What is the Proof ??

[asadxyz]

Peace;
What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??
Can any Atheist prove their existence ?

[ranma1/2]

Peace;
What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??
Can any Atheist prove their existence ?

there is no "proof". "well in beer and math but thats about all"

however their is evidence.

we have actual writings from them. we have witnesses from actual contemporaries etc..

another important matter is that no unusuall claims have been made about them. There is no real reason to doubt them since their is nothign special.
Now if you were to claim one did miracels or fulfilled some prophecy ect.. and you only had acounts from people that were not witnesses then i woudl doubt.

of course it could be a world wide conspiracy, aristotal could have been the imagination of the third snail from the right.

[asadxyz]

there is no "proof". "well in beer and math but thats about all"


we have actual writings from them. we have witnesses from actual contemporaries etc..

.

Peace :
What is the proof that those writings are by them ??
What is the proof of their contempories existence ??

[ranma1/2]

Peace :
What is the proof that those writings are by them ??
What is the proof of their contempories existence ??

what is your point?

as stated amoment ago there is no "proof"

but a important thing is there is nothing unusally about them.

Hey did you meet my dad?
Why yes i did.
Oh did you now? where is the proof?
well i have a photo.
Is that him or an imposter?
Well i assumed he was your dad.
What if its the devil tricking you?
etc...

so whats your point.

I myself dont know for a fact that they, or you exists.
I have no proof of your existence.
You can not prove your existence.

However we can look at reasonable evidence

and im sure you have heard this before

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[asadxyz]

what is your point?

as stated amoment ago there is no "proof"

but a important thing is there is nothing unusally about them.

Hey did you meet my dad?
Why yes i did.
Oh did you now? where is the proof?
well i have a photo.
Is that him or an imposter?
Well i assumed he was your dad.
What if its the devil tricking you?
etc...

so whats your point.

I myself dont know for a fact that they, or you exists.
I have no proof of your existence.
You can not prove your existence.

However we can look at reasonable evidence

and im sure you have heard this before

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Peace :
yes this is what I am saying ,since there is no proof,no evidence of their existance,their existance is doubtful.Right??

By the way what is the difference between proof and evidence ?

[ranma1/2]

Peace :
yes this is what I am saying ,since there is no proof,no evidence of their existance,their existance is doubtful.Right??

By the way what is the difference between proof and evidence ?

it is doubtful but not reasonably doubtful.

Just a real rough explanation.
Proof is often used to mean proved 100%.

Evidence is stuff that is used to support an idea.

There is evidence that aristotle existed. Also there are no extraordinary claims made about him that need verification. We have many many works that are written by him "as sure as we can be" with other figures like christ there is little to no evidence that he existed.
While it may be likely that the figure of christs may have been based on someone is likely thats about all.

The typical evidence given for christ is the bible. thats it. Some references are made about him but only after the fact.

[asadxyz]

it is doubtful but not reasonably doubtful.


There is evidence that aristotle existed. Also there are no extraordinary claims made about him that need verification. We have many many works that are written by him "as sure as we can be" with other figures like christ there is little to no evidence that he existed.
.

Peace;
All this is rubbish.If all this universe can come into existance without any creator,those small pieces of writings can come into existance automatically.Cann't you understand such a minor point ??So it is no proof or evidence.
By the way can you dictionary definitions of evidence and proof ??

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Now if you were to claim one did miracels or fulfilled some prophecy ect.. and you only had acounts from people that were not witnesses then i woudl doubt..

that is because the disease in your heart doesnt want to accept, even if from reliable sources, that there is indeed a creator.

There is no God but Allah.


a real sickness, your posts really does sound like "i'll believe what i want, but not if it doesnt sound real to me, even if from a reliable source"


what ignorance...

[Umar001]

Peace :
yes this is what I am saying ,since there is no proof,no evidence of their existance,their existance is doubtful.Right??

It's not that simple, if that was the case everything would be doubtful in the past.

From what I am learning about evaluating claims made in history, one has to do some guess work and probability to arraive at a conclusion.

What Ranma is saying is, what would be the goal of someone to make these people up? At least that is what I understand from his point, if someone was made to be a prophet and did miracles, then we'd have to look closer, since this is more of an extrodanary claim.

[Pynthanomai]

[...]
By the way what is the difference between proof and evidence ?

Very little. There are several definitions for each (which you can find, for example, at dictionary.com); but their primary and synonymous definition is that they are the means to prove (or disprove) a thing as being true. The one comes from a Latin verb meaning "to test" (= probare), the other from a Latin participle meaning "things that are plain to see" (= evidentia). The latter ultimately comes from a Latin verb meaning "to see" (= videre). This last bit adds strength to the innate assumption we have that what we can see is a lot more "truthful" than what we can't - and things in the past much more easily quality for that category. :)

[CptSunbeam]

With regards to "proof", the only subject in which you may have real proof is mathematics. In the physical sciences, you have experimental evidence, which may be referred to as "facts", with which you may form laws and theories. However, according to the true definition of "proof", it only exists in mathematics.

It's obviously reasonable that Aristotle and Newton existed, even if it cannot be "proved" conclusively. In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity. Later on, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton built on the work of Arab astronomers and modern physics was born. All the "evidence" supports this.

As interesting a point this is, the title of this thread is not reasonable. There have been some truly interesting and informative threads from muslims in this forum section. This one qualifies as the least sensible, most ridiculous one of the lot. I'm not even sure what would be achieved if the premise could be "proved", however you define that.

[asadxyz]

It's obviously reasonable that Aristotle and Newton existed, even if it cannot be "proved" conclusively. In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity. Later on, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton built on the work of Arab astronomers and modern physics was born. All the "evidence" supports this.

.

Peace:
Let us change the word of proof to evidence.You said that "In fact, muslim scholars built on the works of great philosophers such as Aristitle and Plato and ushered in an era of prosperity".What is the Evidenc that "WORK" belonged to Aristotl or Plato??
Is this not possible that "WORK" came into existence automatically without any "designer" as this whole universe came into existence without any "Creator" ?

[CptSunbeam]

Is this not possible that "WORK" came into existence automatically without any "designer" as this whole universe came into existence without any "Creator" ?

Why would you want that to be the case? I do not believe the universe had no designer/creator, and I do believe that there is secret knowledge locked up in the universe at a result. The ancient philosophers, the Arab scholars and the European scientists simply revealed that knowledge. The principia mathematica etc did not come from thin air, no matter who wrote them. No one has exact "proof" (however you define that) that Newton wrote the principia, but its a very reasonable conclusion. What would you gain if you "proved" otherwise? What would that achieve? And why do you view proof and evidence as interchangeable? If you check a science text (beyond school level), you will find that these are two different things, although that has no bearing on this discussion.

[asadxyz]

Why would you want that to be the case? I do not believe the universe had no designer/creator, and I do believe that there is secret knowledge locked up in the universe at a result. .

Peace:
This is the way the agnostics and atheists approach the problems.You do not have enough knowledge ,and think yourself intelectuals i.e Pseudointectuals.Is this some mental disorder (sorry to say) that you people only to know how to object Islam.
If you did not want to be addressed ,why did you enter into discussion.
You should have read my first post which is as follows:

What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??
Can any Atheist prove their existence ?

[Zman]

...There is no real reason to doubt them since their is nothign special...

Aren't they technically special, since their works were so unique?

[Trumble]

Peace:
Let us change the word of proof to evidence.

Let's not. Apart from the most casual usage (as exhibited far too often on this forum) the words mean different things.

Simple real-world example. In a law court both prosecution and defence present evidence that the accused is guilty or not guilty respectively. Only one side can provide proof. Even then, in the event of conviction the 'proof' is qualified and has to be only 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's all that's realistic as, I suppose, it is regarding the existence or non-existence of God and such.

For an unqualified proof, there can be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise; as in the mathematical proofs referred to by CptSunbeam. I'd extend that a little to include classical logic (another word used far too casually around here) applied to philosophical argument.

[CptSunbeam]

This is the way the agnostics and atheists approach the problems.You do not have enough knowledge ,and think yourself intelectuals i.e Pseudointectuals.Is this some mental disorder (sorry to say) that you people only to know how to object Islam.

I would encourage you not to accuse non-muslims of mental illness; this is not the first such occurrence. It is not a mental illness to exercise your intellectual faculties, regardless of how correct or incorrect your result is. Also, I was never taught "pseudoscience" when I studied at university, but genuine science. The trap of believing that "proof" is has the same meaning as "evidence" is commonly fallen into by pseudoscientists. Since you did not understand these things, you are certainly in no position to label a person as a pseudointellectual, no offense.

Additionally, I am quite prepared to object to other areas of human endeavour, not just Islam, so this accusation is without basis also. However, is this not a forum for refuting Islam? Here is a quote from this site regarding the function of this particular forum:

Here you can post allegations leveled against Islam and discuss them.

Therefore it is entirely unsurprising that every religious objector has been concentrating on Islam. Oddly, though, this thread was started by a muslim trying to get back at the objectors. Frankly, I'm still uncertain of the purpose of the thread. "Proving" the existence of such men in the truest sense is not possible, so such a question has no meaning. However, it is very reasonable that they did exist and produced their scientific studies. As another poster noted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (note evidence). Since nobody has such extraordinary evidence, no such question can be posed, and only serves to create an endless confrontation, particularly when the author of the thread does not see the differing meaning of important words.

[asadxyz]

I would encourage you not to accuse non-muslims of mental illness; this is not the first such occurrence. It is not a mental illness to exercise your intellectual faculties, regardless of how correct or incorrect your result is. Also, I was never taught "pseudoscience" when I studied at university, but genuine science. The trap of believing that "proof" is has the same meaning as "evidence" is commonly fallen into by pseudoscientists. Since you did not understand these things, you are certainly in no position to label a person as a pseudointellectual, no offense.

Additionally, I am quite prepared to object to other areas of human endeavour, not just Islam, so this accusation is without basis also. However, is this not a forum for refuting Islam? Here is a quote from this site regarding the function of this particular forum:



Therefore it is entirely unsurprising that every religious objector has been concentrating on Islam. Oddly, though, this thread was started by a muslim trying to get back at the objectors. Frankly, I'm still uncertain of the purpose of the thread. "Proving" the existence of such men in the truest sense is not possible, so such a question has no meaning. However, it is very reasonable that they did exist and produced their scientific studies. As another poster noted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (note evidence). Since nobody has such extraordinary evidence, no such question can be posed, and only serves to create an endless confrontation, particularly when the author of the thread does not see the differing meaning of important words.

Peace;
Dear :
This thread was meant for atheists.If you are not atheist ,why did you poke yur nose in it.So simple question.The same modes operandi you did with the Quranic Ayaats in another thread.You took them out of context and posted them as Islam is a religion of terrorism.
If you are an atheist ,answer this question of the thread otherwise keep yourself upto your agenda for which you have been deputed.
Best of luck

[CptSunbeam]

Please don't take my following questions in the wrong way, but in a polite spirit:

This thread was meant for atheists.

What does the existence of Aristotle and Newton have to do with atheism? How would their lack of existence have any bearing on such ideas?

why did you poke yur nose in it

otherwise keep yourself upto your agenda for which you have been deputed.

Does each member of Islamicboard.com get assigned one topic only, to which he must stick? Is there a rule that I must only post in one thread? Is this rule policed? Do human beings have only one "agenda" in all life matters, to which he must stick?

You took them out of context and posted them as Islam is a religion of terrorism.

Do not the terrorists do that also? Am I not simply reporting their view of the Qur'an, and asking all muslims if it is warranted? Remember: "Don't shoot the messeger".

Do not try to prod me out of a thread. I may post unless the moderators decide otherwise. I have been repeatedly insulted and degraded since I joined this site, and if it continued I will not remain a member much longer. My own behaviour is not entirely blameless either, but I am doing my best, and I think I've learned how to be cordial, and most of my posts have been logical and to the point. Is it simply because I am a "non-muslim" that I am viewed with so much contempt? The other forums say that muslims are taught to treat other people with respect.

[Trumble]

I'm an atheist, though, although in my case that is not according to the broader definition that might encompass religion in general. OK;

Peace;
What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??
Can any Atheist prove their existence ?

There is no proof, although as there is considerable evidence that they did and (so far as I am aware) none that they didn't, that seems enough to go on for practical purposes.

You have still to enlighten us as to what the purpose of this thread actually is. I take it from what I quoted the idea is to show either that 'proof' is not necessary to believe in God? No atheist would dispute that for a moment. Indeed it would be stupid to do so from their perspective, as no proof for the existence of God has been provided and yet billions still believe there is a God the fact that 'proof' is not necessary for such belief is self evident.

There is, of course, no proof that God does not exist any more than there is evidence that He does. If you scan through posts from the atheists here you will see that as a common theme - none have ever claimed to provide a (sound) proof God does not exist. Now we have have the meanings of the words sorted out, what it comes down to is evidence. There is evidence both that God exists and that He doesn't and whether you 'believe' or not depends on which case you believe the strongest. Agnostics are those who haven't made their mind up.. a reasonable enough position.

Unfortunately, in this particular context, which evidence is found convincing is pretty much coloured by the position you already have. Hence evidence a believer may find convincing an atheist might find totally unconvincing , and the reverse is also true. So ultimately such debate is pretty futile, if not actually counter-productive. Again and again we see 'proof' that God must exist that is totally convincing to those who already believe he does and yet is (frequently) laughable to those who do not. And, again, vice versa.

[asadxyz]

Again and again we see 'proof' that God must exist that is totally convincing to those who already believe he does and yet is (frequently) laughable to those who do not. And, again, vice versa.

Peace:
I agree it is as laughable as it is that "Design without a designer".Right ??
Best of luck

[CptSunbeam]

I agree it is as laughable as it is that "Design without a designer".Right ??

Well, as he related earlier, there is an abundance of "evidence" for both sides of the picture, so whether or not a person is "Right??" is entirely subjective.

[asadxyz]

.

Does each member of Islamicboard.com get assigned one topic only, to which he must stick? Is there a rule that I must only post in one thread? Is this rule policed? Do human beings have only one "agenda" in all life matters, to which he must stick?

Do not the terrorists do that also? Am I not simply reporting their view of the Qur'an, and asking all muslims if it is warranted? Remember: "Don't shoot the messeger".

If you are an atheist ,most welcome to this thread.When only atheists are addressed ,then it is question of common sense ,that theists have nothing to do with it.To poke one's nose every where is sign of obsession.

I have been repeatedly insulted and degraded since I joined this site, and if it continued I will not remain a member much longer

.
No one is trying to insult you provided you follow the logic of debate.Instead of having some rational attitude ,you are going to behave in an odd way ,naturally you will be paid in the same coin.

My own behaviour is not entirely blameless either, but I am doing my best, and I think I've learned how to be cordial, and most of my posts have been logical and to the point

.
You may think your posts logical but right from your first post upto the end ,I at least could not find logic.Which logic you are talking about?.You

1. Do not know Arabic and knowledge of Quran and Hadith
2. Do not know the science of Quranic interpretation
3. Do not know the History of the Holy Prophet :arabic5:

But inspite of all these deficiencies you think that it is your in-built right to object Islam.It is exactly as you being a layman try to operate on a patient for appendicectomy and call it as "Logical".Which behaviour is more ILLOGICAl than this??

Is it simply because I am a "non-muslim" that I am viewed with so much contempt?

Again not true.Come up with reasonable objections ,most welcome.Islam is not a mythological religion.But first study the Holy Quran the way it should be studied .Then ,if you have some objection those will cordially welcomed.

Best of luck

[ranma1/2]

Peace:
This is the way the agnostics and atheists approach the problems.You do not have enough knowledge ,and think yourself intelectuals i.e Pseudointectuals.Is this some mental disorder (sorry to say) that you people only to know how to object Islam.
If you did not want to be addressed ,why did you enter into discussion.
You should have read my first post which is as follows:

there is evidence they existed. a 3 sec look on google can show you most of it. for further varification you might have to do a 10 sec look. Now if you want more non google info go to a libary. Research scholary studies of the writings.

Now what evidene do we have that i exists?

Of course i think its pretty obvious that we have evidence that this thread should not be taken that seriously.

[Trumble]

I agree it is as laughable as it is that "Design without a designer".Right ??

Right, but irrelevant in this context. A design certainly implies a designer, but evolution does not involve design, which is (the first three definitions I pulled up) "the act of working out the form of something" and "plan: make or work out a plan for; devise" and "create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner". The theory of evolution does not involve the working out or planning of anything, therefore no intelligence needs to be conjured up to do those things.

Your point is therefore 'laughable' as it assumes what you are trying to prove. :)

[CptSunbeam]

To poke one's nose every where is sign of obsession.

So I'm obsessive now. More good news. Actually, it depends how you define "poking your nose in everywhere". That must be every muslim and non-muslim in the forums.

But inspite of all these deficiencies you think that it is your in-built right to object Islam.

These "deficiencies" are perceived, not real. And it is my right to object to Islam, that's the point of these forums.

Here you can post allegations leveled against Islam and discuss them.

Remember?

You'd love us to be quiet, because then you can follow your belief system without worrying about whether it may or may not be right. However, many muslims have told me that the Qur'an encourages pondering. So which is it then?

You

1. Do not know Arabic and knowledge of Quran and Hadith
2. Do not know the science of Quranic interpretation
3. Do not know the History of the Holy Prophet

With the experience I've had the past few days, I'm pleased of the above. Mormons are an expert on their religion. Should I follow them because I'm Ignorant? My ignorance does not make them right. I don't know much about communism either but it does not validate a communist's arguments just because I do not have the intellectual tools to prove him wrong. I am only a scientist after all.

I think it's obvious that you just don't like me very much, so you want me to leave the forum.

[asadxyz]

.

Peace;
.

Should I follow them because I'm Ignorant? My ignorance does not make them right. I don't know much about communism either but it does not validate a communist's arguments just because I do not have the intellectual tools to prove him wrong. I am only a scientist after all.

Peace:
If you are ignorant of some religion ,it does not mean you follow them.I accept it but it is more ridiculous to object something about which you have no idea.

[asadxyz]

].

. Research scholary studies of the writings.

If scholarly studies say that God exists ,will you believe ??

Of course i think its pretty obvious that we have evidence that this thread should not be taken that seriously

Nothings succeeds like success.This is when you have no answer.
Best of luck

[CptSunbeam]

but it is more ridiculous to object something about which you have no idea.

Very true. However, I do have some idea, no matter what it's magnitude. Many people make a decision not to follow a religion based on partial information, because they hear something they do not like, and off they go. We simply cannot study every religion from bow to stern. Further than this, we cannot even study our own religion in the fullest detail, since the body of knowledge is too great. I knew my fundamentalist Christian religion very well indeed. However, this knowledge was still incomplete. Still, it was enough for me to make an informed decision to dismiss it. Forgive me for saying, but what I've seen of Islam so far has not impressed me, and a person will not linger around ideas indefinitely looking for further proof if he is not impressed, since our lives are limited in span. Please do not take this the wrong way.

[asadxyz]

.

.

Forgive me for saying, but what I've seen of Islam so far has not impressed me, and a person will not linger around ideas indefinitely looking for further proof if he is not impressed, since our lives are limited in span. Please do not take this the wrong way

Peace;
Dear no surprise at all.Because the value of a diamond can be appreciated by a person who knows about it not by "Tom, Dick or Harry".
Best of luck

[ranma1/2]

If scholarly studies say that God exists ,will you believe ??


Nothings succeeds like success.This is when you have no answer.
Best of luck

different type of scholars.
If my scholars say he doesnt. will you agree god doesnt?

If christian scholars say the christian god exists and the muslim doesnt will you agree?

[asadxyz]

different type of scholars.
If my scholars say he doesnt. will you agree god doesnt?

If christian scholars say the christian god exists and the muslim doesnt will you agree?

Peace:
What is the evidence that scholars existed ??
Best of luck

[ranma1/2]

Peace:
What is the evidence that scholars existed ??
Best of luck

what is the evidence that you exists?

what is the point of this?


what are the chances of you actually admiting your point?

what is the meaning of life?

what is 42?

why ask why drink bud dry?

[Pynthanomai]

what is the evidence that you exists?

what is the point of this?


what are the chances of you actually admiting your point?

what is the meaning of life?

what is 42?

why ask why drink bud dry?

Well said. But I suggest we concede this point to the originator of this thread: viz., that we don't have any proof that Aristotle or Newton existed, so that he can continue his argument. I'm very curious what conclusion he intends to build upon it. I believe in the existence of God myself, but I've never tried this line of questioning to prove it....

[asadxyz]

what is the evidence that you exists?

what is the point of this?


what are the chances of you actually admiting your point?

what is the meaning of life?

what is 42?

why ask why drink bud dry?

Peace:
Instead of putting the questions please answer if any atheist can .
Best of luck

[ranma1/2]

Peace:
Instead of putting the questions please answer if any atheist can .
Best of luck

i can defintetly drink bud dry.

[Joe98]

Peace;
What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??

Yes. Its the same proof that Wellington and Napoleon existed.

-

[Gator]

Hello. I'll just tackle what I consider evidence for Newton's exitence.

1) His writings
2) Public records of his and his parents existence (birth/marriage/taxes, etc.)
3) Writings to and about him by contemporaries.
4) The lack of any argument in secondary biographies based on the significant amount of primary evidence.
5) Statues, busts and paintings of him by artist who he sat for.
6) The well documented place of his grave and the possibility to exhume his remnants.

Thats why I think he existed.

Thanks.

[reposted]

[Keltoi]

A good example of this would be Shakespear. We know he existed, because he is mentioned many times in other works and there are documents which he signed, etc, etc. We have a hard time proving he wrote many of the plays attributed to him, however, because the physical evidence just isn't around anymore. In the case of Newton or Aristotle, there is plenty of evidence that they existed, and at least in Newton's case, plenty of evidence that he wrote what he wrote.

[asadxyz]

Hello. I'll just tackle what I consider evidence for Newton's exitence.

1) His writings
2) Public records of his and his parents existence (birth/marriage/taxes, etc.)
3) Writings to and about him by contemporaries.
4) The lack of any argument in secondary biographies based on the significant amount of primary evidence.
5) Statues, busts and paintings of him by artist who he sat for.
6) The well documented place of his grave and the possibility to exhume his remnants.

Thats why I think he existed.

Thanks.

[reposted]

Peace:
Don't you think all of this material came into existence automatically without "Newton" as this whole universe came into existence without its "Creator"??

[Gator]

Peace:
Don't you think all of this material came into existence automatically without "Newton" as this whole universe came into existence without its "Creator"??

nope

[asadxyz]

nope

My question is if this whole Universe can come into existence without a "Creator" ,then why not these small writings.

[Gator]

My question is if this whole Universe can come into existence without a "Creator" ,then why not these small writings.

I believe there is reasonable evidence the writings were created by Newton, which, in my opinion, is not the case for a creator universe.

[asadxyz]

I believe there is reasonable evidence the writings were created by Newton, which, in my opinion, is not the case for a creator universe.

Peace;
Use your mind ,Trillions of items of the universe are created without a "Creator" why not these minute writings ? Unfortunately commons is very uncommon .You cannot make your own laws.If some principle is applicable for one thing ,that must be applicable for the other similar one.

[Trumble]

If some principle is applicable for one thing ,that must be applicable for the other similar one.

Er, no. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that if some principle is applicable to one thing it must be applicable to another. It might be, and the one case might provide evidence for the likelihood of the other, but how strong that is depends on how close the analogy is. As, in this case, one 'thing' is 'man writing books' and the other is 'God creating universe' the analogy is stretched, to say the least!

[wilberhum]

If you understood “The Matrix”, all of this would be clear. :giggling:

The Matrix is our reality; you just see a simulated reality. :confused:

[asadxyz]

Er, no. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that if some principle is applicable to one thing it must be applicable to another. It might be, and the one case might provide evidence for the likelihood of the other, but how strong that is depends on how close the analogy is. As, in this case, one 'thing' is 'man writing books' and the other is 'God creating universe' the analogy is stretched, to say the least!

Peace;
Universe is not composed of just "one thing" rather trillions of trillions of trillions (inumerable components).All these were created without any "Creator " why not this small writings.This is ridiculous to change the law according to your own will.This is what aheism is doing.

[Joe98]

Yes you're right!

After all, the internet seemed to spring up overnight. It must have been made by god!

There is no other explination!

[ranma1/2]

Peace;
Universe is not composed of just "one thing" rather trillions of trillions of trillions (inumerable components).All these were created without any "Creator " why not this small writings.This is ridiculous to change the law according to your own will.This is what aTheism is doing.

why do you think they were created?
And you must remember the universe as we know it came into being through a long formation process. Read up on the big bang please.
Also remember e=mc2?

And if your creator does not require creation or a creator then why not something much less complicated?

The fact is that we have never observed anything to be "created".
We have no reason to believe that these evidences just poofed into existence. Now what proof do you have that we didnt just appear into existence last thursday with all of our memories prefabricated?

[asadxyz]

why do you think they were created?
And you must remember the universe as we know it came into being through a long formation process. Read up on the big bang please.
Also remember e=mc2?

And if your creator does not require creation or a creator then why not something much less complicated?

The fact is that we have never observed anything to be "created".
We have no reason to believe that these evidences just poofed into existence. Now what proof do you have that we didnt just appear into existence last thursday with all of our memories prefabricated?

Everything came into existence automatically and Newton's writing (which call them Newton's) also came into existence automatically.No writer at all.

[ranma1/2]

Everything came into existence automatically and Newton's writing (which call them Newton's) also came into existence automatically.No writer at all.

so you agree that existence started 3 seconds ago?

[Gator]

Peace;
Use your mind ,Trillions of items of the universe are created without a "Creator" why not these minute writings ? Unfortunately commons is very uncommon .You cannot make your own laws.If some principle is applicable for one thing ,that must be applicable for the other similar one.

Newton's writings appear to be the result of a conscious mind where as most of the other stuff in the universe appears to me to be the results of natural processes (physics, chemistry, etc.).

As to your one guiding principle, are you saying that since I take the stance that the universe was based on natural processes that ALL things must have been brought about by some non-conscious process?

[Gator]

This is ridiculous to change the law according to your own will.This is what aheism is doing.

What law am I changing? (even though this was directed to someone else).

[Joe98]

Everything came into existence automatically and Newton's writing also came into existence automatically. No writer at all.

Riiiiiiiiiiight! :uuh:

While the rest of you are nattering away I am off for a beer!

[asadxyz]

so you agree that existence started 3 seconds ago?

Answer my question if you can.Distraction is always done when you are answerless.

[Trumble]

Answer my question if you can.Distraction is always done when you are answerless.

You should know. You have been provided with answers to all your questions yet it has become apparent you don't have a clue what to do with them.

All you have offered is a confused version of the (very old) argument by design. There are several responses to that, even when presented properly, the most straightforward of which is that the argument assumes the universe is a 'design' in order to prove it is the work of a designer. An atheist will argue that there is simply no justification to do that. The works of Newton and Aristotle, however, are designs and therefore require designers, i.e Newton and Aristotle. There are therefore two distinct situations; not the same or even 'similar'. Hence there is no reason to think what applies to one 'must' apply to the other or that there are any 'laws' applying to both to be broken.

[Gator]

I think you are trying to tie down my worldview as that I have to cling to this simplified one rule of everything must come into existence out of nothing.

Your conception of the way I look at the world is incorrect and trying to tie me down with only a single part is somewhat disingenuous.

In conclusion, a simplified version of the way I view things is that the matter in the universe came from natural processes and through physics, chemistry developed life, which through evolution gave rise to conscious humans who developed language which Newton used to write his ideas.

No "laws" broken or changed. Remember these are just my ideas and don't have to necessarily be yours.

Thanks.

[asadxyz]

I think you are trying to tie down my worldview as that I have to cling to this simplified one rule of everything must come into existence out of nothing.

Your conception of the way I look at the world is incorrect and trying to tie me down with only a single part is somewhat disingenuous.

In conclusion, a simplified version of the way I view things is that the matter in the universe came from natural processes and through physics, chemistry developed life, which through evolution gave rise to conscious humans who developed language which Newton used to write his ideas.

No "laws" broken or changed. Remember these are just my ideas and don't have to necessarily be yours.

Thanks.

Peace:
please which is the natural process which brings things from "non-being" to "being"??

[Gator]

Peace:
please which is the natural process which brings things from "non-being" to "being"??

My idea is the natural processes are based on physics, chemistry, evolution, etc. These natural processes.

Again, I am giving you my opinion on all this thinking you want greater insight into my thinking. This may be totally and utterly wrong, but its what I think.

Thanks.

[wilberhum]

Peace:
please which is the natural process which brings things from "non-being" to "being"??

Have a read. It is really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[asadxyz]

Have a read. It is really interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Peace:
This is how the Atheists and agnostic think.
I have put the question about the "natural process" which Gator mentioned through which "being " comes into existence from "nothing" .You have referred me to " abiogenesis" which means formation of "living" from "non living".This is a different topic.
Sorry to say.
My question to Gator.How do the things can come into existence from "nothing".Explain please

[wilberhum]

This is how the Atheists and agnostic think.

Religion kills intelligence. Some Theists answer everything with 3 letters.

[asadxyz]

Religion kills intelligence. Some Theists answer everything with 3 letters.

Again you are trying to distract fronm the topic .Very common modes operandi by the theists and agnotics.They cannot face the question and try to divert the discussion.How does religion come in this discussion ? A classical psychiatric problem.

[Gator]

My question to Gator.How do the things can come into existence from "nothing".Explain please

Now I want to be careful about this. Are you asking for a 100% provable process or are you just asking for my best guess?

[guyabano]

Very common modes operandi by the theists ...

so true ! :hmm:

[Muezzin]

I read this somewhere during my existence:

'What is history if not legend agreed upon?'

I liked the sound of it.

Yes you're right!

After all, the internet seemed to spring up overnight. It must have been made by god!

There is no other explination!

If you're going to be an arrogant butthead, at least learn to spell. Tsk, tsk.

Religion kills intelligence.

Nice to see you being just as dogmatic as followers of organised religion. I thought you said you had an open mind? I'm religious and have a pretty open mind. I'm not a genius by any means, but I wouldn't say religion has killed any potential intelligence. I actually find that notion fairly absurd and the sign of some sort of masturbatory self-empowering fantasy on the part of the anti-religious 'elite'.

[Keltoi]

I read this somewhere during my existence:

'What is history if not legend agreed upon?'

I liked the sound of it.


If you're going to be an arrogant butthead, at least learn to spell. Tsk, tsk.


Nice to see you being just as dogmatic as followers of organised religion. I thought you said you had an open mind? I'm religious and have a pretty open mind. I'm not a genius by any means, but I wouldn't say religion has killed any potential intelligence. I actually find that notion fairly absurd and the sign of some sort of masturbatory self-empowering fantasy on the part of the anti-religious 'elite'.

"masturbatory self-empowering fantasy"....:D I will remember that phrase.

[wilberhum]

"masturbatory self-empowering fantasy"....:D I will remember that phrase.

Hay, that is what Muezzin said to me.
And he is right, it is part of my "Self Imposed Ignorance". :D
Still at the hart of things, just like all other thinge, religion has always been used to control knowledge. :hiding:
Mean while back to proof. I still think we live in the metrix and you can't prove me wrong. :happy: