So the prophet can kiss his wife during fasting but a fellow Muslim can't. Omo, na your wife, you married her legally in the eyes of witnesses and Allah. Allah is supreme and there is no Quranic verse that forbid you from kissing your wife during Ramadan. It shows you love her and there is nothing wrong with that.

Don't let opinions of others that have no authority on the matter confine you in anyway. Good luck and may Allah guide you

usermane:
I also want to add that those same conservative Muslims condemned Buhari 's daughter as well for doning a kerchief instead of hijab during the inaugration ceremony in May.

The point is that mainstream Islamic narratives does support the conservative discourse and that is why in this day and age, the Muslim community cannot come to term with matters like inter gender platonic friendship, board games like chess, or drawing and painting animals. Besides, despite contrary claims by most Muslims, there is a hierachy in traditional Islam that decide what is haram or halal and as long as most Muslims submit to their dictate, the conservatives will always have a word.

If only the Islam that was practice in 7th century Arabia and that is practiced today held your view

usermane

You know, i 've been through this before;

[url=https://www.nairaland.com/1880974/puzzled-guide-jizya]The Puzzled 's Guide To Jizya[/url

]

Nice write up. However, Jizya is not in the context of war alone. You are trying to re-write the Quran . The author made it very clear what the text meant and the textual context is very clear no matter how you want to shake it up. The reason for the Jizya is because of "non belief in Islam". Surah 9:29 can't get any clearer than that. Fight non-muslims because they don't believe in Allah. It never said fight to defend yourselves or because you were being attacked but it clearly said fight because of belief. SO, trying to white-wash it or call into question the Islamic jurisprudence interpretation is a very cheap attempt and some of us can see through it

Also, the historical context is clear as well:

1. There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be extorted by force if his opponents refuse to accept Islam (I am not quoting the entire text but lifting the portion for reference):

Muslim 19: 4294 = If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

One begins to wonder to what happened to the verse = "no compulsion in religion" when you are fighting people solely based on their belief

My first reply to you and the above link answers the question

Okay, understood

usermane

As the Qur'an 2:256 clearly states, there isn't compulsion in matters of faith. Hence punishing people for not fasting, not paying zakat, not wearing hijab or for drinking is compelling them in matters of faith, a gross violation of Qur'an.

Quran 9:29 = The same Quran commands that muslims should fight others that do not believe in Islam and compel them to pay the Jizya. This is not from the Hadith, this is from the Quran

And this boil down to the root of the problem; mainstream Islam. See, ISIS isn't making the rules here, but merely keeping with what Muslims made up in the past.

What do you mean by mainstream Islam? Is it is a different Islam than what you have in the Quran?

What exactly is extremism and can you give us examples?

The question should be - what does Islamic jurisprudence teach on this subject. Whether it be Morocco or ISIS; why should anyone be flogged for breaking fast?

Empiree:
Ogbeni slyfox5555, I beg, if you have problems with CAIR, make una confront them. All the hate and talks here dont solve anything.

Their office is now located on Broadway, NYC. Take your grievances there.

As far as I am concern, you are just carrying water for FOX5 machine, mouthpiece. Besides, you are confused....like this clueless British...

Support free speech - speech is free unless it doesn't "offend" you and other clowns. Reverse is the case.

What is this malu talking about? So if I am talking about ISIS then I should contact address and address it with them? What hateful thing have I done oh - where did I endorse hate?

Malus like you are the ones that bring hate speech and hate crime when adults are having an opinionated discussion

Empiree

Are you done with the name callings? No be your brothers at CAIR that demanded that Fox drop those who speak the truth about the jihad threat. It was the same CAIR that earlier condemned the Islamic terror attacks in Paris and claimed to support free speech.

Support free speech - speech is free unless it doesn't "offend" CAIR or their likes.

LucemFerre

You don't mean that, do you?

I do, darkness can't be measured or observed. If it can, please teach us with examples

Right, "One has to be conscious of them to KNOW they exist." Not, "they exist because one is conscious of them"

Your first statement is correct. Your second statement doesn't do justice to the question. They exist whether we are conscious or not.

What you should have said is, "KNOWLEDGE of light and darkness would not exist without conscious beings." If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? Yes, but, there was no one to hear it.

Let me try and explain it a bit more - light and darkness will not exist to me if I wasn't conscious or if I wasn't born. However, that doesn't mean they are non-existent. My perception of reality doesn't negate the fact that they exist. If that wasn't clear, my apologies. Typical example, you are alive and aware that light exist as well as morality. Let us say you have a 15 year old son; 20 years ago - would he know if light or morality existed? We can both answer the question that he wouldn't have. However, you as his father knows that morality and light exist.

"Do unto others as you would want done to you" and please don't quote Jesus... The history of the rule dates as far back as around 600 BC.

This is an assumption on your part. I never brought Jesus into this or did I bring anyone or culture that pre-dates Jesus. I asked you a simple question in response to your statement that morality was a human invention - let us say there were no laws that defined murder and rape was wrong. Someone raped your sister and killed your brother - on what basis would you say what they did was wrong?

Again, refer to the Golden rule. And again not because I do not like it but, because I "act on the maxim that I wish it to be a universal rule"

The question then is - if the golden rule was a human invention: When and who created it?

I don't like repeating myself but, here it is one more time... If you say "God gave the principle that justifies morality" you'd be begging the question because God hasn't been factually proven. And an unproven God appears to be a valid factor in all your argument. Your arguments fall flat.

I don't want to get into the God is not proven argument; that is a whole new ball-game. Hence the reason I used energy as an example

So, I say (again)... Morality is a fact but, God is a probability and humans are real so, it would be logical to conclude that humans develop morality as something embedded in their consciousness from birth.

Would be logical to say humans developed light following your line of thought?

And that is the same reason why I'm not treating the existence of God the same way I would treat any other objective reality.

Depends on how you arrive at objective reality. Can God be scientifically proven - I don't think so. However, it's how you define proof. Proof can also be "beyond reasonable doubt". The same way we can say we don't know what energy is but we know it exist because we see it's effects

davien

Whether you truly did isn't even the issue, it's your lack of understanding...

Ha - the man that claims humans having brains is not a true scientific statement . Bros - I rest my case

Well I'm not exactly impressed by your knowledge nor feel as though I'm having an educated argument..

Your feelings are the least of my concern mate

This is a fallacious view...the fact that people die tells us nothing about the reality we experience. For all you know,you could be the only thing that exists and I may just be a computer program...can that be falsified?

That fact that you put a bullet through your brain confirms the reality to others that you are dead - You can define what death is to you, that is your cup of tea; the fact is that in 7 billion people reality - you are dead. So, keep watching the matrix. I am still interested in you trying the experiment though.

theories aren't absolutes...we even have evidence that indicates the moon wasn't always there to begin with....so does it count as true when we can deduce it not always been there? so can your statement be true taking time into account? or can you only speak of the time you deduced the moon being there

Whether the moon wasn't there in the 1st place is irrelevant. The statement that the moon revolve around the earth and the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific absolute - is that untrue or inaccurate? You can continue to practice intellectual dishonestly; it doesn't change the moon revolving around the sun or humans having brains. Again - these are not theories oh Bros. I keep asking you, can you falsify them

Can you prove they aren't a simulation?

Yes, I can - can you volunteer as the subject matter

lol actually with or without science absolutes are only terms we know to be true because they are defined...for example
"All bachelors are unmarried" is an absolute because the terms are defined,I don't have to go and look for all bachelors to know they are unmarried...but in your example above I'd I find a human that doesn't have two hands, two legs, and a brain wouldn't that fly in the face of claiming it as absolute?

Please indulge me - can you show us humans that doesn't have two arms, two legs and a brain?

And again you misunderstand simple concepts, absolutes of reality based on scientific theories are not known to always be true....this goes against uniformitarianism(a fundamental axiom if science)
" Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and
processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in
the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Humans having brains is not a THEORY OH! The earth revolving around the sun is not a THEORY Bros. Why do you insist of being stup.id?

Really?could you negate the possibility of me being a computer program?

I don't want to get into an arbitrary argument with you. Please define the parameters of you as a computer program.

And are you certain that humans will forever be and was always a product of a male and female without the core assumption of uniformitarianism?

Bros - abeg go and sit down. You are showing how much you know of the subject matter. Can you please falsify what I have said. And yes - humans born of other humans will remain humans. Your parents were humans and so are you, your kids will be humans and so will their kids - that is a truth statement

I cited Hinduism...

Really - that is your response?

Admittance to mistakes is not a problem for me....it's just so amusing that you think science can prove what we experience is reality when it can't...I've been using solipsism all the while watch you try to combat the incomprehensible...

Haha - you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Let us try your Solipsism. I will ask a question - Is Barak Obama the president of the United States of America?

All humans have brains right? Try to wiki anencephaly
" Anencephaly is the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull,
and scalp that occurs during embryonic development."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
Now knowing not all humans are born with a brain and some only a brain stem would that statement be absolutely true?

Cha, stupi.dity on a whole new level - can you show me where it says humans are not born with brains or there are no humans with brains? During Embryogenesis, their are stages where we don't have brains or they are not developed yet. My point was simple - humans have brains, two hands, two legs. I challenged you to show me a human with NO brains and all you came up with was Anencephaly . You can play the semantics game again but all you have been successful at doing is showing how narrow minded and deluded you are. Remember what I said - you want to talk just because you have a mouth.

"In mathematics, the word null (from German null , "zero", which is
from Latin nullus, "none" [1] means of or related to having zero
members in a set or a value of zero . Sometimes the symbol ∅ is
used to distinguish "null" from 0."
And that symbol is used to to express elements with 0 defintive data..
look above and below

It's pretty simple to test this, again one of the reasons I like math. We will create two sets with 3 values

davieninflation = {5,3,8}
daviensolipsism = {2,9,6}

The question is, are there any common elements between sets davieninflation and daviensolipsism. So, we create a 3rd set to capture this and call it daviennobrain. We represent it as such:

daviennobrain = {}

It means the 3rd set daviennobrain is a null set, it contains no common elements between the 1st two sets. We don't say daviennobrain contains zero because zero is a value.

Another example showing the sets containing zero:

davieninflation = {5,3,8,0}
daviensolipsism = {2,0,9,6}

In this case, daviennobrain is not a null set as it has a common element between the first two sets i.e. the value zero. I have explained to you that zero is a real number in math and doesn't represent nothing.

Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "∅", and " ". The
latter two symbols were introduced by the Bourbaki group
(specifically André Weil ) in 1939, inspired by the letter Ø in the
Norwegian and Danish alphabets (and not related in any way to the
Greek letter Φ ).Other notations for the empty set include "Λ" and
"0".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

it seems you don't live math enough to know what it is
I bet you even believe if numbers can be used to determine the likelihood of specific post events and give you the "like answer", care to test me on that?

Refer to the explanation I gave above.

True on "nothing"don't know about rocks growing legs and walking

I am sure you know what metaphoric expressions are Bros

And those standards(which you are unaware of) prompt "nothing"to be quantified..

Nothing is not quantifiable - if it was, we will not call it nothing. Infiniti is not quantifiable, if it was, we will not call it infiniti. The idea that "nothing" can be quantified or measured is an invention by scientist that want to support certain theories they adhere to.

It's true darkness doesn't exist,but because it can't be measured isn't the reason why it doesn't exist...would you say because we can't measure a single photon therefore photons don't exist?
note: photons make up light...

A photon can be observed, we know it's properties. The same is not the case with darkness! That was my point. I had said that in response to you saying - Darkness can be expressed in so many ways - No, it can't!. So, don't try and change the post in another direction

I did,again what's your point?

Did you actually read the link I posted?

So how is theology greater than science? (note: you claimed it was)...and has theology proven "god" exists or presuppose it does?

Can you please show me where I used the words - theology is greater than science?

[quote author=LucemFerre

I mean good and evil are dependent. Without conscious beings they won't exist as good and evil. Light and darkness are independent existential REALITIES.

First of all, darkness doesn't exist as we can't measure it. Besides that, the same rule applies, light and darkness will not exist without conscious beings as one have to be conscious to know they exist. You have to be conscious to know what light is; the same way you have to be conscious to know what morality is. However, my point was morality is not the same as human behavior. The fact that murder is wrong is not a human invention.

I wasn't talking about the existence of morality either I used the analogy to prove that moral model was created by human beings.

No it wasn't. Simple example; let us say there were no laws that defined murder and rape was wrong. Someone raped your sister and killed your brother - on what basis would you say what they did was wrong?

Energy is the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules) - Google

You have defined the transfer of energy and the effects of energy but still haven't told me what it is. Truth is - no one knows; not even the wisest of scientist.

I do not know what energy looks like though.

Thanks for been honest. That is the point after all; you are not the only one that doesn't know what it looks like or it's origin. However, we don't call you irrational or intellectually dishonest because you don't know what energy, it's origin or what it looks like.

I believe because it's effect is a fact not a probability that "God's" impact is.

I didn't ask you for the effects of energy. I asked you what it was/is. What it looks like or where did it come from. It's effect can clearly be seen. My point is simple - you believe in something that you don't know what it looks like, it's origin or what it is.

I'm just saying, you are driving towards asking me why I believe in energy when it is invisible and not believe in an invisible God. So, I gave the answer... because we can see the manifestation of what we call energy and there is no other way to look at it. While on the other hand what people call the manifestation of God's work is logical in two ways as I have said earlier... I'm a realist on this matter so, I can't just choose to take one explanation based on preference.

I asked you because the same standard you used to describe energy i.e. non-physical or meta-physical. You confirmed that you don't know what it looks like or it's origin. You are not using the same standard when it comes God. You are not being objective when applying the same criteria to the concept of a meta-physical being called God.

Now back to the matter of saying evil exists because of the absence of God... I say, It is highly inappropriate to base a theory (evil exists) on a probabilistic evidence(God). That was why I went around talking about the truth about creation by God. It would be more appropriate (convenient debatable point) however, to say evil (an objective fact) exists because of the absence of good (another objective fact). Despite that isn't even why evil exist. The absence of good isn't always evil and the absence of evil isn't always good but, that's another story... Don't wanna get into that now.

It is nice debating with you - I like the fact that you are straight-forward and generally objective. My point is simple, like energy, morality is a meta-physical principle that is justified by a God that gave it. Without morality, the best you can say when something is evil is that - "to you, you don't like it but you have no justifiable basis to say its evil or wrong".

Empiree:
^^bunch of olodo.

Teacher of Olodo

davien

Despite the elementary definition you have of science you still don't get it....

I was not defining science; Cha!

It's sad you don't get simple tautology, what science is and the difference between a "primordial ripple" and a "primordial universe"....your lack of coherent phrasing is also a deep concern

I made a mistake and used a wrong reference, I never denied it. Get over it Bros

lol! Typical butturt theist.....You don't even know the difference between saying something is "not true" compared to "not known if it is/was always true"....we use those axioms of science to presuppose natural laws for past and future events....under that guideline we do not know and we cannot know if the reality we experience is real....that is why every theory is subject to revision and the fact that a theory works does not make it true.....

I forgot I was speaking with an atheist. So the reality we are in now can't be known if it's real or not abi? Take a gun, put a bullet in the chamber, point it to your head and press the trigger. If you are still in this reality, come back and tell me what you observed. Bros, the examples I gave you are not theories - they are absolutes. The moon revolves around the earth is not a theory. Humans have two hands, two legs and a brain is not a theory. You can twist it however you want but there are absolutes in science - I have given you several examples but you insist on playing stupi.d. I find it hard to engage you moving forward

we look for predictive power in scientific theories and how well they can account for existing data..Science works by building a different set of models to account for a phenomena and passes them through the scientific method....those that fail are either modified or discarded,depending on the data collected..

No one is denying that. However, to say there are no absolutes in science is to be dis-honest and this is exactly what you are doing.

#facepalm I'm always blown away by your stupidity.....if you aren't certain,can you say definitively if it is true?..or say it's likely true?

Do you know what a truth statement is? I will give you an elementary example. You are a biological product between a male and female human being. Now, that statement is either scientifically 100% true or it isn't. If you can falsify it; then you can say it isn't. That is an example of the law of bio-genesis and in science there are very few exceptions to laws. So, this is one area where I can say I am 100% certain.

lol...theology queen of sciences?! perhaps you don't know that it's own view of reality is much less capable of predicting anything about the natural world..in hindu mythology the earth is a flat disk perched on a turtles back

I was careful to mentioned the type of theology I was referring to. I spoke precisely of the Christian faith. You ignored that and navigated to Hinduism.

At least you admitted your folly here...

Irrelevant - honest people admit when they make mistakes. Something you should learn from

Coming from someone who doesn't realise that the philosophy of science says nothing about you(nor any of your parts) really existing due to a starting point(realism)...Lets use epistemology for instance....we may use epistemology to infer a deductive argument to prove something and as inductive reasoning is stating something being likely or not given certain assumptions and since science is a way to formulate your assumptions, observe, and infer from your assumptions what is likely,if you assume there is a reality and it is knowable through observation that is at least partly reliable, you can actually infer quite a lot of things. A lot of these findings are well documented and easy to verify. I cannot think that there are better ways to reason, especially if you want to understand what we call reality as good as possible,than science and epistemology..Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given (through the methods of your choice, but I recommend the rational scientific way).

All this to prove whether you have a brain as a human-being is real or not? Bros, it's either humans have a brain or they don't. If we have brains (which all humans do) - we can confirm with 100% certainty that we do. If we don't we can also confirm that. Again, if the statement that humans have a brain is incorrect; you should be able to use scientific methods to falsify it. All you have done is talk crap.

Science and mathematic require terminolgy to be defined or quantified(if possible both)so as to represent data....in mathematic's "nothing" can be defined as "0"

Nope - zero is not nothing in math and it isn't defined as such. Zero is a value and the only real integer that can be positive or negative. In math, "nothing" is usually represented as null.

You can see that "nothing" in mathematics is definitive and not ambiguous..and from that definitive term alone we can express many things with "nothin" I.e 10,100,1000 etc

I don't know where you did your math - you should try and re-visit it. The concept of nothing is not arbitrarily defined in math. And one of the reasons I love math is that it's specific and not arbitrary like the other sciences where they have to guess in certain situations. For example, 0 is a value in math. -10,000 is a value and they are not "nothing". The concept of "nothing" in math is captured as NULL. In latin, it means none. It is also commonly referred to as the NULL set where the set it defined by either elements you can assign values or no elements at all.

And I am not insisting on krauss definition' as much as citing it as to why we say the universe "emerged from nothing" in respect to what "nothing" has been demonstrated to always be something

You and I differ on what "nothing" means and we can debate it until the rocks grow legs and walk.

You're definitely butturt That statement is stup.id because you made it....you seem to misunderstand citations too.. I cited him because of that statement...the closer we get to the definition of "nothing" the more we realise its actually something..

Another stupid statement . The definition of nothing is not arbitrary Bros whether it's made by Kruass, Einstein or whosoever. In science we have standards oh.

Darkness can be expressed in many ways I.e a lack of information cast by a 3D object(in the case of shadows) in realtime or a lack of perceivable light from a light source

All you have done is measured light - that is what we do in science; we measure things, test things, experiment with things. We can't measure darkness so it doesn't exist!

Here's a simplified version of why you were still talking about the mutiverse that even you should understand...Bicep2 is evidence of primordial ripples....primordial ripples are gravitational waves....gravitational waves are evidence of neighboring universes....
So what exactly do you expect me to think when you kept talking about the "multverse theory" when you've mistaken "primordial ripples" for "primordial universes"

Cha - so you want to keep using the multi-verse old news mantra over and over again even after I made it clear that I made an error. If you were patient enough you would have read that I was referring to Cosmic microwave background as it related to inflation you so consistently talked about. Please read what I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2014/06/24/higgs-boson-seems-to-prove-that-the-universe-doesnt-exist/

lol! typical theist,when you back them to a corner they begin to pretend and accuse you of what they're doing... How am i not objective as compared to this your comment below that screams subjectivity

Theology is a science is subjective? Are you high? You are the same person that arbitrarily decides to believe what "nothing" is when it comes to the cosmos as when it compares to general science and you are here telling me I am subjective! Bros - go look in the mirror.

When we think of "science," we usually think of the study of the natural world and that which can be quantitatively measured—subjects such as biology and physics. Historically, though, of the “natural” sciences, only geometry and astronomy were part of the standard university curriculum. So what was a science? Augustine defined it as anything to do with knowledge of the temporal world. Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it encounters special and general revelation.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is “a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation.” This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study (the Bible and general revelation).

LucemFerre

Good and evil are relative, light and darkness aren't.

So, murder is relative? How so? I don't get where you are going with light and darkness part

Don't shift the burden of proof. Morality exists and God hasn't been proven to exist, it is only logical to conclude that the Bible/Qur'an was written by men who claim voices in their head told them to.

I am not talking about the existence of morality; I am talking about the justification of morality - two BIG differences. On what basis, can you say something is right or wrong or something is good or evil?

I don't want to misunderstand you but, I guess you wanted to write "Can you prove energy or tell me what it looks like?"
(Correct me if I'm wrong)

You are not wrong; I was typing too fast and wrote the wrong thing

And I am highly surprised and disappointed that you are asking me to prove energy. Anyway, here goes... Slam your phone on the wall... Now, that ability that enabled you to temporarily oppose gravity a little bit to transfer your phone from one point to another is energy.

You have explained the transfer of energy from one form (force - slamming or throwing your phone) to another (friction - the phone hitting the wall) - that doesn't tell us what energy is or what it looks like?

It is a non-physical existence that manifests by it's effect on physical objects. And that is a one way theory.

You came close i.e. the non-physical part and you are right; the effects of energy on physical objects can be seen. However, none of us knows what energy is or what it looks like - we call it energy just to give it a name. You just confirmed it's non-physical/invisible; yet you believe it.

The theory of an invisible God is a two way theory... It's either it (God) did it or it didn't (independent progressive natural process)

Two way or two thousand ways - makes no difference. The principle is the same. Remember, you termed energy as the non-physical existence. At this point, I will ask you what you mean by that - I don't want to assume.

Empiree:
ogbeni usermane and ogbeni slyfox5555, or maybe same freaking person. You really need to zip it. Enough of your nonsense. This same week, there was terrorist attack in Colorado, USA. Ever wonder why media reluctant to broadcast it?.
http://news.yahoo.com/terror-attack-america-week-why-wasnt-news-193453101.html

Stick your hatred for Islam and Muslims in your pipe and smoke it

Islamic terrorism and terrorism are two different things. Two Islamic cowards went into a newspaper office and murdered 12 people and murdered innocent policemen/women - they stated clearly why they did it, in the name of Allah and defending Mohammad honor. The motive and thinking behind such act is what I am against as a Muslim. Perhaps you support it - I won't be surprised

So, continue to live in your ignorance and blindness; not problem. While at it - watch Egypt Sisi speech on how Jihadis and Islamic supremacy thinking needs reformation. I am sure CAIR would say he is not a true Muslims -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POGpIt2U4s4

usermane:


how is that relevant to this topic?

Abeg, ask him again

LucemFerre

Nope... They're not even remotely similar in any way

How so?

You mean men's moral standards that they claim was given to them by God.

Really, can you prove how moral justification is a products of human-beings?

You mean "...absence of good." The opposite of light is darkness I can understand that but, God hasn't even been proven, you don't know what or how it looks like, all you have is a gddamn hunch based on theories written by some bedouin shepherds years back. So, how the hell did you manage to know it had an opposite not to talk of knowing that it's opposite is evil?

The same old school-boy argument . Since you are an intelligent person - can you prove something that we are familiar with. What you prove energy or tell me what it looks like?

davien

how's about you go and do your research.......I'd only credit you with a few sources
http://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/news/kinetic-dominance-pre-inflationary-universe

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec21.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I think I understand where you are coming from now. You hold one of the many numerous theories about what happened before the Big Bang. I was asking for scientific claims that the entire scientific community agree on but so far what you are offering is a theory - my mistake; I misunderstood.

BICEP2 team observed what may be evidence of inflation in the early Universe. Like any claim of this gravity, the result is hotly debated. If the idea of inflation is correct, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multi-verse (Universe popping up everywhere). And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.

This reminds me of the scientific community claim that our universe existed eternally, only to swallow that claim when it was discovered that our universe is constantly expanding.

This is my point,you keep asking uneducated questions because you haven't read a shred about what you're talking about....I'm virtually wasting my time with you because you can't go do your homework...
And can you give me an example of nothing in it's classical sense...not a vacuum devoid of matter...just a classical example of nothing would suffice and then envision how another "nothing" can/cannot come from it...if you can't,then how can you make conclusions from it?
If you said we have examples of something coming from something I'd agree with you 100% and we can make conclusions that things can come from things...but when you say nothing comes from nothing,do you have a standard of "nothing" to draw that conclusion from?
The remainder of your questions of asking a "where" and a "time" is illogical if you did your homework about the pre-inflationary universe...I bet you even think there was an outside,lol

When anyone doesn't conform to your way of thinking - they are labelled uneducated. Imagine the people that claimed that our universe had a beginning decades ago - they were laughed at, called uneducated and were irrational.

Bros, nothing means the absence of anything and/or everything. Taking our universe as an example, it means no matter, no radiation, no energy, no spatial curvature; we can imagine existing in completely empty, void space. Whether you decide to call that something, na your wahala be that. . The concept is very simple, you can decide to confuse yourself and throw all kinds of meaning to it but the premise is simple.

And might I ask where I said inflation was before it? or did the below tautology confuse you

I don't make any claim to know the uncertain. What we know said our universe had a beginning. You are are the one trying to explain what nothing means

If you are easily confused by the above tautology it comes as no surprise that you know next to nothing about the big bang...Here's a tip....go and do your homework...mentioning alan guth is one thing...understanding his work is another....here's a bit of help

Really! - the same cocky attitude atheist have. Let me celebrate in my uncertainty; I don't claim to know everything but I know much about our universe to know that it had a beginning, it wasn't eternal.

Empiree:
CAIR is terrorist?. This video murders all nonsense you have been saying since you started your contributions on this thread. And dont forget to note Ibrahim Hooper's comment also. Ibrahim's comment is contrary to misinformation you gave here.

The question should be - did CAIR have members who were convicted and persecuted of terrorism? Can you please answer that!

simplex2:


Dead on arrival, try again!

We all know that your account of creation in 1:1 was further illustrated from 1:2 where the details of the events was illustrated. The cave men that compiled the bible didn't have knowledge of matter and its components.

The "cavemen" that wrote the Bible gave you a compass on what morality is? The "cavemen" that wrote the Bible, gave you the golden rule. The Bible is not a science book Bros - it is an account of how the author narrated his revelation and historical events.

Let's see how much of a "caveman" gene you have . What is energy?

davien

I will re-iterate....the first inflation is referred as the beginning of the universe...before inflation the universe existed in a primordial form..

.

Any scientific data to support the primordial form view?

I did not "confirm it having a beginning" how is this hard for you to understand...The initial inflation is termed the "beginning of the universe"...those were my words..and furthermore the as-yet unknown primordial universe still existed....that is what can't be deduced in any scale as it operated in a 0-dimensional infinite regress...

Any scientific data to support the primordial form view?

#facepalm ...was it the fact that I said it seems the universe has eternal properties that hinted such?
For clarity....
1. Inflation is termed the beginning of the universe.
2. Before inflation,the primordial universe was infinitesimal....existing as everything in a 0-dimensional plane of extreme density.....
3.Everything that is,was and will be in existence is still termed "the universe."...before inflation and after.

Any scientific evidence to support points 1 and 2?

Not necessarily....there is no law that states the earth must be 93 million miles away from the sun...it is just one in an infinite number of possibilities....

There is the simple law that NOTHING can give rise to NOTHING - that was my point. Your explanation that the universe existed in a primordial form before it inflated still doesn't explain where the primordial was. When did it start to exist in primordial form? Scientist have traced the Big Bang or creation or the universe about 14 billion years - that is the data we have so far. What about the primordial form? Did it always exist? Was it there eternally and just inflated about 14 billion years ago?

Scientist such as Alan Guth - Physics professor at MIT are the ones doing deep research into cosmic inflation and that inflation is after the Big Bang and not before it. So, I am interested in your view about primordial Universe - I am sensing you are saying the universe had always existed but decided to inflate 14 billion years ago

davien

I don't have to believe anything about the universe....the objective evidence thus far points to an expanding universe,so that is what is known currently as the state of the universe

No one is arguing this point. The question is, did the universe have a beginning or did expand infinitely i.e. did it always exist and just continue to expand?

First off its not my theory(i did not postulate an expanding universe)....the postulate was first known to have been proposed by a Catholic priest of which it was justified by Edwin hubble.....only to be ridiculed by steady-state theorist fred hoyle as the "big bang"
Second before asking about inflation it's best you go read about it because right now the questions you are asking are uneducated questions....inflation still contained energy and then matter...if you do not even understand the basics then I can't go any further...

All I wanted was for you to be specific. You have confirmed that our universe had a beginning and this beginning was an inflation. That leads me to my next question, where did energy and matter come from? Did they exist before the inflation or they started to exist when the universe was inflated?

You misunderstood my reply... I said the properties "seem" to be eternal....and that the "first inflation" is regarded as the beginning of the universe...try reading my posts before vehemently replying.

Ah - so basically you are not sure. You are suggesting that properties such as matter and energy might have existed before the universe but you are not sure - is that your stand? If yes - any scientific reference or proof for this?

Again try reading my posts before vehemently replying...I was referring to benalvino2,and asking atheists about cosmology ofcourse won't give you any "satisfactory answer"(depending on what you're looking for) because you are looking for cosmological answers among atheists as though they are astronomers...

Neither am I an astronomer . However, we have evidence about our cosmos that can be discussed. We know certain laws have to be in place or certain things to happen.

davien

so you do have sock accounts.. anyway,the first inflation is considered to be the beginning(there were two inflations both of which expanded space)....

I am asking you what you believe. I am asking about the universe - so let us concentrate on the universe. You agree that the universe had a beginning.

It's fundamental properties seem to be eternal....so go figure......the problem with discussing anything with inflation is that many people view it as though it's an explosion that spews stuff that didn't exist into a void(its even shown that way in movies)...but to really envision such a phenomenon it would actually be expanding from the inside...having no outside whatsoever because there wouldn't be one..as everything that can be said to exist was and is the inflating universe..

Can you give me an example of an inflation that expands from inside from virtually no matter or energy into something like say our universe. Or you can give me any other example to prove your theory where inflation can occur spontaneously without the existence of matter or energy.

Is it a creation?....because if I understand you correctly from your question you think it's "created"...
What I can tell you though is that the physics of the universe cannot be accounted for past and present by wishful thinking and mundane reasoning..

You seem to be dodging the question. The universe can't be both eternal and had a beginning - the simple proof to that is that our universe is constantly expanding. The big bang is a scientific concept that science mocked several years ago but they now embrace. So, it's clear that our universe never existed and suddenly around 14 billion years ago popped up. That is not wishing thinking, that is science confirming that.

Contrary to your friend benalvino2 I didn't attack you...although that depends if you're intellectually honest

I never used the word attack or said you did. I said Atheist can't provide a satisfactory answer on the origin of our universe yet they are critical of other opinions on the matter

AbooTasleemah1:
As Salamu alaykum wa RahmatuLlaah!
Firstly: This is the ruling of Allaah and His
Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
"Whoever changes his religion, kill
him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no.
3017).
Note: It was revealed in Surat Najm Vs 2 and 3 that the Prophet(sala Llaahu alayhi was salam) never speaks of his own desire.

Secondly: The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it,
then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a
person who does not deserve to live on the
earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of
Allaah. By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the
way for everyone who wants to leave the faith,
thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.
The apostate is not to be killed without
warning. Even though his crime is so great, he
is given a last chance, a respite of three days in
which to repent. If he repents, he will be left
alone; if he does not repent, then he will be
killed.
If the punishment for murder and
espionage (also known as high treason) is
death, then what should be the punishment
for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of
mankind and despises and rejects His religion?
Is espionage or shedding blood worse than
leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and
rejecting it?

#Copied from Islamqa with some Editing from me. I hope this benefit us more... The word of Rasul(sala Llaahu alayhi was salam) is not to be checked by any of us coz we'll never understand the religion better than him, we should try and ask from scholars who knows better should we encounter any shubu'at(Unclear/ambigous issue). WaLlaahul musta'an!
...And Allaah knows best

We are Muslims and follow the Quran, traditions and authentic Hadiths. Islamic jurisprudence in all Sunni Islamic schools and even Shias confirm that apostates should be killed. There is no need to sugar-coat it. However, Islamic teachings shows that such practices can only be practiced where the country and authority is purely Islamic and the "apostate" have openly declared their apostasy.

In Islamic law - when you steal, your hand is cut off. When you commit fornication, your are flogged. When you leave Islam - you are killed. The rationale behind this ruling is the fact that the apostate will make other Muslims question their faith or become apostates as well. As a result, the apostate should be killed.

Imagine if we lived in societies that did the same. Say we lived in a country who's religion was called "Pattonism". If you leave Pattonism, you will be killed.

As a Muslim, this is an area where Islam needs reform.

davien:
what exactly is your question then....are you just too stu.pid to grasp anything being said?
You didn't even watch your own video.....

Irrespective of the above, the question is this?

1. Did the universe have a beginning?
2. Did the universe exist eternally?
3. Did the universe create itself?

I have asked my atheist friends here and can't get a straight answer

Empiree:
Lol, you are the one that accused CAIR of being criminal organization. So you answer him where their 'dubious' funds come from.

Bros - did you ever see where I said CAIR acquired their funds using 'dubious' means? I suggested CAIR gets their funds no different than Hamas does - mainly through donations. CAIR however sues people alot and their are monetary settlement they get from such lawsuits.

I take God beg you, please don't put words in my mouth

Empiree:
It's legitimate question he asked. Answer him. @bold is irrelevant.

You are the CAIR expert, why not answer him

true2god:
Can you explain how CAIR gets its finances?

That is what happens when people can't debate intelligently. Imagine asking Hamas where it gets it's funds?

1ord:

You just pick parts of the scripture to support your view points.Fact is yaweh and his ilk are genocidal maniacs that attack people unprovoked.The guys i pity the most are the people of jericho they were in their own land in their own city yet those genocidal maniacs randomly decide to slay them.I you have read through Kings and various parts of the old testament then you know i am right.

You still seem to argue blindly. I am not denying that there were wars in the Bible. For you guys to claim that all those wars were unprovoked is simply not true and that was where I was getting at. You can't generalize; you have to be specific on the wars you are referring to. Typical example, you can't compare the war fought in Rwanda with the war fought in world war 2 - two different scenarios and time-frames

The wars in the Bible have context, times, cultures, places that are totally different than our modern laws and way of life. You have to understand that before you start tackling the subject. I don't mind indulging you; all I ask is for you to be specific and objective

[quote author=Empiree post=29379565][/quote]

Tiring talking with you. You wanted to figure out why UAE added CAIR to the terrorist list - now you wonder why

Empiree

Okay good. By your response, you suggested that you have problems with CAIR. So go to them rather than vexing your anger on net. Fair enough?

You painted CAIR as the holy grail; evidence shows otherwise. The last time I checked, I am free to post my opinions online

Quick question, do you want CAIR as representative of muslims in America to be indicted, tried, convicted and shut?

You seem to have a hard time comprehending. CAIR doesn't speak for all Muslims in America, certainly not me. If CAIR and or it's members is found guilty of breaking the laws of the land then yes. So far, several of it's members have been indicted and convicted.

Will I send my kid to a school where the principal is a terrorists? NO