Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
218 replies, posted
I don't feel very destroyed, do you guys? :v:
I always find it amusing when someone claims to have the ability to "destroy" a system of faith because they've disproved it somehow.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
An idea is impossible to kill, because there will always be someone out there holding it in their head.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;36070793]I don't feel very destroyed, do you guys? :v:
I always find it amusing when someone claims to have the ability to "destroy" a system of faith because they've disproved it somehow.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
An idea is impossible to kill, because there will always be someone out there holding it in their head.[/QUOTE]
Not really; the idea that the world used to be flat, or composed of earth, fire, air and water died because they're contrary to evidence. If an idea has been successfully disproved there's basically every reason to think it's died.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36069964]Explain "beyond the universe" because you're claiming to possess knowledge of something that is very debatable. I've never heard of anyone stating quantum mechanism existed "before the big bang".[/QUOTE]
Quantum fluctuation are one of the prescribed causes of the big bang, meaning that quantum mechanics had to exist before the universe, as we know it, existed. Something can't create something else that it only exists inside of.
[QUOTE]Where did I state that they won't change? I said its absurd not to accept current research because of assumptions that they will one day change... And no, not all scientific ideas are found because people don't accept current hypothesis of the time period, they are found because new found evidence and experiments pointed the scientists to believing that there's more to it than the current theories state.[/QUOTE]
A large portion of new scientific ideas are theorized before observable evidence is even possible because of the limitations of current instrumentation. The instruments are built to test hypotheses. Of course this isn't true for everything, but it is true for most, especially on smaller scales.
[QUOTE]I never said that, I said the actual religious belief is based off of claim of knowledge in an area where you lack knowledge and therefor an admittance to ignorance. To simply state god exists and he created universe is ignorant. It implies that that is your satisfactory level of knowledge you are willing to accept or at least believe in.[/QUOTE]
I would assume religious people would claim their knowledge brought them to the conclusion of a God, not their lack of knowledge. That's just a projection of your opinion.
[QUOTE]Well that's not really what virtual particles are about. The whole point of them is to keep track of approximations. There are tons of observable physical phenomenon that is attributed to virtual particles. They are not directly observable but they leave observable effects. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, virtual particles are not theoretical, they are a tool that comes up when measuring observables when using perturbation theory. They are currently necessary to quantum mechanics and we have to assume they exist.[/QUOTE]
Before the discoveries of the specifics of magnetic fields EMF was assumed to exist because of a creation of some electric field. That assumption was necessary to do the voltage calculations and it worked, but that doesn't mean it was true. In fact there's no electric field present and the induced voltage can be explained by the magnetic field.
It's the same thing with these "virtual particles." Sure, we can assume they exist for the sake of easy mathematics because it works, but that doesn't really give any validation to their actual existence. Could they exist? Sure! Could it be something completely different? You betcha! We just simply don't know yet. Claiming that they do exist based on nothing more than an effect is just plain wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]I would assume religious people would claim their knowledge brought them to the conclusion of a God, not their lack of knowledge. That's just a projection of your opinion.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that they always start with the conclusion (God exists) and work backwards to try to find arguments to support it. This is how the reasoning process of even the top religious thinkers works.
No sane person could look at the scientific evidence we have and conclude that this world was created 6,000 years ago with 2 naked people in a garden with a talking snake. They've had the story pounded into their head and then try to cherry pick anything that fits the story.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;36070793]I don't feel very destroyed, do you guys? :v:
I always find it amusing when someone claims to have the ability to "destroy" a system of faith because they've disproved it somehow.
[editline]23rd May 2012[/editline]
An idea is impossible to kill, because there will always be someone out there holding it in their head.[/QUOTE]
It can be discredited to the point of absurdity, look at alchemy and witchcraft.
I have the idea of those things in my head but they have effectively been destroyed by scientific investigation, they are now little more than curiosities.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]Quantum fluctuation are one of the prescribed causes of the big bang, meaning that quantum mechanics had to exist before the universe, as we know it, existed. Something can't create something else that it only exists inside of.[/QUOTE]
That's a misconception on your behalf regarding the nature of scientific laws. As I described before laws are not preset to cause an outcome, they are an explanation of an observable outcome, meaning that the outcome and the law exist systematically. The law does not exist in order to create the outcome, it exists as an explanation for the outcome. Quantum fluctuation did not cause the big bang, its an observable mechanism that took part during the big bang in order for matter to be created. It is part of the big bang, it is not a cause for it as the big bang has no cause. The outcome of the big bang has a cause, and that is the quantum mechanics that fell into place during very early universe epoch. Quantum physics did not exist before the big bang. There's no such thing as before the big bang.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]A large portion of new scientific ideas are theorized before observable evidence is even possible because of the limitations of current instrumentation. The instruments are built to test hypotheses. Of course this isn't true for everything, but it is true for most, especially on smaller scales.[/QUOTE]
Direct physical observation is not the only kind of [U]evidence[/U] to lead a scientist towards theorizing a new concept. No concept derives from blind faith in science. For example, string theory has no evidence to support it but it is a mathematically sound theory.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]I would assume religious people would claim their knowledge brought them to the conclusion of a God, not their lack of knowledge. That's just a projection of your opinion.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point again. The outcome of the belief is not important, the belief itself is what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]Before the discoveries of the specifics of magnetic fields EMF was assumed to exist because of a creation of some electric field. That assumption was necessary to do the voltage calculations and it worked, but that doesn't mean it was true. In fact there's no electric field present and the induced voltage can be explained by the magnetic field.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this. EMF is the electromagnetic field produced by moving electrically charged objects. EMF exists.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36071590]It's the same thing with these "virtual particles." Sure, we can assume they exist for the sake of easy mathematics because it works, but that doesn't really give any validation to their actual existence. Could they exist? Sure! Could it be something completely different? You betcha! We just simply don't know yet. Claiming that they do exist based on nothing more than an effect is just plain wrong.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand virtual particles. The whole point of them is if they exist the theory is right but they can't be observed, and if they don't exist then the theory is wrong. All current evidence suggests that quantum field theory is right, therefor virtual particles must exist. The very laws of physics prevent them from being seen or measured. What do you mean it's plain wrong to assume they exist based on the [U]evidence[/U] that suggests they exist? (lamb shift and casimir effect)
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36069339]Maybe it's intuitive to assume everything is caused, but it's definitely not logical.
Personally I think it's much more unintuitive that there's some sort of deity starting it all, than randomness or an infinite regress. There's definitely no deductive logical argument out of the cosmological argument, though.[/QUOTE]
It's hard trying to know how 'intuitive' can be those ideas to someone who is used to them if you yourself aren't related to them. I do think there is a reason why the concept of one or many supreme deities involved in the creation of 'the world' was a common idea among many cultures, and it is related to how intuitive it is to think about the origins of the world in terms of those deities.
Of course, we are now used to think in another kind of reality. And I would agree with you that, given our current knowledge, the concept of god is unintuitive.
Oh lawdie not another A/theist debate. Ok, here's my two cents:
Both are possible. Most of the points he brought up in the video will most likely be possible as time and science pass and grow. Even if when he spoke of creating life he meant a living, breathing, sentient being with a soul, I think some day in the future we will be able to create a sentient being that is fully self aware and capable of learning advanced things. Also, saying you can't create something from nothing? Well, yes, that is a very viable point. However, even though that is a law of physics, laws, like most things, change over time with new discoveries and thoughts. I honestly don't think we're advanced enough as a species to decide which is correct though.
Oh Islamificationphoibia, don't you know god had to hatch from a egg first and that a chicken had to give birth to the egg?
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36079826]Oh lawdie not another A/theist debate. Ok, here's my two cents:[/QUOTE]
This is not an atheist debate, atheist beliefs have nothing to do with this while most theistic beliefs do. This is a science vs personal belief debate.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36079826]Both are possible.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to stop you right there and ask that you first provide evidence to show that creationist claims are possible before deeming it so.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36079826]Most of the points he brought up in the video will most likely be possible as time and science pass and grow.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean? All the points he brings up are already explained through different theories, he's just bringing personal incredulity into play and saying he doesn't agree with the scientific theories because of his own personal religious dogmas.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36079826]Even if when he spoke of creating life he meant a living, breathing, sentient being with a soul, I think some day in the future we will be able to create a sentient being that is fully self aware and capable of learning advanced things.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean "with a soul"? What does artificial intelligence have anything to do with this?
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36079826]Also, saying you can't create something from nothing? Well, yes, that is a very viable point. However, even though that is a law of physics, laws, like most things, change over time with new discoveries and thoughts. I honestly don't think we're advanced enough as a species to decide which is correct though.[/QUOTE]
No, that is not a law of physics. A law of physics is that you CAN get something from nothing.
The person in the video literally has no idea what he is talking about.
Even though they have [B]SOME[/B] proof of God's existence, we don't have enough to disprove atheism. I myself am a Protestant Christian, but that doesn't mean I hate science, and as Einstein himself said, "There is enough evidence to disprove the existence of God as there is to prove it."
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36081622]This is not an atheist debate, atheist beliefs have nothing to do with this while most theistic beliefs do. This is a science vs personal belief debate.
I'm going to stop you right there and ask that you first provide evidence to show that creationist claims are possible before deeming it so.
What do you mean? All the points he brings up are already explained through different theories, he's just bringing personal incredulity into play and saying he doesn't agree with the scientific theories because of his own personal religious dogmas.
What do you mean "with a soul"? What does artificial intelligence have anything to do with this?
No, that is not a law of physics. A law of physics is that you CAN get something from nothing.
The person in the video literally has no idea what he is talking about.[/QUOTE]
Ok, let me clarify.
1. According to creationism there needs to be no evidence. Show me evidence that there is no such thing as aliens.
2. With a soul, as in a living organic brain and body. Not artificial intelligence.
3. I dun goofed on the 'law of physics' thing. Forgive me for that =P
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36082456]1. According to creationism there needs to be no evidence.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean the claim is validated. You can't deem an idea possible simply because you want it to be possible. That's not how reality works unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36082456]Show me evidence that there is no such thing as aliens.[/QUOTE]
Statistics and probability of current cosmological data directly indicate that it is [U]highly[/U] unlikely that we are the only living organisms in the universe.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36082456]2. With a soul, as in a living organic brain and body. Not artificial intelligence.[/QUOTE]I personally do not believe in soul and neither do most scientists. If you are talking about humans creating an intelligent organism, then I'm still not sure what you are trying to get at. How does that relate to anything? Abiogenesis is a proven concept and we know organic matter forms from inorganic matter, but the process of which single celled basic organic matter undergoes to become multicellular organisms takes millions of years under the right conditions. Any intelligence being that we were to create would be deemed artificial.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;36082423]Even though they have [B]SOME[/B] proof of God's existence, we don't have enough to disprove atheism. I myself am a Protestant Christian, but that doesn't mean I hate science, and as Einstein himself said, "There is enough evidence to disprove the existence of God as there is to prove it."[/QUOTE]
Well except that when we tend to argue about god, the debate is essentially "try to disprove god" rather than "prove god". Logically, theists should be trying to answer the second question above all else, since that's how any idea meant to be credible or valid works. It's 'not true' until proven so, and all ideas are not equally valid.
I think the universe came into existence because the probability for something to occur rather than nothing would become 1 in the infinite amount of time before the big bang
[QUOTE=Lilyo;36082836]That doesn't mean the claim is validated. You can't deem an idea possible simply because you want it to be possible. That's not how reality works unfortunately.
Statistics and probability of current cosmological data directly indicate that it is [U]highly[/U] unlikely that we are the only living organisms in the universe.
I personally do not believe in soul and neither do most scientists. If you are talking about humans creating an intelligent organism, then I'm still not sure what you are trying to get at. How does that relate to anything? Abiogenesis is a proven concept and we know organic matter forms from inorganic matter, but the process of which single celled basic organic matter undergoes to become multicellular organisms takes millions of years under the right conditions. Any intelligence being that we were to create would be deemed artificial.[/QUOTE]
Disprove the entire idea of creationism. I am an atheist, but just go on. Do it. My point is, we do not have enough evidence to prove or disprove creationism and that is simply how things are in this world. In the future we may, but not now.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36083972]Disprove the entire idea of creationism. I am an atheist, but just go on. Do it. My point is, we do not have enough evidence to prove or disprove creationism and that is simply how things are in this world. In the future we may, but not now.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is a Creationist's job to prove it, not an Atheist's job to disprove it. As I've said, something is not deemed probable or even possible until there is some backing for it in fact.
[QUOTE=Killer99531;36083972]Disprove the entire idea of creationism. I am an atheist, but just go on. Do it. My point is, we do not have enough evidence to prove or disprove creationism and that is simply how things are in this world. In the future we may, but not now.[/QUOTE]
Validity exists based upon the nature of the evidence that can support the claim. Knowledge and interpretation of observables is what makes up our perceptive reality. A claim is baseless if it is not supported by evidence. Creationism has no evidence to support it as it is based upon faith. Absence of evidence is actually, in most cases, inductively evidence of absence, and note that evidence in this case simply means something that points for or against something, not that it makes that something true or false.
If person A claims that there are magical faeries living in her garden and person B wants to find evidence of these faeries and looks in the entire garden and finds nothing, did he find evidence against the claim that faeries exist in the garden or did he just not find evidence (absence of evidence) to support the claim of faeries existing in the garden, and are the two different? Furthermore, logic can be used to show that something can't exist, but it can't be use to show that something can exist. For example, if I give you a 5''x5''x5'' box and ask you what is inside, there is nothing you can deduct from simply visually observing the box that can indicate or give validity to a claim of something existing in the box, but there is an infinite amount of things you can deduct aren't in the box.
Ask a muslim what came first the chicken, the egg or god.
Get's them every time.
[QUOTE=BloodRayne;36084740]Ask a muslim what came first the chicken, the egg or god.
Get's them every time.[/QUOTE]
How? I don't get it
Because they believe that the chicken, monkey, pig and a few other animals will never make it into heaven?? I dont get it
The most logical conclusion would be that we ourselves have made up the idea called God.
And it's a pretty fascinating concept too, God that is. It's just baffling where it has taken us, with people actually arguing about it seriously whether they believe in it or not.
[editline]27th May 2012[/editline]
In other words, God definitely exists as an idea, much like many other things.
The bible is more of a spiritual thing.
[QUOTE=supertribute;36096118]The bible is more of a spiritual thing.[/QUOTE]
Yep, moral stories and stuff like that. Some of them stick, while some of them are old and questionable, like from the middle ages where people wanted other people dead for the most ridiculous reasons.
Actually they're everywhere not just in the bible, but also modern tv-series have moral stories and spiritual stuff which the writers want to be brought up, much like the writers of bible.
[QUOTE=supertribute;36096118]The bible is more of a spiritual thing.[/QUOTE]
Somehow I don't think the majority of Christian church leaders would agree with you.
energy is never created nor destroyed, it just changes form
there i just destroyed that idiot's entire argument
[QUOTE=Hayburner;36103117]energy is never created nor destroyed, it just changes form
there i just destroyed that idiot's entire argument[/QUOTE]
not really, scientific laws are secondary to metaphysically necessity. the problem with the argument is that it's not metaphysically necessary.
Metaphysically necessities derive from the nature of the universe, and they state that existence could not be other than it is at the moment due to the nature of the universe. The laws of physics deem something as metaphysically necessary.
[QUOTE=sami-pso;35776029]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]
No, he's saying scientists haven't poured some chemicals into a tube and created some sort of living thing and he would be correct. But his other points are kinda silly.
[QUOTE=aydin690;36106211]No, he's saying scientists haven't poured some chemicals into a tube and created some sort of living thing and he would be correct.[/QUOTE]
Um he would be incorrect. Abiogenesis is proven to work. Organic matter can be created from inorganic matter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.