tintingz:
No, if we don't understand it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist,

Good. How then are you certain that God doesn't exist if you hold the view that whatever we don't understand yet doesn't automatically rule out its existence?

we shouldn't jump into conclusion it's supernatural or fill the gap with God.

Of consciousness, where do you understand its immaterial part to have come from? You don't understand it today, science will definitely understand it later, but it's definitely not God, right?

It doesn't mean we can't understand it in the future.

You have to give reason why you think God does not exist. That's how to argue, not to say you'll understand why he doesn't later.

In a nutshell we should avoid fallacies.

Why do you think something can come from nothing is not the greatest fallacy ever propagated?

Riduane:


Good. How then are you certain that God doesn't exist if you hold the view that whatever we don't understand yet doesn't automatically rule out its existence?

I don't think I have seen any Atheists that said God doesn't exist for certain, there might be but I haven't seen any.

I don't say God doesn't exist, I say I lack belief in God since it lack evidence, I have no reason to believe God exist until proven.

There might be a God or Gods out there, or even aliens, no one knows what the first cause is or if there is any.

But I know for sure Allah doesn't exist. That's one thing I know about man-made personal Gods.

Of consciousness, where do you understand its immaterial part to have come from? You don't understand it today, science will definitely understand it later, but it's definitely not God, right?

There's no evidence of consciousness being immaterial, for now we know consciousness is from the brain further study is still on. Even if consciousness is discovered to immaterial it doesn't suddenly prove your God or does it?

For now science has not fully understand the brain, saying well it's God is fallacious.

You have to give reason why you think God does not exist. That's how to argue, not to say you'll understand why he doesn't later.

Refer to my first post above.

Why do you think something can come from nothing is not the greatest fallacy ever propagated?

There are two cosmological argument on this and both have been explained.

Something can't come from nothing.
Something can come from nothing.

But I don't subscribe to "something can come from nothing".

Logically something cannot come from nothing, practically we haven't experience nothing to know what nothing is, so I don't think something can come from nothing.

So if something cannot come from nothing, everything must have a cause, so the question is what causes your God?

Theist are actually the ones believing something can come from nothing.

Born2Freak:





Arrant nonsense.


What the hp are you talking about? Is it not with archeology and carbon dating we use to uncover past histories?

Cool down, I am not talking about age/date. (that's what carbon dating will give). Age is just a number that estimates when an organism came into existence.

Carbon dating can only tell you the age and it is not even 100% accurate.

Can carbon dating tell us about our past experiences, emotions and stories? That's what I meant by reality of the past. We all believe we have past experiences and science can NEVER prove our past using physical processes.

Born2Freak:


Consciousness has been studied by scientists and we have been making progress
Onit.

Lol, most of the approaches (biological, non-materialistic, materialistic approaches) by science on subjective consciousness have lapses and they don't really explain it. If you really examine and scrutinize the scientific method and the philosophy of science, you will understand that subjective consciousness is beyond the reach of science.


A theistic approach makes more sense than all.

Born2Freak:



Does your religion reveal any useful truth? No. It is inferior to science. A society without Islam can survive

Yes, my religion gives life a meaning and a purpose, something your atheism can't address. For your atheism, the formula is simple: no God, which includes the associated concepts of Divine accountability, equals no ultimate hope, no values and no purpose. It also leads to no eternal and meaningful happiness. A society with Islam provides us with answers to all these issues.

A society without Islam is like a gushing river without a dam to restrain it. Sooner or later, it will overflow its courses and lead to utter ruins for its denizens.

Born2Freak:


A society without science and naturalism cannot survive

Partially true

tintingz:
I don't think I have seen any Atheists that said God doesn't exist for certain, there might be but I haven't seen any.

Let's break this down a bit.

Do you agree that unicorn never existed or not?

I don't say God doesn't exist,

Interesting. Saying something doesn't exist, and lacking believe in the existence of something, what's the difference please? You appear to be confused that I thought.

I say I lack belief in God since it lack evidence, I have no reason to believe God exist until proven.

First, you need to define what you term "evidence". Is there an objective definition of evidence? Does your definition of evidence encompasses what the extension of scientific research limitation?

There might be a God or Gods out there, or even aliens, no one knows what the first cause is or if there is any.

Do you understand the philosophical term called SUBSTANCE?

But I know for sure Allah doesn't exist. That's one thing I know about man-made personal Gods.

You're seeming jittery now. At least we have to take the argument one by one. Let's finish up with the current before discussing this.

There's no evidence of consciousness being immaterial,

Wow! How so? So the brain, a material thing, just started bringing pictures, awareness of one's environment, awareness of oneself, just like that? You goofed here.. And probably you know not what consciousness is.

for now we know consciousness is from the brain further study is still on. Even if consciousness is discovered to immaterial it doesn't suddenly prove your God or does it?

If it doesn't prove God, what does it prove? Consciousness came from nothing too?

For now science has not fully understand the brain, saying well it's God is fallacious.

Science cannot fully understand because science is limited material and empirical. Science doesn't deal with immaterial. How long will you still wait for science to delve into what it's not accustomed to?

There are two cosmological argument on this and both have been explained.
Something can't come from nothing.
Something can come from nothing.
But I don't subscribe to "something can come from nothing".

Logically something cannot come from nothing, practically we haven't experience nothing to know what nothing is, so I don't think something can come from nothing.

Read the bolded again, are you making any sense? How can you say logically it's not possible, but further go on to say, you haven't experienced NOTHING and so you don't know what it is, and yet then concluded that YOU DON'T THINK something can come from the same NOTHING you haven't experienced. Isn't it obvious that you don't even know what you're saying with your obvious confusion of what you know and what you are trying to shy away from?

Let me make it simple for you. What's your understanding of 'NOTHING'? Simple 'I don't know' or give us your understanding of it.

So if something cannot come from nothing, everything must have a cause, so the question is what causes your God?

God is that which is not dependent on anything else and everything is dependent on it.

Don't worry we'll talk at length on this.

Theist are actually the ones believing something can come from nothing.

God exits by necessity. He's the uncaused caused. Please read up argument from necessity and if you want me to school you on it, it'd be a privilege.

Riduane:


Even Buhari don't share 50:50 with Tinubu

So what's the share?

tintingz:
What other methods do you suggest?

Science deal with things that can be observed, experiments. It's not about trust, it's about things that can be tested objectively by anybody.

You aren't getting the point. Yes, science deals with experiments but your own knowledge of science is based on testimonial knowledge.

Your knowledge of the world being a sphere is an example. This belief of yours is not based on mathematics or science. It is purely centred on testimony. You may say: “I have seen pictures”, “I have read it in science books”, “All my teachers told me”, “I can go on the highest mountain peak and observe the curvature of the Earth”, and so on.

However, upon intellectual scrutiny, all of these answers fall under testimonial knowledge. Seeing pictures or images is testimonial because you have to accept the say-so of the authority or person who said it is an image of the world. Learning this fact from science textbooks is also due to testimonial transmission, as you have to accept what the authors say as true. This also applies when referring to your teachers.

This source of knowledge and others like moral truths, logical and mathematical truths, science can't account for them. Yet, they are vital.

tintingz:

Even if we destroy all scientific research today and redo the research we will still get same results of the previous research.

This is insinuating that science is static and experiments overtime will always yield the same results. This is wrong as regards science. All scientific theories are ‘work in progress’ and ‘approximate models’.

There are things you don't understand about experiments in science. Experiments in science work on limited resources and they draw a general conclusion from it. Scientists heavily rely on inductive arguments to form conclusions about the data that they have observed. However, since all observations are limited or based on a particular set of observed data, then deriving a conclusion based on limited data will not be certain.

Example, science tells us that pure water boils at 100°C, but it is based on inductive arguments cos they have NEVER tested every sources of pure water on earth. They simply concluded on the limited research they did.

tintingz:

And yes, there are empirical evidence of the earth curvature.

As if he has seen it . Your belief of earth's curvature is purely testimonial, you are trusting other's people reports.

tintingz:

Lol, this is just confirming bias. Every Religion point signs to their Gods to prove it existence. This is more like a post hoc fallacy, "Because this, therefore God".

You can't possibly with empirical evidence connect a phenomena to Allah, you can't, you only use your confirmation bias to do so.

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." -Isaac Newton

This is what I am telling you to do, look at things around you, how they are fashioned and created, look at your own creation and tell me that you happened by chance without any purpose.

tintingz:

The only empirical evidence to support your God existence is doing miracles in his name.

E.g split the moon by mentioning Allah's name, if everyone can do this then this shows an evidence Allah is somewhere answering.

Miracles belong to the Prophets of Allah to support their prophethood. Everyone can't do miracles as per Islam. The greatest miracle is the Qur'an.

What we have now is charismata. It is an unusual event which Allah manifests through some of his Auliya for supporting a mundane or spiritual matter.

tintingz:

Not true. I don't know why most Muslims use his line everytime like they know my mind already.

If you can empirical prove Allah today I'm ready to revert back to Islam. This is something I will never break. One of the reasons I stop believing in Allah is no evidence support his existence.

Lol, haven't you disputed many personal experience of people and accused them of suffering from schizophrenia? Didn't you accuse people of hallucinations and delusions when they said they spiritual encounter?

If a sign should come to you now, with how you have rejected logical reasons in the past, you will certain reject the signs cos you're not sincere with yourself.

The Qur'an says
Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 14:
وَلَوْ فَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَابًا مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ فَظَلُّوا فِيهِ يَعْرُجُونَ

And even if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they were to continue ascending thereto,

And what will their reply be? The Qur'an answers
Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 15:
لَقَالُوا إِنَّمَا سُكِّرَتْ أَبْصَارُنَا بَلْ نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ مَّسْحُورُونَ
They would surely say: "Our eyes have been (as if) dazzled. Nay, we are a people bewitched."

That's what you will say if you see a sign cos the sincerity is lost.

tintingz:

I realize that using logic as argument for your God is more like an idea than being real. Logic is an idea I hope you know that.

Even with logic, there are flaws in argument for Allah.

You can't stand logic for God without shooting yourself in the leg, we've been there before and you were busy shifting goalpost and evading questions.

Riduane:


Let's break this down a bit.

Do you agree that unicorn never existed or not?

Unicorns never existed.

Interesting. Saying something doesn't exist, and lacking believe in the existence of something, what's the difference please? You appear to be confused that I thought.

God doesn't exist is a certain word. One with this position should have evidence for this.

I lack belief in God or Gods existence means lacking "the belief in God existence". Something like you believe God exist, I told you to prove it, you aren't able to provide sufficient evidence God exist, so I lack your beliefs in God existence.

God does not exist and lack in beliefs God exist are two different things.

Richard Dawkins scale analyzed this.

First, you need to define what you term "evidence". Is there an objective definition of evidence? Does your definition of evidence encompasses what the extension of scientific research limitation?

We all know evidence has to do with facts which can be objectively confirm to be true.

Do you understand the philosophical term called SUBSTANCE?

No, tell me more.

You're seeming jittery now. At least we have to take the argument one by one. Let's finish up with the current before discussing this.

Jittery? Lol, you must be Prof Xavier.

Wow! How so? So the brain, a material thing, just started bringing pictures, awareness of one's environment, awareness of oneself, just like that? You goofed here.. And probably you know not what consciousness is.

Lol, did you listen to your teacher when they taught you the senses?

Did you really ask how the brain started bringing pictures? Like seriously?

How did you know you're using a phone to type?

The brain is our consciousness, if anything happens to the brain affect you.

If it doesn't prove God, what does it prove? Consciousness came from nothing too?

It will only prove there's something beyond our materialism not God. It can be a matrix, it can be another dimension, it can be anything(many dots) but doesn't connect to any God. You will have to provide proof to connect the dots with God.

Just like acclaimed supernatural events, it doesn't necessarily prove God, it only shows there's something we don't understand, it can supernatural or natural.

Consciousness comes from the brain, that's what we know.

Or why can't consciousness come from Aliens, why must it be God?

Science cannot fully understand because science is limited material and empirical. Science doesn't deal with immaterial. How long will you still wait for science to delve into what it's not accustomed to?

Science being limited doesn't mean it's stuck, it's only lack omniscient(absolutism), science evolve with time.

Has anyone prove immaterialism? If you have prove of immaterialism show me and what methods they use.

As long as evidences are presented, I will never jump into fallacious conclusion: therefore it's this. Your conclusions can be err, why not leave the gap as it's till we know what should be there.

I can tell you many phenomena that are associated with gods which are false today because we know better now.

Read the bolded again, are you making any sense? How can you say logically it's not possible, but further go on to say, you haven't experienced NOTHING and so you don't know what it is, and yet then concluded that YOU DON'T THINK something can come from the same NOTHING you haven't experienced. Isn't it obvious that you don't even know what you're saying with your obvious confusion of what you know and what you are trying to shy away from?

Logically it's not possible. The logical arguments is "something must come from something". It's logical because nothing has no property which cannot beget something. Secondly it's logical because we have not experience nothing, what logic do we have to make up from nothing?

Is that you have problem with "I don't think" or what?

Let me make it simple for you. What's your understanding of 'NOTHING'? Simple 'I don't know' or give us your understanding of it.

Nothing has "no property" to be called something.

God is that which is not dependent on anything else and everything is dependent on it.

Don't worry we'll talk at length on this.

Answer this,

1. Where did God came from?
2. How did God came into being?
3. From what did God create everything from?


Let's see your response.

God exits by necessity. He's the uncaused caused. Please read up argument from necessity and if you want me to school you on it, it'd be a privilege.

This is some silly excuse.

God exist by necessity, isn't that deterministic: everything must be in cause and effect?

- Why not Aliens exist by necessity?
- How did you arrive that the uncaused cause must be a God?
- How did you arrive that this God is uncaused? Why not the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Why not the universe being uncaused?

Aren't you giving excuse that SOMETHING can come or exist from NOTHING?

lanrexlan:


You aren't getting the point. Yes, science deals with experiments but your own knowledge of science is based on testimonial knowledge.

Your knowledge of the world being a sphere is an example. This belief of yours is not based on mathematics or science. It is purely centred on testimony. You may say: “I have seen pictures”, “I have read it in science books”, “All my teachers told me”, “I can go on the highest mountain peak and observe the curvature of the Earth”, and so on.

However, upon intellectual scrutiny, all of these answers fall under testimonial knowledge. Seeing pictures or images is testimonial because you have to accept the say-so of the authority or person who said it is an image of the world. Learning this fact from science textbooks is also due to testimonial transmission, as you have to accept what the authors say as true. This also applies when referring to your teachers.

Oh my goodness. I believe in testimonial science? Lol

Like the scientific research published are not examined by various scientists before published?

Go back and read the definition of science and it methods.

This source of knowledge and others like moral truths, logical and mathematical truths, science can't account for them. Yet, they are vital.

Lol. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Science has nothing to do with morality, this is a philosophical aspect.

Logic and mathematics are field in science.

The only job of science is to explain the the phenomena around us not morality or some stuff. We can only use scientific research to support moral grounds not the other way round.

This is insinuating that science is static and experiments overtime will always yield the same results. This is wrong as regards science. All scientific theories are ‘work in progress’ and ‘approximate models’.

I said if we destroy all scientific research TODAY.

Except if new discoveries pop up it doesn't change the scientific fact already discovered.

It's a fact the sun is million meters away from the earth, we will still get same result because it's a fact.

There are things you don't understand about experiments in science. Experiments in science work on limited resources and they draw a general conclusion from it. Scientists heavily rely on inductive arguments to form conclusions about the data that they have observed. However, since all observations are limited or based on a particular set of observed data, then deriving a conclusion based on limited data will not be certain.

Are all observations limited? Is this absolute that all observations are limited?

What do you mean by particular set of observed data?

Example, science tells us that pure water boils at 100°C, but it is based on inductive arguments cos they have NEVER tested every sources of pure water on earth. They simply concluded on the limited research they did.

Lol. Did science tells us pure water boils at 100°C or it advised we boil pure water to that degree?

As if he has seen it . Your belief of earth's curvature is purely testimonial, you are trusting other's people reports.

Is the earth flat?

Because I'm ready to debunk this curvature thing. Just answer if the earth is flat or not.

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." -Isaac Newton

This is what I am telling you to do, look at things around you, how they are fashioned and created, look at your own creation and tell me that you happened by chance without any purpose.

The fine tuning argument as been debunked, try again Newton. This is 2020.

Miracles belong to the Prophets of Allah to support their prophethood. Everyone can't do miracles as per Islam. The greatest miracle is the Qur'an.

So you believe in the miracles written in the book done by your prophet?

If people can't do miracles with Allah's name now, how can we know Allah is a real being not imaginary?

What we have now is charismata. It is an unusual event which Allah manifests through some of his Auliya for supporting a mundane or spiritual matter.

Do you have anyone that can demonstrate this?

Lol, haven't you disputed many personal experience of people and accused them of suffering from schizophrenia? Didn't you accuse people of hallucinations and delusions when they said they spiritual encounter?

Is there away you can confirm it's not hallucination or schizophrenia?

Like how can you tell my seeing of a blue flying fire breathing monkey is my hallucinations or not?

If a sign should come to you now, with how you have rejected logical reasons in the past, you will certain reject the signs cos you're not sincere with yourself.

The Qur'an says
Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 14:
وَلَوْ فَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَابًا مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ فَظَلُّوا فِيهِ يَعْرُجُونَ

And even if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they were to continue ascending thereto, The Qur'an made a fallacious statement. Try again.

How can I reject a sign that's obvious? When I'm not insane. It's like saying the sun is not above when it's obvious it's there.

[quote]And what will their reply be? The Qur'an answers
Surah Al-Hijr, Verse 15:
لَقَالُوا إِنَّمَا سُكِّرَتْ أَبْصَارُنَا بَلْ نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ مَّسْحُورُونَ
They would surely say: "Our eyes have been (as if) dazzled. Nay, we are a people bewitched." Lol. We can only call you deluded people if you can't objectively show any sign.

[quote]That's what you will say if you see a sign cos the sincerity is lost.

Fallacy.

You can't stand logic for God without shooting yourself in the leg, we've been there before and you were busy shifting goalpost and evading questions.

Don't you see the irony here.

If your God is actually real, you won't be his mr. speaker here.

Born2Freak:
Empiree,

What is the ruling on using sanitizers which contain alcohol?

I found another hand sanitizing solution in recent research which is sharia compliance. It is natural herbs. If I have time later in the day I will post it. Currently on the frontline.

We learn everyday

tintingz:
Unicorns never existed.

Did you have evidence for unicorn and you were not provided with it, and then concluded that it never exist? Or you just simply and certainly know that it never existed?

[quote God doesn't exist is a certain word. One with this position should have evidence for this. [/quote]

Good. In order words, you're not certain whether God exists or not?
If this is your position, why argue blatantly against the evidences of God so far?

I lack belief in God or Gods existence means lacking "the belief in God existence". Something like you believe God exist, I told you to prove it, you aren't able to provide sufficient evidence God exist, so I lack your beliefs in God existence.

Is this not tantamount to an admission that God does not exist unless proven otherwise?

God does not exist and lack in beliefs God exist are two different things.

No. They are the same thing, you're just confusing yourself more. Trying to stay in a position that'd be fallacious while talking fallacy is what you're doing here. You have to admit that, after searching for evidence and non was supposedly provided, it is safe for you to ultimately say God does not exist. For if you're to admit that God exist after been shown a sufficient prove, your position will still look foolish because you seem to be very sure that there can never be a first cause, and we must certainly have a first cause to establish the existence of God.

Think well about this before replying me abeg^^

Richard Dawkins scale analyzed this. We all know evidence has to do with facts which can be objectively confirm to be true.

Is the evidence for consciousness objective? Take note that the evidence that I'm conscious is solely subjective to me, and yours subjective to you. How then can you conclude that evidence is objective? How about evidence of the immaterial part of that you and I are consciousness of, is there any established argument against it? Is the evidence for the origin of earth big bang objective? Is the evidence for Theory of evolution objective?

No, tell me more.

To make is easy for you to understand, Imagine a table. A table is made of wood. Wood is composed of cellulose fibres and lignin, which can then be reduced to monosaccharides which are compounds of the elements CARBON, HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN. We can further reduce down to subatomic particles such as electrons and protons and then quarks.

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

What I'm trying to say in essence is that, matter is composed of a lot of things. Without the combination of all these things matter can't be. Also it establish that everything called matter is dependent on many different particles to be whole. However, we hit a point where we reach an end to materiality. This is known as “substance”. Because substance is that which is not dependent on anything else.

No matter what you reduce down — tables, trees, people, planets, stars — you will find a substance that can no longer be reduced and nor is it dependent on anything else.

Understand?

Jittery? Lol, you must be Prof Xavier. Lol, did you listen to your teacher when they taught you the senses?
Did you really ask how the brain started bringing pictures? Like seriously? How did you know you're using a phone to type? The brain is our consciousness, if anything happens to the brain affect you.

You're saying rubbish, and you obviously know nada!

The brain is a material thing. It's can be seen and touched. But what triggered it to do the work it's doing is what consciousness.

Imagine you having a TV in your room. The TV is material thing, obviously, but how can the TV show supersport3? Do you just say it's because the TV is meant to show whatever that's why supersport 3 just popped up just like that?

Please think well before replying oh.. And let's see who didn't pay attention to their teacher in school.

It will only prove there's something beyond our materialism not God.

Goofing as usual. You said "not" God, how can you be so sure it's not God if you're really giving in for objectivity?

It can be a matrix, it can be another dimension, it can be anything(many dots) but doesn't connect to any God. You will have to provide proof to connect the dots with God.

How can you say it "can be a matrix" But cannot say ''it can be God"? You see it's obvious you know the possibility of the truth, but you're too arrogant to even abhor the idea of God in your mind. That's too bad.

Just like acclaimed supernatural events, it doesn't necessarily prove God, it only shows there's something we don't understand,

You appears to know what proves God, necessarily and what doesn't prove God necessarily. Could you please state them?

it can supernatural or natural. Consciousness comes from the brain, that's what we know.

I'm not denying consciousness doesn't come from the brain, the question is, is this consciousness material?

If the TV is showing supersport3, do you just assume it's what it's meant for that's why it's showing it rather than admit some immaterial signals are in the TV?

Think hard brother.

Or why can't consciousness come from Aliens, why must it be God?

What is aliens? That's the question you need to understand. We have defined God to be the uncaused cause. Unmoved mover. We have defined him to be totally independent and everything that exists is dependent on him. We have defined him to transcend time and the universe. I ask again, what do you define aliens to be, because you're resorting to rubbish imagination as usual

Science being limited doesn't mean it's stuck, it's only lack omniscient(absolutism), science evolve with time.

There are some position for which science can't come close to, if it does it would invalidate what the it's source. Can science establish what transcends time and the universe? Of course not. Science is limited to time an the physical and observable things within the universe.

Has anyone prove immaterialism? If you have prove of immaterialism show me and what methods they use.As long as evidences are presented, I will never jump into fallacious conclusion: therefore it's this. Your conclusions can be err, why not leave the gap as it's till we know what should be there. I can tell you many phenomena that are associated with gods which are false today because we know better now.

This doesn't deny the fact that the universe has its origin. What is the origin?

Logically it's not possible. The logical arguments is "something must come from something".

Good.

It's logical because nothing has no property which cannot beget something. Secondly it's logical because we have not experience nothing, what logic do we have to make up from nothing?is that you have problem with "I don't think" or what? Nothing has "no property" to be called something.

Answer this,

1. Where did God came from?
2. How did God came into being?
3. From what did God create everything from?

Let's see your response.

Before I attempt your questions, we need to establish the origin of the universe. Do you believe the universe has its origin, hence created?

This is some silly excuse.
God exist by necessity, isn't that deterministic: everything must be in cause and effect?
- Why not Aliens exist by necessity?
- How did you arrive that the uncaused cause must be a God?
- How did you arrive that this God is uncaused? Why not the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Why not the universe being uncaused?
Aren't you giving excuse that SOMETHING can come or exist from NOTHING?

I'll come back to this later.

lanrexlan:
So what's the share?

Maybe 98.8 : 1.2

Riduane:


Good. How then are you certain that God doesn't exist if you hold the view that whatever we don't understand yet doesn't automatically rule out its existence?

Where did i made mention of this?

What I know for certain is Allah doesn't exist.

Of consciousness, where do you understand its immaterial part to have come from? You don't understand it today, science will definitely understand it later, but it's definitely not God, right?

What you're yet to prove is your immaterialism.

You have to give reason why you think God does not exist. That's how to argue, not to say you'll understand why he doesn't later.

Allah doesn't exist.

There are over thousands of man--made Gods and Allah is part of them.

Why do you think something can come from nothing is not the greatest fallacy ever propagated?

Not my position.

Empiree, do you watch Mohammed hijab and Subboor on YouTube

Rilwayne001:


Did you have evidence for unicorn and you were not provided with it, and then concluded that it never exist? Or you just simply and certainly know that it never existed?

Unicorns never existed, it's base on fairytales.

Good. In order words, you're not certain whether God exists or not?
If this is your position, why argue blatantly against the evidences of God so far?

There can be a first cause or not, it's doesn't necessary has to be a God. No one knows what a first cause could be.

What evidence of God?

Is this not tantamount to an admission that God does not exist unless proven otherwise?

No, it means I've no reason to believe your God exist since it lack evidence. Not that God cannot exist, I've no reason to believe one exist so i lack the belief.

No. They are the same thing, you're just confusing yourself more. Trying to stay in a position that'd be fallacious while talking fallacy is what you're doing here. You have to admit that, after searching for evidence and non was supposedly provided, it is safe for you to ultimately say God does not exist. For if you're to admit that God exist after been shown a sufficient prove, your position will still look foolish because you seem to be very sure that there can never be a first cause, and we must certainly have a first cause to establish the existence of God.

You're putting words in my mouth. Stop it. Lanre also did same.

A first cause can exist, no one knows and if it does exist we dont know what it's! This is where I'm agnostic.

Again, I said I've no reason to believe God exist until it's proven, not God doesn't exist.

These are two different positions.

Saying God doesn't exist mean God cannot exist, this is a gnostic Atheists position.
Saying you have no reason to believe God exist means you haven't been convinced with evidence God exist not that God cannot exist, you just haven't see reason why one exist so you lack belief one exist.

Think well about this before replying me abeg^^

Is the evidence for consciousness objective? Take note that the evidence that I'm conscious is solely subjective to me, and yours subjective to you. How then can you conclude that evidence is objective? How about evidence of the immaterial part of that you and I are consciousness of, is there any established argument against it? Is the evidence for the origin of earth big bang objective? Is the evidence for Theory of evolution objective?

Science have not fully understand the brain yet, what we know now Is the brain is responsible for our consciousness, this can be demonstrated objectively.

Consciousness being immaterial has no evidence, it can't be demonstrated unless if you can do that. I'm all here.

To make is easy for you to understand, Imagine a table. A table is made of wood. Wood is composed of cellulose fibres and lignin, which can then be reduced to monosaccharides which are compounds of the elements CARBON, HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN. We can further reduce down to subatomic particles such as electrons and protons and then quarks.

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

What I'm trying to say in essence is that, matter is composed of a lot of things. Without the combination of all these things matter can't be. Also it establish that everything called matter is dependent on many different particles to be whole. However, we hit a point where we reach an end to materiality. This is known as “substance”. Because substance is that which is not dependent on anything else.

No matter what you reduce down — tables, trees, people, planets, stars — you will find a substance that can no longer be reduced and nor is it dependent on anything else.

Understand?

How did you assume there is a point you can't reduce something to? How did you assume there's a end?

If something can be reduce to the point it can't be reduced doesn't that mean something can come from nothing?

Doesn't that also mean cause and effect doesn't apply to all?

You're saying rubbish, and you obviously know nada!

The brain is a material thing. It's can be seen and touched. But what triggered it to do the work it's doing is what consciousness.

Imagine you having a TV in your room. The TV is material thing, obviously, but how can the TV show supersport3? Do you just say it's because the TV is meant to show whatever that's why supersport 3 just popped up just like that?

Please think well before replying oh.. And let's see who didn't pay attention to their teacher in school.

I don't even understand the nonsense you said here.

The Brain receive information and we act on the information, if i hit you on your head you can go unconscious because your consciousness is from the brain.

You haven't given any practical reason consciousness is immaterial.

Goofing as usual. You said "not" God, how can you be so sure it's not God if you're really giving in for objectivity?

My point is, it does not necessary proves God, it just proves there's something beyond materialism not necessary God.

I hope you know what post hoc fallacy is.

How can you say it "can be a matrix" But cannot say ''it can be God"? You see it's obvious you know the possibility of the truth, but you're too arrogant to even abhor the idea of God in your mind. That's too bad.

I didn't say it cannot be God, I said it's not necessary proves God, it can be matrix or another dimension we have no knowledge of. These are hypothesis people made up of reality.

You appears to know what proves God, necessarily and what doesn't prove God necessarily. Could you please state them?

There are many arguments about God.

Empirical evidence should prove God you're talking about.

When it comes to disproving your God in the book there are various argument like argument of evil, omnipotent argument, creation argument etc.

What can convince me your God exist is empirical evidence like miracles I mentioned earlier.

I'm not denying consciousness doesn't come from the brain, the question is, is this consciousness material?

If the TV is showing supersport3, do you just assume it's what it's meant for that's why it's showing it rather than admit some immaterial signals are in the TV?

Think hard brother.

If consciousness comes from the brain isn't that material? Is the brain not material?

What is aliens? That's the question you need to understand. We have defined God to be the uncaused cause. Unmoved mover. We have defined him to be totally independent and everything that exists is dependent on him. We have defined him to transcend time and the universe. I ask again, what do you define aliens to be, because you're resorting to rubbish imagination as usual undecided.

The definition of your God is it evidential or something y'all read from a book?

Well, Aliens are extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe, they are said to possess powerful abilities.

Since no ones knows if there is outside universe or there's not, aliens can be the cause of this universe, aliens can be the cause of our reality, this universe can be a project to aliens. This is a claim just like God claim. They both have no evidence.

There are some position for which science can't come close to, if it does it would invalidate what the it's source. Can science establish what transcends time and the universe? Of course not. Science is limited to time an the physical and observable things within the universe.

No one knows what transcend OUR TIME and OUR UNIVERSE, if there is anything of such, it must be dependent on another TIME and SPACE.

This doesn't deny the fact that the universe has its origin. What is the origin?

I don't know, why not tell me.

Before I attempt your questions, we need to establish the origin of the universe. Do you believe the universe has its origin, hence created?

1. I don't know if the universe has it origin.

2. Why must it be created?

JeromeBlack:
Empiree, do you watch Mohammed hijab and Subboor on YouTube

I am not sure about this specific debate but i have watched Mr. Hijab severally especially vs David Wood in New York

tintingz:
Unicorns never existed, it's base on fairytales.

Ikr

There can be a first cause or not, it's doesn't necessary has to be a God. No one knows what a first cause could be.

Now, we're getting there. If only you'll not be dishonest again by going against your words here. Prior until now, you've been spinning out your irrational argument of infinite regression, and if you're to hold the idea of infinite regression to the extent you're are supposedly certain about it, then it only means you're saying you're certain God doesn't exist. Thankfully, I made it obvious to you that your argument is irrational and it's tantamount to equating God to the idea of Unicorn, which never existed at all.

Now my reply to your "THERE CAN BE A FIRST CAUSE OR NOT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GOD." I think you're mistaken about the idea of God, which if you've taken cognizance of my previous post, you'll notice I define him to be the UNCAUSED CAUSE. If I define God to be the uncaused cause, hence he's the FIRST CAUSE, then how do you ask again that it doesn't have to be God?

You see how you were sounding logical and agreeing with my argument until your dirty mind just don't want to hear the word God? lol wetin God do you?

What evidence of God?
No, it means I've no reason to believe your God exist since it lack evidence. Not that God cannot exist, I've no reason to believe one exist so i lack the belief.

The very reason that there some things above what science can understand isn't enough reason?

You're putting words in my mouth. Stop it. Lanre also do same.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Logical deduction from your argument is what gives and inferred standing point on your position of whether God exist or not. If you keep yapping about an imaginary infinite regression, then it's tantamount to saying it's not possible for a first cause to exist. Hence God cannot exist.

A first cause can exist, no one knows and if it does exist we doesn't know what it's! This is where I'm agnostic.

You don't use CAN in this scenario, there must always be a certain to a logical reasoning. Everything that exists in this universe depends one way or the other on another thing, do you angry with this? You're one way or the other dependent on some factors to exist. Hence if everything In the universe is dependent, then the universe is also dependent on something external to it, which definitely is something that brought it into existent, hence the first cause. This first cause isn't bounded by the universal law, hence you can't expect science to apply universal law on it.

Again, I said I've no reason to believe God exist until it's proven, not God doesn't exist.

The proves is all around, you're just dishonest and not ready to accept it. From the very intelligent design to you and your universe dependency, everything is clear to you, but you choose to between arrogant and not see.

These are two different positions. Saying God doesn't exist mean God cannot exist, this is a gnostic Atheists position.
Saying you have no reason to believe God exist means you haven't been convinced with evidence God exist not that God cannot exist, you just lack the belief one exist.

Saying there's no possibility of a first cause is tantamount to saying it is impossible for a God to exist. Which is your very position. This is very simple first all to see. Lol

Science have not fully understand the brain yet, what we know now Is the brain is responsible for our consciousness, this can be demonstrated objectively. Consciousness being immaterial has no evidence, it can't be demonstrated unless if you can do that. I'm all here

Try to understand this, the brain is a material thing. It can be seen feel and touched. Now, the brain couldn't have done the work it's doing just like that without some chemical reactions in it. These chemical reactions brought about one to be self aware of oneself and one's environment. Take note that it would have been easier to understand if you're conscious of what I'm conscious of, but of course consciousness is subjective contrary to what you're trying to say up here, which only shows you don't know much about consciousness. You haven't explain how the brain, a 1300 grams or so of nerve cells conjures up the seamless sensations, thoughts, memories and emotions that occupy every waking moments. That's my question oh, not the rubbish you're saying up here.

How did you assume there is a point you can't reduce something to? How did you assume there's a end? If something can be reduce to the point it can't be reduced doesn't that mean something can come from nothing? Doesn't that also mean cause and effect doesn't apply to all?

Cause and effect is a universal law, outside of time and space, it is not applicable. Do you want to argue tis too?

I don't even understand the nonsense you said here.

The TV is a matter. For it to show SS3, it needs signal which may not be physical. This is likeable to the idea of the brain and consciousness. Understand?

The Brain receive information and we act on the information, if i hit you on your head you can go unconscious because your consciousness is from the brain.

How can the brain, a non conscious matter, receive an information in the first place?

How about a CHAIR? Its a non conscious matter too Why is it not receiving information like the brain? Or do you believe it receive information?

You haven't given any practical reason consciousness is immaterial.

Is it material?

My point is, it does not necessary proves God, it just proves there's something beyond materialism not necessary God.

If you agree something is beyond materialism, how can you certain that that its not necessarily God?

I hope you know what post hoc fallacy is.
I didn't say it cannot be God, I said it's not necessary proves God, it can be matrix or another dimension we have no knowledge of. These are hypothesis people made up of reality.

You have to define what you mean by matrix, then we weigh it up with the definition of God to see whether the attribution is aligned or not. The major reason why I asked you to define what you understand by alien the other time.

There are many arguments about God. Empirical evidence should prove God you're talking about.
When it comes to disproving your God in the book there are various argument like argument of evil, omnipotent argument, creation argument etc.

What do you mean argument of evil?

What can convince me your God exist is empirical evidence like miracles I mentioned earlier.

Is the composition or work of your brain not miraculous enough? Could your brain have happened by chance and nothing whatsoever behind it?

If consciousness comes from the brain isn't that material? Is the brain not material?

The materiality of the brain only shows it's no different from a chair. How come the brain now do the work it's doing and a chair can't do same? That's the logic you're lacking.

The definition of your God is it evidential or something y'all read from a book?

The idea of God is innate in our mind right from we were born. You don't even need any book to define him. Unlike your aliens as define by your science below. Same science with no scientific prove for it. Smh

Well, Aliens are extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe, they are said to possess powerful abilities.

And do you believe this? Has science proven this?

Since no ones knows if there is outside universe or there's not, aliens can be the cause of this universe, aliens can be the cause of our reality, this universe can be a project to aliens. This is a claim just like God claim. They both have no evidence.

There can't be aliens, there can only be one God. If you need some schooling on this, then be my guest.

No one knows what transcend OUR TIME and OUR UNIVERSE, if there is anything of such, it must be dependent on another TIME and SPACE.

If you're applying the same time and space which is a universal law to outside the universe again, then I can only shake my head for your ignorance. Smh. How can you assume time and space outside of time and space again? Ah gosh!

I don't know, why not tell me. 1. I don't know if the universe has it origin.

Oh hahahaha. You have to run away from science because you don't want to be caught off guard. You're one funny dude. The big bang theory according to science was trying to explain the origin of the universe from matter. How can you now say now say you don't know if it has origin or not?

I swear you don't know anything. You're just an empty atheist. Probably you turn atheist out of grievance to God or something. Guy, go and read books and stop parading yourself as atheist. At least you have to know things before parading yourself as one.

What's your position on BIG BANG.

2. Why must it be created?

Please refer to my post. I have to establish your thoughts about the universe before I address your other questions on this thread. If not, your trying to stand on this fence will not safe your silly ass this time, rather only expose you for the empty unintelligent atheist that you're. Lol

Rilwayne001:


Now, we're getting there. If only you'll not be dishonest again by going against your words here. Prior until now, you've been spinning out your irrational argument of infinite regression, and if you're to hold the idea of infinite regression to the extent you're are supposedly certain about it, then it only means you're saying you're certain God doesn't exist. Thankfully, I made it obvious to you that your argument is irrational and it's tantamount to equating God to the idea of Unicorn, which never existed at all.

You're still putting words in my mouth. This is strawman argument. After I explained to you about my position you still result to straws.

1. There is nothing irrational about infinite regression.

2. If we're to use "something must come from something" of course infinite regression will come in.

3. Again for the last time and stop grasping at straws, God doesn't exist means GOD CANNOT EXIST. I didn't say God cannot exist, I said I've not seen any reason to believe God exist not that a God cannot exist.

Now my reply to your "THERE CAN BE A FIRST CAUSE OR NOT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GOD." I think you're mistaken about the idea of God, which if you've taken cognizance of my previous post, you'll notice I define him to be the UNCAUSED CAUSE. If I define God to be the uncaused cause, hence he's the FIRST CAUSE, then how do you ask again that it doesn't have to be God?

If there is any being that's uncaused then you're saying something can come from nothing. Can't you see your contradictions and bias? This is a pleading fallacy.

Secondly, why must a first cause be a God? You only ascribe first cause to be God because you read it from a book not that you practically have evidence that the first cause is a God.

Understand the argument.

You haven't shown any prove that whatever the first cause is must be a God. Did the first cause appear to you personally and said he's a God with some characters?

I can as well claim the first cause/s are aliens, can you disprove that?

I can say the first cause is energy whence the universe, can you disprove that?

You see how you were sounding logical and agreeing with my argument until your dirty mind just don't want to hear the word God? lol wetin God do you?

You're the one jumping to conclusion the first cause must be a God while I've not seen any prove for this, I'm just asking why must it be a God, why not other entity or phenomena?

The very reason that there some things above what science can understand isn't enough reason?

Argument from ignorance.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Logical deduction from your argument is what gives and inferred standing point on your position of whether God exist or not. If you keep yapping about an imaginary infinite regression, then it's tantamount to saying it's not possible for a first cause to exist. Hence God cannot exist.

You said something must come from something, right? Meaning everything must have a cause no matter what.

Now tell me how this won't result to infinite regression?

You're in a dilemma here.

It's either something can come from nothing therefore an uncaused cause or entity, which is irrational according to you.

Or something must come from something therefore infinite regression and God is caused.

You've to choose one mister.

You don't use CAN in this scenario, there must always be a certain to a logical reasoning. Everything that exists in this universe depends one way or the other on another thing, do you angry with this?

Yes

You're one way or the other dependent on some factors to exist. Hence if everything In the universe is dependent, then the universe is also dependent on something external to it, which definitely is something that brought it into existent, hence the first cause. This first cause isn't bounded by the universal law, hence you can't expect science to apply universal law on it.

Lol. See your pleading fallacy again.

Everything depend on something then suddenly there's a first cause that's not dependent on anything. How did you switch from everything depend on something then there's something that's not dependent on something.

You established that something must depend on something, God is something then it must depend on something.

The only way this can support your argument is saying something can come from nothing, do you agree?

And lastly, if something isn't bound to our universe laws, then it's bound to the laws in space where it exist in.

The proves is all around, you're just dishonest and not ready to accept it. From the very intelligent design to you and your universe dependency, everything is clear to you, but you choose to between arrogant and not see.

How does this prove God? This may prove a first cause but not necessary a God talkless of an Arabian deity.

No, we all know the universe isn't all intelligently designed, this has been debunked by cosmologist.

Secondly, we don't even know if the universe is infinite or has a beginning.

Saying there's no possibility of a first cause is tantamount to saying it is impossible for a God to exist. Which is your very position. This is very simple first all to see. Lol

Another strawman. Is this what I said?

Go back and read it again.

Try to understand this, the brain is a material thing. It can be seen feel and touched. Now, the brain couldn't have done the work it's doing just like that without some chemical reactions in it. These chemical reactions brought about one to be self aware of oneself and one's environment. Take note that it would have been easier to understand if you're conscious of what I'm conscious of, but of course consciousness is subjective contrary to what you're trying to say up here, which only shows you don't know much about consciousness. You haven't explain how the brain, a 1300 grams or so of nerve cells conjures up the seamless sensations, thoughts, memories and emotions that occupy every waking moments. That's my question oh, not the rubbish you're saying up here.

I've said earlier we haven't fully understand the brain.

Humans are way intelligent because we have big brains than animals, do ants have self-awareness?

You haven't demonstrated how consciousness is immaterial, everything you're saying still falls back to the brain which is material.

If we take out your brain and damage it, you're dead.

Cause and effect is a universal law, outside of time and space, it is not applicable. Do you want to argue tis too?

Yes, tell me how?

Tell me how you know there is outside the universe, I'm all ears.

The TV is a matter. For it to show SS3, it needs signal which may not be physical. This is likeable to the idea of the brain and consciousness. Understand?

Lol. You're using TV signals for the brain.

TV has no brain nor storage, I hope you know that? It has to get a signal to pick channels. This is not how the human brain works.

You should have used something like a computer system which has memory and can recognize documents and even virus.

How can the brain, a non conscious matter, receive an information in the first place?

A live brain is non-conscious? Ok.

What then is dead brain?

How about a CHAIR? Its a non conscious matter too Why is it not receiving information like the brain? Or do you believe it receive information?

Oh my goodness.

Is it material?

So far, consciousness is material.

If you agree something is beyond materialism, how can you certain that that its not necessarily God?

Where did I said such?

You have to define what you mean by matrix, then we weigh it up with the definition of God to see whether the attribution is aligned or not. The major reason why I asked you to define what you understand by alien the other time.

So you don't know what a matrix is?

Did you watch the movie Matrix?

Ok, Matrix in this context means, the world we're living is like a dream, the real reality is out there when we wake meaning when we die. We're probably put in this dream-reality by Aliens to test run us.

This is some people belief on reality.

In this case, if there is something beyond our reality, matrix is another hypothesis.

What do you mean argument of evil?

Like God is all good but evil exist blah blah blah.

It's actually problem of Evil.

Is the composition or work of your brain not miraculous enough? Could your brain have happened by chance and nothing whatsoever behind it?

Another argument from ignorance.

I know my brain evolve, that's what I know.

The materiality of the brain only shows it's no different from a chair. How come the brain now do the work it's doing and a chair can't do same? That's the logic you're lacking.

Ok, stop.

Chairs are non-living things. The brain is a living thing which receive information through our senses.

The idea of God is innate in our mind right from we were born. You don't even need any book to define him. Unlike your aliens as define by your science below. Same science with no scientific prove for it. Smh

Nope, false.

You only know about God and a particular God and it mythology because your parents taught you. You read about your God in a book not that you're born with it.

Your argument is becoming ridiculous.

And do you believe this? Has science proven this?

No, I don't believe in Aliens and science hasn't discover any aliens.

It's just an hypothesis just like God hypothesis.

There can't be aliens, there can only be one God. If you need some schooling on this, then be my guest.

I'm all ears. How can't there be alien or aliens?

How can there be one God and which God is it?

If you're applying the same time and space which is a universal law to outside the universe again, then I can only shake my head for your ignorance. Smh. How can you assume time and space outside of time and space again? Ah gosh!

Ok, quick question, can something that think, move exist without time and in a space?

Oh hahahaha. You have to run away from science because you don't want to be caught off guard. You're one funny dude. The big bang theory according to science was trying to explain the origin of the universe from matter. How can you now say now say you don't know if it has origin or not?

Do they say the big bang is the origin of the universe?

The big bang is said to be the earliest expansion of the universe not the origin.

Do you know about the initial singularity/gravitational singularity?

I swear you don't know anything. You're just an empty atheist. Probably you turn atheist out of grievance to God or something. Guy, go and read books and stop parading yourself as atheist. At least you have to know things before parading yourself as one.

From someone who believes in ridiculous things.

What's your position on BIG BANG.

It's a theory which try to explain how our universe expanded.

Please refer to my post. I have to establish your thoughts about the universe before I address your other questions on this thread. If not, your trying to stand on this fence will not safe your silly ass this time, rather only expose you for the empty unintelligent atheist that you're. Lol

No, tell me why you think our universe was created by an intelligent design, a perfect God?

tintingz:
You're still putting words in my mouth. This is strawman argument. After I explained to you about my position you still result to straws.

You like going in circle and turning a blind eye on the bone of contention. I didn't put words in your mouth, rather from inference, you made visible your position. You can't say you believe Buhari is likely to be nice, and at the same time say with CERTAINTY that everyone from northern part of Nigeria isn't nice. Although you obviously didn't say Buhari isn't nice, but you totally inferred it with certainty. That's what you've shown so far on your position of God not existing at all with relation to your position of infinite regression.

If you still don't understand, then that's your problem. I'm done with this circular argument. It's a total waste of time.

1. There is nothing irrational about infinite regression.

Let me make this further simple for you to understand, and this definitely will be my final attempt.

Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy evn higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, this example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. IF THAT WERE THE CASE THIS UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST, definitely because the creator that created it would have needed permission from higher entity that would have needed permission from higher entities ad infinitum, hence it would never exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.

Do you understand me now

2. If we're to use "something must come from something" of course infinite regression will come in.
3. Again for the last time and stop grasping at straws, God doesn't exist means GOD CANNOT EXIST. I didn't say God cannot exist, I said I've not seen any reason to believe God exist not that a God cannot exist. If there is any being that's uncaused then you're saying something can come from nothing. Can't you see your contradictions and bias? This is a pleading fallacy.

Please refer to my posts above, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Secondly, why must a first cause be a God? You only ascribe first cause to be God because you read it from a book not that you practically have evidence that the first cause is a God.

You may chose to call him the uncreated creator. Uncaused cause. Intelligent designer. You're still referring to God. Is there any other being that all fits into this definition?

Understand the argument. You haven't shown any prove that whatever the first cause is must be a God. Did the first cause appear to you personally and said he's a God with some characters? I can as well claim the first cause/s are aliens, can you disprove that?

Define Aliens.

I can say the first cause is energy whence the universe, can you disprove that?

You need to define energy, objectively.

You're the one jumping to conclusion the first cause must be a God while I've not seen any prove for this, I'm just asking why must it be a God, why not other entity or phenomena?

Maybe we'll see this more when you define your other entities and phenomenon.

Argument from ignorance.
You said something must come from something, right? Meaning everything must have a cause no matter what.
Now tell me how this won't result to infinite regressionYou're in a dilemma here. It's either something can come from nothing therefore an uncaused cause or entity, which is irrational according to you. Or something must come from something therefore infinite regression and God is caused.
You've to choose one mister. Yes
Lol. See your pleading fallacy again.
Everything depend on something then suddenly there's a first cause that's not dependent on anything. How did you switch from everything depend on something then there's something that's not dependent on something.
You established that something must depend on something, God is something then it must depend on something.The only way this can support your argument is saying something can come from nothing, do you agree?

The law of cause and effect only leads to infinite regression, and as I've shown up there, infinite regression is absurd by logic, hence it's only logical that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe has a beginning and hence and dependent, it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God.

If anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe? Something always existed.

I pick God. He created the universe and thus not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created.

And lastly, if something isn't bound to our universe laws, then it's bound to the laws in space where it exist in.

In the process of designing and creating the chair, the carpenter does not become the chair, does he? He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. Here, you only wish for the some similar law that's guiding the universe to be established outside of it, this is just your figment of imagination.

How does this prove God? This may prove a first cause but not necessary a God talkless of an Arabian deity. No, we all know the universe isn't all intelligently designed, this has been debunked by cosmologist.

Wow

Before we even go to the design of the universe, what's your position of the design of mankind, take the human brain into consideration, not intelligent at all!?

Secondly, we don't even know if the universe is infinite or has a beginning.

What do you mean 'f the universe is infinite? And are you still asking whether the universe has a beginning or not? Are you so ignorant.?

Another strawman. Is this what I said?
Go back and read it again. I've said earlier we haven't fully understand the brain. Humans are way intelligent because we have big brains than animals, do ants have self-awareness?

We're not talking about how the brain is big or not.. We're talking about what made it function. Did it just start functioning on it's own? What makes it animate and the chair inanimate.

You haven't demonstrated how consciousness is immaterial, everything you're saying still falls back to the brain which is material. If we take out your brain and damage it, you're dead.

What makes the brain function, that's the question I'm asking.

Yes, tell me how?Tell me how you know there is outside the universe, I'm all ears.

Is the universe an independent or a dependent entity? What's your position? I'm sure you won't be too ignorant to tell me you don't know.

Lol. You're using TV signals for the brain.
TV has no brain nor storage, I hope you know that? It has to get a signal to pick channels. This is not how the human brain works. You should have used something like a computer system which has memory and can recognize documents and even virus.

What makes the brain function, that's the question.

A live brain is non-conscious? Ok. ;DWhat then is dead brain? Oh my goodness.

Simply placing a human brain beside a chair, then tell what makes them different? Can the function on their own volition? They are both matter, but one works in a miraculous way, how so?

So far, consciousness is material. Where did I said such?So you don't know what a matrix is?Did you watch the movie Matrix?Ok, Matrix in this context means, the world we're living is like a dream, the real reality is out there when we wake meaning when we die. We're probably put in this dream-reality by Aliens to test run us.

You can't provide a rational argument to buttress all these. I've provided one for God. I dare you to do so for Aliens and Matrix, objectively.

This is some people belief on reality. n this case, if there is something beyond our reality, matrix is another hypothesis.

Ok

Like God is all good but evil exist blah blah blah.It's actually problem of Evil.

This requires your understanding of the Islamic religion. You can check my Riduane account to see a topic I created to address the problem of evil. Drop your comment.

Another argument from ignorance.I know my brain evolve, that's what I know. Ok, stop. Chairs are non-living things. The brain is a living thing which receive information through our senses.

Good. How did it receive information? What's that thing that makes it receive information?

Nope, false.
You only know about God and a particular God and it mythology because your parents taught you. You read about your God in a book not that you're born with it.

How come stone aged people worshipped one God or the other? Did they read it in a book too? An if their parents taught them, where did their parents got to know about the idea of God?

Your argument is becoming ridiculous. No, I don't believe in Aliens and science hasn't discover any aliens.
It's just an hypothesis just like God hypothesis.

Ok

I'm all ears. How can't there be alien or aliens?
How can there be one God and which God is it?

This definitely will require a thread

Ok, quick question, can something that think, move exist without time and in a space?

Time and space is limited to the universe, and only God is outside of it. So your question isn't even clear. Perhaps you rephrase.

Do they say the big bang is the origin of the universe
The big bang is said to be the earliest expansion of the universe not the origin.

If something expand, what does it tell you?

Do you know about the initial singularity/gravitational singularity?
From someone who believes in ridiculous things.
It's a theory which try to explain how our universe expanded.

What does science say about the origin of the universe?
Did science say it doesn't know?

No, tell me why you think our universe was created by an intelligent design, a perfect God?

Isn't it obvious?

Rilwayne001:


You like going in circle and turning a blind eye on the bone of contention. I didn't put words in your mouth, rather from inference, you made visible your position. You can't say you believe Buhari is likely to be nice, and at the same time say with CERTAINTY that everyone from northern part of Nigeria isn't nice. Although you obviously didn't say Buhari isn't nice, but you totally inferred it with certainty. That's what you've shown so far on your position of God not existing at all with relation to your position of infinite regression.

If you still don't understand, then that's your problem. I'm done with this circular argument. It's a total waste of time.

Lol.

Using your example. You said YOU BELIEVE Buhari is nice, I said show some prove he's nice, you're not able to, then I'VE NO REASON "TO BELIEVE" Buhari is nice, this doesn't mean Buhari can't be nice but because you're not able to convince me, I don't have your belief he's nice, I don't believe he's nice.

But if I say Buhari is not nice, then Buhari can't be nice because I'm giving a certain claim, i must have some proof that shows Buhari is not nice.

Note: You have a belief that God exist, you're not able to proof your belief that God exist, then I've no reason to accept your beliefs, so I lack your belief that God exist. This is different when someone said God doesn't exist, this mean God cannot exist.

How many times will I explain this?

Let me make this further simple for you to understand, and this definitely will be my final attempt.

Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy evn higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, this example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. IF THAT WERE THE CASE THIS UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST, definitely because the creator that created it would have needed permission from higher entity that would have needed permission from higher entities ad infinitum, hence it would never exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.

Do you understand me now

Lol. You've assumed infinite regress to a conscious being. Ok.

The flaws in your analogy is that, the sniper hasn't taken any effect, there's no connection with the sniper and the target here. The target is still alive working around, we have no reason to question who killed the target since nothing has happened to the target.

Now assume the sniper hit his target, the question can now go who cause the death of this effect(target), then we say it's the sniper after investigations, while the sniper said he got his order from someone above, and the person above said he got order from the person above and it goes on like that. Now that how cause and effect works in infinite regression. But in reality the sniper analogy isn't possible. Lol.

Understand what infinite regression of cause and effect is, there has to be an effect before making any infinite regression example.

Please refer to my posts above, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Flawed.

You may chose to call him the uncreated creator. Uncaused cause. Intelligent designer. You're still referring to God. Is there any other being that all fits into this definition?

Aliens, energy.

The thing is, uncaused creator, uncaused cause, intelligent designer are made up and not evidential, they are ideas made up in arguments.

Like I've said there is no evidence that support God existence, all this attributes are made up in some books and ideas.

Did God appear to you and said he's those attributes or you read it In some books?

Define Aliens.

I've define this before.

Extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe with higher intelligence and abilities.

You need to define energy, objectively.

Energy makes everything work, energy can't be created nor destroyed.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Maybe we'll see this more when you define your other entities and phenomenon.

I just did.

So tell me, can't there be other entities or phenomena responsible for the existence of this universe?

The law of cause and effect only leads to infinite regression, and as I've shown up there, infinite regression is absurd by logic, hence it's only logical that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe has a beginning and hence and dependent, it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God.

Are you saying there isn't cause and effect?

You only assume the two choice is God and the universe because it's the theists that are trying so hard to prove their powerful God. Irony.

Where is it said the universe has a beginning? Is this fact? Where in the cosmology, quantum physics did it said the universe has a beginning?

If anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe? Something always existed.

If it's always existed then it's caused by nothing.

Lol, don't forget energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

I pick God. He created the universe and thus not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created.

Empirical evidence please?

In the process of designing and creating the chair, the carpenter does not become the chair, does he? He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. Here, you only wish for the some similar law that's guiding the universe to be established outside of it, this is just your figment of imagination.

The carpenter exist in same space with the chair.

Wow

Before we even go to the design of the universe, what's your position of the design of mankind, take the human brain into consideration, not intelligent at all!?

You're going back and forth.

We haven't even fully understand the brain.

Using similar example to yours, someone dropped dead where no one witnessed it and people gather to know what happened, will people suddenly claim a sniper killed the person? If yes, it's irrational but if No, investigations has to be carried out to know who killed the person if it's a sniper, a gang of boys or suicide or stray bullet. There are has to be evidence that connects to the real killer.

You don't base your argument from ignorance or fill the gaps with fallacies.

So, the question is how will this prove your God, what are the practical connection does the brain proves your God exist.

What do you mean 'f the universe is infinite? And are you still asking whether the universe has a beginning or not? Are you so ignorant.?

You no nothing of cosmology, even tho I didn't study this in school, i know better.

1. The universe has not been proven to have a beginning.

2. Even if the universe have a beginning, it has a material which can't be destroy nor created(energy).

3. A design must have a raw material. So if the universe is designed it must have a raw material.

Now which here is wrong?

We're not talking about how the brain is big or not.. We're talking about what made it function. Did it just start functioning on it's own? What makes it animate and the chair inanimate.

Lol. This is like asking why are there living things and non-living things.

Have you read any neuroscience study? Please do.

I can't be explaining how the brain was formed and it properties that formed it.

And note that non of this studies proves any spiritual or immaterial thing.

What makes the brain function, that's the question I'm asking.

What makes the brain function? Well the blood that flows to the brain makes it function.

Is the universe an independent or a dependent entity? What's your position? I'm sure you won't be too ignorant to tell me you don't know.

I don't know and no one knows.

What makes the brain function, that's the question.

Answered above.

Simply placing a human brain beside a chair, then tell what makes them different? Can the function on their own volition? They are both matter, but one works in a miraculous way, how so?

Stop comparing an entity with no chemical reaction with one that does.

You can't provide a rational argument to buttress all these. I've provided one for God. I dare you to do so for Aliens and Matrix, objectively.

What rational argument?

God, Aliens, Matrix are hypothesis with no evidence, they are ideas, concept.

The God hypothesis was made since people cant explain things around them, not that they have evidence for God they just assume there's something operating the universe reason there are different Gods in each Religion with their mythologies.

God was created out of ignorance and God of the gaps.

This requires your understanding of the Islamic religion. You can check my Riduane account to see a topic I created to address the problem of evil. Drop your comment.

Ok.

See me there.

Good. How did it receive information? What's that thing that makes it receive information?

I'm not a neuroscientist, they will explain better but I know the senses are where informations are pass through to the brain.

How come stone aged people worshipped one God or the other? Did they read it in a book too? An if their parents taught them, where did their parents got to know about the idea of God?

They were Ignorant and God was created.

Phenomenas are ascribe to Gods like god of thunder, god of fertility, god of war, god of chaos, god of the seas, god of plagues, god of animals etc.

Kindly go read about all this Gods and their mythologies.

This definitely will require a thread

Mention me when you do.

Time and space is limited to the universe, and only God is outside of it. So your question isn't even clear. Perhaps you rephrase.

Like I said you no nothing of cosmology.

Time and space can exist anywhere as long as a living entity exist there.

Time exist if something moves that's how we assume time, we assume time start from the big bang since we calculate from there. If everything is static will there be time?

Space is a domain where something exist in, since we exist then we're in a domain the space. The expansion of the universe created a "space" for the galaxies to form and all other things.

Now with the Qur'an, Allah moves, think, make actions, infact Allah used time like 6 days creation, future et, he has concept of time. So like I said if Allah is outside OUR space and time it doesn't mean he isn't in a domain where there is time and space again not necessary our time/space but another.

Can you reason without a beginning?

Can you make actions without reasoning or thinking?

Can you exist and move without being in a domain?

Your God is trapped and dependent in a space and time, call it heaven or whatever, its consist of space/time.

The question now is, how did God find himself inside the domain since the domain must come first? How did he calculate the date he used to create the universe? Where did he learn this information from?

Please before replying this be open minded and don't just say because the Qur'an said this it's this. Give logical response, these are critical thinking questions.

If something expand, what does it tell you?

It tells us that something expanded, what about the initial state?

Does the expansion of a balloon means the beginning of the balloon?

I just gave example and don't start asking questions that will lead to Infinite argument.

What does science say about the origin of the universe?
Did science say it doesn't know?

You're taking us back again.

Isn't it obvious?

Explain.

Salamualaikum @Rilwayne001 ,this guy @tintinz is a hypocrite he will intentionally lie to win an argument. Leave him to his fate.

tintingz:
Lol.
Using your example. You said YOU BELIEVE Buhari is nice, I said show some prove he's nice, you're not able to, then I'VE NO REASON "TO BELIEVE" Buhari is nice, this doesn't mean Buhari can't be nice but because you're not able to convince me, I don't have your belief he's nice, I don't believe he's nice. But if I say Buhari is not nice, then Buhari can't be nice because I'm giving a certain claim, i must have some proof that shows Buhari is not nice.
Note: You have a belief that God exist, you're not able to proof your belief that God exist, then I've no reason to accept your beliefs, so I lack your belief that God exist. This is different when someone said God doesn't exist, this mean God cannot exist.
How many times will I explain this?
Lol. You've assumed infinite regress to a conscious eing. Ok.
The flaws in your analogy is that, the sniper hasn't taken any effect, there's no connection with the sniper and the target here. The target is still alive working around, we have no reason to question who killed the target since nothing has happened to the target.
Now assume the sniper hit his target, the question can now go who cause the death of this effect(target), then we say it's the sniper after investigations, while the sniper said he got his order from someone above, and the person above said he got order from the person above and it goes on like that. Now that how cause and effect works in infinite regression. But in reality the sniper analogy isn't possible. Lol.

Understand what infinite regression of cause and effect is, there has to be an effect before making any infinite regression example.

Flawed.

Aliens, energy.

The thing is, uncaused creator, uncaused cause, intelligent designer are made up and not evidential, they are ideas made up in arguments.

Like I've said there is no evidence that support God existence, all this attributes are made up in some books and ideas.

Did God appear to you and said he's those attributes or you read it In some books?I've define this before.
Extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe with higher intelligence and abilities. Energy makes everything work, energy can't be created nor destroyed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
I just did.
So tell me, can't there be other entities or phenomena responsible for the existence of this universe?
Are you saying there isn't cause and effect?

You only assume the two choice is God and the universe because it's the theists that are trying so hard to prove their powerful God. Irony.

Where is it said the universe has a beginning? Is this fact? Where in the cosmology, quantum physics did it said the universe has a beginning?

If it's always existed then it's caused by nothing.

Lol, don't forget energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Empirical evidence please?

The carpenter exist in same space with the chair.

You're going back and forth.

We haven't even fully understand the brain.

Using similar example to yours, someone dropped dead where no one witnessed it and people gather to know what happened, will people suddenly claim a sniper killed the person? If yes, it's irrational but if No, investigations has to be carried out to know who killed the person if it's a sniper, a gang of boys or suicide or stray bullet. There are has to be evidence that connects to the real killer.

You don't base your argument from ignorance or fill the gaps with fallacies.

So, the question is how will this prove your God, what are the practical connection does the brain proves your God exist.back again.

Explain.

Arrogance works hand in hand with dishonesty, that's what you've shown here. Your dishonesty reeks in this reply that I'm so sure if any other atheist come up on this thread to read your rebuttal to my last post before this, he will definitely marvel at your dishonesty too. And I already said that'll be my last time of going round in circle with you. I'm sure I've tried my best and definitely have ignited your conscience in seeing the truth. Somehow it'll continue to play on you how you've, out the need to wallow in your dishonesty, developed a lot of mastery In the art of lying and feigning ignorance to the truth.

Have a nice day bro.

najib632:
Salamualaikum @Rilwayne001 ,this guy @tintinz is a hypocrite he will intentionally lie to win an argument. Leave him to his fate.

I'm actually not shocked because I know him too well. He even go about looking for argument where there's non just to win argument to satisfy his overbloated ego. I won't be surprised if he's egoistic in real life. And you know those who have their ego overbloated tends to go about looking for attention to pamper it. It's so ridiculous.

And thank you for your advice. I do appreciate.

Rilwayne001:


I'm actually not shocked because I know him too well. He even go about looking for argument where there's non just to win argument to satisfy his overbloated ego. I won't be surprised if he's egoistic in real life. And you know those who have their ego overbloated tends to go about looking for attention to pamper it. It's so ridiculous.

And thank you for your advice. I do appreciate.

They're very arrogant, especially @Akin1212 and @tintinz, infact let me inform you about those you should avoid long arguments with @true2god (perfect munafiq), @usermane a.k.a. @Ultramane, @advocatejare (another hypocrite and a big lier), @Fortran12, @OtemAtum (a mad man) this is my list. Only address them when it is necessary.

Rilwayne001:


Arrogance works hand in hand with dishonesty, that's what you've shown here. Your dishonesty reeks in this reply that I'm so sure if any other atheist come up on this thread to read your rebuttal to my last post before this, he will definitely marvel at your dishonesty too. And I already said that'll be my last time of going round in circle with you. I'm sure I've tried my best and definitely have ignited your conscience in seeing the truth. Somehow it'll continue to play on you how you've, out the need to wallow in your dishonesty, developed a lot of mastery In the art of lying and feigning ignorance to the truth.

Have a nice day bro.

Lol. Dishonesty?, my arguments are plainly logical, you're the one basing your argument with fallacies.

How can you say because we don't understand this therefore God? This is argument from ignorance fallacy.

How can you say something can't come from nothing then again you said God is not caused? Doesn't this imply there's something that can come from nothing? This is special pleading fallacy.

Two fallacies committed.

And have a nice day too bro.

najib632:
They're very arrogant, especially @Akin1212 and @tintinz, infact let me inform you about those you should avoid long arguments with @true2god (perfect munafiq), @usermane a.k.a. @Ultramane, @advocatejare (another hypocrite and a big lier), @Fortran12, @EtumAtum (a mad man) this is my list. Only address them when it is necessary.

Only if you know you would lose the argument. If you are sure and have proof, show it

najib632:
They're very arrogant, especially @Akin1212 and @tintinz, infact let me inform you about those you should avoid long arguments with @true2god (perfect munafiq), @usermane a.k.a. @Ultramane, @advocatejare (another hypocrite and a big lier), @Fortran12, @EtumAtum (a mad man) this is my list. Only address them when it is necessary.

What's this nonsense?

fortran12:

Only if you know you would lose the argument. If you are sure and have proof, show it

Lol. I hope he has proof of his God.

najib632:
Salamualaikum @Rilwayne001 ,this guy @tintinz is a hypocrite he will intentionally lie to win an argument. Leave him to his fate.

If you want to argue come forth and stop calling someone a liar.

If you find a lie in my post, point them out and stop this nonsense.

Salam Alaikum,

To Muslims brothers and sisters that usually participate in annual Ramadan quizzes, I need to announce to everyone there will be no quiz this Ramadan due to unforeseen circumstances. There is no full concentration due to current world event especially for essential workers like myself.

Therefore, even though I am current on this platform, I have very limited time to focus on selections because I may be on the frontline up to 4 days in a row or intermittently. This is quite uncomfortable at this time. However, if you are interested in Q&A outside of NL platform, there is going to be quiz this Ramadan at Risalatul Haq Dawah International by Ustaz Jamiu Adegunwa. This program is open to everyone including Christians. You have to watch and call in to win price.

I also learned that another Alfa by name Lukman Adebayo a.k.a Alfa OniQurani is organizing something similar. They are doing this to alleviate sufferings this Ramadan due to lockdown. Alhamdulillah that muslims are waking up to reality. Ustaz Jamiu Adegunwa has been sourcing funds since lockdown started and distributes to people throughout Nigeria even before Ramadan. Even as I speak he is still disbursing money to the less privileged bank accounts during this lockdown. Funds (donors) come from different quarters within and outside Nigeria.



Below are facebook pages for Jamiu Adegunwa where lectures and Q&A hold

https://www.facebook.com/risalatul.haqdawah?__tn__=%2Cd-]-h-R&eid=ARDS5zLOED8M70TvJNDE0Tn5IxQgvA1DDrLHHKSoLiwsBlZ8uDOl0iEBBKUCav4FNeI7ehvxylUDVzVv

https://www.facebook.com/samod.tunde.18?__tn__=%2Cd-]-h-R&eid=ARCnw6A-Ngc4kqI2ZGf-QDD_3WIy32290R8X2pFEd9TWjcsPivI8ZdvQX6Hq3wL7IIgmuiKIE_c4_N_M

https://www.facebook.com/ustazjamiu.adegunwa?__tn__=%2Cd-]-h-R&eid=ARCuFXC8c1R158lybfIrTTwAS5C70DAdw7DEGFh6SMU3OGCyYS3PWbMFeWsNOZqXzFfC7ogaH1lAUtny

Alfa OniQuran
https://www.facebook.com/ISLAM-FIRST-TV-2284467041838538/?epa=SEARCH_BOX



You may have to check on their pages for update



Thank You For Your Understanding
Empiree

rilwayne001, lanrexlan

wetin we no go hear from nigerian christians

Last night(nigeria time)'s lecture on Risalatul haq was exciting

We don hear new meaning of Isa (Jesus of Quran).

A christian guy who called himself Taye Oshodi claimed to have spent 12 yrs in Saudi arabia and know arabic said on the program that Islamic Isa is different from Christian Jesus.

That meaning of Islamic Isa is irin (iron)

The dude set facebook on fire last night. Everybody still dey laugh.

All this because of jealousy and inability to defend their faith on live program.

Ustaz Jamiu trashed them hard. He has been trashing them for few weeks now since lockdown.

This covid19 lockdown is a real blessing. Everyone is home. So lots of christians are watching and calling from around the world.

It is getting interesting bros

I dont even know whether to pray for end of lockdown or not.

As much as it is painful to get lockdown there are lots of benefits and lessons to learn from it. Many christian are just exposed to reality of their religion. They are so bitter on facebook.

If you have christians on fb arguing with you send them to Jamiu's fb page.

The man is shaking nigeria but i dont think you bros follow the trend.

In Sha Allah, in the months and years ahead we should see christians dumping christianity or stop going to church in lage numbers.

COVID-19 exposed many things.

Covid na bastard