Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
218 replies, posted
So, I stumbled upon this video pretty much arguing, within logic and reason, that a god exists.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xXgsndwxD4[/media]
To me, this is nothing but his interpretation of different scientific aspects, which somehow has consistency with the Qur'an, but the video got me and some people I know into a pretty heated debate, of course, ending with a muslim claiming to be the victor of the discussion, due to his inability to accept any other claims than his own.
There seems to be a lot of praise to this man in the youtube comments.
This is Craig's Cosmological Theorem
P: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Q: The Universe began to exist.
R: Therefore, there is a cause to the universe.
P⊃Q
Q
∴R
Essentially, this is the Theist's argument for God's existence.
But notice, couldn't all three of the above premises be true, without the requirement of God's existence?
The Atheist could argue that God is not a requirement for the above issues.
The truth is, there could be hundreds of causes to the creation of the universe. We just don't know what that cause is for certain.
In this case, the Theist is basically saying...
"We don't know, therefore, God caused the universe."
Which pretty much follows the same logical format as...
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gK2BnYU_Aek/Ts6Ul39osmI/AAAAAAAAIKc/GW2QgyJsYnw/s1600/i-dont-know-therefore-aliens-thumb.jpg[/img]
hey guys look a old book everything in it must be true no questions asked
He also says that science teaches that you can't create something out of nothing.
Doesn't this article: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2000483/Sparks-mirrors-Quantum-scientists-make-nothing.html[/url] invalidate that?
I like 5:50 where he says no scientist ever can make a thing live.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9XzN0-TQZc[/media]
There's just no point argueing against the things he says. Hardly anything is discussion worthy.
[QUOTE=sami-pso;35776029]I like 5:50 where he says no scientist ever can make a thing live.
There's just no point argueing against the things he says. Hardly anything is discussion worthy.[/QUOTE]
If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something [B]live again
[/B]I liked the story at [B]7:28
[/B]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.
"Incredible, a thread about religion where the OP isn't showered with funnies or dumbs... scientific discovery indeed!"
"Oh wait its in Mass Debate, damn."
Interesting video, but I don't really see any point in arguing against him, he's so solidly rooted in his opinion, at some point he'd just... stop and get frustrated.
trying to prove religion is missing the point just as much as trying to disprove religion
Its the ontological argument to. Its essentially using logic to make assumptions.
I stopped around half-way through his Big Bang spiel.
There are multiple theories around the entire event, along with predeceasing the events. He almost immediately showed his poor understanding of these theories by selectively picking words and parts from theories in order to make it sound highly illogical.
As I typed, I let him continue and his entire argument seems to float around "Science contradicting Science." This is about as solid as a slab of jello because he is selectively picking well known theories and either ignoring or selectively choosing alternate/concurring theories on the topic. It seems very ill-informed and scattered, but thankfully the man isn't putting himself on too high of a pedestal for a change.
I know I have not let the whole video go, so maybe there's some revelation at the end, but if we want to have a "Who can contradict itself better: Science or Religion?" war, I'm pretty sure we could have a field day with religion - and if those defending religion try to use alternate interpretations as a defense, then so should science be allowed to use alternate/new/relevant theories -as a whole- as well.
This 'destruction of atheism' is about as Earth-shaking as World Jump Day.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
This is the one that drives me up the wall. No, the scientific world [b]DOES NOT[/b] universally agree on this one in the slightest. There could be everything from singularties to a repetition of the universe to 'poof from nothing'. You can keep going, in a silly fashion: "Well what created that? And that?! And that?!!" That also makes as much sense as what in the ever loving fuck made God? I'm really tired of people using these arguements as definite proofs against science without ever having them used against religion. If God was and always has been - why can't we just say the universe has the same potential to be the same?
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something [B]live again[/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://realdoctorstu.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/defibrillator-paddles.gif[/img]
:v:
Aw man, he didn't end it with a "Checkmate, atheists."
[QUOTE=sami-pso;35776029]I like 5:50 where he says no scientist ever can make a thing live.
There's just no point argueing against the things he says. Hardly anything is discussion worthy.[/QUOTE]
By live thing he means something that is sentient and self-aware (kinda obvious). Why isn't there anything to discuss? I think he makes some good points.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elitetech;35775780]
Doesn't this article: [URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2000483/Sparks-mirrors-Quantum-scientists-make-nothing.html[/URL] invalidate that?[/QUOTE]
Uh not really, read the article for yourself. What he says is true. You cannot create something out of nothing.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35776523][img]http://realdoctorstu.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/defibrillator-paddles.gif[/img]
:v:[/QUOTE]
Now that's actually a good counter argument. Defibrillator can and does "reanimate" literally dead people with no heart or brain activity.
THis man assumes that science cannot contradict science. Someone needs to brush up on their scientific method. Also, you can't really use the law of thermodynamics alongside an all-powerful deity, since they are mutually exclusive in their application and theory.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35776845]
Now that's actually a good counter argument. Defibrillator can and does "reanimate" literally dead people with no heart or brain activity.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Defibrillator, from what I know, simply restart your heartbeat to a certain rhythm.
Also, he's bringing souls into this. Something that has NOT been scientifically proven, and therefore has no reason to be in this discussion at all.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
Wait, if their organs are functioning, why would you define them as completely dead? Does he mean braindead? It's quite possible to revive/restart the brain as long as basic body functions are still happening.
I think one of his biggest flaw is the simplification of evolution and the creation of the universe. And also that he assumes them as some kind of "truth" that the atheists believe in.
Big bang? Oh explosion and creation of stuff.
Evolution? Oh we simply changed and became sentient.
Fact is that that we barely know for sure how the universe was created or why something becomes self-aware. We have theories, they are not absolute truths. As science progresses we learn more about things around us. Big bang may today be the most logical explanation to the creation of the universe, something else may be the best explanation in two weeks.
Look, you're making logical arguments based on our current understanding of physics and applying them to a point where time literally did not exist. You can't apply the logic of building a house to a fucking singularity, and if you think you can you're a naive moron.
Invoking magic when you don't know how something happened has never proven wise at any point in human history, why would you invoke it again now?
[QUOTE=gufu;35776874]THis man assumes that science cannot contradict science. Someone needs to brush up on their scientific method. Also, you can't really use the law of thermodynamics alongside an all-powerful deity, since they are mutually exclusive in their application and theory.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
Actually, Defibrillator, from what I know, simply restart your heartbeat to a certain rhythm.
Also, he's bringing souls into this. Something that has NOT been scientifically proven, and therefore has no reason to be in this discussion at all.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
Wait, if their organs are functioning, why would you define them as completely dead? Does he mean braindead? It's quite possible to revive/restart the brain as long as basic body functions are still happening.[/QUOTE]
Ah I always assumed they restarted a completely still heart :v:
I'm still thinking that by soul and life he's simply meaning consciousness. But let's wait just a few years when we may get self aware artificial intelligence. Should make him shit his pants.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35776950]I think one of his biggest flaw is the simplification of evolution and the creation of the universe. And also that he assumes them as some kind of "truth" that the atheists believe in.
Big bang? Oh explosion and creation of stuff.
Evolution? Oh we simply changed and became sentient.
Fact is that that we barely know for sure how the universe was created or why something becomes self-aware. We have theories, they are not absolute truths. As science progresses we learn more about things around us. Big bang may today be the most logical explanation to the creation of the universe, something else may be the best explanation in two weeks.[/QUOTE]
Except the big bang has been around for decades, and has only ever been proven to be accurate every single time a prediction was made and tested based upon it.
I'm not going to bother with that philosophical bullshit "HOW DO CONSCIOUSNESS" because, ultimately, I don't give a fuck. We were pretty smart, the ones who were smarter than average reproduced more effectively, there you go. Intelligence is only some mystical force of magic brilliance when you make it such, mechanically it follows the same rules as every other attribute.
I find many of his arguements silly.
However, I believe there is some sort of supernatural cause for the Big Bang.
Where did the dust cloud come from, and why did it not happen an infinity of time before it actually happened? Why now? If the dustcloud had always been there, and time was infinite, why did it happen now and not an infinite amount of years before it did?
It is very mysterious indeed. In my opinion, something happened, something that breaks the laws of physics. But what broke the laws of physics?
He attempted to disprove evolution by saying people have souls? Had to shut him off at that point.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;35777011]I find many of his arguements silly.
However, I believe there is some sort of supernatural cause for the Big Bang.
Where did the dust cloud come from, and why did it not happen an infinity of time before it actually happened? Why now? If the dustcloud had always been there, and time was infinite, why did it happen now and not an infinite amount of years before it did?
It is very mysterious indeed. In my opinion, something happened, something that breaks the laws of physics. But what broke the laws of physics?[/QUOTE]
you do know that singularities don't follow the common laws of physics as they are known, right
that they are literally holes in the space time continuum, and that the singularity that existed before the big bang was trillions of times more concentrated than even the most powerful black hole in existence today
how exactly do you invoke causality in a plane without causality
how do you invoke time in a plane without time
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35776991]Except the big bang has been around for decades, and has only ever been proven to be accurate every single time a prediction was made and tested based upon it.
[/QUOTE]
[del]Uh are you perhaps thinking of general relativity? Because I'm quite sure you can't really make tests "based upon it". And I haven't heard it to be "proven to be accurate every single time". [/del] Oh a lot of the conclusion of big bang is the direct result of the understanding of Einstein's work. Nvm
Big Bang is the best explanation for the creation of the universe that we have now.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35776950]I think one of his biggest flaw is the simplification of evolution and the creation of the universe. And also that he assumes them as some kind of "truth" that the atheists believe in.
Big bang? Oh explosion and creation of stuff.
Evolution? Oh we simply changed and became sentient.
Fact is that that we barely know for sure how the universe was created or why something becomes self-aware. We have theories, they are not absolute truths. As science progresses we learn more about things around us. Big bang may today be the most logical explanation to the creation of the universe, something else may be the best explanation in two weeks.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem with most people who don't understand evolution, they oversimplify it to the point where they think we were monkeys and then a human was born and then here we are. It makes so much more sense when you look at it over how long it took, seeing how little we changed over time and it just stacked up to where we are now.
Alright, this video is little more than trying to call out Atheism with generalizations and misuse of scientific, metaphysical, and medical concepts and theories. It relies on audience's emotions and uses unfitting comparisons. And really, all this presentation is, is an attack on Atheism and gross misrepresentation of science.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35776963]I'm still thinking that by soul and life he's simply meaning consciousness. But let's wait just a few years when we may get self aware artificial intelligence. Should make him shit his pants.[/QUOTE]
I have seen a presentation of Artificial Intelligence. The presenter, upon his after-presentation interview has states that true Artificial Intelligence is impossible, because a machine has no soul. And this man is considered to be one of the leaders in the field.
can an all powerful god create a stone he cannot lift?
lolparadoxes
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something [B]live again
[/B]I liked the story at [B]7:28
[/B]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
That's not a good argument at all. That's like someone saying that since someone programmed your thermostat that we live in a computer simulation.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35777054]Uh are you perhaps thinking of general relativity? Because I'm quite sure you can't really make tests "based upon it". And I haven't heard it to be "proven to be accurate every single time".
Big Bang is the best explanation for the creation of the universe that we have now.[/QUOTE]
All of matter was in one place, and then expanded outwards. From this conclusion you can derive the energy that would be released by such an event, the trajectory of the galaxies, pretty much anything that would be affected by that event. IE: Everything.
All you do is measure things and compare them to your predictions, and congratulations. You've implemented and further cemented a theory. Have a biscuit.
[QUOTE=gufu;35777067]I have seen a presentation of Artificial Intelligence. The presenter, upon his after-presentation interview has states that true Artificial Intelligence is impossible, because a machine has no soul. And this man is considered to be one of the leaders in the field.[/QUOTE]
But science has proven time and time again that all that makes us intelligent and what makes us us can be broken down to our brain's makeup. I'd like to see what he's basing that claim off of, just because he's a leader in the field doesn't mean he's right.
[QUOTE=gufu;35777067]Alright, this video is little more than trying to call out Atheism with generalizations and misuse of scientific, metaphysical, and medical concepts and theories. It relies on audience's emotions and uses unfitting comparisons. And really, all this presentation is, is an attack on Atheism and gross misrepresentation of science.
I have seen a presentation of Artificial Intelligence. The presenter, upon his after-presentation interview has states that true Artificial Intelligence is impossible, because a machine has no soul. And this man is considered to be one of the leaders in the field.[/QUOTE]
Einstein rejected the notion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle because he thought it was impossible for the universe to act randomly.
Smart people can be really fucking stupid too, you know.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35777080]All of matter was in one place, and then expanded outwards. From this conclusion you can derive the energy that would be released by such an event, the trajectory of the galaxies, pretty much anything that would be affected by that event. IE: Everything.
All you do is measure things and compare them to your predictions, and congratulations. You've implemented and further cemented a theory. Have a biscuit.[/QUOTE]
All I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of areas in the Big Bang that may and probably will be improved. And when that happens, the theory that we have now will be partly invalid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.