with:

a)Definition of God
b)Definition of Reality and imagination


Natural beings are a result of the universal laws... The beings may be imperfect, but we can use the code to create something more 'perfect'..

How can you create something "perfect"? What is your criteria for perfection. If nothing is perfect as you admitted, how can you conclude that code can create something perfect?


That the universal laws can be seen as a coded language.

Some of them such as DNA working mechanism. But how are you planning to find a code for electromagnetic force which is also a universal law?


Well quoting 'be and it is' and the natural process is really talking about the mechanism of creation, which is 'how it works'..

Again and again I tried to define it: What you call as "creation" is a stubborn insist upon a word which has secret door to introduce the idea of God to the natural equation.No, nature doesn't work like that, it simply doesn't work. I demonstrated that there is no starting point or end point for things in existence. Everything exist within a temporal condition and nothing is created out of nowhere. Everything has its own evolution history and dynamics side by side other beings or natural phenomenons. Even one thing can create something else, this should still be within the scope of existence.


And the relevance is that from a perspective that the universal laws are a code, it can be assumed that a creator exists.. You may not agree with the assumption, but there is nothing illogical about the assumption.

Again, repeating yourself with false assumptions such as "universal laws are code" therefore "creator exists". Who told you that Universal laws are code in the first place? Take DNA; it is a code but it is not created: It took nearly a billion year for DNA to take form: A billion year, can you grasp this time period? All these asteroid bombardments, climate changes, chemical reactions, this and that for a billion of year. Can you grasp the idea that what you call DNA is actually sophisticated RNA? What kind of divine creator would have spent so much time as well as so much trial and error to make "imperfect" beings?


Again you are trying to point out things that are actually irrelevant. Its true that it is a 'way to look at things'.

Irrelevant to what? Acceptance of a creator? You are right there...



It doesn't matter if HTML was created by a single intelligence or it borrowed things from other intelligence or what not. Those specifics don't matter. If HTML has many creators it does not mean that therefore everything must have multiple creators or multiple intelligences contributing to the code.

According to this logic, we can also come up with a conclusion that it doesn't matter whether universe is created or not: Because it was either created by an intelligent creator or evolved through time and conditions will give us same result. Both conditions are mere "specifics". If this is the case, why don't you simply give up the idea that there should be a God? What's the difference?


That is why the specifics of this are irrelevant. The point is that HTML has creator/creators. The universe can too... how many 'creators' does it have is not the point of the analogy. For I care it could be Diego and Dora the Explorer. The numbers of creator is irrelevant.

Drop the creator then. If numbers of creator is irrelevant and we can imagine as much as we like, why are we arguing on it? By the way, just to repeat, I don't know any creator other than human beings in this Universe: They create everything, including imaginary Gods.



Also I'm not talking about the 'law of DNA'- but the laws of the physical world, the very fundamental things. Or you could say the 'laws that started everything else'.


If you are not talking about DNA when you say code, but you are talking about "the laws of physical world, the very fundamental things", can you also specify (give names) what you are talking about when you say "code"?


Sure you are imagining that this 'creator' is God... but an argument for the existence of a creator is still an argument.

This is the topic of this thread. But it's not an argument for me, it's argument for those who believe in Gods.


What you take that creator to be is your own choice. Because once an argument for a creator can be made... The further 'imagination' is justified under the assumption of a creator.

That's what your are trying to do, aren't you? "...once an argument for a creator can be made..." And I completely agree with the rest of the statement: "The further "imagination" is justified under the assumption of a creator". Yet, here is the issue: How can you make an argument for a creator? And please, keep it within the existence.



Assumptions are assumptions for a reason.... The assumption that everything follows physical laws and can be described by a system- something that physics pursue is also an a priori assumption. But it is a logical assumption from their point of view.

Yes but physics (unlike religions) can continuously prove its assumptions. It doesn't say "this is what we assume believe it!". This is structurally different I guess, what do you think?



Did the OP specify a god for the discussion? I am presenting an 'argument for' the existence of a creator. And that creator very may well be God.

That's why we need to define "what is God", "what are its features", "what type of existence it possess" and relevant questions. If we don't do that, if we say the ontology of God is irrelevant, we can also confidentially claim that "God and the idea of God is irrelevant". Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to anything and everything in physical Universe and its beings, including us.

Do you want to follow this path? Or alternatively, if the shape and power of God is irrelevant, we can discuss how the first idea of God had been evolved among human cultures. But I bet we should still ask the same question: "Which God?"

Supposedly you said that any that were mentioned in this thread... I'm sure that means you must have read the thread and arguments in it... I was interesting in your demonstration, or did you make the claim without reading the arguments in the thread?

Read the thread if you haven't, and please 'demonstrate'. The thread is only 3 pages, so I'm sure it won't be a burden.

Peace be unto you ;)

I guess I'm giving you the opportunity to pick and choose; however, it sounds like you don't care which ones I choose. Please confirm that and then I'll make some random choices.

Alan McDougall,


Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them.

1) "Meaning" has no bearing on whether or not God (not "gods") actually exist.
2) Science cannot prove Gods' existence unless we change the meaning of "Supreme Being", or "Original Cause", which define His/Its qualities (where's the fun in that).
3) How does/can Gods' existence contradict history?
4) If you have insufficient reason to believe in God, then fair enough.


The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an --

They all concur that "God" is the Original Cause, and is the Supreme Being.


...by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.


"Known facts" that apparently "contradict", are works in progress.
Seeming "contradictions" can be explained once, time, place, circumstances, and spiritual nature, are taken into consideration.


To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.

This would have no bearing on whether or not God actually exists or not.


• The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

"Evil" appears to be like beauty, that is, it's "in the eye of the beholder.
There are few definitions which would universally be accepted across the board at all times (if any).
I would be inclined to accept that "evil" is "absence of God", as darkness is "absence of light", and is therefore a choice accepted by those intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The material world in which we find ourselves in, is a world of duality, or opposites, which is how we define our experiences, and learn what is favourable and what is not.


• The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. For example, many runners get a painful "stitch" in their side due to poor placement of the liver.

This is a silly argument.
The design is in accordance with the needs of the particular individual, for
the spec of time it needs to work.

If runners get a painful stitch, then don't run. Simple.


• The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

Another silly argument.
From all scriptures we can understand that we are separate from the body.
And, that part of us, is part an parcel of God.
As God has freewill, we also have free will, and as such our destiny is in our hands.


• The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[25] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

That amounts to belief, as it requires material proof, or evidence of Gods' actual existence. More importantly, it assumes that if God exists, it must exist as a natural being, thereby creating their own definition of God.


This "inability to check" is taken by most to be proof that the "pot of gold" does not in fact exist (there is no end of the rainbow for the pot to be at.

"I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist"
This is their best argument, albeit very simplistic.
The problem here is, humans have a capacity to percieve, and conceive of things which go beyond physical sight.


For God, this lack of proof, and the similar lack of ability to check it, is taken by some to be "proof of existence." A case of "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Some see this to be proof that "God must exist, as he/she/it can't be disproved." The absence of proof is taken by others to be the same as the "pot of gold". If you can't get to a place that does not exist, then it's obvious that there is nothing there

See above.

jan.

God is nowhere within this "creation" activity. In other way of saying this, only existing things can engage with "creation" activity.

I did say that God is not in this creation, as I'm not in the HTML even if I created it (suppose). Secondly, 'creation activity'? The code was created to create whatever has been created, all that matters is the creation of the code.


Some of them such as DNA working mechanism. But how are you planning to find a code for electromagnetic force which is also a universal law?

Its part of the code. How is it defined that it is the electromagnetic force- what gives it its properties- where is the 'information' coming from?



Again and again I tried to define it: What you call as "creation" is a stubborn insist upon a word which has secret door to introduce the idea of God to the natural equation.No, nature doesn't work like that, it simply doesn't work. I demonstrated that there is no starting point or end point for things in existence. Everything exist within a temporal condition and nothing is created out of nowhere. Everything has its own evolution history and dynamics side by side other beings or natural phenomenons. Even one thing can create something else, this should still be within the scope of existence.

Evolution is part of the natural process and thus part of the code... Having evolutionary history doesn't negate the code from being a created thing. "Starting point, or end point" for things in existence- but I'm not talking about 'things'- I'm talking about laws (i.e code), you can't demonstrate they don't have a beginning or an end.



Again, repeating yourself with false assumptions such as "universal laws are code" therefore "creator exists". Who told you that Universal laws are code in the first place?

A system of code can be written in another system of code. What is physics? Its simply the field that tries to duplicate the physical world into a systematic code that is understandable to us in the form of Math.

Since we can write a code for describing the world, it is then possible that the Universe is is based on a code.


Take DNA; it is a code but it is not created: It took nearly a billion year for DNA to take form: A billion year, can you grasp this time period? All these asteroid bombardments, climate changes, chemical reactions, this and that for a billion of year. Can you grasp the idea that what you call DNA is actually sophisticated RNA? What kind of divine creator would have spent so much time as well as so much trial and error to make "imperfect" beings?

Your assumption is that DNA is not created... if it is a product of a code that was created then it is created... Secondly your assumption is that the creator can not choose to send input commands to the code to create something after a billion years.. The 'billion years' mean nothing for a creator who isn't even in the time zone.... Time is relative? For all we know it could have been created 'instantly' but which is relatively billion years?


According to this logic, we can also come up with a conclusion that it doesn't matter whether universe is created or not: Because it was either created by an intelligent creator or evolved through time and conditions will give us same result. Both conditions are mere "specifics". If this is the case, why don't you simply give up the idea that there should be a God? What's the difference?

There is a difference in how you view the world. A creator vs no creator. Secondly I said that it can be logically assumed (if one wishes to make the assumption) that a creator exists- not that it must exist.. If there is no difference why don't you give up the idea that it was all nature, as you seem to suggest there is no difference?


Drop the creator then. If numbers of creator is irrelevant and we can imagine as much as we like, why are we arguing on it? By the way, just to repeat, I don't know any creator other than human beings in this Universe: They create everything, including imaginary Gods.

Sure... I already made this point before... You acknowledge a creator that you know exists within the code- not one external to it.. There is no surprise in that.


If you are not talking about DNA when you say code, but you are talking about "the laws of physical world, the very fundamental things", can you also specify (give names) what you are talking about when you say "code"?

Go ask a physicist what the fundamental laws of the physical world are, that lead to everything... I don't have to write a physics books on this forum.


This is the topic of this thread. But it's not an argument for me, it's argument for those who believe in Gods.

Well because you don't accept the assumption. That's your choice. But the assumption is not illogical.

Don't confuse an argument vs proof.


That's what your are trying to do, aren't you? "...once an argument for a creator can be made..." And I completely agree with the rest of the statement: "The further "imagination" is justified under the assumption of a creator". Yet, here is the issue: How can you make an argument for a creator? And please, keep it within the existence.

I already have.


Yes but physics (unlike religions) can continuously prove its assumptions. It doesn't say "this is what we assume believe it!". This is structurally different I guess, what do you think?

Unfortuantely the discussion is not about the specifics of religions, ie. their laws and so forth. Its about God.... Physicists work under the assumption that the physical world can be described in a mathematical model- if not, they wouldn't continue their research. There is not a 'continous proof' this assumption.. The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven.



That's why we need to define "what is God", "what are its features", "what type of existence it possess" and relevant questions. If we don't do that, if we say the ontology of God is irrelevant, we can also confidentially claim that "God and the idea of God is irrelevant". Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to anything and everything in physical Universe and its beings, including us.

Do you want to follow this path? Or alternatively, if the shape and power of God is irrelevant, we can discuss how the first idea of God had been evolved among human cultures. But I bet we should still ask the same question: "Which God?"

Why? When the point is not to support any specific God but the idea of a creator...

Lets take God to be: a creator of the universe.. Simple...

If you want to name this God you can say he is from the religion 786ism.. Happy now?

No further description is needed for the purposes of discussing a creator. He can be black, white, not all knowing whatever.. All other characteristics apart from being the creator would be irrelevant to the discussion in an argument for a 'creator' (nothing else).

Peace be unto you ;)

I guess I'm giving you the opportunity to pick and choose; however, it sounds like you don't care which ones I choose. Please confirm that and then I'll make some random choices.

Be my guest.. I would like to go through all of them one by one.. Since its one by one, I don't care what is chosen as we would get to all of them 1 by 1 :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

Be my guest.. I would like to go through all of them one by one.. Since its one by one, I don't care what is chosen as we would get to all of them 1 by 1 :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

Ok.

I did say that God is not in this creation, as I'm not in the HTML even if I created it (suppose).

Therefore, God is nowhere.


Secondly, 'creation activity'? The code was created to create whatever has been created, all that matters is the creation of the code.

Where is this single moment of "creation"? Which point?



Its part of the code. How is it defined that it is the electromagnetic force- what gives it its properties- where is the 'information' coming from?

Everything is information depending on the system. Systems define what is information or what is not. A molecule might not have any value of information for X system, but it can present a valuable information for Y system.



Evolution is part of the natural process and thus part of the code... Having evolutionary history doesn't negate the code from being a created thing.

It does. You still didn't define what do you mean by code. If you mean DNA, in this case DNA is not created either. It evolved through chemical agreements through time, and still evolving using species.


"Starting point, or end point" for things in existence- but I'm not talking about 'things'- I'm talking about laws (i.e code), you can't demonstrate they don't have a beginning or an end.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that: You will claim something has a starting and/or finishing point and I will prove otherwise. The idea behind my claim is simple. If:

a) any occurrence has a history behind it, that is to say "doesn't appear out of nowhere" but progress through time and used by another beings/systems
b) any occurrence does not disappear out of existence but transforms into something else

Therefore you can not talk about absolute starting and end points.



A system of code can be written in another system of code.

What a bold claim. Yes you can write it down; but the problem is this: Does it work?


What is physics? Its simply the field that tries to duplicate the physical world into a systematic code that is understandable to us in the form of Math.

Here is a definition for you from Wikipedia:


Physics (Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature") is a natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space-time, as well as all applicable concepts, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves

This definition doesn't talk about duplication or anything for a good reason: Because duplication or making working systems depending upon scientific knowledge is "technology". If you find any definition of physics that mixes up science and technology, you can bring it up, we can have a look.


Since we can write a code for describing the world, it is then possible that the Universe is is based on a code.

First, you don't write a code to describe the world, you simply try to formulate the actual happenings in order to understand. Therefore, your conclusion of "Universe is based on a code" is similar to claim that "God exists", pure imagination and unsubstantiated supposition.



Your assumption is that DNA is not created... if it is a product of a code that was created then it is created...

DNA is not a product of a code. DNA is the code for the most of the living thing (viruses that works on RNA is excluded, yet if you think that viruses needs a DNA host to survive we can say the "all" living things instead of the most).

And since DNA is not product of a code, according to your logic, it shouldn't be the result of creation. Because your logic makes DNA as a creation "if" DNA was coming from a code. Since this is not the case, will you modify your statement, will you prove or argue that DNA is coming from a code (where was it written before DNA, how did it emerge? etc.), or will you find another excuse to insist upon "creation"? Which one?


Secondly your assumption is that the creator can not choose to send input commands to the code to create something after a billion years.. The 'billion years' mean nothing for a creator who isn't even in the time zone.... Time is relative? For all we know it could have been created 'instantly' but which is relatively billion years?


My assumption is simple: There is no creator. I designed the subject example in order to clarify what type of "creator" you are talking about; not because of my understanding of a creator; I don't have any image of creator in my mind. And I hope we don't compare the local time zones between God and us; we are discussing an assumption of instant creation claim vs. evolving structures of the universe. If we can follow the elements of process when we look at natural beings, therefore this process requires certain steps: It's against the idea of being 0 and suddenly being 1.



There is a difference in how you view the world. A creator vs no creator.

My world view is not "a creator vs no creator"; it's probably your world view and you are clearly standing behind the creator side. My one is simpler: "What creator"?


Secondly I said that it can be logically assumed (if one wishes to make the assumption) that a creator exists- not that it must exist.. If there is no difference why don't you give up the idea that it was all nature, as you seem to suggest there is no difference?

You are imposing the idea of a "creator" without explaining the "logic" (that's what you call it) or the story behind this assumption. Plus, you are also claiming that there is no structural difference between the numbers of creators. Moreover, you are using natural or human made technology in order to argue your God idea (and "the logic behind it") without giving any clue about what this God is made of, where does it stay or what is the limits of its power. You can not, because the answers of these questions are nothing, nowhere/everywhere and limitless respectively. This kind of logic or argument is not a type of logic I am familiar with.

"Logical assumption" is not something that you can say anything you like and claim it as "logical". "Logical assumption" requires some proposition, statement that can be tested (this is very important: tested) according to certain parameters; it must be arguable according to the rules. If you are talking about a "creator", or a "God", this is not a "logical" argument, it's only a claim.



Sure... I already made this point before... You acknowledge a creator that you know exists within the code- not one external to it.. There is no surprise in that.

Within the code, within the code: What code?



Go ask a physicist what the fundamental laws of the physical world are, that lead to everything... I don't have to write a physics books on this forum.

So you can freely claim that physical universe perform on codes, more dramatically you believe in this, but when someone asks you "what are they?" you simply divert the topic to physics books and other excuses. You simply show me a source, a site, a textbook where I can check out your "universe on code" claim is mentioned, then I will go and check it, promise.

Guess what you are not able to do that...



Well because you don't accept the assumption. That's your choice. But the assumption is not illogical.
Don't confuse an argument vs proof.

Already explained; not logical, just a wishful thinking. And for the proof... Proof of which argument?


I already have.

Just for yourself, unbeknown to us.



Unfortuantely the discussion is not about the specifics of religions, ie. their laws and so forth. Its about God.... Physicists work under the assumption that the physical world can be described in a mathematical model- if not, they wouldn't continue their research. There is not a 'continous proof' this assumption.. The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven.

Physics don't work with assumptions; at least not the type of "assumption" in your mind. Fitting into mathematics is not a criteria for Physics, there are calculations in physics that ends up with "infinity" and this is simply meaningless. But this doesn't stop physicists in terms of "continuing their research", they still try to approach differently. Because problem is still there; for instance: Black holes. What are they going to do know? "Black holes doesn't match up with our maths, so let's drop this topic." Is that so? What if current mathematical modelling is not enough to describe what is going on?

"The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven" you say. This is absolutely right: For instance, idea of God can not be physically proven. Because it's not the subject of physics. If you go back the definition I provided above, physics deals with physical things, with nature. "Everything" is not even a concept. Because anybody can fill the contents of "Everything" with "anything" they like. Physics obviously can not deal with this type of arbitrary approach.



Why? When the point is not to support any specific God but the idea of a creator...

Lets take God to be: a creator of the universe.. Simple...

If you want to name this God you can say he is from the religion 786ism.. Happy now?

No further description is needed for the purposes of discussing a creator. He can be black, white, not all knowing whatever.. All other characteristics apart from being the creator would be irrelevant to the discussion in an argument for a 'creator' (nothing else).

Is this a conclusion, because it sounds like one. If you do not want to discuss the existence of God, it is your thing, I can understand. But don't try to impose a strange idea that the existence of God is irrelevant to this topic. It may not be relevant for you, but some people might want to know the subject of discussion.

Be my guest.. I would like to go through all of them one by one.. Since its one by one, I don't care what is chosen as we would get to all of them 1 by 1 :shrug:

Peace be unto you ;)

* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
Refutation: There is no evidence that a "first cause" is required. There are no theories of reality that assert there was ever a state of *nothing* (i.e. absence of anything / everything).

* The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design
Refutation: It's opinion and not fact.

* Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
Refutation: Nature does not exhibit purpose and beauty is subjective. Complexity, order, and adaptation or not random or accidental. They are part of the processes of reality.

* We know that there are several constants in universe that allow, due to their carefully set values, life on earth.
Refutation: There may be many constants that would allow life on Earth or elsewhere. We don't have the technology to explore them nor does any theist posess any technology to claim that ours is somehow the "only way".

* that everything was created with carefully set values (thoughtfully).
Refutation: There is no evidence the big bang was "created".

* Due to the complexity of the universe, nature,assumption that there is a force of superior intelligence,is a plausible assumption.
Refutation: Complexity does not equal sapience.

* god rocked my world; therefore god exists.
Refutation: The poster in question hears voices and has been unable to demonstrate them as being externally caused.

* Do not you see obvious design in the following?!
Refutation: No

* Why is it that it is 'translated' this way. Who is the translator? Who is the one who set the syntax.
Refutation: First part is a science question. That answer wound up with the question about how does reality work? It is not evidence for a sapient external super life form. The latter two questions are bad questions. Why would the translator / syntax require a "who"?

* Evolution cannot make it because any "stupid" mutation on the way would kill the butterfly and it would have extincted long time ago.
Refutation: Reality shows otherwise and reality is always correct.

* You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!
Refutation: That statement is the result of a poor education in biology and anthropology.

* Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Holy Quran - Prophets 21:30
Refutation: No it's not. Read any BB theory in full and then the Quran. They are DRASTICALLY different.

* Did you know that cosmic webs are mentioned in the Holy Quran?
Refutation: They are not. The quran doesn't mention cosmic webs by name or describe them in any fashion remotely resembling the "real thing".

* It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone except God to:

1) write such a beautiful Arabic text
2) make it durable
3) get 9 MILLION people around the world to learn it and recite it by heart
4) make such accurate scientific claims
5) structure chapters by mathematical systems - many of which cannot even be discovered without modern technology. I am talking about 316 or 1501 digit numbers for instance!

Refutation:

1) Beauty is subjective.
2) Like many other books?
3) The power of indoctrination is amazing is it not? I somehow doubt you can demonstrate 9 million people reciting the Quran by heart btw.
4) None have been made.
5) There is not enough information here to comment.

* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
Refutation: There is no evidence that a "first cause" is required. There are no theories of reality that assert there was ever a state of *nothing* (i.e. absence of anything / everything).

Nothing cannot be a state no one ever said there was a state of nothing that's just silly. Having a beginning is not the same as a "state of nothing". The "first cause" term is misplaced really since causes and effects have beginning so God is not a cause He is just literally atemporal.

Therefore, God is nowhere.

Yes that makes sense He being the creator of locations must be nowhere Himself.


Where is this single moment of "creation"? Which point?

Why should there be a moment or a point of creation why couldn't the act of creation be beyond space and time?

Nothing cannot be a state no one ever said there was a state of nothing that's just silly.

That's what first cause states actually. First there was *nothing*, then some life form turned it into *something*.



Having a beginning is not the same as a "state of nothing".

Correct. A beginning is a transformation of something to something else.



The "first cause" term is misplaced really since causes and effects have beginning so God is not a cause He is just literally atemporal.

I agree. God is not a cause. He is an effect of the human mind.

Yes that makes sense He being the creator of locations must be nowhere Himself.



Why should there be a moment or a point of creation why couldn't the act of creation be beyond space and time?

If the universe is eternal and infinite the "Arrow of Time" would be pushed back into eternity and infinity and the NOW MOMENT would never come into existence.

To simplify what I am stating, think of a crowd of spectators waiting for the athletes to pass in front of them. But there is no start point in this race and the start line would be pushed back to infinite eternity.

Thus the spectators could wait an eternity and the runners of this race will never pass in front of them Gosh is this confusing or what? :confused:

If the universe is eternal and infinite the "Arrow of Time" would be pushed back into eternity and infinity and the NOW MOMENT would never come into existence.

To simplify what I am stating, think of a crowd of spectators waiting for the athletes to pass in front of them. But there is no start point in this race and the start line would be pushed back to infinite eternity.

Thus the spectators could wait an eternity and the runners of this race will never pass in front of them Gosh is this confusing or what?Now imagine the "infinite distance" race run on a circular path. ;)

Yes that makes sense He being the creator of locations must be nowhere Himself.

So God is "He" you say. Where did you get this information?
If God creating locations and being "nowhere" (not existing) makes sense to you,
can you enlighten us about how does it make sense?


Why should there be a moment or a point of creation why couldn't the act of creation be beyond space and time?

Because no one knows anything about "beyond space and time". Anything talks about "beyond space and time" can also talk about superheroes.

* Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
Refutation: Nature does not exhibit purpose and beauty is subjective. Complexity, order, and adaptation or not random or accidental. They are part of the processes of reality.

Thanks for this wonderful reality that allows me to breath, see, talk, go on face of earth, make things happen, hope, wish, love, care and think about it.

It just got all the values right to allow all of that. Wonderful. "Reality" or God for God my Lord is real.


* Do not you see obvious design in the following?!
Refutation: No

Sad... Very sad... It is a wonderfully created butterfly. It is very nice and it is obvious that it is made according to a well thought plan of God. It looks like you are oblivious to the complex processes involved in reproduction and development of this butterfly. The wonderful shapes on its wings require a highly complex and mutual work of d.n.a., cellular processes and outer chemical processes...



* You want me to believe that a tornado can pass by a backyard and produce a F-16 ?!
Refutation: That statement is the result of a poor education in biology and anthropology.

I am afraid that it is you who is not aware of the complex processes involved in the simplest happenings in our bodies.

Crunchy Cat,


that's what first cause states actually. First there was *nothing*, then some life form turned it into *something*.

Not where "God" as the first cause is concerned.
Neither does it imply this in any scripture.


I agree. God is not a cause. He is an effect of the human mind.

Why do you AGREE to this?

jan.

Now imagine the "infinite distance" race run on a circular path. ;)

Nice try but can you look at this "infinite distance" race run on a circular path as something completed.

Now imagine the "infinite distance" race run on a circular path. ;)

On a circular path there can only be new beginnings

Thanks for this wonderful reality that allows me to breath, see, talk, go on face of earth, make things happen, hope, wish, love, care and think about it.

It just got all the values right to allow all of that. Wonderful. "Reality" or God for God my Lord is real.

You have no idea what other "values" would result in. Additionally, any "values" are not evidence that a sapient super-life form exists.



Sad... Very sad... It is a wonderfully created butterfly.

Appeal to emotion and there is no evidence it is "created".



It is very nice and it is obvious that it is made according to a well thought plan of God.

Reality shows it to be a product of evolution. I'll take reality's word of yours any day.



It looks like you are oblivious to the complex processes involved in reproduction and development of this butterfly.

You're welcome to support your assertion with evidence.



I am afraid that it is you who is not aware of the complex processes involved in the simplest happenings in our bodies.

Again, you're welcome to support your assertion with evidence. Oh, and if you try to equate compexity with sapience you're going to fail again.

Crunchy Cat,
Not where "God" as the first cause is concerned.
Neither does it imply this in any scripture.

You can use any scripture or any first cause argument that requires a sapient life form as "the first cause". The most popular one is that "God" was the first cause and before that existence wasn't there (nothing was there). If you wish to use another one, that's fine. I'll refute it just as easily.



Why do you AGREE to this?

jan.

Here is a breakdown of what Big Chiller said and how I am agreeing and disagreeing with it:

Big Chiller: "The "first cause" term is misplaced."

I agree with that statement. It's misplaced because it doesn't apply.

Big Chiller: "Causes and effects have beginning."

I agree. And those beginnings are themselves the result of causes and effects.

Big Chiller: "God is not a cause."

I agree.

Big Chiller: "He is literally atemporal."

I disagree. He is an effect of the human mind.

Big Chiller: "Causes and effects have beginning."

I agree. And those beginnings are themselves the result of causes and effects.

Well if you believe that you have a problem of infinite regress. Emphasis mine

Well if you believe that you have a problem of infinite regress. Emphasis mine

I don't have that issue. Infinite regress only occurs if time is a separate infinite entity that permeates everything. If time is finite, illusionary, or emergent then infinite regress no longer applies.

Ah but infinite regress isn't referring to time it refers to cause and effect or any sequences it's not just limited to time.

How can you have cause and effect without time?

When did I imply that?

Crunchy Cat,


The most popular one is that "God" was the first cause and before that existence wasn't there (nothing was there). If you wish to use another one, that's fine. I'll refute it just as easily.

I suggest you actually read up on this, as you have been misinformed.
There is no reference to "nothing" being before something, in any scripture
I have read.
There is, however, the claim of unmanifest matter, becoming manifest.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed, meaning it is eternal, a scientific fact, and an ancient scriptoral injuction.


Here is a breakdown of what Big Chiller said and how I am agreeing and disagreeing with it:
Big Chiller: "The "first cause" term is misplaced."
I agree with that statement. It's misplaced because it doesn't apply.
Big Chiller: "Causes and effects have beginning."
I agree. And those beginnings are themselves the result of causes and effects.
Big Chiller: "God is not a cause."I agree.
Big Chiller: "He is literally atemporal."
I disagree. He is an effect of the human mind.

So you agree with it, because you don't believe God exists?

jan.

Crunchy Cat,
I suggest you actually read up on this, as you have been misinformed.

I don't think it really matters in this case.



There is no reference to "nothing" being before something, in any scripture
I have read.

ok



There is, however, the claim of unmanifest matter, becoming manifest.

What is *unmanifest* matter vs regular matter?



Matter can neither be created or destroyed

Sort of. You can obviously light your house on fire and destroy it. It's more accurate to say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed... only converted and / or compressed. In the history of our particular universe, there was quite a bit of time where there was no matter (in fact matter didn't show up until the recombination period).



, meaning it is eternal, a scientific fact, and an ancient scriptoral injuction.

For something to be eternal means time is a seperate entity that exists infinitely. That hasn't been demonstrated to be the case. Additionally matter obviously isn't eternal... it didn't even show up until the recombination period of the universe. Energy on the other hand would fully exist for the duration of an finite / illusionary / emergent time period. Even in the absence of time, it may simply exist in another form and be transformable via some other process.




So you agree with it, because you don't believe God exists?

jan.

I agree with most of it because of accurate statements. I disagree with any other parts because they are not accurate.

For something to be eternal means time is a seperate entity that exists infinitely. That hasn't been demonstrated to be the case. Additionally matter obviously isn't eternal... it didn't even show up until the recombination period of the universe. Energy on the other hand would fully exist for the duration of an finite / illusionary / emergent time period. Even in the absence of time, it may simply exist in another form and be transformable via some other process.

This would involve a sequence as in from no time to time or one form to another no?

This would involve a sequence as in from no time to time or one form to another no?

Possibly. Take M-Theory for example. In that model, our universe is a "brane" of n-dimensions... one of them proposed as being time. But those branes come and go in a much larger structure known as "the bulk" or "Calibi Yao Space". This means one important thing... we really don't know what the heck time is; however, assuming it is a dimension of our universe then there may be other means of change outside of it which may behave similarly or very differently.

Possibly. Take M-Theory for example. In that model, our universe is a "brane" of n-dimensions... one of them proposed as being time. But those branes come and go in a much larger structure known as "the bulk" or "Calibi Yao Space". This means one important thing... we really don't know what the heck time is; however, assuming it is a dimension of our universe then there may be other means of change outside of it which may behave similarly or very differently.

Time and entropy are really two names for the same thing!

Without time the universe would have remained forever at a nonfunctional zero entropy, where abslutely nothing happens.

With time entropy flows always reaching out to maximum entropy and the ultimate death of all thing, us including us mere mortals

Time and entropy are really two names for the same thing!

Time is a separation of moments in a system. Entropy is the degree of disorder in a system.



Without time the universe would have remained forever at a nonfunctional zero entropy, where abslutely nothing happens.

That might be a possibility. It might not. We don't know enough about reality to say either way.



With time entropy flows always reaching out to maximum entropy and the ultimate death of all thing, us including us mere mortals

Not entirely correct as death is only something that applies to biological life... but close enough.

Without time the universe would have remained forever at a nonfunctional zero entropy, where abslutely nothing happens.

No, I think in zero entropy the universe would just go out of existence and not reappear.

Time is a separation of moments in a system. Entropy is the degree of disorder in a system.



That might be a possibility. It might not. We don't know enough about reality to say either way.



Not entirely correct as death is only something that applies to biological life... but close enough.

I know all about entropy being a power station engineer for over some 30 years. By keep the entropic state as low as possible we can increase the efficiency and productivity of our huge turbines

I know all about entropy being a power station engineer for over some 30 years.

Which explains the incorrect statement that entropy and time are the same thing.



By keep the entropic state as low as possible we can increase the efficiency and productivity of our huge turbines

Correct.

Time and entropy are really two names for the same thing!

I know all about entropy being a power station engineer for over some 30 years.

Hilarious. :bravo:

Nice try but can you look at this "infinite distance" race run on a circular path as something completed.Each lap can be begun and ended.
Spectators can watch the runners as they go past each time.
And if watches are reset to t=0 at the start of each lap...
:shrug:

On a circular path there can only be new beginnings... he says as he finishes another lap.

Each lap can be begun and ended.
Spectators can watch the runners as they go past each time.
And if watches are reset to t=0 at the start of each lap...
:shrug:

This is the begging the question how an infinite number of laps run would look as a whole.

Which explains the incorrect statement that entropy and time are the same thing.



Correct.

Maybe I should have said entropy and time are tightly intertwined and one cannot exist without the other

Can anyone define God into anything at all meaningful? I don't think so but I'm open to suggestions.

Can anyone define God into anything at all meaningful? I don't think so but I'm open to suggestions.

Human characteristics being projected onto reality or some aspect(s) of it.

Human characteristics being projected onto reality or some aspect(s) of it.

that's cheating. :)

This is the begging the question how an infinite number of laps run would look as a whole.Very dull I'd imagine. Bit like a Formula 1 race... just a few miles longer. ;)

But the simple answer to that begged question is "I don't know".

Do you now expect me to slap my forehead and go "Doh! Of course - it must have been God" - 'cos that way lies the God of the Gaps.

:)

That's it, can we ever have infinite knowledge since we and everything we observe are finite.

That's it, can we ever have infinite knowledge since we and everything we observe are finite.

Something , however, must be infinite and eternal call it God or call it existence. Existence goes further than the creation of our universe, it includes every possibility that the word existence could encompass

Yes, God must be eternal and infinite however all possible modalities can not exist infinitely as proven by infinite regress they being possible is enough i.e. only God must exist.

So guys, when will we confront the pivotal factor:

What if the universe is regarded as absolutely finite? IOW, no entropy, para uni's, time, space - no nothing. Go on - play devil's advocate!

Something , however, must be infinite
Why?

Why?

If you have something somewhere then there is no nothingness, you might be thinking of an employ void, but even that is not nothing is an empty something

Something , however, must be infinite


Why?


If you have something somewhere then there is no nothingness, you might be thinking of an employ void, but even that is not nothing is an empty something

Please explain this line of reasoning..

Please explain this line of reasoning..

universe emerged out of the big bang, it did not emerge into an infinite empty void, but brought the void or space time with it

Therefore, God is nowhere.

No, he's outside of creation. Although technically its true, as Big Chiller said- the creator of location must be outside of location-

we can not imagine anything outside of time, space, and matter/mass so I'm not going to say how something can exist outside of space because I myself can not imagine it... But my argument was general, he's outside the code- that means he's somewhere


Where is this single moment of "creation"? Which point?

At the point of creation-



Everything is information depending on the system. Systems define what is information or what is not. A molecule might not have any value of information for X system, but it can present a valuable information for Y system.

And the system itself is made of information- so information is telling it what information is information in the first place. 'Systems define' but system must be defined first.



It does. You still didn't define what do you mean by code. If you mean DNA, in this case DNA is not created either. It evolved through chemical agreements through time, and still evolving using species.

I already explained this, go back and read it. A process being part of a code can never negate the code.




Sorry, it doesn't work like that: You will claim something has a starting and/or finishing point and I will prove otherwise. The idea behind my claim is simple. If:

a) any occurrence has a history behind it, that is to say "doesn't appear out of nowhere" but progress through time and used by another beings/systems
b) any occurrence does not disappear out of existence but transforms into something else

Therefore you can not talk about absolute starting and end points.

You are only talking about things that occur within the coded creation which appear to fit your options.. But I'm talking about the code itself- not that which results within it.


What a bold claim. Yes you can write it down; but the problem is this: Does it work?

Sure it does. Egyptians used multiple forms of writing forms to express the same thing-




Here is a definition for you from Wikipedia:

This definition doesn't talk about duplication or anything for a good reason: Because duplication or making working systems depending upon scientific knowledge is "technology". If you find any definition of physics that mixes up science and technology, you can bring it up, we can have a look.

I never said duplication of things. I said a duplication of code into the form of Math. Much like translation.



First, you don't write a code to describe the world, you simply try to formulate the actual happenings in order to understand. Therefore, your conclusion of "Universe is based on a code" is similar to claim that "God exists", pure imagination and unsubstantiated supposition.

'Describing' = modeling. Which is what you are talking about 'formulation of actual happening'.

Therefore, I don't understand why you're being so stupid.


DNA is not a product of a code. DNA is the code for the most of the living thing (viruses that works on RNA is excluded, yet if you think that viruses needs a DNA host to survive we can say the "all" living things instead of the most).

And since DNA is not product of a code, according to your logic, it shouldn't be the result of creation. Because your logic makes DNA as a creation "if" DNA was coming from a code. Since this is not the case, will you modify your statement, will you prove or argue that DNA is coming from a code (where was it written before DNA, how did it emerge? etc.), or will you find another excuse to insist upon "creation"? Which one?

Can you get your head around my argument in the first place. I'm not talking about the coded DNA of A's, T's, C's, and G's.... I'm talking about the whole frickin universe. Is DNA product of the universe? Yes.


My assumption is simple: There is no creator. I designed the subject example in order to clarify what type of "creator" you are talking about; not because of my understanding of a creator; I don't have any image of creator in my mind. And I hope we don't compare the local time zones between God and us; we are discussing an assumption of instant creation claim vs. evolving structures of the universe. If we can follow the elements of process when we look at natural beings, therefore this process requires certain steps: It's against the idea of being 0 and suddenly being 1.

Why not mention the time zone- then so is instantaneous change.


My world view is not "a creator vs no creator"; it's probably your world view and you are clearly standing behind the creator side. My one is simpler: "What creator"?

Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying- or you just want to say something in response for the sake of it.... I only said there is difference in how one understands the world depending on if one views it with a creator vs not- I didn't say anything about your worldview.


You are imposing the idea of a "creator" without explaining the "logic" (that's what you call it) or the story behind this assumption.

Then you just missed it, or you don't understand the argument- which is more likely true as you keep asking me about 'what code'.


Plus, you are also claiming that there is no structural difference between the numbers of creators. Moreover, you are using natural or human made technology in order to argue your God idea (and "the logic behind it") without giving any clue about what this God is made of, where does it stay or what is the limits of its power. You can not, because the answers of these questions are nothing, nowhere/everywhere and limitless respectively.

Because all of this is irrelevant to the discuss that a creator exists- what he looks like and any of his attributes are different topics. I'm dealing with the general concept of a creator, not the specifics of one. I believe I've said this before.


This kind of logic or argument is not a type of logic I am familiar with.

Because you don't know what 'logical' hence 'logic' is as you demonstrate below.


"Logical assumption" is not something that you can say anything you like and claim it as "logical". "Logical assumption" requires some proposition, statement that can be tested (this is very important: tested) according to certain parameters; it must be arguable according to the rules. If you are talking about a "creator", or a "God", this is not a "logical" argument, it's only a claim.

Logic doesn't require to be tested- you're thinking science which uses testable logical arguments. But there are logical arguments that can not be tested but are logical. All squares are rectangles but all rectangles are not squares.... Science and pure logic are not the same thing. All science is logical but all logical arguments are not science.


Within the code, within the code: What code?

The system of the universe.


So you can freely claim that physical universe perform on codes, more dramatically you believe in this, but when someone asks you "what are they?" you simply divert the topic to physics books and other excuses. You simply show me a source, a site, a textbook where I can check out your "universe on code" claim is mentioned, then I will go and check it, promise.

Universe is not performing upon the laws of physics?


Physics don't work with assumptions; at least not the type of "assumption" in your mind. Fitting into mathematics is not a criteria for Physics, there are calculations in physics that ends up with "infinity" and this is simply meaningless. But this doesn't stop physicists in terms of "continuing their research", they still try to approach differently. Because problem is still there; for instance: Black holes. What are they going to do know? "Black holes doesn't match up with our maths, so let's drop this topic." Is that so? What if current mathematical modelling is not enough to describe what is going on?

It doesn't matter that 'current mathematical modeling' is not enough- but as long as it can be incorporated in a systematic fashion- then that is a systematic code.


"The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven" you say. This is absolutely right: For instance, idea of God can not be physically proven. Because it's not the subject of physics. If you go back the definition I provided above, physics deals with physical things, with nature. "Everything" is not even a concept. Because anybody can fill the contents of "Everything" with "anything" they like. Physics obviously can not deal with this type of arbitrary approach.

Yes that is why they work under the assumption that what is, is physical- so they try to find an explanation.




Is this a conclusion, because it sounds like one. If you do not want to discuss the existence of God, it is your thing, I can understand. But don't try to impose a strange idea that the existence of God is irrelevant to this topic. It may not be relevant for you, but some people might want to know the subject of discussion.

Are you mentally impaired? In which form did that look like a conclusion- it was the terms upon which the discussion is to be based-

Peace be unto you ;)

I think that sometimes we mix up the creation of the universe with the Existence of all things, of which the big bang of our universe, is only part of existence.

The creation of the singularity might only be a part of all things of which the creation of our beautiful universe, is only a part of all reality

No, he's outside of creation.

we can not imagine anything outside of time, space, and matter/mass so I'm not going to say how something can exist outside of space because I myself can not imagine it... But my argument was general, he's outside the code- that means he's somewhere

Nice contradiction, well thought out. You make a claim for something you can't possible imagine, but you make the claim in the affirmative anyway.


Therefore, I don't understand why you're being so stupid.

Why are you?



Can you get your head around my argument in the first place.

One fallacy after another does not produce an argument.


I'm dealing with the general concept of a creator, not the specifics of one.

That would be the concept you claimed one couldn't possibly imagine.


Because you don't know what 'logical' hence 'logic' is as you demonstrate below.

You shouldn't be accusing others of the crime you yourself are committing.


Are you mentally impaired?

:rolleyes:

(Q) I have no interest in talking to a cultist like you

Peace be unto you ;)

(Q) I have no interest in talking to a cultist like you

I have no problem with that. Once again, you shouldn't be accusing others of what you yourself are doing. I belong to no cult, you do. :D

I have no problem with that. Once again, you shouldn't be accusing others of what you yourself are doing. I belong to no cult, you do. :D

Sure you don't :p

Peace be unto you ;)

Regarding design and randomness: Do not you see obvious design in the following?!


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9061/a9695152.jpg

The Creator uses same pieces of design across species. Here we can see owl eyes on a butterfly. Butterfly name: Caligo Idomenius.

I do not see obvious design in the image, as I understand the process by which the pattern was formed. There are many models describing, very accurately, the mechanisms governing the formation of biological patterns.


One of the earliest models of pattern formation, the reaction diffusion theory of morphogenesis, was put forward by Alan Turing in 1952. He suggested that, under certain conditions, chemicals can react and diffuse in such a way as to produce steady state heterogeneous spatial patterns of chemical or morphogen concentration.

Without delving into the technicalities of the theory, the upshot is that simple chemical diffusion conditions exhibited in domains of certain geometries give rise to a plethora of different patterns.

A prediction of the early work of Turing (Turing-instability being the mechanism by which animal coat markings are formed) is that we shouldn't expect to find animals with striped bodies and spotted tails, only the other way around. This prediction is verified by observation almost universally in the animal kingdom. Very few animals have striped bodies with spotty tails. Not bad from a man who was neither a biologist or a chemist! His early work gave birth to a very rich and fruitful field of research.

Biological patterns are beautiful and to simply credit such beauty to a designer ignores the equally beautiful biology, mathematics and chemistry underlying them. No design is necessary.

For a thorough account see
J.D Murray, Mathematical Biology (Volumes I & II). [an excellent text]

There's even a whole section on butterfly wing pattern formation!

Maybe some people are not able to see obvious design in the owl eye butterfly but what about this:

Chapter 76 of the Holy Quran, named "Human", is the 31st chapter containing the word "Human" from Quran's beginning. It is the only chapter in whole Quran that consists of 31 verses. Open the old testament and you find that Genesis 1:1 (creation story) consists of 31 verses.

Here is the first verse in chapter 76 "Human":

"Does there not come on MAN a portion of time when he is nothing worth mentioning?" - The word used in this verse and discussed here is "ALANSN" which means man (human being - no gender specified)

This verse with this clear reference to human creation is the 46th verse from Quran's beginning which contains the word "Human".

Different species have different number of chromosomes. Human beings have 46 chromosomes. The chromosomes contain the genetic material needed for the functioning and development of the human body.

The number 46 itself is the 31st composite number in universe. Composite numbers are numbers composed of the multiplication of prime numbers.

Someone may ask but what about the number 76 ? Amazingly the number 76 is the 31st number if counting up from number 46.

Even more, the word man "ALANSN" appears 65 times in the whole Quran. Number 65 is the 46th composite number in universe!

Data sheets, tables and more amazing facts can be found in this article:

Word "Human being" - Ingenious arrangement (http://www.quranwonders.com/2009/08/19/word-human-ingenious-arrangement)

The amazing thing is that those scientific and mathematical phenomena are found in a text with incredible literary eloquence. No one ever was able to match the language of the Holy Quran. It is clear that it is a revelation of the All Knowing God who created man and taught him how to speak. The mathematical phenomena and the linguistic beauty of the Quran make it clear that it was revealed by the mathematician of everything! And I sincerely see no reason not to believe in Him!

That's completely insane.

That's completely insane.

You're not allowed to say that anymore or risk getting banned for calling an ideology insane.

You're not allowed to say that anymore or risk getting banned for calling an ideology insane.

You got banned for something totally different :D

Peace be unto you ;)

At the point of creation-


Therefore, I don't understand why you're being so stupid.


Because you don't know what 'logical' hence 'logic' is as you demonstrate below.


Are you mentally impaired?


You've been reported.

Why?

If something is expanding it must have a beginning. The universe was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Subsequently, if the universe is finite, the premise of pre- and multi-universes violate the preamble.

That's completely insane.

I agree from the POV one must evidence a premise in factual, historical every day observable and repeatable terms. Abstract and theoretical alone does not suffice - worse if it contradicts what is manifest.

I think that sometimes we mix up the creation of the universe with the Existence of all things, of which the big bang of our universe, is only part of existence.

The creation of the singularity might only be a part of all things of which the creation of our beautiful universe, is only a part of all reality

There is no singularity as in an indivisable and/or irreducible entity. Technically, there is no absolute ONE in the universe. It takes a minimum of a duality to have an action.

This factor negates the reality of the BBT - which is only a theory regarded the best we can come up with: if the BB began with one single entity - there cannot be any action from it, such as an expansion or a bang. This is also the reason for the premise the universe is infinite, which assumes there are forces pre-dating the universe which acted upon the first BB entity. But this fails again - because it contradicts the BB as being the first entity! Strange, but I learnt this science from a theological writing called Genesis.

Arguments for and against the existence of God.


From a scientific pov there can be no logical disputation of a creator. The only position is its provability, not its science. But the factor of provability effects its antithesis more so. Evolution is not a factor here - it is merely a mid point emerging only after the fact of something already existing [created] - evolution only kicks in if there is something to evolutionise!

The earlier facts presented by me regarding human creation and human chromosome number are a small portion of what can be found in the Holy Quran regarding this topic:

I have already provided a link to "the endless miracle of the first chapter of the Holy Quran" (http://www.quranwonders.com/2009/10/03/endless-miracle-of-the-first-chapter) - The letters of this chapter represented by different letter-value systems and values put side by side provide again and again huge numbers that are divisible perfectly by the number 19 (which is a prime number). All of them. We are talking about 6 huge numbers (+130 digits) based on different letter-value systems representing the first chapter. The letter-value systems are based on the work of independent researchers and they are derived from the names of God in the Quran, Arabic language roots, Quran mysterious initials and by other types of systematic text analyses. The 6 huge numbers concern the first chapter of the Holy Quran without the opening verse (as is permitted by certain recitations of the Holy Quran such as that of Qaloon of Nafia'). The opening verse is: "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful".

There are 19 A's in the first chapter (without opening verse) i.e. the letter Alef appears 19 times in this chapter. Alef is a special letter since it is the first letter in the word Allah and it is the first revealed letter of the Holy Quran (see chap 96 verse one). Please pay attention to the fact that this chapter which is structured undoubtedly, at a deep mathematical level, by the prime number 19 has exactly 19 Alef letters!

Amazingly there are 199 Alef letters in chapter 76 "Human" (ALANSN). The number 199 is a prime number. In fact, it is the 46th prime number in universe. As pointed earlier, human beings have 46 chromosomes (while the red deer has as many as 68 chromosomes, for instance).

In addition, there are 199 Arabic letters in total before the first occurrence of the word Allah (God) in this chapter. Of these 199 letters there are 46 Alef's and 23 Noon's. Alef is the first letter of the word "Human" (ALANSN) and Noon is the last letter of this word.

Prime and composite numbers are central to Quran's mathematical challenge. They are building blocks of the letters, words and verses of the Quran. This is supported by numerous findings and it is speculated by some researchers that these two number types are what God refers to as Shafia' and Witr (chapter 89 verse 3).

There is much than can be said in response to information requests regarding scientific facts in the Quran (such as that regarding the roundness of the earth). I will, with God's will, answer as much as I can later.

I would like to conclude with quoting the Holy Quran:

"(46) SAY: One thing in sooth do I advise you: - that ye stand up before God two and two, or singly, and then reflect that in your fellow citizen (i.e. Muhammad pbuh) is no djinn: he is no other than your warner before a severe punishment. (47) SAY: I ask not any wage from you: keep it for yourselves: my wage is from God alone. And He is witness over all things!" - Holy Quran - Sheba 34:46-47

God says also:

"(35) Were they created by nothing? or were they the creators of themselves? (36) Created they the Heavens and Earth? Nay, rather, they have no firm belief(a). (37) Hold they thy Lord's treasures? Bear they the rule supreme?" - Holy Quran - The Mount 52:35-37

(a) comment regarding the revealed text by translator: They obviously did not create the wonders of the starry heavens and the fruitful globe of the earth. But they can assign no definite cause to explain it, as they have no firm belief on the subject themselves.

An excel file with Quran statistics can be found here:
http://www.alargam.com/alquran/count.htm

The earlier facts presented by me regarding human creation and human chromosome number are a small portion of what can be found in the Holy Quran regarding this topic:

I have already provided a link to "the endless miracle of the first chapter of the Holy Quran" (http://www.quranwonders.com/2009/10/03/endless-miracle-of-the-first-chapter) - The letters of this chapter represented by different letter-value systems and values put side by side provide again and again huge numbers that are divisible perfectly by the number 19 (which is a prime number). All of them. We are talking about 6 huge numbers (+130 digits) based on different letter-value systems representing the first chapter. The letter-value systems are based on the work of independent researchers and they are derived from the names of God in the Quran, Arabic language roots, Quran mysterious initials and by other types of systematic text analyses. The 6 huge numbers concern the first chapter of the Holy Quran without the opening verse (as is permitted by certain recitations of the Holy Quran such as that of Qaloon of Nafia'). The opening verse is: "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful".

There are 19 A's in the first chapter (without opening verse) i.e. the letter Alef appears 19 times in this chapter. Alef is a special letter since it is the first letter in the word Allah and it is the first revealed letter of the Holy Quran (see chap 96 verse one). Please pay attention to the fact that this chapter which is structured undoubtedly, at a deep mathematical level, by the prime number 19 has exactly 19 Alef letters!

Amazingly there are 199 Alef letters in chapter 76 "Human" (ALANSN). The number 199 is a prime number. In fact, it is the 46th prime number in universe. As pointed earlier, human beings have 46 chromosomes (while the red deer has as many as 68 chromosomes, for instance).

In addition, there are 199 Arabic letters in total before the first occurrence of the word Allah (God) in this chapter. Of these 199 letters there are 46 Alef's and 23 Noon's. Alef is the first letter of the word "Human" (ALANSN) and Noon is the last letter of this word.

Prime and composite numbers are central to Quran's mathematical challenge. They are building blocks of the letters, words and verses of the Quran. This is supported by numerous findings and it is speculated by some researchers that these two number types are what God refers to as Shafia' and Witr (chapter 89 verse 3).

There is much than can be said in response to information requests regarding scientific facts in the Quran (such as that regarding the roundness of the earth). I will, with God's will, answer as much as I can later.

I would like to conclude with quoting the Holy Quran:

"(46) SAY: One thing in sooth do I advise you: - that ye stand up before God two and two, or singly, and then reflect that in your fellow citizen (i.e. Muhammad pbuh) is no djinn: he is no other than your warner before a severe punishment. (47) SAY: I ask not any wage from you: keep it for yourselves: my wage is from God alone. And He is witness over all things!" - Holy Quran - Sheba 34:46-47

God says also:

"(35) Were they created by nothing? or were they the creators of themselves? (36) Created they the Heavens and Earth? Nay, rather, they have no firm belief(a). (37) Hold they thy Lord's treasures? Bear they the rule supreme?" - Holy Quran - The Mount 52:35-37

(a) comment regarding the revealed text by translator: They obviously did not create the wonders of the starry heavens and the fruitful globe of the earth. But they can assign no definite cause to explain it, as they have no firm belief on the subject themselves.

An excel file with Quran statistics can be found here:
http://www.alargam.com/alquran/count.htm

Fascinating, even Isaac Newton spent most of his time and effort in solving the mysterious codes that make up scripture

Where can I down load a good interpretation of the Holy Quran, in English?

Fascinating, even Isaac Newton spent most of his time and effort in solving the mysterious codes that make up scripture

Where can I down load a good interpretation of the Holy Quran, in English?

There are many interesting phenomena in the text and I believe that they are endless. They will continue to manifest themselves until the day of Judgment. Several places in the Quran does God ask humans to produce something similar to the Quran. He says:

"(23) And if ye be in doubt as to that which we have sent down to our servant, then produce a Sura (a) like it, and summon your witnesses, beside God, if ye are men of truth: (24) But if ye do it not, and ye shall surely do it not, then fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for misbelievers." (25) But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy)(b); and they abide therein (forever). (26) Verily God is not ashamed to set forth as well the instance of a gnat as of any nobler object: for as to those who have believed, they know it to be the truth from their Lord; but as to the unbelievers, they will say, "What meaneth God by this comparison?" Many will He mislead by such parables and many guide: but none will He mislead thereby except the wicked, (27) those who break their covenant with God after it has been confirmed, who sever the bonds that God has commanded to be joined, who spread corruption on the earth- these are the losers. (28) How can ye withhold faith from God? Ye were dead and He gave you life; next He will cause you to die; next He will restore you to life: next shall ye return to Him!" Holy Quran - The Heifer(c) 2:23-28.

(a) Chapter
(b) No menstruation, no need to go to toilet etc..
(c) Named after the heifer that the Israelites were ordered to sacrifice. Story starts in verse 67 of this chapter. The story can be found also in Old Testament - Numbers:19

Translations to English and to many other languages can be found on this site:

http://www.al-quran.info/

Make sure to click on the "Chapter" tab to view whole chapters. Translations can be selected under the menu named "Text". The default translation is that by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, but I find that the one by Rodwell (1861) is fine too. It is indicated in the list which translations are widely accepted and which have commentary.

I firmly believe that there is much that can be learned in Scripture. As an Arabic language speaker I have access to around 70 different interpretation works of the Holy Quran. Some single verses are discussed over several pages in those translations. I will happily learn more as we discuss here.

Peace and God's care be upon you

Ron Hubbard (pbuh) has some doozies 'manifestations' as well. Truly, a remarkable Prophet of Xenu.

I think that the miraculous nature of the Holy Quran can be fully appreciated when considering facts together. The density of the phenomena is quite interesting. I have already mentioned that the letter Alef is central. It appears 199 times in chapter "Human". The number 199 is the 46th prime number in universe. Human beings have 46 chromosomes arranged in 23 pairs.

Remarkably enough, the 46th letter in this chapter is an Alef. In fact it is the 9th Alef from chapter's start (the number 23, which is equal to human chromosome pair number, is the 9th prime number in universe). This same letter is the last letter of the word "Created" (Khlqna) in the phrase "We created man from.." (verse 2). At the same time, the 46th letter from back (chapter's end) in this chapter is also an Alef. In fact it is the 9th Alef from chapter's end. This same letter is the last letter of the word "All-Knowing" (A'lima) in the phrase "Allah is ever Knowing and Wise" (verse 30).

This is found in chapter "Human", the chapter that starts with direct talk about human creation and that is the only chapter in the whole Quran that consists of 31 verses. Creation story in Genesis 1:1 consist also of 31 verses. Number 46 is the 31st composite number in universe. Allah is the All-knowing Creator.

The density of bullshit is precisely correlated to the number of retards looking for justification of their faith (belief in the absence of evidence).

Arguments for and against the existence of God.


From a scientific pov there can be no logical disputation of a creator. The only position is its provability, not its science. But the factor of provability effects its antithesis more so. Evolution is not a factor here - it is merely a mid point emerging only after the fact of something already existing [created] - evolution only kicks in if there is something to evolutionise!

But still there is the Cambrian period - most of the creatures we see today were put on the face of the earth in a relatively short period. This is a strong argument against evolution.

But what about these additional facts:

I have already established how the number 31 signifies human chromosome number (which is 46). Studying excel sheets shows that there are 31 verses containing the word "human being" up to a and before chapter 46 of the Holy Quran and, at the same time, there are 31 other verses containing the word "human being" after chapter 46 (to Quran's end). The truly incredible thing is that Quran's midpoint verse-wise is somewhere in chapter 26.

Furthermore, there are 23 chapters containing the word "human being" up to and before chapter 46 and 19 such ones after it. Humans have 23 chromosome pairs and number 19 is key miracle number in the revelations of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian God.

Now to believe that we evolved from some soup and that these phenomena in Scripture are nothing is odd. It's not any text. It is the most beautiful Book I have!

The evidence is around and there is much more.

peace

The so-called Cambrian explosion still took place gradually, just less gradually than usual. It does not contradict evolution in the slightest.

The density of bullshit is precisely correlated to the number of retards looking for justification of their faith (belief in the absence of evidence).
are you talking about the faith of atheists who base their assertions on an absence of evidence?

are you talking about the faith of atheists who base their assertions on an absence of evidence?

The "beliefs" of the atheists are really odd. I have read books from both camps: evolutionists and intelligent design supporters. I have read also in the Quran and the Bible. I observe creation and read about animal behavior. It is clear that God created everything. It is far more sound to believe that we originate from God rather from soup. That we cannot see God directly does not mean He does not exist.

The "beliefs" of the atheists are really odd. I have read books from both camps: evolutionists and intelligent design supporters. I have read also in the Quran and the Bible. I observe creation and read about animal behavior. It is clear that God created everything. It is far more sound to believe that we originate from God rather from soup. That we cannot see God directly does not mean He does not exist.

Yosef

Nice post I believe that "God and existence" are different names for the same reality. God is inscrutable to mere mortal man and it is silly for us humans to think we know exactly how god operates, within all of our majestic and beautifully organised universe

Yosef

Nice postNo it's not - it's a terrible post - all he does is make a generic comment about atheism and then provide an unsubstantiated opinion - unless his argument is "I have read stuff and I conclude that..." without bothering to detail the actual important stuff?

He also confuses evolution with atheism (note the phrase "both camps") - as if it is impossible to be a theist who supports evolution - so good to see he views the Pope as an atheist.

He then claims soundness to the conclusion of God creating everything yet does not demonstrate the truth of the premises upon which that conclusion is based for others to be able to assess its soundness (I am doubtful he even knows what "soundness" is).

His last comment, while true, is weak: - i.e. while we might not be able to see things that do exist, we certainly can not see things that do not exist. Or does Yosef also believe in the FSM, the Celestial Teapot and the infinite other things for which there is zero evidence of their existence?


So yeah - all in all a "nice post". :rolleyes:

@Sarkus

Are you aware of the complexity involved in the fertilization of the egg by the sperm cell. There are several processes and enzymes needed. How could it be that such a thing evolved ?! Is it really reasonable that all those mechanisms evolved by chance (nothing) ?! Any failure at any point means no fertilized egg to start with!

I invite you all to see this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made

Title: Fearfully and wonderfully made - About egg fertilization by David Menton - answersingenesis.org

When you have a cold, you don't need to see the bacteria, you see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there.

Are you aware of the complexity involved in the fertilization of the egg by the sperm cell. There are several processes and enzymes needed. How could it be that such a thing evolved ?!So you argue from personal incredulity. :shrug:

Is it really reasonable that all those mechanisms evolved by chance (nothing) ?! Any failure at any point means no fertilized egg to start with!I am reminded again of what Douglas Adams once said:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.' "

You seem to be arguing from the point of view of such a puddle.



If you shuffle a deck of cards and deal them out face up - you are someone who then looks at the resulting order of cards and goes "wow - there was 1 in 10^68 chance that that precise order would occur - it must be a miracle / God must have done it".
And yet it happened.
And it would happen each and every time you shuffle and deal those cards... each time an order would reveal itself that had only 1 in 10^68 chance of occurring.
Try it for yourself.

But if you look at it differently... with the order as yet unrevealed... ask yourself this question: What is the chance that a non-specific order will be revealed?

If you think we are the deliberate end-point (up to this time) then you will see our existence as evidence of God... but all you are doing is begging the question. "The aim of God's creation is to produce us... we exist... therefore God exists... therefore we are the aim of God's creation!" etc.

If you do not think we are the deliberate end-point then you will think "We exist" and that is all we can say on the matter, other than looking at the mechanisms of how we came to be.

When you have a cold, you don't need to see the bacteria, you see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there.Yep - that's clearly what they thought back before the scientific discovery of bacteria in 1674. :rolleyes:

Yep - that's clearly what they thought back before the scientific discovery of bacteria in 1674. :rolleyes:
What does it mean to invisible Creator? Do you need to see Him to believe in His existence?

@Sarkus

I really cannot understand what the bad thing in having a God that created everything just right for us to live upon the earth.

I feel this to be the case. I have read many books and heard many speakers. The truth communicated in the word of God makes my heart get humble and my eyes shed tears. The language, ideas, arguments and challenges all come from the one who created Man and taught him how to speak. There is a sense of truth that cannot be matched by anything else. It is like the body testifies to His Glory. Praise the Lord.

What does it mean to invisible Creator? Do you need to see Him to believe in His existence?Do you need to see Xathrugah in order to believe in him? What about Jofufigd III?

I really cannot understand what the bad thing in having a God that created everything just right for us to live upon the earth.Did I say it would be a bad thing?

I feel this to be the case. I have read many books and heard many speakers. The truth communicated in the word of God makes my heart get humble and my eyes shed tears. The language, ideas, arguments and challenges all come from the one who created Man and taught him how to speak. There is a sense of truth that cannot be matched by anything else. It is like the body testifies to His Glory. Praise the Lord.Seems to be an appeal to emotion rather than any critical thought involved.

I'm not going to say that you shouldn't believe in God, nor that it is wrong. I don't have such a belief and can only make such comments as they would affect me. But what you are stating is no rational argument I can see for the existence of God.
If you are convinced - great. But you appear to have nothing to offer to convince anyone else as you seem to base your belief on nothing but emotion. You seem to argue from personal confidence and little else. And your confidence is not an argument I can accept.

As I have said earlier evidence for God's existence is available. You need to consider all the data.

The word "Human being" appears 2 times in chapter 76 "Human being", in verses 1 & 2. The word Allah "God" appears 5 times in this chapter, in verses 6, 9, 11 and 30.

Despite the fact that the Arabic alphabet consists of 28 different letters we find that the two verses containing the occurrences of the word "Human being" in this chapter are made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters. The 23 letters are:


( هـ ل ا ت ى ع ن س ح م د ر ك ش ذ و خ ق ط ف ج ب ص )

At the same time the four verses containing the occurrences of the word Allah in this chapter are made also of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters. The 23 letters are:


( ع ي ن ا ش ر ب ل هـ د ف ج و ت م ط ك ز ق ذ ض س ح )

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. No one could have known this 1430 years ago except God Almighty - The Creator. I must mention that different species have different chromosome numbers (Hoopoe bird has, for example, as many as 63 chromosome pairs).

Moreover, the second verse in this chapter contains the second and last occurrence of the word "Human being" in the chapter. God says in this verse:

"Verily, We created man from a mingled clot, to try him; and we gave him hearing and sight."

- 46 verses in the Holy Quran containing the word "Human being" before this verse.

- 76 verses in the Holy Quran containing a word made of the Arabic root that makes the word "Human being" before this verse.

- 18 verses in the Holy Quran containing the word "(We) created" before this verse.

- 199 verses in the Holy Quran containing a word made of the Arabic root that makes the word "Create" before this verse.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, number 199 is the 46th prime number in universe, chapter "Human being" is chapter 76 of the Holy Quran, 18 is equal to 9 x 2. The 9th prime number in universe is number 23.

"And in what new discourse after this will they believe?" Source: Holy Quran - Emissaries 77:50

Tell me!

Peace :)

Data verified by readverse - Quran search engine

Follow up for my previous post:

It looks like that the two verses in chapter "Human being" that contain the word "Created" (verses 2 and 28) are also made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters (out of the 28 letters making the Arabic alphabet)! The 23 letters are:


( س ر ا ل ن ه ي ص ع ق م ط ب ج ف ش ت خ ح د و ث ذ )

To summarize:

In chapter "Human being", the three verse sets containing the words "Allah", "Human being" and "Created" are made of three different sets of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters.

God created human beings. God is the only one who could have known that human beings have 23 chromosome pairs, 1430 years ago. Human chromosome number was discovered in the year 1955.

God says in the Holy Quran:

"(4) And the infidels say, "This Koran is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have helped him with it, who had come hither by outrage and lie." (5) And they say, "Tales of the ancients that he hath put in writing! and they were dictated to him morn and even." (6) SAY: He hath sent it down who knoweth the secrets of the Heavens and of the Earth. He truly is the Gracious, the Merciful." Source: Holy Quran - The Criterion 25:4-6

I find it interesting but also alarming that God is revealing His limitless ability and intelligence in this manner. Many of the facts that are being discovered require modern computer technology (e.g. factorization of 165 digit numbers) and modern scientific research. Can it be that greater signs are going to appear in near future?

Why not accept the mercy of God, we all Muslims, Christians and Jews. God promises that "He has prepared for His good servants (the believers) that which no ho human eye has seen, and that which no human ear has heard (of) and that which no human heart thought (fantasized) about". (prophet saying - words dictated by God on Muhamamd's (pbuh) heart by arch angel Gabriel).

It makes much more sense that we are created by an all-knowing God than that we just had developed out of some soup (given time and random happenings).

I believe in God but I don't think there is one right "religion". I believe God is omnipotent and all powerful. I believe in evolution but I think God made it happen. I believe in The Big Bang Theory but God did that too. To me God is life and creation and all that is good. God is "The Good". I believe God can appear to all races and walks of life in a way they can understand. I believe that all the religions that have the fundamentals of "The Good" are on the side of good. People that have racked up more good than evil in their existence go to heaven. "Heaven" is the source of good which powers the side of good. The good energy you have acuminated by being a good person is returned to "The Good" and use to create more life and influence more good.

I also believe that there is evil; and evil can oppose good. As the polar opposite of The Good; Evil destroys, corrupts, and consumes. "The Evil" can also appear to and influence all races and walks of life. I believe all actions and thoughts and beliefs that oppose "The Good" are on the side Evil. To me Evil has no sentient qualities. To me It's more of a natural phenomena. Chaotic to its core. It has no ambition, direction or design. It just is. I think of it more as an infection that alters and twists and feeds on anything it can scavenge. Evil does evil because it is evil. "Hell" is the source of evil and when a person that has been on the side of evil dies they surrender the evil energy they collected to hell and evil keeps on chugging along doing it's thing.

I believe in neutrality. For example nature kills and creates and can be manipulated by either side. People are neutral because we think and have the capacity for good or evil.

So when I hear people of different religions that I know are fundamentally good argue that "my God" is better or my religion is right and yours' is wrong. I chuckle on the inside and want to give them the CSI slap to the back of their head and say "They are both "The Good" you're both right in your own way. The way you can understand. So I can appreciate the holy scriptures of different religions and see a consistent commonality. They pretty much agree with each other. Just pick one and be true to it the best you can. Faith ....

I mean no offence to anyone. This is just how I see things work. I was brought up Christian by the way. My Brother is Muslim. No we did not get along. Not because of religion though. We both had bad tempers.

Follow up for my previous post:

It looks like that the two verses in chapter "Human being" that contain the word "Created" (verses 2 and 28) are also made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters (out of the 28 letters making the Arabic alphabet)! The 23 letters are:


( س ر ا ل ن ه ي ص ع ق م ط ب ج ف ش ت خ ح د و ث ذ )

To summarize:

In chapter "Human being", the three verse sets containing the words "Allah", "Human being" and "Created" are made of three different sets of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters.

God created human beings. God is the only one who could have known that human beings have 23 chromosome pairs, 1430 years ago. Human chromosome number was discovered in the year 1955.

God says in the Holy Quran:

"(4) And the infidels say, "This Koran is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have helped him with it, who had come hither by outrage and lie." (5) And they say, "Tales of the ancients that he hath put in writing! and they were dictated to him morn and even." (6) SAY: He hath sent it down who knoweth the secrets of the Heavens and of the Earth. He truly is the Gracious, the Merciful." Source: Holy Quran - The Criterion 25:4-6

I find it interesting but also alarming that God is revealing His limitless ability and intelligence in this manner. Many of the facts that are being discovered require modern computer technology (e.g. factorization of 165 digit numbers) and modern scientific research. Can it be that greater signs are going to appear in near future?

Why not accept the mercy of God, we all Muslims, Christians and Jews. God promises that "He has prepared for His good servants (the believers) that which no ho human eye has seen, and that which no human ear has heard (of) and that which no human heart thought (fantasized) about". (prophet saying - words dictated by God on Muhamamd's (pbuh) heart by arch angel Gabriel).

It makes much more sense that we are created by an all-knowing God than that we just had developed out of some soup (given time and random happenings).

Arabic wiritngs is new - 300 CE; Islam is a new kid on the block. Monotheism was introduced 4000 years ago. An infidel is one who conditions the Creator with a human messenger's name, and flaunts the Hebrew laws:

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE STRANGER AS THE INHABITANT.

ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS [COMMITS A CRIME] IT SHALL PAY.

A martyr is one who forfeits his life before causing the death of an innocent person.

There is no possible argument for a Creator from a scientific POV: name it?

There is only the emotive and legitimate factor of not being able to prove the Creator. But from a scientific premise, cause and effect [a fundamental scientific premise], a universe must have a universe maker - unless this is disproven or another equally sustainable premise can be offered. Otherwise all scientice laws goes south: a car manual does not prove there is no car maker - the reverse applies!

There is nothing wrong with our minds - the proof of a Creator is barred from our mind's wiring. This is why the Hebrew bible starts with the second alphabet and says GO FORTH - all other paths are barred. It is an ingenius design - else we would not be thinking about the Creator today in forum debates. The sound premise of science says there must be a creator - yet it is elusive - fostering an inexplicable anomoly on humans and science, one which will ever leave us tormented and chasing forever. Such is the true science of the thread's question.

But from a scientific premise, cause and effect [a fundamental scientific premise], a universe must have a universe maker

This is not the case at all - indeed science knows of things that are uncaused. Of course if you want to stick to the notion that cause and effect means that the universe must have a maker, then the same principle must also mean that the maker has a maker [ad infinitum].

Regards,

Jan


What are the "arguments against the existence of God"?

1: Argument from perfection:

1. That which is perfect has no desires or needs
2. A god is by definition perfect
3. A god by therefore has no desires or needs
4. Having no desires or needs results in no change of state.
5. Our existence negates the existence of a god.

To clarify: By being perfect, an entity has no desires or needs - both which actually refer to a need, (a desire is a need for mental/physical/spiritual satisfaction). By having no needs, (perfect), there is never a change in states - everything is already perfect as is. This is logically unarguable.

Interestingly, what this doesn't do is rule out the existence of the judeo-christian gods, all of whom are more needy than five year old schoolgirls. Hence the argument stands but Yhwh etc might still exist. But, by not being perfect, lose title of 'god'.

2: Arguments to show that 'free will' is a false concept/souls do not exist etc. I won't put the arguments here, they are lengthy. Non-existence of free will/souls negates typical god concepts.

There's countless more that I employ, but that's a starting point.

Regards,

[EDIT] There are also other arguments I use that don't necessarily show the non-existence of a god but instead concentrate on other aspects such as the worthlessness of such entities. For example (in short form):

1. The greater the need, the greater the attention
2. A god has absolutely no needs whatsoever
3. A god can only come last on any list - every human, by dint of having needs, should come before a god.

(3) of course includes yourself, which is precisely the reason you pray and worship. It is not for the benefit of a needless god, just yours. It is an entirely selfish endeavour.

Jan



1: Argument from perfection:

1. That which is perfect has no desires or needs
why does desire render you imperfect?


I
2. A god is by definition perfect
3. A god by therefore has no desires or needs
4. Having no desires or needs results in no change of state.
5. Our existence negates the existence of a god.

To clarify: By being perfect, an entity has no desires or needs - both which actually refer to a need, (a desire is a need for mental/physical/spiritual satisfaction). By having no needs, (perfect), there is never a change in states - everything is already perfect as is. This is logically unarguable.
what is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

Interestingly, what this doesn't do is rule out the existence of the judeo-christian gods, all of whom are more needy than five year old schoolgirls. Hence the argument stands but Yhwh etc might still exist. But, by not being perfect, lose title of 'god'.


2: Arguments to show that 'free will' is a false concept/souls do not exist etc. I won't put the arguments here, they are lengthy. Non-existence of free will/souls negates typical god concepts.
the rebuttals are also quite lengthy
shall we call it a checkmate?


There's countless more that I employ, but that's a starting point.

Regards,

[EDIT] There are also other arguments I use that don't necessarily show the non-existence of a god but instead concentrate on other aspects such as the worthlessness of such entities. For example (in short form):

1. The greater the need, the greater the attention
2. A god has absolutely no needs whatsoever
3. A god can only come last on any list - every human, by dint of having needs, should come before a god.
not at all sure why you have suddenly hit on need/desire as being the cornerstone of imperfection.




(3) of course includes yourself, which is precisely the reason you pray and worship. It is not for the benefit of a needless god, just yours. It is an entirely selfish endeavour.
Its one thing to say god is needless. Another to say he has no desire ... and yet another to relegate need and desire to the realm of imperfection

I hate to make this thread difficult, but all arguments either for or against the existence of God may have become redundant. History now has it's first demonstrable PROOF for faith.

The first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence*based truth embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must contend with a claim to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief!

Revolutionary stuff for those who can get their head around this change in the religious and faith paradigm. For anyone interested in joining the trials of this new moral tenet, to test and confirm the efficacy of this new truth claim, you'll have to work out the link from this longhand. www dot energon dot org dot uk

atheist converted to theism... 0
theist converted to atheism....0

there will be no consensus..
good luck with that.

why does desire render you imperfect?

Was already explained.


what is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

1. I am unsure how or where "radically" fits into the question or discussion. Kindly clarify.

2. If the sole state of existence, (god), is perfect then any change of states negates that very statement.


the rebuttals are also quite lengthy
shall we call it a checkmate?

Rebuttal of what, I didn't even make my argument?


not at all sure why you have suddenly hit on need/desire as being the cornerstone of imperfection.

I am unsure how your above statement is relevant to my last argument. Kindly clarify.

Was already explained.
where?
All you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how.




1. I am unsure how or where "radically" fits into the question or discussion. Kindly clarify.
because you seem to suggest that even something as minute as changing one's mind about one's favorite ice cream warrants an essentially changed state of being


2. If the sole state of existence, (god), is perfect then any change of states negates that very statement.
how so?




Rebuttal of what, I didn't even make my argument?
Rebuttals of the arguments that you indicated as valid yet too lengthy to post of course




I am unsure how your above statement is relevant to my last argument. Kindly clarify.
You're simply posting a lot of things about an apparent connection between desire and imperfection or god and a necessary absence of desire without ever going into any detail about why this is the case

where?

On my earlier post.


because you seem to suggest that even something as minute as changing one's mind about one's favorite ice cream warrants an essentially changed state of being

Strawman. Nobody is talking about people changing their minds with regards to anything like their favourite ice cream.


how so?

Let's say that you've just made a cake that is - undeniably - absolutely 100% perfect. It cannot possibly be improved upon, because it's perfect. When you then say 'ooh, I just want to add this to it', you've negated it's perfection.

The sole state of existence, (god), is undeniably absolutely 100% perfect. Any change in states is a negation of that earlier states perfection. Being perfect, such entity would have neither need nor desire, (which expresses a need), to change the current state unless such state wasn't perfect to begin with.


Rebuttals of the arguments that you indicated as valid yet too lengthy to post of course

If I didn' make any arguments, (which you agree I did not), what possible rebuttals can you be referring to?

:shrug:

On my earlier post.
like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?




Strawman. Nobody is talking about people changing their minds with regards to anything like their favourite ice cream.
you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however




Let's say that you've just made a cake that is - undeniably - absolutely 100% perfect.
and also 100% bereft of consciousness


It cannot possibly be improved upon, because it's perfect. When you then say 'ooh, I just want to add this to it', you've negated it's perfection.
actually the perfection of the cake would be in the eyes of a conscious entity (since cakes aren't big on peer approval, no matter how well they are made)


The sole state of existence, (god), is undeniably absolutely 100% perfect. Any change in states is a negation of that earlier states perfection. Being perfect, such entity would have neither need nor desire, (which expresses a need), to change the current state unless such state wasn't perfect to begin with.
once again, it depends how much you want to drive home a radical definition of change.

If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

Similarly, if god remains steadfast in creating, maintaining and annihilating the cosmic manifestation and all of its constituent elements (us included) and also in terms of goals (like for instance relieving the conditioned living entity from their ignorance and expanding the bliss of the liberated .. who in turn expand the bliss of god), it doesn't really warrant a radical change if the game plan gets tweaked a little




If I didn' make any arguments, (which you agree I did not), what possible rebuttals can you be referring to?

:shrug:
If you think its valid to decry a point by citing a vague indication of an argument it also stands that it can be refuted by a similarly vague rebuttal.

This, much like not sticking decorations up at Christmas time, is simply the rational approach

like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?

No lightgigantic, the part where I explained that by dint of being 'perfect' it can be said that such entity has no needs. I further explained that a 'desire' actually reflects a need, (mental/physical/spiritual fulfillment).


you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however

What? Kindly clarify what you're trying to say here. What "changing nature" are you talking about?


If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

What? We know that humans do change from having one food or flavour to another due to ever changing needs. I am unsure how it's relevant here.


If you think its valid to decry a point by citing a vague indication of an argument

What? I said I had other arguments but won't put them here to which you claimed there were rebuttals to those arguments. What rebuttals? Can you link me to the rebuttals of the arguments I didn't make?

The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.


Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anhthing so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Thank you Monty Python.

Thank you Monty Python.

Douglas Adams, actually.

Douglas Adams, actually.

Damn, you're right. For some reason, I was thinking of the galaxy song when I said Python.

like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?
...
you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however
...
If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

Similarly, if god remains steadfast in creating, maintaining and annihilating the cosmic manifestation and all of its constituent elements (us included) and also in terms of goals (like for instance relieving the conditioned living entity from their ignorance and expanding the bliss of the liberated .. who in turn expand the bliss of god), it doesn't really warrant a radical change if the game plan gets tweaked a little

Western philosophy and theology have struggled with notions of perfection for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection#Ontology_and_theology

Then there is the notion of God's immutability: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/ - a line of maddening, if logical, conclusions.

In also comes whether God is free or not: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-freedom/ ...

And further, does God feel with us or not?

Charles Hartshorne, for instance, has argued that while certain forms of independence are admirable others are not. “One should not simply agree to every whim of [one's] child,” for example, “but neither should one try to act and think and feel just as one would have acted or thought or felt had the child's joy been sorrow, or her sorrow joy…” Nor is there anything admirable about a happiness that is unaffected by the sorrows of others. We don't admire people who “can be equally happy and serene and joyous regardless of how men and women suffer around” them. (Hartshorne: 43–44) Human sympathies are necessarily limited, of course. But a perfect being would be maximally responsive to the joys and sufferings of other. If it is, it could not be impassible.

Classical Christian theology provides several attempts to reconcile God's compassion with his impassibility. Thus, Anselm argued that while God acts as if he were compassionate, he does not experience compassion. “For when You look upon us in our misery it is we who feel the effect of Your mercy, but You do not experience the feeling. Therefore you are both merciful because You save the sorrowful and pardon sinners against You; and You are not merciful because You do not experience any feeling of compassion for misery.” (Anselm: chapter viii) This seems unsatisfactory, however, for a compassion without feeling isn't real compassion. A recognition of this may have led Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas to offer their own, rather different, solutions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

The conversation you are having here prompted me to start two threads

What is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104545)

Are need and desire cornerstones of imperfection? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104544)

These things may seem dry and abstract, yet they are important. When I sit down to chant, or pray, I have to have some idea who it is I am addressing, and what this being is like - does He feel with me? Is He like this

http://www.romanemperors.com/images/17-caesar-in-toga-marble-statue.jpg

or this

http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/inventor_images/Benjamin_Franklin_marble_memorial_statue.jpg

with all the coldness of marble? Or does He blink? Or how is that?

No lightgigantic, the part where I explained that by dint of being 'perfect' it can be said that such entity has no needs. I further explained that a 'desire' actually reflects a need, (mental/physical/spiritual fulfillment).
you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case (ie why it is that perfection requires an absence of desire) is conspicuous by its absence?




What? Kindly clarify what you're trying to say here. What "changing nature" are you talking about?
you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state ... I agree it is a bit hard to clarify since you are really foggy on the ground work that supports such an assumption




What? We know that humans do change from having one food or flavour to another due to ever changing needs. I am unsure how it's relevant here.but is that a radically changed state?




What? I said I had other arguments but won't put them here to which you claimed there were rebuttals to those arguments. What rebuttals? Can you link me to the rebuttals of the arguments I didn't make?

If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward.

So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas, you stand defeated.
ok?

you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case (ie why it is that perfection requires an absence of desire) is conspicuous by its absence?

you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state ... I agree it is a bit hard to clarify since you are really foggy on the ground work that supports such an assumption

but is that a radically changed state?

If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward.

So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas, you stand defeated.
ok?

Actually, I am not sure there is much of a communication here for the time being - given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".


Obviously, you seem to be working with a radically different understanding of the concept of perfection. So at this point, I would appreciate it if you would put forward a stance, preferrably in the threads I started for this purpose and linked to above.

given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".


perfection is the absence of mistakes..

when associated with humanity perfection is not achievable..
(show me someone who is perfect and i'll show you someone who knows how to hide his imperfections)

needs and desires are a necessary part of the human condition without which we would not grow or achieve or for that matter love.

(wait a minute..isn't that another thread?)

Actually, I am not sure there is much of a communication here for the time being - given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".


Obviously, you seem to be working with a radically different understanding of the concept of perfection. So at this point, I would appreciate it if you would put forward a stance, preferrably in the threads I started for this purpose and linked to above.
ok take this example of imperfection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJq4jWSQNd8)

Is it imperfect because she desired her dog to fetch or are there a few details of relationship that contributed to the mishap?

Or to say it another way, on the strength of this girls experience of imperfection, can we say that all instances of desiring a dog to fetch are imperfect?

ok take this example of imperfection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJq4jWSQNd8)

Is it imperfect because she desired her dog to fetch or are there a few details of relationship that contributed to the mishap?

Or to say it another way, on the strength of this girls experience of imperfection, can we say that all instances of desiring a dog to fetch are imperfect?

I completely fail to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to show with this.

I'd be more inclined to think that a desire like desiring a dog to fetch is imperfect in and of itself, regardless of the mishaps that may occur.

you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case..

Your statement is a tad odd. It seems to be an obscure way of you saying you don't understand the explanation that was provided and would like me to attempt it again. Would you like me to?


you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state

You are talking about changes in desire and radical whatsits. I said that a perfect entity by very definition has no needs or desires, (desires reflect needs). Given that such entity has no desires or needs, there's no valid, logical argument for the creation of anything or change from currently existing state. If you have a specific argument against that, please get to it.

I was hoping, when returning from my long absence, you would have improved in your ability to discuss the issue directly.


but is that a radically changed state?

It is a change from one state to another - something that isn't logically arguable for an entity that is perfect and hence without needs or desires, (which reflect needs).


If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward

What in the world are you waffling on about? I am a busy man, please do not waste my time with such flagrant silliness.


So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas

What? If this is an attempted rebuttal, it's sorely lacking and indeed just shows that you don't even understand the argument. Kindly take some time to go over it and message me when you finally think you're ready.

I completely fail to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to show with this.

I'd be more inclined to think that a desire like desiring a dog to fetch is imperfect in and of itself, regardless of the mishaps that may occur.
So anyone who plays fetch with a dog, shares an equal degree of imperfection with the little girl?
Or have others possibly nutted out a few details of relationship with fetch that enable a completely different result?

Your statement is a tad odd. It seems to be an obscure way of you saying you don't understand the explanation that was provided and would like me to attempt it again. Would you like me to?
explain how or why you think perfection requires an absence of desire or need of course.
Perhaps we are making more progress with this iin the other thread where you are just about to explain to me why shifting between a like of different flavours is a departure from the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"




You are talking about changes in desire and radical whatsits. I said that a perfect entity by very definition has no needs or desires, (desires reflect needs).
yes yes, but you go on to state that the basis for this imperfection is that it involves change. The fact that you suggest that even a shift of nuances within the category (such as flavours within the category of "ice cream") constants a violation seems to warrant a use of the word "radical"

Given that such entity has no desires or needs, there's no valid, logical argument for the creation of anything or change from currently existing state. If you have a specific argument against that, please get to it.


I was hoping, when returning from my long absence, you would have improved in your ability to discuss the issue directly.



It is a change from one state to another - something that isn't logically arguable for an entity that is perfect and hence without needs or desires, (which reflect needs).
at the moment we are just trying to get a clear picture why changing one's delight in flavour constitutes a change in the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"




What in the world are you waffling on about? I am a busy man, please do not waste my time with such flagrant silliness.
yes
apparently too busy to even abide by the general rules of debate
:shrug:




What? If this is an attempted rebuttal, it's sorely lacking and indeed just shows that you don't even understand the argument. Kindly take some time to go over it and message me when you finally think you're ready.
I'm not sure what you don't understand about the rebuttal ... It has all the information you provided for your argument.

If you don't understand this, please go back to your original statements and join me in my unabashed rationality in abstaining from putting up decorations at christmas
:D

Perhaps we are making more progress with this iin the other thread where you are just about to explain to me why shifting between a like of different flavours is a departure from the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

Clearly we are still stuck in a position of you not understanding the argument. A being with needs shifting from one perfect ice cream to another is not the argument. Take some time and once ready, desist with this strawman.


The fact that you suggest that even a shift of nuances within the category

Within.. what category? What are you talking about with relevance to my argument? (No, I wasn't talking about ice cream).


at the moment we are just trying to get a clear picture why changing one's delight in flavour constitutes a change in the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

It doesn't, that's not the argument, it's a strawman of your own invention.

If a being with needs and desires changes from eating one perfect item to eating a different perfect item, the 'perfect items' are not in question. Please, take some time.

Clearly we are still stuck in a position of you not understanding the argument. A being with needs shifting from one perfect ice cream to another is not the argument. Take some time and once ready, desist with this strawman.
I'm just reducing your argument to its core elements.
Please pay attention and note we are talking about "perfect ice cream". If you feel shifting to a different flavour violates the category you have a bit of explaining to do.




Within.. what category? What are you talking about with relevance to my argument? (No, I wasn't talking about ice cream).
lets start with the basics.
Can you understand how "strawberry ice cream", " and "vanilla ice cream" both fall in the category of "ice cream"?




It doesn't, that's not the argument, it's a strawman of your own invention.
Actually its an analogy to help you understand the weak points of your argument


If a being with needs and desires changes from eating one perfect item to eating a different perfect item, the 'perfect items' are not in question. Please, take some time.
So, inasmuch as ice cream is a category, you want to argue that vanilla flavoured is (radically) different from strawberry, yes?
so

I'm just reducing your argument to its core elements

No. As we shall see in a moment, you have created a strawman:


Please pay attention and note we are talking about "perfect ice cream".

Ok and my original post was talking about a "perfect god". Your argument is that a needful person switches from one perfect ice cream to a different perfect ice cream - not that the perfect ice cream then goes about creating or changing its state of existence.

Hopefully you understand now. If not, I cannot help you further.


Can you understand how "strawberry ice cream", " and "vanilla ice cream" both fall in the category of "ice cream"?


Why are we talking about ice cream? Forget the strawman analogy and just stick to the actual issue. Thank you.


So, inasmuch as ice cream is a category, you want to argue that vanilla flavoured is (radically) different from strawberry, yes?


Vanilla is different from strawberry although I am again unsure of what relevance this is to anything or how "radically" fits in to the discussion. I have asked for explanation, I am yet to receive one. If you don't mind.

P.S Please provide that explanation in the other thread. There seems little point having the very same discussion in two threads hence my participation in this one will cease.

Ok and my original post was talking about a "perfect god". Your argument is that a needful person switches from one perfect ice cream to a different perfect ice cream - not that the perfect ice cream then goes about creating or changing its state of existence.

Hopefully you understand now. If not, I cannot help you further.
Actually the original statement was "ice cream is the perfect food". I'm not sure what made you interpret that as a statement of self assertion from ice cream .... and once again, your insistence, if you want to talk about a difference of flavour (like say from strawberry to vanilla) being a (radical) difference, you still have to explain why strawberry or vanilla brings more or less to the category of ice cream.





Why are we talking about ice cream? Forget the strawman analogy and just stick to the actual issue. Thank you.
If you can't entertain variety within the category of ice cream, there's not much to be gained by moving onto variety within other more complicated fields.
:shrug:





Vanilla is different from strawberry although I am again unsure of what relevance this is to anything or how "radically" fits in to the discussion. I have asked for explanation, I am yet to receive one. If you don't mind.
Inasmuch as "ice cream" is the category, how is it different?

Other thread please.

If you failed to notice:

P.S Please provide that explanation in the other thread. There seems little point having the very same discussion in two threads hence my participation in this one will cease

Yosef

Nice post I believe that "God and existence" are different names for the same reality. God is inscrutable to mere mortal man and it is silly for us humans to think we know exactly how god operates, within all of our majestic and beautifully organised universe


Mr Alan
I just logged in to post a reply for you,(only if you login)

The Concept of God in Islam is MOST Unique
Although many people do not accept it but they believe God to have "human" charecteristics,like father or son,or having "Who created god questions,etc"
But in Islam,if you will look at english tafseer(explained translation) of Chapter 112 of Quran, u will see

"Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM. (4) "

And yeah ,I totally agree with you about humans having no Idea
about how GOD operates.
Your idea is exactly same as explained in Quraan above
as "And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM"

Islam is the only Major religion, that say so.(Jewism and Christianity used to say it.But they have been altered)

I request you to study Quran.And if you got ANY question about Islam,feel free to contact me @ muzammilabdulrehman@hotmail.com as I will not be seeing this thread again.

One question to christians
How is Christ,son of God?
(Christ is a Prophet of God, according to Islam, just like many others)
If he is son of God then,How is God one??
If Christ himself is god,then who is God?Christ or God?Where does the holy ghost come in?
Why was christ put on "the cross",if he was god?Wh didnt he escape it?

And all the haters.....
Don't waste your time typing abuses or calling me names as I will not visit this form again.Use that time to study the following few lines again
" Holy Quraan, revealed 1400 years ago, said that, this world will COME TO AN END someday. AND NOW Sceintists are saying the same"

As only QUESTIONS about Islam will be entertained...NOT HATE MESSAGE

A hit and run Muslim! Coward.

Mr Alan
I just logged in to post a reply for you,(only if you login)

The Concept of God in Islam is MOST Unique
Although many people do not accept it but they believe God to have "human" charecteristics,like father or son,or having "Who created god questions,etc"
But in Islam,if you will look at english tafseer(explained translation) of Chapter 112 of Quran, u will see

"Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM. (4) "

And yeah ,I totally agree with you about humans having no Idea
about how GOD operates.
Your idea is exactly same as explained in Quraan above
as "And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM"

Islam is the only Major religion, that say so.(Jewism and Christianity used to say it.But they have been altered)

I request you to study Quran.And if you got ANY question about Islam,feel free to contact me @ muzammilabdulrehman@hotmail.com as I will not be seeing this thread again.

One question to christians
How is Christ,son of God?
(Christ is a Prophet of God, according to Islam, just like many others)
If he is son of God then,How is God one??
If Christ himself is god,then who is God?Christ or God?Where does the holy ghost come in?
Why was christ put on "the cross",if he was god?Wh didnt he escape it?

And all the haters.....
Don't waste your time typing abuses or calling me names as I will not visit this form again.Use that time to study the following few lines again
" Holy Quraan, revealed 1400 years ago, said that, this world will COME TO AN END someday. AND NOW Sceintists are saying the same"

As only QUESTIONS about Islam will be entertained...NOT HATE MESSAGE

Come on back . We don't hate you . You can't preach though . It is against forum rules . Now you can use your beliefs in a descriptive manner when in support of your post . It can be a little tricky sometimes and some might see it as trolling , but hells bells we all have a way of looking like trolls at some point . Even the Mods

A hit and run Muslim! Coward.

resurrection Spidey , oh what fun

A previous life:

In the early 1800’s Muslims on the Barbary Coast were causing trouble, just as they do now, and were attacking U.S. ships. Although the Koran had recommendations of peace within its earlier sutras, it had long been determined that the later sutras on violence superseded the earlier, being thus the more final word. Of course it was all made up anyway, as many humans excelled at that and still do.

Well, anyway, Thomas Jefferson had had enough of these pirates and so he formed the first U.S. Navy to deal with them, putting me in command, and so we more than decimated them.

I chanced upon Mohammed’s secret and final revelations directly from Allah, not via the Angel Gabriel as usual, which had never made it into the Koran since Mohammed had just been assassinated, perhaps because these ending revelations would have to become the new last word.

Unfortunately, they were lost at sea.

They began with ‘Peace…’.

"arguments agains the existence of god?", "arguments for the existence of god?", "does god exist?", "does god not exist?" ...etc...

Don't you ever get tired of this? O_o

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.
What does that really mean Lori ? Rock and roll will never die . What does that have to do with the Rock of Ages? What does it have to do with Jesus and the similar rock analogy? Hippies had a belief in something? Do you know what that was ? Hanging on to Black Metal ! Black Metal ! Oh Oh Lori Black Metal .

You know I was so freaked out when the native Black Foot Man Gave Me that red Rock . It just still trips Me out. I don't if any of you out there kind feel the wind of change . Turning Points in your Life . To be aware is that a good thing ? I don't Know cause I don't know what it means not to be . To be able to see information directing your life makes you wonder were it comes from . I can't tell you that ? I don't know what it is ? I know it there . I see it in everything . It is information related . Could be why God is called the word . I saw a post on Fractals today here on S.F. I didn't read it all . One reason I didn't is because of Me event . I was trapped in a world of Mathematical wonder land like I never seen . I tried to explain it to Alphanumatic . It didn't come out so good . It made Me look delusional . I got to tell you I saw something unbelievable . That thread on Fractals hints strongly at what I saw. Now I am not real stupid when it comes to math . Rather practical really . Hell I have to be to make complex roof structures to come out with out a hitch . Also to be able to see in three D is an advantage for builders . We naturally gravitate in that direction . I am not talking about like you see . I am talking about seeing the things behind the curtain . Visualizing where the Valley is and where the hip terminates into a valley, where it hits the side wall , Where roof planes take off and never hit up to ridge you want it to . You got to see this shit in your mind before you can start banging out nails going no were fast . Anyway it is a whole different way of seeing things and unless you do it you don't know what it is like to see in 3D . It be more of a 2D with a 3D perspective . That is the norm . You look at the world as flat . I know you can judge distance and catch a ball and all but that is because of the 3D perspective in your 2D sight .
I got off track , Well I am a run away train with out a track anyway . "Nothing new there " ( borrowed expressions from the Great Chimpkin " )

Oh yeah the Rock . The Rock of Ages . Zimbabwe= The Greathouse of stone . That is what it means . What it tells Me by many forms of information streams is we are all Black first then we are branched out into other expressions of color . Mutations from the original. The original is the African . I come to this conclusion by tracing the Great House in History . You can't buy this stuff in a book . It is scattered information with bits and pieces everywhere . Information from the start of migration of humans . It is persevered in fragmented elements of language . Lori with all your delusional states and corn hole Ideas I am so surprised you came to the Great House and understood the meaning. If everyone could Life , Well Life would improve for all . The doubt that we are all , I mean all live in the same Great House as one would vanish in an instant . It is an easy thing to say I know we all live on the planet and were all human then turn around and say I hate you fuckers. There in is the mystery of the Great house . The Great House Hates no one . The House excepts you and wants abundance of joy for all. I know heart Lori . My heart is your heart cause we live in the Great House . We are the Temple . I understand Dear . Mom The Temple is Holy. The Temple is the promise .
I challenge all to wake up from there dead lives and breath the gift of life . ( For Chimpkin" See The Gift of Life " )

lightgigantic,

The ancient philosophers of the Graeco-Roman world (many of whom eventually became Christians) probed this issue of God's perfection.

Neo-Platonic philosophy tried to figure out ways to express the paradox of a perfect self-sufficient God who nevertheless created.

If God from eternity is perfect, then He is self-sufficient, then he has no need to create.

What would be the motive for an eternally perfect, self-sufficient God to create at a certain "moment"?

The neo-Platonic philosopher wrestled with this question, and basically said it's a mystery, and offered only poetic images to express that mystery -- that the event of God creating was like a cauldron "bubbling over" from being too full of itself. He developed many other poetic images to express the same paradox.

The point is, Creation is a paradox; and no amount of logic will dissolve that wonder into something manageably comprehensible.