tbaba12345:

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.

^^You seemed confused.

Before we can go any further, please elaborate further on your assertion that "God does not need empirical validation." It would go a long way in clearing up the smoke screen you're deliberately propagating.

^^^

I said it before that Tbaba makes ridiculous claims.

The guy copies arguments fro Hamza Tzortzis, Andalusi and co.


This is why his arguments on morality are half baked. Because his mentors are also half baked.


God is not necessary for there to be objective morality. That is an inescapable reality; 1 + 1 in mathematics is always 2 whether or not God exists.


If I see a child on the road, killing the child would be wrong whether or not God exists.

logicboy01: ^^^

I said it before that Tbaba makes ridiculous claims.

The guy copies arguments fro Hamza Tzortzis, Andalusi and co.


This is why his arguments on morality are half baked. Because his mentors are also half baked.


God is not necessary for there to be objective morality. That is an inescapable reality; 1 + 1 in mathematics is always 2 whether or not God exists.


If I see a child on the road, killing the child would be wrong whether or not God exists.

The simple truth. Morality isn't subjective or democratic. It doesn't need belief in "God" to make it work, period.

RayMcBlue:

^^You seemed confused.

Before we can go any further, please elaborate further on your assertion that "God does not need empirical validation." It would go a long way in clearing up the smoke screen you're deliberately propagating.

No my friend, with all due respect... you are the one confused.

If you understood what has been written, that would have been cleared up..

You believe in evolution, your belief is based on testimony that you have received from different sources. You personally do not have physical evidence nor did you carry out tests. Yet you hold it as a truth.

Even though as an induction process, it can never reach the level of certainty.

Most of the other beliefs in your life are based on simple reasoning or testimony.

The shape of the world, where china is, whether you had a great, great, great, great, grand father et.c

The reasons you hold these as truths is testimony and simple reasoning.

If you apply your kind of special skepticism of God and demanding empirical evidence to all these beliefs, it means you will believe none of them, until you prove them by yourself.

The truth of God can be arrived at by applying the same standards you use daily not applying a hypocritical special standard.

tbaba12345:

No my friend, with all due respect... you are the one confused.

If you understood what has been written, that would have been cleared up..

You believe in evolution, your belief is based on testimony that you have received from different sources. You personally do not have physical evidence nor did you carry out tests. Yet you hold it as a truth.

Even though as an induction process, it can never reach the level of certainty.

Most of the other beliefs in your life are based on simple reasoning or testimony.

The shape of the world, where china is, et.c

The reasons you hold these as truths is testimony and simple reasoning.

If you apply your kind of special skepticism of God and demanding empirical evidence to all these beliefs, it means you will believe none of them, until you prove them by yourself.

lol....the bold is a Hamza Tzortzis argument. I can produce the video if you want. A failed argument

His understanding of evolution is not from testimony- the fact that you can not tell the difference between scientific research and testimony is the reason why you have half baked reasoning or philosophies.

Evolution like any scientific theory has undergone research and peer review. The findings of the research on evolution can be replicated. Other scientists test the validity of the experiments and observations- that is peer review.


The shape of the world can easily be proven beyond doubt and same with china. Video evidence is far different from Testimony of a person. There are videos of china and space recordings of the earth. Even travelling around the ear shows tat it is spherical

Please dont make ridiculous arguments

^^@tbaba12345

You have failed to provide solid arguments backing up your assertions that God deserve a special treatment in the universe. And your stand on morality is a joke.

Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically." Why? Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence?

The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever - here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its
existence.

Yeah, right... makes perfect sense. You must be very proud.

Engaging in arguments with a brick wall is counter productive and time consuming. Adios.

RayMcBlue: ^^@tbaba12345

You have failed to provide solid arguments backing up your assertions that God deserve a special treatment in the universe. And your stand on morality is a joke.

You atheists are the ones creating special standards for God, different from your daily standards.

My convictions are based of God are based on the common sense standard. My belief that the Quran is a miracle, can be easily deduced. It is a pointer to the transcendent.

The Quran, urges men to reason, apply simple reason to arrive at God conclusion.

I can bring up metaphysical events but unless you are present, I do not expect you to believe them.

If God is metaphysical, then it lies beyond the science scope.

Raymcblue, I think, I have tried for this thread.

I want to apologize if I said anything inappropriate.

Thank you for engaging.

God bless.

Signing off.

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.

not sure if troll or you actually believe this...

consciousness beyond the scope of science... really?

deductive reasoning aids your case for Allah. generally speaking I assume? really? then you present your storybook as an example...

good lawd

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....



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....

Maybe you can tell us how long you think a stone will exist before it becomes conscious of itself. I give you from now to eternity to pick a number.