• Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
    218 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kayl;35775672]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][/QUOTE] Not to mention God would also need a cause
i am an atheist and i don't care how it all started as long as i don't have to praise a bearded man i never met. [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] for all i care santa should replace god because atleast santa gives me shit
[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] Defibrillators are used to correct fibrillation (a lot of the time V-fib), if your heart is in fibrillation, i would still consider you "alive", at least biologically alive. Even if you have no electrical cardiac activity you're still alive for a brief amount of time until cellular/biological death kicks in due to a lack of O2 (5-10 minutes). As Swebonny said, defibrillators "reanimate people with no heart activity" This is completely false. A lack of heart activity (no fibrillation or function, "straight flat line") is called asystole, defibrillators need some kind of fibrillation for them to work; if fibrillation/pqrstu is not present in someone they are in asystole or what swebonny says is "no heart activity", a defibrillator won't be helpful until you can get some sort of rhythm present. The way it works with death is legal death, and biological death. I would assume that the guy in the video is referring to biological death.
People go WAY over the borders with this.. It's very simple; We are the next best thing to God, or we are the Gods, or God is just another fictional character we've made up, like any comicbook hero.
Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist. And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.
We don't get to choose God, God chooses us.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35795569]We don't get to choose God, God chooses us.[/QUOTE] Uhh..what?
Cosmological argument + some absurd claims about souls. Completely discreditable. I admire his confidence but sorry he's wrong, besides, science will never be able to disprove the existence of a god simply because theists will continue to redefine what 'god' is. It's ignorance on their part and for the first time since religion was invented, atheists have the moral high ground.
[QUOTE=Kayl;35775672]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... [/QUOTE] I think the causal argument is wrong, but it's not wrong for that reason. They say the creator is god because he must be self-causal. A lot of philosophers agree that the only thing that's self-causal is god by virtue of meaning. I don't agree with the argument, but that's not why it fails. [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;35790636]Not to mention God would also need a cause[/QUOTE] Not really; pretty much everyone who conceptualises god in any semi-meaningful way insists he is self-causal.
The cosmological argument attempts to [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition"]apply properties of things within the universe to the universe itself[/url]. Just because (and this may not even be true) everything we observe [i]within[/i] the universe has a cause does not entitle anyone to try to apply that property to the universe itself. Another problem is that the argument relies too heavily on human intuition in assuming the first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause). Thunderf00t made a pretty good video illustrating this problem and shutting down the cosmological argument. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA[/url]
Oh god, so much ignorance. 1. How did an explosion create the perfection of the universe, when other explosions only destroy? The Big Bang did not create this "perfection", it created chaos, just like any other explosion. Planets and solar systems are a result of gravity and other forces, AFTER the Big Bang. 2. How did natural selection create souls? Atheists don't believe in souls, so this argument is null to begin with. 3. Everything must have been created by something. That means God would have to be created by something. This argument works against both religion and the Big Bang.
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;35776523][img]http://realdoctorstu.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/defibrillator-paddles.gif[/img] :v:[/QUOTE] they're called de[B]fibrillators[/B], they stop the heart [U]fibrillating[/U] they're not called de[highlight]deathers[/highlight], they don't bring you back to life [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Matriax;35794586]Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist. And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.[/QUOTE] Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)
[QUOTE=Eltro102;35799359]they're called de[B]fibrillators[/B], they stop the heart [U]fibrillating[/U] they're not called de[highlight]deathers[/highlight], they don't bring you back to life [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)[/QUOTE] But with where science is going, we may soon be able to create life. (albeit, not on the scale of a human). [url]http://www.istpace.org/Web_Final_Report/WP_1_artificial_cells_conception/the_los_alamos_bug/index.html[/url] and of course, there is the eternal question: what defines life? depending on what life is, we may have already created it.
Straight to the above ^: We have created life.. it's called giving birth. Women do that. Men play their role in it as well. That's creating life, isn't it? And it's in our genes so that we seek to do that, to create more life. Or in other words, to help life recreate itself, evolving in the process. I'm not sure what good it would be trying to create life when we've got plenty of life on this planet already. But some high-end nanotechnology or faster speeds for transferring vast amount of information (Space), if that's where science is headed then it's cool by me. Also creating life in the future could very well mean just a laboratory-conditioned womb where some preserved DNA of the target organism is set to bloom into life and grow from the scratch.
[QUOTE=Elitetech;35775780]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?[/QUOTE] Yeah. Really the boundary between "nothing" and "something" is [I]extremely[/I] ambiguous. I'm pretty sure most sentient beings make the same logical paradox that this man makes some time in early childhood. Hell usually the first question when somebody first learns of the Big Bang is "what made the big bang." It's a great question but it doesnt even begin to prove the existence of god, all it does is show that the true reality of our existence is many, many times more fantastic and outlandish than anything in the bible. In the end that's probably why people choose to be religious (or to [I]remain[/I] religious) They aren't comfortable with the fact that the concept of existence is probably never going to be truly understood, and they really like the compact short-form answer that a god created everything. Science is by definition, a continuous and self-scrutinizing process, so its pretty silly that a fraction of religious people believe it's their job to try and disprove [I]actual observations[/I] in favor of anecdotes written in a book over 2000 years ago. At the end of the day you can choose to believe the facts that we currently know to be true, the facts that as of yet still offer a [I]very[/I] incomplete and largely "unfulfilling" picture of existence, or you can choose to believe the "complete" anecdotal musings of a single medium-sized book and accept those as reality.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35798210] 3. Everything must have been created by something. [/QUOTE] This also neglects to address the concept that the universe has always been. What we know thus far is the known universe, what was before or what may come after we do not know. We do know energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. I find it reasonable to believe that everything has always existed, and that the ball of mass that created the big bang is just a small blip on the infinity that is our reality.
You can most certainly get "something" from "nothing". God is not an alternative answer to anything. It does not answer the questions it aims to solve and it brings forth more questions to be answered. We can't play the god of the gaps game any time we want to you know, it doesn't work that way. [video=youtube;WQhd05ZVYWg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg&list=FLdy2nhNJGQa9kRccEPSDc9Q&index=3&feature=plpp_video[/video] [video=youtube;7ImvlS8PLIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/video]
I believe the idea is that God didn't cause some 'beginning' to the universe at a singular point in time, but continues to cause its existence in every moment. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Matriax;35794586]Given that this guy is Muslim, I assume he believes that Allah is the only god? Why has he chosen his god, over the thousands of others people claim exist. And yeah, the argument is bullshit anyway due to what people here have already said.[/QUOTE] There can only be one God, if they were lots the whole concept wouldn't work. One first cause, not lots. People only choose the theory that seems best to them.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;35777084]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] In case you haven't noticed, we haven't found out everything about the human brain, which is why we can't connect our brains via a plug into a computer and manage the data (like a memory stick). To assume we have no souls is to assume that we have already discovered everything about the mind. But to assume we do is equally an invalid point, therefore rendering this whole argument about souls useless. Neither side can produce valid evidence against each other. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] By the way, never believe a wahabi scholar, every (knowledgable) muslim knows that. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] His argument should have been: "Man cannot create a single grain of sand from scratch, other than what god has provided for him. He cannot create energy (as energy can not be created or destroyed) and convert it to matter, then form the atoms and molecules" and so-on. But there is always room for discussion, so there's probably still a hole somewhere in this theory, and I guess it won't take long for someone to either point it out or make one up. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35779084]And how did they come to this conclusion?[/QUOTE] I shall leave you to work that one out. I won't tell you the answer, you have to find it out. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Eltro102;35799359]they're called de[B]fibrillators[/B], they stop the heart [U]fibrillating[/U] they're not called de[highlight]deathers[/highlight], they don't bring you back to life [editline]2nd May 2012[/editline] Come on man, spell check? Yes a defibrillator does not bring you back to life. The reason for the poor education of Islam is naturally down to the parents and/or scholars. Dr Zakir Naik, for instance, is the greatest bullshitter on the face of the Earth. Islamic "conversion" is very strict. It does not permit any thought of other god, or for that matter even any belif in other gods. Whilst it isn't true that it says to destroy other people who do not agree with you, it does put a large penalty on others, and in general islamic religious conversations they are not brought up, apart from using their belifs to re-enforce theirs, eg "Jesus was in the bible as a propet and a propet in the Qu'ran so he must have been real" (this is like saying Harry Potter is real because he was in the Prisoner of Azkaban AND the other one which i've convienently forgotten or that the Discworld is real because it is refrencened in Diablo 1,2&3 and that its in many books)[/QUOTE] [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] And sorry I typed in the wrong place, for any nit-pickers out there.
[QUOTE=mustachio;35812119]To assume we have no souls is to assume that we have already discovered everything about the mind. But to assume we do is equally an invalid point, therefore rendering this whole argument about souls useless. Neither side can produce valid evidence against each other.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that souls exist, so until evidence is presented proving that souls exist, there really isn't any valid reason to believe they do.
This man makes the foolish assumption that the universe is ordered and "perfection". He never explains this claim or gives any other thought to the matter other than using it as evidence when it has not been proven. His entire argument is based on a false assumption.
The thing I never get is that most religious people seem to think that science works like their religion. In that there is a set of "definitives" that are %100 true and only exist to disprove the existence of god. They act like we see the big bang as a god and that Darwin's origin of species is our bible. The truth is scientists simply don't know, and they strive to find out why. We know that gravity exists and it's an observable force but we have not a fucking clue why it works and why it's linked to the presence of matter. Trying to "disprove" science is like trying to disprove mathematics, all science is, is the observation of what's there and the process of understanding it. It's not a set of ideals or belief's, we don't have faith in anything in science, that's why we look for proof of some thing's existence. There is a very good reason, that at the bottom of his first tree diagram of evolution, Darwin put "I think". He didn't even fucking know if it was true, it was merely his conclusion drawn from the observation of real world phenomena. Now as it stands, I'm all for everyone believing whatever the sodding hell they want, You're probably in a free country (that's you the reader) and thus who am I to say what you can and can't think? Just do me the same courtesy would you? And we can both get along just fine knowing full well that no matter what the other guy thinks you shit will be left well alone.
The human mind has a big flaw, which is the impossibility to take randomness into account while trying to figure something out, creating absurd connections between 'X' and 'Y', when there is none. i.e. Architects makes houses, so God(/s) makes big bang(/s). For a house to exist it takes an architect, thereso, for a big bang to happen, it takes a god. Why may I ask? What if the big bang happened by chance? There are no sure evidence it happened in the first place, for it is a theory, so now you want to compare it to a human creation, fruit of the human intellect, which need a creator to exist? This is a great example of absurd connection between X and Y, which to you may look logical because 'oh there is no other explaination! the events of nature are fruit of the God intellect/will/word/thought, because houses are the fruit of human intellect.' What if there is no connection, and nature events happens at random. This will look less likesly because 'randomness'/'it is unrelated' is not taked by our brain as a valid explaination. Google 'texas sharpshooter fallacy' for more.
[QUOTE=Noble;35812522]Yeah but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that souls exist, so until evidence is presented proving that souls exist, there really isn't any valid reason to believe they do.[/QUOTE] Neither is there evidence against it.
[QUOTE=mustachio;35819999]Neither is there evidence against it.[/QUOTE] Yes, but Occam's razor says the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. Which is more likely, an invisible undetectable force that does not affect any of the dimensions we know of which contains the essence of a person, or that there's nothing.
[QUOTE=mustachio;35819999]Neither is there evidence against it.[/QUOTE] That's a terrible argument though. There's lots of things there's no evidence of, but we have no reason whatsoever to believe in.
Religious Logic (In my opinion) The Big Bang just occurred from nothing? No I think it's more logical that a magical man in the sky must have done it. I don't mean to be offensive, but justifying something coming from nothing, with the belief that an all powerful being came from nothing just doesn't make sense to me. Either the universe was created from random events. Or an all powerful being capable of creating the universe was created from random events. I simply chose to believe the first option.
[QUOTE=mustachio;35819999]Neither is there evidence against it.[/QUOTE] There's no evidence against Optimus Prime either.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;35779229]I tell people that I believe God created the Big Bang and evolution, because he could and did. Some people just don't appreciate merging science with religion. Eh, whatever, I suppose.[/QUOTE] They dont belong together. Religion has no facts and simply can not prove that said "god" exists, Secondly if you actually read the bible it makes absolutely no fucking sense. Whereas science has facts and makes sense. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=darcy010;35822170]Religious Logic (In my opinion) The Big Bang just occurred from nothing? No I think it's more logical that a magical man in the sky must have done it. I don't mean to be offensive, but justifying something coming from nothing, with the belief that an all powerful being came from nothing just doesn't make sense to me. Either the universe was created from random events. Or an all powerful being capable of creating the universe was created from random events. I simply chose to believe the first option.[/QUOTE] Some theoretical physicists believe that if there are universes other than our own, antimatter could have won the battle. This would result in that universe being comprised of antimatter. Beings in that universe would not know the difference because what we call matter would be their antimatter. Every particle has an antiparticle except for photons and they completely annihilate each other upon contact
[QUOTE=Doneeh;35779229]I tell people that I believe God created the Big Bang and evolution, because he could and did. Some people just don't appreciate merging science with religion. Eh, whatever, I suppose.[/QUOTE]and how the hell would you know if he can and did create evolution and the big bang? You dont
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.