Kay17:

Here is another loophole, the so called moral facts are not binding on God as the source of the commands. If they were truly objective, they would be binding on God.

What loophole??

tbaba12345:

Your whole essay prove my point... Also you are incorrect in one area, there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone on it. The problem is not lack of food, the problem is its distribution. This video explains it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGra85DWWNA#t=108

But it is becoming repetitive. Let's move to another topic, consciousness

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to engage and have civil discussions, some of your friends here are really not worth the trouble.

I introduce you to the hard problem of consciousness. There are areas of consciousness that lie outside the scientific method, e.g the inner subjective experience.

What does it mean to be RayMcBlue eating a sandwich?

Professor Koch explains:

Well, let’s first forget about the real difficult aspects, like subjective feelings, because they may not have a scientific solution. The subjective state of play, of pain, of pleasure, of seeing blue, of smelling a rose--there seems to be a huge jump between the materialistic level, of explaining molecules and neurons, and the subjective level.

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/whatisconsciousn149

This subjective experience can not be explained via a materialistic approach. Even when we have images of the brain etc. The Subjective feeling of what it means to be you can not be explained by the scientific method.

Professor David Chalmers says:

I argue that neuroscience alone isn't enough to explain consciousness, but I think it will be a major part of an eventual theory. We just need to add something else, some new fundamental principles, to bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience.

http://www.ditext.com/chalmers/chalm.html

Another quote:

There are a lot of hard problems in the world, but only one gets to call itself “the hard problem”. That is the problem of consciousness – how 1300 grams or so of nerve cells conjures up the seamless kaleidoscope of sensations, thoughts, memories and emotions that occupy every waking moment… The hard problem remains unresolved.”

New Scientist: The Collection. The Big Questions. Volume I, Issue I, p. 51.

The problem is there is no materialistic solution to this. It does not conform with the scientific method and therefore lies outside the scope of science.

Materialist attempts have failed to comprehensively explain our subjective personal experiences.

I argue that God is the best explanation to explain this and the reasons are as follows:

1. Where does consciousness come from? Theism best explains this.

2. Theism answers how consciousness entered the physical world.

3. Theism has greater explanatory power. It is something deeply rooted in the very essence of reality.

The materialist view point is a thing of miracles as it fails to explain how consciousness popped into existence through just physical processes.

4. Theism explains the gap between nonphysical mental and physical brain states and how they interact.

5. Theism explains why we have an awareness of what it means to be you

Now, the jump between materialistic naturalistic explanation and the subjective experience is too much. There has to be something that bridges that gap. This is where i feel a theistic explanation is the best explanation and makes perfect sense.

This is not new on this forum, both deepsight and uyiredia are the forebearers of this potbellied thought. The inherent problem with consciousness lies in its subjectivity, therefore making it a bad candidate for a typical scientific study. The fact that it is a mental state does not exclude it from the realm of science.

tbaba12345:

What loophole??

That God is not bound by morality.

Kay17:
This is not new on this forum, both deepsight and uyiredia are the forebearers of this potbellied thought. The inherent problem with consciousness lies in its subjectivity, therefore making it a bad candidate for a typical scientific study. The fact that it is a mental state does not exclude it from the realm of science.

We both had a conversation on it before. It would not be called the hard problem if it was within the scientific scope.

Kay17:

That God is not bound by morality.

Again, i can't see this loophole. God is perfect and has perfect knowledge

tbaba12345:

We both had a conversation on it before.




Again, i can't see this loophole. God is perfect.

Yes if morally perfect, then he aligns perfectly to his own moral code! But you wouldn't agree that God is subject to moral codes.

tbaba12345: The FBI arrested a terrorist here in America. He had written about how evil the government was; that he believed his understanding of God and Scripture told him that he had to force others to follow his way of life; and that he was willing to give his life up for His Creator and His Cause. He had guns, weapons, and even explosives all ready for the attack, and was recruiting others to join his movement. He wanted to bomb places of worship of other faiths, because he believed only *his* faith deserves space to worship God.

It should have been big news in the media. His face should have been plastered all over Fox News and CNN, and his brazen plans of 'jihad' (religious war) would have provided incessant fuel to the government that they need to do more about radical religious terrorism and the threat of holy wars to America.

It should have been on the news, but it wasn't. That's because the man in question was not named Mustafa or Muhammad or Ahmad, but rather Robert James. And his skin color was not brown, but rather white. And the places of worship he wanted to bomb were not synagogues, but rather masjids. And his 'holy war' was not the Arabic word 'jihad', but rather the English phrase of fighting for 'liberty and God'.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

The selective highlighting of only 'Muslim' acts of terrorism and the alarmist attitude towards every punk kid that gets caught in a pseudo-jihadist trap set by the FBI constructs a narrative in the mind of the American population that only Muslims are responsible for terrorist acts, and that somehow all religious lunatics come from within the Islamic tradition. Crazies like Robert James are completely ignored.

- Yasir Qadhi


Note: 88% of domestic terrorist plots in USA since 1995 did not involve Muslims (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/19/467384/chart-right-wing-extremism-terror-threat-oklahoma-city/?mobile=nc)

I don't see where it is mentioned that the man in question was a Christian. Did you intentionally/typically tag him a christian simply because he is not a muslim. Pls clarify.

tbaba12345: The FBI arrested a terrorist here in America. He had written about how evil the government was; that he believed his understanding of God and Scripture told him that he had to force others to follow his way of life; and that he was willing to give his life up for His Creator and His Cause. He had guns, weapons, and even explosives all ready for the attack, and was recruiting others to join his movement. He wanted to bomb places of worship of other faiths, because he believed only *his* faith deserves space to worship God.

It should have been big news in the media. His face should have been plastered all over Fox News and CNN, and his brazen plans of 'jihad' (religious war) would have provided incessant fuel to the government that they need to do more about radical religious terrorism and the threat of holy wars to America.

It should have been on the news, but it wasn't. That's because the man in question was not named Mustafa or Muhammad or Ahmad, but rather Robert James. And his skin color was not brown, but rather white. And the places of worship he wanted to bomb were not synagogues, but rather masjids. And his 'holy war' was not the Arabic word 'jihad', but rather the English phrase of fighting for 'liberty and God'.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217850/so-did-you-guys-hear-we-caught-a-terrorist-last-week/

The selective highlighting of only 'Muslim' acts of terrorism and the alarmist attitude towards every punk kid that gets caught in a pseudo-jihadist trap set by the FBI constructs a narrative in the mind of the American population that only Muslims are responsible for terrorist acts, and that somehow all religious lunatics come from within the Islamic tradition. Crazies like Robert James are completely ignored.

- Yasir Qadhi


Note: 88% of domestic terrorist plots in USA since 1995 did not involve Muslims (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/19/467384/chart-right-wing-extremism-terror-threat-oklahoma-city/?mobile=nc)

Your case fits into Yoruba parlance that says ''Ajegbodo tonwa eni kunra''. You are searching for people to join you in perpetrating evil.

Christians have no source of inspiration for terrorism. If anybody or a group of persons engages in it, they are on their own.

But terrorism for muslims is a command and there should be no shying away from it. Quran 3:151 and 8:12 are clear on this.

tbaba12345:

Your whole essay prove my point... Also you are incorrect in one area, there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone on it. The problem is not lack of food, the problem is its distribution. This video explains it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGra85DWWNA#t=108
interact.

I don't see how. From a scientific viewpoint, morality does not stem from God. Instead, it has its roots in brain chemicals and is supported by strong cultural conditioning. Parents pass their morals along to their children, and individuals take social cues regarding "right" and "wrong" behaviors from friends, family, media influence and more.

It's fashionable for religious people to claim that atheists are immoral hedonists, but a quick survey of real people shows that to be false. By and large, atheists are no less moral than any other group of people.

tbaba12345:

I argue that God is the best explanation to explain this and the reasons are as follows:

1. Where does consciousness come from? Theism best explains this.

2. Theism answers how consciousness entered the physical world.

3. Theism has greater explanatory power. It is something deeply rooted in the very essence of reality.

The materialist view point is a thing of miracles as it fails to explain how consciousness popped into existence through just physical processes.

4. Theism explains the gap between nonphysical mental and physical brain states and how they interact.

5. Theism explains why we have an awareness of what it means to be you

Now, the jump between materialistic naturalistic explanation and the subjective experience is too much. There has to be something that bridges that gap. This is where i feel a theistic explanation is the best explanation and makes perfect sense.

^^^

Every species that we see today is derived from simple, single-cell organisms over the course of hundreds of millions of years. In other words, there was no supernatural creation process for humans as described in the theist holy books.

As you think about this, what you will realize is that evolved beings have no souls. Human beings are no different from any other animal, insect, plant or bacteria in the way that we have evolved. In the same way that every other living thing on planet Earth is soulless, humans are soulless. The whole notion of a soul is a figment of human imagination.

Consciousness is merely the byproduct of the human psyche as a result of chemical reactions. The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop.

We imagine that we have "souls," fabricate the concept of "eternal life" and then fantasize a place called "heaven," complete with streets of gold, calorie-free foods, frolicking virgins and whatever else we can come up with. Theists imagine it so vividly and repeat the fantasy so often that they actually believe it to be reality.

Where did the first cell come from? Theism will argue that God magically created the first living cell. This, of course, is silly. The scientific principle that describes the origin of life is called "abiogenesis." In the same way that there is no supernatural being involved in evolution, there is no supernatural being involved in abiogenesis. Both the creation of life and the evolution of species are completely natural processes.

In order to see the truth, you need to understand that all explanations involving " magic " are false. The fact is, God had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life on this planet nor with any part of the evolutionary process. As soon as you accept this fact, you realize that you have no soul. God is imaginary and the biblical concept of everlasting life is a fairy tale.

The fact that we exist as a conscious, intelligent, rational species is an accident of nature that involved no supernatural intervention. There is no part of the scientific explanation of evolution that says, "a mythical supernatural being reaches in right here and guides it." Evolution, by its very nature, is a supernatural-free process.

As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma for centuries, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction . Today's "God" is just as fictional as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs. The case for theism is a fraud.

RayMcBlue:

I don't see how. From a scientific viewpoint, morality does not stem from God. Instead,it has its roots in brain chemicals and is supported by strong cultural conditioning. Parents pass their morals along to their children, and individuals take social cues regarding "right" and "wrong" behaviors from friends, family, media influence and more.

It's fashionable for religious people to claim that atheists are immoral hedonists, but a quick survey of real people shows that to be false. By and large, atheists are no less moral than any other group of people.

Again, you keep proving my point, you have no objective moral anchor.

I have not said atheists are immoral, I have said their morals are subjective and ever changing.

The bolded is false:

i. Religious give more:

“The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”

http://www.hoover.org/research/religious-faith-and-charitable-giving

“However, regarding American giving to charitable organizations, Regnerus et al. (1998) found an association with religiosity by analysing the data from the 1996 Religious Identity and Influence Survey. The 13 percent of the American population which considered itself non-religious gave less money to charitable organizations than did the rest of the population which held religious beliefs.” (The Oxford Handbook of The Sociology of Religion. Edited by Peter B. Clarke. OUP. 2011, pp. 883-884)

..the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

ii. Lower risk of depression, drug abuse and suicide:

evidence for main effects and stress buffering effects carried out an analysis of over 200 social studies and found that high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression, drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts.

( Smith T, McCullough M and Poll J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: evidence of a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin. 129. 614-636.)

iii. In 2002 Bryan Johnson and colleagues of the University of Pennsylvania Centre for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reviewed 498 studies that had been published in peer reviewed journals. They concluded that a large majority of studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency. ( Keith Ward. Is Religion Dangerous? Lion Hudson Plc. 2006.)

So my friend, i beg to differ. That statement is just false. There is a difference between the moral values of the religious and the irreligious.

tbaba12345:

Again, you keep proving my point, you have no objective moral anchor.

I have not said atheists are immoral, I have said their morals are subjective and ever changing.

The bolded is false:

i. Religious give more:

“The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”

http://www.hoover.org/research/religious-faith-and-charitable-giving

“However, regarding American giving to charitable organizations, Regnerus et al. (1998) found an association with religiosity by analysing the data from the 1996 Religious Identity and Influence Survey. The 13 percent of the American population which considered itself non-religious gave less money to charitable organizations than did the rest of the population which held religious beliefs.” (The Oxford Handbook of The Sociology of Religion. Edited by Peter B. Clarke. OUP. 2011, pp. 883-884)

..the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2

ii. Lower risk of depression, drug abuse and suicide:

evidence for main effects and stress buffering effects carried out an analysis of over 200 social studies and found that high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression, drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts.

( Smith T, McCullough M and Poll J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: evidence of a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin. 129. 614-636.)

iii. In 2002 Bryan Johnson and colleagues of the University of Pennsylvania Centre for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reviewed 498 studies that had been published in peer reviewed journals. They concluded that a large majority of studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency. ( Keith Ward. Is Religion Dangerous? Lion Hudson Plc. 2006.)

So my friend, i beg to differ. That statement is just false. There is a difference between the moral values of the religious and the irreligious.

This argument would be perfectly valid if the theist (you) was willing to concede that their God is a social construction or metaphorical concept. Most theists aren't comfortable with that, though, and theism simply does not stand up in the face of scientific scrutiny. Believing in something does not make it true.

Morality is not subjective or democratic. It does not need belief to make it work. Gravity, for example, works the same whether you have faith in it or not. You do not need to choose to believe in gravity because it's an immutable fact of the universe.

RayMcBlue:

^^^

Every species that we see today is derived from simple, single-cell organisms over the course of hundreds of millions of years. In other words, there was no supernatural creation process for humans as described in the theist holy books.

You have rambled through a lot of topics but failed to address the issue of the subjective inner consciousness and why it falls outside the scientific process

i. Even the world's best neuroscientist can not tell where consciousness came from or explain the inner subjective states, yet you can? They call it a hard problem for a reason. Those questions lie outside the scientific process.

ii. Have you ever asked yourself where that 'single cell organism' came from? How its consciousness came about?

iii. I do not think, you know that much about the induction process or the philosophy of science. If you did, you will know that an induction process can never give you certainty. The induction process involves making conclusions from the particular to the general and hence can never give you certainty.

iv. . Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere.That is why things like subjective consciousness lie outside that scope.

v. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology).

vi. The philosophy of science – most of the time – doesn’t produce certain knowledge. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty.

vii. Many of the truths we hold on to are not via empirical testing.

viii. I have a much higher degree of certainty in my beliefs via pure deductive reasoning

viii. If the premises of deduction is true, then you can reach certainty

e.g Boys are male

Adam is a boy

so Adam is male.

ix. For instance, i can make the following claims

1. A miracle is an event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

2. The Qur’an’s literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

3. Therefore, the Qur’an is a miracle.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence for each premise so i can arrive at certainty about this. Plus, i have studied the Qur'an relatively in depth.

RayMcBlue:

This argument would be perfectly valid if the theist (you) was willing to concede that their God is a social construction or metaphorical concept. Most theists aren't comfortable with that, though, and theism simply does not stand up in the face of scientific scrutiny. Believing in something does not make it true.

Morality is not subjective or democratic. It does not need belief to make it work. Gravity, for example, works the same whether you have faith in it or not. You do not need to choose to believe in gravity because it's an immutable fact of the universe.

But i have evidence for my beliefs.

God does not need empirical validaton because almost all of the truths we hold are not empirical.

https://www.nairaland.com/1898514/qurans-miracle-non-arabic-speakers

tbaba12345:

You have rambled through a lot of topics but failed to address the issue of the subjective inner consciousness and why it falls outside the scientific process

i. Even the world's best neuroscientist can not tell where consciousness came from or explain the inner subjective states, yet you can? They call it a hard problem for a reason. Those questions lie outside the scientific process.

ii. Have you ever asked yourself where that 'single cell organism' came from? How its consciousness came about?

iii. I do not think, you know that much about the induction process or the philosophy of science. If you did, you will know that an induction process can never give you certainty. The induction process involves making conclusions from the particular to the general and hence can never give you certainty.

iv. . Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere.That is why things like subjective consciousness lie outside that scope.

v. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology).

vi. The philosophy of science – most of the time – doesn’t produce certain knowledge. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty.

vii. Many of the truths we hold on to are not via empirical testing.

viii. I have a much higher degree of certainty in my beliefs via pure deductive reasoning

viii. If the premises of deduction is true, then you can reach certainty

e.g Boys are male

Adam is a boy

so Adam is male.

ix. For instance, i can make the following claims

1. A miracle is an event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

2. The Qur’an’s literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

3. Therefore, the Qur’an is a miracle.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence for each premise so i can arrive at certainty about this. Plus, i have studied the Qur'an relatively in depth.

Brilliant submission Tbaba. The general use of evidence is inductive reasoning. The pooling together of a number of particulars and drawing a general principle therefrom.

Also note that the argument that God designed the Universe is a classic example of inductive reasoning. Because a deference is made to other objects like cars, buildings etc.

tbaba12345:

But i have evidence for my beliefs.

God does not need empirical validaton because almost all of the truths we hold are not empirical.

https://www.nairaland.com/1898514/qurans-miracle-non-arabic-speakers

The Koran is your evidence for god?. . .

tbaba12345:

vii. Many of the truths we hold on to are not via empirical testing.

viii. I have a much higher degree of certainty in my beliefs via pure deductive reasoning

viii. If the premises of deduction is true, then you can reach certainty

e.g Boys are male

Adam is a boy

so Adam is male.

ix. For instance, i can make the following claims

1. A miracle is an event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

2. The Qur’an’s literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

3. Therefore, the Qur’an is a miracle.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence for each premise so i can arrive at certainty about this. Plus, i have studied the Qur'an relatively in depth.

Here are some deductive reasonings of my own. For example:

-God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
-God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
-The Bible and Qur'an we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
-When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no
evidence that God is "answering prayers."
-Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS
occur without any response from God.
-And so on...
(No empirical evidence showing that God exists).

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Deductive reasoning 101. Two can play this game, bro.

tbaba12345:

But i have evidence for my beliefs.

God does not need empirical validaton because almost all of the truths we hold are not empirical.

https://www.nairaland.com/1898514/qurans-miracle-non-arabic-speakers

What?? Elaborate more on the bolded, please.

mazaje:

The Koran is your evidence for god?. . .

The Quran is a pointer to the transcedant. God is easily known from simple rational thought.


I will address the irrational atheistic demand for empirical evidence for God in my next post.

RayMcBlue:

What? Elaborate more on the bolded.

I will do that in my next post, driving now.

tbaba12345:

I will do that in my next post, driving now.

Okay, drive safe.

RayMcBlue:

Here are some deductive reasonings of my own. For example:

-God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
-God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
-The Bible and Qur'an we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
-When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no
evidence that God is "answering prayers."
-Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS
occur without any response from God.
-And so on...
(No empirical evidence showing that God exists).

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
-If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Deductive reasoning 101. Two can play this game, bro.

Nice one, but the theist will tell you that when it comes to evidence for god you are not expected to demand for an objective evidence but some tenuous one like the Koran is the word of god. . .I wonder why they do this. . .

mazaje:

Nice one, but the theist will tell you that when it comes to evidence for god you are not expected to demand for an objective evidence but some tenuous one like the Koran is the word of god. . .I wonder why they do this. . .

^Exasperating as hell...

Their most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "Allah must remain hidden" argument. Many would try to rationalize Allah's existence by saying something like this:

"The existence of the universe proves Allah's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, Allah created it."

Bunch of Frauds.

RayMcBlue:

^Exasperating as hell...

Their most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "Allah must remain hidden" argument. Many would try to rationalize Allah's existence by saying something like this:

"The existence of the universe proves Allah's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, Allah created it."

Bunch of Frauds.

God is always their default position for "I don't know". . .If god exist then there should be direct and objective evidence for his existence simple. . .lets assume that god exist, he has this special message he wants to share with the whole of humanity and the best he can do is to send the message to an arabic man in arabic to cram and recite to other humans?. . .Even humans will not do this. .Humans will not employ this failed and ludicrous system .If the President of Nigerian for example has a special message for all Nigerians and wants to send the message to all of Nigerians he appears on TV and speaks in English which is the common and official language of the country so that most people will get the message. . .He will not appear to one obscured man in Benue state speak to him in Tiv and tell him to share the message to all Nigerians. . .Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, you can not make extra ordinary claims and then produce extremely weak evidence or non evidence for your claims.

mazaje:

God is always their default position for "I don't know". . .If god exist then there should be direct and objective evidence for his existence simple. . .lets assume that god exist, he has this special message he wants to share with the whole of humanity and the best he can do is to send the message for an arabic man in arabic to cram and recite to other humans?. . .Even humans will not do this. .Humans will not employ this failed and ludicrous system .If the President of Nigerian for example has a special message for all Nigerians and wants to send the message to all of Nigerians he appears on TV and speaks the English which is the common and official language of the country. . .He will not appear to one obscured man in Benue state speak to him in Tiv and tell him to share the message to all Nigerians. . .Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, you can not make extra ordinary claims and then produce extremely weak evidence or non evidence for your claims.

Well said.

mazaje:

God is always their default position for "I don't know". . .If god exist then there should be direct and objective evidence for his existence simple. . .lets assume that god exist, he has this special message he wants to share with the whole of humanity and the best he can do is to send the message for an arabic man in arabic to cram and recite to other humans?. . .Even humans will not do this. .Humans will not employ this failed and ludicrous system .If the President of Nigerian for example has a special message for all Nigerians and wants to send the message to all of Nigerians he appears on TV and speaks the English which is the common and official language of the country. . .He will not appear to one obscured man in Benue state speak to him in Tiv and tell him to share the message to all Nigerians. . .Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, you can not make extra ordinary claims and then produce extremely weak evidence or non evidence for your claims.

Well said. Yet, if you talk to the theists, they ignore all of this evidence. So what might motivate theists to ignore the strong evidence that God is imaginary? Here are 3 possibilities:

-Theists might choose to believe that God is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it is a huge boost to the ego. This explanation works both for big "miracles" and small ones. Imagine this: Imagine that you have cancer, you pray to God for a cure, you undergo surgery and chemotherapy, and the cancer does go into remission. What cured you? The surgery and chemo: all evidence indicates that this is the case. If God was going to cure you, you would have been able to skip the surgery and chemo, right? Yet, as a theist, it is a huge ego boost to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe cured you. It means he has "big plans" for the rest of your life.

-Theists might choose to believe that God is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of being alone. They need an invisible friend to talk to in order to cope with lonliness, and God is the "community sanctioned" invisible friend that is accepted in our society. It may be that, for millions of people, an invisible friend is the only way they can cope with being alone. In order to make this invisible friend seem more real, it may help the illusion if you believe that he hears and answers prayers.

-When we are born, we instinctively have a place in our brains for an "all-knowing, all-loving being". When we are young this being is called a parent, and children naturally and instinctively bond to their parents. What if a large number of people never outgrow this phase, and need to fill this place in their brains with something once they have left their real parents and moved on? In other words, what if this place in the brain remains into adulthood for many people, long after it has served its need, and people feel lonely unless they fill this place with something? Having an "all-knowing, all-loving" invisible friend would be an obvious thing to fill it with. If you can heighten the illusion by believeing that this imaginary friend answers prayers, all the better.

Is this a direct proof that God is imaginary? No. But it shows that theists have strong incentives to delude themselves into believing.

RayMcBlue:

Their most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "Allah must remain hidden" argument. Many would try to rationalize Allah's existence by saying something like this:

"The existence of the universe proves Allah's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, Allah created it."

.

Do not preempt me.

Where do our beliefs/truths come from? You see, as humans when we thing about where most of the truths we have, do not come from empirical evidence or scientific proof.

So when the atheist asks, What is the scientific evidence for God? It is an hypocritical, hyper-skeptical and impractical standard that can not be applied to most of the other truths in our lives and will mean we will not believe anything in your daily life.

I will explain.

Most of our normal basic truths as humans are based upon basic rational thinking and to set up the standard to be so high that most of our normal basic truths will not meet up to it.

When it comes to the atheist's world view, they have one standard in which they judge everything else, all the rational beliefs in their lives. Then they have a special standard when it comes to God's existence.

So when God's existence comes up, skepticism is raised to extreme levels.

What I want to do now, is to show that this standard is incorrect and if you use basic reasoning , you will conclude that there is a creator.

And if you use this special standard for everything in your life, you will not believe 99% of your normal beliefs that we hold as truths.

This assumption that God has to be proven empirically is rather ludicrous. It is not the right way to think that everything must be scientifically verifiable, it makes no sense.

Example:1. If you go back 8 generations, you must have had a great, great, great.... grandfather. Scientifically, you can't prove that. You don't have his DNA, you don't know where his grave is, you don't know where his clothes are.

You have nothing, the only way, you can conclude that he existed is by basic rational thinking. Not by scientific evidence.

2. If you believe that your mother is your mother, this belief is based upon testimony. Testimony of father, midwife etc. However, you do not have any scientific evidence that she is your mother. Right now, you believe she is your mother without any scientific test, yet you hold it as truth.

3. If you have never been to China, the only reason, you believe there is a place called china is as a result of consistent testimony.

The point is this: Science is a fantastic but limited method and should be applied only when it is applicable.

Even the scientific things we believe are based on testimony because we do not perform these tests ourselves.

The point is simple, coming to truths, is not about scientific evidence as there are other ways to come to truths.

What we ask from atheists is simple, use the simple rational thinking that works perfectly in your daily lives and not apply some special standard when it comes to God.

Do not set up this standard that would not work for many of the truths, you hold in your lives. Even the scientific method is based on testimony. Muslims strongly influenced the development of the scientific method anyway.

If you really think about it, the question of God is a metaphysical question not a physical one and science is limited to the physical

RayMcBlue:

Well said. Yet, if you talk to the theists, they ignore all of this evidence. So what might motivate theists to ignore the strong evidence that God is imaginary? Here are 3 possibilities:

-Theists might choose to believe that God is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it is a huge boost to the ego. This explanation works both for big "miracles" and small ones. Imagine this: Imagine that you have cancer, you pray to God for a cure, you undergo surgery and chemotherapy, and the cancer does go into remission. What cured you? The surgery and chemo: all evidence indicates that this is the case. If God was going to cure you, you would have been able to
skip the surgery and chemo, right? Yet, as a theist, it is a huge ego boost to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe cured you. It means he has "big plans" for the rest of your life.

-Theists might choose to believe that God is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of being alone. They need an invisible friend to talk to in order to cope with lonliness, and God is the "community sanctioned" invisible friend that is accepted in our society. It may be that, for millions of people, an invisible friend is the only way they can cope with being alone. In order to make this invisible friend seem more real, it may help the illusion if you believe that he hears and answers prayers.

-When we are born, we instinctively have a place in our brains for an "all-knowing, all-loving being". When we are young this being is called a parent, and children naturally and instinctively bond to their parents. What if a large number of people never outgrow this phase, and need to fill this place in their brains with something once they have left their real parents and moved on? In other words, what if this place in the brain remains into adulthood for many people, long after it has served its need, and people feel lonely unless they fill this place with something? Having an "all-knowing, all-loving" invisible friend would be an obvious thing to fill it with. If you can heighten the illusion by believeing that this imaginary friend answers prayers, all the better.

Is this a direct proof that God is imaginary? No. But it shows that theists have strong incentives to delude themselves into believing.

Another perfect example is the Middle East, see how they pray before they go about fighting the infidels, the read the Koran with all sincerity believing that Allah will give them victory over the infidels. . .But at the end they always lose. . .

tbaba12345:
Example:1. If you go back 8 generations, you must have had a great, great, great.... grandfather. Scientifically, you can't prove that. You don't have his DNA, you don't know where his grave is, you don't know where his clothes are.

You have nothing, the only way, you can conclude that he existed is by basic rational thinking. Not by scientific evidence.

I don't need a DNA sample to know that I have an ancestor because of one simple fact: "The Y chromosome" (also called Y-DNA) is passed with little "mutations" from father to son, just like (in most cases) a surname. It is these mutations that begin distinct branches and let genealogists find people with recent common ancestors. So Great great great great great great great great-grandpa should have the same "Y-DNA" as his son, his son’s son and so on. As for where he was buried... who cares? Debunked.

tbaba12345:
2. If you believe that your mother is your mother, this belief is based upon testimony. Testimony of father, midwife etc. However, you do not have any scientific evidence that she is your mother. Right now, you believe she is your mother without any scientific test, yet you hold it as truth.

It goes beyond that, my friend. Introducing the phrase: "Like mother like son", there are physical traits and characteristics passed from mother to child through the genes that are easily observable:

-Dimple
-Handedness
-Earlobe
-Eye Color
-Mannerism

Some "physical traits" are passed on only through the mother or only through the father. Others are passed on depending on what traits are strongest between the parents, whether they be "dominant traits" or just more "prevalent" within the family.

In the event the child doesn't exhibit the physical traits/characteristics, science can easily resolve this issue by the method known as "DNA Testing." Debunked.

tbaba12345:
3. If you have never been to China, the only reason, you believe there is a place called china is as a result of consistent testimony.

I know there is a geographical location known as China because thanks to science, I can actually watch her on TV, listen to CCTV on my radio, and learn "Mandarin" using a phone app. I can even pinpoint her exact location on the "World map", or plot her coordinates. Debunked.

tbaba12345:
The point is this: Science is a fantastic but limited method and should be applied only when it is applicable.

Limited?? Science is anything but limited, friend. Science is infinite with endless possibilities. Science examines, calculates and then proposes. Science is "cold hard logic."

RayMcBlue:
I don't need a DNA sample to know that I have an ancestor because of one simple fact: "The Y chromosome" (also called Y-DNA) is passed with little "mutations" from father to son, just like (in most cases) a surname. It is these mutations that begin distinct branches and let genealogists find people with recent common ancestors. So Great great great great great great great great-grandpa should have the same "Y-DNA" as his son, his son’s son and so on. As for where he was buried... who cares? Debunked.

Debunked what exactly what scientific test did you carry out to determine this??

The reason, you know you have a great great great great great great great-grandpa is simple rational thinking plus testimony ("The Y chromosome" (also called Y-DNA) is passed with little "mutations" from father to son).


Proving my point again.

It goes beyond that, my friend. Introducing the phrase: "Like mother like son", there are physical traits and characteristics passed from mother to child through the genes that are easily observable:

-Dimple
-Handedness
-Earlobe
-Eye Color
-Mannerism

Some "physical traits" are passed on only through the mother or only through the father. Others are passed on depending on what traits are strongest between the parents, whether they be "dominant traits" or just more "prevalent" within the family.

In the event the child doesn't exhibit the physical traits/characteristics, science can easily resolve this issue by the method known as "DNA Testing." Debunked.

Debunked what

Basing it on Physical traits is purely out of rational reasoning... You just reasoned. The knowledge to do that is from testimony. You did not carry out tests.. You just keep helping me prove my point inadvertently

You did no science here

Most people have never done DNA tests including you atheists and still believe their mother is their mother from purely rational reasoning..

I know there is a geographical location known as China because thanks to science, I can actually watch her on TV, listen to CCTV on my radio, and learn "Mandarin" using a phone app. I can even pinpoint her exact location on the "World map", or plot her coordinates. Debunked.

That is all testimony, someone drew a map and told you this is china, and also gave you coordinates... All you have is testimony, consistent testimony not science.

Limited?? Science is anything but limited, friend. Science is infinite with endless possibilities. Science examines, calculates and then proposes. Science is "cold hard logic."

,

It has a scope and it is limited, It is pure ignorance to deny it. my friend..

Some Limitations:

i. Sensory perception: Statements that can not be checked by observation lie outside the scientific method. questions such as does God exist? and is there a soul?, subjective conscious experience, are outside the realm of the scientific method.

ii. Time: Science cannot explain the past or the origins of things. eg what was before the Big Bang? and how did the first living cell emerge? are technically outside the realm of the scientific method.

iii. Morality: Science is amoral.


It is obvious from what you have written that you do not know the differences between testimony, rational reasoning and actual science.

The truth is that, there are no rebuttals for what i wrote , it is just the facts.

Allahu is working wonders!
all these terrorists that are bringing trouble for the moslim umaah are getting roped in.

TB is in for murder
Ayo for gun-running.

tbaba12345:

Debunked what exactly what scientific test did you carry out to determine this??

The reason, you know you have a great great great great great great great-grandpa is simple rational thinking plus testimony ("The Y chromosome" (also called Y-DNA) is passed with little "mutations" from father to son).


Proving my point again.



Debunked what

Basing it on Physical traits is purely out of rational reasoning... You just reasoned. The knowledge to do that is from testimony. You did not carry out tests.. You just keep helping me prove my point inadvertently

You did no science here

Most people have never done DNA tests including you atheists and still believe their mother is their mother from purely rational reasoning..



That is all testimony, someone drew a map and told you this is china, and also gave you coordinates... All you have is testimony, consistent testimony not science.

Your arguments above did nothing but assisted me in showing the flaws in your assertions in gleaming clarity.

Rational deduction without scientific proof is pure "fallacious" in grand scale. Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the Katopt. You cannot prove that the kapopt does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some scientific evidence that the katopt exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the katopt is imaginary. Your assertion is borne more out of sentiments than hard logic. No empirical evidence.

Rational deduction backed up with scientific proof is irrefutable "fact." With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist, just like one can utilize DNA testing to determine the legitimacy of their ancestry or bloodline.

tbaba12345:
It has a scope and it is limited, It is pure ignorance to deny it. my friend..

Some Limitations:

i. Sensory perception: Statements that can not be checked by observation lie outside the scientific method. questions such as does God exist? and is there a soul?, subjective conscious experience, are outside the realm of the scientific method.

ii. Time: Science cannot explain the past or the origins of things. eg what was before the Big Bang? and how did the first living cell emerge? are technically outside the realm of the scientific method.

iii. Morality: Science is amoral.


It is obvious from what you have written that you do not know the differences between testimony, rational reasoning and actual science.

The truth is that, there are no rebuttals for what i wrote , it is just the facts.

Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A theist looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it.

A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it, there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition."

In other words, it is only by assuming that the belief in prayer is a superstition and therefore God is imaginary that science can proceed.

For example: Fleming worked with mold for some time, but refining and growing it was a difficult process better suited to a chemist. The work was taken over by a team of chemists and mold specialists, but was cut short when several of them died or relocated.

Did Fleming say, as a religious person would, "The death of this bacteria is a miracle! God has reached down and killed it in response to our prayers!" Of course not. Instead, they completely ignored "God" and understood that the belief in prayer is a superstition. They determined what was actually happening through experimentation and then made useful medicines from the mold. They took a rational approach rather than a religious approach and we all benefit from penicillin and its many derivatives today.

All of science works in this way. Only by assuming that
God is imaginary and prayer is meaningless can science
proceed.

You're right about one thing though, science is amoral. It transcends morality.

RayMcBlue:
Your arguments above did nothing but assisted me in showing the flaws in your assertions in gleaming clarity.

Lol, OMG!! Off topic and irrelevant.

You have moved to deduction... Like I said, you do not seem understand these things.

You have not made deductions, you have applied simple rational reasoning same thing you apply everyday in your life.

If you applied INDUCTION, which is the basis of science in everything in your life, you will not believe most things.

Same with philosophical deductions.

The standards of truths and beliefs in your lives are not held up to these standards. You apply just simple reasoning daily to arrive at truths.

Then you have special standards for God.

Please if you must reply, understand first.