That wasn't my question, my question was, at which point in the the evolution of humans did god decide we were worthy of souls? As opposed to say, our distant cousins the apes.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
That wasn't my question, my question was, at which point in the the evolution of humans did god decide we were worthy of souls? As opposed to say, our distant cousins the apes.
You won't ever be able to draw a line when a person is formed. Why does that trouble you?
I know, but this is a much more complicated question.. I was showing you an example of something more simple (when it comes to life/soul) that we don't know..
There is nothing in the Quran that gives a clear answer for this question.
Do you know why nothing in the Quran gives a clear answer to that question?
It becomes a problem when you're trying to decide when it's murder, and when it's not..
There isn't. Sperm and egg forms Zigote, which will be nothing but a growing replicating mass of similar cells for a few days, during which twins can be formed, as all of these cells are totipotent (they can give rise to any type of tissue in the body and have all the embryogenesis genes active). With time a they will start to differentiate and move to their correct places and form a body. You can't draw a line when this process begins.
That's true. Though some would argue that until the nervous system begins to be formed there is really nothing to distinguish the embryo of a random mass of living tissue, even if we were to agree with it, there is no clear moment when teh nervous system is formed. Sometimes we just have to accept that a definition of "person", as in an autonomous living being, doesn't have a clear borderline moment.
Yes, two reasons.
First, the Quran is not a science book (in the materialistic sense), because otherwise, it will be a book for a defined era, after which people will develop new questions..
And second, because the people can't understand it. This is also mentioned in the verse: "They ask you about the soul, tell them it's a (creation/deed/command) of God, but what they know is very little."
I'll be honest, Dan, I'm a little lost by your phrasing hang up. I feel we're drifting a bit between a deistic & a theist argument. I believe science can disprove the Abrahamic God. Your God, the Christian God etc, as it can disprove Scientology and many others.
The concept of "a God" or something that can be interpreted as a God, whatever that word means however, no, it cannot.
But then the convincing you're talking about, is never aimed at people with a general, undefined belief in the plausibility of a God. It's aimed at the religious. The theistic. You haven't been arguing for a Deistic God in this thread. You've been arguing for yours, Allah.
I've said many times I have absolutely no issue with Deism, or an Einstienian or Spinozan interpretation of God. The belief that there may be some form of unknowable or unknown God like thing, whatever that word means. I don't believe it personally, but I don't consider it "wrong"...for lack of a better word.
Science isn't materialistic, we've already explained what materialistic means to you. Besides, how can the Quran hold true for all time if it can't answer questions that arise later on? Surely this god fella is due for another installment in this series of books?
And what that second point really means is that the people who wrote the Quran were morons who didn't have an answer as to what the soul is. Why? Because they made it up.
God should get with the times and release a Blu-Ray instead.
How?
Till this point, I'm not trying to "prove" that "my God" exists, or arguing for it unless I'm answering questions.. I'm trying to draw clear lines about what most atheists say, and what science really say.
Well you're going to be frustrated, because it's not a set of things. You can be an Atheist & believe in fairies. Scientologists are atheist, as there's no deities in their doctrine. We aren't a set of people unified by a belief in something, we're unified by not believing in something. The same way you & I are unified in not believing in Big Foot (presuming you don't believe in Big Foot....You don't believe in Big Foot do you?)
I can't be arsed to go through this again. I'll find a long, long list of things from somewhere else in this thread at some point if you like. Archeology, biology, paleontology, history, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology and if nothing else good old common sense and sheer implausibility.
I can't be arsed to go through this again. I'll find a long, long list of things from somewhere else in this thread at some point if you like. Archeology, biology, paleontology, history, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology and if nothing else good old common sense and sheer implausibility.
The Quran is for all time because it answers questions that apply for all times, and questions for which people from all times can understand the answer for..
No it means that the people who asked the question can't understand the answer, because their (and your) knowledge is limited. You can't explain the theory of relativity to a 5 years old child, not because you don't know it, but because he can't understand it.
This is like watching Raymond Babbitt trying to solve "Who's on First?"
To make my point clearer, what I'm trying to prove here is that what most atheists say is actually not what science says, despite their claims.
They are trying to create a confusion to try to "prove" something, or prove that "science proves it", through using one word "atheism" to describe two different things..
And you're honestly satisfied with that answer?
I'm not a fecking 5 year old, and if god thinks so little of us, why would we be even be worthy of a soul?
And bollocks does the Quran answer questions that apply for all times.
Is it wrong for a grown man to feck a child? for example, where in the quran is that question answered?
How's that going for you? You've found one guy out of dozens in this thread who thinks he 'knows' there is no god. Surely it's time for Muhammad to come to the mountain by now.
To say nothing of how frivolous an endeavor it is to try and prove what most think based on a couple of people on the internet to begin with.
If there is a logical reason you should try giving one rather than making things up because you want them to be that way. If everything has to have a reason to happen then what was the reason god happened and who made those reasons. You have to see how flawed that logic is which means it's wrong.
It may be that other atheists have a higher threshold for their certainty but I don't speak for them. God does not exist the idea of god is a bad idea which just doesn't work out.
Yes because it's logical. It's equivalent to:
A: Feck off! Gravity doesn't exist.
B: It does. What's holding us to the ground then? There must be a reason for that. There must be something that's pulling us "downwards" and we call it gravity.
A: Bullsh*t. Why can't we see it then?
B: Because your eyes can't. The problem lies in your eyes, they can't see everything. They're limited.
Who is making more sense? A or B?
You live in a universe, that is regulated by laws. All you do is try to discover those laws. You will never be able to work or understand anything outside those laws, no matter how old you are, or how smart you are..
A, A makes much more sense. Do you not understand gravity either now?
And neither will you, and the moronic religious books certainly won't. It's a deliberately obtuse argument. You can't say that I don't know anything beyond human understanding while simultaneously saying you do.
And neither will you, and the moronic religious books certainly won't. It's a deliberately obtuse argument. You can't say that I don't know anything beyond human understanding while simultaneously saying you do.
You're the one who claims to, not us.
What's your evidence that there is anything "outside" those laws, by the way?
His argument is that it says so in the Quran.
This is not true.Also, I know that eventually most atheists admit it after a short debate, I already said it, but initially, or when they're not debating, they don't talk about "not knowing" or "not having an evidence", but rather how there is no such thing as God.
Also, I know that eventually most atheists admit it after a short debate, I already said it, but initially, or when they're not debating, they don't talk about "not knowing" or "not having an evidence", but rather how there is no such thing as God.
god is a human concept, the only thing atheists concede is the small possibility that it might be right, not by design, but by the mere accident that something which resembles god exists. However, religion is quite clearly bollocks. There is a big difference between the idea of god and religion.
Because nothing happens without a reason, according to the laws of our universe. Only something outside our universe can explain where our universe and its laws came from.
It's actually not a "possibility". It's a necessity.
Nothing happens without a reason in as far as determinism is correct, but that has nothing to do with god.
Gravity isn't perfect for us by design, gravity is perfect for us because we evolved to be adaptable to a planet with the amount of gravitational pull earth has.
Gravity isn't perfect for us by design, gravity is perfect for us because we evolved to be adaptable to a planet with the amount of gravitational pull earth has.
I'm sure I've proven god doesn't exist but obviously you can't understand that I have because you aren't clever enough. It’s like I'm trying to explain it to five year olds.
I'm quoting a conversation between Newton, and, some idiot? Good to know on which side you are.
Also, when did I say that I know? Because if I read again what I wrote, I didn't only say that I "don't know", I said, I "can't" know..
I'm not talking about design here. I'm talking about the simple logic we use in our science, on which the laws of the universe are built..
We all believe that there must be a reason for everything.. Nothing happens without a reason. As much as this simple law help us know a lot about the universe, it proves that we'll never know where the universe came from, and the reason for it has to be something that falls outside this universe, and doesn't follow its laws, thus doesn't need a reason to exist.
Just because something existed outside our universe wouldn't mean it didn't need a reason to exist.
So, you can't know allah is real? What makes you think he is then?
I'm quoting a conversation between Newton, and, some idiot? Good to know on which side you are.
Also, when did I say that I know? Because if I read again what I wrote, I didn't only say that I "don't know", I said, I "can't" know..
And by the way, Newton didn't put his argument for gravity in such stupid terms. He never said we can't see gravity, by virtue of seeing things fall to ground he worked out there was gravity. Newton would have thought the argument person B was making is an insult to his work.
If you're not talking about design, then what the feck are you arguing? You can't simultaneously argue two opposite points. fecking hell, you really are thick.
I don't believe there must be a reason for everything. And there are many other people who don't, does nihilism ring a bell at all?
But something inside our universe and follows its laws can't be the reason why the universe exist. The only possible answer is that something outside our universe (I'm not talking spatially here, I mean it doesn't follow its laws) was the reason behind its existence. One of those laws that he can't follow is having a reason to exist.
Even if that were true (which it isn't, as has been explained to you), how does this lead to allah and an afterlife?
First part: I don't know what God is, what he's made of (I know though that he can't be made of the same material as our universe), but I believe a "God" must exist. I know that God must have a few characteristics, but there are a lot of things that I will never be able to understand about him because it falls outside our senses/the laws of the universe that we know.
Second part: I'm not talking about "reason" in the sense of "deliberate intention", I'm talking about the reason in the sense of "a mechanism" or a "cause" for anything to happen.
What characteristics?
And again, there is no distinction between the mechanism and the thing. Do you really not understand that? There is no reason for there be a cause to the universe besides your own lack of understanding.
And how the feck is that an argument for allah?
And again, there is no distinction between the mechanism and the thing. Do you really not understand that? There is no reason for there be a cause to the universe besides your own lack of understanding.
And how the feck is that an argument for allah?
Mind a quote?
Microwave background radiation distribution suggests structure before the big bang. That doesn't mean that that structure wouldn't follow cause and effect or have laws governing it. There would be nothing supernatural about that.
The the post above yours. There is no distinction between a the laws of the universe, and the laws of the universe existing.