Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Non religious.

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,696 profile views

Quisant's Achievements

  1. I will not, don't assume what you are trying to prove. But I do like your avatar, nice picture.
  2. Special pleading is a well known informal fallacy. You can catch up on Wikipedia. Wslm. *
  3. It has never been shown or demonstrated that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause. "The First cause": Is this by necessity a singular entity? What prevents multiple causal agents? What prevents a chain of descending or ascending events with multiple agents acting independently and and simultaneously? The problem with your proof is that it does not prove God, in fact, the proof itself doesn't even mention God, it just concludes that the universe has a cause. You never even attempt to show that this cause is what you call God, and that it is necessarily God because it has the exact same properties as God as you define God. wslm. *
  4. Therefore... Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a God, are contingent. *
  5. To introduce the soul as an absolute fact is a lie simply because it is not an absolute fact. Religious authorities do so because it is useful for controlling the behaviour of believers. The core of the idea of soul comes from Plato who lived some 2500 years ago. He was trying to solve the intellectual problem of how we can have ideas of perfect things when perfect things do not exist in the real world. He decided there must be another world where these things are perfect – perfect triangles, perfect circles, perfect people, perfect everything. A soul could be perfect if properly tended and trained. This 'perfect world' was the scientific – not religious – aim of the day. Near Death Experiences have been extensively studied; the BRAIN does sometimes creates illusions in people whose bodies shut down and are then resuscitated. It is just the subjective internal experience of an injured brain. 'Consciousness' is a process, not an object. It does not 'exist': it occurs. Consciousness is an emergent property of living brains; a manifestation or function of the brains. Organisms with central nervous systems/brains have consciousness. Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. Mind is the capacity to experience, to ask questions about one's experience, and then to criticize the ideas that we come up with to explain our experience. wslm. *
  6. You could say that, but you would only be projecting your character; that is what YOU would do if you were an atheist. The fact remains that religious leaders tell their followers that an individual's essence continues to live after one dies. This is taught as if it is an absolute fact. But it is a lie, as there is no evidence that it is true. Wslm *
  7. It reminds me of the Kasîdah of Hâjî Abdû El-Yezdî (1870), VI All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own. The metaphysical promises eternal life...irresistible to so many! From the dawn of time people have believed in souls because they have seen themselves protagonists in dreams and thus they have thought body and soul as separate entities. Certainly, 'souls' exist in every religion, because all Gods require those souls as elements to reward and/or torture after death. "Soul" has doctrinal meaning in religions, and philosophical meanings in various discussions, but no meaning at all in biology. wslm. *
  8. Hello 313_Waiter, I like the idea of the fish wondering if there is something called water...made me smile. Do you ever think that ultimately it does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen." It only matters that for us to accept its existence there must be evidence of that existence. Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world. We go about detecting the unseen... through its effects. A thing that does not manifest in nature is indistinguishable from a non-existent thing. If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence. wslm. *
  9. I see what you mean now, it is a clever and intriguing point. I feel I owe you an apology, after a trip abroad I had to quarantine for 14 days; it was driving me mad. I have been bad-tempered, thoughtless and self-centred with you. I am sorry. To day I can finally go out in the open fresh air! Thanks for talking to me, see you again soon. Best wishes.
  10. Actions are actions, they have no essence. If that were the case everything would be Purity. I witness too much ugliness to ride with that idea.... Sorry, I am a non-believer. Best wishes. *
  11. True, what you say. A Perfect Being cannot change its mind - To change is to be subject to time, and to change implies that what comes after was better than before, which would contradict God's perfection. If God changes (i.e., thinks) from one state of mind to another, then there must be a reason. The new state must be better than the old state. But this is impossible if God is perfect: It is not possible to "improve" God, therefore, God cannot change and God cannot possess any on-going thoughts at all. No free will. The only possible mental state for a God is a static, unchanging, unaltering status-quo. wslm *
  12. If a God exists then its purest expression is reality itself If the teachings of the faith are God’s revelation of the truth; science, the product of human reason, is the search for truth. The “correct faith“, therefore, cannot be opposed to “good science” because “truth” is the object of both. Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. Because you declare your religion to be Islam, you must have decided that the First Cause was Allah: I was merely curious as to what steps do you take to reach that conclusion. wslm *
  13. What we have observed is that Within our universe, whatever begins to exist has a cause. But the universe is not 'a single big thing; it is the sum of all things and is thus not subject to the same constraints. A category error, like saying: (1) All novels have an author. (2) Literature consists of all novels. (3) Therefore, literature has an author. Every human has a belly button, but Humanity does not. Yes, we have seen that in our universe things require causes, but it has never been established that the causes must be intelligent. A First Cause does not need to be God; a starting point doesn't need to be supernatural or Intelligent. Why do you think it does? But if there was an intelligent First Cause, there are many possible candidates for the role: the God you believe in; Plato's demiurge; a new age force (Star Wars may the force be with you); space aliens from another galaxy; time travellers; or an unknown intelligent being. How do you identify that First Cause with your God, what steps do you take to reach that conclusion? wslm. *
  14. I don't know where you get your information from, the following is what many atheists think: The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang is an event that happened to existing matter/energy. It is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected point on any line is a "beginning." It is a point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter. It is where the universe became as it is now, not the point where energy /matter began. Therefore a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction". wslm. *
  15. Typically you offer no logical proof for your statement but thanks for your opinion. Square-circles are known not to exist because their definition is self-contradictory. Atemporal Actions are known not to exist because their definition is self-contradictory. I consider it blatantly obvious that If God changes his mind from ‘undecided’ to ‘decided’ that Time must pass. Time doesn't occur unless something Changes. Conversely, Change can't occur without Time passing. They are 2 sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. If time has been caused to exist, then it must have passed from a state of nonexistence into existence. But changes in state occur within time, so if there was no time when time didn't exist, then it could not possibly change its state and come into existence. Going from non-existence to existence, is itself duration, sequence, chronology, and succession. If a change has occurred then Time has passed and if Time has passed then a change has occurred. Is that acceptable to you? Wslm. *
  • Create New...